Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "How Right-Wing Economics Destroyed Kansas" video.

  1. Because socialism continues to fail. 
    2
  2. Texas has been doing this for years and has a strong economy.  CA has been practicing the opposite and is number 1 in poverty.  Plus, ever thought this is what the people in Kansas want?
    1
  3. Keltik0ne Texas takes in less federal money than it gives out.  And when adjusted for cost of living CA is number on in poverty, you can find it on Wikipedia.  I will give the link but for some reason I can't put links on comments.  Census.gov also has some info on it.
    1
  4. Keltik0ne The wiki page has  links to the census site.  Also census.gov has other resources as well.  If you type in google, poverty rates by state by cost of living, I found a source from the university of Wisconsin as well.  Cost of living is low in TX thus poverty, when adjusted for PPP, is lower and CA is high.   
    1
  5. Robert Maiorana Saying TX has a high rate of uninsured is deceptive.  So does CA, NM, FL, NV, and AZ.  Those states also have a large growth of Hispanic population who lack money to get insurance.  It is the same when someone says that TX has a amount of people with a high school diploma, the reason for that is because of the Hispanic population growth. 
    1
  6. Ever though that this is what they wanted?
    1
  7. In a few years let us say they are doing well, what are you going to say then?
    1
  8. Pythos Sapunov That will be your excuse?  This is my problem with liberals, they feel the need to mess with other people's lives.  I bet you don't even live in KS.  But here you are feeling they are oppressed and you must be a great citizen and enforce Obamacare on them. Good for you.  Just remember, when they elect a republican president and they enforce their policies of tax cuts on you don't complain, they are just returning the favor.  
    1
  9. Increasing the min. wage raises prices hurting spending power.  What we have to push for is wealth creation, not artificially subsidizing it.
    1
  10. TheAstraeuss A ten cent raise could be the difference between someone eating there or not.  Also, if it took only a 10 cent raise for a company with no loss in demand, then why not raise it anyway and make that much more in profits?  The real fact is that prices do go up, hours get cut and those at a disadvantage are worse off. The rate people are paid is what they are worth.  And you comparing them to slavery is asinine.  Slaves were forced to work and were property, these individuals could always quit and typically do since low wage jobs like that have high turnover rates and several part time employees. These jobs are not needed.  I haven't been to McDonalds in a long time.  The simple fact is that those workers are not worth that much.   
    1
  11. ***** The problem is that you can't tie the min. wage to inflation.  Not everything inflates.  A VCR was around $200 at one point, now blu-ray players are around $80.  Same is with labor.  In the 90s there was a battery plant that employed over 800 people in my hometown.  A lot of appliances used batteries such as walkmens, RC cars and cordless phones.  Now with appliances coming with batteries on board that are rechargeable the demand dropped.  When the plant closed it only employed 200 people at the time. Those workers went to be very valuable to being worth nothing. The same is with blockbuster, or farmer workers when the tractor came.  Not everything increases in value. Lowering the high rate of turnover will increase unemployment.  There will be less if an incentive to take on a higher paying job people will just stay put.  People who leave those low wage jobs quickly typically get a higher paying job.  Low wage jobs are short term jobs or supplemental income jobs for most people.  And your idea that giving more money to the lower class to pour more in the economy is flawed.  The economy is not some beast that needs to be fed.  And money doesn't have a set amount.  Money derives it's values from the goods and services available.  If the middle and lower class had more money but there weren't more goods and services available than prices will go up. 
    1
  12. TheAstraeuss The problem with you is that you can't tie everything to inflation.  Everything doesn't inflate.  Take, for example, a car.  While cars may seem more expensive on the surface, they last longer, get better gas mileage, and are safer.  So the value of the care is lower and more affordable.  Look at the pocket calculator, it was around $200 at the beginning, now they are practically free.  Heck, for $200 you can get a cell phone with a calculator and camera. Now compare that to labor.  Look at blockbuster.  Those employees are now worth $0/hr.  When the tractor was invented, it made farm workers worth $0/hr at that job.  In my hometown there was a battery plant that employed over 800 people that paid well with great benefits.  In the 90s so many appliances needed batteries.  Now with batteries on board that are rechargeable the demand for batteries dropped.  When the plant closed down 2 years ago it employed 200 people.  Those employees in that job are worth $0/hr.   Some jobs have increased in value while others have decreased and others have remained the same.  This idea that businesses pay low is a lie as well.  Less than 5% of workers earn at or below the min. wage, the average hourly earnings is $24/hr.  2/3 of min. wage workers get a raise within a year.  Businesses already pay more.  You are being the greedy one wanting to force them to pay more then they can afford.   
