Economics is a very debatable topic. Many experts argue and deliberate on numerous topics related to the economy. This makes sense, since the economy is one of, if not the most important aspect to a country's success. A great economy makes a great country. Now in today's society, citizens of the United States tend to fall into one of two categories when expressing their beliefs on economic principles: those who are Capitalist, and those who are Socialist. Now this isn't entirely black and white, right and left, and Republican and Democrat. People do fall in the middle. Debate is necessary for progress, and bipartisanship is the only way to truly make change. Well, this may be the case for some situations, but Republicans really do have the advantage when arguing economics. More capitalistic economies are objectively better than more socialist economies. Now why is that? This blog post delves into my own economic theories and what I personally believe is right. Because this is my blog and I can write whatever I want. I am obviously a Conservative Republican so my theories are extremely capitalistic and generally "right" on the political spectrum. I will go over the numerous aspects of the economy because I really just need to rant sometimes. Each theory I present will build upon the next theory and create a large complex overview of what I truly believe is what would work in this country. First I will start with the very popular issue of minimum wage.
Minimum wage is a contentious topic today because the Left argues that the current minimum wage is not considered a "living wage." While this is beyond true, raising it would be absolutely ridiculous for the country. Businesses are only in existence to make a profit for themselves and in return provide good and resources for us, that is the beauty of Capitalism. Businesses want to make as much money as possible, that's their goal as is everyone else's goal in life. By raising the minimum wage, businesses will be forced to pay workers more money, thus cutting back on their profits. The only logical response to this would be one of three options. Option 1: Lay off workers to save money. Option 2: Raise prices of the goods produced. Option 3: Do both option 1 and 2. Now businesses will choose one of these options, with in my personal opinion option 3 would be chosen most often, and the effects of a minimum wage increase would put the minimum wage workers in the exact same situation that they were prior. Workers will be laid off. Proof of this can be found in this study: (http://www2.montgomerycountymd.gov/mcgportalapps/Press_Detail.aspx?Item_ID=21293) This doesn't help the people if minimum wage jobs become increasingly more and more competitive to acquire. Now say that businesses instead choose to raise prices instead of laying off workers. This will lead to an increase in the price of goods which will ultimately offset the increase in minimum wage that was just established. So we're in the exact same situation as before, just with a different set of numbers to deal with. With pure logic, the idea of raising the minimum wage can be debunked. But I'm not going to stop there.
I think renowned conservative speaker Ben Shapiro put it best, "Raising the minimum wage will lead to a raise in the rent. A raise in the rent will raise the need for affordable housing. Affordable housings costs mean taxing the people for affordable housing. Taxing people to build affordable housing makes people leave the city to areas without this tax. You then have to raise taxes on the people remaining in the city (the poor on minimum wage) and this is how you hollow out the economy of a major metropolitan area in the United States." This is brilliant and correct.
Did you know that big corporations like Walmart actually support increases in minimum wage? This seems to completely go against my entire argument earlier! However, it follows flawlessly. Like I said, businesses are competitive and only want to make as much profit as possible. Increasing the minimum wage would not harm Walmart that much. It would however, hurt their small businesses that try to compete with Walmart. Small businesses are often owned by local families of an area and can not afford to pay their employees the $15 an hour that Liberals fight for. This will destroy the idea of small businesses and will allow multinational corporations to acquire more money that they gain in customers lost from the small businesses. A policy meant to help the people, hurts the people.
A really common question that Republicans tend to raise is, "why should a high school student be paid so much?" This is a very valid point. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, workers under the age of 25 make up only 20% of those who work hourly wage jobs (as opposed to salaried individuals) but make up 50% of ALL workers on minimum wage. That is quite the number of youth on minimum wage. Most older hourly wage workers are actually paid more than the minimum wage. Raising it would only benefit youth, which come on, they don't need that much money.
