Minimum Wage --Prevents-- Wealth Acquisition!

[Dad2three]

"Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."

Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN'T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?

A Yes.


PLEASE NAME THE LAW REQUIRING OVER HALF OF MORTGAGES TO BE SUBPRIME/LOW DOC LOANS IN 2006? PRETTY PLEASE?



Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them. And then they sold the loan and risk to investors and GSEs clamoring for the loans. Actually banks, pension funds, investment banks and other investors clamored for them. Bush forced Freddie and Fannie to buy an additional $440 billion in mortgages in the secondary market.


June 17, 2004


Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan


NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.


Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004


Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge?

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative


Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

Actually there were laws in force since the Carter Administration, in the 70s.

In practice, they gave the 3 most powerful (but non-productive) credit rating corporations free reign over the US economy.

Basically, via federal law, all of the 3 major credit reporting agencies decided who was credit-worthy enough to get a loan to buy real estate. Any bank was allowed to give someone a loan, and any insurance company was disallowed from saying, "Hey! this is bullshit!" to those people who obviously can't afford the payments to buy that house.

Didn't matter to the loan company salesmen because they are paid by commission. The more loans they approve, the more moola they get. And the insurance agents had the same motivation. Greed. The more insurance policies they sell, the more money they get paid.

Hell at least you get points for originality Bubba, lol

Hint NO FEDERAL LAW GAVE ANY COMP (MUCH LESS THE CREDIT RATING AGENCIES) " all of the 3 major credit reporting agencies decided who was credit-worthy enough to get a loan to buy real estate"

THAT'S NONSENSE

You just think it's nonsense because you're clueless.

Right Bubba

Eat my shit Leroy,

The main reason why people like you stay stupid is not merely your genetics, It's because you cannot admit when you are wrong.

Your projection noted Bubs, as well as ZERO attempt to back up YOUR nonsense

 

[Dad2three]

"Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."

Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN'T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?

A Yes.


PLEASE NAME THE LAW REQUIRING OVER HALF OF MORTGAGES TO BE SUBPRIME/LOW DOC LOANS IN 2006? PRETTY PLEASE?



Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them. And then they sold the loan and risk to investors and GSEs clamoring for the loans. Actually banks, pension funds, investment banks and other investors clamored for them. Bush forced Freddie and Fannie to buy an additional $440 billion in mortgages in the secondary market.


June 17, 2004


Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan


NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.


Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004


Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge?

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative


Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

Actually there were laws in force since the Carter Administration, in the 70s.

In practice, they gave the 3 most powerful (but non-productive) credit rating corporations free reign over the US economy.

Basically, via federal law, all of the 3 major credit reporting agencies decided who was credit-worthy enough to get a loan to buy real estate. Any bank was allowed to give someone a loan, and any insurance company was disallowed from saying, "Hey! this is bullshit!" to those people who obviously can't afford the payments to buy that house.

Didn't matter to the loan company salesmen because they are paid by commission. The more loans they approve, the more moola they get. And the insurance agents had the same motivation. Greed. The more insurance policies they sell, the more money they get paid.

Hell at least you get points for originality Bubba, lol

Hint NO FEDERAL LAW GAVE ANY COMP (MUCH LESS THE CREDIT RATING AGENCIES) " all of the 3 major credit reporting agencies decided who was credit-worthy enough to get a loan to buy real estate"

THAT'S NONSENSE

You just think it's nonsense because you're clueless.

Right Bubba

Eat my shit Leroy,

The main reason why people like you stay stupid is not merely your genetics, It's because you cannot admit when you are wrong.

Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse


2004 Republican Convention:

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...

Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."



2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 35-1+ which flooded the market with cheap money!

Bush drive for home ownership fueled housing bubble


He insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac meet ambitious new goals for low-income lending.

Concerned that down payments were a barrier, Bush persuaded Congress to spend as much as $200 million a year to help first-time buyers with down payments and closing costs.

And he pushed to allow first-time buyers to qualify for government insured mortgages with no money down


Why can't conservative learn from their past mistakes? Why do they have to keep doing the same thing over and over and getting the same results?




Again, the Bush Administration gutted the White Collar Crime Division after 911.

The bureau slashed its criminal investigative work force to expand its national security role after the Sept. 11 attacks, shifting more than 1,800 agents, or nearly one-third of all agents in criminal programs, to terrorism and intelligence duties. Prosecutions of frauds against financial institutions dropped 48 percent from 2000 to 2007, insurance fraud cases plummeted 75 percent, and securities fraud cases dropped 17 percent.

This is what less government can look like. So, mention this to your Ron Paul supporter friends, k? Without the help of FBI Whitecollar Investigators, the fraudsters are free to rampage.




More from the NYtimes:
During these years, the bureau asked for an increase of $800 million, but received only $50 million more. In the 2007 budget cycle, the F.B.I. obtained money for a total of one new agent for criminal investigations.
In 2004, one senior F.B.I. official, Chris Swecker, warned publicly that a flood of fraudulent mortgage deals had the potential to become “an epidemic.”


Yet the next year, as public warnings about fraud in the subprime lending markets began to approach their height, the F.B.I. had the equivalent of only 15 full-time agents devoted to mortgage fraud out of a total of some 13,000 agents in the bureau.

That number has grown to 177 agents, who have opened 1,522 cases. But the staffing level is still hundreds of agents below the levels seen in the 1980s during the savings and loan crisis.


Shockingly, the FBI clearly makes the case for the need to combat mortgage fraud in 2005, the height of the housing crisis:


Financial Crimes Report to the Public 2005

The Bush Rubber Stamp Congress ignored the obvious and extremely detailed and well reported crime spree by the FBI.



This helps explain why many of the FBI and DOJ cases now being addressed are for crimes committed WHEN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION and CONGRESS stripped the White Collar Crime divisions of money and manpower.

FACTS on Dubya's great recession | Page 2 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Minimum Wage --Prevents-- Wealth Acquisition!"

Conservatism – Prevents – Critical Thinking!

 

[Dad2three]

"Minimum Wage --Prevents-- Wealth Acquisition!"

Conservatism – Prevents – Critical Thinking!

