Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Universal Basic Income Becoming Reality?" video.

  1. How about we just give everyone a free home? You give me an extra $1000 I will probably spend some of it at the strip club, is that a way to grow the economy? At least with a home you know where the money is going.
    2
  2. This is dumb, people will work less which means less production, less wealth, and people will not be better off. Also, tax cuts are not giving money to the rich, it is allowing them to keep what they earned.
    2
  3. You are paying people to produce nothing, that wastes resources which drives down the value of the dollar. At the local level this may work, but at the federal level it won't.
    1
  4. Jack Daniel People have another thousand to spend they will be working there.   
    1
  5. reniorjd No it won't.  Moving money around does not stimulate the economy, creating wealth does.   
    1
  6. reniorjd I have. 
    1
  7. Onyx Rose People don't have to have money, there are other means of trade.  If people have less money than prices will drop.   
    1
  8. reniorjd If people don't want to work than you simply can't hire more.   
    1
  9. reniorjd Trust me, people don't want to work. If so they would be pushing themselves to study more valuable degrees in college besides business.   
    1
  10. reniorjd Technology always replaced jobs, that is nothing new. People just need to migrate to where the jobs are being created.   
    1
  11. reniorjd I met a lot of people who are just lazy.  So yes, there are people who don't like to work.  With college, people need to pursue STEM degrees which actually have value. On automation, we are very far from that, as in not in our lifetime.  There was a Twilight episode about that, that was decades ago they were talking about it.  Guess what, we are not even close.  
    1
  12. reniorjd And the government is wrong. Imagine that, a group of politicians don't understand science and technology.  
    1
  13. Kevin Montrond Slaves were forced to work, they don't have to work.  1. I agree, there is always demand, but you can't consume what you don't produce.  If no one is wiling to produce it than it does not matter 2. Not true 3. The top 10% earn only 40% of the income but pay almost 70% of the federal income tax  
    1
  14. realCevra So if someone is giving your more money, you are not going to work less?  We have seen this in Seattle where when the min. wage was increased people asked for less hours so they can remain on social welfare. But, you said wealth has nothing to do with production which is 100% wrong.   
    1
  15. realCevra Nope, you will work less. If you are manager "greedy for money" than you already earn a lot as is.  Wealth has to be created, that requires productivity.  The fact you don't know this makes you unsuitable for any economic discussion.  
    1
  16. realCevra I am not talking about top earners, I am talking about those on the bottom.  They will just work less. Wealth has to be created.   
    1
  17. himode Of what? 
    1
  18. realCevra Not really.  If you are poor and have no desire to move up you will work less.  If you have desire to move up you will be already making the basic income pointless. Wealth has to be created, period. Gold only has value if you can trade it for something.  Even at that gold has to be developed into jewelry, for example, which increases its worth. A pile of metal has value, when that metal is used to make a car than it has more value.  
    1
  19. Kevin Montrond It is not true. I heard of that story and know that there are several variables involved.  Here it is 1. That company has over 300 locations, they have an advantage over a company that has a select few 2. With that, they have resources to cut before they start raising prices 3. With that what happens is that smaller competitors have no choice but to raise prices and cut hours lowering demand meaning customers will go to Wetzel's Pretzel instead 4. Or, ultimately, a rival company has to close down all together limited consumer choices. To give an example on point 4, we have a Wetzel's Pretzel in the mall in my city.  If the min. wage increase causes two nearby food places to close down, consumers will go to Wetzel's Pretzel instead due to limited choices.  So just because one company does well does not mean others will.  In fact, just seeing one company do well raises suspicion.  Walmart supported a min. wage increase knowing it will hurt smaller competitors.  You also have this http://www.facesof15.com/ " Your argument fails mathematically Because the rich pay a lower percentage of what they earn than the rest of America " Not necessarily. Even at that you are being deceptive. The rich just don't sit on their money.  Even in banks that money is used for loans to invest into buying homes and businesses.  What do the poor spend it on?  Another pretzel?  Great, that really grew the economy. I bought a Pepsi today, I imagine that really grew the economy big time.
    1
  20. realCevra Than the basic income is pointless.  It will just make lazy people lazier. While wealth is subjective it does have to be created. When processed it increases in value.  
    1
  21. realCevra The basic income increases demand without increasing supply meaning an increase in prices.  Even more so because now you have a set of workers refusing to work as much, thus less supply . I may consider myself wealthy, but society doesn't.  I can consider a pile of shit to be worth a lot, but society doesn't.  
    1
  22. Kevin Montrond Having more to spend with the same supply means higher prices. The rich with 5 billion dollars will invest that to grow a company which creates more jobs and more wealth.  
    1
  23. Onyx Rose The economy won't improve because you have less productivity.  You don't eat money, you don't run your car off of money, money does not clean your windows, money does not make a TV for you, people do that.  Just giving away money does not increase productivity, it just means people have more money thus prices have to go up.   
    1
  24. himode People will have more money but the supply of goods and services will remain the same.  Thus prices have to go up.  
    1
  25. Kevin Montrond Under Obama real median income is lower than it was before he took office. So great, people have low paying jobs.  http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/03/16/we-are-seeing-the-effects-of-seattles-15-an-hour-minimum-wage/#5e506852715a Same source, Forbes.
    1
  26. realCevra When demand increases and supply doesn't than prices go up.  Supply does not always follow demand. If no one is there to create it than it simply won't exist, period.  What you have to do is push to increase supply which lowers prices.  You want to increase prices.  "  you already have a set of workers not working" Yes, and we need to get them to work.  " that's why wealth is subjective and has nothing to do with production" You are clearly an economic illiterate.  It doesn't matter what value I perceive something to be, it is what society perceives it to be.  I could value a pile of shit, but society doesn't.  So if I were to create a company that sold shit it won't go anywhere.  That is why wealth has to be created.  A pile of metal has some value to people who will use it to build something.  To me it has little value as I won't ever develop it into something.  I will sell it to someone who values it.  That person can use it to build cars that even more people in society value which is why a car is worth more than a pile of metal.  Thus wealth is created.  It comes down to what society feels is wealth.  That is why wealth has to be created. 
    1
  27. realCevra Not always.  If someone is not there to produce to goods or services than it simply won't exist, period.  Look at healthcare, we lack doctors, nurses, hospitals, surgeons, pharmacists, etc.  We simply lack the skilled workers to keep up with demand.  That is why under Obamacare healthcare insurance prices went up, supply is not keeping up with demand. Training doctors is difficult as not many are willing to do it. So no, supply does not always follow demand, especially when people refuse to work.  So people who are not work should not be working?  Why not? Were do you think goods and services come from? While wealth, to a point is subjective, it is what society perceives it to be worth.  That is how prices are set.  I may feel something is worth millions, but if no one else does than I can't sell it for that.  I may view something to be worthless, but if society views it as being worth a lot than I will sell it as that. Thus, wealth is always created, period. If you don't create wealth the economy does not grow, period.  
