Presidential Race 2016

[bplewis24]

49 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

When you reduce taxes on businesses and provide a stable economy, businesses grow and hire more people which puts more money into the economy for other businesses to grow.  

As already cited, we know that that correlation does not hold true.  Businesses tend to base growth/expansion/hiring decisions on market trends.  

49 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

We allowed labor costs to get out of control thanks mostly to greedy unions, the result was businesses turned to cheaper overseas labor which put people out of decent paying jobs and forced them to either be retrained at taxpayer expense, be placed on welfare or accept lower skilled and lower paying jobs.  Our government allowed this to happen in manufacturing and now it's happening in IT and engineering jobs.  

Labor costs are nowhere near out of control (gains in productivity have exponentially gone towards the executive/ownership level, and wages have not kept up with those gains, let alone inflation), and greedy unions didn't even come close to causing the rife market for cheaper overseas labor.  Yes, in a sense the government did allow it to happen (and actively facilitated it), but not as a result of union labor law, that has a lot more to do with globalization and trade agreements.

(I'm really struggling with formatting of these replies, so I'm typing a response to the rest of the post here for the comments below it)

1) EPA regulations, yes, are an attempt to create a healthier planet.  And yes, there are costs to them, but those costs are fully known, and not nearly having the impact on job losses in the oil/coal fields as you are implying.  That has much more to do with the boom in natural gas and other more lucrative energy sources right now.  And this ignores the absolutely important issues relating to reducing our oil/coal dependency.

2) You're glossing over the reasons why the economy went into a huge recession in the first place when bringing up the taxpayer expense from printing tons of cash.  Significant among those reasons are deregulation and lowering taxes, which is exactly what I'm seeing preached in this thread right now.

3) Obama Care is hardly an example of why government shouldn't mess with the private sector.  It's actually an example of the opposite, and suggesting that the government shouldn't mess with the private sector is pretty incredible.  That's an entire other topic if you truly believe that.  Can you elaborate?

4) Thankfully nobody views businesses as the enemy, especially since most of us work for them.

49 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Our government has pushed for strict EPA regulations, while we may want a healthy planet, the interim cost is a significant number of bankrupt companies and loss of middle income jobs in oil, coal and related fields.   You just don't throw out new EPA laws without understanding the economic impact of those laws, especially on businesses and jobs.  

The economy hasn't collapsed because the US Government printed tons of cash and grew significantly to make up for the loss of jobs it destroyed, all at taxpayer expense.  TSA and Obama Care are just two of numerous examples of why government shouldn't mess with the private sector.  

I'm not saying to give businesses a free ride when it comes to taxes but we need to stop viewing them as the enemy.  

[Chilli Dipper]

13 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

So you think he makes every decision on his own for every business he owns.  You also believe he doesn't have a board of directors or executive management team that he works with and expects to run different divisions within his organization?   You don't know much about running a business the size of Trumps if you honestly believe this.  

Read his books, watch his TV shows. That's certainly the reputation he has built around himself. Whether or not that reflects reality doesn't mean a whole lot to me; that's what he wants people to believe. For the life of me, I can't identify anyone who could be considered his right-hand man in business, or someone who has been an ally of his through good times and bad. I think that's unusual for someone as successful as he says he is. If it takes a lot of people to reach that level, shouldn't we know a thing or two about them?

[newtogolf]

36 minutes ago, bplewis24 said:

As already cited, we know that that correlation does not hold true.  Businesses tend to base growth/expansion/hiring decisions on market trends.  

Labor costs are nowhere near out of control (gains in productivity have exponentially gone towards the executive/ownership level, and wages have not kept up with those gains, let alone inflation), and greedy unions didn't even come close to causing the rife market for cheaper overseas labor.  Yes, in a sense the government did allow it to happen (and actively facilitated it), but not as a result of union labor law, that has a lot more to do with globalization and trade agreements.

(I'm really struggling with formatting of these replies, so I'm typing a response to the rest of the post here for the comments below it)

1) EPA regulations, yes, are an attempt to create a healthier planet.  And yes, there are costs to them, but those costs are fully known, and not nearly having the impact on job losses in the oil/coal fields as you are implying.  That has much more to do with the boom in natural gas and other more lucrative energy sources right now.  And this ignores the absolutely important issues relating to reducing our oil/coal dependency.

2) You're glossing over the reasons why the economy went into a huge recession in the first place when bringing up the taxpayer expense from printing tons of cash.  Significant among those reasons are deregulation and lowering taxes, which is exactly what I'm seeing preached in this thread right now.

3) Obama Care is hardly an example of why government shouldn't mess with the private sector.  It's actually an example of the opposite, and suggesting that the government shouldn't mess with the private sector is pretty incredible.  That's an entire other topic if you truly believe that.  Can you elaborate?

4) Thankfully nobody views businesses as the enemy, especially since most of us work for them.

When the economy is strong, businesses expand and spend more on R&D which creates jobs.

Paying someone $15 to ask if you want fries with your order is an example of labor costs that have reached ridiculous levels.  Many of the manufacturing and energy related jobs have been lost for various reasons we likely won't agree on but the net effect is that the average person in a manufacturing or fossil fuel related job either had to be retrained or took a salary cut, so the net effect is an entire section of middle class jobs were lost which could have been avoided.  

The reasons for the recession are irrelevant, I addressed the recovery plan and its flaws.  

Obama Care is a horribly managed, money losing mess that is going to cost the tax payers hundreds of billions of dollars to bail out when all the numbers get added up.  Read some of the posts @saevel25 has made regarding it.  

28 minutes ago, Chilli Dipper said:

Read his books, watch his TV shows. That's certainly the reputation he has built around himself. Whether or not that reflects reality doesn't mean a whole lot to me; that's what he wants people to believe. For the life of me, I can't identify anyone who could be considered his right-hand man in business, or someone who has been an ally of his through good times and bad. I think that's unusual for someone as successful as he says he is. If it takes a lot of people to reach that level, shouldn't we know a thing or two about them?

Did you ever watch the show The Apprentice?  He had executives from his management team on the show quite often.  His children are also very involved with running his business.  Do you think Michael Dell makes every decision in Dell Corporation or Grant Reid from Mars decides what ingredients goes into their candy bars?  Both are private companies.  

Yes, Trump is a blow hard who likes to toot his own horn but anyone with business sense knows a single person can't make every decision within a corporation the size of his.  

[StevenR84]

But the long term cost of building a wall and maintaining it won't cost the tax payers the same billions? I've seen tax rates mentioned here, do the people talking about our high corporate tax rates realize that the effective corporate tax rate is about 15%. Less than I pay that's for sure and I didn't report billions of dollars in earnings.  Our corporate tax rate is at 35% and companies are paying less than half of that, I think  that's more than generous.

[saevel25]

11 minutes ago, StevenR84 said:

But the long term cost of building a wall and maintaining it won't cost the tax payers the same billions? I've seen tax rates mentioned here, do the people talking about our high corporate tax rates realize that the effective corporate tax rate is about 15%. Less than I pay that's for sure and I didn't report billions of dollars in earnings.  Our corporate tax rate is at 35% and companies are paying less than half of that, I think  that's more than generous.

It might be a tad more complicated than that.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/taxanalysts/2015/03/25/the-truth-about-corporate-tax-rates/#747dd4ea20a5

Actually the US effective corporate tax rate is around 27%. Though the world average is around 25%. Yet, I think this is a misguided representation since we are one country. Corporations can pick which country they go to baring other factors. 

Still, even with effective tax rates we are still above the average. This puts us at a disadvantage. If the effective tax rates were not that bad then why are corporations moving overseas to get out of paying our corporate tax rates? 

---

Trump doubles down on his bashing of the Judge who released his Trump U. Documents. 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/cnn-jake-tapper-grills-donald-000000035.html

Quote

CNN anchor Jake Tapper asked Trump again and again if that was improper or could be construed as racist. The mogul initially avoided the question, but ultimately doubled down on his attack.

“If you are saying he can’t do his job because of his race, is that not the definition of racism?” Tapper asked towards the end of the exchange, which will air in full Sunday.

“No, I don’t think so at all,” Trump replied. 

So, if you claim someone can't do a job because not on their ability but because of their ethnicity is not a racist comment? I beg to differ Mr. Trump. 

Here's another great part, 

Quote

“We live in a society that’s very pro-Mexico, and that’s fine. That’s all fine,” Trump said at another point in the interview. “But I think he should recuse himself.”

“Because he’s a Latino?” Tapper asked.

“I’m building a wall,” Trump maintained.

He should recuse himself because he has Latino heritage and Trump is building a wall. I thought G.W. Bush was bad with putting his foot in his mouth. 

[newtogolf]

17 minutes ago, StevenR84 said:

But the long term cost of building a wall and maintaining it won't cost the tax payers the same billions? I've seen tax rates mentioned here, do the people talking about our high corporate tax rates realize that the effective corporate tax rate is about 15%. Less than I pay that's for sure and I didn't report billions of dollars in earnings.  Our corporate tax rate is at 35% and companies are paying less than half of that, I think  that's more than generous.

Even if Trump wins the election he's not going to build a wall, it's a symbol of his immigration policy, but not at all practical in terms of cost or effectiveness in keeping people out.  

Obama ran on a platform of being transparent, he cited how he wanted to be more transparent than GW and that he'd share the unpublished portion of the 9-11 report,  He quickly found out after taking office he couldn't get much done and be transparent like he promised during his campaign.  It's hard to get bills passed, especially one like ObamaCare if you don't make back room deals that you don't want other politicians and the public to see before they vote on it.  

If you're going to buy into the Trump wall idea then at least buy completely into it and believe he's going to get Mexico to pay for it too.  

[StevenR84]

5 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

It might be a tad more complicated than that.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/taxanalysts/2015/03/25/the-truth-about-corporate-tax-rates/#747dd4ea20a5

Actually the US effective corporate tax rate is around 27%. Though the world average is around 25%. Yet, I think this is a misguided representation since we are one country. Corporations can pick which country they go to baring other factors. 

Still, even with effective tax rates we are still above the average. This puts us at a disadvantage. If the effective tax rates were not that bad then why are corporations moving overseas to get out of paying our corporate tax rates? 

 

What corporations have picked up from the USA and moved overseas? How about a company like Apple that snaked its way out of paying like $60 BILLION in taxes by keeping it's cash overaeas. That seems fair our tax code is lenient as it is and even of they pay 27% which I think is high, that's still less than I pay. This plays into when Bernie talks about paying a fair share, because major corporations are not. Lowering the tax rate would also come with other adjustments as to what can be deducted/written off I'm sure and we windup in the same spot. 

[Chilli Dipper]

14 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Even if Trump wins the election he's not going to build a wall, it's a symbol of his immigration policy, but not at all practical in terms of cost or effectiveness in keeping people out.  

Obama ran on a platform of being transparent, he cited how he wanted to be more transparent than GW and that he'd share the unpublished portion of the 9-11 report,  He quickly found out after taking office he couldn't get much done and be transparent like he promised during his campaign.  It's hard to get bills passed, especially one like ObamaCare if you don't make back room deals that you don't want other politicians and the public to see before they vote on it.  

If you're going to buy into the Trump wall idea then at least buy completely into it and believe he's going to get Mexico to pay for it too.  

So, Obama sacrificed one part of his campaign platform (transparency) in order to accomplish another part of his campaign platform (passing health care reform). He may have lost some of his credibility for being above the fray of politics as usual, but he delivered to his supporters something they had been trying to get done for decades.

If President Trump doesn't get his wall that Mexico paid for, what will he be able to show the people who voted for him to say that the sacrifice was worth it?

[saevel25]

1 minute ago, StevenR84 said:

What corporations have picked up from the USA and moved overseas? How about a company like Apple that snaked its way out of paying like $60 BILLION in taxes by keeping it's cash overaeas. That seems fair our tax code is lenient as it is and even of they pay 27% which I think is high, that's still less than I pay. This plays into when Bernie talks about paying a fair share, because major corporations are not. Lowering the tax rate would also come with other adjustments as to what can be deducted/written off I'm sure and we windup in the same spot. 

No liberal has been able to define for me what fair share is quantitatively. 

It is still about being competitive. Would the US rather get 12% on that 60 billion or none at all? Get what you can, even if that means lowering the corporate tax rate. 

[StevenR84]

10 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

No liberal has been able to define for me what fair share is quantitatively. 

It is still about being competitive. Would the US rather get 12% on that 60 billion or none at all? Get what you can, even if that means lowering the corporate tax rate. 

Well then we should all threaten to leave the country if we don't pay 10% in taxes. 10% of my income is better than 0 right? That doesn't work. http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2015/10/21/irs-announces-2016-tax-rates-standard-deductions-exemption-amounts-and-more/#672c2a82792e

This outlines the tax structure for 2016, So i might pay less than major corporations this year on a % basis. Might. 

 

 

 

And to answer your queation, we are currently getting NONE if that $60billion. Unless there are monster reforms in the tax laws why would they want to bring them here? I believe they are using Ireland as the place they are stashing that cash (that cash is the total amount that $60 billion would have been paid on). Apple likes Ireland so much they can leave, but we all know they'd be back in less than 6 months.

Edited June 4, 2016 by StevenR84

[Lihu]

12 hours ago, bplewis24 said:

While this conservative orthodoxy sounds good on paper, the correlation is dubious and we know that this strategy doesn't work in such a simple fashion.  If it did, Kansas would be a business mecca right now, flourishing in entrepreneurship and new business startups.  But it isn't, even though the things you suggest are the tent-poles of the platform that Governor Brownback implemented.  

The reality is that--while this can be a very complex issue on many fronts--the reasons why simply lowering taxes on businesses and deregulating (hello, GWB) don't create economic prosperity are somewhat basic.

1) Businesses often don't pay anywhere near their marginal tax rates.

2) Lowering their tax rates (which they already don't pay) doesn't show a correlation with investing in more business or relocating business.

3) There are consequences to lowering taxes and deregulation.

I don't want to write an essay about these topics, but there are a few links below that do a decent job explaining some of these items.  But fundamentally a lot of this is just logic: If companies don't pay the marginal rate, what incentive will lower tax rates offer?  If there is no correlation with business investment, what is happening with the untaxed profit?

What about considering which taxes we're going to lower?  Payroll taxes fund things like medicare and social security.  Cutting those obviously means cutting those services.  Is that going to create economic prosperity?  What other services get cut when the tax revenue begins drying up...infrastructure?  Education?  Does that create a more skilled labor force?  What if we eliminate the minimum wage (another popular doctrine in some conservative/libertarian circles), and we assume it actually does bring jobs back.  Are these low-paying jobs going to create and sustain a middle-class economy necessary for capitalism to be effective/successful?

The GOP has effectively and very successfully gotten their base to buy this con for decades now, even as it continually bears no fruit.  What I find ironic about this, is that one of the primary perpetrators of this, Ronald Reagan, actually sold it while doing the opposite: raising taxes on business (he raised the corporate tax rates and capital gains rates.  He also did a lot on tax shelters through passive loss rules, but that's only tangentially related). Bottom line is that Trump doesn't know a damn thing about how to turn the economy around, and if your faith is largely in his repetition of conservative policy, you should probably think again.

http://business.time.com/2012/02/23/will-a-lower-corporate-tax-rate-lure-jobs-back-to-america/

http://fortune.com/2011/04/08/lower-corporate-taxes-wont-create-more-jobs/

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/07/10/Why-State-Tax-Cuts-Aren-t-Driving-Job-Growth

 

 

The bottom line is there is a correlation between mid size and small companies hiring policies and the amount of taxes and the number of people they need to hire for government regulatory compliance and whatever other taxes and fees they need to pay.

One of our general self cons is that government regulation of businesses will make the corporate environment more honest and increase the number of jobs by requiring more regulatory compliance personnel. The issue I have is that almost all of that extra work is not contributing to the general goodness of the company and it's products. Also, most companies are honest to begin with, they wouldn't have that many customers if they weren't at least somewhat honest. While I agree that for companies that do business directly with the government should be regulated to prevent "excessive lobbying", I will say that public mid sized companies are burdened with a lot of excess baggage. The companies that created the problems were large corporate entities, and it's not quite appropriate that companies that are 1/20th the size should have to pay for the crimes committed by these government related corporations. Many companies have gone private due to such regulations because they simply can't afford the costs. Very few private companies have voluntarily adopted these new regulations, and they are poster child corporations for selling that the regulations are "good".

Another self con about the government is that they use any additional taxes go towards independent research and development. While there are poster child developments such as the Human Genome Project, it was a private company funded by a wealthy businessman who started Paracel that allowed the government research to finish their development. It still took billions of dollars with over 20 countries and many universities almost 20 years to complete and would have taken decades longer because of so much indecision if not for the efforts by a private company to help complete it.

The Open Source community was founded by private individuals to push technology to its limits. No government agency has contributed anything close to what these private individuals have done for technology.

Any or all of the greatest developments were privately funded.

Think about what HRC did personally as first lady in wasting 31M USD for some frivolous idea she had. I would conclude that Government R&D spending is not all that efficient in general. Corporations are much more targeted at developing solutions for any particular industry, and they do it with a lot less financial outlay.

Multiply her ineffectiveness by 100,000 and you get an idea of how our government works towards improving our general well being?

It's the people who are passionate about what they do that make the economy, tell me how many government workers you know who are really passionate about what they do? How many government workers will work 12-15 hours a day on what they enjoy? None.

 

11 hours ago, newtogolf said:

Many businesses depend on consumers and other businesses to keep their doors open.  When you reduce taxes on businesses and provide a stable economy, businesses grow and hire more people which puts more money into the economy for other businesses to grow.  

This is the general idea, and it actually works. You give money to a person he will spend it on whatever they want. You take less money away from a private company or corporation and they generally hire more people to expand their business.

 

Quote

We allowed labor costs to get out of control thanks mostly to greedy unions, the result was businesses turned to cheaper overseas labor which put people out of decent paying jobs and forced them to either be retrained at taxpayer expense, be placed on welfare or accept lower skilled and lower paying jobs.  Our government allowed this to happen in manufacturing and now it's happening in IT and engineering jobs.  

This is somewhat true, but I'm not going to blame the concept of having unions. Originally they were well intending entities that protected workers. As they got more powerful, corruption and greed took over the leadership. Teachers unions are not really that corrupt, but I will state that they are really "bulky". They also allow terrible teachers with seniority to keep being terrible teachers. It's one of the many problems with our education system.

 

Quote

Our government has pushed for strict EPA regulations, while we may want a healthy planet, the interim cost is a significant number of bankrupt companies and loss of middle income jobs in oil, coal and related fields.   You just don't throw out new EPA laws without understanding the economic impact of those laws, especially on businesses and jobs.  

EPA makes some very random and difficult to understand decisions.

Once again, it was serious disasters created by government servicing and corrupt corporations in the past that created the agency, but now it's gotten so bulky and corrupt. Plus, the workers do not have any actual work to do as corporations have to answer to their customers directly with the age of the internet. They have to find something to justify their existence.

 

Quote

We've made a number of poor trade deals as well that allows cheap products to come into the country without reciprocal deals for American products overseas.   US companies have to jump through numerous hoops to get their products into China and other countries because of these trade deals.

It kind of goes to show just how bad the government is at regulating trade. They are once again, subject to corruption. Whoever pays the most to a campaign fund gets their way. 

 

Quote

The economy hasn't collapsed because the US Government printed tons of cash and grew significantly to make up for the loss of jobs it destroyed, all at taxpayer expense.  TSA and Obama Care are just two of numerous examples of why government shouldn't mess with the private sector.  

Good example of why we need an "outsider" to become the POTUS. Both parties are responsible for these.

 

Quote

I'm not saying to give businesses a free ride when it comes to taxes but we need to stop viewing them as the enemy.  

Also, stop slowing down the economy with numerous politically motivated policies.

[newtogolf]

10 hours ago, Chilli Dipper said:

So, Obama sacrificed one part of his campaign platform (transparency) in order to accomplish another part of his campaign platform (passing health care reform). He may have lost some of his credibility for being above the fray of politics as usual, but he delivered to his supporters something they had been trying to get done for decades.

If President Trump doesn't get his wall that Mexico paid for, what will he be able to show the people who voted for him to say that the sacrifice was worth it?

Trump will enforce our immigration policy (something Obama has failed miserably at) and better protect our borders.  He will not accept any Syrian refugees unless we have better vetting processes in place.  

Trump supporters don't want a "wall" we want the inflow of Mexicans and other illegal aliens who come to this country for a free ride to end and we want to stop allowing terrorists into our country.  We also need to deal with all the illegal immigrants GW and Obama let into this country.  

 

[Chilli Dipper]

23 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Trump will enforce our immigration policy (something Obama has failed miserably at) and better protect our borders.  He will not accept any Syrian refugees unless we have better vetting processes in place.  

Trump supporters don't want a "wall" we want the inflow of Mexicans and other illegal aliens who come to this country for a free ride to end and we want to stop allowing terrorists into our country.  We also need to deal with all the illegal immigrants GW and Obama let into this country.  

 

You say all of that, but the stupid wall still gets the loudest applause at all of his rallies. If his supporters don't want the wall, their reactions whenever Trump brings it up seems to betray that fact. Again, how does he pivot from promising that wall to a tangible strategy to combat immigration and border security? Saying he'll do those things and having an actual roadmap to getting those things accomplished are two different things, and he can't just not provide any details about his plan forever. At some point, you must conclude that he has no plan, and I feel like that point is coming soon.

[newtogolf]

1 hour ago, Lihu said:

This is somewhat true, but I'm not going to blame the concept of having unions. Originally they were well intending entities that protected workers. As they got more powerful, corruption and greed took over the leadership. Teachers unions are not really that corrupt, but I will state that they are really "bulky". They also allow terrible teachers with seniority to keep being terrible teachers. It's one of the many problems with our education system.

 

EPA makes some very random and difficult to understand decisions.

Once again, it was serious disasters created by government servicing and corrupt corporations in the past that created the agency, but now it's gotten so bulky and corrupt. Plus, the workers do not have any actual work to do as corporations have to answer to their customers directly with the age of the internet. They have to find something to justify their existence.

Unions played a critical role in worker safety and I'd still support their existence in negotiating and ensuring worker safety but they have gotten too powerful and place their existence even above the workers they are supposed to represent.  

What people fail to understand is that businesses (especially publicly traded ones) are under tremendous pressure to deliver revenue and profit numbers in order to protect the shareholders and corporate valuation of the business.  They will do whatever is necessary to ensure they can deliver the numbers they projected because if they don't their stock value takes a hit, their bond rating can be impacted and their overall ability to continue to do business is compromised.  

When a union steps in and demands all workers get a 5% increase, that has to be funded by either an increase in revenue or profit margins on their products or services or the company has to lay off employees to make up the difference.  If they don't take one of those actions their EBITDA takes a hit and Wall Street folks lower the outlook of the stock which causes the stock price to drop.  Higher wages not only means they pay employees more but it also means their payroll taxes, social security contributions, workers comp insurance and disability insurance increase too.  It has a major cost impact on the business in their EBITDA and Net Income. 

Unions kept on pushing for higher wages for factory workers, so businesses outsourced their manufacturing to countries with cheaper labor costs.  Business wins and other countries win but our workers and taxpayers lose.  