Yes, minimum wage is not a living wage at this point in time. And most people aren't living on it according to the facts. According to economists Joseph Sabia and Richard Burkhauser, only 11.3% of minimum wage workers belong to households under the poverty line. The majority in poverty don't actually work and rely on government assistance instead. The majority of minimum wage workers actually are secondary earners and are not the primary earner in the family. Facts don't lie. An increase in minimum wage hurts the economy and Liberals are starting to tone down their fight for it because study after study and facts after facts disprove any sort of idea that a high minimum wage is good for America.
I did say that this was my own theories and not just an argument. What I believe is right is that we should establish two sets of wage standards. We should have one wage for those under 25 years of age and another for those older than 25 years of age. If a worker is over 25, they are most likely more experienced and better educated than their youthful counterparts and are therefore better suited for these jobs. They should be paid $10 an hour. However, companies will still employ children and youth and if they are under 25 they should be paid the standard $7.25 minimum wage. There should not be adults making the same amount as a high school student. That is not fair. Now this in theory sounds amazing, but does have it's drawbacks. Companies may discriminate and hire more youth instead of adults in order to save money. So that is why I believe that companies should have tax incentives to hire older workers and ensure that those in poverty make a living wage. Now, instead of raising the minimum wage like Liberals want, I think a better solution would be to raise the income tax credit. This is the money that is given back to the people from the government by doing your taxes each year. The Congressional Budget Office actually states that this would be MORE beneficial for workers than an increase in the minimum wage. So why hasn't this happened yet, or even being brought up? Well, because Congress wants to put the burden of raising people from poverty on the businesses. They want businesses to get people out of property, not themselves. Raising the income tax credit puts the burden back on the government to get people out of poverty, not businesses. This is the government's responsibility, not businesses.
I talked a lot about the minimum wage, and gave my theory on it as well as a relatively good debunk of the common increase the minimum wage argument. Towards the end I mention that it should be the government's responsibility to get the people out of poverty. I believe this is the case. Most Liberals agree with me as well. They believe the way to do so is with the classic FDR policy, "The New Deal" which put in place the welfare system we know and love today. Well I completely disagree. I believe welfare has actually hurt the poor and has kept them in even worse conditions since it was established. (I will be going into more detail of this theory I have, "The Democratic Party is the Party of Racism and Hate" and I'm sure this will be a fun read)
The welfare system is broken. Under President Obama, the United States went from $2 billion spending to $32 billion and the poverty rate stayed roughly the same. We are taxing more and more and putting more and more resources into a system that is clearly not working. President Obama saw a huge increase in the number of Americans on government assistance than before he was in office. Now yes, it could partially be due to the recession, but it also has to do with the program itself. The welfare system just kept increasing taxes for Americans. The ones most affected by this were middle class workers. These are the blue collar workers in the Rust Belt of America. The ones that President Trump expertly won over during the 2016 election. These people are just well off enough to not qualify for government assistance but can not afford the high taxes that are imposed with the welfare system. They are struggling and are worse off than those on government assistance. This needs to end.
Why is it that it is so hard for those in poverty to get out of poverty? Institutionalized racism? Discrimination of the poor? The 1%? All of these are false. It is because of the environment that they are in. The areas are run down and broken. There is little to no business growth in these areas. The schools are pitiful at best. The children are on the streets finding themselves in bad and illegal company. They are living in conditions of that of third world countries. This needs to be fixed! Welfare is just keeping these people alive, not helping them prosper an grow. Why is it that some of the cities with the poorest and most people on welfare (Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, etc.) are the ones that have been controlled by Democrats for decades? It's because of the failed Left-wing ideology that has been plaguing these cities for years upon years. Welfare has shown what it does to cities. It kills them.
What would I do? I would cripple the welfare system to almost nothingness. The money saved would be then put into reconstruction efforts in the inner cities. These would create construction jobs for people. After construction is complete, the inner cities will be cleaner and safer. This will promote businesses to want to move and grow in these areas. This will open up more new jobs for the people. Assistance should be given to those who rely on it - those who are mentally and physically disabled. The problem with the welfare system is that it has become a system of dependency, this was not the intention of it. People are living off of this system, which should not be happening. Ronald Reagan said it best when he stated that "Welfare's purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its existence." And my personal favorite, "We should measure welfare's success by how many people leave welfare, not by how many are added." This isn't happening right now and it is so sad. We need to use this money to improve the areas and give the people the tools necessary to succeed, not to fail. This is the only way to save the poor.
A common argument is "what about the children?" If the welfare system is all but abolished, won't children suffer? Sadly, these children are already suffering by having to be in these conditions in the first place. People need to find jobs. The best way to create jobs is to rebuild these areas. Go downtown to some of the more run down areas of the city you live in. There are so many abandoned buildings and lots that could be rebuilt into businesses and job opportunities. This could eliminate the welfare system and allow the poor a place to work. Which actually brings up another valid point. Most minimum wage workers are on welfare. A lot of corporations actually give these workers their own benefits which make welfare unnecessary. We need to be focusing on helping the poor not hurting them. Rebuild the cities and create job opportunities. Give businesses subsidies and tax breaks for hiring these workers and offering benefits to the poor. Have the people who are better off donate to charities and churches and have them help in the rebuilding effort. Cut the need for welfare and instead put that energy towards giving the people the tools necessary to succeed.
To put it simply, we need to cripple the welfare system and redistribute money towards rebuilding, to the school systems, to helping the poor truly get out of poverty. We need to separate the minimum wage into two categories, adults and youth, and pay what the experience deserves. Be positive with businesses and make them want to hire the poor and older citizens instead of forcing them and hurting them. We need to alleviate taxes on the people. The middle class is struggling and can not keep paying for broken systems. I support a flat tax rate of 10%. Every American pays 10% of their annual income and that is how they contribute to society - it simplifies a too complicated tax system and will make things better for all social classes. To save money, the United States can even abolish 5 absolutely useless federal agencies and instead give the rights back to the states. Those are the IRS, the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. These agencies should be abolished and should be represented by the individual states, and have people who truly understand the local issues associated with them, not by career politicians. For example, the Department of Education should be run by the states, where they understand how their youth learn and the position the youth are in economically and socially. This is instead of millionaires in Washington deciding how poor children in Chicago learn, and replaces them with the people of Chicago and of Illinois.
Economics is a very interesting subject to debate and discuss. However, it seems that fact after fact seem to show that conservative ideology is the way to go if you want a prosperous and stable economy and therefore a prosperous and stable country. The economy is ultimately the backbone of a country, and conservative policies are the only way to ensure this fate in my opinion. God Bless America.
Minimum wage is a contentious topic today because the Left argues that the current minimum wage is not considered a "living wage." While this is beyond true, raising it would be absolutely ridiculous for the country. Businesses are only in existence to make a profit for themselves and in return provide good and resources for us, that is the beauty of Capitalism. Businesses want to make as much money as possible, that's their goal as is everyone else's goal in life. By raising the minimum wage, businesses will be forced to pay workers more money, thus cutting back on their profits. The only logical response to this would be one of three options. Option 1: Lay off workers to save money. Option 2: Raise prices of the goods produced. Option 3: Do both option 1 and 2. Now businesses will choose one of these options, with in my personal opinion option 3 would be chosen most often, and the effects of a minimum wage increase would put the minimum wage workers in the exact same situation that they were prior. Workers will be laid off. Proof of this can be found in this study: (http://www2.montgomerycountymd.gov/mcgportalapps/Press_Detail.aspx?Item_ID=21293) This doesn't help the people if minimum wage jobs become increasingly more and more competitive to acquire. Now say that businesses instead choose to raise prices instead of laying off workers. This will lead to an increase in the price of goods which will ultimately offset the increase in minimum wage that was just established. So we're in the exact same situation as before, just with a different set of numbers to deal with. With pure logic, the idea of raising the minimum wage can be debunked. But I'm not going to stop there.
I think renowned conservative speaker Ben Shapiro put it best, "Raising the minimum wage will lead to a raise in the rent. A raise in the rent will raise the need for affordable housing. Affordable housings costs mean taxing the people for affordable housing. Taxing people to build affordable housing makes people leave the city to areas without this tax. You then have to raise taxes on the people remaining in the city (the poor on minimum wage) and this is how you hollow out the economy of a major metropolitan area in the United States." This is brilliant and correct.
Did you know that big corporations like Walmart actually support increases in minimum wage? This seems to completely go against my entire argument earlier! However, it follows flawlessly. Like I said, businesses are competitive and only want to make as much profit as possible. Increasing the minimum wage would not harm Walmart that much. It would however, hurt their small businesses that try to compete with Walmart. Small businesses are often owned by local families of an area and can not afford to pay their employees the $15 an hour that Liberals fight for. This will destroy the idea of small businesses and will allow multinational corporations to acquire more money that they gain in customers lost from the small businesses. A policy meant to help the people, hurts the people.
A really common question that Republicans tend to raise is, "why should a high school student be paid so much?" This is a very valid point. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, workers under the age of 25 make up only 20% of those who work hourly wage jobs (as opposed to salaried individuals) but make up 50% of ALL workers on minimum wage. That is quite the number of youth on minimum wage. Most older hourly wage workers are actually paid more than the minimum wage. Raising it would only benefit youth, which come on, they don't need that much money.
Yes, minimum wage is not a living wage at this point in time. And most people aren't living on it according to the facts. According to economists Joseph Sabia and Richard Burkhauser, only 11.3% of minimum wage workers belong to households under the poverty line. The majority in poverty don't actually work and rely on government assistance instead. The majority of minimum wage workers actually are secondary earners and are not the primary earner in the family. Facts don't lie. An increase in minimum wage hurts the economy and Liberals are starting to tone down their fight for it because study after study and facts after facts disprove any sort of idea that a high minimum wage is good for America.
I did say that this was my own theories and not just an argument. What I believe is right is that we should establish two sets of wage standards. We should have one wage for those under 25 years of age and another for those older than 25 years of age. If a worker is over 25, they are most likely more experienced and better educated than their youthful counterparts and are therefore better suited for these jobs. They should be paid $10 an hour. However, companies will still employ children and youth and if they are under 25 they should be paid the standard $7.25 minimum wage. There should not be adults making the same amount as a high school student. That is not fair. Now this in theory sounds amazing, but does have it's drawbacks. Companies may discriminate and hire more youth instead of adults in order to save money. So that is why I believe that companies should have tax incentives to hire older workers and ensure that those in poverty make a living wage. Now, instead of raising the minimum wage like Liberals want, I think a better solution would be to raise the income tax credit. This is the money that is given back to the people from the government by doing your taxes each year. The Congressional Budget Office actually states that this would be MORE beneficial for workers than an increase in the minimum wage. So why hasn't this happened yet, or even being brought up? Well, because Congress wants to put the burden of raising people from poverty on the businesses. They want businesses to get people out of property, not themselves. Raising the income tax credit puts the burden back on the government to get people out of poverty, not businesses. This is the government's responsibility, not businesses.
I talked a lot about the minimum wage, and gave my theory on it as well as a relatively good debunk of the common increase the minimum wage argument. Towards the end I mention that it should be the government's responsibility to get the people out of poverty. I believe this is the case. Most Liberals agree with me as well. They believe the way to do so is with the classic FDR policy, "The New Deal" which put in place the welfare system we know and love today. Well I completely disagree. I believe welfare has actually hurt the poor and has kept them in even worse conditions since it was established. (I will be going into more detail of this theory I have, "The Democratic Party is the Party of Racism and Hate" and I'm sure this will be a fun read)
The welfare system is broken. Under President Obama, the United States went from $2 billion spending to $32 billion and the poverty rate stayed roughly the same. We are taxing more and more and putting more and more resources into a system that is clearly not working. President Obama saw a huge increase in the number of Americans on government assistance than before he was in office. Now yes, it could partially be due to the recession, but it also has to do with the program itself. The welfare system just kept increasing taxes for Americans. The ones most affected by this were middle class workers. These are the blue collar workers in the Rust Belt of America. The ones that President Trump expertly won over during the 2016 election. These people are just well off enough to not qualify for government assistance but can not afford the high taxes that are imposed with the welfare system. They are struggling and are worse off than those on government assistance. This needs to end.