    1
  28. realCevra But again, you just said we don't have to get people to work, but somehow you feel supply will be create.  That makes zero sense.  With that why don't we just give everyone $100,000? I mean demand will go up.  And why work?  According to you supply will just magically appear.  
    1
  29. realCevra Explain this to me, where will the supply come from when demand increases? 
    1
  30. realCevra Tell me, where will the increase in supply come from?  Who is going to create them?  If you give someone money to do nothing, and they work less say at a restaurant, thus no one is going to work that time at a restaurant, who is going to take my order and cook my food? 
    1
  31. realCevra" you don't have to get people to work, they will come to work by themselves if they can earn more money that way" Not if you are paying them to do nothing.  If you pay someone an extra $1000 a month there is a great chance they will work less.  If they were going to work their way up anyway that makes the universal basic income pointless.  People will find a way.  Those that won't will just become lazier hindering productivity.  You have now made a group of people who were lazy lazier which slows down productivity. "yeah right, and why not increasing the minimum wage to $1.000 per hour. haven't you learned already that such proposals are bullshit?" Why?  You saying it is "bullshit" means nothing.  Why not $100,000?  That will increase demand meaning more people will work that much harder and become that much richer.  The economy will be booming. Yes, the invisible hand which means that the government DOES NOT give out a basic income.  So tell me, where will the increase supply come from?  Who is going to create it? If you give a bunch of fast food workers money they will work less.  But people have more money to spend there, who is going to take their orders now that the restaurant will have less workers? 
    1
  32. realCevra Why would the be interested in getting my money?  They are already getting enough from the government.   Why work? 
    1
  33. realCevra"  you are far from full employment, and very very far from full capacity. " Because people don't have the skills to do the jobs available. Giving money away does not push them to develop skills. Anyway, I will ask again, why would someone work at a fast food restaurant if they are already receiving money from the government? Why work when they are already getting paid? 
    1
  34. realCevra Not true. LASIK surgery has become cheaper and better. Also the quality of healthcare in the US is high.  The main problem is cost mainly as a result of the federal government.  When it comes to healthcare the problems can be highlighted by two questions 1. Why do so many employers pay with healthcare insurance as opposed to a higher wage? 2. Why does healthcare insurance equal healthcare? Fact is that we don't have a free market in healthcare in the US and that creates problem, just like a universal basic income hurts the free market and will cause problems.  
    1
  35. realCevra Yes, you said that people who are not work should not be working.  "Yes, and we need to get them to work. nope, no need to do that" That is from you.  You said they don't need to work.  What's wrong with your English?
    1
  36. realCevra But, let us go back to the invisible hand. If you give people more money for doing nothing they will migrate to doing less work. But they will have more money to spend meaning they will spend it.  The "invisible hand" will than tell business owners to raise prices since they have more customers but not more supply of goods and services to sell.  It is the exact same with the college loan program.  The demand for college went up but supply didn't. Thus colleges charged more since the government was just giving money away to people to attend college. Even if the supply was there they could still charge more because the government was pumping money into the system.  Same thing will happen with a universal basic income.  
    1
  37. realCevra Nope, society.  Milk cost what it does because the majority of society is willing to pay it.  I may feel milk is worthless and never buy it, but it still has a price because society values it at that. " if you think you're wealthy not having a job but getting a basic income, then that's how it is. it doesn't matter whether everyone else thinks you're poor." And that is the point, you will be poor.  Society will value goods differently subconsciously. Prices will go up meaning those on a universal basic income will be poor, they are not better off and probably worse off now because they are shunned by society.  This goes back to why a universal basic income is dumb.
    1
  38. realCevra"  nope, that's only your idea. in the real world people work to get money, and they work more if they get more money, that's how capitalism works." They work to get money because if they did not work they won't have money.  If you just give them money they will not work as hard.  That is why socialism never works. "just imagine someone asking for a raise, do you expect an answer like "i can't pay you more, because then you'd work less", ridiculous" That is different.  There you are proving to an employer you are worth more so they give you more.  You worked hard to earn that money.  What you support is just giving money away. If an employer just gave someone a raise without them earning they won't be working harder.  So your comparison is 100% completely incorrect. " if you make it illegal for businesses to expand and multiply, yes. but you're not living in a command economy, do you?" How can you expand as a business if people won't work?  People won't be working as much because guess what? They have money now. People work to earn money.  If you give them money they won't have a reason to work as much.  If they are one  of those that want to work to earn more than they are someone who is already working their way up to begin with.  But in the end if you just give people money they will work less since they don't have a need to work. That is what you are failing to understand. " are you implying that there was a market with exploding profit but without competition? do you think that is common for products that satisfy one's basic needs? and do you think that is a typical capitalistic market? " First off, a universal basic income is not capitalism.  That is your major flaw.  You are saying "under capitalism you will have this", and I agree, under capitalism people will work for one major reason, TO EARN MONEY.  But if you are giving them money than guess what, THEY IS NO LONGER AN INCENTIVE TO WORK.  So you will have less workers. On colleges, there is plenty of competition. Issue is that the federal government artificially increased demand for colleges so they all had to raise prices.  But again, what you support is not capitalism. And yes, the same will happen with a universal basic income. Let me ask you again, if the government is giving you money already, why work? 
    1
  39. realCevra" price has nothing to do with wealth" Wrong.  Wealth has value.  "if you think you're not poor, then you are not. as i told you numerous times, wealth is subjective" You may feel that way, but if you want to rent out an apartment and don't have any money then guess what, you are poor as deemed by society. You may be content, but by societal standards you are poor. That is the difference.
    1
  40. realCevra What?  Ok, so you feel you are not poor.  But society labels you as such.  Joseph Stalin probably felt like he was a great guy, but history and others feel like he wasn't.  Charles Manson felt like he was in the right in killing, but society didn't feel that way which is why he is in jail.  The same is with wealth.  Society values certain goods, so the price is adjusted for that.  But those goods, thus wealth, will not exist unless someone creates it.   
    1
  41. realCevra You are also failing to address on the issue on why would people work if they are already earning money?  Why do people  work?  To earn money.  But if the government is giving them money already, than why work? 
    1
  42. realCevra What does the CEO of apple have to do with anything?  Answer the question, if someone is getting paid by the government, than why work?   
    1
  43. realCevra " you do realize that the economy would stay the same, companies would hire people to work and workers would get salaries on top of the basic income, right? you did get that, did you?" Again, wrong.  One of two things will happen. 1. People will work less, a portion of them at the very least meaning less productivity.  They will work less because they don't have a reason to work because they are earning money. People work to earn money, but if they are already getting money they won't work as hard. Thus productivity will go down meaning prices will go up due to lack of supply. OR 2. The least someone can earn in a year is $0.  They simply just don't work.  Now people will be earning $1000 a month (say that was the basic income).  That means the price of everything will go up accordingly.  If cost of living in an area was averaged out to be, say $1000 a month, it will now be $2000.  Here is a reason why.  Rent in my city is around $650 for a one bedroom.  If people were given $1000 than the demand for one bedroom apartments will go up causing rent prices to go up. In the end we will be back to square one where rent will be approaching $1650 a month.  The reason why is because everyone has an extra $1000 a month, not just those who earned it by creating wealth. In both cases you have gained nothing which goes back to my original post of that this is dumb.  In the end the economy will not be staying the same. Also, you were talking about price.  Why are those people worth that much?  For just being alive? That is now how the economy works. It goes back to what you have been saying the entire time, wealth is subjective.  Something is only worth something if someone is willing to pay the price.  A car is worth $10,000 if someone is willing to pay it.  Someone gets paid money because they produce something that someone else values. But if we just give money away that will lower the value of the dollar, thus higher prices.
    1
  44. realCevra If they want more money they will work harder, get a second job.  They will be pushing for that to begin with.  So than what's the point of a universal basic income?  Answer that.  
    1
  45. realCevra " that's your unrealistic idea. in reality, again, people work when they are promised money, that's how capitalism works." But yet we see it all across society, we have people who don't work because in doing so they earn money.  If you are given money than why work?  You have people who win the lottery and guess what?  They quit their job.  so no, my reality is not unrealistic as it happens all the time. Plus, how capitalism works is the government NOT giving money away.  Really, you need to learn what capitalism is.  If you give money away people will have a less incentive to work.  Let us go back to what you said "people work when they are promised money" But if they have money then why work?  You may say "to earn more money".  Ok, than why don't we have more girls selling their body for sex?  You can become an escort and earn $200, at least a session.  So why not do that?  You can earn more money?  So again, your simplistic view point is wrong again. If you are given money you won't work as much.  If you are someone who will than you are working your way up to begin with meaning you don't need a universal basic income. But, if people just want to work harder to earn more money than why are there not more women in the escort business?  Or why are there not more people studying to be doctors?  You earn a lot of money that way. So, you have an unrealistic idea.
    1
  46. realCevra"  some will want to make money as employees. and all of them want to make as much money possible" Than why aren't more people studying to be doctors, or lawyers, or surgeons and other high paying fields?  Why aren't more women being escorts?  Why do lottery winners typically quite their jobs?  If people want more money than why don't they pursue it?
    1
  47. realCevra" nope, you get it wrong all the time. you're mistaking price for value." Nope, I am once again correct. If you want to sell something for $1000 and no one will buy it at that than it is not worth $1000. It is only worth what someone else is willing to pay.  If you try to sell it that high you will fail as a business owner.
    1
  48. realCevra"  they are earning a basic income." Yeah, so they will work less. "people earning more than a basic income today already don't work less hard," But if you were to give them an extra $1000 a month they will.  If not then they are someone who is pushing to earn a high income, as in 6 figures.  "your idea does not fit with reality" Uh, no, your idea does not fit reality.  If people wanted more money they will push to get a job that pays a lot. They don't, so they are content with their income. If you give them extra money for just existing they will work less. If they earn $50,000 a year and you start paying them $10,000 a year, they will work less because they are content with $50,000 a year.  Same as in how lottery winners quit their jobs. 
    1
  49. realCevra Ok, you are a business owner and you sell cars.  You feel all your cars are wroth $1,000,000.  You get zero customers.  You go bankrupt. The reason why is because your cars are not worth that much.  How much you feel they are worth is irrelevant, it is how much society feels they are worth.  That is the value of the car. But what am I saying, you feel capitalism means the government gives money away.  You are also failing to address why lottery winners quit their jobs and why more women don't become escorts.  
    1
  50. realCevra It is astonishing how you don't know anything about economics.  Giving away money is not capitalism. So I have no clue why you even bring it up.  But I will say one thing, you literally admitted that the harder you work the more money you have.  Thus there is no need to even have a basic income, people just need to work harder. Argument done.  Basic income is dumb.  
    1
  51. realCevra Why when people win the lottery they quit their  jobs? 
    1
  52. realCevra " it is astonishing how you fail to learn the difference between subjective and objective" Nope, I fully understand, you don't. Those individuals are not worth an extra $1000 a month thus the basic income is dumb. If we put it in place society will just raise prices because, guess what?  They are not worth $1000 a month according to society. 
    1
  53. realCevra"  i am constantly winning my stakes in every lottery in existence, and i haven't quit my job yet "  Why do other people quit their jobs? "besides different levels of interest, it's because the market is saturated. or do you want to tell me you tried to get an escort lately and the agency told you they can't get you one?" The market is not saturated.  But I find it ironic you say that.  You want to saturate the market with money which lowers the value. Thus, once again, the basic income will just raise prices, something you are ignoring as well. But, if people want more money, why do they retire?  Why don't they all get second jobs?  You are creating the illusion that people will just work 24/7.  That is not the case. 
    1
  54. himode No, realCevra says that people won't work less if you give them a basic income. That is not true. People have won the lottery and, at the very least, worked less if not quit all together.  Giving away money is not a job either, it is, like a lottery, getting money for nothing.  You pay a dollar and win millions. With a basic income you are just given money.  In the end if you establish a basic income people will work less, period.  The reason why people work to begin with is because they need money.  If they have it they won't work. CEOs and presidents earn that money, it is a part of their contract.  That is up to them and their company.   
    1
  55. realCevra A doctor and a lawyer is not a high paying field?  Really? Education is not costly for those fields because they can pay off their debt in a heart beat. They are high paying field.  But you say this " equippment is very very costly, work is very very very stressful thus felt earnings are low" Yep, people are going to naturally take the easy route.  So if they are given money on a basic income they will work less. Do you understand? Why work when you are given money?  And if you are one of those who want to work more for more money, then become a doctor or a lawyer.  You see the flaw in your reasoning?  Do you see how you contradicted yourself?
    1
  56. realCevra Yes you did.  You said people would work harder to earn more money.  There is such thing as work harder.  Basic income will change capitalism to create the problems we have now of people being lazy and income inequality.  It is socialist as well.  I wonder why you even think you can discuss economics? Oh, that's right, you feel that being a doctor is not a high paying field.  
    1
  57. himode I am comparing getting money by doing very little, if any work.  Have you ever bought a lottery ticket?  You go into a gas station, by a Pepsi, maybe a snack, and than pay one extra dollar (that's it) for a ticket.  I am not saying going down to the casino and spending  a night playing Keno.  That basic income is not from working, it is just for existing. You are getting money for doing nothing, just like winning the lottery. What do they do to earn their bonuses?  Increase the value of the stocks.  Have a nice run of sales.  Generate a lot of profits.  Lots of things.  Who decides it? Mainly shareholders.  Where does that money come from?  The company.    " your solution is to not pay people more so they work harder, so why isnt there a constant change of ceos and presidents?" They earned that money.  If a worker were to work harder and move up in life they will earn more as well. Simple.  If not they won't.  "so why isnt there a constant change of ceos and presidents?" Because they want to earn more and keep going.  There are people like that, I am one of them.  At the same time I am earning my PhD so it is habit and in my nature.  "and do ALL lotto winners quit?" For the most part yes.  Even I will to a degree if I won millions in the lottery.  I won't quit completely, but I won't be working as much as I am now. 
    1
  58. realCevra I can clearly see you don't know the definition of capitalism.   https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism Notice "free market"  That means no basic income. 
    1
  59. realCevra But, you contradicted yourself earlier.  You said people will continue to work so they can earn more.  I said no because when they have money they won't work as hard, no reason to.  You than said that people won't work to become a doctor or lawyer because it was too much work despite the high income.  Well, than if someone is given a basic income, why work?  And if they are working to earn more, than why not become a doctor or lawyer?  Or work to be a manager?   
    1
  60. realCevra Yes, basic income hinders the free market.  You have to collect it in taxes.  Plus you perturb demand without increasing supply.  Also, it lowers the incentive to work for some people.  But, of course, doctors don't earn a lot.  
    1
  61. realCevra" i did not contradict myself at all. i told you that people choose different careers because for them different jobs seem easier to get more money" So if there is an easier way to get money than people will work less.  Just like if you give people a basic income they will work less.  You did contradict yourself.  You said people will still work because they want more money.  So with that why don't they just become doctors or managers?  Fact is that there will be people who will stop working which limits production.  And those who won't stop working will move up to higher paying fields anyway. So, who is going to take my order at a restaurant? And who is going to cook my food? Doctors earn a lot. I guess I should have been clear, I meant medical doctors. 
    1
  62. realCevra" no, if there is a way to get more money, people will work more." Yeah, like becoming a doctor.  But you said that people don't do that because it is too much work.  So what is it?  Do people want to work for more money or not?
    1
  63. realCevra Ok, not a doctor but a skilled employee.  Why don't they get engineering degrees?  Those are some of the highest earning degrees out there. " a skilled employee earns about the same if you take costs of education into account" Not true. But, who earns more, a doctor or a cashier at a fast food restaurant?  "the skilled employee even has higher potential to earn more over the course of a life time because he will get more money much earlier and can therefore invest his own money much earlier" Really?  Well shit, I guess I better drop out of graduate school and get to work......but wait a minute?  How does one obtain those skills? 
    1
  64. realCevra  http://www.businessinsider.com/top-paying-jobs-in-america-2015-9/#30-physicists-1 Those jobs all require advanced degrees. And cost of education is not an issue https://www.pharmacy.umn.edu/degrees-programs/doctor-pharmacy/admissions/costs-financial-aid-scholarships "While PharmD students graduating in 2014 had a average of about $140,000 in combined undergraduate and PharmD student loans, their median starting salary was $120,000."
    1
  65. realCevra So if they work for more money than why don't they study to be doctors or pharmacists?  Why don't they pursue engineering degrees?  Also, I would love to see these "skilled" jobs that earn more than a medical doctor in the long run.  
    1
  66. himode They are exception to the rules and the rarities. Even at that the top actors earn far more than most actor.  Same with baseball.  Mike Trout earns way more than some single A ball player.   The pay of doctors is, for the most part, equal across the board.   
    1
  67. realCevra Name those skilled jobs.  Look at pharmacy, average loan of $140,000 but a median income of $120,000  Within a little over a year you earned you paid off your college expenses and now you keeping that $120,000 a year.  But please, list those other "skilled" jobs and their yearly earnings.
    1
  68. himode Pro athletes have short lifespans in their career.  They are basically treated as property as they can be traded or released anytime.  And one injury can end their career.  That is a really poor example.  Even at that that is still a high skill.  If I had the talent I would be a pro athletes.  I don't, so I pursued a PhD in a STEM field instead.  Some jobs are valued higher than others.  You should be aware of that.  Don't complain when you pick a low paying one. 
    1
  69. himode The fact that some people are pushing for a basic income shows that there are people complaining.  It isn't my fault they choose a low paying career.  And not all jobs have occupational risk. 
    1
  70. himode Unskilled jobs are jobs that basically anyone can do.  Anyone can flip burgers.  Anyone can clean floors. 
    1
  71. himode You are not understanding the more money less productivity point.  The doctor earns a lot because they worked towards that job.  Just giving money to someone who didn't earn it is what lowers productivity.   They are being given money and thus why should the work harder?  They did not earn it.
    1
  72. realCevra Did you read the University of Minnesota site I linked you? You will earn that money back in around 1 to 2 years.  It is clear you have never been to college.
    1
  73. himode Why pay these people?  Because if you don't than they won't work for you.  They are paid a low wage because there is a high supply of people that can do it.  But they are paid because that is the agreement between the worker and employer.
    1
  74. himode If you are working 40 hours a week and have a hard time making it than that is your fault.  Now who determines what they deserve?  Society.  In order to pay a fast food worker more prices will have to go up, or you will have to limit the amount of workers working there meaning you will wait longer for your food to which society will either not pay the high prices or refuse to eat there. 
    1
  75. Abram Carroll Really?  The rich, for the most part, do earn their money.  
    1
  76. himode If you raise the min. wage to $15/hr than businesses will cut hours and raise prices.  That is how it works.  Colorado has the advantage of having legal marijuana which helped grow their economy.  There is a lot more to the economy than the min. wage.  CA raised their and has the highest Gini Coefficient in the US.   
    1
  77. himode There are lots of reasons why prices go up.  Taxes, regulations and so on.  There is more to the economy than the min. wage.  Washington has one of the highest min. wages in the US as a state and has one of the highest teenage unemployment rate.   
    1
  78. himode What do you mean?  Why do prices go up?  If a business has to pay a higher wage but can't afford it, they have to draw in more income.  That means charging people more.  Or they can cut hours.  That is how it works.  Businesses don't pay more for one reason, they can't afford it. Think about you and how much money you have and what you are limited to buy.  
    1
  79. himode You pay the workers a market rate.  Why do they have to afford a one bedroom?  Ever heard of roommates?
    1
  80. realCevra You still have yet to give me jobs where you will earn more than a doctor will. 
    1
  81. realCevra"  if you can't cope with that, you have to close your business and let other people profit" And how capitalism works is that those who are not worth the min. wage will be out of a job.  If you can't cope with working in a way that makes you worth more than the min. wage than you will be out of a job.  Congrats, you just made several people's lives worse off. Also, capitalism means no min. wage. Again, you are not fully understanding what capitalism is.
    1
  82. realCevra You said a circus clown what makes around $38,000 a year.  So, say 10 years of schooling for a pharmacist they pay $140,000.  They earn $120,000.  Thus they pay off that loan in 1.17 years.  Say they become a pharmacist at the age of 30.  Thus, for simplicity, they pay off their schooling by the time they are 32.  Thus for 33 years they earn $120,000 a year.  That is  $3,960,000. Now a clown starts at 18 years old and works for 47 years.  That is $1,824,000.  That is less than half of a pharmacist.  And with a pharmacist I am ignoring the fact they can work overtime, get a raise, maybe get done in six years (two years pre-pharm and four years pharmacy school) and so on.  With a clown I am assuming they can physically do it for 47 years.  So, again, list me "skilled" jobs that earn more than a doctor, or surgeon and so on. 
    1
  83. realCevra Even with my analysis we are ignoring the fact that jobs such as being doctor or pharmacist have very low unemployment rate.  They have a greater chance of getting a job in the end.  
    1
  84. realCevra " you have to close your business " Also known as less jobs. "and the market rate is anything above minimum wage" Not true. Why do you not understand basic economics?
    1
  85. himode A new business won't take its place unless it is a major corporation like Walmart.  Walmart supported a min. wage increase in the past knowing it will hurt smaller competitors.  So congrats, you just helped out large businesses at the expense of smaller ones. You did not list several jobs.   
    1
  86. realCevra" lol nope, just because you are unable to pay minimum wages doesn't mean no one can" Yes it does.  We have seen a spike in teenage unemployment, especially for black teens when the min. wage goes up.  People just won't hire.  "you claim to study something where you need at least a minimum of mathematics" I have a math minor. "so what is the market rate of a product when no buyer is offering less than a minimum? anything above that minimum?" If a workers only produces $5/hr and the min. wage is $8/hr, that business will be operating at a lost of $3/hr. They simply won't hire them.  We have seen this all throughout history.
    1
  87. himode Sorry, but you are an idiot.  The owners work way harder than the employees.  I suggest you become an owner yourself someday, or pursue an advanced degree. 
    1
  88. realCevra"  that's not an answer to the question. what is the market rate relative to the minimum?" Considering the teenage unemployment rate is 4 times more than the overall unemployment rate that means the current min. wage is above the market rate.
    1
  89. himode I am not talking about kids, I am talking about teens.  Those who can drive a car and have the physical ability to work. " why are ppl so concerned about the income of a group of ppl, kids, who cant legally vote, serve the military, or consent to alot of things?" You get a job at a younger age you have the greater ability to do better in the future.  Look great on applications and also relieves parents of paying for things.  Little Johnny can pay for gas for his car and his own movies. "when it comes to decent pay for the average person, suddenly, you people are "concerned" with the wellbeing of black youth?" Yes, because they get a job earlier and that increases their chances of getting out of poverty.  Unless you like people staying poverty.
    1
  90. himode I do care about those in poverty.  Blacks teens, if they have a job, gain experience at an earlier age and are less likely to participate in gang activity.  " youre so concerned with a group that doesn't pay rent or mortgage over full grown adults who actually need the money?" The vast majority of those who earn a low wage are not poor to begin with. The median age for the min. wage worker is 25 years.  Adults are not the ones working low wage jobs. But tell me, why do you support blacks participating in gangs?
    1
  91. realCevra I am not moving the goal post.  You put yourself in the position to earn the most, and that means in a job where unemployment is low. And with a pharmacy degree you can transfer to other areas of the medical field easier, thus your job opportunity is greater.   
    1
  92. realCevra Yes, there are other jobs that pay a lot, but you also have to consider job security and employment opportunity.  You can be skilled and unemployed.  
    1
  93. himode You have no idea what I am writing.  I a never said "paying more makes you lazy".  I am saying giving money to people who didn't earn it makes you lazy, big difference.  
    1
  94. himode"  what do owners do that is so difficult that they can't pay the people supporting their income a living wage?" One, the phrase "living wage" is subjective and means nothing.  Should a person who has to travel 10 miles to work be paid more than someone who can walk to work?  That person driving 10 miles has a higher "living wage" because they have to spend more money on gas.  So stop using that phrase, it means nothing. Next, businesses can't pay more for one simple reason, they can't afford it. "and if they cant, why do they deserve to still have a business?" I can change that for you, if you can't justify earning a higher wage, than why do you deserve it?  If you can't justify a higher wage than you are a shitty worker.
    1
  95. realCevra Yes, but other jobs have more opportunity.  But let me ask you this, when a professor gets tenure why do many of them basically stop working, as in stop writing for grants to get even more money?  The reason why is because they settled and are earning money by basically doing nothing. Same with a basic income . You will have people who will settle and not work as hard.   I hope you got an impression of how immensely stupid your random chain of "thoughts" can become.  Just to support one ridiculous idea after another, always moving the goal post trying to get a dead idea to work.  Next time you should avoid that, you're wrong anyways.  But, you said doctors were poor, and that giving people money for doing nothing won't hurt the incentive to work even though we have a lot of evidence for that.  Again, why do many professors who get tenure end up working less?  Because they are in a position to where they are guaranteed money and don't have to work. But again, you said doctors and lawyers don't earn a lot, and clowns are millionaires.
    1
  96. realCevra But again, if a basic income worked, and even with a basic income people will still work, why not a $100,000 a year?  People will still work according to you.  But you are also a person who don't understand the basics of capitalism and feel that the min. wage is a part of capitalism. When you can't get basic facts right you can't even begin to move towards opinions.  
    1
  97. realCevra Define "basic" and why do you set that standard?  At this point it is arbitrary, like $100,000 a year.  
    1
  98. realCevra And if you give people money than the prices of those items will go up.  
    1
  99. realCevra" , they already bought them before they got the basic income, they had to, they're basic needs." So we don't need a basic income.
    1
  100. realCevra Nope, you just said people are already buying those things, so the basic income is unnecessary. 
    1
  101. realCevra And social security has been a failure and is losing money.  
    1
  102. realCevra Money can reduce in value and has a lot of times. Money essentially has not value and only becomes valuable when it is used to generate wealth.  If the federal government were to spend $100,000,000 digging holes in the desert than that money will lose value as you are not creating wealth with it.  And when I say wealth I mean something society values.  Society does not value holes in the desert, thus that $100,000,000 is now worthless.  
    1
  103. realCevra I am not moving the goal post, what I said was a fact. Money has no value until it is spent on generating wealth. Really, you need to study economics. Social security is losing money, I wonder why? Maybe because you are giving money away and not generating much wealth with it.
    1
  104. realCevra You clearly have no clue how the economy works. Do me a favor and go to graduate school for economics and tell professors the exact same thing you are telling me. Money can change in value. That is why cars today are cheaper than they were in the past for example.
    1
  105. realCevra Your response is literally 5+5=1,000 for large values of 5. You are moving the goal posts so much. Tell me, if the government were to take your money in taxes and spend $100,000,000 digging holes in the desert, what have you and society gained? Nothing. Thus that money is now worthless. It still exist, it just has no value. I have been saying that the whole time. You just keep making stuff up and move the goal posts.
    1
  106. realCevra My argument was about the value of money. It wasn't about it getting lost, it was about how it loses value. Are you really that dense?
    1
  107. realCevra Going back to the example of digging holes in the desert, I said that money will be worthless since it did not generate value.
    1
  108. realCevra Uh, you clearly don't understand economics. Let me simplify it for you. Say you have $300, and you take $100 and just give it to someone to dig a hole in the desert. You have no purpose for that hole nor do you want it. You just did it. Now you have $200 and nothing was gained for you in spending that $100. You valued money less in that point. Now you have less to buy. There is still $300 out there as a whole, you just didn't gain anything from $100 of it. Ok, now expand it to a business. Say they earn $100,000 in profits and they take $10,000 of that and just give it away and gained nothing in doing so. They valued money less and have not grown their business. They are not better off. Now the government takes money from society and wastes it. You lowered the value of the dollar which means what it used to take $1 to produce now may take $1.50......that is how prices goes up. The same amount of money is there, it is just not worth as much That is why SS is losing money, the money being spent from it is not generating wealth. The money is not disappearing, it is losing value. Again, you don't understand economics.
    1
  109. realCevra The number one rule of economics is that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Someone has to produce it. It will cost something. You either have to make it, pay for it with cash, or someone will make it for you at their own expense. If you give money away it will cost society in the value of money dropping. If you give 317 million people in the US a $1000 a month that is nearly $4 trillion dollars that will be worthless in the US because it was spent and did not generate any value.
    1
  110. realCevra Nope, I never moved the goal posts. You did. I said the value of money will drop leading to higher prices. Your only argument now is that you are saying I moved the goal post. You have zero substance in your argument. You can't even defend the fact that SS is losing money. You have no clue how money obtains value. If the government were to take your money and waste it you will have to demand more in order to pay your bills. You, as an individual now live a more expensive life. A business will have to raise prices in order to pay for that tax because now their business is more expensive to run.. Now if government were to spend that money to create things society wanted than fine, you will benefit. If government spent $100,000,000 to build a park the local community wanted, or a school to educate our kids, or clean up the streets than fine, society benefits and you are not worse off. But if the government were to spend that $100,000,000 to dig holes than you won't get that school for education. Either individuals will have to spend money themselves making their lives more expensive or raise taxes making government more expensive. But, as a whole you reduced the value of money.
    1
  111. realCevra ", money base increases after production increases, and decreases after production decreases both automatically" And you are giving money away does not produce anything. Thus the value of money will decrease. I feel you agree with me, you just don't like to admit you are wrong.
    1
  112. realCevra Yes, you are lowing the value of the dollar. I am not talking about a gift. There you get satisfaction giving that money away. I bought lunch for my friends the other day because I liked them and value them. Now, let me walk you through it again. Say the government spends $100,000,000 to pay for new schools. That means a private company or individuals don't have to spend money on education so they see their tax dollars benefiting them. That money generate value and society benefits. Now say that government spends $100,000,0000 to dig holes in the desert. Society did not want that because if given a choice (no taxes) they will not pay for that. Now they have to either 1. spend their own money on education making their lives more expensive 2. have the government raise taxes making the government more expensive In the end the value of money drops, period.
    1
  113. realCevra And money has no value until you invest it to generate wealth.  You can't eat money, you can't run you car off of money, you can't live under money.  Money has zero value until it is invested.   Let me explain it like this.  If the government were to take money from you than you will have less money. But if the government were to build a road with it than you will benefit as you have a road to drive on.  So really you are not worse off.  But if the government were to give that money to someone to do nothing, now you have to pay to build a road, so now your life is more expensive.  Thus the value of money has dropped.   "that money is already there because something was produced and brought it to life" 100% false.  That money is there because it was printed.  Money is there to solve two economic problems 1. the retention of value problem 2. the double incident of wants problem
    1
  114. realCevra But society did not want those wholes, so now their lives are more expensive since their money was wasted.   You're believe some really weird shit.
    1
  115. realCevra Those hole diggers could have been something productive as in building a road or a school that society would have benefited from.  Instead of building  a road they dug holes.  Now society either has to 1. pay out of pocket for their own roads making their lives more expensive 2. pay the government more in higher taxes so government can build a road making the government more expensive.
    1
  116. realCevra "that doesn't matter in national economics, they're just a temporary money holder in the middle" 100% wrong. They produced nothing to society so they money they possess is worthless. Sure they may go out and buy something with it, as in food, but someone has to provide that food to them. What did those hole diggers provide? Nothing. So now you have less wealth in society and thus higher prices.
    1
  117. realCevra "it will just be spent by someone else. in national economics that makes no difference" Yes, it does make a difference. Again, say you and your city you live in wants roads. The government taxes you and instead of spending them to build roads they just take the money and give it to people to sit there. Well, you still need roads, so what do you do? You, yourself and others will either have to 1. pay out of your own pocket to build those roads making your live more expensive 2. pay more in taxes making the government more expensive In all money loses value. Now if the government were to give money to those people to build the road now that money has generated value.
    1
  118. realCevra The number one way to grow an economy is getting the most out of your resources, period. If you give money to people and they produce nothing than you are lowering the value of money. On the road example, if you give money to people to do nothing you have just wasted labor, a resource in the economy and thus money is now worth less. But if you pay workers to build the road now you are putting a resource to work giving that money value. You are gaining something with your money.
    1
  119. realCevra You really need to stop moving the goal post here. You have refused to address the fact that SS is running out of money. Why? Because it is giving away money and does not produce any wealth. Thus prices go up while the amount of money stays the same. Thus you have essentially less to tax as people are spending more on other things in order to make a living due to their lives being more expensive. Really, this is at a point of I don't even think you study a single economic textbook or piece of literature ever.
    1
  120. realCevra You don't lose money, you lose value.  
    1
  121. realCevra The value of money is harmed.  " its value is set once it is introduced into the money base" 100% wrong.  How does money obtain value?  When it is spent to generate wealth.  It is clear you know nothing about economics. Why do you don't even understand basic facts/
    1
  122. realCevra Money losing value is losing money.  You have no clue how the value of money is generated, that is the first barrier you need to cross. Until you learn that fact we can't proceed in this discussion.  
    1
  123. realCevra What can $5 buy?  What determines that? We are no longer on the gold standard so what determines what $5 can buy is how money is invested to generate wealth.  If the government just gives money away without generating wealth than money loses value.  . Again, you have no clue the value of money is generated.  It is quite clear you have a lot of learning to do.  
    1
  124. realCevra Let me explain it in a different way.  You give everyone $1000 a month more people will go out and seek their own apartment.  But, that $1000 a month to people did not generate anything in terms of wealth, so you have the same number of apartments.  So what happens?  Rent prices go up thus the value of money is less. This is why prices change.  When a company invests money to buy new technology to increase productivity they can make more products faster.  Thus they can lower the price of their products making money worth more.  According to you $5 today should buy the same things 100 years from now and 100 years prior because it has the same value.  That is 100% false.  
