Minimum Wage

The minimum wage is racist, and has been since racist FDR put it in to help whites.

FDR was a democrat.also he put in the minimum wage to help people in general in the great depression.in fact black people and people of color suffered the most in the great depression.so if anything FDR is far from racist.

Japanese internment camps, need I say less.

Wrong, FDR put in minimum wage because whites were complaining that blacks and Chinese were working for less than whites. He put in a minimum wage that “was so high, they might as well pay a white person”. Which was 25 cents in 1933. Thomas Sowell, do your own research. You’ve been duped duper.

"History of the federal minimum wage and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The concept behind the FLSA began in the 1930s as a response to the Great Depression, a time when about 25% of workers were unemployed, people lost their life savings due to bank failures, and many struggled to secure housing and food." directly from the front page of google.

A response to the depression was also, burn good crops to raise prices. Raising minimum wage always hurts people of color the most, fact. Some jobs aren’t worth $7.00 or $9.00, or, $15.00. Those jobs are lost. Socialist policies don’t help capitalism.

I think the point we should be making here is not whether it is fair or moral. The simple fact is that every attempt by the government to manipulate the economy fails to change anything at best and is often disastrous at worst. Even corporations current excess (which democrats bemoan) is the result of years of government intervention that was loopholed and/or backfired to oblivion. I.e. did not work as promised.
Also I think our current culture of consumerisn is the problem, not capitalism. Without consumerism you could not charge 50+ dollars for fancy water bottle, and then double the price because it's in an "exclusive" color, and still have consumers having multiple in thier collection. And such consumer behavior should be indicative of widespread prosperity, not widespread poverty.

its not socialism to provide a living wage.

Living wage is not the same as minimum wage. Rewriting definitions is a socialist method, Duped.

minimum wage is literally the minimum amount of money you need to live.hence a living wage.look i myself am conservative,but to say that paying people less then what they need to just live is socialism is morally and logically wrong.

Minimum wage is a law, not an economic principle. Need is subjective. A hundred years ago people didn’t “need” cars, TV’s, air conditioning, cellphones, air travel, and much more. Capitalism turned those luxuries into today’s needs. The lowest wage is a starting point, not the middle point. Abolish minimum wage is my belief.

minimum wage is not meant to pay for tv air conditioners etc.it is and always has been meant to pay just enough to put food on the table, and to pay the rent,but right now that is not possible because the minimum wage has not been and inflation has made it no longer a living wage.

Minimum Wage was never, never, meant to be a living wage.

Your “living wage” is a controlled wage. Not a market driven wage. It’s not an earned wage. Hence socialism

if everything was market driven then the trillion dollar companies wouldn't pay us at all.

That is ridiculous. Do trillion dollar companies just spring out of nothing?

What exactly is sound money? Is this where we all have to carry around gold & silver coins?

Cause that would suck.

True money has intrinsic value. A nation's coinage should be made of copper, silver or gold. Paper money should be backed by a silver or gold, as it was for many years when we had silver and gold certificates.
And finally, and maybe most importantly, gold and silver cannot be created “on a whim.” Both are FINITE. Whereas there’s almost an infinite amount of paper on this planet, there’s a very finite amount of accessible precious metals.

But. Here's the thing.

There's no difference between carrying around pieces of paper that everyone agrees is worth X amount of gold/silver and just saying that slip of paper is worth X amount.

Both require us to agree on value. If I don't value gold/silver, then you trying to pay me with it is worthless. I won't accept it because I don't value it. The value/worth is what we agreed upon. It has nothing to do with the metal or its abundancy/scarcity.

If I say this Product is worth 3 gold pieces and you pay, it's worth that amount. If I say it's worth 3 slips of paper, and you pay, it's worth 3 slips of paper. We agreed to the value. The medium of exchange doesn't matter.

Also, as to scarcity, it's estimated that there is 30ish billion metric tons of gold available to be minned out of dry land. There's another 100 billion metric tons of gold in the ocean.

So...it's not really that rare.

The history of fiat currency is more or less the same in each & every circumstance. The government prints too much, creates inflation or hyperinflation and the currency is rejected. Every fiat currency has failed because eventually fiat ceases to function as a store of value and a medium of exchange.

Paper money and base metal coinage are just government issued currencies, a form of debt.

On the other hand, gold, and to a lesser extent silver, fit the historical definition of money and have for thousands of years.

Ask yourself, why have gold and silver survived the test of time as a true form of money? And why have gold and silver been universally accepted as money throughout recorded time?

1. Gold and silver are LIQUID, meaning they are easily exchanged, traded, bartered with or sold for non-monetary government issued currencies.

2. Gold and silver are CONSISTENT. That refers to the fact that gold and silver are easily recognized, and their appearance and composition have never changed.

3. Gold and silver are DIVISIBLE. Smaller or larger units of precious metals are proportional in value. Most other tangible items of value are not.

4. Gold and silver are CONVENIENT, meaning even small units hold noteworthy value and are easy to carry and transport.

5. Gold and silver are DURABLE. That means, as with all precious metals, they are not biodegradable, nor can they evaporate and disappear without a trace. That is not the case with many forms of “so-called” money.

And then there are business's that do not accept paper money in the USA, legal tender.
They only do business by debit or credit card, and refuse cash or precious metals...
Some stadiums do not allow their concessions to take cash.
How do they qualify for a business license in the USA, if they refuse legal tender?

Bitcoin transition will likely be by this type of coercion.

You do realize that there is more digital money in banking and investments than there is printed cash to represent it? Hence our national deficit concurs.

There has not been a gold standard in the USA in half a century.

Is there evidence that inflation is tied to the type of currency?

Like actual science evidence, not how you feel about it.

Eccentric and strange, yawn, stretch.

Seems a paragraph lamenting legal tender and some businesses in the USA operating without accepting it & NO mention of the word "inflation" is rather awkward to be queried about "how that inflation" is or is not tied to "the type of currency" and bring "feelings" into the mix.

Maybe you're whistling in reply to the wrong paragraph?... Let's go with that. .

I may have been thinking about another reply, so I'll update my question: Is there any evidence that using using digital funds in business & banking had any impact in the national deficit?

Like actual science evidence and not how you feel abouit it.

Deficit or Debt? Budget Deficit Spending or National Debt? Just to clarify

Regardless, a few questions to get closer to that answer, might be to ask:

1-What was the (Deficit or Debt) prior to digital currency?

2-Compare that to what it is now. What's that look like?

3-Is the currency being developed by BRICS and backed by gold,
going to have any effect on outsiders to that program ?

Is there a cost associated with extracting Gold, Silver etc from dry land or undersea ?
It may not be rare, yet it is rare to acquire and make usable w/o a significant investment.

It will really come down to how do you want to define digital currancy? Does it require Source Bank to notify Receiving Account of a funds transfer over a distance electronically? Seems like that should be at the dawn of the internet age, the 90s, right?

Except that Chase and other big New York banks were doing exactly that with each other in the 80s.

But if you think about it, that's an ATM. A digital transfer. Machine to Machine. And that started in the 70s.

And if all you need is an electronic means of transfer... when was the telegraph invented? Because that's literally Western Union's business model. You're in city A and you contact someone in City B via the wire to transfer funds.

So, I think, tying the US's deficit spending and our growing national debt to 'digital currency' doesn't make any sense.

& what of 3? The BRICS question ?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanlewis/2024/01/24/brics-making-good-progress-on-their-golden-path/?sh=401f30a2549b

And brics has what to do with the history of deficit spending in the US?

Remember your claim, "You do realize that there is more digital money in banking and investments than there is printed cash to represent it? Hence our national deficit concurs."

And then I asked what science facts involve any connection between digital currency and deficits.

Why not both?

https://www.britannica.com/science/aqua-regia