Why is it that it is so hard for those in poverty to get out of poverty? Institutionalized racism? Discrimination of the poor? The 1%? All of these are false. It is because of the environment that they are in. The areas are run down and broken. There is little to no business growth in these areas. The schools are pitiful at best. The children are on the streets finding themselves in bad and illegal company. They are living in conditions of that of third world countries. This needs to be fixed! Welfare is just keeping these people alive, not helping them prosper an grow. Why is it that some of the cities with the poorest and most people on welfare (Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, etc.) are the ones that have been controlled by Democrats for decades? It's because of the failed Left-wing ideology that has been plaguing these cities for years upon years. Welfare has shown what it does to cities. It kills them.
What would I do? I would cripple the welfare system to almost nothingness. The money saved would be then put into reconstruction efforts in the inner cities. These would create construction jobs for people. After construction is complete, the inner cities will be cleaner and safer. This will promote businesses to want to move and grow in these areas. This will open up more new jobs for the people. Assistance should be given to those who rely on it - those who are mentally and physically disabled. The problem with the welfare system is that it has become a system of dependency, this was not the intention of it. People are living off of this system, which should not be happening. Ronald Reagan said it best when he stated that "Welfare's purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its existence." And my personal favorite, "We should measure welfare's success by how many people leave welfare, not by how many are added." This isn't happening right now and it is so sad. We need to use this money to improve the areas and give the people the tools necessary to succeed, not to fail. This is the only way to save the poor.
A common argument is "what about the children?" If the welfare system is all but abolished, won't children suffer? Sadly, these children are already suffering by having to be in these conditions in the first place. People need to find jobs. The best way to create jobs is to rebuild these areas. Go downtown to some of the more run down areas of the city you live in. There are so many abandoned buildings and lots that could be rebuilt into businesses and job opportunities. This could eliminate the welfare system and allow the poor a place to work. Which actually brings up another valid point. Most minimum wage workers are on welfare. A lot of corporations actually give these workers their own benefits which make welfare unnecessary. We need to be focusing on helping the poor not hurting them. Rebuild the cities and create job opportunities. Give businesses subsidies and tax breaks for hiring these workers and offering benefits to the poor. Have the people who are better off donate to charities and churches and have them help in the rebuilding effort. Cut the need for welfare and instead put that energy towards giving the people the tools necessary to succeed.
To put it simply, we need to cripple the welfare system and redistribute money towards rebuilding, to the school systems, to helping the poor truly get out of poverty. We need to separate the minimum wage into two categories, adults and youth, and pay what the experience deserves. Be positive with businesses and make them want to hire the poor and older citizens instead of forcing them and hurting them. We need to alleviate taxes on the people. The middle class is struggling and can not keep paying for broken systems. I support a flat tax rate of 10%. Every American pays 10% of their annual income and that is how they contribute to society - it simplifies a too complicated tax system and will make things better for all social classes. To save money, the United States can even abolish 5 absolutely useless federal agencies and instead give the rights back to the states. Those are the IRS, the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. These agencies should be abolished and should be represented by the individual states, and have people who truly understand the local issues associated with them, not by career politicians. For example, the Department of Education should be run by the states, where they understand how their youth learn and the position the youth are in economically and socially. This is instead of millionaires in Washington deciding how poor children in Chicago learn, and replaces them with the people of Chicago and of Illinois.
Economics is a very interesting subject to debate and discuss. However, it seems that fact after fact seem to show that conservative ideology is the way to go if you want a prosperous and stable economy and therefore a prosperous and stable country. The economy is ultimately the backbone of a country, and conservative policies are the only way to ensure this fate in my opinion. God Bless America.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete