D
Deleted member 41765
She did indeed.
-
We are a multilingual website again. Read the notice about this.
-
Understand AI use at MyPTSD: all AI use is explained in our AI help page. AI use is by choice here. It exists if you want it, but does nothing unless you choose to use it.
News Us politics - read first post before comment
- Post starter anthony
- Start date
- Status
lostforgottensoul
VIP Member
WTF? I did not know that. Thats f*cked up!
Florida does not have State tax, what's our excuse? I believe sales tax is still 7%. We don't have a "gas tax" but it is taxed before the price is posted. But it is FREAKING hard to live here. Our price of living is INSANE and our wages are SUPER low. Why? Why is it SOOOOOO much easier to live in Kansas, where there is State tax (and double if you lived in Kansas City, MO and worked in KS and visa versa) but it is impossible to live here and so much easier to live in a State with State tax?
scout86
VIP Member
That's the way they do it everywhere. But it varies between states and accounts for a good part of the difference in gas prices between states. It's why MO is way cheaper than KS, for example.
I'm sure there's an answer to that. Some other things that vary between states are things like property taxes. The thing is, it costs something to run a state. You need to raise the money somewhere. The state can chose to keep costs low, by minimizing services. I'm guessing (but don't know for sure) that's the case in FL. Why to I think that? Because a big chunk of the population is rich old people from the north east who've moved down there to retire and don't want to spend money on things like schools. (I'm both guessing AND being kind of cynical there.) So, besides minimizing expenses, states have to raise the money someplace. You can tax wages, you can tax property, you can tax purchases, but you have to tax something. A few years ago, here, we had a Republican governor who who made a big deal out of cutting taxes. What did he do instead? He raised fees. Like license fees, pretty much every fee imaginable. And cut funding for a bunch of stuff.
lostforgottensoul
VIP Member
Totally right though.
I get all of that. What I don't get is why Florida is much more to run then Kansas. I haven't looked up population but Kansas makes up for the not so populated areas in areas like Kansas City and Overland Park (where I was) and all of those areas. Larger land mass really means squat but I will say if Florida is more populated, it can't be so much more that it means Florida is that much to run. And up the same alley, why the low wages? I mean, the exact same job is $5 more an hour hire in in Kansas. $5 more an hour! That's a big gap! And way less price of living in Kansas.
I mean, I just don't get why such an inbalance here. Where, like in NY, yeah, its sky high price of living but look at their wages there. It normally balances out. Then you have Florida, where it doesn't....
Hmmm, this is interesting: Putin recalls Russian ambassador at center of Trump collusion investigation
scout86
VIP Member
Fl is one of our biggest states, in population. KS is one of the smaller ones.
As far as wages go, 'bosses' view wages as 'an input expense'. Like any other expense they want to keep it as low as possible. If you have a lot of people competing for the same jobs, they can pay less. If the state doesn't regulate employers much, they generally can keep costs down. (Usually like over time rules, paid time off, etc.) In FL, you have a lot of people looking for jobs, and a state that is more inclined to side with businesses than workers. (This would be the whole Republican/trick down thing.) Lots of people want to live in FL, and lots then have money, so land prices tend be high, along with a lot other stuff. I'm sure there are some good jobs in FL, but NASA isn't what it once was..... Your jobs are mostly service type jobs and those just never pay much.
KS, you have a few big cities and a large rural area. The rural areas require relatively less services. Fewer people competing for jobs. Land is cheaper, because you don't have tons of people competing to live in suburban KC. There's more to it, but, generally, they're going to pay you the least they can get by with, they don't care how you live, as long they can get workers. There's not much relation between wages and the cost of living, until the gap gets big enough that people move.
.
Justmehere
Sponsor
This is a really fascinating article about cost-of-living versus wages on a state by state basis: The best and worst states to make a living in 2017 It goes into greater detail about why it's easier to make a good living and live well in some states than others. I was surprised to find out where my own state ranked.
A few points - hopefully without drowning the thread.
"Inflation" is strictly speaking, increase in the monetary unit (more dollars printed, more digits added to the accounts of retail banks at the fed)
That new money is injected into the economy at certain points. Usually the banks. And slowly spreads out from there.
That spreading out is not neutral. You innevitably get "Cantillon effects" (named after Richard Cantillon, an Irish exile banker in Paris, at the time of John Law's experiment with paper money, and the Massive speculative "Mississippi Bubble" which resulted, and subsequently and dramatically burst).
Cantillon effects are a transfer of purchasing power to the early recipients of the new money, from the later recipients.
The mechanism is quite simple
The early recipients of the money, get to spend it before prices have risen to account for the greater amount of money chasing the same amount of goods.
As the money disperses into the economy, sellers of goods begin to realise that goods are selling a bit faster, and they tentatively ask for more money, and competing buyers can bid higher. Prices get bid up.
The last people to get the new money, for example people on fixed incomes, people on pensions and benefits. They get to pay the higher prices, long before the new money reaches them.
With a government in charge of a "fiat" currency (a currency which the government says is money, rather than a commodity money that for example would be a given weight of fine precious metal, a "dollar" was originally defined as 1/20 of a Troy ounce of gold, later reduced to 1/35. A pound was a pound of silver).
That fiat money can be produced very rapidly and at almost zero cost (entering digits on the fed computer, or printing paper notes)
Those can then be directed to politically favoured groups,. Who can then bid prices up, (the real estate boom up to 2007/2008 and simultaneous recession a in a much a of manufacturing and the raw materials boom after 2008 are examples of the money going to banks and then to property loans until the property but bubble burst, and after that, going into hedge funds)
This contrasts with a free market where money (and the resources it exchanges for) can only go to those who best serve consumer wants.
Typically a market will settle on one or two moneys. These are chosen from the most widely accepted commodity on the market. These have usually been gold and silver.
The most reliably pure and accurate weight coins were the most acceptable, so for many centuries, the "solidus" gold coins from Byzantium. And later a silver coin minted by a nobleman in Joachim's Thaller (where the name "dollar" was derived from) Were widely accepted in trade.
The process of states seizing control over money production, of instituting "legal tender" laws to outlaw any but the state's money, and the process of debasement leading eventually to entirely fiat currencies, is a long and worries tale of fraud and theft.
The idea of economics being a mathematical subject originates with Leon Walras.
The only numbers which appear in economics are ordinal. First choice, second choice, third choice... And the can't be used in mathematics.
And there are no numerically constant relationships. If the supply of milk in Wisconsin declined by 20% in the winter of 2016, and the price per gallon rose by 15%
That is historical. It applies only to that place at that time and can't be extrapolated to any other place or other times.
Where mathematics does come in handy is to bamboozle people, and to give a false impression of scientific rigour. It is simply MATHSTURBATION
Math from mathematics
Turbation - to make cloudy or unclear
It's a dirty little habit, and it's object of interest frequently bears little resemblance to reality;)
"Inflation" is strictly speaking, increase in the monetary unit (more dollars printed, more digits added to the accounts of retail banks at the fed)
That new money is injected into the economy at certain points. Usually the banks. And slowly spreads out from there.
That spreading out is not neutral. You innevitably get "Cantillon effects" (named after Richard Cantillon, an Irish exile banker in Paris, at the time of John Law's experiment with paper money, and the Massive speculative "Mississippi Bubble" which resulted, and subsequently and dramatically burst).
Cantillon effects are a transfer of purchasing power to the early recipients of the new money, from the later recipients.
The mechanism is quite simple
The early recipients of the money, get to spend it before prices have risen to account for the greater amount of money chasing the same amount of goods.
As the money disperses into the economy, sellers of goods begin to realise that goods are selling a bit faster, and they tentatively ask for more money, and competing buyers can bid higher. Prices get bid up.
The last people to get the new money, for example people on fixed incomes, people on pensions and benefits. They get to pay the higher prices, long before the new money reaches them.
With a government in charge of a "fiat" currency (a currency which the government says is money, rather than a commodity money that for example would be a given weight of fine precious metal, a "dollar" was originally defined as 1/20 of a Troy ounce of gold, later reduced to 1/35. A pound was a pound of silver).
That fiat money can be produced very rapidly and at almost zero cost (entering digits on the fed computer, or printing paper notes)
Those can then be directed to politically favoured groups,. Who can then bid prices up, (the real estate boom up to 2007/2008 and simultaneous recession a in a much a of manufacturing and the raw materials boom after 2008 are examples of the money going to banks and then to property loans until the property but bubble burst, and after that, going into hedge funds)
This contrasts with a free market where money (and the resources it exchanges for) can only go to those who best serve consumer wants.
Typically a market will settle on one or two moneys. These are chosen from the most widely accepted commodity on the market. These have usually been gold and silver.
The most reliably pure and accurate weight coins were the most acceptable, so for many centuries, the "solidus" gold coins from Byzantium. And later a silver coin minted by a nobleman in Joachim's Thaller (where the name "dollar" was derived from) Were widely accepted in trade.
The process of states seizing control over money production, of instituting "legal tender" laws to outlaw any but the state's money, and the process of debasement leading eventually to entirely fiat currencies, is a long and worries tale of fraud and theft.
The idea of economics being a mathematical subject originates with Leon Walras.
The only numbers which appear in economics are ordinal. First choice, second choice, third choice... And the can't be used in mathematics.
And there are no numerically constant relationships. If the supply of milk in Wisconsin declined by 20% in the winter of 2016, and the price per gallon rose by 15%
That is historical. It applies only to that place at that time and can't be extrapolated to any other place or other times.
Where mathematics does come in handy is to bamboozle people, and to give a false impression of scientific rigour. It is simply MATHSTURBATION
Math from mathematics
Turbation - to make cloudy or unclear
It's a dirty little habit, and it's object of interest frequently bears little resemblance to reality;)
lostforgottensoul
VIP Member
You mean Fl where there are more ppl competing for jobs? Cause KS pays way more then Fl and has way less price of living.
lostforgottensoul
VIP Member
Florida isn't even rated. That suprised the hell out of me as I think its one of the worst. Kansas I agree with. Though I have family in SC, I have only lived and worked in KS and FL as an adult.
Property tax is high in KS (probably cause there is more of it) but that includes your car. So when you renew your tags, you are paying a property tax every year and that can be very high, depending on how much your car was to buy.
scout86
VIP Member
Basically, yes. FL is a state where a lot of people want to live. (I have no idea WHY!) Once you're there, you either are, more of less, independently wealthy (or independently poor, the point being, you aren't looking for work) OR, you need to find work. If you're self employed, you've got a job and some control over your life. If you need to work for someone else, you get what they're willing to pay you and that depends a bit on who else is available and how cheap they're willing to work. KS (and believe me, I, personally, would much rather live there. I've lived in FL) KS is not so popular as a destination. Smaller labor pool. Part of that labor pool is already engaged in the family farm/business. Fewer people competing for jobs. Plus, if you have to entice folks from elsewhere, you have to pay them enough to make "KS" look like a destination.
No real relationship between cost of living and wages, until you have a short labor market. What it costs you to live is YOUR problem and how cheaply they can get by is your employers problem. No reason for them to care, unless you can do something they really, really need and have a problem finding.
It was surprised to find my state is #2. I'd have guessed it was high, but am impressed it's that high. And, our governor for the past few years, has been a liberal Democrat, both Senators are Democrats, even though my part of the state went Trump. I only mention this because I'd bet we didn't score that high 10 years ago, when the governor was taking money from schools so he could avoid paying taxes. There is only so much money in the system. If it's sequestered at the top, well, then that's where it is. It isn't available to build roads, pay for schools, vaccinate kids, etc, because it's sitting in someone's investment portfolio. If you want to do any of that stuff, you have to pay for it. You either tax the people with the money (if you can) or you find a way to spread the money around so less affluent people can spend it. In other words, the profits of the company have to go more to the workers and less to the bosses and the stock holders.
- Status
Donation drives
Trending content
-
-
What Are You Feeling Today? Not Thinking, Rather Feeling! Can You Identify Yours?
- goingonhope
Comments: 34K -
-
-
-
