• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are We in Danger of Hyperinflation??

That kills jobs at the entry level. Still why not $20.00 an hour? What’s so magical about $15.00? That’s not a living wage in any big city run by liberals.
It could be eighteen dollars an hour or twenty dollars an hour. The only thing "magical" about fifteen dollars an hour is that social services cost the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour and it is rational to expect persons in our capitalism based economy to act on that rational choice.
 
People buy things, robots dont. If nobody working, then nobody is buying. More jobs more economic activity, because people buy stuff and use services. Robots dont.
Why would no one be working? I don't get your assumption based on the line of reasoning presented.
 
Unlikely. Interest rates are so low the fed has lots of power to raise rates and reduce inflation

A big problem with higher interest rates is that increases the cost of servicing the huge (and growing) national debt. Every $1 of added national debt interest expense is $1 less to spend on public goods/services.
 
Yes we do. We need low wage entry level low wage jobs.

You are talking to someone who sees no relationship between personal production and personal consumption. His point seems to be that if folks were given more money for doing (or even not doing, but that’s another story) some entry level job then they would spend (consume) more. The fact (problem?) that they would produce no more (or nothing at all), yet would consume more is (somehow) to be solved by robots.
 
You are talking to someone who sees no relationship between personal production and personal consumption. His point seems to be that if folks were given more money for doing (or even not doing, but that’s another story) some entry level job then they would spend (consume) more. The fact (problem?) that they would produce no more (or nothing at all), yet would consume more is (somehow) to be solved by robots.
I don't know what they are thinking. They are obviously poorly educated.
 
That and chooses not to work at all.
I don't know why some equate poorly educated with low wage. I don't see that as anything but odd. Today's low income workers - let's say crop pickers - are fundamental to survival. Without them, there's a lot of shortages. Why are truffles so high priced - for heaven sake they're found by pigs - but we can't seem to reward the people on a grand scale, of which we depend, like the people collecting avocados or almonds?? The reason why I ask this is because perhaps the solution is to value those that DO work hard, that cannot be displaced by robots in the immediate future, and most of all, should be a more valued asset to say, the guy peddling Chinese crap at a huge profit on Amazon. Thanks!!
 
Not from my perspective. Right wingers want to abolish statutory minimum wages and have claimed that wage inflation is what they object to.
And leftwingers want all American jobs eliminated on behalf of China.
 
I don't know why some equate poorly educated with low wage. I don't see that as anything but odd. Today's low income workers - let's say crop pickers - are fundamental to survival. Without them, there's a lot of shortages. Why are truffles so high priced - for heaven sake they're found by pigs - but we can't seem to reward the people on a grand scale, of which we depend, like the people collecting avocados or almonds?? The reason why I ask this is because perhaps the solution is to value those that DO work hard, that cannot be displaced by robots in the immediate future, and most of all, should be a more valued asset to say, the guy peddling Chinese crap at a huge profit on Amazon. Thanks!!

Don’t equate low income with low wage either. One may get a paid a decent (hourly) wage for picking nuts, but the nut harvesting season is limited, while living expenses are incurred all year long.
 
You are talking to someone who sees no relationship between personal production and personal consumption. His point seems to be that if folks were given more money for doing (or even not doing, but that’s another story) some entry level job then they would spend (consume) more. The fact (problem?) that they would produce no more (or nothing at all), yet would consume more is (somehow) to be solved by robots.
Simply raising the minimum wage can create more demand and generate more tax revenue. That is what you never see.
 
And leftwingers want all American jobs eliminated on behalf of China.
Nope, you are simply projecting, right winger. Some on the left want the minimum wage raised in the US and tariffs on Firms going overseas merely for Cheap labor in our first world economy. Cheap labor should not be any form of consideration for Capitalists in our first world economy.
 
Simply raising the minimum wage can create more demand and generate more tax revenue. That is what you never see.

Nope. Charging $30 instead of $20 to mow lawns is not going to create more lawn mowing demand, but is apt to have a few more folks either elect to do that chore themselves or have it done less often.
 
Nope. Charging $30 instead of $20 to mow lawns is not going to create more lawn mowing demand, but is apt to have a few more folks either elect to do that chore themselves or have it done less often.
The person making thirty dollars instead of twenty is going to spend more instead of less. Some people may not want to do it themselves even with the higher price. The positive multiplier applies more rather than less.
 
Too late to be worry about this stuff now; we're turning into Venezuela, and a Third World country in a few years. Better start educating people on how to build latrines, make potable water, and the best places to dig mass graves foe disease controls.
 
It didn't happen with QE, why should it happen now? There is not enough demand now to keep some businesses going. Raising the minimum wage could generate more tax revenue and create more demand for local businesses.


Raising the minimum wage could generate more tax revenue and create more demand for local businesses.

Yep, and even few liberal cities have accomplish raising to $15.00 (wink)

I mean, they give the illusion of doing so
 
I really don't understand the government's penchant for excessive borrowing. We've had three major borrowing sprees in the last two decades: the Iraq War, then the real estate bail out, and now the pandemic. And yet reining in the borrowing seems to be on the low to nil end of our priorities. It seems most American policies encourage excessive borrowing. For example, the more debt I pay down, the lower my credit score. Seriously. And during the last recession, I hunkered down, curbed spending and was fiscally responsible, while some of my relations racked up the credit cards and then defaulted on tens of thousands of dollars. And the irony is, some of the creditors forgave their debt - albeit my relations had to pay taxes on the "gift" - and as the credit bureaus erase defaults after seven years, their credit rating is now better than mine, even though I've been fiscally responsible. And as I said before, the more debt I pay down, the lower my credit score. I talked to a fellow the other day about it, and he just laughed. He's got two young kids, and paid off his car finally after 4 years and keeps his borrowing to a limit, and presto, his credit rating dropped off into the high 600s.
I don't see how this nation can maintain these irresponsible and frankly, irrational policies, both in government and the private sector. And as it did during the Carter Administration, I see the new president paying the piper, because I think we are headed toward a perfect storm. Thanks!!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom