Seattle passed a $15 minimum wage law in 2014. Here’s how it’s turned out so far

[Econobot]

And just where is that wealth concentrating exactly? Who is benefiting? Who is politically dominant in those areas? Who has been politically dominant nationally for the past 40 years? Simplify the problem...follow the money...discover just what "values" are at play here. And yes...has everything to do with capitalism or socialism.

Last I checked the immediate area surrounding Washington DC is the wealthiest in the country...if that's not this country's greatest problem I don't know what is.

 

[Meandering]

lol - not so much feudalism - I was just thinking about when wealth was tied primarily to land, and not so much intangible wealth. Land is, by definition, finite, and as such, I would think that an economy where the primary store of wealth is land would be much less elastic than what we have today. Which I guess could have been in a Feudalistic economy.

Wealth is always tied to the land,
with at-will tenants, they are the sanctioned slaves,
work the land, or be put out - homeless.
As the "profits" of the produce from the land increase,
the rents are raised,
so the "working class" never benefits from the profits.
When produce of the land becomes less profitable,
than other resources,
"the land" is still needed by "the people" to live,
but they are in the way,
so move and consolidate them.
the "owners" who realized the "profits" influence, or
in some political realms, are,
the government,
tend to be "absent" landlords,
preferring to be located near the "power centers".
There is a long European history of all this.

Consider no massive European plagues in a couple of hundred years,
No WW in Europe in almost 80 years,
Look at the European Countries on Google Earth,
how diverse is the population across "the land"?
Why is that?

Find your own answer.

.

 

[alebrewer]

Wealth is always tied to the land,
with at-will tenants, they are the sanctioned slaves,
work the land, or be put out - homeless.
As the "profits" of the produce from the land increase,
the rents are raised,
so the "working class" never benefits from the profits.
When produce of the land becomes less profitable,
than other resources,
"the land" is still needed by "the people" to live,
but they are in the way,
so move and consolidate them.
the "owners" who realized the "profits" influence, or
in some political realms, are,
the government,
tend to be "absent" landlords,
preferring to be located near the "power centers".
There is a long European history of all this.

Consider no massive European plagues in a couple of hundred years,
No WW in Europe in almost 80 years,
Look at the European Countries on Google Earth,
how diverse is the population across "the land"?
Why is that?

Find your own answer.

.

please tell me again how much land Mark Cuban needed to start up Microsolutions and Broadcast.com? Gonna go out on a limb here and say, 'not much'. How, then, if those were his two primary means of initial massive wealth, were those tied to 'land'? I will grant that land is one of the sources of production, but is not a necessary source of production for intangible wealth.