Conservative Politics, 'Low-Effort' Thinking Linked In New Study

Shocking New Study Ties Conservatism To 'Low-Effort' Thinking


Study: Conservatism Is Lack Of Complexity In Political Brain


Good news for conservatives as a compilation of four recent social psychology studies demonstrate that rather than necessarily being pathological, political conservatism is promoted when people rely on low-effort thinking.

In the four studies conducted by Scott Eidelman, Christian S. Crandall, Jeffrey A. Goodman, and John C. Blanchar published by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc, they concluded, “(P)olitical conservatism is promoted when people rely on low-effort thinking. When effortful, deliberate responding is disrupted or disengaged, thought processes become quick and efficient; these conditions promote conservative ideology… low-effort thought might promote political conservatism because its concepts are easier to process, and processing fluency increases attitude endorsement.”

In other words, complex thinking makes their heads hurt, so they don't do it!

 

[Boss]

Had the US let mexico develop on its own instead making it a trading partner those 20 or 40 million would be in the other side of the border .
Still over your head Ed ?

1000% stupid and liberal as always. Mexico and all of Central South America were always dirt poor and always were coming here. How stupid are you? They are here only because liberals want their vote and because Trump hasn't built his wall yet!! It has nothing to do with NAFTA you total moron.

Yes , Mexico has allways been a poor country.

Try corralating this two images :
A) The purchasing power of mexican wages start collapsing after 1976, which causes immigration to start rising
B) By 1984 wages start to recover
C) In 1994 they collapse again , and never recover their pre-nafta levels

The number of illegals tripled after NAFTA from 4 to 12 million. The cause is the collapse in purchasing power.
But NAFTA has not helped at all in recovering that purchasing power.

Look at how immigration explodes after 1990 and it doesn't stop until Dubya's crisis. Oh , you can thank him on that he, single handedly halted immigration.

On top of that many small corn producers were displaced by cheap corn imports comming from the USA.
It is mostly peasents flooding the USA.

Why are you dishonestly showing graphs regarding legal immigrants from Mexico? No one is opposed to Mexican-born Americans. The argument is not about Mexican-born people. You have seemingly been a reasonable person in other threads. Someone with a little more intelligence than the average liberal and I appreciate that... but this is not characteristic of you, to be promoting a false liberal meme that Republicans are somehow racist against Mexicans. That OUR problem is them dirty Mexicans stinking up the place. No one I know has made that argument, at least not on a mainstream national stage. So why are we continuing to see this 'bait and switch' tactic?

Had the US let mexico develop on its own instead making it a trading partner those 20 or 40 million would be in the other side of the border .
Still over your head Ed ?

1000% stupid and liberal as always. Mexico and all of Central South America were always dirt poor and always were coming here. How stupid are you? They are here only because liberals want their vote and because Trump hasn't built his wall yet!! It has nothing to do with NAFTA you total moron.

Yes , Mexico has allways been a poor country.

Try corralating this two images :
A) The purchasing power of mexican wages start collapsing after 1976, which causes immigration to start rising
B) By 1984 wages start to recover
C) In 1994 they collapse again , and never recover their pre-nafta levels

The number of illegals tripled after NAFTA from 4 to 12 million. The cause is the collapse in purchasing power.
But NAFTA has not helped at all in recovering that purchasing power.

Look at how immigration explodes after 1990 and it doesn't stop until Dubya's crisis. Oh , you can thank him on that he, single handedly halted immigration.

On top of that many small corn producers were displaced by cheap corn imports comming from the USA.
It is mostly peasents flooding the USA.

Why are you dishonestly showing graphs regarding legal immigrants from Mexico? No one is opposed to Mexican-born Americans. The argument is not about Mexican-born people. You have seemingly been a reasonable person in other threads. Someone with a little more intelligence than the average liberal and I appreciate that... but this is not characteristic of you, to be promoting a false liberal meme that Republicans are somehow racist against Mexicans. That OUR problem is them dirty Mexicans stinking up the place. No one I know has made that argument, at least not on a mainstream national stage. So why are we continuing to see this 'bait and switch' tactic?

Boss,
No foul play there : The chart doesn't specify whether that mexican-born population arrived legaly or illegaly into the US.

But let's be honest , most of them are illegal ( I am actually having a hard time finding any data on legal residents , it's probably somehere in the census bureau ) . So here is another chart with allmost the same data , covering a different period of time.

Now , back to my base argument : NAFTA didn't fullfill its promise, increasing the number of wages and the purchasing power in Mexico, hence the continued migration ( that is what I was arguing with special Ed ) .

5 facts about illegal immigration in the U.S.

I don't have any charts or graphics to show you. I am sure you can find the ones which show how many US jobs have gone to Mexico since NAFTA. I assume each of these jobs is more than likely filled by an actual Mexican as opposed to an illegal American immigrant. And I know that it's a job which probably pays more than that Mexican has ever earned and he does it with pride. I think this might deter that person's inclination to break the law and become an illegal alien.

As I said, if there is any good to come from NAFTA, that would be it. If you want to argue that even THAT is no good, meh... fine... I don't really care enough to argue about it to be honest.

 

[Boss]

SURE IS FUKKN WEIRD, YOUR THEORY DIDN'T SEEM TO WORK PRE MIN WAGE IN THE US RIGHT BUBS? lol

Well it seemed to work from 1642 until 1933.

Sure Bubba, PRE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION ON FARMS? lol


Hint there was about 80% of the nation living in ABJECT poverty pre PROGRESSIVE POLICIES LIKE MIN WAGE, SS, UNION RIGHTS, ETC. Grow up and grow a brain and get off your Randian fetish that has NEVER been used successfully EVER ANYWHERE!

In 1933, we were suffering from an economic depression.

Not much different than the one in 1893.

The Democrats and President Cleveland were blamed for the depression. The decline of the gold reserves stored in the Treasury fell to a dangerously low level. This forced President Cleveland to borrow $65 million in gold from Wall-Street banker J.P. Morgan and the Rothschild banking family of England[14] to support the gold standard.[15] In the ensuing 1894 elections, the Democrats and Populists lost heavily. The election marked the largest Republican gains in history.[16]

Many of the western silver mines closed, and many never re-opened. A significant number of western mountain narrow-gauge railroads, built to serve the mines, went out of business. The Denver and Rio Grande Railroad stopped its ambitious plan, then under way, to convert its system from narrow gauge to standard gauge.

