# If minimum wage were raised ...



## Amelia

If minimum wage were raised, presumably many people's wages would be bumped at least a little.  Even though only a small percentage of workers earn minimum wage, the people who started out at minimum wage and got raises would get upset if brand new employees suddenly got as much as they did, so lots of wages would go up.

So how many jobs would be created or saved by this move -- for instance because of the increase in spending money available for local spending?

And how many jobs would be lost -- for instance because the increase in American wages would make offshore labor look more appealing, or because business owners' profit margin wouldn't support a 20% hike in labor costs so they would let a small portion of their workforce go and hope for more productivity from the rest?


----------



## Publius1787

Amelia said:


> If minimum wage were raised, presumably many people's wages would be bumped at least a little.  Even though only a small percentage of workers earn minimum wage, the people who started out at minimum wage and got raises would get upset if brand new employees suddenly got as much as they did, so lots of wages would go up.
> 
> So how many jobs would be created or saved by this move -- for instance because of the increase in spending money available for local spending?
> 
> And how many jobs would be lost -- for instance because the increase in American wages would make offshore labor look more appealing, or because business owners' profit margin wouldn't support a 20% hike in labor costs so they would let a small portion of their workforce go and hope for more productivity from the rest?



Let&#8217;s just say for example that the new &#8220;living&#8221; minimum wage is double the current federal minimum wage: $7.25 x 2= $14.5/hr (+-$30,160 per year). The people who would supposedly benefit the most would be low skilled workers right? Now what about the moderate skilled workers who were making $15/hr already? Would they sweat in the hot sun all day as a construction worker if they knew they could make the same stocking shelves at Wal-Mart? Would they freeze in the winter as an HVAC repairman crawling under people&#8217;s houses if they could make the same amount sweeping the floors as a janitor? Would you? Employers dealing in construction, heating/air, plumbing, etc., will need to considerably increase wages to keep their staff on board. Indeed, all skilled labor employers would need to increase the wages of their workers in order to remain competitive in the market for skilled labor, or else, their competitors will grab them. Moreover, high skilled labor would need to increase their pay and benefits.

If you mandated a living wage you would only create a new poverty line with the same amount of poverty as you started off with, if not more, after the market settles down. There is indeed a reason why service stations no longer hire teenagers to service the cars of travelers.


----------



## Katzndogz

If the minimum wage was raised in a year the effect would be non existent.


----------



## Amelia

Katzndogz said:


> If the minimum wage was raised in a year the effect would be non existent.





So no jobs would go overseas because of the raise?  

Or would the job loss and the job creation balance out?


----------



## Indeependent

Career opportunities are real, minimum wage is artificial.


----------



## Amelia

Publius1787 said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> If minimum wage were raised, presumably many people's wages would be bumped at least a little.  Even though only a small percentage of workers earn minimum wage, the people who started out at minimum wage and got raises would get upset if brand new employees suddenly got as much as they did, so lots of wages would go up.
> 
> So how many jobs would be created or saved by this move -- for instance because of the increase in spending money available for local spending?
> 
> And how many jobs would be lost -- for instance because the increase in American wages would make offshore labor look more appealing, or because business owners' profit margin wouldn't support a 20% hike in labor costs so they would let a small portion of their workforce go and hope for more productivity from the rest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let&#8217;s just say for example that the new &#8220;living&#8221; minimum wage is double the current federal minimum wage: $7.25 x 2= $14.5/hr (+-$30,160 per year). The people who would supposedly benefit the most would be low skilled workers right? Now what about the moderate skilled workers who were making $15/hr already? Would they sweat in the hot sun all day as a construction worker if they knew they could make the same stocking shelves at Wal-Mart? Would they freeze in the winter as an HVAC repairman crawling under people&#8217;s houses if they could make the same amount sweeping the floors as a janitor? Would you? Employers dealing in construction, heating/air, plumbing, etc., will need to considerably increase wages to keep their staff on board. Indeed, all skilled labor employers would need to increase the wages of their workers in order to remain competitive in the market for skilled labor, or else, their competitors will grab them. Moreover, high skilled labor would need to increase their pay and benefits.
> 
> If you mandated a living wage you would only create a new poverty line with the same amount of poverty after the market settles down.
Click to expand...





Yes, I'm assuming that wages for skilled labor would also rise.

With millions being paid more, there would be more tax revenue.  



I am curious about what the new standards would be for public assistance -- would the poverty line just be arbitrarily bumped up in accordance with the rise in minimum wage?  As you say, it seems likely it would.


But more taxes would be going into the coffer, so there would be more money for public projects.  That could mean more jobs.


----------



## Publius1787

Amelia said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the minimum wage was raised in a year the effect would be non existent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So no jobs would go overseas because of the raise?
> 
> Or would the job loss and the job creation balance out?
Click to expand...


*This would happen if you mandated a "Living Wage"*


*1)	Normal Goods *
a.	Businesses dealing in normal goods will see an increased demand in sales. In the short term there will be a limited number of these goods, and thus, the increased demand will create a sharp increase of prices. 

b.	Businesses dealing in normal goods will need to buy more supplies/raw materials to keep up with the demand for their finished goods. The increased demand in supplies/raw materials will likewise raise sharply the prices of supplies/raw materials. 

c.	Businesses dealing in normal goods will need to hire more workers to keep up with the increased demand. They will do so hesitantly, as the cost of labor has likewise increased. A higher amount of scrutiny will be applied to job applicants as the applicants work experience must justify the new wage. 

Ever wonder why we no longer have high school students gaining work experience servicing cars and filling tanks at service stations for small wages and tips? Blame the minimum wage. And fuel is a necessity good. 

a.	In the short run, the increased demand for normal goods cannot be supplied by U.S. firms. Therefore, we will rely more heavily on imports. This will skew the balance of trade further out of our favor, and therefore, increase the national debt. See section 5 for further analysis on imports.

*2)	Inferior Goods *
a.	Businesses dealing in inferior goods will see an immediate decline in demand combined with their shareholders selling their stock. Millions would lose their jobs. The vast majority of employees will not gain employment until the pricing adjustments in the markets settle.

*3)	Small Businesses*
a.	Small businesses will not be able to afford the increased price of labor, combined with the increased price of raw materials/supplies. They will simply shut their doors. Small corporations will likewise see their stock plummet and millions will lose their jobs. Large corporations with a lot of reserve capital and large amounts of credit will be able to run deficits in the short run, filling and expanding in the vacuum left by small businesses and small corporations in the long run.  

*4)	Wages*
a.	Let&#8217;s just say for example that the new &#8220;living&#8221; minimum wage is double the current federal minimum wage: $7.25 x 2= $14.5/hr (+-$30,160 per year). The people who would supposedly benefit the most would be low skilled workers right? Now what about the moderate skilled workers who were making $15/hr already? Would they sweat in the hot sun all day as a construction worker if they knew they could make the same stocking shelves at Wal-Mart? Would they freeze in the winter as an HVAC repairman crawling under people&#8217;s houses if they could make the same amount sweeping the floors as a janitor? Would you? Employers dealing in construction, heating/air, plumbing, etc., will need to considerably increase wages to keep their staff on board. Indeed, all skilled labor employers would need to increase the wages of their workers in order to remain competitive in the market for skilled labor, or else, their competitors will grab them. Moreover, high skilled labor would need to increase their pay and benefits.

