Can you elaborate on what you mean by real competition?
I think, itâs obvious,
It is, but I donât want to assume. You can correct me, if Iâm wrong. Real competition means:
American workers are competitive with overseas workers.
I asked for elaboration because that would lower the standard of living for the American workerâwhich is why the phrase is unclear.
Nope stuff is more expensive.
Canât forget about inflation and wage deflation.
Whatâs screwing my generation economically isnât the price of products themselves. They arenât any more expensive than they were decades ago and in most sectors they are cheaper. TVs are a good example. I bought a 55 inch 4K HDR Roku set for 400 bucks about 5 months ago. Five years ago a tv like that would have set you back 3,000 bucks.
The issue is that wages have not inflated with the rate of inflation. We make less money than our parents did performing the exact same job. On paper itâs not that different but their dollar in 1985 went a lot further than our dollars in 2019. And the cost of basic necessities, such as housing and transportation, have increased dramatically.
If you account for inflation most types of products (especially electronics) are actually cheaper than they used to be.
The issue is wages for blue collar workers and service sector workers have remained mostly stagnant for thirty years. People like us were the backbone of the middle class. Now itâs getting harder for us to stay in that middle class.
My solution to the problem was simple. Iâm not having kids. Ever. Thatâs 100,000+ grand that I wonât have to spend over the course of 25 years.
To paraphrase a related concept, âbeing poor charges interest.â
The lower you are on the socioeconomic ladder, the more it costs you to provide the basic necessities for yourself and your family.
Donât you think that AOC should come clean? She needs to give us her upper limit. How much money would this girl allow people to make? She needs to share her wisdom a little better.
That would be related to productivity⌠So, we need to lead in automation. But we also have a natural advantage because of our vast resources like oil.
But, liberty also makes us more competitive, allowing the best to rise, not the best connected to authorityâŚ
You can get a cellphone for 10 or 20 bucks these daysâŚ
So I can just get a cell phone and start making calls?
Ten unemployed coal miners are drinking in a bar. Bill Gates walks into the bar. The average net worth of the people in the bar has gone up dramatically. Are the ten unemployed coal miners better off?
Thatâs the logic the left uses to say California is rich isnât it?..lol
The unemployed are better off not because they are in a room with a rich guy, but because they are part of US economy and get another job.
And silence, like a cancer grows. More Republicans need to speak up and rid of us of the disgrace in the WH.
1 Like
More democrats need to speak up against the most, corrupt, disgraceful excuse for an investigation in American history. A total partisan sham. The FISA court was duped. But what do we get? The sound of silence.
The standard of living is an average â thatâs my point about Gates â you need to consider the median and standard distribution. On the whole, countries are better off if they have more wealth â but the issue in debate is over the concentration of wealth, not wealth itself. We have seen a dramatic concentration of wealth in the past forty years with stagnation in the US for middle class and blue collar workers. Trumpâs view, which I assume you share, is that the best thing for the economy is to continue to concentrate more wealth in the hands of the top 1%. (Thatâs what the Trump tax bill has done. Given that that strategy has harmed ordinary people for forty years, why do you think more of the same will benefit them?
Do you think that the democrats should come clean?
How much money should an individual be allowed to possess? Who gets to decide and what is the limit?
Thatâs a phony question. No one is suggesting a limit on wealth accumulation. Marginal tax rates of one of several factors that influence the speed of wealth accumulation, but say nothing about accumulation at all.
You would have been better off posing this question to Andrew Carnegie, in believed in a 100% Estate Tax because he though inherited wealth slowed the economy. But he wasnât a liberal, just an incredibly successful businessman.
The appropriate to ask fo todayâs progressives is what is the minimum amount of money a household should be expected to survive on? Debates such as raising the minimum wage or providing a guaranteed income are focused on this question.
If you want to talk to Democrats, talk to them about what they care about. If you want to bash Democrats, then attribute ideas to them that they donât believe in.
The choice is up to you. Iâll provide my answer to the question of minimum wealth if you respond in a fashion that indicates you would like to converse rather than bash.
There is no concept of enough. No matter how much you make, you will never be happy.
Weâre $20,000,000,000,000 in debt because of this stupid neo-liberal/neo-conservative philosophy of trickle-down economics.
The only thing trickling around in this economy is debt.
Yes⌠and the rise of the govt industrial complexâŚTrump just showed up, so itâs silly to blame him.
Pot legalization will concentrate wealth in the hands of a few compared to the vast number of people who sold it and made a living before on the black market. See how govt control instantly concentrated wealth and thatâs just through just licensingâŚ
