• 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!

Why We Need a Universal Jobs Guarantee

phattonez said:
I provided you simple statistics going from the earliest time point available (1979) to 2019. How is looking at real compensation, or compensation compared to cost of living a cherry picked statistic?
Click to expand...

We were talking about jobs guarantee and I proved to you that we don't need a jobs guarantee because every person who wants to work is working now. There are help wanted signs everywhere. All you have to do is drive down the street. Now you want to go off on another liberal rant. I also proved to you that the standard of living has gone up and up and up and since Trump has been president, wages have risen more than any year when Obama was president.
 
nekrodev said:
it's a complicated issue, and i definitely agree, we could fix the healthcare ****, and then basically not even need to really do much else, because it's such a huge thing.

i need to do some more research and bouncing ideas off people i know, but i really wanna talk more with someone about building a brand new major city, built from the ground up as a modern city, with solar and wind power as a primary objective, with public transportation as a major objective, etc....

that's the kind of project that could definitely use a kind of jobs guarantee.
Click to expand...

Who is going to pay for this city? What industries will be in this city? Why not just upgrade an existing city people actually live in and already has jobs? Are you sure that these jobs will be guaranteed permanently and won't disappear? Will these jobs have skills that will be marketable outside of building this city?
 
Bullseye said:
I know of know economic principle that requires either income or wealth equality. If everybody had the same income and wealth how could an employer find an employee, for instance?
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing for complete equality.
 
Bullseye said:
Well, extremely unlikely, but so what?
Click to expand...

Extremely unlikely? If I average 5% per year, then after 100 years then you'll have achieved a return nearly 150x.

Actually, IF you have any earners on those stocks, you will pay tax as you will when you realize, e.g. sell your 100x gains.
Click to expand...

If I invested 1 million 100 years ago and got 5% per year, then my children would now have about 150 million. Even with that 35% capital gains tax they'll still have nearly 100 million. Even with a 65% capital gains tax they'll have about 50 million. These one time tax events are nothing to match the power of compounding interest.
 
Individual said:
The regard I have for others has nothing at all to do with wealth, theirs or my own.
Click to expand...

You just said that you're fine with the poor dying. Not the indolent. The poor.
 
Individual said:
Why??
Click to expand...

Because there's not enough competition in the labor market, as evidenced by declining wages relative to cost of living in the face of rising profits and productivity.
 
Individual said:
I've tried to move the conversation to making a change which could gradually accomplish just that... in this and other threads... with little success, so far.
Click to expand...

I've made my position on taxes quite clear over multiple threads. I want to see wage earners pay as little tax as possible, but investment income, especially risk free or nearly risk free income like bonds and rents, taxed at a very high rate.
 
Individual said:
Which only makes them good as a tax write off.
Click to expand...

I made that post in reference to a cure for blindness. Am I to read this as a cure for blindness is only good as a tax write off? This is incoherent.
 
Individual said:
Eliminate banks?
Or perhaps allow people to receive their purchases only after payment has been made in full?
The production of more money, even without interest, reduces the relative value of the money in existence.
Perhaps, instead of simply a suggestion and a graph, a detailed explanation of how such would be an improvement on what we have now.
What would be the effect on:
1. The non working poor?
Click to expand...

Combined with my program of a universal jobs guarantee, this system would utterly wreck them unless they choose to work. Of course, I'd make exceptions for the elderly and disabled.

2. The working poor?
3. The lower middle class?
4. The upper middle class?
5. The marginally wealthy?
Click to expand...

They'd get rising wages and decreased asset values as there would be far less debt in the system propping up their investments.

6. The massively wealthy?
Click to expand...

If by this we mostly mean the idle rich who grow wealthy off of their investments, they'd be the big losers. They'd now be forced to work instead of just living off of their investments. We would no longer have to support a class of ultra wealthy, extremely consumptive do-nothings. Everyone else would benefit.
 
Bullseye said:
Well, the interest is paid to the entities that purchase the T-bills. "Creating money out of air" devalues the money already in circulation.
Click to expand...

The Federal Reserve is one of the biggest owners of that debt. And how does the Fed pay for that? They create money out of thin air.
 
phattonez said:
Extremely unlikely? If I average 5% per year, then after 100 years then you'll have achieved a return nearly 150x.]
Click to expand...
Key word "if". Finding a single investment that you can leave untouched for 100 years is an admirable skill. And, again, IF you do realize that gain, you're be taxed on it.

phattonez said:
If I invested 1 million 100 years ago and got 5% per year, then my children would now have about 150 million. Even with that 35% capital gains tax they'll still have nearly 100 million. Even with a 65% capital gains tax they'll have about 50 million. These one time tax events are nothing to match the power of compounding interest.
Click to expand...
You're imaginatively crafted hypotheticals are amusing, but nothing more. The point of investing IS to make gains.
 
distraff said:
The US is the center of business in the world, generally has much lower unemployment than Europe, and has stronger GDP growth. Do you have any evidence wages, when adjusted for cost of living are better in Europe than in the US?
Click to expand...

