Hey RWs: if you're so opposed to raising the min. wage, what exactly do you think would boost wages?

[Hutch Starskey]

You have it exactly backwards. Good wages grow the economy and create more jobs.

No, they do not. Your math skills suck pal.

What grows the economy professor?

70% of the GDP is consumer spending and 90% of consumers make less than 100K. Now show me where an increase in wages for the bulk of consumers would not create spending and growth.

This message about sums up the idiocy of a regressive.

"If you just redistribute the GDP components differently they will add up to a bigger number!" "Also, F*** savings and future; SPEND SPEND SPEND!"

Liberal math/values at work!

Refute what I posted or get lost. We have a consumer driven economy, if consumers don't spend more than they did yesterday then there is no growth and no increase in demand. Wages need to grow for that to happen.

There's nothing wrong with my math. It's your lack of an education that's confounding you.

Actually the GDP equation through expenditure is C+I+G+NX

Through income it is:

Compensation of employees + Rent + Interest + Proprietor’s Income + Corporate Profits + Indirect business taxes + Depreciation + Net foreign factor income

So far you have identified two components, and think economy can grow only based on those two, which is false (in fact the economic growth of the last 50 years has mostly NOT dependent on wages). In addition, the GDP won't be any higher if you just redistribute it from one part to a other, or make it illegal for poor people to work.

In other words, you are full of shit, and absolutely uneducated. Get lost, regressive.

I identified precisely the largest component. The component that is and has been lacking.
Growth is slow as a result. Obviously that's where the problem lies. The other components have grown over the same period and have not stimulated growth.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Gee, Billy, do you think 12 million illegals willing to work for less might have something to do with low wages? Why would anybody hire you for $15 an hour when they can hire a ******* for $8?

You're such a moron. Getting rid Mexicans, as much as your tiny bigoted would like it, wouldn't do jack shit to raise wages. WHY would businesses raise wages for citizens? It's not like ******* workers negotiate their wages with their employers in this day and age you idiot.

WHY would businesses raise wages for citizens?

Supply and demand. Durr.

Derp! Where does demand come from?

 

[PredFan]

Innovation often leads to a reduction in staffing and as such, a reduction in payroll. Less payroll equals more profut and an increase in the likelihood of expansion.

Increased salaries is the result of an increase in business not the cause of it. Liberal nutters who believe the nonsense that increased wages are the cause are putting the cart before the horse.

If I make a widget component for a gadget, and I increase the salaries of the widget makers, sure, they have more money but they aren't buying widgets are they? No, they are buying food, clothing, alcohol, paying rent, utilities, etc. Now, you could say that it all melds into one giant pot and eventually, more widgets are bought but this is a very slow process and not even a sure thing. Meanwhile my business goes into the red waiting for it to happen.

No folks, as the smartest of us know, a good economy increases wages and it does so all across the job spectrum. It's complete left wing nut nonsense to say otherwise.

 

[Staidhup]

You can state fact after fact and yet liberals still just don't get it. An entry level job is not a career its the opportunity to prove ones self, the word entry should speak for itself. Supply of defined skill sets dictate levels of compensation, most importantly an expanding economy driven by the private sector creates jobs. Let us not forget, venture and risk capital investment is dictated by the potential of above average rate of returns on ones investment driven by the ability to competitively serve the market at a profit to those assuming risk. Corporate tax rates, regulations, and anti business environment deter the creation of private sector jobs. What the liberal mind just will not admit is that if you knock the shit out of some one, they will seek to relocate or not assume risk.
The current economy is crumbling at its core, has been for several decades as a direct result of government policy and liberal legislation.
I agree it would be great to see manufacturing reemerge in the US, competition to retain qualified employees increase and wages increase, however, it has been proven countless times that government interference in the market place results in disappointment and failure. Your living in it, so how is that working out for you?

 

[Norman]

No, they do not. Your math skills suck pal.

What grows the economy professor?

70% of the GDP is consumer spending and 90% of consumers make less than 100K. Now show me where an increase in wages for the bulk of consumers would not create spending and growth.

This message about sums up the idiocy of a regressive.

"If you just redistribute the GDP components differently they will add up to a bigger number!" "Also, F*** savings and future; SPEND SPEND SPEND!"

Liberal math/values at work!

Refute what I posted or get lost. We have a consumer driven economy, if consumers don't spend more than they did yesterday then there is no growth and no increase in demand. Wages need to grow for that to happen.

There's nothing wrong with my math. It's your lack of an education that's confounding you.

Actually the GDP equation through expenditure is C+I+G+NX

Through income it is:

Compensation of employees + Rent + Interest + Proprietor’s Income + Corporate Profits + Indirect business taxes + Depreciation + Net foreign factor income

So far you have identified two components, and think economy can grow only based on those two, which is false (in fact the economic growth of the last 50 years has mostly NOT dependent on wages). In addition, the GDP won't be any higher if you just redistribute it from one part to a other, or make it illegal for poor people to work.

In other words, you are full of shit, and absolutely uneducated. Get lost, regressive.

I identified precisely the largest component. The component that is and has been lacking.
Growth is slow as a result. Obviously that's where the problem lies. The other components have grown over the same period and have not stimulated growth.

First you say consumption is the largest component, and then say it has been lacking. What makes you so sure of that? Oh of course, we should believe you the great liberal economist central planner, who is so amazing at economics that he could not run a lemonade stand!

Damn.. the regressive arrogance.

Secondly, the other components ARE growth by definition, so your claim that they haven't simulated growth is completely nonsensical. Clearly you have absolutely no clue.

I agree though, let's reduce government spending so C and I can rise, that actually leads to greater growth over the long term. Can't disagree with that! Perhaps there could be sanity to your plan after all.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

A good economy increases wages. The economy gets better, businesses expand, more jobs are created, competition amongst employers leads to higher wages.

If you are talking about McDonalds, no burger flipper deserves $15 no matter how scarce they are.

You have it exactly backwards. Good wages grow the economy and create more jobs.

No, they do not. Your math skills suck pal.

What grows the economy professor?

70% of the GDP is consumer spending and 90% of consumers make less than 100K. Now show me where an increase in wages for the bulk of consumers would not create spending and growth.

This message about sums up the idiocy of a regressive.

"If you just redistribute the GDP components differently they will add up to a bigger number!" "Also, F*** savings and future; SPEND SPEND SPEND!"

Liberal math/values at work!

Refute what I posted or get lost. We have a consumer driven economy, if consumers don't spend more than they did yesterday then there is no growth and no increase in demand. Wages need to grow for that to happen.

There's nothing wrong with my math. It's your lack of an education that's confounding you.

Let's see the model assumptions....

If consumers don't spend more than they did yesterday on what ?

Are you talking strictly disposable goods ?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Gee, Billy, do you think 12 million illegals willing to work for less might have something to do with low wages? Why would anybody hire you for $15 an hour when they can hire a ******* for $8?

You're such a moron. Getting rid Mexicans, as much as your tiny bigoted would like it, wouldn't do jack shit to raise wages. WHY would businesses raise wages for citizens? It's not like ******* workers negotiate their wages with their employers in this day and age you idiot.

WHY would businesses raise wages for citizens?

Supply and demand. Durr.

Derp! Where does demand come from?

Demand for employees would come from employers. Derp indeed.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Innovation often leads to a reduction in staffing and as such, a reduction in payroll. Less payroll equals more profut and an increase in the likelihood of expansion.

Increased salaries is the result of an increase in business not the cause of it. Liberal nutters who believe the nonsense that increased wages are the cause are putting the cart before the horse.

If I make a widget component for a gadget, and I increase the salaries of the widget makers, sure, they have more money but they aren't buying widgets are they? No, they are buying food, clothing, alcohol, paying rent, utilities, etc. B, you could say that it all melds into one giant pot and eventually, more widgets are bought but this is a very slow process and not even a sure thing. Meanwhile my business goes into the red waiting for it to happen.

No folks, as the smartest of us know, a good economy increases wages and it does so all across the job spectrum. It's complete left wing nut nonsense to say otherwise.

Now, you could say that it all melds into one giant pot and eventually, more widgets are bought but this is a very slow process and not even a sure thing.

Yes, it's called consumer spending. It's 70% of GDP and it's a sure thing. It's not slow at all and is reported quarterly just as corporate profits, unemployment and every other economic indicator.To suggest otherwise only highlights you lack of understanding.

 

[Norman]

Innovation often leads to a reduction in staffing and as such, a reduction in payroll. Less payroll equals more profut and an increase in the likelihood of expansion.

Increased salaries is the result of an increase in business not the cause of it. Liberal nutters who believe the nonsense that increased wages are the cause are putting the cart before the horse.

