CBO: Biden $15 An Hour Minimum Wage Will Cost 1.4 Million American Jobs

[Ben Thomson]

.The first time the 'we will lose jobs if the minimum wage is raised' argument was used was in 1938..when FDR got the wage raised to .25 cents an hour.

Did anyone lose their job when he did that?

Several decades of good economic years, along with minimum wage increases over the last 83 years, I'm guessing...not really

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

.The first time the 'we will lose jobs if the minimum wage is raised' argument was used was in 1938..when FDR got the wage raised to .25 cents an hour.

Did anyone lose their job when he did that?

Several decades of good economic years, along with minimum wage increases over the last 83 years, I'm guessing...not really

Several decades of good economic years

In 1938?

 

[sealybobo]

Since I am a Boomer I will use this statement:

"China Joe is fucking up like Hogan's Goat!"

Baby boomers ruined this country. They had it all and then told us we could no longer have it all. Pensions, high paying jobs, job security, social security, medicare, affordable school, 10% interest on your savings accounts. It was the best time in America. Now you old fucks are retired at age 62-65 and you're telling us we have to work till 67 and can't have pensions and we need to cut social security and medicare, but not for old people like you.

The greatest generation gave you the greatest life. Then you fucked it all up for us younger Americans. That makes you the worst generation.

10% interest on your savings accounts. It was the best time in America.

Wow, the economic ignorance flows.

Why? What interest do you get at the bank now? 1.5%? Back when I was in my 20's not only did I save a 401K but my savings account at the bank paid 10% interest.

Many baby boomers who were poor and didn't have 401K's were able to save all their lives to have $50,000 or more in their savings account. So a person with $50K in the savings got $5K a year interest. That's $400 a month. With social security seniors were able to retire because of that 10% interest.

Today the same type person would only make $750 a year interest. That's not going to supplement you. You won't be able to retire with ss and $62.50 per month in interest. See the difference? Do you prefer 1.5% interest? Why because interest rates are low? I already paid off my home. I'd prefer higher interest even if that means you pay higher interest on your mortgage. Pay it off quickly if you don't like the interest. Or save more and pay cash. Not my problem. People who borrow money should pay more interest and I should get more interest on my savings account.

My grandmother was able to retire and live on her social security and the $400 a month she got a month in interest on her savings account. That was how easy it was for even poor people to succeed in America. My grandmother never made more than minimum wage but she paid off her home, saved and got social security and medicare. She was able to retire with dignity.

None of you today are saving enough for retirement. If you are, like me, you certainly don't care about the people who aren't.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Then who’ gonna do the work?

If you produce $10 in value and they have to pay you $15.....not you.

 

[sealybobo]

.The first time the 'we will lose jobs if the minimum wage is raised' argument was used was in 1938..when FDR got the wage raised to .25 cents an hour.

Did anyone lose their job when he did that?

Several decades of good economic years, along with minimum wage increases over the last 83 years, I'm guessing...not really

After the Republican Great Depression, FDR put this nation back to work, in part by raising taxes on income above $3 to $4 million a year (in today's dollars) to 91 percent, and corporate taxes to over 50% of profits. The revenue from those income taxes built dams, roads, bridges, sewers, water systems, schools, hospitals, train stations, railways, an interstate highway system, and airports. It educated a generation returning from World War II. It acted as a cap on the rare but occasional obsessively greedy person taking so much out of the economy that it impoverished the rest of us.

Roll Back the Reagan Tax Cuts | Common Dreams

Our bridges are falling apart (among other things), and its Ronald Reagan's fault. A few hours before the bridge collapsed in Minnesota, a news release landed (among hundreds) in my email inbox. It was from the right-wing "Heartland Institute" and a Minnesota conservative group calling itself...

www.commondreams.org

But the rich fought back, and won big-time in 1980 when Reagan, until then the fringe "Voodoo economics" candidate who was heading into the election trailing far behind Jimmy Carter, was swept into the White House on a wave of public concern of the Iranians taking US hostages. Reagan promptly cut income taxes on the very rich from 70% down to 27%. Corporate tax rates were also cut so severely that they went from representing over 33% of total federal tax receipts in 1951 to less than 9% in 1983 (they're still in that neighborhood, the lowest in the industrialized world).

The result was devastating. Our government was suddenly so badly awash in red ink that Reagan doubled the tax paid only by people earning less than $40,000/year (FICA), and then began borrowing from the huge surplus this new tax was accumulating in the Social Security Trust Fund. Even with that, Reagan had to borrow more money in his 8 years than the sum total of all presidents from George Washington to Jimmy Carter combined.

In addition to badly throwing the nation into debt, Reagan's tax cut blew out the ceiling on the accumulation of wealth, leading to a new Gilded Age and the rise of a generation of super-wealthy that hadn't been seen since the Robber Baron era of the 1890s or the Roaring 20s.

And, most tragically, Reagan's tax cuts caused America to stop investing in infrastructure. As a nation, we've been coasting since the early 1980s, living on borrowed money while we burn through (in some cases literally) the hospitals, roads, bridges, steam tunnels, and other infrastructure we built in the Golden Age of the Middle Class between the 1940s and the 1980s.

We even stopped investing in the intellectual infrastructure of this nation: college education. A degree that a student in the 1970s could have paid for by working as a waitress now means incurring massive and life-altering debt for all but the very wealthy. Reagan, who as governor ended free tuition at the University of California, put into place the foundations for the explosion in college tuition we see today.

 

[sealybobo]

Then who’ gonna do the work?

If you produce $10 in value and they have to pay you $15.....not you.

I could do the exact same thing I'm doing now for another company, make them more than I make the company I work for now, but they pay me less. Seems our value is as low as they can possibly get us to work for.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Since I am a Boomer I will use this statement:

"China Joe is fucking up like Hogan's Goat!"

Baby boomers ruined this country. They had it all and then told us we could no longer have it all. Pensions, high paying jobs, job security, social security, medicare, affordable school, 10% interest on your savings accounts. It was the best time in America. Now you old fucks are retired at age 62-65 and you're telling us we have to work till 67 and can't have pensions and we need to cut social security and medicare, but not for old people like you.

The greatest generation gave you the greatest life. Then you fucked it all up for us younger Americans. That makes you the worst generation.

10% interest on your savings accounts. It was the best time in America.

Wow, the economic ignorance flows.

Why? What interest do you get at the bank now? 1.5%? Back when I was in my 20's not only did I save a 401K but my savings account at the bank paid 10% interest.

Many baby boomers who were poor and didn't have 401K's were able to save all their lives to have $50,000 or more in their savings account. So a person with $50K in the savings got $5K a year interest. That's $400 a month. With social security seniors were able to retire because of that 10% interest.

Today the same type person would only make $750 a year interest. That's not going to supplement you. You won't be able to retire with ss and $62.50 per month in interest. See the difference? Do you prefer 1.5% interest? Why because interest rates are low? I already paid off my home. I'd prefer higher interest even if that means you pay higher interest on your mortgage. Pay it off quickly if you don't like the interest. Or save more and pay cash. Not my problem. People who borrow money should pay more interest and I should get more interest on my savings account.

My grandmother was able to retire and live on her social security and the $400 a month she got a month in interest on her savings account. That was how easy it was for even poor people to succeed in America. My grandmother never made more than minimum wage but she paid off her home, saved and got social security and medicare. She was able to retire with dignity.

None of you today are saving enough for retirement. If you are, like me, you certainly don't care about the people who aren't.

Why?

For a bank to pay you 10% on your savings account, inflation is going to be 9% (and rising).

What interest do you get at the bank now? 1.5%?

Online Savings Products | Marcus by Goldman Sachs®

So a person with $50K in the savings got $5K a year interest. That's $400 a month.

But now the $50K is only worth $45.5K. That's -$4.5K
And you had to pay taxes on the $400 a month.

That was how easy it was for even poor people to succeed in America.

Wow, the economic ignorance flows.

If you are, like me, you certainly don't care about the people who aren't.

I can hedge against inflation.....how does grandmother do the same?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

.The first time the 'we will lose jobs if the minimum wage is raised' argument was used was in 1938..when FDR got the wage raised to .25 cents an hour.

Did anyone lose their job when he did that?

Several decades of good economic years, along with minimum wage increases over the last 83 years, I'm guessing...not really

After the Republican Great Depression, FDR put this nation back to work, in part by raising taxes on income above $3 to $4 million a year (in today's dollars) to 91 percent, and corporate taxes to over 50% of profits. The revenue from those income taxes built dams, roads, bridges, sewers, water systems, schools, hospitals, train stations, railways, an interstate highway system, and airports. It educated a generation returning from World War II. It acted as a cap on the rare but occasional obsessively greedy person taking so much out of the economy that it impoverished the rest of us.

Roll Back the Reagan Tax Cuts | Common Dreams

Our bridges are falling apart (among other things), and its Ronald Reagan's fault. A few hours before the bridge collapsed in Minnesota, a news release landed (among hundreds) in my email inbox. It was from the right-wing "Heartland Institute" and a Minnesota conservative group calling itself...

www.commondreams.org

But the rich fought back, and won big-time in 1980 when Reagan, until then the fringe "Voodoo economics" candidate who was heading into the election trailing far behind Jimmy Carter, was swept into the White House on a wave of public concern of the Iranians taking US hostages. Reagan promptly cut income taxes on the very rich from 70% down to 27%. Corporate tax rates were also cut so severely that they went from representing over 33% of total federal tax receipts in 1951 to less than 9% in 1983 (they're still in that neighborhood, the lowest in the industrialized world).

The result was devastating. Our government was suddenly so badly awash in red ink that Reagan doubled the tax paid only by people earning less than $40,000/year (FICA), and then began borrowing from the huge surplus this new tax was accumulating in the Social Security Trust Fund. Even with that, Reagan had to borrow more money in his 8 years than the sum total of all presidents from George Washington to Jimmy Carter combined.

In addition to badly throwing the nation into debt, Reagan's tax cut blew out the ceiling on the accumulation of wealth, leading to a new Gilded Age and the rise of a generation of super-wealthy that hadn't been seen since the Robber Baron era of the 1890s or the Roaring 20s.

And, most tragically, Reagan's tax cuts caused America to stop investing in infrastructure. As a nation, we've been coasting since the early 1980s, living on borrowed money while we burn through (in some cases literally) the hospitals, roads, bridges, steam tunnels, and other infrastructure we built in the Golden Age of the Middle Class between the 1940s and the 1980s.

We even stopped investing in the intellectual infrastructure of this nation: college education. A degree that a student in the 1970s could have paid for by working as a waitress now means incurring massive and life-altering debt for all but the very wealthy. Reagan, who as governor ended free tuition at the University of California, put into place the foundations for the explosion in college tuition we see today.

Reagan promptly cut income taxes on the very rich from 70% down to 27%.

Promptly? How promptly?

Corporate tax rates were also cut so severely that they went from representing over 33% of total federal tax receipts in 1951 to less than 9% in 1983

How severely did Reagan cut the corporate tax rate?
It must have been a lot to drop receipts to 9% in 1983. Right?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

.The first time the 'we will lose jobs if the minimum wage is raised' argument was used was in 1938..when FDR got the wage raised to .25 cents an hour.

Did anyone lose their job when he did that?

Several decades of good economic years, along with minimum wage increases over the last 83 years, I'm guessing...not really

After the Republican Great Depression, FDR put this nation back to work, in part by raising taxes on income above $3 to $4 million a year (in today's dollars) to 91 percent, and corporate taxes to over 50% of profits. The revenue from those income taxes built dams, roads, bridges, sewers, water systems, schools, hospitals, train stations, railways, an interstate highway system, and airports. It educated a generation returning from World War II. It acted as a cap on the rare but occasional obsessively greedy person taking so much out of the economy that it impoverished the rest of us.