The depression was a major issue in the debate over bimetallism. The Republicans blamed the Democrats for the depression and scored a landslide victory in the 1894 state and Congressional elections. The Populists lost most of their strength and had to support the Democrats in 1896. Thepresidential election of 1896 was fought on economic issues and the pro-gold, high-tariff Republicans led by William McKinley won a decisive victory over the pro-silver candidate William Jennings Bryan.

The U.S. economy began to recover in 1897. After the election of Republican McKinley, confidence was restored with the Klondike gold rush and the economy began 10 years of rapid growth, until the panic of 1907.
==============================================================

Up until the Great Depression, this was the worst depression we'd ever seen.

A different party won during the Great Depression and we got Progressive policies like the Minimum Wage. Which, after 82 years, still has not worked to create the "living wage" promised by FDR. Instead it has baselined labor costs across the board and hampered the ability of the individual to negotiate. It fixed a uniform price for unskilled labor instead of leaving this between arbitration of two parties and the free market laws of supply and demand.

 

[theliq]

Various.........Manufacturing(Export and Home) Retail,and Food Products..steve.......Here,business manages itself mainly but Wheat,Iron Ore and Metals etc.,Live Cattle and Sheep Exports plus food production do have Government standards which are Very Stringent Indeed, both for Home and Overseas markets.

Sorry you misunderstood me, I read Australia had different minimum wages for different trades And profession, for example for fast food workers there in Australia MW was $15 bucks, I was curious what trade pays $26

I'm with you now.......Bear, the minimum wage should be circa $18,but companies like 7Eleven,Makkas etc under pay ...we always pay top $ for our employees,we demand the Best and pay accordingly.......the starting pay is $26 at the moment,5 Weeks holidays and pay super.........plus other benefits....We have a very high retention rate of keeping staff and excellent team members....we have always said "You are only as good as your weakest link in business,we train extensively and weakness is only the odd occasion for us"but you have to work at it.

Where a lot of businesses want to pay as little as possible..we are the reverse....and it has been good for us and our team collectively.....steve.......Commitment and Self Motivation and Honesty is all we ask for...It works for us and always has it is not unusual to have three generations working

Thanks wish their was more people like you/your company that understood it.

Over the years Bear,we have gone into businesses that are failing,often at the State Governments behest,It's the same old story where staff are cut to the bone when things get tough......causing total demotivation,worry and failure..........we turn some around but with others it's too late...........A lot of Business people are very poor at business in my opinion,often the work force are better equipped ........For me it all started when I was 4,my Mom was widowed at the aged of 28 with 6 kinder......growing up we looked after each other,we had a very happy childhood and unbreakable solidarity which has lasted a life time,I'm pleased to say......... It in a way was the best form of Socialism........and we took this attitude into business,I was a millionaire at 23 but I have never been motivated by money,money comes if you work very hard....I had Great satisfaction when we purchased a home for Mom overlooking the Ocean at 25

I do many seminars on motivation all fees goes to charity,I was once asked by Dr Vincent Peel the Great American Motivational Speaker to join his company in America in the early days,which I declinded.........Everyone though I was a fool but I didn't,I had another agenda completely.

My best advice to anyone is to think this....."IF IT IS TO BE,IT IS UP TO ME"................Although I am getting on a bit.....I will never retire because I have been retired all my life..my working life has never been a JOB...never being accountable to anyone(except the little Lady LOL) but myself...it has made for a Happy Life

Thanks by your sincerely on here I believe you are the real deal, not like all these other American pretend leftist millionaires and business owners I met on these political forums.

I have been in injection molding for 30 years and I know the business on the production floor A to Z, held every position and at this this age of my life all I want to do is fix machines, program robots, teach young employees and the like.

I was never motivated by money but my love of trying to be the best.

The company I work for now, it's like family to me, last week I was offered a job by an old boss for $8 bucks more an hour, I told him no and he up it to $10 bucks more an hour, I thought about it and still turned him down.

This what kind of ticks me off, my company has 8 plants and could afford to have better pay (note I am not really complaing because I make around $75,000 a year with overtime) and don't see why they don't, my operators would be more happy even though they make twice the minimum wage.
Again I wish their was more business owners like you in this world.

But I hate the American left's attitude, that they want the goverment to make a law to force company's to pay higher wages. That's what I don't like they don't understand in America half the business is run by small business owners not by millionaires.

I have been trying to tell my Fellow americans forget about raising the MW
Pass a law that a CEO or business owner couldn't make like 100 times more then his lowest employee

My reasons for this are the following:

1. It would help start up company's compete with the giant cooperation

2, People that work for giant company's would be making not $12 bucks an hour but let's just say $30 bucks an hour ... They can build up capitol to start their own company's

3. People like me with our talents some of us would stay with "family" a "team" and help our owners build up the small company..... Sure at first we would be played less... But the pay off would be great.....it would be a rising tide that raises all ships.


Please give me your thoughts sir....

BTW the way nice talking to you
.

Bear,I like nearly all of us started at 17 working for someone else......the company I first worked for had masses of old Debt (over 5 years) and were going to write it off.....I spoke to the Boss and said I would retrieve the Debt if I received 34% of the Debt (I worked out that if I asked for too high a % he would not go for it,which he later confirmed to me)...I have always loved negotiating but it has to be fair and equitable to both sides.

Within 4 months I had earned enough money to pay for a house,within 12 months I had purchased a second one(the Debt collecting was nothing to do with my day job) I will elucidate one Debt Collection I garnered...on the first day....It was a Bikies home and he had a brand new Harley parked on his property,beautiful machine which I admired greatly.......well out of my pay scale!!!!!!!!!!!LOL...........I knocked on the door (at this point I must admit I was pretty street wise and knew the "Coffin Cheaters Chapter did all the Drug running(Hash in those days and Uppers and Downers)anyhow two women came to the door lightly clothed,tank tops and skimpy flannel shorts(remember them),Tattoo's all over their bodies..flashing their Tits,and lovely they were,well I was a highly testosteroned sic 17 year old don't forget..2BContinued..have a meeting Bear

 

[Dad2three]

SURE IS FUKKN WEIRD, YOUR THEORY DIDN'T SEEM TO WORK PRE MIN WAGE IN THE US RIGHT BUBS? lol

Well it seemed to work from 1642 until 1933.

Sure Bubba, PRE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION ON FARMS? lol


Hint there was about 80% of the nation living in ABJECT poverty pre PROGRESSIVE POLICIES LIKE MIN WAGE, SS, UNION RIGHTS, ETC. Grow up and grow a brain and get off your Randian fetish that has NEVER been used successfully EVER ANYWHERE!

In 1933, we were suffering from an economic depression.

Not much different than the one in 1893.

The Democrats and President Cleveland were blamed for the depression. The decline of the gold reserves stored in the Treasury fell to a dangerously low level. This forced President Cleveland to borrow $65 million in gold from Wall-Street banker J.P. Morgan and the Rothschild banking family of England[14] to support the gold standard.[15] In the ensuing 1894 elections, the Democrats and Populists lost heavily. The election marked the largest Republican gains in history.[16]

Many of the western silver mines closed, and many never re-opened. A significant number of western mountain narrow-gauge railroads, built to serve the mines, went out of business. The Denver and Rio Grande Railroad stopped its ambitious plan, then under way, to convert its system from narrow gauge to standard gauge.

The depression was a major issue in the debate over bimetallism. The Republicans blamed the Democrats for the depression and scored a landslide victory in the 1894 state and Congressional elections. The Populists lost most of their strength and had to support the Democrats in 1896. Thepresidential election of 1896 was fought on economic issues and the pro-gold, high-tariff Republicans led by William McKinley won a decisive victory over the pro-silver candidate William Jennings Bryan.

The U.S. economy began to recover in 1897. After the election of Republican McKinley, confidence was restored with the Klondike gold rush and the economy began 10 years of rapid growth, until the panic of 1907.
==============================================================

Up until the Great Depression, this was the worst depression we'd ever seen.

A different party won during the Great Depression and we got Progressive policies like the Minimum Wage. Which, after 82 years, still has not worked to create the "living wage" promised by FDR. Instead it has baselined labor costs across the board and hampered the ability of the individual to negotiate. It fixed a uniform price for unskilled labor instead of leaving this between arbitration of two parties and the free market laws of supply and demand.

Prez Cleveland? Oh right NOT the PROGRESSIVE GOP Party of Abe, AND?


Cleveland was the leader of the pro-business Bourbon Democrats who opposed high tariffs, Free Silver, inflation, imperialism, and subsidies to business, farmers, or veterans. His crusade for political reform and fiscal conservatism made him an icon for American conservatives of the era.


Cleveland won praise for his honesty, self-reliance, integrity, and commitment to the principles of classical liberalism

Grover Cleveland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Grover Cleveland was the 22nd and 24th President of the United States of America, elected in 1884 and 1892. He was the representative conservative leader of the Gilded Age, and headed the Bourbon Democrats.

He was elected in 1884, defeated for reelection in 1888, then elected to a second term in 1892. Cleveland was the only Democrat elected president between James Buchanan in 1856 and Woodrow Wilson in 1912.

Cleveland was best known in his time for his honesty and courage, his leadership of the business-oriented Bourbon Democrats, and his opposition to the leftist forces that were overwhelming the Democratic party. In the 21st century some conservatives praise his values. Cleveland supported the gold standard and lower tariffs, and opposed imperialism, corruption, patronage, veterans' pensions, high taxes and silver-based inflation. Some historians point out that Cleveland was the last small government president the Democrats ever elected


Grover Cleveland - Conservapedia



CONservatives MODERN GOP Great depression


The Great Depression (1929-39) was the deepest and longest-lasting economic downturn in the history of the Western industrialized world. In the United States, the Great Depression began soon after the stock market crash of October 1929, which sent Wall Street into a panic and wiped out millions of investors.


The Great Depression Deepens: Bank Runs and the Hoover Administration

Despite assurances from President Herbert Hoover and other leaders that the crisis would run its course, matters continued to get worse over the next three years. By 1930, 4 million Americans looking for work could not find it; that number had risen to 6 million in 1931. Meanwhile, the country’s industrial production had dropped by half.

FDR Addresses the Great Depression with the New Deal


Hoover, a Republican who had formerly served as U.S. secretary of commerce, believed that government should not directly intervene in the economy, and that it did not have the responsibility to create jobs or provide economic relief for its citizens...

The Great Depression - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com


FDR:




“By living wages, I mean more than a bare subsistence level — I mean the wages of a decent living.” (1933, Statement on National Industrial Recovery Act)



“All but the hopelessly reactionary will agree that to conserve our primary resources of man power, government must have some control over maximum hours, minimum wages, the evil of child labor and the exploitation of unorganized labor.” (1937, Message to Congress upon introduction of the Fair Labor Standards Act)

 

[CultureCitizen]

I don't have any charts or graphics to show you. I am sure you can find the ones which show how many US jobs have gone to Mexico since NAFTA. I assume each of these jobs is more than likely filled by an actual Mexican as opposed to an illegal American immigrant. And I know that it's a job which probably pays more than that Mexican has ever earned and he does it with pride. I think this might deter that person's inclination to break the law and become an illegal alien.

As I said, if there is any good to come from NAFTA, that would be it. If you want to argue that even THAT is no good, meh... fine... I don't really care enough to argue about it to be honest.

Well , yea , I found some stats. Jobwise the figures aren't impresive :

From the first link:
"Such outcomes include a staggering $181 billion U.S. trade deficit with NAFTA partners Mexico and Canada and the related loss of 1 million net U.S. jobs under NAFTA, growing income inequality, displacement of more than one million Mexican campesino farmers and a doubling of desperate immigration from Mexico, and more than $360 million paid to corporations after "investor-state" tribunal attacks on, and rollbacks of, domestic public interest policies"

From the secon link:
"NAFTA affected U.S. workers in four principal ways. First, it caused the loss of some 700,000 jobs as production moved to Mexico."

So at most 1 million jobs, it doesn't seem like a significant figure in a 20 year period ... But what about the displaced "campesinos" the first article quotes? apparently there's a million of them too . That makes the NAFTA employment net gain zero for mexicans.

Now how many jobs have been lost to illegal immigration ? 11 million by conservative figures ? That's an awful burden for any country to carry.

The bottom line :
US workers have not ripped off any benefit from Nafta, nor Mexican workers . The average income for the bottom 50% of the population have stagnated at both sides of the border.

NAFTA at 20: One Million U.S. Jobs Lost, Higher Income Inequality
NAFTA’s Impact on U.S. Workers | Economic Policy Institute

Addendum
And yes, those million workers are honest and hardworking and earn about 4 times the minimum wage. I saw that firsthand while working for Thomson Inc at Juarez .

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The bottom line :
US workers have not ripped off any benefit from Nafta, nor Mexican workers . The average income for the bottom 50% of the population have stagnated at both sides of the border.

a liberal will always be 100% stupid of course!! The object of commerce is not to please workers but to please customers who are seeking to increase their standard of living with better products at lower prices purchased freely.

Imagine if one country protected its horse and buggy workers so they wouldn't lose their high paying jobs and another country engaged in Republican free trade.
Which country would become second rate and soon be defeated militarily!

 

[Andylusion]

I don't have any charts or graphics to show you. I am sure you can find the ones which show how many US jobs have gone to Mexico since NAFTA. I assume each of these jobs is more than likely filled by an actual Mexican as opposed to an illegal American immigrant. And I know that it's a job which probably pays more than that Mexican has ever earned and he does it with pride. I think this might deter that person's inclination to break the law and become an illegal alien.

As I said, if there is any good to come from NAFTA, that would be it. If you want to argue that even THAT is no good, meh... fine... I don't really care enough to argue about it to be honest.

Well , yea , I found some stats. Jobwise the figures aren't impresive :

From the first link:
"Such outcomes include a staggering $181 billion U.S. trade deficit with NAFTA partners Mexico and Canada and the related loss of 1 million net U.S. jobs under NAFTA, growing income inequality, displacement of more than one million Mexican campesino farmers and a doubling of desperate immigration from Mexico, and more than $360 million paid to corporations after "investor-state" tribunal attacks on, and rollbacks of, domestic public interest policies"

From the secon link:
"NAFTA affected U.S. workers in four principal ways. First, it caused the loss of some 700,000 jobs as production moved to Mexico."

So at most 1 million jobs, it doesn't seem like a significant figure in a 20 year period ... But what about the displaced "campesinos" the first article quotes? apparently there's a million of them too . That makes the NAFTA employment net gain zero for mexicans.

Now how many jobs have been lost to illegal immigration ? 11 million by conservative figures ? That's an awful burden for any country to carry.

The bottom line :
US workers have not ripped off any benefit from Nafta, nor Mexican workers . The average income for the bottom 50% of the population have stagnated at both sides of the border.

NAFTA at 20: One Million U.S. Jobs Lost, Higher Income Inequality
NAFTA’s Impact on U.S. Workers | Economic Policy Institute

Addendum
And yes, those million workers are honest and hardworking and earn about 4 times the minimum wage. I saw that firsthand while working for Thomson Inc at Juarez .

But how many jobs were created by NAFTA?

If you only look at one side of the argument, you can convince yourself of anything. The moon is made of cheese if you only look at one side of the argument.

The Effects of NAFTA on Exports, Jobs, and the Environment: Myth vs. Reality

America's NAFTA partners were Missouri's top export markets in 1998, with exports of $1.6 billion to Canada and $1.2 billion to Mexico, according to the Commerce Department. They were also the top two export markets for Georgia, Indiana, Michigan, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania in 1998.4
"Sales of U.S. corn to Canada increased more than 127 percent in volume between 1990 and 2000 and increased nearly eighteenfold to Mexico during 1993 to 2000," according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which adds that "NAFTA partners purchase 27 percent of U.S. agricultural exports."5
U.S. exports to Mexico of motor vehicles in 1998 were 14 times greater than in 1993, rising to $2.4 billion. Exports of parts were 30 percent greater, reaching $9.5 billion.6

Moreover:

After a five-year analysis of NAFTA, the Department of Commerce concluded:
We estimate U.S. exports to Canada and Mexico support over 600,000 more jobs now than in 1993. U.S. exports to Canada support an estimated 1.7 million jobs, over 300,000 more jobs than in 1993. Exports to Mexico in 1998 supported almost a million jobs, up over 350,000 jobs from 1993. jobs supported by exports pay 13 to 16 percent more than other U.S. jobs.

Again, out of the past dozen jobs I've had.... the majority would not exist without exports, and imports. We're selling internationally, but primarily to free-trade countries. That trade would not exist if we had tariffs, and I know this because we sell very little right now to countries where we have tariffs.

Trade with Mexico and Canada under NAFTA has dramatically increased, which includes exports.... exports that have created jobs.

Those jobs go away if you engage in protectionism. Our company would dramatically shrink, if not completely close without trade. The cost of production would go up, while the demand for our production would go down.

Bad idea.

 

[Dad2three]

I don't have any charts or graphics to show you. I am sure you can find the ones which show how many US jobs have gone to Mexico since NAFTA. I assume each of these jobs is more than likely filled by an actual Mexican as opposed to an illegal American immigrant. And I know that it's a job which probably pays more than that Mexican has ever earned and he does it with pride. I think this might deter that person's inclination to break the law and become an illegal alien.

As I said, if there is any good to come from NAFTA, that would be it. If you want to argue that even THAT is no good, meh... fine... I don't really care enough to argue about it to be honest.

Well , yea , I found some stats. Jobwise the figures aren't impresive :

From the first link:
"Such outcomes include a staggering $181 billion U.S. trade deficit with NAFTA partners Mexico and Canada and the related loss of 1 million net U.S. jobs under NAFTA, growing income inequality, displacement of more than one million Mexican campesino farmers and a doubling of desperate immigration from Mexico, and more than $360 million paid to corporations after "investor-state" tribunal attacks on, and rollbacks of, domestic public interest policies"

From the secon link:
"NAFTA affected U.S. workers in four principal ways. First, it caused the loss of some 700,000 jobs as production moved to Mexico."