If I make a widget component for a gadget, and I increase the salaries of the widget makers, sure, they have more money but they aren't buying widgets are they? No, they are buying food, clothing, alcohol, paying rent, utilities, etc. B, you could say that it all melds into one giant pot and eventually, more widgets are bought but this is a very slow process and not even a sure thing. Meanwhile my business goes into the red waiting for it to happen.

No folks, as the smartest of us know, a good economy increases wages and it does so all across the job spectrum. It's complete left wing nut nonsense to say otherwise.

Now, you could say that it all melds into one giant pot and eventually, more widgets are bought but this is a very slow process and not even a sure thing.

Yes, it's called consumer spending. It's 70% of GDP and it's a sure thing. To suggest otherwise only betrays the suggestion that you have been educated.

Yes and it can be increased via decreasing government spending and taxes. Derp derp...

SPEND SPEND SPEND!! Regressives...

 

[AVG-JOE]

Fair and simple tax codes, including a simple corporate tax rate of 5% with non-executive payroll as the only write-off.

Give freedom and simplicity a chance.

with non-executive payroll as the only write-off.

You can't write-off COGS?
Why not?

Because the tax is only 5%.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Gee, Billy, do you think 12 million illegals willing to work for less might have something to do with low wages? Why would anybody hire you for $15 an hour when they can hire a ******* for $8?

You're such a moron. Getting rid Mexicans, as much as your tiny bigoted would like it, wouldn't do jack shit to raise wages. WHY would businesses raise wages for citizens? It's not like ******* workers negotiate their wages with their employers in this day and age you idiot.

WHY would businesses raise wages for citizens?

Supply and demand. Durr.

Derp! Where does demand come from?

Demand for employees would come from employers. Derp indeed.

Yeah, you could pass an econ class.

Customers buying products and services create demand. Demand creates the employers need for new employees. Employers don't hire for no reason.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

What grows the economy professor?

70% of the GDP is consumer spending and 90% of consumers make less than 100K. Now show me where an increase in wages for the bulk of consumers would not create spending and growth.

This message about sums up the idiocy of a regressive.

"If you just redistribute the GDP components differently they will add up to a bigger number!" "Also, F*** savings and future; SPEND SPEND SPEND!"

Liberal math/values at work!

Refute what I posted or get lost. We have a consumer driven economy, if consumers don't spend more than they did yesterday then there is no growth and no increase in demand. Wages need to grow for that to happen.

There's nothing wrong with my math. It's your lack of an education that's confounding you.

Actually the GDP equation through expenditure is C+I+G+NX

Through income it is:

Compensation of employees + Rent + Interest + Proprietor’s Income + Corporate Profits + Indirect business taxes + Depreciation + Net foreign factor income

So far you have identified two components, and think economy can grow only based on those two, which is false (in fact the economic growth of the last 50 years has mostly NOT dependent on wages). In addition, the GDP won't be any higher if you just redistribute it from one part to a other, or make it illegal for poor people to work.

In other words, you are full of shit, and absolutely uneducated. Get lost, regressive.

I identified precisely the largest component. The component that is and has been lacking.
Growth is slow as a result. Obviously that's where the problem lies. The other components have grown over the same period and have not stimulated growth.

First you say consumption is the largest component, and then say it has been lacking. What makes you so sure of that? Oh of course, we should believe you the great liberal economist central planner, who is so amazing at economics that he could not run a lemonade stand!

Damn.. the regressive arrogance.

Secondly, the other components ARE growth by definition, so your claim that they haven't simulated growth is completely nonsensical. Clearly you have absolutely no clue.

I agree though, let's reduce government spending so C and I can rise, that actually leads to greater growth over the long term. Can't disagree with that! Perhaps there could be sanity to your plan after all.

First you say consumption is the largest component, and then say it has been lacking. What makes you so sure of that?

I stopped right here.
It is and it has. If you don't understand the basics then you shouldn't be trying to argue.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Innovation often leads to a reduction in staffing and as such, a reduction in payroll. Less payroll equals more profut and an increase in the likelihood of expansion.

Increased salaries is the result of an increase in business not the cause of it. Liberal nutters who believe the nonsense that increased wages are the cause are putting the cart before the horse.

If I make a widget component for a gadget, and I increase the salaries of the widget makers, sure, they have more money but they aren't buying widgets are they? No, they are buying food, clothing, alcohol, paying rent, utilities, etc. B, you could say that it all melds into one giant pot and eventually, more widgets are bought but this is a very slow process and not even a sure thing. Meanwhile my business goes into the red waiting for it to happen.

No folks, as the smartest of us know, a good economy increases wages and it does so all across the job spectrum. It's complete left wing nut nonsense to say otherwise.

Now, you could say that it all melds into one giant pot and eventually, more widgets are bought but this is a very slow process and not even a sure thing.

Yes, it's called consumer spending. It's 70% of GDP and it's a sure thing. To suggest otherwise only betrays the suggestion that you have been educated.

Yes and it can be increased via decreasing government spending and taxes. Derp derp...

SPEND SPEND SPEND!! Regressives...

That's it. Blame everyone but the guy who signs the paychecks. I don't understand why you people are OK with dismal wage growth. It's baffling.

 

[Norman]

This message about sums up the idiocy of a regressive.

"If you just redistribute the GDP components differently they will add up to a bigger number!" "Also, F*** savings and future; SPEND SPEND SPEND!"

Liberal math/values at work!

Refute what I posted or get lost. We have a consumer driven economy, if consumers don't spend more than they did yesterday then there is no growth and no increase in demand. Wages need to grow for that to happen.

There's nothing wrong with my math. It's your lack of an education that's confounding you.

Actually the GDP equation through expenditure is C+I+G+NX

Through income it is:

Compensation of employees + Rent + Interest + Proprietor’s Income + Corporate Profits + Indirect business taxes + Depreciation + Net foreign factor income

So far you have identified two components, and think economy can grow only based on those two, which is false (in fact the economic growth of the last 50 years has mostly NOT dependent on wages). In addition, the GDP won't be any higher if you just redistribute it from one part to a other, or make it illegal for poor people to work.

In other words, you are full of shit, and absolutely uneducated. Get lost, regressive.

I identified precisely the largest component. The component that is and has been lacking.
Growth is slow as a result. Obviously that's where the problem lies. The other components have grown over the same period and have not stimulated growth.

First you say consumption is the largest component, and then say it has been lacking. What makes you so sure of that? Oh of course, we should believe you the great liberal economist central planner, who is so amazing at economics that he could not run a lemonade stand!

Damn.. the regressive arrogance.

Secondly, the other components ARE growth by definition, so your claim that they haven't simulated growth is completely nonsensical. Clearly you have absolutely no clue.

I agree though, let's reduce government spending so C and I can rise, that actually leads to greater growth over the long term. Can't disagree with that! Perhaps there could be sanity to your plan after all.

First you say consumption is the largest component, and then say it has been lacking. What makes you so sure of that?

I stopped right here.
It is and it has. If you don't understand the basics then you shouldn't be trying to argue.

No, you stopped reading before getting educated. You are full of shit. So far the only thing you have outlined is that everything else being equal, by increasing consumption the economy has to be larger.

WOW! By increasing GDP you are increasing GDP. Quickly, someone reward an award to this liberal regressive thinker! He has found the formula!

You must be proud. You have no clue what you are talking about and yet think so highly of yourself. Classic regressive. I bet you are receving Marxist indoctrination, for it's very unlikely for an individual to have such diminished mental capability otherwise.

Nice cop out though, you got nothing but nonsense, and know it. Buf of course, you know what the ideal level of consumption is and when it is lacking... The arrogance.

 

[Norman]

Gee, Billy, do you think 12 million illegals willing to work for less might have something to do with low wages? Why would anybody hire you for $15 an hour when they can hire a ******* for $8?

You're such a moron. Getting rid Mexicans, as much as your tiny bigoted would like it, wouldn't do jack shit to raise wages. WHY would businesses raise wages for citizens? It's not like ******* workers negotiate their wages with their employers in this day and age you idiot.

WHY would businesses raise wages for citizens?

Supply and demand. Durr.

Derp! Where does demand come from?

Demand for employees would come from employers. Derp indeed.

Yeah, you could pass an econ class.

Customers buying products and services create demand. Demand creates the employers need for new employees. Employers don't hire for no reason.

Demand is only ONE component based on which business decisions are made. If taxes are increased by 5 %, the extra 5 % demand awarded to lazy single mom bums like yourself is less than able to compensate for the effect. On the other hand, the republican policies of rewarding businesses, even if authoritarian bullshit, at least actually makes businesses more profitable and thus gets people employed.

The problem here is you are physically not capable of using logic or digging up empirical data. That is to say, you are brain dead parrot with not even an ounce of originality.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Refute what I posted or get lost. We have a consumer driven economy, if consumers don't spend more than they did yesterday then there is no growth and no increase in demand. Wages need to grow for that to happen.

There's nothing wrong with my math. It's your lack of an education that's confounding you.

Actually the GDP equation through expenditure is C+I+G+NX

Through income it is:

Compensation of employees + Rent + Interest + Proprietor’s Income + Corporate Profits + Indirect business taxes + Depreciation + Net foreign factor income

So far you have identified two components, and think economy can grow only based on those two, which is false (in fact the economic growth of the last 50 years has mostly NOT dependent on wages). In addition, the GDP won't be any higher if you just redistribute it from one part to a other, or make it illegal for poor people to work.

In other words, you are full of shit, and absolutely uneducated. Get lost, regressive.

I identified precisely the largest component. The component that is and has been lacking.
Growth is slow as a result. Obviously that's where the problem lies. The other components have grown over the same period and have not stimulated growth.

First you say consumption is the largest component, and then say it has been lacking. What makes you so sure of that? Oh of course, we should believe you the great liberal economist central planner, who is so amazing at economics that he could not run a lemonade stand!

Damn.. the regressive arrogance.

Secondly, the other components ARE growth by definition, so your claim that they haven't simulated growth is completely nonsensical. Clearly you have absolutely no clue.

I agree though, let's reduce government spending so C and I can rise, that actually leads to greater growth over the long term. Can't disagree with that! Perhaps there could be sanity to your plan after all.

First you say consumption is the largest component, and then say it has been lacking. What makes you so sure of that?

I stopped right here.
It is and it has. If you don't understand the basics then you shouldn't be trying to argue.

No, you stopped reading before getting educated. You are full of shit. So far the only thing you have outlined is that everything else being equal, by increasing consumption the economy has to be larger.

WOW! By increasing GDP you are increasing GDP. Quickly, someone reward an award to this liberal regressive thinker! He has found the formula!

You must be proud. You have no clue what you are talking about and yet think so highly of yourself. Classic regressive. I bet you are receving Marxist indoctrination, for it's very unlikely for an individual to have such diminished mental capability otherwise.

Nice cop out though, you got nothing but nonsense, and know it. Buf of course, you know what the ideal level of consumption is and when it is lacking... The arrogance.

The GDP is the economy fool.

Buf of course, you know what the ideal level of consumption is and when it is lacking... The arrogance.

No, it's called economics.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Surprise surprise Billy only reads here what he wants to read.

Raise the EITC , raising the national Minimum wage don't do a God Damn thing to help the poor except make some with out a ******* job.


.

You do know the minimum wage has been raised many times before and nothing catastrophic happened right? Yeah, sure, some small businesses would suffer, but millions of people would have higher wages. Prices may go up depending on how high, but it wouldn't be enough to offset the hundreds of dollars more a month people would make. Over time the boost to consumer spending would CREATE jobs.

So tell me jackass, how do we boost wages? We both know you have no idea.

Again fool can't you read?

Wages is just a *******
number


Cost of living and buying power is what you should be after.



.

Oh Christ, stop pretending you know how to fix the problem. We both know you don't know jack shit about economics.

Here is what does not work......arbitrary mandates. What does work is when companies are raising their wages to compete for talent. How do you people propose we get to that......by mandating competition? Shit, you would be capitalism on steroids. Mandate Capitalism!

 

[Hutch Starskey]

You're such a moron. Getting rid Mexicans, as much as your tiny bigoted would like it, wouldn't do jack shit to raise wages. WHY would businesses raise wages for citizens? It's not like ******* workers negotiate their wages with their employers in this day and age you idiot.

WHY would businesses raise wages for citizens?

Supply and demand. Durr.

Derp! Where does demand come from?

Demand for employees would come from employers. Derp indeed.

Yeah, you could pass an econ class.

Customers buying products and services create demand. Demand creates the employers need for new employees. Employers don't hire for no reason.

Demand is only ONE component based on which business decisions are made. If taxes are increased by 5 %, the extra 5 % demand awarded to lazy single mom bums like yourself is less than able to compensate for the effect. On the other hand, the republican policies of rewarding businesses, even if authoritarian bullshit, at least actually makes businesses more profitable and thus gets people employed.

The problem here is you are physically not capable of using logic or digging up empirical data. That is to say, you are brain dead parrot with not even an ounce of originality.

A business doesn't earn profit from tax cuts, they earn profits from customers buying their products and services. It stands to reason then if the majority of consumers have more income then they have more to spend with your firm.

 

[Norman]

Actually the GDP equation through expenditure is C+I+G+NX

Through income it is:

Compensation of employees + Rent + Interest + Proprietor’s Income + Corporate Profits + Indirect business taxes + Depreciation + Net foreign factor income

So far you have identified two components, and think economy can grow only based on those two, which is false (in fact the economic growth of the last 50 years has mostly NOT dependent on wages). In addition, the GDP won't be any higher if you just redistribute it from one part to a other, or make it illegal for poor people to work.

In other words, you are full of shit, and absolutely uneducated. Get lost, regressive.

I identified precisely the largest component. The component that is and has been lacking.
Growth is slow as a result. Obviously that's where the problem lies. The other components have grown over the same period and have not stimulated growth.

First you say consumption is the largest component, and then say it has been lacking. What makes you so sure of that? Oh of course, we should believe you the great liberal economist central planner, who is so amazing at economics that he could not run a lemonade stand!

Damn.. the regressive arrogance.

Secondly, the other components ARE growth by definition, so your claim that they haven't simulated growth is completely nonsensical. Clearly you have absolutely no clue.

I agree though, let's reduce government spending so C and I can rise, that actually leads to greater growth over the long term. Can't disagree with that! Perhaps there could be sanity to your plan after all.

First you say consumption is the largest component, and then say it has been lacking. What makes you so sure of that?

I stopped right here.
It is and it has. If you don't understand the basics then you shouldn't be trying to argue.

No, you stopped reading before getting educated. You are full of shit. So far the only thing you have outlined is that everything else being equal, by increasing consumption the economy has to be larger.

WOW! By increasing GDP you are increasing GDP. Quickly, someone reward an award to this liberal regressive thinker! He has found the formula!

You must be proud. You have no clue what you are talking about and yet think so highly of yourself. Classic regressive. I bet you are receving Marxist indoctrination, for it's very unlikely for an individual to have such diminished mental capability otherwise.

Nice cop out though, you got nothing but nonsense, and know it. Buf of course, you know what the ideal level of consumption is and when it is lacking... The arrogance.

The GDP is the economy fool.

Buf of course, you know what the ideal level of consumption is and when it is lacking... The arrogance.

No, it's called economics.

This must be the culmination of the dumbest post by a regressive, in a series of really dumb posts and arguments (to be honest I am not so sure you even had an argument, just saying spending is "lacking" is not an argument). Anyway, have fun parroting your non-argumenets. I don't have time to waste on someone who clearly doesn't even understand basic language, even after having explained it several times. I am sure your mouth is watering over spending and free stuff though, that's what it's about ain't it?

Yes and I know what economics are, I have a degree in economics. You on the other hand have absolutely no clue on economics, and possibly anything else for that matter.

SPEND SPEND SPENDING!!!

 

[westwall]

Wages in America in the lower classes have been stagnant for DECADES while the cost of living continues to rise. Meanwhile, most of the income gains have gone to the top 1% of earners. This is all while productivity in the lower classes has skyrocketed in the last few decades.

If you're so opposed to raising the minimum wage to ANY level, how exactly are we supposed to boost wages? Keep in mind 1/4 of the workforce in America makes less than $10 per hour. 10s of millions more make less than $15 per hour. That means we are facing a serious wage crisis that 10s of millions of Americans have NO CHOICE but to endure. Higher wage jobs are scarce and extremely competitive and even most of them pay less than it what is required for the current cost of living standards.

What specific policies would fix this? Now many of you may claim deporting all illegals would boost wages, but not only would this skyrocket the deficit, it would take decades to achieve. Even if we did pull this off, it's not like businesses across the country would collectively say "well all the illegals are gone. I guess I have a moral obligation to pay my workers more!". Don't be stupid.

Corporate profits are already at an all time high. That means cutting taxes on top earners/corporations or deregulating wouldn't do jack shit improve the economy. That's mostly because those policies never have anyway.

So let's hear them. What are your brilliant solutions? Obviously no republicans in office have any ideas. They prey upon your ignorance.

Sending illegal aliens back home would work wonders for the wage system in the USA. The illegals work at significantly lower wages than native borns will, thus creating an artificial two tier wage system.