    1
  125. realCevra It is very  clear you have a lot of learning to do so I will give another example.  You give people $1000 a month they will go out and buy more.  If you own a store you have  a limited amount of supply but now you have more customers.  Demand goes up but supply doesn't.  So what do you do?  You raise prices.  The value of money is now lowered. That is basic supply and demand. Now you may say "well I will just hire more people".  But how?  Why will they work for you if they are earning money for doing nothing? They won't.  So no, you can't just hire more because the incentive to work is down.  You may then say "well they want to make more money".  People like that will not work for you because they will be the ones working towards more skills and a higher paying job.  So again, you can't hire more. This is all very basic which is why it has never been tried with the exception of a few times and in places it has been tried they are not economically well off.  
    1
  126. realCevra Come on, read about money.  The $5 bill in my wallet was printed in 2013.  That means that $5 will buy $5 worth of anything priced in 2013? 
    1
  127. realCevra" nope, and i proved to you that money doesn't lose value when it is given away for whatever reason." No you did not
    1
  128. realCevra" correct, your assessments are 100% false. i never said its value cannot change, " You just contradicted yourself because the entire time you are saying this "it obtains its value when it enters the money base" But now you are saying that it can lose and gain value which is what I have been saying the entire time.
    1
  129. realCevra" if demand of single appartments increases, supply will follow until there is no profit in single appartments anymore" No, prices will go up.  We are seeing the same problem in my city with rent increasing.  We are seeing the same thing with college.  The student loan program increased demand without increasing supply so tuition went up. With Obamacare you had an increase in healthcare customers so insurance prices went up.  So no, supply won't follow.  If it does it won't be at the pace of increase demand leading to higher prices.
    1
  130. realCevra" unless you don't have capitalism of course, do you have that?" The government giving away money is not capitalism. Once again you just showed you don't even know what capitalism is.
    1
  131. realCevra" you mean if world peace was so great we would be having it right now with success. i see your logic, it's breathtaking" Ironic you say that considering you have been saying the entire time money does not gain nor lose value, but then claimed it does. And you feel capitalism is the government giving away money when in reality it isn't.  Also, where will the extra apartments come from?  If people had more money they won't work as hard thus the apartments won't be built. 
    1
  132. realCevra" it is irrelevant when it was printed." According to you it is.
    1
  133. realCevra You told me to look up a definition, here it is from Wikipedia (the source you told me to use) " In monetary economics, fiat money is an intrinsically valueless object or record that is widely accepted as a means of payment.[3] In some micro-founded models of money, fiat money is created internally in a community making feasible trades that would not otherwise be possible, either because producers and consumers may not anonymously write IOUs, or because of physical constraints" It is valueless.  All money does is solve two economic problems, the Double Incident of Wants problem and the Retention of Value problem.  But in the end that money is valueless until it is spent to generate wealth.  Society gives it value.  If the government just gives that money away society does not value it thus money loses value if it had any value to begin with.  And you call me ignorant?
    1
  134. realCevra You are not getting it.  If someone gives you $200 billion on their own free will then they valued whatever they gave you.  Such as when I bought lunch for my friends, I valued them in that way I was willing to spend my own money on them.  Money obtains value in that case. If someone were to steal your money than you have less of it making your life more expensive because you will have to collect that money back somehow either by working more or cutting expenses.  You did not gain anything when your money was stolen because you did not voluntarily give it away yourself. Now with government spending.  Us, as a society promotes a government and pay taxes in hope that the government offers society something they value. Say, to go easy, roads.  Say we need $100,000,000 for roads.  Society pays that much in taxes but instead of the government spending that money on roads they just give it away to people to do nothing.  That money loses value because it does not produce anything.  In order for society to have roads they have to either 1. pay out of pocket 2. pay more in taxes. In both cases that makes their lives more expenses. That means business owners will have to raise prices or cut workers to generate more money to pay for the higher taxes or tolls for roads. People will have to cut expenses in order to pay for the higher taxes or tolls for the roads.  That means life is more expensive because money, as a whole, lost value. Your example is very poor because your example is of someone voluntarily giving away their money.  I can pay $200 to have a stripper grind on my dick.  That gives money value because I felt that was worth it.  But if someone stole that $200 than I gained nothing thus I have to find a way to get that money back since I wanted it for other things.  I felt I triggered you when I showed you how you are wrong on your definition of fiat money.   
    1
  135. realCevra I looked up what fiat money is.  It is valueless until society gives it value. Why do you not understand what fiat money is? 
    1
  136. realCevra"Intrinsically" means in a natural way. Fiat money is valueless until society gives it value.  The government prints out the money, but what is it really worth? Nothing until society gives it value.  The government can print out a $5 bill, but what can that buy? That is up to society to decide. It is "intrinsically valueless" because it essentially has no value until society gives it value.  Is your understand of basic definitions that poor? Take the $5 bill. I can use that to buy a meal. I eat that mean now I have energy to work.  I may do work throughout the day where I earn $80.  I have a job that I do that. Now I basically turned $5 into $80 which means that I improved my value thus my life is cheaper and money is worth more to me.  Now say I get $80 stolen from me.  I need that money so now I have to work another day to earn it back.  I work to days to earn $80 instead of one meaning my life has become more expensive to where I had to work more to earn what I needed.  Essentially money was worth less. Now expand that to the government.  If the government were to spend that $100,000,000 on roads that society wanted they could go to work and produce more wealth giving that money more value.  But if they instead gave it away now people have to spend another $100,00,000 meaning they are behind that much thus the money they have is worth less. 
    1
  137. realCevra"  it does not depend on that." It does depend on that.  Say you need. $600 for rent.  I steal that $600 from you.  What do you do? You have to find a way to get that money back meaning you have to do more work. Your life has become more expensive.  You are basically paying $1200 for rent now. Now expand that to the road example. People wanted the government to spend that $100,000,000 on roads. Instead the government just gave it away.  Now society has to spend another $100,000,000 in order to get those roads. That means $100,000,000 was wasted, or they essentially paid $200,000,00 for those roads.  Thus businesses have to increase prices to pay for the tolls or higher taxes.  Individuals have to cut expenses to pay for the tolls or higher taxes. That means that $5 bill can't buy what it used to.  It loses value. 
    1
  138. realCevra I fully understand what the word "intrinsically" means. That $5 bill naturally has zero value.  You can't eat it, you can't run your car off of it, you can't live under it, it naturally as no value until society gives it value. What can money buy? What determines that?   
    1
  139. realCevra" you have showed that you're unable to read and understand, nothing more" I can read just fine. You are basically saying that the government prints a $5 bill and it magically is worth that. Now what determines what that $5 bill can buy? 
    1
  140. realCevra You are omitting the word "valueless" here.  I love how you feel I am omitting the word "intrinsically" when you keep omitting the word "valueless".  