Now our government and unions push to raise the minimum wage to $15, the net effect is McDonalds, Wendy's and BK push for R&D in kiosk technology that will replace jobs.  20% - 30% of those employed by those companies will lose their jobs and be on unemployment or government assistance.  Again business wins, workers and taxpayers lose.  

Despite what Democrats and unions claim, businesses are never going to take the hit in higher labors costs if they can't be offset by higher prices, so they will just continue to cut jobs.  Less jobs means more people on public assistance and greater demands on those of us that do pay taxes.  

If the government was smart (this current version isn't) they would combine tax incentives for businesses that maintain higher wages for their lowest tier employees to help offset the cost of paying higher wages rather than just pass laws that force businesses to reduce jobs.  

9 minutes ago, Chilli Dipper said:

You say all of that, but the stupid wall still gets the loudest applause at all of his rallies. If his supporters don't want the wall, their reactions whenever Trump brings it up seems to betray that fact. Again, how does he pivot from promising that wall to a tangible strategy to combat immigration and border security? Saying he'll do those things and having an actual roadmap to getting those things accomplished are two different things, and he can't just not provide any details about his plan forever. At some point, you must conclude that he has no plan, and I feel like that point is coming soon.

Other countries maintain border security, the problem is with our policy and Obama's refusal to enforce our immigration laws.  Make the penalty of getting caught crossing the border so bad that people won't want to take the risk.  Withhold money transfers from the US to Mexico for individuals that are not legal citizens.  

I'm not an expert in this area but I do know more can be done that what GW and Obama have done.  

[Lihu]

45 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Now our government and unions push to raise the minimum wage to $15, the net effect is McDonalds, Wendy's and BK push for R&D in kiosk technology that will replace jobs.  20% - 30% of those employed by those companies will lose their jobs and be on unemployment or government assistance.  Again business wins, workers and taxpayers lose.

I'd never thought I would see the day that robots would be cheaper than minimum wage workers, but one could argue that supposedly well meaning governmental decisions catalyzed companies to innovate once again and workers suffer once again.

[Golfingdad]

31 minutes ago, Lihu said:

I'd never thought I would see the day that robots would be cheaper than minimum wage workers, 

Really?  You're being facetious, right?  Just considering how rapidly that technology has advanced, and it's ALWAYS** been that way in our lifetimes, it seems awfully silly to not have seen this coming.

**  Just consider computers.  I think our almost top of the line IBM 486 in 1990-whatever was around $1500.  Look what that exact same 1500 buys you today. 

[Lihu]

6 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Really?  You're being facetious, right?  Just considering how rapidly that technology has advanced, and it's ALWAYS** been that way in our lifetimes, it seems awfully silly to not have seen this coming.

**  Just consider computers.  I think our almost top of the line IBM 486 in 1990-whatever was around $1500.  Look what that exact same 1500 buys you today. 

Not really, robots cost a lot. Just a 6 axis arm and controller costs $18,000 for one of the cheapest ones. We're actively working on one for a lot less, but they require maintenance. We'd be replacing a few minimum wage workers with a higher paid one.

But like you said, I'm probably thinking backwards on this one.

[saevel25]

9 minutes ago, Lihu said:

Not really, robots cost a lot. Just a 6 axis arm and controller costs $18,000 for one of the cheapest ones. We're actively working on one for a lot less, but they require maintenance. We'd be replacing a few minimum wage workers with a higher paid one.

But like you said, I'm probably thinking backwards on this one.

One Kiosk costs  about $140,000 at Mcdonalds. McDonalds is open from 5 am to 9 PM. Lets make it simple and say 2-8 hour shifts. Lets say this one kiosk takes up two job positions since there are two shifts. 

I've read that it costs the employer about 40% more than the wage the employee gets to employ that person. So a $15/hour means the true cost to the employer is $21/hour. 

At $21/hour, with 16 hours of work a day, over an entire year would cost the employer $122,305 to pay those two employees. McDonalds will be saving money in just over 1 years time.