*5)	Imports*

a.	In the short run the new demand for goods and services cannot possibly keep up with the increased demand for normal goods. Those goods will need to be imported if consumer demand is to be met. Thereby, the balance of trade will push the United States further into debt. 

b.	The increased demand for imports will likewise increase the price for imported goods. Poorer countries would not be able to compete with the United States, and therefore, the result would be more world poverty. Indeed, overseas firms that can make a higher dollar from the increase in U.S. demand will gladly sell to us as opposed to poorer countries that pay less. 

This would not be unlike when the U.S. incentivized the production of ethanol, making the production of corn more popular to U.S. based rice farmers. As we filled the gap by importing rice from foreign countries, other countries such as the Philippines had food riots.

Note: increasing tariffs on imports in an attempt to punish foreign competitors will have a reverse effect of further increasing the prices of our limited domestic goods and services.

c.	Having established that the increased demand for raw materials will be met from imports, investors will invest heavily in the expansion of overseas firms to produce those imports. With the new minimum wage at 14.50 combined with the highest corporate tax rate in the world, corporations dealing in raw materials are incentivized more than ever before to outsource jobs where the taxes are low, the labor is cheap, and the regulatory environment is more advantageous. 

d.	There is good news. Some foreign overseas workers will see an increase in jobs and a decrease in unemployment. If the decrease in unemployment is enough, the demand for labor will increase wages and befits for their workers. 

It would not be unlike Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, or South Korea during the 70&#8217;s 80&#8217;s and 90&#8217;s whereas they experienced rapid economic growth and became &#8220;Tiger Economies.&#8221;

*6)	 Assuming that the &#8220;living&#8221; minimum wage were to work.*

a.	You would see a decline in college graduates. The largest motivating factor to become educated is so that a future worker can increase his/her marketability in the job market. If a person could make a reasonable living simply by graduating high school, or even dropping out of high school, he or she has lost much of the incentive to seek higher education or become more skilled. This would pollute the workforce with low skilled labor creating an environment of which the U.S. economy falls behind the rest of the world. 


Important Note: I did not truly go into the effects of doubling the labor costs of all minimum wage businesses, and the contributions of $2,307.24 in addition to the full time minimum wage salary of $30,160 per year. (The employer must match your 6.2% Social Security Tax and your 1.45% Medicare tax). So one employee on a &#8220;living&#8221; minimum wage at $14.5/hr. comes to roughly $32,467.64 per annum. Then the business needs to worry about federal and state taxes, rent, electricity, advertising, legal fees, water, supplies/materials, training, maintenance/repair, interest on loans, insurance, perhaps franchise fees, & etcetera. If you want to take it a step further think about 401K, paid vacation, healthcare, education benefits, and maternity leave, among other perks. The cost of all of this will skyrocket.

*Conclusion: *The disparity of wealth will still be there, the prices of goods and service will 
increase, and in the long run we still have the same, probably more, amount of poverty we started off with. In the interim, however, we accomplished the following:

1) The new poverty line (100% poverty level) is $22,980 per year as opposed to the original $11,490 for a single person.
2) The Consumer Price Index has perhaps doubled if not more.
3) The national debt skyrocketed due to a disadvantageous balance of trade. 
4) The rate of overseas investment and outsourced jobs dramatically increased.
5) High unemployment.
6) An increased market share for large corporations at the expense of small corporations and small businesses.

If you can get around all these problems then go ahead, institute a &#8220;living minimum wage.&#8221;


----------



## Publius1787

Amelia said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> If minimum wage were raised, presumably many people's wages would be bumped at least a little.  Even though only a small percentage of workers earn minimum wage, the people who started out at minimum wage and got raises would get upset if brand new employees suddenly got as much as they did, so lots of wages would go up.
> 
> So how many jobs would be created or saved by this move -- for instance because of the increase in spending money available for local spending?
> 
> And how many jobs would be lost -- for instance because the increase in American wages would make offshore labor look more appealing, or because business owners' profit margin wouldn't support a 20% hike in labor costs so they would let a small portion of their workforce go and hope for more productivity from the rest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let&#8217;s just say for example that the new &#8220;living&#8221; minimum wage is double the current federal minimum wage: $7.25 x 2= $14.5/hr (+-$30,160 per year). The people who would supposedly benefit the most would be low skilled workers right? Now what about the moderate skilled workers who were making $15/hr already? Would they sweat in the hot sun all day as a construction worker if they knew they could make the same stocking shelves at Wal-Mart? Would they freeze in the winter as an HVAC repairman crawling under people&#8217;s houses if they could make the same amount sweeping the floors as a janitor? Would you? Employers dealing in construction, heating/air, plumbing, etc., will need to considerably increase wages to keep their staff on board. Indeed, all skilled labor employers would need to increase the wages of their workers in order to remain competitive in the market for skilled labor, or else, their competitors will grab them. Moreover, high skilled labor would need to increase their pay and benefits.
> 
> If you mandated a living wage you would only create a new poverty line with the same amount of poverty after the market settles down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I'm assuming that wages for skilled labor would also rise.
> 
> With millions being paid more, there would be more tax revenue.
> 
> 
> 
> I am curious about what the new standards would be for public assistance -- would the poverty line just be arbitrarily bumped up in accordance with the rise in minimum wage?  As you say, it seems likely it would.
> 
> 
> But more taxes would be going into the coffer, so there would be more money for public projects.  That could mean more jobs.
Click to expand...


you not taking into account price changes due to new wages and new demand.  Not to mention the balance of trade. look at my post above.


----------



## Amelia

Amelia said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> If minimum wage were raised, presumably many people's wages would be bumped at least a little.  Even though only a small percentage of workers earn minimum wage, the people who started out at minimum wage and got raises would get upset if brand new employees suddenly got as much as they did, so lots of wages would go up.
> 
> So how many jobs would be created or saved by this move -- for instance because of the increase in spending money available for local spending?
> 
> And how many jobs would be lost -- for instance because the increase in American wages would make offshore labor look more appealing, or because business owners' profit margin wouldn't support a 20% hike in labor costs so they would let a small portion of their workforce go and hope for more productivity from the rest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lets just say for example that the new living minimum wage is double the current federal minimum wage: $7.25 x 2= $14.5/hr (+-$30,160 per year). The people who would supposedly benefit the most would be low skilled workers right? Now what about the moderate skilled workers who were making $15/hr already? Would they sweat in the hot sun all day as a construction worker if they knew they could make the same stocking shelves at Wal-Mart? Would they freeze in the winter as an HVAC repairman crawling under peoples houses if they could make the same amount sweeping the floors as a janitor? Would you? Employers dealing in construction, heating/air, plumbing, etc., will need to considerably increase wages to keep their staff on board. Indeed, all skilled labor employers would need to increase the wages of their workers in order to remain competitive in the market for skilled labor, or else, their competitors will grab them. Moreover, high skilled labor would need to increase their pay and benefits.
> 
> If you mandated a living wage you would only create a new poverty line with the same amount of poverty after the market settles down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I'm assuming that wages for skilled labor would also rise.
> 
> With millions being paid more, there would be more tax revenue.
> 
> 
> 
> I am curious about what the new standards would be for public assistance -- would the poverty line just be arbitrarily bumped up in accordance with the rise in minimum wage?  As you say, it seems likely it would.
> 
> 
> But more taxes would be going into the coffer, so there would be more money for public projects.  That could mean more jobs.
Click to expand...




I just realized the extra taxes might not go to new jobs.  A lot of it could go to the raises that public employees would get in response to the increase in the minimum wage.


----------



## Publius1787

Amelia said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets just say for example that the new living minimum wage is double the current federal minimum wage: $7.25 x 2= $14.5/hr (+-$30,160 per year). The people who would supposedly benefit the most would be low skilled workers right? Now what about the moderate skilled workers who were making $15/hr already? Would they sweat in the hot sun all day as a construction worker if they knew they could make the same stocking shelves at Wal-Mart? Would they freeze in the winter as an HVAC repairman crawling under peoples houses if they could make the same amount sweeping the floors as a janitor? Would you? Employers dealing in construction, heating/air, plumbing, etc., will need to considerably increase wages to keep their staff on board. Indeed, all skilled labor employers would need to increase the wages of their workers in order to remain competitive in the market for skilled labor, or else, their competitors will grab them. Moreover, high skilled labor would need to increase their pay and benefits.
> 
> If you mandated a living wage you would only create a new poverty line with the same amount of poverty after the market settles down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I'm assuming that wages for skilled labor would also rise.
> 
> With millions being paid more, there would be more tax revenue.
> 
> 
> 
> I am curious about what the new standards would be for public assistance -- would the poverty line just be arbitrarily bumped up in accordance with the rise in minimum wage?  As you say, it seems likely it would.
> 
> 
> But more taxes would be going into the coffer, so there would be more money for public projects.  That could mean more jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just realized the extra taxes might not go to new jobs.  A lot of it could go to the raises that public employees would get in response to the increase in the minimum wage.
Click to expand...


Not to mention the increased price of running the government due to the increase in demand for goods and services and the national debt incurred from imports and outsourcing.


----------



## Rozman

Doesn't Nancy Pelosi believe that more people collecting UE benefits is better for the economy.


----------



## Katzndogz

If raising the minimum wage would end poverty, poverty would have been eradicated when the MW went from 75 cents an hour to $1.25 an hour.

Poverty is relative.  Pay people $100.00 an hour and they will still be poor.


----------



## Amelia

Katzndogz said:


> If raising the minimum wage would end poverty, poverty would have been eradicated when the MW went from 75 cents an hour to $1.25 an hour.
> 
> Poverty is relative.  Pay people $100.00 an hour and they will still be poor.




But if rents and gas and food go up and wages stay the same, then people will be poorer.


----------



## Sunni Man

Katzndogz said:


> If raising the minimum wage would end poverty, poverty would have been eradicated when the MW went from 75 cents an hour to $1.25 an hour.
> 
> Poverty is relative.  Pay people $100.00 an hour and they will still be poor.


Exactly.......

Even if the minimum wage went to $100 per hour.

Then a gallon of milk would cost $50 and a loaf of bread would be $25 at the grocery store.

Like Katzndogz said......it's all relative.    ..


----------



## AquaAthena

Sunni Man said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> If raising the minimum wage would end poverty, poverty would have been eradicated when the MW went from 75 cents an hour to $1.25 an hour.
> 
> Poverty is relative.  Pay people $100.00 an hour and they will still be poor.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.......
> 
> Even if the minimum wage went to $100 per hour.
> 
> Then a gallon of milk would cost $50 and a loaf of bread would be $25 at the grocery store.
> 
> Like Katzndogz said......it's all relative.    ..
Click to expand...


  Haven't we all seen that???


----------



## Amelia

Sunni Man said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> If raising the minimum wage would end poverty, poverty would have been eradicated when the MW went from 75 cents an hour to $1.25 an hour.
> 
> Poverty is relative.  Pay people $100.00 an hour and they will still be poor.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.......
> 
> Even if the minimum wage went to $100 per hour.
> 
> Then a gallon of milk would cost $50 and a loaf of bread would be $25 at the grocery store.
> 
> Like Katzndogz said......it's all relative.    ..
Click to expand...





So if the minimum wage stays at $7.25,  the price of milk and bread won't go up?  The price of cars won't go up?  

The situation is not cut-and-dried.


----------



## Katzndogz

Amelia said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> If raising the minimum wage would end poverty, poverty would have been eradicated when the MW went from 75 cents an hour to $1.25 an hour.
> 
> Poverty is relative.  Pay people $100.00 an hour and they will still be poor.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.......
> 
> Even if the minimum wage went to $100 per hour.
> 
> Then a gallon of milk would cost $50 and a loaf of bread would be $25 at the grocery store.
> 
> Like Katzndogz said......it's all relative.    ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if the minimum wage stays at $7.25,  the price of milk and bread won't go up?  The price of cars won't go up?
> 
> The situation is not cut-and-dried.
Click to expand...


Did raising the minimum wage help anyone?  

Right now the minimum wage is too high.  It isn't low enough to attract first time workers.  Make the minimum wage high enough to support a family and be a career then no one will be able to enter the work force.  We'll be like parts of Europe with 30% youth unemployment.


----------



## Amelia

Katzndogz said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.......
> 
> Even if the minimum wage went to $100 per hour.
> 
> Then a gallon of milk would cost $50 and a loaf of bread would be $25 at the grocery store.
> 
> Like Katzndogz said......it's all relative.    ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if the minimum wage stays at $7.25,  the price of milk and bread won't go up?  The price of cars won't go up?
> 
> The situation is not cut-and-dried.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did raising the minimum wage help anyone?
> 
> Right now the minimum wage is too high.  It isn't low enough to attract first time workers.  Make the minimum wage high enough to support a family and be a career then no one will be able to enter the work force.  We'll be like parts of Europe with 30% youth unemployment.
Click to expand...




Raising the minimum wage provides at least a burst of help.   Not raising the minimum wage while prices are rising around everyone means standard of living lessens.  

So yes, raising the minimum wage helps in some ways (and staves off hurt in some ways).

But it hurts in others.  

There are trade-offs.  

My question today is about the net effect -- specifically in numbers of jobs.


----------



## Katzndogz

When France tried to raise the retirement age two years there were massive riots in the streets by young people in protest.  Why?  Why would young people care about a situation that won't matter to them for 50 years?

Because it doesn't hit them in 50 years but this year.  Imagine if you were waiting for that career burger flipper to retire before you have a chance at that job.  Would you want to wait two more years?   Even for someone with a tiny bit of motivation,  they depend on the advancement of others before they can move up themselves.   A minimum wage high enough to be a family breadwinner wage turns a dynamic country stale.  It gets static.

I would suggest a categorized minimum wage structure that provides for training wages with no taxes taken out.  If you want more money you must move to a different category.   Other countries have done this and they have far more upward mobility than we do.


----------



## Katzndogz

Amelia said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if the minimum wage stays at $7.25,  the price of milk and bread won't go up?  The price of cars won't go up?
> 
> The situation is not cut-and-dried.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did raising the minimum wage help anyone?
> 
> Right now the minimum wage is too high.  It isn't low enough to attract first time workers.  Make the minimum wage high enough to support a family and be a career then no one will be able to enter the work force.  We'll be like parts of Europe with 30% youth unemployment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Raising the minimum wage provides at least a burst of help.   Not raising the minimum wage while prices are rising around everyone means standard of living lessens.
> 
> So yes, raising the minimum wage helps in some ways (and staves off hurt in some ways).
> 
> But it hurts in others.
> 
> There are trade-offs.
> 
> My question today is about the net effect -- specifically in numbers of jobs.
Click to expand...


All you are saying really is that prices need to come down.  Lower taxes and reduce strangling regulation.


----------



## asterism

Why is there no mention of the real reason for this push to increase the minimum wage?



> Labor contracts are often tied to the law&#8212;and it reduces the competition for lower-paying jobs.
> 
> Organized labor's instantaneous support for President Obama's recent proposal to hike the minimum wage doesn't make much sense at first glance. The average private-sector union member&#8212;at least one who still has a job&#8212;earns $22 an hour according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That's a far cry from the current $7.25 per hour federal minimum wage, or the $9 per hour the president has proposed. Altruistic solidarity with lower-paid workers isn't the reason for organized labor's cheerleading, either.
> 
> The real reason is that some unions and their members directly benefit from minimum wage increases&#8212;even when nary a union member actually makes the minimum wage.
> 
> The Center for Union Facts analyzed collective-bargaining agreements obtained from the Department of Labor's Office of Labor-Management Standards. The data indicate that a number of unions in the service, retail and hospitality industries peg their base-line wages to the minimum wage.



Richard Berman: Why Unions Want a Higher Minimum Wage - WSJ.com


This isn't about helping the less fortunate, it's about buying support from those already doing pretty well.


----------



## Amelia

Katzndogz said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did raising the minimum wage help anyone?
> 
> Right now the minimum wage is too high.  It isn't low enough to attract first time workers.  Make the minimum wage high enough to support a family and be a career then no one will be able to enter the work force.  We'll be like parts of Europe with 30% youth unemployment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Raising the minimum wage provides at least a burst of help.   Not raising the minimum wage while prices are rising around everyone means standard of living lessens.
> 
> So yes, raising the minimum wage helps in some ways (and staves off hurt in some ways).
> 
> But it hurts in others.
> 
> There are trade-offs.
> 
> My question today is about the net effect -- specifically in numbers of jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All you are saying really is that prices need to come down.  Lower taxes and reduce strangling regulation.
Click to expand...




That would be good too.


----------



## Publius1787

asterism said:


> Why is there no mention of the real reason for this push to increase the minimum wage?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Labor contracts are often tied to the law&#8212;and it reduces the competition for lower-paying jobs.
> 
> Organized labor's instantaneous support for President Obama's recent proposal to hike the minimum wage doesn't make much sense at first glance. The average private-sector union member&#8212;at least one who still has a job&#8212;earns $22 an hour according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That's a far cry from the current $7.25 per hour federal minimum wage, or the $9 per hour the president has proposed. Altruistic solidarity with lower-paid workers isn't the reason for organized labor's cheerleading, either.
> 
> The real reason is that some unions and their members directly benefit from minimum wage increases&#8212;even when nary a union member actually makes the minimum wage.
> 
> The Center for Union Facts analyzed collective-bargaining agreements obtained from the Department of Labor's Office of Labor-Management Standards. The data indicate that a number of unions in the service, retail and hospitality industries peg their base-line wages to the minimum wage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard Berman: Why Unions Want a Higher Minimum Wage - WSJ.com
> 
> 
> This isn't about helping the less fortunate, it's about buying support from those already doing pretty well.
Click to expand...


I didn't read the article, however, Unions advocate for the minimum wage as to increase the overhead cost of their non-union competitors, or, attempt to unionize their competitors. Unionization creates an artificial increase in prices, and thus, makes it hard to compete against non-union labor.


----------



## Publius1787

Amelia said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if the minimum wage stays at $7.25,  the price of milk and bread won't go up?  The price of cars won't go up?
> 
> The situation is not cut-and-dried.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did raising the minimum wage help anyone?
> 
> Right now the minimum wage is too high.  It isn't low enough to attract first time workers.  Make the minimum wage high enough to support a family and be a career then no one will be able to enter the work force.  We'll be like parts of Europe with 30% youth unemployment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Raising the minimum wage provides at least a burst of help.   Not raising the minimum wage while prices are rising around everyone means standard of living lessens.
> 
> So yes, raising the minimum wage helps in some ways (and staves off hurt in some ways).
> 
> But it hurts in others.
> 
> There are trade-offs.
> 
> My question today is about the net effect -- specifically in numbers of jobs.
Click to expand...


We don't have poverty in the US and we certainly don't have a problem with the standard of living. 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo]Hans Rosling's 200 Countries, 200 Years, 4 Minutes - The Joy of Stats - BBC Four - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## OnePercenter

asterism said:


> Why is there no mention of the real reason for this push to increase the minimum wage?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Labor contracts are often tied to the lawand it reduces the competition for lower-paying jobs.
> 
> Organized labor's instantaneous support for President Obama's recent proposal to hike the minimum wage doesn't make much sense at first glance. The average private-sector union memberat least one who still has a jobearns $22 an hour according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That's a far cry from the current $7.25 per hour federal minimum wage, or the $9 per hour the president has proposed. Altruistic solidarity with lower-paid workers isn't the reason for organized labor's cheerleading, either.
> 
> The real reason is that some unions and their members directly benefit from minimum wage increaseseven when nary a union member actually makes the minimum wage.
> 
> The Center for Union Facts analyzed collective-bargaining agreements obtained from the Department of Labor's Office of Labor-Management Standards. The data indicate that a number of unions in the service, retail and hospitality industries peg their base-line wages to the minimum wage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard Berman: Why Unions Want a Higher Minimum Wage - WSJ.com
> 
> 
> This isn't about helping the less fortunate, it's about buying support from those already doing pretty well.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't expect any less from the Cousin of faux news.


----------



## OnePercenter

Noomi said:


> Pretty ridiculous that some people here are actually suggesting that minimum wage be $100 an hour. Makes this thread not worth reading.



Perhaps that's all they had.


----------



## OnePercenter

Katzndogz said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did raising the minimum wage help anyone?
> 
> Right now the minimum wage is too high.  It isn't low enough to attract first time workers.  Make the minimum wage high enough to support a family and be a career then no one will be able to enter the work force.  We'll be like parts of Europe with 30% youth unemployment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Raising the minimum wage provides at least a burst of help.   Not raising the minimum wage while prices are rising around everyone means standard of living lessens.
> 
> So yes, raising the minimum wage helps in some ways (and staves off hurt in some ways).
> 
> But it hurts in others.
> 
> There are trade-offs.
> 
> My question today is about the net effect -- specifically in numbers of jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All you are saying really is that prices need to come down.  Lower taxes and reduce strangling regulation.
Click to expand...


Walmart's effective tax rate for 2012 was 0.01%. How much lower do you want it to go? OBTW, how much was yours?

Which 'strangling regulation'? Safety guards for meat slicers?


----------



## FA_Q2

Amelia said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if the minimum wage stays at $7.25,  the price of milk and bread won't go up?  The price of cars won't go up?
> 
> The situation is not cut-and-dried.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did raising the minimum wage help anyone?
> 
> Right now the minimum wage is too high.  It isn't low enough to attract first time workers.  Make the minimum wage high enough to support a family and be a career then no one will be able to enter the work force.  We'll be like parts of Europe with 30% youth unemployment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Raising the minimum wage provides at least a burst of help.   Not raising the minimum wage while prices are rising around everyone means standard of living lessens.
> 
> So yes, raising the minimum wage helps in some ways (and staves off hurt in some ways).
> 
> But it hurts in others.
> 
> There are trade-offs.
> 
> My question today is about the net effect -- specifically in numbers of jobs.
Click to expand...


If you are looking for a specific number of jobs that are going to be lost because of raising the minimum wage you are not going to find it.  No one can pin down something so specific in such a complex entity.  It will cost jobs though.  

The real question is not how many jobs it is going to cost but rather what would you accomplish for that loss.  In all honesty, I dont think you are going to accomplish anything as the price of everything rises to meet the new higher wages.  Those wages represent the value of the work provided.  As the value of that work has not changed, increasing the number of pieces of paper that you gave the person is not going to change the real pay that they earned after the market stabilizes.


----------



## OnePercenter

FA_Q2 said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did raising the minimum wage help anyone?
> 
> Right now the minimum wage is too high.  It isn't low enough to attract first time workers.  Make the minimum wage high enough to support a family and be a career then no one will be able to enter the work force.  We'll be like parts of Europe with 30% youth unemployment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Raising the minimum wage provides at least a burst of help.   Not raising the minimum wage while prices are rising around everyone means standard of living lessens.
> 
> So yes, raising the minimum wage helps in some ways (and staves off hurt in some ways).
> 
> But it hurts in others.
> 
> There are trade-offs.
> 
> My question today is about the net effect -- specifically in numbers of jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are looking for a specific number of jobs that are going to be lost because of raising the minimum wage you are not going to find it.  No one can pin down something so specific in such a complex entity. * It will cost jobs though.*
> 
> The real question is not how many jobs it is going to cost but rather what would you accomplish for that loss.  In all honesty, I dont think you are going to accomplish anything as the price of everything rises to meet the new higher wages.  Those wages represent the value of the work provided.  As the value of that work has not changed, increasing the number of pieces of paper that you gave the person is not going to change the real pay that they earned after the market stabilizes.
Click to expand...


Not if you make it advantages to employers.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Ever wonder why Walmart, which claims it pays its employees roughly $11.00 an hour, supports an increase in the minimum wage? Ever wonder why big, evil, corporations like minimum wage law? Ever wonder why there are so few mom and pop stores in your neighborhood? Ever wonder if there might be a connection?

Everyone who supports an increase in the minimum wage should read this article from beginning to end, and then ask themselves why they hate the company they created.



> The D.C. Council began the year by trying to pass a minimum wage  hike intended to bring to Walmart to heel. It is ending the year by  pushing a minimum wage increase that would likely benefit Walmart. Such  are the tangled politics and economics of the minimum wage issue.
> What changed is that the council, frustrated in its effort to pass a  hike that singled out the retail giant and left most other businesses  untouched, decided to instead push an across-the-board increase. That  will likely happen.
> At this point the real question is how much higher D.C.'s minimum  will go. The council voted unanimously Dec. 3 to make it $11.50 an hour  by 2016, up from its current $8.25. Mayor Vincent Gray  has counter-proposed $10. The council must vote a second time before  sending it to Gray, but the initial vote suggests it will be able to  override any mayoral veto.
> Either version would have the unintended effect of helping to  insulate D.C.s six new Walmarts from economic competition. The chain  will be able to pay the new higher wage  in many cases, it already does   but local mom-and-pop stores may not.
> That probably wasnt the councils intention when it introduced the  Large Retailer Accountability Act in January. That would have required  large retail businesses to pay at least $12.50 an hour.
> Only a handful of businesses other than Walmart,  like Macy's and Home Depot, qualified. All others would have been free  to pay just $8.25, giving them a serious economic edge because their  labor costs would be lower.



How D.C.'s effort to raise the minimum wage helps Walmart | WashingtonExaminer.com


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Publius1787 said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> If minimum wage were raised, presumably many people's wages would be bumped at least a little.  Even though only a small percentage of workers earn minimum wage, the people who started out at minimum wage and got raises would get upset if brand new employees suddenly got as much as they did, so lots of wages would go up.
> 
> So how many jobs would be created or saved by this move -- for instance because of the increase in spending money available for local spending?
> 
> And how many jobs would be lost -- for instance because the increase in American wages would make offshore labor look more appealing, or because business owners' profit margin wouldn't support a 20% hike in labor costs so they would let a small portion of their workforce go and hope for more productivity from the rest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lets just say for example that the new living minimum wage is double the current federal minimum wage: $7.25 x 2= $14.5/hr (+-$30,160 per year). The people who would supposedly benefit the most would be low skilled workers right? Now what about the moderate skilled workers who were making $15/hr already? Would they sweat in the hot sun all day as a construction worker if they knew they could make the same stocking shelves at Wal-Mart? Would they freeze in the winter as an HVAC repairman crawling under peoples houses if they could make the same amount sweeping the floors as a janitor? Would you? Employers dealing in construction, heating/air, plumbing, etc., will need to considerably increase wages to keep their staff on board. Indeed, all skilled labor employers would need to increase the wages of their workers in order to remain competitive in the market for skilled labor, or else, their competitors will grab them. Moreover, high skilled labor would need to increase their pay and benefits.
> 
> If you mandated a living wage you would only create a new poverty line with the same amount of poverty as you started off with, if not more, after the market settles down. There is indeed a reason why service stations no longer hire teenagers to service the cars of travelers.
Click to expand...


Bingo.

This is also the reason we no longer have neighborhood grocery stores that offer free delivery, or that bookstore where you could talk to someone who actually read books. People love to blame the big box stores for the demise of the friendly neighborhood market, but the real culprit is the government policies that make it impossible for small business to compete.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Amelia said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> If minimum wage were raised, presumably many people's wages would be bumped at least a little.  Even though only a small percentage of workers earn minimum wage, the people who started out at minimum wage and got raises would get upset if brand new employees suddenly got as much as they did, so lots of wages would go up.
> 
> So how many jobs would be created or saved by this move -- for instance because of the increase in spending money available for local spending?
> 
> And how many jobs would be lost -- for instance because the increase in American wages would make offshore labor look more appealing, or because business owners' profit margin wouldn't support a 20% hike in labor costs so they would let a small portion of their workforce go and hope for more productivity from the rest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lets just say for example that the new living minimum wage is double the current federal minimum wage: $7.25 x 2= $14.5/hr (+-$30,160 per year). The people who would supposedly benefit the most would be low skilled workers right? Now what about the moderate skilled workers who were making $15/hr already? Would they sweat in the hot sun all day as a construction worker if they knew they could make the same stocking shelves at Wal-Mart? Would they freeze in the winter as an HVAC repairman crawling under peoples houses if they could make the same amount sweeping the floors as a janitor? Would you? Employers dealing in construction, heating/air, plumbing, etc., will need to considerably increase wages to keep their staff on board. Indeed, all skilled labor employers would need to increase the wages of their workers in order to remain competitive in the market for skilled labor, or else, their competitors will grab them. Moreover, high skilled labor would need to increase their pay and benefits.
> 
> If you mandated a living wage you would only create a new poverty line with the same amount of poverty after the market settles down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I'm assuming that wages for skilled labor would also rise.
> 
> With millions being paid more, there would be more tax revenue.
> 
> 
> 
> I am curious about what the new standards would be for public assistance -- would the poverty line just be arbitrarily bumped up in accordance with the rise in minimum wage?  As you say, it seems likely it would.
> 
> 
> But more taxes would be going into the coffer, so there would be more money for public projects.  That could mean more jobs.
Click to expand...


