"Starbuck" wrote in message
...
The problem with raising salaries without an increase in productivity is
it
places a "inflation tax" on those who can least afford the tax, those on a
fixed income. I am sure many in here can remember the stories during the
80's when we had 17% inflation and the elderly were eating dog food
because
that is all they could afford.

The unions won't care since they are the least likely group ever to pay
union dues in the future, the the liebral socialist democrats would rather
coddle the up and coming potential voters than those that will only be
around for one or two more election cycles.




"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...
Don't challenge Doug, he is our resident expert in economics. And if you
don't believe me ask him and he will tell you so.


"Starbuck" wrote in message
news
Doug,

If we raised everyone salary 25%, the net income gain in spending power
would be 0%. The only way you get a net increase in spending power is
with a corresponding increase in productivity. Without the increase in
productivity, inflation will offset any increase in salary.


"DSK" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:
There will always be people at the bottom of the income scale. You
may
not like it but it is a fact.


Yep. Jesus said so! But why do you think Chuck doesn't like it (the
fact
of poor people, not necessarily being poor himself, which I know for a
fact he ain't).

Now, if those people at the bottom of the income scale work hard and
are ambitious then they will work themsleves up the income scale.

Maybe. It's a chancy thing. It's much easier and more certain to move
to
the capitol (state or national) and suck up to those in power. That
way
you get juicy profit-guaranteed contracts & immunity from prosecution.

DSK