    1
  141. realCevra No, a basic income won't work because it lowers the value of money.  Money naturally has no value until society gives it value. If you just give money away people won't value it.  With rent, if everyone was given $1000 a month rent will go up because landlords won't value that $1000.  Everyone has it.   If everyone has it what makes them so special? If everyone was given $1000 a month and people flocked to apartments to rent them out a landlord will just raise prices knowing that those individuals are no longer a rarity.   Why do you refuse to learn anything?  I can add again, when the federal government just gave you loans for people to go to college guess what happened? Tuition went up?  Why?  Because so many people were given money for college that universities valued money less since a lot of the student body had that money. 
    1
  142. realCevra" i steal that money back from you, got the same state as the start, but you claim money value is lost now. don't you see your idiocy?" Two things.  One, how?  How do you steal it back?  Is it really that easy? And two, you end up doing more work to get that money back.  I have a feeling you are so dumb that you just come up with asinine counter arguments of "well I will just steal it back, derp".  Or "people will just work more even though they don't have  to, derp".  Or "they will just build more, hee haw, it is that easy, and I will just steal it back even though I was so dumb and weak I got my money stolen by some stranger I will never see again in the first place".
    1
  143. realCevra"  money is never wasted," Yep,  we can just hunt those people down and "steal it back". "repeat with me: money is never lost" Repeat with me, money can gain and lose value. Now write that 100 times on your mental chalk board.  Will you be able to learn it eventually? Who knows, insane minds are unpredictable.  But then again, you feel you can just "steal the money back".
    1
  144. realCevra"  lol nope, they'll pay whatever is spent for the roads. and they'll pay whatever is spent for basic income." But they could have paid less. Now they have to pay more meaning that prices go up. Businesses have to increase prices, people have to cut expenses or demand a higher wage. All of that is because the value of money is lower.  Say it with me, prices went up because money was given away meaning that the value of money is lower. Now say that nice and slow. But you are avoiding the issue of tuition. When the government just gave away loans that meant students had more money.  What did colleges do? Raise tuition. Why? Because they valued money less. 
    1
  145. realCevra I read about fiat money.  It is intrinsically valueless until society gives it value. Two people on an island won't value money at all since you can't eat it or live under it.  Your example just showed you how money is intrinsically valueless.  
    1
  146. realCevra"  no, they have to pay the exact same thing for the roads, " And they have less money.  Roads may cost the same, but they could have paid less for it.  Instead society had to fork out an extra $100,000,000 to pay for the roads. That means businesses have to raise prices, individuals have to demand a higher wage or cut expenses.  There is something wrong with you ability to count.  Roads, in my example, cost $100,000,000.  The people pay that much in taxes.  The government gives that money away to people to do nothing.  Thus society have to spend that much again in order to have roads. In order to afford that businesses have to raise prices to pay for the higher tax or toll. Individuals have to cut expenses to pay for the higher tax or toll. The value of money drops. 
    1
  147. realCevra"  no, they have to pay the exact same thing for the roads" You damn idiot. The roads cost the same. But if you run a business you need more money in order to pay for the extra taxes or tolls, thus you have to increase prices. And individuals have to cut expenses or demand a higher wage because they have less money due to the higher taxes or tolls.  That is how prices go up.  I am not talking about the price of roads.  I am talking about how the people paying for it can't afford it since money was given away.  Thus they have do extra work or cut expenses which lowers the value money.  Just like you have to do extra work to steal you money back.
    1
  148. realCevra Why do you keep avoiding the issue of college education and increasing tuition?
    1
  149. realCevra" since the situation hasn't changed (money is back where it was), value hasn't changed, " Yes it has. You had to do more work in order to get that money.  During that time you were working on stealing that money back you could have been doing something else.
    1
  150. "if students weren't given that money, someone else would get it, and it would circulate as well as the students money" You clearly don't understand supply and demand. The students were given out those loans to where almost any student can receive it. Now the students have an abundant supply of money they really didn't earn and are going to buy college credits with it. Colleges see this and just raise tuition.
    1
  151. "it doesn't depend on that. consider the example with theft that doesn't require work, for example three stuges stealing money from each other in a matter of seconds. your claim was every such transaction reduces the value of money" It does depend on the amount of work you do. I had money taken out of my checking account in the past. I have to take the time to fill out a form to get that money back. That takes time that I could have spent doing something else. If you earn $600, have it stolen, and then take the time to steal it back, you worked harder for that money. Let me be more clear. Say you work 30 hours for that $600. You have it stolen. So to get it back say you work 5 more hours to get it back. Now you worked 35 hours for $600 instead of working 30 hours. You worked harder for that money which hinders your growth. You could have spent that extra 5 hours doing something else or even working to earn $100 more. That is why, on the large scale, social welfare programs never work. Society is not getting their money's worth.
    1
  152. I suggest you study some basic economics. But first you have to learn some basic definitions such as fiat money and capitalism.
    1
  153. " i must've hit my head and forgot my graduations." You mean forgot all of your classes or schooling? What do you mean by "graduations"? ". and you were the one who was trying to become a circus clown, right? " Nope, you brought up clowns. But I can see character attacks are your motive. You bringing up clowns does show you lack of intelligence in economics. Anyway, you never gave me a source showing how much clowns make and what the job outlook is for them. " a society with 2 people, later 3. whenever trades have to be conducted over long distances of time, people have to use money. barter doesn't work, because with barter you'd have to exchange on the spot. how do you exchange 100 meals with 1 hut on the spot?" Yes, as the economy expands to multiple people and multiple places than money is necessary. But you are talking about just two people on an island, that's it. No one else. "i very well do" Apparently you don't, I had to give it to you. "textbook? this isn't school, you do know there's something called scientific papers and articles," Textbooks are written referencing scientific papers. So a textbook is sufficient. Or cite me a paper instead. "but it does, the value of fiat money is set when it enters the money base. fiat money has almost no intrinsical value, but that only denoted the value of the material it uses to represent its value, usually dyed paper" It has value when it is invested. "nope, you don't increase the money base by giving tax money to students, the money base is the same, it just has different holders, didn't i tell you that already?" Increase the demand for college without increasing the supply. That money given to the students is used, for the most part, only on college which also limits its value. " you did notice that your sentence make absolutely no sense? you're basically saying that instead of being productive you're being productive. hilarious" No, I am not being productive because I have to do unnecessary work to get the same amount. But of course it makes no sense to you, you have no idea how textbooks are written.
    1
  154. It does matter the amount of people you have. With more people means a more complicated system creating the incentive for money. With only two you don't need money. ". i already did. go look up my comment, if you have any academic education concerning economics, you'll notice it" Actually you haven't cited anything. "now you're starting to get it. every fiat money that enters the money base enters it as debt, as an investment. that's when it gets its value. i already told you that" You just lied again because you never said that. You said money had set value. "you're not getting the same amount, you're getting twice the amount," What? Did you fail math? Say I earn $100 working 6 hours. I get that money stolen from me. So I find a way to get that $100 back. I am earning only $100.
    1