Quality of Life Index

You cannot just look at income, because Europeans receive far more in government services than Americans, and with a far lower cost of living. This is why median wealth tends to be far higher in Europe than in the US.
 
phattonez said:
The Federal Reserve is one of the biggest owners of that debt. And how does the Fed pay for that? They create money out of thin air.
Click to expand...
Well, no. Not exactly.
 
phattonez said:
Extremely unlikely? If I average 5% per year, then after 100 years then you'll have achieved a return nearly 150x.



If I invested 1 million 100 years ago and got 5% per year, then my children would now have about 150 million. Even with that 35% capital gains tax they'll still have nearly 100 million. Even with a 65% capital gains tax they'll have about 50 million. These one time tax events are nothing to match the power of compounding interest.
Click to expand...

It's amazing how so many people don't understand compound interest.
 
distraff said:
Legit point. The US government actually spends more money per capita on just Medicare and Medicaid than most developed nations do on universal healthcare. My point? If the US just fixes it healthcare, and moves to a universal healthcare system that works, then healthcare is no longer an advantage for European nations.

Other nations do get free college, fewer work hours, and better benefits. But it is worth the high unemployment, much wealthier business environment, and much higher taxes? If you look at median disposable income for the middle class, it is about $60,000 in the US and between $40,000 and $45,000 in Europe. Unemployment in the EU is now 6.5% while in the US it is only 3.8%. In the US, after the 2008 recession, it was 2012 that the unemployment fell below 8%. In the EU it was 2017. The average house size in the US is 2750 square feet while it is only 1900 in Europe.
7 findings on Western Europe's middle class | Pew Research Center
Click to expand...

That all sounds terrible, so why is it that Europeans have far higher median wealth than the US? It's simple. We have the nearly the highest wealth inequality in the world. We have the richest people in the world, but most Americans are just average when it comes to wealth. It results in high debt, very low home ownership, and high rents.
 
Moderate Right said:
We were talking about jobs guarantee and I proved to you that we don't need a jobs guarantee because every person who wants to work is working now. There are help wanted signs everywhere. All you have to do is drive down the street. Now you want to go off on another liberal rant. I also proved to you that the standard of living has gone up and up and up and since Trump has been president, wages have risen more than any year when Obama was president.
Click to expand...

So why are we still so far below where wages were in 1979?
 
Bullseye said:
Key word "if". Finding a single investment that you can leave untouched for 100 years is an admirable skill. And, again, IF you do realize that gain, you're be taxed on it.

You're imaginatively crafted hypotheticals are amusing, but nothing more. The point of investing IS to make gains.
Click to expand...

How is this a hypothetical? How do you think that the world's richest families stay wealthy over generations? They do exactly what I'm talking about.

25 richest families in the world are worth more than $1 trillion
 
phattonez said:
How is this a hypothetical? How do you think that the world's richest families stay wealthy over generations? They do exactly what I'm talking about.

25 richest families in the world are worth more than $1 trillion
Click to expand...
NO they didn't invest in one thing for a hundred years. Most started businesses, grew them, invested the profits (after paying taxes) in other items, made profits on those items and paid the appropriate taxes. And did that over and over. In the process they employed hundreds or even thousands of others and paid them.
 
Bullseye said:
NO they didn't invest in one thing for a hundred years. Most started businesses, grew them, invested the profits (after paying taxes) in other items, made profits on those items and paid the appropriate taxes. And did that over and over. In the process they employed hundreds or even thousands of others and paid them.
Click to expand...

Or they did like Wal-Mart and denied the workers their profits and instead diverted it to shareholders in the disgusting program known as share buybacks.

Walmart announces $20 billion buyback to boost its stock price - Business Insider
 
Bullseye said:
Well legally, company management is legally obligated to act in the best interests of the shareholders. But as I recall Walmart also boosted its starting salary and dramatically improved employee benefits.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they raised their starting pay to $11 per hour! Let's throw them a parade!
 
phattonez said:
Yeah, they raised their starting pay to $11 per hour! Let's throw them a parade!
Click to expand...
I'm sure the people that got that raise will agree with you. :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom