Greece was a prime example of an impossible system, with the socialists getting everything and expecting that the money just grows on trees I suppose, so exactly as we had it back in the USSR and the exact opposite of the Communist idea 'from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs', the actual formula that ends up happening is this: nobody wants to be the sucker and to work so that others would get the benefit and everybody wants everything he can get his hands on from the State.
The *spending* in Greece was outrageous, with people expecting to be retired in 20 years from the beginning of their work lives, huge pensions, various State controlled benefits, etc. So *of-course* people paid as little taxes as they possibly could (and they were absolutely correct to do so) but the problem is expecting all of this spending by the State and *not* having the tax revenues to back it up. So the difference came from borrowing, and this the exact situation that USA is in today, except that of-course Greece doesn't run the ponzi scam of being the so called 'reserve currency' (without any reserves to back it up)
100%, people should be saving for their own retirement and those who are not saving should not expect to use government oppression to steal from the rest of the working population to subsidise their late years. This entire concept is anti-human, it's against every bit of individual freedom to steal from some to subsidise others in any way at all. The medication prices, health care prices, etc., all of this is due to government interference with the free market. There shouldn't be such a thing as SS, Medicare, Medicaid, FDA and the Federal reserve that can push interest rates down while buying bad Treasury debt just to start. There shouldn't be any form of government insurance, all insurance should be private and there shouldn't be any form of income, payroll or wealth related taxes, instead people should be saving on their own (and they do that in actual capitalist countries, like CHINA).
And yes, I don't want to have any government regulations in airplanes, why should there be? AFAIC it's none of government business.
As to military - that was the *only* legitimate government purpose, but today AFAIC it no longer is. The government cannot run military for defence, it's using it for invasion, occupation and enrichment of the most politically connected at the expense of everybody else, those who are paying for it with their economies and with their lives.
AFAIC any old EE should be able to build and sell a pace maker and if you don't like the reviews, don't buy from that person.
Greece ended up where it ended up not because people were not paying taxes but because the amount of spending that was happening with all of the socialist programs was disproportionately higher than the taxes that could be collected, so the difference was borrowed and then the creditors made a margin call.
IRS is an evil organization and the government is an evil institution that completely violates the spirit and the letter of the law (the Constitution) in every way in order to grab power and it has been doing it for over 116 years now at least.
No, I didn't grow up in your shitty town. I did grow up in my shitty town, where some red coloured water flowed from factories, sometimes actually could be on fire and it then made it into the largest Ukrainian river (Dnepr). The pollution by the factories was outrageous, correct, and all of those factories were government owned and operated.
EPA is government and AFAIC all government is the enemy. The actual enemy is the government and while businesses can create problems, including environmental problems, at least it is possible to fight them in court while it is not possible to remove the power from the government through court once the government takes over, destroys whatever pretence you had for a Constitution and keeps all the power, while pushing you into the dirt. So at the end it will be the corporation merged with the government that will have your burning rivers, it won't be private businesses, that can be stopped through courts (and I am talking about private courts) or by other means. The government is the most armed entity and it has this supposed 'legal authority' to be armed and to murder you.
I absolutely honestly could not care less what anybody at all on this planet Earth thinks of me as of a human being. I am absolutely against everything the government is doing today, from EPA to IRS to Federal reserve (supposedly apolitical but in reality doing everything to keep the current administration, any current administration in power so as to stay in power themselves). Does it make me a 'shitty human being' because I want to see all government offices shut down, all laws and all taxes abolished? I don't think so and at the end the only thing that matters is what I think of myself.
I disagree with your reading of my comment, I would prefer if the government could actually stick to the Constitution and only do the very little bit that it allows the government to do. AFAIC there shouldn't be a Federal reserve bank, which is a political ploy to monetise Treasury debt. There shouldn't be any form of business regulations, any form of government involvement in labour, business, health care, insurance, education, energy, transportation, communications.
What I see as a *legitimate* role of government defined in the Constitution is protection of the borders from invasion, however given how the government behaved over the last 100+ years at this point I think it cannot even be trusted with that simple enough role.
Hopefully Trump does a couple of good things as well, maybe actually getting Peter Thiel into SCOTUS, killing the EPA, reducing taxes (I am 100% for elimination of the IRS, Federal reserve bank and pretty much everything government does) but we'll see.
His ideas are conflicting, on the one hand he supposedly wants to reduce income and wealth taxes, which is good, on the other hand he wants to keep spending money on welfare and other government programs, which is bad and inconsistent with his supposed position to ensure that the Fed stops manipulating interest rates.
Bond interest is already somewhat up this year and even since Trump won on the 8th of November (and will likely win in December too). But he needs to choose a position at some point, will he reduce/eliminate income taxes? Will he eliminate the Fed and maybe IRS? (hopefully but unlikely) . Will he reduce taxes while increasing spending, then he will have to keep the Fed and let it do what it actually wants to do, which is print more money and try and keep interest rate as low as possible.
Too much conflict is in all of this, very little of it has any consistency, there are no real position, I don't really expect much, but can we at least get Thiel into SCOTUS?
My desktop being my computer, right? I am running Mint right now with xfce on my laptop, 2 monitors, one with a bunch of terminal sessions, another with a browser (the one I am posting this from).
I don't need anything to overtake anything for me to have my desktop based on a GNU/Linux distro, I am not being 'pedantic', I seriously don't understand people who are talking about it this way. My year of Linux on a desktop happened back in 2001.
I've been on Linux as a desktop for over 15 years now, I don't know what people are talking about when they are saying what you are saying, that there will be no Linux on the desktop. So if that's true, then what have I been using all this time?
Fine, but all of this for what, what is the primary purpose of switching to MS Windows? Better games? I don't play games. Better security? I don't think so. Better performance? In some cases that is possible, bit that does not outweigh anything of what I mentioned, packaging and software management, security, etc.
You are a straaaaange person. I am certainly not running around telling people to do with their computers everything that I do. I do have all of my devs on GNU/Linux (except for a couple, one dealing with MS and another with iOS compatibility) but I prefer that they use IDE for development. Who pissed in your cornflakes today?
Like I said, bash is not the only thing that a Linux user has. I like being able to type: apt-get install [packagename] and not worry about searching for anything on the web. I like being able to go to/etc/ and modify my configuration, reload it and never have to restart anything and not have to deal with any GUI. I don't like GUIs.
I like vi (eat me, emacs users), I like *not* having a registry, so I stay away from systemd as well. I like ssh and scp and command line tools for database access, etc.etc.
I like config, make, make install, I build my DB engine and never download it as a binary (and many other tools I only get source code for). I like OpenBSD and its simplicity, I cannot in the wildest of the dreams trust MS over the BSD guys as another example.
I can think of other things, this is what I immediately thought of right now.
So I built systems that use hosted checkout (which is what you are talking about), it's when the payment is not made on the same site but is executed on a page hosted by the payment system provider.
I can tell you this: with FirstData PSP not closing the browser window is not actually a requirement for the payment to go through, if you do close the window or lose the connection the payment may still go through but the merchant will not necessarily know about this right away, so the way it is implemented is with the merchant checking all of the outstanding transactions as a batch separately from your session, this way if the payment eventually goes through the merchant will know and will complete your transaction. You will get the receipt in the email.
Now, for this to work that way the merchant has to implement the batch request. Normally merchants don't build their software, they outsource or buy existing packages and this functionality is there by default. In any case you can always dispute the charge and in reality PSP is almost always on the side of the buyer, then there is a dispute resolution and by default the merchant stands to lose unless he can prove something.
April fools day or something? As an exclusive GNU/Linux user since about 2001 all I can say is: what?
Why would I do something like that? Because of bash? Does this think that bash is *the* reason not to use Windows and to be on a Linux distro? For real? I wonder if I am the target audience for this, I use Ubuntu and/or Mint for development and OpenBSD, Debian and Fedora for deployment, most of the code is Java, I use PostgreSQL and a bunch of other tools. So I didn't switch to an iOS product, have been on a Unix like system for the last 15 years or so. This guy believes that for some reason I would go to Windows? What a strange idea. Why would he target a Linux user, there are so few of us out there, why not go after a Mac user?
Maybe they should be pissed at the right people. The government that adds regulations and taxes on top of regulations and taxes. In 2017 the new HOS (Hours Of Service) laws are coming into effect in the USA. So it will become much more expensive to have a person driving a truck on the highway. The equipment costs skyrocket for the truck owners and at the same time the driving costs will as well with fewer driving hours. All this so that the government can control and oppress people some more. Of course this will accelerate the switch from long haul drivers to automated highway driving.
Automation will drive down pricing and this means increasing competition and it does favour capital, so yes, the ones with the foresight to grow their fleet will win and the ones who do not understand the trend will lose their driving gig, but it means that people with more business sense will survive in this business, which is a great thing for everybody, the economy wins with much lower delivery costs. The long distance drivers will be able to do much more driving of the trucks within cities because many more trucks will be on the road with automation.
Removing one of the 3 major cost components from the equation (fuel cost, labour cost, truck cost) will bring prices down allowing people to buy more trucks. I fully expect more trucks on the road, not fewer when the automation takes over but this means that the long haul drivers will be converting to local driving because local point to point delivery.
Eventually it is hopefully possible to replace all forms of truck driving with full automation (not in the next few years but possibly in the next few decades, maybe 25-40 years from now there will only be 5-10% of the current truck drivers on the road) but that means we are all much better off with much lower transportation costs.
- hold on, a large number of the truckers are owner-operators, you are talking about people who are themselves drivers and they own (lease/finance/own) their vehicle and they find their jobs on job boards and such. So what you saying is that the drivers are fucked because they will install devices into their trucks that will drive the trucks for them. These are now people who will be able to drive 24/7 as opposed to being kept from driving by their logbooks (when they are supposed to take their breaks).
So in reality the people who own the trucks will be better off, some percentage of the drivers for hire who do not have their vehicles will become obsolete at some point, so don't be a driver for hire, make sure to own your truck, which is your business.
and it's not to put a stop to everybody's fun. It's because people were being abused.
- no, that's irrelevant, it's not because 'people were abused', many people are abused in many ways and this includes abuse by government. This is because governments are made of politicians that buy power from the mob with giving out promises and 'free' stuff. Governments should not be regulating any businesses at all for any purpose. There shouldn't be any income or property related taxes either. Government should only spend what they can get in taxes and shouldn't run deficits. Governments should scale down with every economic downturn and not choose winners and losers, not print money, not manipulate markets and interest rates, not destroy individual freedoms. Yet they do all of that and people are constantly surprised at the economic disasters that follow.
No, my reasoning is correct. Given the number of applicants per position, WM could easily fill all those positions at much lower wages.
The fact that those jobs are low paying jobs does not mean that the people hire to do them are underpaid, they are overpaid for the jobs that they are hired for, otherwise there wouldn't be a line up of applicants.
Yes but farming is already pretty much fully automated. A few people can run gigantic farms today already with the machinery that they have, in the near future the machinery will become more and more autonomous, allowing the same few farmers to run larger and larger farms.
I don't know what the true state of Australian economy is, so I cannot argue on that. I can however tell you that Singapore has some of the lowest unemployment rates on the planet and it has no minimum wage at all. My point is that the minimum wage in itself does not dictate the entire picture but it does make the problem worse for the economies that are already mostly hiring in the service sectors.
I have a software business, I have some people working for me in a Western country and they are paid above the legal minimum wage.
However I have a number of people working for me in the Ukraine and there I am paying a much lower wage than I would have to pay in a Western country (though by the local standards it's many times the average). I could not hire as many people in a Western country as I have employed in the Ukraine because the amount of money I can spend on employees is limited to my revenues.
If suddenly I had to pay an American minimum wage to all of my employees, I would have to fire a large number of them and that would be that, it's really not that complicated to understand.
Now, we are not talking about skilled professionals in this thread, we are talking about grilling cheese and to do that type of work there are literally millions of people that could fill in the position. Given the fact that multiple people apply for any given position (for example Walmart gets hundreds of applications per job offer) it stands to reason that the companies are overpaying their hires when they are forced to pay them the minimum wage but also it means the companies are hiring fewer workers because they spend more per worker.
Now again, if you look at the actual economic situation in the States you will observe falling productivity among the workers and thus falling purchasing power, which translates into scaling down of the businesses. The minimum wage prevents many from being hired who could be hired.
I am actually not saying that the minimum wage all by itself leads to an economic collapse, I am saying that in the conditions where the economy is collapsing minimum wage is adding to the suffering of the common people. Companies will deal, will have fewer workers, will outsource, will automate and many will shut down. The more companies shut down the fewer opportunities for work there will be, given these circumstances what gives the politicians the idea that the fewer remaining businesses have more money to spend on low skilled employees?
She is useless as a politician but I do like this quite a lot:
- promised to raise the taxes on the MIDDLE CLASS because 'its time they pay their fair share'
and this
- Publicly call EVERY SINGLE ONE of your opponents supporters as the absolute DREGS of society (supporters you would want to sway to your side and win their vote btw)
- at least one politician who dared to tell it the way it should be told.
Slashdot Mirror
Greece was a prime example of an impossible system, with the socialists getting everything and expecting that the money just grows on trees I suppose, so exactly as we had it back in the USSR and the exact opposite of the Communist idea 'from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs', the actual formula that ends up happening is this: nobody wants to be the sucker and to work so that others would get the benefit and everybody wants everything he can get his hands on from the State.
The *spending* in Greece was outrageous, with people expecting to be retired in 20 years from the beginning of their work lives, huge pensions, various State controlled benefits, etc. So *of-course* people paid as little taxes as they possibly could (and they were absolutely correct to do so) but the problem is expecting all of this spending by the State and *not* having the tax revenues to back it up. So the difference came from borrowing, and this the exact situation that USA is in today, except that of-course Greece doesn't run the ponzi scam of being the so called 'reserve currency' (without any reserves to back it up)
IRS is completely unconstitutional, the way it collects taxes is a violation of every Constitutional principle, including the government having political prisoners like Irwin Schiff, who spent years in jail because of his fight against the government.
100%, people should be saving for their own retirement and those who are not saving should not expect to use government oppression to steal from the rest of the working population to subsidise their late years. This entire concept is anti-human, it's against every bit of individual freedom to steal from some to subsidise others in any way at all. The medication prices, health care prices, etc., all of this is due to government interference with the free market. There shouldn't be such a thing as SS, Medicare, Medicaid, FDA and the Federal reserve that can push interest rates down while buying bad Treasury debt just to start. There shouldn't be any form of government insurance, all insurance should be private and there shouldn't be any form of income, payroll or wealth related taxes, instead people should be saving on their own (and they do that in actual capitalist countries, like CHINA).
And yes, I don't want to have any government regulations in airplanes, why should there be? AFAIC it's none of government business.
As to military - that was the *only* legitimate government purpose, but today AFAIC it no longer is. The government cannot run military for defence, it's using it for invasion, occupation and enrichment of the most politically connected at the expense of everybody else, those who are paying for it with their economies and with their lives.
AFAIC any old EE should be able to build and sell a pace maker and if you don't like the reviews, don't buy from that person.
Greece ended up where it ended up not because people were not paying taxes but because the amount of spending that was happening with all of the socialist programs was disproportionately higher than the taxes that could be collected, so the difference was borrowed and then the creditors made a margin call.
IRS is an evil organization and the government is an evil institution that completely violates the spirit and the letter of the law (the Constitution) in every way in order to grab power and it has been doing it for over 116 years now at least.
No, I didn't grow up in your shitty town. I did grow up in my shitty town, where some red coloured water flowed from factories, sometimes actually could be on fire and it then made it into the largest Ukrainian river (Dnepr). The pollution by the factories was outrageous, correct, and all of those factories were government owned and operated.
EPA is government and AFAIC all government is the enemy. The actual enemy is the government and while businesses can create problems, including environmental problems, at least it is possible to fight them in court while it is not possible to remove the power from the government through court once the government takes over, destroys whatever pretence you had for a Constitution and keeps all the power, while pushing you into the dirt. So at the end it will be the corporation merged with the government that will have your burning rivers, it won't be private businesses, that can be stopped through courts (and I am talking about private courts) or by other means. The government is the most armed entity and it has this supposed 'legal authority' to be armed and to murder you.
I absolutely honestly could not care less what anybody at all on this planet Earth thinks of me as of a human being. I am absolutely against everything the government is doing today, from EPA to IRS to Federal reserve (supposedly apolitical but in reality doing everything to keep the current administration, any current administration in power so as to stay in power themselves). Does it make me a 'shitty human being' because I want to see all government offices shut down, all laws and all taxes abolished? I don't think so and at the end the only thing that matters is what I think of myself.
I disagree with your reading of my comment, I would prefer if the government could actually stick to the Constitution and only do the very little bit that it allows the government to do. AFAIC there shouldn't be a Federal reserve bank, which is a political ploy to monetise Treasury debt. There shouldn't be any form of business regulations, any form of government involvement in labour, business, health care, insurance, education, energy, transportation, communications.
What I see as a *legitimate* role of government defined in the Constitution is protection of the borders from invasion, however given how the government behaved over the last 100+ years at this point I think it cannot even be trusted with that simple enough role.
Hopefully Trump does a couple of good things as well, maybe actually getting Peter Thiel into SCOTUS, killing the EPA, reducing taxes (I am 100% for elimination of the IRS, Federal reserve bank and pretty much everything government does) but we'll see.
His ideas are conflicting, on the one hand he supposedly wants to reduce income and wealth taxes, which is good, on the other hand he wants to keep spending money on welfare and other government programs, which is bad and inconsistent with his supposed position to ensure that the Fed stops manipulating interest rates.
Bond interest is already somewhat up this year and even since Trump won on the 8th of November (and will likely win in December too). But he needs to choose a position at some point, will he reduce/eliminate income taxes? Will he eliminate the Fed and maybe IRS? (hopefully but unlikely) . Will he reduce taxes while increasing spending, then he will have to keep the Fed and let it do what it actually wants to do, which is print more money and try and keep interest rate as low as possible.
Too much conflict is in all of this, very little of it has any consistency, there are no real position, I don't really expect much, but can we at least get Thiel into SCOTUS?
both are legitimate tools to reduce government oppression of the individual.
My desktop being my computer, right? I am running Mint right now with xfce on my laptop, 2 monitors, one with a bunch of terminal sessions, another with a browser (the one I am posting this from).
I don't need anything to overtake anything for me to have my desktop based on a GNU/Linux distro, I am not being 'pedantic', I seriously don't understand people who are talking about it this way. My year of Linux on a desktop happened back in 2001.
I've been on Linux as a desktop for over 15 years now, I don't know what people are talking about when they are saying what you are saying, that there will be no Linux on the desktop. So if that's true, then what have I been using all this time?
Fine, but all of this for what, what is the primary purpose of switching to MS Windows? Better games? I don't play games. Better security? I don't think so. Better performance? In some cases that is possible, bit that does not outweigh anything of what I mentioned, packaging and software management, security, etc.
You are a straaaaange person. I am certainly not running around telling people to do with their computers everything that I do. I do have all of my devs on GNU/Linux (except for a couple, one dealing with MS and another with iOS compatibility) but I prefer that they use IDE for development. Who pissed in your cornflakes today?
back in 1999-2001 I used cygwin for that, did something change and cygwin went away?
What exactly do you define as 'work'?
Like I said, bash is not the only thing that a Linux user has. I like being able to type: apt-get install [packagename] and not worry about searching for anything on the web. I like being able to go to /etc/ and modify my configuration, reload it and never have to restart anything and not have to deal with any GUI. I don't like GUIs.
I like vi (eat me, emacs users), I like *not* having a registry, so I stay away from systemd as well. I like ssh and scp and command line tools for database access, etc.etc.
I like config, make, make install, I build my DB engine and never download it as a binary (and many other tools I only get source code for). I like OpenBSD and its simplicity, I cannot in the wildest of the dreams trust MS over the BSD guys as another example.
I can think of other things, this is what I immediately thought of right now.
So I built systems that use hosted checkout (which is what you are talking about), it's when the payment is not made on the same site but is executed on a page hosted by the payment system provider.
I can tell you this: with FirstData PSP not closing the browser window is not actually a requirement for the payment to go through, if you do close the window or lose the connection the payment may still go through but the merchant will not necessarily know about this right away, so the way it is implemented is with the merchant checking all of the outstanding transactions as a batch separately from your session, this way if the payment eventually goes through the merchant will know and will complete your transaction. You will get the receipt in the email.
Now, for this to work that way the merchant has to implement the batch request. Normally merchants don't build their software, they outsource or buy existing packages and this functionality is there by default. In any case you can always dispute the charge and in reality PSP is almost always on the side of the buyer, then there is a dispute resolution and by default the merchant stands to lose unless he can prove something.
April fools day or something? As an exclusive GNU/Linux user since about 2001 all I can say is: what?
Why would I do something like that? Because of bash? Does this think that bash is *the* reason not to use Windows and to be on a Linux distro? For real? I wonder if I am the target audience for this, I use Ubuntu and/or Mint for development and OpenBSD, Debian and Fedora for deployment, most of the code is Java, I use PostgreSQL and a bunch of other tools. So I didn't switch to an iOS product, have been on a Unix like system for the last 15 years or so. This guy believes that for some reason I would go to Windows? What a strange idea. Why would he target a Linux user, there are so few of us out there, why not go after a Mac user?
Maybe they should be pissed at the right people. The government that adds regulations and taxes on top of regulations and taxes. In 2017 the new HOS (Hours Of Service) laws are coming into effect in the USA. So it will become much more expensive to have a person driving a truck on the highway. The equipment costs skyrocket for the truck owners and at the same time the driving costs will as well with fewer driving hours. All this so that the government can control and oppress people some more. Of course this will accelerate the switch from long haul drivers to automated highway driving.
http://www.ccjdigital.com/ooid...
https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/hour...
http://www.overdriveonline.com...
http://www.trucknews.com/featu...
Of course Canada takes every 'great' American idea and parrots it http://www.trucknews.com/trans...
So AFAIC the real culprits for faster automation of highway drivers are found in the government.
Automation will drive down pricing and this means increasing competition and it does favour capital, so yes, the ones with the foresight to grow their fleet will win and the ones who do not understand the trend will lose their driving gig, but it means that people with more business sense will survive in this business, which is a great thing for everybody, the economy wins with much lower delivery costs. The long distance drivers will be able to do much more driving of the trucks within cities because many more trucks will be on the road with automation.
Removing one of the 3 major cost components from the equation (fuel cost, labour cost, truck cost) will bring prices down allowing people to buy more trucks. I fully expect more trucks on the road, not fewer when the automation takes over but this means that the long haul drivers will be converting to local driving because local point to point delivery.
Eventually it is hopefully possible to replace all forms of truck driving with full automation (not in the next few years but possibly in the next few decades, maybe 25-40 years from now there will only be 5-10% of the current truck drivers on the road) but that means we are all much better off with much lower transportation costs.
More fucked than buggy-whip makers.
- hold on, a large number of the truckers are owner-operators, you are talking about people who are themselves drivers and they own (lease/finance/own) their vehicle and they find their jobs on job boards and such. So what you saying is that the drivers are fucked because they will install devices into their trucks that will drive the trucks for them. These are now people who will be able to drive 24/7 as opposed to being kept from driving by their logbooks (when they are supposed to take their breaks).
So in reality the people who own the trucks will be better off, some percentage of the drivers for hire who do not have their vehicles will become obsolete at some point, so don't be a driver for hire, make sure to own your truck, which is your business.
and it's not to put a stop to everybody's fun. It's because people were being abused.
- no, that's irrelevant, it's not because 'people were abused', many people are abused in many ways and this includes abuse by government. This is because governments are made of politicians that buy power from the mob with giving out promises and 'free' stuff. Governments should not be regulating any businesses at all for any purpose. There shouldn't be any income or property related taxes either. Government should only spend what they can get in taxes and shouldn't run deficits. Governments should scale down with every economic downturn and not choose winners and losers, not print money, not manipulate markets and interest rates, not destroy individual freedoms. Yet they do all of that and people are constantly surprised at the economic disasters that follow.
No, my reasoning is correct. Given the number of applicants per position, WM could easily fill all those positions at much lower wages.
The fact that those jobs are low paying jobs does not mean that the people hire to do them are underpaid, they are overpaid for the jobs that they are hired for, otherwise there wouldn't be a line up of applicants.
Yes but farming is already pretty much fully automated. A few people can run gigantic farms today already with the machinery that they have, in the near future the machinery will become more and more autonomous, allowing the same few farmers to run larger and larger farms.
I don't know what the true state of Australian economy is, so I cannot argue on that. I can however tell you that Singapore has some of the lowest unemployment rates on the planet and it has no minimum wage at all. My point is that the minimum wage in itself does not dictate the entire picture but it does make the problem worse for the economies that are already mostly hiring in the service sectors.
I have a software business, I have some people working for me in a Western country and they are paid above the legal minimum wage.
However I have a number of people working for me in the Ukraine and there I am paying a much lower wage than I would have to pay in a Western country (though by the local standards it's many times the average). I could not hire as many people in a Western country as I have employed in the Ukraine because the amount of money I can spend on employees is limited to my revenues.
If suddenly I had to pay an American minimum wage to all of my employees, I would have to fire a large number of them and that would be that, it's really not that complicated to understand.
Now, we are not talking about skilled professionals in this thread, we are talking about grilling cheese and to do that type of work there are literally millions of people that could fill in the position. Given the fact that multiple people apply for any given position (for example Walmart gets hundreds of applications per job offer) it stands to reason that the companies are overpaying their hires when they are forced to pay them the minimum wage but also it means the companies are hiring fewer workers because they spend more per worker.
Now again, if you look at the actual economic situation in the States you will observe falling productivity among the workers and thus falling purchasing power, which translates into scaling down of the businesses. The minimum wage prevents many from being hired who could be hired.
I am actually not saying that the minimum wage all by itself leads to an economic collapse, I am saying that in the conditions where the economy is collapsing minimum wage is adding to the suffering of the common people. Companies will deal, will have fewer workers, will outsource, will automate and many will shut down. The more companies shut down the fewer opportunities for work there will be, given these circumstances what gives the politicians the idea that the fewer remaining businesses have more money to spend on low skilled employees?
She is useless as a politician but I do like this quite a lot:
- promised to raise the taxes on the MIDDLE CLASS because 'its time they pay their fair share'
and this
- Publicly call EVERY SINGLE ONE of your opponents supporters as the absolute DREGS of society (supporters you would want to sway to your side and win their vote btw)
- at least one politician who dared to tell it the way it should be told.