XPost: ca.general, ca.politics, alt.california
XPost: alt.abortion, alt.drugs.abuse

People are not truly gainfully employed when making $.02 per hour. They are more
likely doing worthless jobs and a fiscal stimulus is needed. To spend on employment and thereby as well purchase infrastructure which provides industry for
the people. We want to assess the wealth of the nation accurately, if this includes addressing the personal spending at the top.

Just making the point, that if unemployment were to go up, that is not necessarily
an argument against the minimum wage. But unemployment vs. inflation, inflation
vs. the interest rate, and the interest rate vs. price/book values; the Philips curve* should be accurately assessed, and not give a false representation of the
economy based on a low minimum wage.

That is, if an increase in the minimum wage were to cause the Philips curve to shift out, we would be at a higher unemployment rate for each level of inflation.
In this case, we would want to increase inflation by lowering the interest rate or
fiscally stimulating the economy, addressing the true state of the nation.

Not falsely pretending things are okay, because people were employed to do non-productive jobs at low wages. Rather, investment in both capital and labor -
education, and equity, needs to be increased.


Without the American economy no one would be earning any living at all. Pro Basketball players would not be earning $30 million per year playing Basketball in
Chad. No, it is the capital that is responsible for any return on labor at all,
for everyone. Nor is a passive income that is not saved for capital fair. That
someone gets more money by the hour to spend, than you, because they are taller and can win at Basketball. And is there no money for the retarded or the less intelligent?

Granted, maybe some people have focused more by the hour, on their jobs than others, so far, but that just means they've put in more time like someone who has
more education - maybe only because they had that opportunity, thus the vast disparities in pay are largely unfair certainly if education isn't free. And even
if it is, that would mean that more time passing gets you more money. So work experience, education and brand name, intelligence, body, talent, financial assets
themselves, are assets, which earn a passive income, while people work the same or
less hours than others. Why participate? Are you with slave labor? The return
on a $1 billion dollars is $50 million per year without work. While we differ in
assets, we're all equal in expenses, and cost and Spirit. Those who own capital
are liable to exploit others - i.e. their workers, if they're able. You can't start a business without financial equity.

Meanwhile the world withholds property from you at gunpoint. It's just like being
robbed.

Do you think this argument has merit? Am I still missing any points?

What if you are actually teaching people to be more industrious, the above argument says you are just paid the same to teach? Just trying to consider this
and see what if anything else might be.

How is it our society expects our politicians and those who serve them to be altruists, but doesn't expect the same of everyone else? How come our society has
a psycho arguing that everyone isn't altruistic, while it doesn't pay our politicians and those who serve them any incentive to work?


*Philips Curve Explained: https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/1364/economics/phillips-curve-explained/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)