Roll Back the Reagan Tax Cuts | Common Dreams

Our bridges are falling apart (among other things), and its Ronald Reagan's fault. A few hours before the bridge collapsed in Minnesota, a news release landed (among hundreds) in my email inbox. It was from the right-wing "Heartland Institute" and a Minnesota conservative group calling itself...

www.commondreams.org

But the rich fought back, and won big-time in 1980 when Reagan, until then the fringe "Voodoo economics" candidate who was heading into the election trailing far behind Jimmy Carter, was swept into the White House on a wave of public concern of the Iranians taking US hostages. Reagan promptly cut income taxes on the very rich from 70% down to 27%. Corporate tax rates were also cut so severely that they went from representing over 33% of total federal tax receipts in 1951 to less than 9% in 1983 (they're still in that neighborhood, the lowest in the industrialized world).

The result was devastating. Our government was suddenly so badly awash in red ink that Reagan doubled the tax paid only by people earning less than $40,000/year (FICA), and then began borrowing from the huge surplus this new tax was accumulating in the Social Security Trust Fund. Even with that, Reagan had to borrow more money in his 8 years than the sum total of all presidents from George Washington to Jimmy Carter combined.

In addition to badly throwing the nation into debt, Reagan's tax cut blew out the ceiling on the accumulation of wealth, leading to a new Gilded Age and the rise of a generation of super-wealthy that hadn't been seen since the Robber Baron era of the 1890s or the Roaring 20s.

And, most tragically, Reagan's tax cuts caused America to stop investing in infrastructure. As a nation, we've been coasting since the early 1980s, living on borrowed money while we burn through (in some cases literally) the hospitals, roads, bridges, steam tunnels, and other infrastructure we built in the Golden Age of the Middle Class between the 1940s and the 1980s.

We even stopped investing in the intellectual infrastructure of this nation: college education. A degree that a student in the 1970s could have paid for by working as a waitress now means incurring massive and life-altering debt for all but the very wealthy. Reagan, who as governor ended free tuition at the University of California, put into place the foundations for the explosion in college tuition we see today.

The result was devastating. Our government was suddenly so badly awash in red ink that Reagan doubled the tax paid only by people earning less than $40,000/year (FICA),

He doubled the FICA tax rate? That's awful.....plus you're lying.

and then began borrowing from the huge surplus this new tax was accumulating in the Social Security Trust Fund.

He's the one who started borrowing from the Trust Fund?
What did the Trust Fund do with the money before Reagan?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Then who’ gonna do the work?

If you produce $10 in value and they have to pay you $15.....not you.

I could do the exact same thing I'm doing now for another company, make them more than I make the company I work for now, but they pay me less. Seems our value is as low as they can possibly get us to work for.

I could do the exact same thing I'm doing now for another company, make them more than I make the company I work for now, but they pay me less.

Why would you go to work for a company that would pay you less?
Did your employer fire you for misconduct?

 

[Stryder50]

If businesses can operate without those 1.4 million workers, doesn’t that suggest that they weren’t needed to begin with?

No ...
... It suggests that some businesses will produce fewer goods and/or services since they can't afford to pay for more workers.
... or that some businesses will fold and go out of business.
... or that many businesses that might have been start-ups - won't be.

Concept lost on a few is that in most cases, increased wages equal increased costs and those either get passed on to the end consumer/buyer or result in a business having to shrink or fold.

If the wage increase is across the board to all or most businesses, then the price of their goods/services will increase to cover the increased labor costs so the purchase value of the wage increase will usually be cancelled out by the proportional increase in living costs/expenses to the worker getting the increase.

Basic Econ 101 folks.

 

[Stryder50]

Since I am a Boomer I will use this statement:

"China Joe is fucking up like Hogan's Goat!"

Baby boomers ruined this country. They had it all and then told us we could no longer have it all. Pensions, high paying jobs, job security, social security, medicare, affordable school, 10% interest on your savings accounts. It was the best time in America. Now you old fucks are retired at age 62-65 and you're telling us we have to work till 67 and can't have pensions and we need to cut social security and medicare, but not for old people like you.

The greatest generation gave you the greatest life. Then you fucked it all up for us younger Americans. That makes you the worst generation.

10% interest on your savings accounts. It was the best time in America.

Wow, the economic ignorance flows.

Why? What interest do you get at the bank now? 1.5%? Back when I was in my 20's not only did I save a 401K but my savings account at the bank paid 10% interest.

Many baby boomers who were poor and didn't have 401K's were able to save all their lives to have $50,000 or more in their savings account. So a person with $50K in the savings got $5K a year interest. That's $400 a month. With social security seniors were able to retire because of that 10% interest.

Today the same type person would only make $750 a year interest. That's not going to supplement you. You won't be able to retire with ss and $62.50 per month in interest. See the difference? Do you prefer 1.5% interest? Why because interest rates are low? I already paid off my home. I'd prefer higher interest even if that means you pay higher interest on your mortgage. Pay it off quickly if you don't like the interest. Or save more and pay cash. Not my problem. People who borrow money should pay more interest and I should get more interest on my savings account.

My grandmother was able to retire and live on her social security and the $400 a month she got a month in interest on her savings account. That was how easy it was for even poor people to succeed in America. My grandmother never made more than minimum wage but she paid off her home, saved and got social security and medicare. She was able to retire with dignity.

None of you today are saving enough for retirement. If you are, like me, you certainly don't care about the people who aren't.

When banks were paying YOU 10% interest on your deposit, they were charging about 14-18% interest to those whom they lent YOUR money to.

Look at what interest rates on loans are at now.

 

[jknowgood]

Yeah, that is what they said about a seven dollar an hour min wage.

The jobs always come back
The market adjusts

Thousands of jobs lost on the pipeline, projected 2.5 million jobs lost for the Paris agreement, and this. Ole illegitimate joe is killing jobs faster than can be created.

 

[danielpalos]

CBO: Biden’s $15 Minimum Wage Would
Result in a Loss of 1.4 Million Jobs

Why Do This? Because the Democrats know what's best for you...and because they CAN.


CBO: Biden's $15 Minimum Wage Would Result in a Loss of 1.4 Million Jobs

Only in the short term. Unemployment compensation could be improved to better pick up the slack and automatically stabilize our economy. In the long run, higher paid labor creates more in demand and generates more in tax revenue.

Only if you raise it gradually enough that the market can adjust. Double it overnight and impact 60% of the work force and things can get ugly.

Why not ask for a tax break to make it easier for small business to adjust?

 

[danielpalos]

If businesses can operate without those 1.4 million workers, doesn’t that suggest that they weren’t needed to begin with?

You're right, at $15/hr they don't need those 1.4 million workers.

We need to upgrade infrastructure more.

 

[sealybobo]

Since I am a Boomer I will use this statement:

"China Joe is fucking up like Hogan's Goat!"

Baby boomers ruined this country. They had it all and then told us we could no longer have it all. Pensions, high paying jobs, job security, social security, medicare, affordable school, 10% interest on your savings accounts. It was the best time in America. Now you old fucks are retired at age 62-65 and you're telling us we have to work till 67 and can't have pensions and we need to cut social security and medicare, but not for old people like you.

The greatest generation gave you the greatest life. Then you fucked it all up for us younger Americans. That makes you the worst generation.

10% interest on your savings accounts. It was the best time in America.

Wow, the economic ignorance flows.

Why? What interest do you get at the bank now? 1.5%? Back when I was in my 20's not only did I save a 401K but my savings account at the bank paid 10% interest.

Many baby boomers who were poor and didn't have 401K's were able to save all their lives to have $50,000 or more in their savings account. So a person with $50K in the savings got $5K a year interest. That's $400 a month. With social security seniors were able to retire because of that 10% interest.

Today the same type person would only make $750 a year interest. That's not going to supplement you. You won't be able to retire with ss and $62.50 per month in interest. See the difference? Do you prefer 1.5% interest? Why because interest rates are low? I already paid off my home. I'd prefer higher interest even if that means you pay higher interest on your mortgage. Pay it off quickly if you don't like the interest. Or save more and pay cash. Not my problem. People who borrow money should pay more interest and I should get more interest on my savings account.

My grandmother was able to retire and live on her social security and the $400 a month she got a month in interest on her savings account. That was how easy it was for even poor people to succeed in America. My grandmother never made more than minimum wage but she paid off her home, saved and got social security and medicare. She was able to retire with dignity.

None of you today are saving enough for retirement. If you are, like me, you certainly don't care about the people who aren't.

Why?

For a bank to pay you 10% on your savings account, inflation is going to be 9% (and rising).

What interest do you get at the bank now? 1.5%?

View attachment 455162

Online Savings Products | Marcus by Goldman Sachs®

So a person with $50K in the savings got $5K a year interest. That's $400 a month.

But now the $50K is only worth $45.5K. That's -$4.5K
And you had to pay taxes on the $400 a month.

That was how easy it was for even poor people to succeed in America.

Wow, the economic ignorance flows.

If you are, like me, you certainly don't care about the people who aren't.

I can hedge against inflation.....how does grandmother do the same?

If I make 10% on my $50k I live on the $5000 and the $50,000 stays $50,000.

I feel your way wants the masses to use up their savings not live off the interest.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Since I am a Boomer I will use this statement:

"China Joe is fucking up like Hogan's Goat!"

Baby boomers ruined this country. They had it all and then told us we could no longer have it all. Pensions, high paying jobs, job security, social security, medicare, affordable school, 10% interest on your savings accounts. It was the best time in America. Now you old fucks are retired at age 62-65 and you're telling us we have to work till 67 and can't have pensions and we need to cut social security and medicare, but not for old people like you.

The greatest generation gave you the greatest life. Then you fucked it all up for us younger Americans. That makes you the worst generation.

10% interest on your savings accounts. It was the best time in America.

Wow, the economic ignorance flows.

Why? What interest do you get at the bank now? 1.5%? Back when I was in my 20's not only did I save a 401K but my savings account at the bank paid 10% interest.

Many baby boomers who were poor and didn't have 401K's were able to save all their lives to have $50,000 or more in their savings account. So a person with $50K in the savings got $5K a year interest. That's $400 a month. With social security seniors were able to retire because of that 10% interest.

Today the same type person would only make $750 a year interest. That's not going to supplement you. You won't be able to retire with ss and $62.50 per month in interest. See the difference? Do you prefer 1.5% interest? Why because interest rates are low? I already paid off my home. I'd prefer higher interest even if that means you pay higher interest on your mortgage. Pay it off quickly if you don't like the interest. Or save more and pay cash. Not my problem. People who borrow money should pay more interest and I should get more interest on my savings account.

My grandmother was able to retire and live on her social security and the $400 a month she got a month in interest on her savings account. That was how easy it was for even poor people to succeed in America. My grandmother never made more than minimum wage but she paid off her home, saved and got social security and medicare. She was able to retire with dignity.

None of you today are saving enough for retirement. If you are, like me, you certainly don't care about the people who aren't.

Why?

For a bank to pay you 10% on your savings account, inflation is going to be 9% (and rising).

What interest do you get at the bank now? 1.5%?

View attachment 455162

Online Savings Products | Marcus by Goldman Sachs®

So a person with $50K in the savings got $5K a year interest. That's $400 a month.

But now the $50K is only worth $45.5K. That's -$4.5K
And you had to pay taxes on the $400 a month.

That was how easy it was for even poor people to succeed in America.

Wow, the economic ignorance flows.

If you are, like me, you certainly don't care about the people who aren't.

I can hedge against inflation.....how does grandmother do the same?

If I make 10% on my $50k I live on the $5000 and the $50,000 stays $50,000.

I feel your way wants the masses to use up their savings not live off the interest.

If I make 10% on my $50k I live on the $5000 and the $50,000 stays $50,000.

But next year the $50,000 only buys $45.5K in goods.
You didn't forget the 9% inflation.......did you?

I feel your way wants the masses to use up their savings not live off the interest.

My way? You're the one in favor of destroying the poor with high inflation.

 

[sealybobo]

Since I am a Boomer I will use this statement:

"China Joe is fucking up like Hogan's Goat!"

Baby boomers ruined this country. They had it all and then told us we could no longer have it all. Pensions, high paying jobs, job security, social security, medicare, affordable school, 10% interest on your savings accounts. It was the best time in America. Now you old fucks are retired at age 62-65 and you're telling us we have to work till 67 and can't have pensions and we need to cut social security and medicare, but not for old people like you.

The greatest generation gave you the greatest life. Then you fucked it all up for us younger Americans. That makes you the worst generation.

10% interest on your savings accounts. It was the best time in America.

Wow, the economic ignorance flows.

Why? What interest do you get at the bank now? 1.5%? Back when I was in my 20's not only did I save a 401K but my savings account at the bank paid 10% interest.

Many baby boomers who were poor and didn't have 401K's were able to save all their lives to have $50,000 or more in their savings account. So a person with $50K in the savings got $5K a year interest. That's $400 a month. With social security seniors were able to retire because of that 10% interest.

Today the same type person would only make $750 a year interest. That's not going to supplement you. You won't be able to retire with ss and $62.50 per month in interest. See the difference? Do you prefer 1.5% interest? Why because interest rates are low? I already paid off my home. I'd prefer higher interest even if that means you pay higher interest on your mortgage. Pay it off quickly if you don't like the interest. Or save more and pay cash. Not my problem. People who borrow money should pay more interest and I should get more interest on my savings account.

My grandmother was able to retire and live on her social security and the $400 a month she got a month in interest on her savings account. That was how easy it was for even poor people to succeed in America. My grandmother never made more than minimum wage but she paid off her home, saved and got social security and medicare. She was able to retire with dignity.

None of you today are saving enough for retirement. If you are, like me, you certainly don't care about the people who aren't.

Why?

For a bank to pay you 10% on your savings account, inflation is going to be 9% (and rising).

What interest do you get at the bank now? 1.5%?

View attachment 455162

Online Savings Products | Marcus by Goldman Sachs®

So a person with $50K in the savings got $5K a year interest. That's $400 a month.

But now the $50K is only worth $45.5K. That's -$4.5K
And you had to pay taxes on the $400 a month.

That was how easy it was for even poor people to succeed in America.

Wow, the economic ignorance flows.

If you are, like me, you certainly don't care about the people who aren't.

I can hedge against inflation.....how does grandmother do the same?

If I make 10% on my $50k I live on the $5000 and the $50,000 stays $50,000.

I feel your way wants the masses to use up their savings not live off the interest.

If I make 10% on my $50k I live on the $5000 and the $50,000 stays $50,000.

But next year the $50,000 only buys $45.5K in goods.
You didn't forget the 9% inflation.......did you?

I feel your way wants the masses to use up their savings not live off the interest.

My way? You're the one in favor of destroying the poor with high inflation.

Hey, my poor dad and grandmother did well back then. They paid of& the home quick. Didn’t take 30 years. Then they saved, and compounded interest. Like supposedly our 401ks are doing.

Bottom lin is hows a poor person going to save enough for retirement with 1.5% interest?

 

[Rocko]

I think a child can understand it’s bad policy. The people advocating for it know it’s bad policy. They just want to pretend they’re standing up for the poor.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Unemployment compensation could be improved to better pick up the slack and automatically stabilize our economy.

People shouldn't get paid for sitting on their asses, and we shouldn't want to "pick up the slack" with taxpayer dollars...

In the long run, higher paid labor creates more in demand and generates more in tax revenue.

No, it doesn't...