Why do liberals hate small business?

I have a better question, who is trying to raise a family on minimum wage? Whoever it is definitely an irresponsible parent. I know the concept of planning for the future is foreign to statist liberals but... that applies here.

You have to ask yourself why there is no other choice.

Except for higher prices for consumers, retaliation (which means worse conditions for exporters), insider subsidies, and a bad track record.

 

I will clarify my comment about minimum wage some. A couple of posters here have explained some of the economics about minimum wage. I am not against having a minimum wage, since there is a need to keep the scum from getting away with paying $1 an hour, but!!! look at Oregon where I am currently at - always one of the highest in unemployment, and one of the highest minimum wage. Our minimum wage increases are not helping Oregon's small businesses.

Currently we are not planning on hiring anyone at minimum wage, in fact the person we are hiring will be on salary.

One person I know who owned 3 food franchises locally kept more employees at the minimum wage longer in order to afford the next one and remain profitable. To those who don't think he deserved to make a profit ask who spent his waking hours working, planning, etc and who put his finances at risk to start and run these stores? He sold them all and did well all the way through the process. I didn't agree fully with some of what he paid, but since he didn't pay as well to managers, he paid the price in having to train new ones, etc...

He is a smart man who did great marketing for his stores and now the new owner who didn't want to learn the original owners way (he was willing even to this day to teach) they are not making any money. I wouldn't be surprised to see them go bankrupt or have to sell soon.

Back to minimum wage - it is ment for entry level jobs, not for a family supporting career. Sometimes a person gets stuck with a minimum wage job, but if they are working hard they should be promoted or find a better job. Sick of people whining about their pay, yet don't even derserve the pay they get since they are just a body doing motions and no effort, stealing from the company, not working if no one is looking, doing everything half way, expecting others to do things for them, etc..... I have seen this personally, I have worked with people like this. I was told by a "manager" -"don't work yourself out of a job" meaning don't work to hard and fast or you won't have anything to do. That type of thinking is what I would let go any day. I did "work myself out of a job" and guess what? I got promoted - again and again. Now I work for myself.

 

Nothing wrong with protectionism? Excuse me while I take a 10 minute break to laugh at that comment. Nate has it right when he says higher prices for consumers, but who does higher consumer prices really hurt the most? Oh yeah, the poor. When the cost of everything goes through the roof, those who need every penny to survive live a lower quality of life. You don't need to look at history to know this is true. There are many functioning socialist and protectionist economies on the planet right now, and the effects are demonstrably true.

The same is true for all the taxes you would levy onto companies to pay for your social programs for the poor. Those taxes pass nearly transparently into the price of the products those companies sell. Net effect, the poor live a lower quality of life.

What you are talking about, BP, demonstrates a fundamental lack of knowledge of economics. The sad part is, whoever sold you this bill of goods probably understood perfectly the true effects of such policies and decided to sell it to you anyway.

 

I just hope you aren't taking economics in class, if you are, you will FAIL!!!

 

I guess that explains the A's i got in 2 of the classes so far.

What's funny is most of what I say (besides some personal bias in hopes of a critique) comes straight from the books themselves, so you failed pretty hard at acting superior while dodging my points. Maybe you should take a class, or read a book at least.

 

That school needs to be close and or stop getting federal funding, because it failed to help someone. (I think you're lying though)

 

Well the school itself really doesn't matter as much as the text that is used. Here's just one of them by Bradley Schiller, an economic professor; you should take your issue up with him.

Hopefully I won't have to reply to another ad hom, it would be nice to get back on topic.

 

I don't need to read what you've read, I have my own resource, but for the last of this argument all I can say is, you might just qualify as a Jack n the Box assistant employee with what you know.

 

You must be confident in your resources and economic knowledge then... confident enough to throw insults as you retreat from discussion. Don't let the door hit ya on the way out.

 

Clearly haha. See, conservatives just have one comment to all of the indigents problems and that is the indigent are where they are because they deserve to be there, clearly, this is no argument, rather a way to say "let them take care of their own problems" and as wwws mentioned it doesn't take a rocket scientist to say something like this, rather, it takes an uneducated conservatives. Well their problems affect our whole community and economy, having a large population who can't spend money freely because they can hardly eat hurts every business both small and large. Plain and simple. Look at this economy now, look how many people are hurting, and look how all the businesses are doing because of it.

If we had a more planned economy (more public jobs, more regulation on mainly wall street but also businesses etc.,) we would never be in the mess we are today, plain and simple. No one can argue this. You really, really can't.

 

An uneducated conservatives? Please, you two are tripping over yourselves big time. Take a few deep breaths and return later if you have to.

We already have welfare programs for people who are in the dumps. Restricting economic freedom further doesn't bring prosperity...

If they can hardly eat why don't we make the min. wage 20$/hr? Or 30? Your point is a non sequitur. Low wages didn't create our current economic state.

A history of command economies and their transition to market economies would prove otherwise. Besides, someone has to create the wealth for the state to steal.

 

LoL. Nate, you could be a fortune teller. Ad Hom is all he has. Notice how he claims to have a source for his economic insight, but can never provide it. I guess that puts him into the category of misled, rather misleader.

@Al Capone: You can no longer be taken seriously. Your only response to an argument about the economic effects of welfare is to create a straw man of conservative views? Really? That is all you have? You are a disgrace to Orange County(probably living in the slums of Anaheim). Please don't cry about the poor when you want to take away the incentive(necessity) required for them to remove themselves from poverty. It is your kind of thinking that made California's welfare system amongst the worst in the nation. When you pay more to welfare recipients, you get more of them. If you cant see the simple logic of that, you are beyond hope.

 

- Al C: If we had a more planned economy (more public jobs, more regulation on mainly wall street but also businesses etc.,) we would never be in the mess we are today, plain and simple. No one can argue this. You really, really can't.


Economic models by Text (ncz-nat), not capitalism are structured to accomplish full employment as their primary objective to be considered a viable proposal. Right wingers / conservatives ultimately fail and are removed from power as it is there objective to have a workforce controlled by oversupply (unemployment) to prevent those employed from appreciating to a higher level than replacing them at will from the contrived source of unemployed. For the conservatives it is a shell game using the means of production at their disposal in controlling the well being of others as the means for their own advancement. - - Bush using Mexican truck drivers replacing our own is a prime example - the American drivers being also the consumers is why it fails even for Bush / conservatives, causing recessions in the broader picture.

Planed economies can exist in Capitalism just as easily as the Military infrastructure that is soly gov't / tax supported where guaranteed jobs for full employment is the criteria than enrichment for a few as in the present.....Why the liberals have been put in charge and the passage of healthcare reform as a beginning.

 

Full employment isn't the only objective. The Soviets tackled the unemployment problem quite well. By the text, you're forgetting stability and growth.

The last point is another non sequitur, at least until you can supply evidence that Mexican truck drivers caused the recession.

Getting to full-employment through protectionism makes sense in the short-term, of course, because statist liberals can see the economy only in the short term. The bigger picture will show however that those employed here who rely on trade with those countries we protect against will be forced to cut jobs once foreign governments retaliate with protectionist policies of their own.

 

It is called "Governing" setting up policies so that they do not infringe on some one else rights and the government is not against small business because small business is what's powering America, why would the Government be against them in the first place? You're paranoid, get off the pills.

Well forget paying them, let's just give them a box of of Top Ramen for the 8 hours of work and call it good, who cares if they get diarrhea from it and die.

NO, but the last administration did by deliberately crashing the market in advance right before exited, if you have a short memory, the economy was doing fairly well during Clinton, he created jobs and lowered the National Debt. The jobs remained steady for quite sometimes during the new administration (after Clinton left), small business remained at all times high during Clinton and remain so even after he left.

The internet bumbles is quite different from the home mortgage crisis that *ucked everything up. because unlike internet related which are mostly privately funded, the mortgage crisis where mostly federal dependent (hence the bail out?).

Heard any internet related companies that went down getting any bail out's in the late 90's? I don't think so.

Who *ucked the current economy? The last administration? Correct
Who's against small businesses? The whiners? Correct.

What low wages does it hinders one from living the life to pursue happiness, they become dependent on government and local resources and friends/family members and not every qualified individual can get this resource and or don't know much about how to get them because it was design to not be so easy to get access to it, if it was easy, then every one will try to get it which the government would rather spend it on the war effort than to it's hard working citizens that pay taxes even on their small wages.

The bad thing about raising the minimum wages is, all of a sudden after it gets raise, every thing that you buy goes up, small business takes advantage of the rise, they will often profit from it, instead of raising the prices to about 2 cents on a dozen eggs (fro example) to make up, they instead raise to triple the amount claiming for whatever sadistic reasoning.

I believe that a reasonable minimum wage should go to a certain class that will not put them in a welfare classification, the minimum wage really belongs to young adults that are living with parents, non-physical demanding job like the Walmart greeter (hello!), people working for tips, food sampler at Costco etc,... In another words, if an employer needing some one for something easy, then a minimum wage might be an ideal, but if the job requires a more demanding duties, then a living wage should be paid. Depending on what state or county/city you live in, a living wage can be around $10.75 to $13.50 an hour, this wage is still far from living in a paradise, but it helps greatly to those people that work hard at what they do.

Ever seeing that lady that waits on the bus dressed up in a uniform to go to work in a nursing home, her job is to wipe your grand parents ass for a living and all she's got is her job, she maybe be single with a dependent, what if that dependent becomes a CEO of some corporation or end up being a scientist one day and find a cure for cancer or whatever, but for that to happen, that lady needs to be paid a FAIR wage so that she and her family can afford the basic needs for living. We live in a world that to have something is to pay for something which requires money to get them, she can't save money for college for that kid if she gets just a little over the minimum wage and if that kid don't get enough education or influence, then the cycle will repeat and we wont have that person that could one day save our ass from anal-cancer because we are anti-human. Were not talking about charity here, where talking about a fair descent living base on the performance that is given.

All I'm saying is, don't be anti-human by being against anything that will help a fellow human being the right to acquire the same goodness that some of you might be seeking and that is the right to life, liberty and to pursue happiness.

There is nothing wrong with free market, just that greed tends to get the best of us. Competition is great, but don't stumble on any one and look down upon them, instead be a good sports, the weak that seek every opportunity that it can get will be obvious to every one.

 

I was really eager to reply point-by-point until I got to the "anti-human" part. I mean it was funny at first because it's like the epitome of the standard anti-capitalist appeal to emotion + strawman double logical fallacy, but I had to come to terms quickly with the state of mind you're in. I just wish you didn't torture me by burying it at the very end.

 

Hahaha, just the reply I was hoping for, easily expected. Just read what you wrote though, here's one, I wont go further on quoting you.

You seem to lack compassion when you said that and failed to understand that there are people in every corner of the world regardless of how wealthy that nation is, there will always be "under class" that will end up in that situation, it is never really a matter of "irresponsibility", it has many variables that comes with it on why most societies always have those type of people, but the reality is, there are, does not really matter if they are hard workers or slackers, the mentality is unexplainable, but for sure, it cannot be ignored, given a chance to let them explore what talents they may have could only benefit the society, but when they are confined into the slave wage world, they become feeling displaced, loss, not knowing how they are going to make it.

 

Yes I lack compassion because I believe in giving to people directly on a voluntary basis, through the goodness of my heart, rather than make others do it through the barrel of a gun.

You don't know me at all or what I've done to help people, so don't play your appeal to emotion bullsh!t you're so known for in this thread. You can't legislate based on what feels good; if you want to feel good, get a massage or take yoga, but leave these matters to those capable of reason.

You're right about there being variables, plenty of which you've clearly ignored. If you're first reaction to a problem you see is to have the government fix it, you haven't thought far enough. I'll leave it that, I can't get you past your emotions, you'll need to take the first step.

 

If government isn't going to fix it, who is... Enron? Chevron? Walmart? Companies don't solve the nations problems, rather they often cause them. Government fix problems. So yes, my first reaction to a problem is "why doesn't government step in and fix it." Be it the deregulation of the derivatives market that initially caused this mess in the financial sector,, lack of healthcare to the poor, a low minimum wage, bad roads or countless other problems. I say "where was the government" not where was Morgan Stanley or the investments banks, where was Walmart with an increased minimum wage, where was Kaiser with their at cost insurance plan for the indigent, where was FedEx when we needed better roads. This isn't their problems to fix, they are trying to run a low cost profitable business, this is the governments job, they need to govern. If there is a problem, all I can say is the government should fix it - no government, no fix.

So next time you feel like knocking people for thinking that the government is the solution to these problems ask yourself who else is going to fix it if not the government. We need governing, plain and simple, because businesses are in the business of making $$$ like I said early, usually with in the bounds of regulations and laws.

To think we don't need the government is just plain uneducated.

 

If you think it would be foolish of me to blame every problem on government, you should realize it would be also foolish to blame every problem on the market, which is what you imply when you instinctively turn to government for answers. You should also realize that the companies you point fingers at USUALLY exist only through government aid through barriers to entry, regulation, subsidization, etc. So no, not every problem that begins with a company means that it is a problem of the market. This is a mixed economy not a free-market economy, therefore what happens is not as simple as saying, "zomg the free-market did it!"

I'll leave you with an example before I go to bed...

Why are college tuition prices, in general, too high and rising at a rapid rate? I'll be interested in your answer first before I give my own.