What can happen when the government leaves the free market alone...

[Jim in CT]

Lots of people in North Dakota are exploiting the oil deposits. Here are the wages at WalMart there.

Could there be a lesson here?

[spence]

Has nothing to do with leaving the free market alone, it's all about a boom cycle and nobody around to support the workers.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Has nothing to do with leaving the free market alone, it's all about a boom cycle and nobody around to support the workers.

-spence

It's a unique situation to be sure. But the "boom cycle", which is benefitting a lot of people, happened because the feds decided not to choke it, like they so often do. If the feds would get their boots of the throats of the free market, we'd see more boom cycles in other places and industries.

We need regulation, no doubt. But there's such a thing as too much.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

It's a unique situation to be sure. But the "boom cycle", which is benefitting a lot of people, happened because the feds decided not to choke it, like they so often do. If the feds would get their boots of the throats of the free market, we'd see more boom cycles in other places and industries.

We need regulation, no doubt. But there's such a thing as too much.

There's a dark side to production as well. The infrastructure in ND isn't scaling fast enough to meet the needs of the growing population. Crime and other bad elements are increasing. It's not going to last forever...then what? Bust...

It also looks like ND is trying to slow production because of the waste. 36% of the natural gas being produced is being flared off because the oil has a better profit margin. This impacts both the environment and taxes that aren't collected on the burn off.

Other states with shale oil seem to have tougher standards because the fields are closer to large populations. That part of ND is pretty empty...

But if a 17/hr wage at Wally World epitomizes the glories of capitalism for ya, hey, have at it.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

There's a dark side to production as well. The infrastructure in ND isn't scaling fast enough to meet the needs of the growing population. Crime and other bad elements are increasing. It's not going to last forever...then what? Bust...

It also looks like ND is trying to slow production because of the waste. 36% of the natural gas being produced is being flared off because the oil has a better profit margin. This impacts both the environment and taxes that aren't collected on the burn off.

Other states with shale oil seem to have tougher standards because the fields are closer to large populations. That part of ND is pretty empty...

But if a 17/hr wage at Wally World epitomizes the glories of capitalism for ya, hey, have at it.

-spence

"But if a 17/hr wage at Wally World epitomizes the glories of capitalism for ya, hey, have at it."

Mocking something that leads to more income equality, and a better quality of life for those at the bottom, because the source happens to be an industry that your side doesn't look favorably upon.

All that matters to you is politics. Not facts, not cause, not outcome.

liberal = good
conservative = bad

We all get it.

Big of you to mock the abiloity of Wal-mart workers to earn th etyps of wage that your hero claims to advocate for. But if a red state gets there first, it must be dismissed.

[buckman]

Much of what Spence is describing sounds like government shovel ready jobs. Take the Big Dig ..big boom . lots of corruption and then nothing for what was spent .
At least Spence gets to fly around on jets burning lots of fuel to pay for the fuel that keeps his family warm
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Big of you to mock the abiloity of Wal-mart workers to earn th etyps of wage that your hero claims to advocate for. But if a red state gets there first, it must be dismissed.

Two important points:

1) Cost of living is insanely high up there. 34 grand a year isn't going to go far unless you've got a lot of roommates

The North Dakota town in the midst of an oil boom is rapidly growing, seeing its population double to 30,000 since the 2010 Census. The average rent is $2,394 a month for a 700-square-foot, one-bedroom apartment, according to numbers released by Apartment Guide. That beats New York's average of $1,504 and L.A.'s $1,411-a-month tally for comparable space.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/life-styl...#ixzz34LqQ9D83

2) Your example is an anomaly and not an example of long-term free market grown wealth.

North Dakota will be like Qatar trying to figure out how to turn the quick money into a long-term economy.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Two important points:

1) Cost of living is insanely high up there. 34 grand a year isn't going to go far unless you've got a lot of roommates



2) Your example is an anomaly and not an example of long-term free market grown wealth.

North Dakota will be like Qatar trying to figure out how to turn the quick money into a long-term economy.

-spence

" Cost of living is insanely high up there. 34 grand a year isn't going to go far unless you've got a lot of roommates"

Here's another point. $34 grand is more than what Walmart workers would be earning had the market been denied the opportunity to exploit the natural resource. Nothing is perfect, Spence. This is a case where the free market will result in Walmart workers earning far more than they would have otherwise earned. I view that as a good thing. You can't, because of politics.

Oh, and here's one study ranking cost of living by state, ND is lower than many states (including CT, RI, and MA, where Walmart workers earn nowhere near $17/hr). So stop inventing stuff in a desperate attempt to refute the irrefutable. It's pathetic, and it is glaringly obvious.

http://www.top50states.com/cost-of-living-by-state.html

"Crime and other bad elements are increasing"

Oh. Violent crime is a major problem in ND now?

"Your example is an anomaly"

Everytihng that makes conservatives look right is an anomoly. Everything that makes liberals look bad is a mis-statement of what really happened, yeah yeah, I get it.

Susan Rice didn't really MEAN that he served with honor and distinction. What she MEANT was that it was honorable to enlist. Michelle Obama didn't really MEAN that she wasn't proud of her country until Barack got the nomination. Hilary didn't MEAN that she got shot at by a sniper (when she stated with great ambiguity, "I got shot at by a sniper", that is subject to many different interpretations, right?).

We get it Spence, we get it.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Here's another point. $34 grand is more than what Walmart workers would be earning had the market been denied the opportunity to exploit the natural resource. Nothing is perfect, Spence. This is a case where the free market will result in Walmart workers earning far more than they would have otherwise earned. I view that as a good thing. You can't, because of politics.

No, it's called basic household economics. They're paying 17 bucks an hour because any less and you wouldn't even be able to pay your share of a 6 person apartment. The Wal-Mart employees aren't necessarily netting any more money than those in Topeka.

Oh, and here's one study ranking cost of living by state, ND is lower than many states (including CT, RI, and MA, where Walmart workers earn nowhere near $17/hr). So stop inventing stuff in a desperate attempt to refute the irrefutable. It's pathetic, and it is glaringly obvious.

Do all Wal-Marts in ND pay 17 bucks an hour? Again, you're equating a localized anomaly with an average across a state that has a low population and not a lot of high paying industry.

For a guy who works with numbers you should know this.

Everytihng that makes conservatives look right is an anomoly. Everything that makes liberals look bad is a mis-statement of what really happened, yeah yeah, I get it.

Susan Rice didn't really MEAN that he served with honor and distinction. What she MEANT was that it was honorable to enlist. Michelle Obama didn't really MEAN that she wasn't proud of her country until Barack got the nomination. Hilary didn't MEAN that she got shot at by a sniper (when she stated with great ambiguity, "I got shot at by a sniper", that is subject to many different interpretations, right?).

We get it Spence, we get it.

I'm going to give you credit for stopping short of abortion. I didn't know you had it in ya

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

No, it's called basic household economics. They're paying 17 bucks an hour because any less and you wouldn't even be able to pay your share of a 6 person apartment. The Wal-Mart employees aren't necessarily netting any more money than those in Topeka.




-spence

The reason rents can be so high is because there is more demand for apartments than can be supplied. Basic supply and demand. The reason Wal-mart pays more for its employees there than elsewhere is also supply and demand. There is not enough population there to fill its demand for labor. Employees must be enticed from elsewhere to work and it must be worthwhile for workers to supply that demand. The reason Wal-mart is there or expanding is because the influx of the thousands of jobs created by the oil company and by the infrastructure needed to support it and its employees, including all manner of retail and service businesses. Again, supply and demand.

You claim the Wal-mart workers are not netting more there than elsewhere because the cost of living is higher. Actually, they are. They have a job there which they would not have elsewhere.

Jobs which didn't exist have been created by the oil company and the myriad of supporting service and retail companies. Renters are making money they couldn't without the boom. Taxes are being paid which would not exist without the boom. Thousands of jobs have been created which wouldn't exist without the boom.

That is creating and "spreading the wealth" by market forces rather than redistribution of existing wealth by government. That is market production and growth of the marketplace rather than government confiscation, restriction, and shrinkage of the marketplace to be replaced by government employment and redistribution.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by detbuch

That is creating and "spreading the wealth" by market forces rather than redistribution of existing wealth by government. That is market production and growth of the marketplace rather than government confiscation, restriction, and shrinkage of the marketplace to be replaced by government employment and redistribution.

Yes, redistribution leads to stagnation, free markets lead to innovation, competition and growth.

[Raven]

free the hemp
better than cotton
total farce making it illegal
plains states would flourish