So at most 1 million jobs, it doesn't seem like a significant figure in a 20 year period ... But what about the displaced "campesinos" the first article quotes? apparently there's a million of them too . That makes the NAFTA employment net gain zero for mexicans.

Now how many jobs have been lost to illegal immigration ? 11 million by conservative figures ? That's an awful burden for any country to carry.

The bottom line :
US workers have not ripped off any benefit from Nafta, nor Mexican workers . The average income for the bottom 50% of the population have stagnated at both sides of the border.

NAFTA at 20: One Million U.S. Jobs Lost, Higher Income Inequality
NAFTA’s Impact on U.S. Workers | Economic Policy Institute

Addendum
And yes, those million workers are honest and hardworking and earn about 4 times the minimum wage. I saw that firsthand while working for Thomson Inc at Juarez .

But how many jobs were created by NAFTA?

If you only look at one side of the argument, you can convince yourself of anything. The moon is made of cheese if you only look at one side of the argument.

The Effects of NAFTA on Exports, Jobs, and the Environment: Myth vs. Reality

America's NAFTA partners were Missouri's top export markets in 1998, with exports of $1.6 billion to Canada and $1.2 billion to Mexico, according to the Commerce Department. They were also the top two export markets for Georgia, Indiana, Michigan, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania in 1998.4
"Sales of U.S. corn to Canada increased more than 127 percent in volume between 1990 and 2000 and increased nearly eighteenfold to Mexico during 1993 to 2000," according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which adds that "NAFTA partners purchase 27 percent of U.S. agricultural exports."5
U.S. exports to Mexico of motor vehicles in 1998 were 14 times greater than in 1993, rising to $2.4 billion. Exports of parts were 30 percent greater, reaching $9.5 billion.6

Moreover:

After a five-year analysis of NAFTA, the Department of Commerce concluded:
We estimate U.S. exports to Canada and Mexico support over 600,000 more jobs now than in 1993. U.S. exports to Canada support an estimated 1.7 million jobs, over 300,000 more jobs than in 1993. Exports to Mexico in 1998 supported almost a million jobs, up over 350,000 jobs from 1993. jobs supported by exports pay 13 to 16 percent more than other U.S. jobs.

Again, out of the past dozen jobs I've had.... the majority would not exist without exports, and imports. We're selling internationally, but primarily to free-trade countries. That trade would not exist if we had tariffs, and I know this because we sell very little right now to countries where we have tariffs.

Trade with Mexico and Canada under NAFTA has dramatically increased, which includes exports.... exports that have created jobs.

Those jobs go away if you engage in protectionism. Our company would dramatically shrink, if not completely close without trade. The cost of production would go up, while the demand for our production would go down.

Bad idea.

Dec 9, 2013


The North American Free Trade Agreement (NATFA) was the door through which American workers were shoved into the neoliberal global labor market.

By establishing the principle that U.S. corporations could relocate production elsewhere and sell back into the United States, NAFTA undercut the bargaining power of American workers, which had driven the expansion of the middle class since the end of World War II. The result has been 20 years of stagnant wages and the upward redistribution of income, wealth and political power.

NAFTA affected U.S. workers in four principal ways. First, it caused the loss of some 700,000 jobs as production moved to Mexico. Most of these losses came in California, Texas, Michigan, and other states where manufacturing is concentrated. To be sure, there were some job gains along the border in service and retail sectors resulting from increased trucking activity, but these gains are small in relation to the loses, and are in lower paying occupations. The vast majority of workers who lost jobs from NAFTA suffered a permanent loss of income.


Second, NAFTA strengthened the ability of U.S. employers to force workers to accept lower wages and benefits...



Third, the destructive effect of NAFTA on the Mexican agricultural and small business sectors dislocated several million Mexican workers and their families, and was a major cause in the dramatic increase in undocumented workers flowing into the U.S. labor market. This put further downward pressure on U.S. wages, especially in the already lower paying market for less skilled labor.

Fourth, and ultimately most important, NAFTA was the template for rules of the emerging global economy, in which the benefits would flow to capital and the costs to labor.



...The NAFTA doctrine of socialism for capital and free markets for labor also drove U.S. policy in the Mexican peso crisis of 1994-95, the Asia financial crash of 1997 and the global financial meltdown of 2008. In each case, the U.S. government organized the rescue of the world’s bank and corporate investors, and let the workers fend for themselves.


NAFTA’s Impact on U.S. Workers | Economic Policy Institute


NAFTA Helps Multinationals While Hurting America

Some misguided individuals try to say that NAFTA has been a success. Usually they point to the fact that trade between the two countries has increased. Increased trade does not mean that either country is flourishing. The increased trade numbers seen from NAFTA do not mean that Mexican companies are selling more to Americans, or that American companies are selling more to Mexicans. The reality is that multinational corporations are exploiting the system to produce cheaply in Mexico and sell to Americans. This has not been good for either Mexican or American workers. While profits have been made, they have not translated into good jobs for workers.


NAFTA Helps Multinationals While Hurting America | Economy In Crisis



The Congressional Budget Office attempted a full-scale examination of NAFTA's economic consequences in 2003, and concluded that:

• U.S. trade with Mexico was growing before NAFTA's implementation, and would likely have continued to grow with or without the deal on a scale that "dwarfs the effects" of NAFTA itself;
• the direct effect of NAFTA on U.S.-Mexico trade is fairly small, and thus the direct impact on the U.S. labor market is also small; and
• overall, the NAFTA deal has only expanded U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) "very slightly," with a similarly small and positive effect on the Canadian and Mexican economies.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/42xx/doc4247/report.pdf



Bacon: NAFTA Hurt Workers on Both Sides of the Border

On the 20th anniversary of NAFTA, immigration and labor activist David Bacon says that the trade agreement created Mexican billionaires, kept Mexican workers' wages flat, destroyed US jobs - and revealed the need for worker solidarity across borders
Bacon: NAFTA Hurt Workers on Both Sides of the Border

 

[Dad2three]

I don't have any charts or graphics to show you. I am sure you can find the ones which show how many US jobs have gone to Mexico since NAFTA. I assume each of these jobs is more than likely filled by an actual Mexican as opposed to an illegal American immigrant. And I know that it's a job which probably pays more than that Mexican has ever earned and he does it with pride. I think this might deter that person's inclination to break the law and become an illegal alien.

As I said, if there is any good to come from NAFTA, that would be it. If you want to argue that even THAT is no good, meh... fine... I don't really care enough to argue about it to be honest.

Well , yea , I found some stats. Jobwise the figures aren't impresive :

From the first link:
"Such outcomes include a staggering $181 billion U.S. trade deficit with NAFTA partners Mexico and Canada and the related loss of 1 million net U.S. jobs under NAFTA, growing income inequality, displacement of more than one million Mexican campesino farmers and a doubling of desperate immigration from Mexico, and more than $360 million paid to corporations after "investor-state" tribunal attacks on, and rollbacks of, domestic public interest policies"

From the secon link:
"NAFTA affected U.S. workers in four principal ways. First, it caused the loss of some 700,000 jobs as production moved to Mexico."

So at most 1 million jobs, it doesn't seem like a significant figure in a 20 year period ... But what about the displaced "campesinos" the first article quotes? apparently there's a million of them too . That makes the NAFTA employment net gain zero for mexicans.

Now how many jobs have been lost to illegal immigration ? 11 million by conservative figures ? That's an awful burden for any country to carry.

The bottom line :
US workers have not ripped off any benefit from Nafta, nor Mexican workers . The average income for the bottom 50% of the population have stagnated at both sides of the border.

NAFTA at 20: One Million U.S. Jobs Lost, Higher Income Inequality
NAFTA’s Impact on U.S. Workers | Economic Policy Institute

Addendum
And yes, those million workers are honest and hardworking and earn about 4 times the minimum wage. I saw that firsthand while working for Thomson Inc at Juarez .

But how many jobs were created by NAFTA?

If you only look at one side of the argument, you can convince yourself of anything. The moon is made of cheese if you only look at one side of the argument.

The Effects of NAFTA on Exports, Jobs, and the Environment: Myth vs. Reality

America's NAFTA partners were Missouri's top export markets in 1998, with exports of $1.6 billion to Canada and $1.2 billion to Mexico, according to the Commerce Department. They were also the top two export markets for Georgia, Indiana, Michigan, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania in 1998.4
"Sales of U.S. corn to Canada increased more than 127 percent in volume between 1990 and 2000 and increased nearly eighteenfold to Mexico during 1993 to 2000," according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which adds that "NAFTA partners purchase 27 percent of U.S. agricultural exports."5
U.S. exports to Mexico of motor vehicles in 1998 were 14 times greater than in 1993, rising to $2.4 billion. Exports of parts were 30 percent greater, reaching $9.5 billion.6

Moreover:

After a five-year analysis of NAFTA, the Department of Commerce concluded:
We estimate U.S. exports to Canada and Mexico support over 600,000 more jobs now than in 1993. U.S. exports to Canada support an estimated 1.7 million jobs, over 300,000 more jobs than in 1993. Exports to Mexico in 1998 supported almost a million jobs, up over 350,000 jobs from 1993. jobs supported by exports pay 13 to 16 percent more than other U.S. jobs.

Again, out of the past dozen jobs I've had.... the majority would not exist without exports, and imports. We're selling internationally, but primarily to free-trade countries. That trade would not exist if we had tariffs, and I know this because we sell very little right now to countries where we have tariffs.

Trade with Mexico and Canada under NAFTA has dramatically increased, which includes exports.... exports that have created jobs.

Those jobs go away if you engage in protectionism. Our company would dramatically shrink, if not completely close without trade. The cost of production would go up, while the demand for our production would go down.

Bad idea.

NAFTA ’s Broken Promises 1994 - 2013:

Outcomes of the North American Free Trade Agreement In 1993, the North American Free Trade Agreement ( NAFTA ) was sold to the American public with grand promises. NAFTA would create tens of thousands of good jobs here. U.S. farmers would export their way to wealth. NAFTA would bring Mexico’s standard of living up, providing new economic opportunities there that would reduce immigration to the United States . NAFTA was an experiment , establishing a radically new “ trade ” agreement model .

http://www.citizen.org/documents/NAFTAs-Broken-Promises.pdf

 

[theliq]

The bottom line :
US workers have not ripped off any benefit from Nafta, nor Mexican workers . The average income for the bottom 50% of the population have stagnated at both sides of the border.

a liberal will always be 100% stupid of course!! The object of commerce is not to please workers but to please customers who are seeking to increase their standard of living with better products at lower prices purchased freely.

Imagine if one country protected its horse and buggy workers so they wouldn't lose their high paying jobs and another country engaged in Republican free trade.
Which country would become second rate and soon be defeated militarily!

A good business,pleases both clients and employees.....actually

 

[Boss]

Well , yea , I found some stats. Jobwise the figures aren't impresive :

It doesn't matter what you found. We're buying (importing) $50 billion more each year than we are selling (exporting) to Mexico. We began even. So this would indicate NAFTA has benefited Mexico more than us. Someone is producing the stuff, right? It's not magically materializing in Mexico without having to be produced by someone with a job.

 

[CultureCitizen]

So this would indicate NAFTA has benefited Mexico more than us. Someone is producing the stuff, right? It's not magically materializing in Mexico without having to be produced by someone with a job.

Right... and I know who is ripping off the benefits Carlos Slim more than anyone else and the 10 or 15 mexicans who made it into Forbes lists, plus several corrupt politicians.

None of them are living with minimum wage ( or any place near it ) . That would be trickle up economics.

So back to the topic of your thread : minimum wage prevents wealth aquisition :

Just from the microeconomy point of view I would say it depends on the shape of the supply and demand curves, and on how far the minimum is from the equilibrium point.
When labour is an important factor in the production cost, the work supply curve will tend to be steeper ( a roofer business )
When labour is unimportant ( like pharma ) the curve will tend to be softer

It might be relatively easy for a pharma to rise wages from 8 to 10 ( from experience I know labour costs in the factory vary between 2% and 3% of the total sales costs, and meds are quite inelastic) while a roofer might find himself out of business if he rises prices or salary by 25%.
Hence my previous comment on dividing salaries by industry / zone.

 

[CultureCitizen]

After a five-year analysis of NAFTA, the Department of Commerce concluded:
We estimate U.S. exports to Canada and Mexico support over 600,000 more jobs now than in 1993. U.S. exports to Canada support an estimated 1.7 million jobs, over 300,000 more jobs than in 1993. Exports to Mexico in 1998 supported almost a million jobs, up over 350,000 jobs from 1993. jobs supported by exports pay 13 to 16 percent more than other U.S. jobs.

Again, out of the past dozen jobs I've had.... the majority would not exist without exports, and imports. We're selling internationally, but primarily to free-trade countries. That trade would not exist if we had tariffs, and I know this because we sell very little right now to countries where we have tariffs.

Trade with Mexico and Canada under NAFTA has dramatically increased, which includes exports.... exports that have created jobs.

Those jobs go away if you engage in protectionism. Our company would dramatically shrink, if not completely close without trade. The cost of production would go up, while the demand for our production would go down.

We estimate U.S. exports to Canada and Mexico support over 600,000 more jobs now than in 1993. U.S. exports to Canada support an estimated 1.7 million jobs, over 300,000 more jobs than in 1993.

Well , apparently the author of the article can't make up her mind regarding the number of employments created by NAFTA.
It's either 600 thousand or 1.7 million , go figure.
1.7 million, by the way , what a joke!!!
If we substract the number of employments that went to Mexico only , that would leave 700,00 employments created.
Now , by my previous post , if we assume that "only" 1 million mexican peasents migrated to the US due to corn dumping and took 1 million US jobs, that would leave a net job loss of 300 thousand ( but just think the number of illegals tripled during NAFTA).

Now what part of this chart tells you that the average American is better off since NAFTA?

 

[Boss]

So this would indicate NAFTA has benefited Mexico more than us. Someone is producing the stuff, right? It's not magically materializing in Mexico without having to be produced by someone with a job.

Right... and I know who is ripping off the benefits Carlos Slim more than anyone else and the 10 or 15 mexicans who made it into Forbes lists, plus several corrupt politicians.

None of them are living with minimum wage ( or any place near it ) . That would be trickle up economics.

Well I am sorry the Mexican government is corrupt.... that does not settle a $50 billion trade deficit. Who is making the money has nothing to do with which side is benefiting most from the trade deal.

So back to the topic of your thread : minimum wage prevents wealth aquisition :

Just from the microeconomy point of view I would say it depends on the shape of the supply and demand curves, and on how far the minimum is from the equilibrium point.
When labour is an important factor in the production cost, the work supply curve will tend to be steeper ( a roofer business )
When labour is unimportant ( like pharma ) the curve will tend to be softer

It might be relatively easy for a pharma to rise wages from 8 to 10 ( from experience I know labour costs in the factory vary between 2% and 3% of the total sales costs, and meds are quite inelastic) while a roofer might find himself out of business if he rises prices or salary by 25%.
Hence my previous comment on dividing salaries by industry / zone.

Okay, so you start out promising but then fall on your face. For some reason you can see how an increase in wages would effect different businesses differently but you don't seem to comprehend why the same would apply to the minimum wage.

The OP is discussing an overall principle and the ramification of an artificial baseline for labor costs over time. This is not the "should we raise the min wage" thread. This is a deeper, more philosophical discussion about the principles of free market capitalism and how the minimum wage is contradictory to those principles.

Look.... there are hundreds of thousands of jobs across America at the current minimum wage rate, no? Now.... do you suppose, if there wasn't a MW rate... would all of these employers have accidentally priced their labor at the same rate? You should be able to see that this would be extremely unlikely. So what would their rates be?

If left to market forces, the rates would vary depending on supply and demand. In some cases it might be higher than current minimum wage, in others it might be lower... still, doubtful the overall average would come out exactly where the current MW is set. We have different economies all over the country, different levels of supply and demand when it comes to labor... market forces would dictate prices of labor without a set MW value.

My argument is, over the past 82 years, the typical 'minimum' wage might be much higher than it is because market forces would have driven it up over time. Instead, we've had this artificial baseline which has kept wages down overall. Corporatists and big business LOVE the minimum wage because it lets them baseline labor cost instead of having to worry about market forces.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Well I am sorry the Mexican government is corrupt.... that does not settle a $50 billion trade deficit. Who is making the money has nothing to do with which side is benefiting most from the trade deal.

Carlos Slim is not the government. First or second richest man in the world , depending on the time you ask.
Slim has a 50 000+ billion forturne or so , the rest are also billionares.

The proffits have gone to the entrepreneurs, not to the workers. Many prefer working in informal jobs and that's what I think happens when minimum wage is too low: markets find a way.

 

[Boss]

Well I am sorry the Mexican government is corrupt.... that does not settle a $50 billion trade deficit. Who is making the money has nothing to do with which side is benefiting most from the trade deal.

Carlos Slim is not the government. First or second richest man in the world , depending on the time you ask.
Slim has a 50 000+ billion forturne or so , the rest are also billionares.

The proffits have gone to the entrepreneurs, not to the workers. Many prefer working in informal jobs and that's what I think happens when minimum wage is too low: markets find a way.

Again-- not an issue about who is making the money. Mexico benefits more from NAFTA than we do. NAFTA has created jobs in Mexico because they are exporting stuff to us. I don't know if those jobs are better or worse than a job across the border as a law-breaker picking lettuce. It really doesn't matter to me.... it's a pointless argument that we seem to be continuing for some weird reason I can't figure out. Are you trying to prove to me that NAFTA is the cause of all our illegal immigration problems? FINE! YOU WIN! I can't argue with you anymore... you've made your point! Is that what you wanted to hear? ...What the fuck difference does it make?

As for the MW... it is a stupid policy that has never worked and never will. The best thing we could do for the MW is make it obsolete and irrelevant. This absolute IDIOCY to keep pushing it up so that we can "solve poverty" or whatever, is ridiculous... 82 years we've chased our tails with this and have the same exact problem. It only serves to drive up prices through inflation and eliminate jobs.