    1
  13. TheAstraeuss Median inflation rate?  It still doesn't matter.  Not everything inflates.  You just can't artificially determine that certain jobs are worth a certain amount.  The market does that.  If you create a price floor than businesses will not hire certain workers since they will be priced out of the market now. The CPI is flawed.  It doesn't take into account the quality of goods and services. Goods and services are better now than in the past.  Society has it better.  The average life expectancy is up, there is more disposable income for individuals. People's income is going up and society has it better.  Also, not every job has increased in value.  What is contributing to the high cost of living are policies such as the min. wage.  
    1
  14. ***** With lower turnover than there will be less jobs.  How will our job outlook be if nobody retired?  Or if nobody left entry level jobs so that those with low skills can't get a job.  We will have limited growth thus less jobs and high unemployment. Giving away money doesn't help the economy, it makes it worse.  Money derives it's value from goods and services available.  What drives our economy is trade, not money.  Money is there to solve two problems, the double incident of wants problem and the retention of value problem.  The double incident of wants problem is that both parties need to agree on what is being traded.  So if you can make furniture and I am a scientist, chances are you won't need my services so I can't get something like a chair from you.  But now that I have money we can agree to trade that and you can take that money and trade it elsewhere. The retention of value problem is that say I am a chicken farmer, I won't be able to save up enough chickens to by something big because chickens die.  But I can save money.  In the end, though, you can't eat money, you can't run your car on it, or heat your home.  You eat food, you heat your home with gas or electricity, you run you car on gas.  If you give out more money to the middle and lower class artificially, than all you do is raise prices since now you have more money flowing but not more goods and services flowing. Money was given away without creating more goods and services, thus now that money is worth less. If all it took was money to drive our economy we might as well print more or just write checks for thousands of dollars to the middle and lower class.  But that isn't the case.   
    1
  15. TheAstraeuss What is "fair pay"?  You are making an arbitrary statement. And you are supporting giving money away because you want to make it so that businesses have to overpay for labor.  They will be paying workers more then they are worth.  You are giving away money based solely on your definition of "fair".  Those other countries are really prosperous.  Luxembourg is the only one that has a lower cost of living.  If you were to factor in GDP by PPP you will see that Luxembourg is the only country ahead of the US.  So it is working for only one country.  In the end, the government may mandate a min. wage.  It isn't mandating a min. work hours, or a min. number of employees, or a maximum price on goods.  Businesses will find a way to make up for the difference with higher prices, less hours and less employees.   
    1
  16. ***** Well considering you think that low turnover rates means lower unemployment I question your knowledge of economics.  So people refusing to leave entry level jobs lowers unemployment?  Really?  You think money runs out economy, that isn't true, trade does.  If money ran economy than we can raise taxes to a high rate and print money to increase circulation, but in reality it doesn't help.  Money doesn't have a set value and overpaying for anything hurts the economy.
    1
  17. TheAstraeuss The average household income in Canada may be higher, until you factor in PPP like I said than Canada is lower.  Cost of living is higher in those countries so they are not as well off as you may think. And you didn't outline how "fair work" is not being paid "fairly", you are using a subjective term.  In reality a lot of workers are being overpaid if you look at unit labor cost.   You have given no measure in why certain workers deserve more besides just claiming it is "fair". 
    1
  18. TheAstraeuss And I have outlined to you how you can't tie inflation to every job.  Not every job inflates.  Not every job increases in value.  If you did that then there will be a lot of people out of work because a lot of jobs haven't increased in value. The simple fact is that businesses are not charities, if you make if more expensive for them to do a business they will either raise prices, cut hours cut workers, or just simply close down all which disproportionally hurts the poor.  It isn't the business's fault that their workers are not earning enough.  All that business did was offer them a job, they could have worked elsewhere.  It is up to the individual to find a way to make a living either through earning more money or cutting expenses.  You have no problem being liberal with other people's money but refuse to start a business yourself.  Anyway, most people working min. wage jobs don't work full time.  
    1
  19. Because they voted for him.  They had their choices a few months back and choose him.  This is what they wanted, why should you care?
    1