If increasing the minimum wage worked the way its proponents insist there wouldn't be a need to accompany it with an increase in the EIC and other benefits for poor people.


----------



## OnePercenter

Quantum Windbag said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> If minimum wage were raised, presumably many people's wages would be bumped at least a little.  Even though only a small percentage of workers earn minimum wage, the people who started out at minimum wage and got raises would get upset if brand new employees suddenly got as much as they did, so lots of wages would go up.
> 
> So how many jobs would be created or saved by this move -- for instance because of the increase in spending money available for local spending?
> 
> And how many jobs would be lost -- for instance because the increase in American wages would make offshore labor look more appealing, or because business owners' profit margin wouldn't support a 20% hike in labor costs so they would let a small portion of their workforce go and hope for more productivity from the rest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lets just say for example that the new living minimum wage is double the current federal minimum wage: $7.25 x 2= $14.5/hr (+-$30,160 per year). The people who would supposedly benefit the most would be low skilled workers right? Now what about the moderate skilled workers who were making $15/hr already? Would they sweat in the hot sun all day as a construction worker if they knew they could make the same stocking shelves at Wal-Mart? Would they freeze in the winter as an HVAC repairman crawling under peoples houses if they could make the same amount sweeping the floors as a janitor? Would you? Employers dealing in construction, heating/air, plumbing, etc., will need to considerably increase wages to keep their staff on board. Indeed, all skilled labor employers would need to increase the wages of their workers in order to remain competitive in the market for skilled labor, or else, their competitors will grab them. Moreover, high skilled labor would need to increase their pay and benefits.
> 
> If you mandated a living wage you would only create a new poverty line with the same amount of poverty as you started off with, if not more, after the market settles down. There is indeed a reason why service stations no longer hire teenagers to service the cars of travelers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bingo.
> 
> This is also the reason we no longer have neighborhood grocery stores that offer free delivery, or that bookstore where you could talk to someone who actually read books. People love to blame the big box stores for the demise of the friendly neighborhood market, but the real culprit is the government policies that make it impossible for small business to compete.
Click to expand...


Which government policies are you writing of?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Amelia said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> If raising the minimum wage would end poverty, poverty would have been eradicated when the MW went from 75 cents an hour to $1.25 an hour.
> 
> Poverty is relative.  Pay people $100.00 an hour and they will still be poor.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.......
> 
> Even if the minimum wage went to $100 per hour.
> 
> Then a gallon of milk would cost $50 and a loaf of bread would be $25 at the grocery store.
> 
> Like Katzndogz said......it's all relative.    ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if the minimum wage stays at $7.25,  the price of milk and bread won't go up?  The price of cars won't go up?
> 
> The situation is not cut-and-dried.
Click to expand...


The price of milk is set by federal law. It would drop considerably if the government got out of the way.

Come to think of it, that is true of quite a few things we consider staple foods.


----------



## OnePercenter

Quantum Windbag said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets just say for example that the new living minimum wage is double the current federal minimum wage: $7.25 x 2= $14.5/hr (+-$30,160 per year). The people who would supposedly benefit the most would be low skilled workers right? Now what about the moderate skilled workers who were making $15/hr already? Would they sweat in the hot sun all day as a construction worker if they knew they could make the same stocking shelves at Wal-Mart? Would they freeze in the winter as an HVAC repairman crawling under peoples houses if they could make the same amount sweeping the floors as a janitor? Would you? Employers dealing in construction, heating/air, plumbing, etc., will need to considerably increase wages to keep their staff on board. Indeed, all skilled labor employers would need to increase the wages of their workers in order to remain competitive in the market for skilled labor, or else, their competitors will grab them. Moreover, high skilled labor would need to increase their pay and benefits.
> 
> If you mandated a living wage you would only create a new poverty line with the same amount of poverty after the market settles down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I'm assuming that wages for skilled labor would also rise.
> 
> With millions being paid more, there would be more tax revenue.
> 
> 
> 
> I am curious about what the new standards would be for public assistance -- would the poverty line just be arbitrarily bumped up in accordance with the rise in minimum wage?  As you say, it seems likely it would.
> 
> 
> But more taxes would be going into the coffer, so there would be more money for public projects.  That could mean more jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If increasing the minimum wage worked the way its proponents insist there wouldn't be a need to accompany it with an increase in the EIC and other benefits for poor people.
Click to expand...


Minimum wage has never been increased enough; Plus, incentive's for business haven't been included.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Amelia said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if the minimum wage stays at $7.25,  the price of milk and bread won't go up?  The price of cars won't go up?
> 
> The situation is not cut-and-dried.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did raising the minimum wage help anyone?
> 
> Right now the minimum wage is too high.  It isn't low enough to attract first time workers.  Make the minimum wage high enough to support a family and be a career then no one will be able to enter the work force.  We'll be like parts of Europe with 30% youth unemployment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Raising the minimum wage provides at least a burst of help.   Not raising the minimum wage while prices are rising around everyone means standard of living lessens.
> 
> So yes, raising the minimum wage helps in some ways (and staves off hurt in some ways).
> 
> But it hurts in others.
> 
> There are trade-offs.
> 
> My question today is about the net effect -- specifically in numbers of jobs.
Click to expand...


Rule of thumb.

Raising the minimum wage has little or no economic impact as long as you don't raise it higher than what businesses are already paying their workers. A $15 hour wage in North Dakota wouldn't make a dent in the economy, it would wipe out most businesses in Brownsville Texas.


----------



## OnePercenter

Quantum Windbag said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.......
> 
> Even if the minimum wage went to $100 per hour.
> 
> Then a gallon of milk would cost $50 and a loaf of bread would be $25 at the grocery store.
> 
> Like Katzndogz said......it's all relative.    ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if the minimum wage stays at $7.25,  the price of milk and bread won't go up?  The price of cars won't go up?
> 
> The situation is not cut-and-dried.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The price of milk is set by federal law. *It would drop considerably if the government got out of the way.*
> 
> Come to think of it, that is true of quite a few things we consider staple foods.
Click to expand...


Worked well when Reagan deregulated HMO's. Just a 360% increase in premiums.


----------



## OnePercenter

Quantum Windbag said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did raising the minimum wage help anyone?
> 
> Right now the minimum wage is too high.  It isn't low enough to attract first time workers.  Make the minimum wage high enough to support a family and be a career then no one will be able to enter the work force.  We'll be like parts of Europe with 30% youth unemployment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Raising the minimum wage provides at least a burst of help.   Not raising the minimum wage while prices are rising around everyone means standard of living lessens.
> 
> So yes, raising the minimum wage helps in some ways (and staves off hurt in some ways).
> 
> But it hurts in others.
> 
> There are trade-offs.
> 
> My question today is about the net effect -- specifically in numbers of jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rule of thumb.
> 
> Raising the minimum wage has little or no economic impact as long as you don't raise it higher than what businesses are already paying their workers. A $15 hour wage in North Dakota wouldn't make a dent in the economy, it would wipe out most businesses in Brownsville Texas.
Click to expand...


How about $23.50/hr and allowing business to deduct dollar-for-dollar from local, state, and Federal taxes?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

OnePercenter said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> Raising the minimum wage provides at least a burst of help.   Not raising the minimum wage while prices are rising around everyone means standard of living lessens.
> 
> So yes, raising the minimum wage helps in some ways (and staves off hurt in some ways).
> 
> But it hurts in others.
> 
> There are trade-offs.
> 
> My question today is about the net effect -- specifically in numbers of jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All you are saying really is that prices need to come down.  Lower taxes and reduce strangling regulation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Walmart's effective tax rate for 2012 was 0.01%. How much lower do you want it to go? OBTW, how much was yours?
> 
> Which 'strangling regulation'? Safety guards for meat slicers?
Click to expand...


Did you pull that number out of thin air, or just make it up? 

As for strangling regulations, here is one example.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O9cJMO4B18]Little American Dream Factory: Chicago Bureaucrats Put the Brakes on an Innovative Business - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Quantum Windbag

OnePercenter said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets just say for example that the new living minimum wage is double the current federal minimum wage: $7.25 x 2= $14.5/hr (+-$30,160 per year). The people who would supposedly benefit the most would be low skilled workers right? Now what about the moderate skilled workers who were making $15/hr already? Would they sweat in the hot sun all day as a construction worker if they knew they could make the same stocking shelves at Wal-Mart? Would they freeze in the winter as an HVAC repairman crawling under peoples houses if they could make the same amount sweeping the floors as a janitor? Would you? Employers dealing in construction, heating/air, plumbing, etc., will need to considerably increase wages to keep their staff on board. Indeed, all skilled labor employers would need to increase the wages of their workers in order to remain competitive in the market for skilled labor, or else, their competitors will grab them. Moreover, high skilled labor would need to increase their pay and benefits.
> 
> If you mandated a living wage you would only create a new poverty line with the same amount of poverty as you started off with, if not more, after the market settles down. There is indeed a reason why service stations no longer hire teenagers to service the cars of travelers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo.
> 
> This is also the reason we no longer have neighborhood grocery stores that offer free delivery, or that bookstore where you could talk to someone who actually read books. People love to blame the big box stores for the demise of the friendly neighborhood market, but the real culprit is the government policies that make it impossible for small business to compete.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which government policies are you writing of?
Click to expand...


Read the thread and find out.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

OnePercenter said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if the minimum wage stays at $7.25,  the price of milk and bread won't go up?  The price of cars won't go up?
> 
> The situation is not cut-and-dried.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The price of milk is set by federal law. *It would drop considerably if the government got out of the way.*
> 
> Come to think of it, that is true of quite a few things we consider staple foods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Worked well when Reagan deregulated HMO's. Just a 360% increase in premiums.
Click to expand...


If only one of us had a link to back up their claims.

Wait, I do.

USDA ERS - Dairy: Policy


----------



## Politico

Jobs would be lost or prices would go up. No free lunch. Actually business would do both if they could get away with it.


----------



## Dragonlady

Amelia said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the minimum wage was raised in a year the effect would be non existent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So no jobs would go overseas because of the raise?
> 
> Or would the job loss and the job creation balance out?
Click to expand...


Every time the minimum wage has been increased, there are an increase in employment. 

When poor people get more money, they spend it all, and this acts as an economic stimulus. Higher demand for the goods and services they are purchasing, increases employment.


----------



## The Professor

Dragonlady said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the minimum wage was raised in a year the effect would be non existent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So no jobs would go overseas because of the raise?
> 
> Or would the job loss and the job creation balance out?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every time the minimum wage has been increased, there are an increase in employment.
> 
> When poor people get more money, they spend it all, and this acts as an economic stimulus. Higher demand for the goods and services they are purchasing, increases employment.
Click to expand...


I don't doubt  you have sources which confirm what you say.   But there are other sources, those I believe are more legitimate, which say the opposite.  One of the best articles I have read was  _The Record is Clear:  Minimum Wage Hikes Destroy Jobs_ by  Michael Saltsman of Forbes.  The author writes in part: 

In a comprehensive, 182-page summary of the research on this subject from the last two decades, economists David Neumark (UC-Irvine) and William Wascher (Federal Reserve Board) determined that 85 percent of the best research points to a loss of jobs following a minimum wage increase. 

As in any academic discipline, there are outliers.  But even the outliers are problematic: For instance, the famous (or rather, infamous) New Jersey study that associated a higher minimum with increased employment was later refuted in the same academic journal that originally published it. More recently, the paper that the President relied on to make his case for a higher minimum was debunked in a study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

In addition to the negative effect on employment, the author explains why minimum wage increases have had no associated reduction in the poverty rates.  The author also debunked those who claim that the minimum rate should be $9/hour when adjusted for inflation. 

Stevenson covers other oft-cited reasons to raise the minimum wage, including the argument that, adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage would already be above $9 an hour. But inflation rates can both rise and fall, which means a minimum wage that truly kept up with inflation since its inception in 1938 would only be $4.12 todaynot the current $7.25  

The Record Is Clear: Minimum Wage Hikes Destroy Jobs - Forbes

There are other sources which accurately show the true inflation-adjusted minimum wage and it's not even close to $9/hour.

When President Franklin D. Roosevelt first created the minimum wage in 1938, it was 25 cents. Adjusted for inflation, that would be worth $4.07 today.   The minimum wage had its lowest buying power in 1948, when it was worth about $3.81 in today's dollars. It had its highest buying power in 1968, when it was worth about $10.56.   At $7.25 in 2012, our current minimum wage is in the middle of those two extremes.

"President Obama's proposal to raise the minimum wage to $9 would put it back to a value last seen in the early 1980s.

A history of the minimum wage since 1938 - Economy


----------



## Katzndogz

If the minimum wage really helped the economy it would have done so by now.   It is a fix that fixes nothing.  All a hike in the minimum wage does, is set the benchmark for the next minimum wage hike.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Dragonlady said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the minimum wage was raised in a year the effect would be non existent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So no jobs would go overseas because of the raise?
> 
> Or would the job loss and the job creation balance out?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every time the minimum wage has been increased, there are an increase in employment.
> 
> When poor people get more money, they spend it all, and this acts as an economic stimulus. Higher demand for the goods and services they are purchasing, increases employment.
Click to expand...


I love it when people make absolute statements because absolute statements are always wrong. (Yes, that is an absolute statement, and it contradicts itself, which actually proves I am right.)

FYI, jobs always increase in a healthy economy, and the impact of wage hikes are limited outside the job market they affect the most. In order to see the actual impact of minimum wage hikes you need to look at the people who generally work those jobs, teenagers.

Minimum Wage Increase Leads to Higher Teen Unemployment Rate - WSJ.com


----------



## The Professor

There are those who propose that an increase in the minimum wage will increase employment and others (like me) who contend the opposite.  Even the so-called experts disagree on this issue so  I am not surprised by the disagreement I witness on this forum.  Rather than get into a battle of the experts I propose a more simple approach. 

Sometimes it helps to break things down to the lowest level in order to understand how they work .  If a higher wage compelled more people to seek employment, what good would it do if there were no more jobs to be had.  How many times have thousands of  hopeful job seekers  lined up for a shot at a mere dozen or so jobs?  It seems to me that an employer will always hire the people he needs and if he cannot do so with the minimum wage he will raise the pay as needed.    If the employer already has all the workers he needs and the minimum wage is raised, not only will he not seek additional employees but instead will look to cut the hours of those already working to keep his  labor costs from rising.  An employer does not need a government mandate to tell him how many employees he needs and how much he should pay to get them.  In all my life I have never heard of an employer saying, Well, they've increased the minimum wage so we're going to hire more people.

And, yes, I've read the argument that if the low-wage workers have more money to spend the extra flow of cash will help the economy.  What I cannot comprehend is how an economy is improved by raising wages for some when those who pay the increased wages (in the form of increased prices) have less money to spend on other things.  It sounds like the same argument that Obama used to promote the clash-for-clunkers program.  Yes, one sector of the economy  the new car market   did improve; however all other sectors suffered by the same dollar amount.  A man can only spend his paycheck once and the money that went into buying a new car came at the expense of those other businesses that were the previous beneficiaries of  the man's spending preferences.


----------



## Againsheila

Amelia said:


> If minimum wage were raised, presumably many people's wages would be bumped at least a little.  Even though only a small percentage of workers earn minimum wage, the people who started out at minimum wage and got raises would get upset if brand new employees suddenly got as much as they did, so lots of wages would go up.
> 
> So how many jobs would be created or saved by this move -- for instance because of the increase in spending money available for local spending?
> 
> And how many jobs would be lost -- for instance because the increase in American wages would make offshore labor look more appealing, or because business owners' profit margin wouldn't support a 20% hike in labor costs so they would let a small portion of their workforce go and hope for more productivity from the rest?



I don't know, but I do know that the last several times the minimum wage was raised there was no net lose in jobs.  I think there's something wrong in a country where the top 1% can increase their income by more than 200% while the middle class worker remains stagnant and the minimum wage worker loses ground.  

I know our economy was much healthier when the minimum wage had it's highest spending power in history and the top tax rate was 70%.


----------



## Againsheila

The Professor said:


> There are those who propose that an increase in the minimum wage will increase employment and others (like me) who contend the opposite.  Even the so-called experts disagree on this issue so  I am not surprised by the disagreement I witness on this forum.  Rather than get into a battle of the experts I propose a more simple approach.
> 
> Sometimes it helps to break things down to the lowest level in order to understand how they work .  If a higher wage compelled more people to seek employment, what good would it do if there were no more jobs to be had.  How many times have thousands of  hopeful job seekers  lined up for a shot at a mere dozen or so jobs?  It seems to me that an employer will always hire the people he needs and if he cannot do so with the minimum wage he will raise the pay as needed.    If the employer already has all the workers he needs and the minimum wage is raised, not only will he not seek additional employees but instead will look to cut the hours of those already working to keep his  labor costs from rising.  An employer does not need a government mandate to tell him how many employees he needs and how much he should pay to get them.  In all my life I have never heard of an employer saying, Well, they've increased the minimum wage so we're going to hire more people.
> 
> And, yes, I've read the argument that if the low-wage workers have more money to spend the extra flow of cash will help the economy.  What I cannot comprehend is how an economy is improved by raising wages for some when those who pay the increased wages (in the form of increased prices) have less money to spend on other things.  It sounds like the same argument that Obama used to promote the clash-for-clunkers program.  Yes, one sector of the economy  the new car market   did improve; however all other sectors suffered by the same dollar amount.  A man can only spend his paycheck once and the money that went into buying a new car came at the expense of those other businesses that were the previous beneficiaries of  the man's spending preferences.



The top 1% has had their income increased by more than 200% and their taxes have been reduced.  Why can't the minimum wage worker have the same increase?  Why is it bad for the economy for the people who actually spend the money in our economy to make as big an income increase as those who put their money into off shore accounts?


----------



## Againsheila

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> So no jobs would go overseas because of the raise?
> 
> Or would the job loss and the job creation balance out?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every time the minimum wage has been increased, there are an increase in employment.
> 
> When poor people get more money, they spend it all, and this acts as an economic stimulus. Higher demand for the goods and services they are purchasing, increases employment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love it when people make absolute statements because absolute statements are always wrong. (Yes, that is an absolute statement, and it contradicts itself, which actually proves I am right.)
> 
> FYI, jobs always increase in a healthy economy, and the impact of wage hikes are limited outside the job market they affect the most. In order to see the actual impact of minimum wage hikes you need to look at the people who generally work those jobs, teenagers.
> 
> Minimum Wage Increase Leads to Higher Teen Unemployment Rate - WSJ.com
Click to expand...


The majority of people making minimum wage are adults and that's been the case as long as I can remember.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Againsheila said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> If minimum wage were raised, presumably many people's wages would be bumped at least a little.  Even though only a small percentage of workers earn minimum wage, the people who started out at minimum wage and got raises would get upset if brand new employees suddenly got as much as they did, so lots of wages would go up.
> 
> So how many jobs would be created or saved by this move -- for instance because of the increase in spending money available for local spending?
> 
> And how many jobs would be lost -- for instance because the increase in American wages would make offshore labor look more appealing, or because business owners' profit margin wouldn't support a 20% hike in labor costs so they would let a small portion of their workforce go and hope for more productivity from the rest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, but I do know that the last several times the minimum wage was raised there was no net lose in jobs.  I think there's something wrong in a country where the top 1% can increase their income by more than 200% while the middle class worker remains stagnant and the minimum wage worker loses ground.
> 
> I know our economy was much healthier when the minimum wage had it's highest spending power in history and the top tax rate was 70%.
Click to expand...


No net loss in jobs.

That sounds great, doesn't it? Are you aware that even studies that claim to prove that minimum wage hikes do not affect employment numbers have repeatedly shown an immediate increase in unemployment after a hike? Or that they show that job growth is slower after the hike than it was before? If you can believe in jobs saved or created to argue in favor of stimulus plans that don't work, you can use the opposite metric, which I will call jobs disappeared or lost, to argue against wage hikes.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Againsheila said:


> The Professor said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are those who propose that an increase in the minimum wage will increase employment and others (like me) who contend the opposite.  Even the so-called experts disagree on this issue so  I am not surprised by the disagreement I witness on this forum.  Rather than get into a battle of the experts I propose a more simple approach.
> 
> Sometimes it helps to break things down to the lowest level in order to understand how they work .  If a higher wage compelled more people to seek employment, what good would it do if there were no more jobs to be had.  How many times have thousands of  hopeful job seekers  lined up for a shot at a mere dozen or so jobs?  It seems to me that an employer will always hire the people he needs and if he cannot do so with the minimum wage he will raise the pay as needed.    If the employer already has all the workers he needs and the minimum wage is raised, not only will he not seek additional employees but instead will look to cut the hours of those already working to keep his  labor costs from rising.  An employer does not need a government mandate to tell him how many employees he needs and how much he should pay to get them.  In all my life I have never heard of an employer saying, Well, they've increased the minimum wage so we're going to hire more people.
> 
> And, yes, I've read the argument that if the low-wage workers have more money to spend the extra flow of cash will help the economy.  What I cannot comprehend is how an economy is improved by raising wages for some when those who pay the increased wages (in the form of increased prices) have less money to spend on other things.  It sounds like the same argument that Obama used to promote the clash-for-clunkers program.  Yes, one sector of the economy  the new car market   did improve; however all other sectors suffered by the same dollar amount.  A man can only spend his paycheck once and the money that went into buying a new car came at the expense of those other businesses that were the previous beneficiaries of  the man's spending preferences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The top 1% has had their income increased by more than 200% and their taxes have been reduced.  Why can't the minimum wage worker have the same increase?  Why is it bad for the economy for the people who actually spend the money in our economy to make as big an income increase as those who put their money into off shore accounts?
Click to expand...


Because you refuse to address the real issues involved in what actually creates the problem you are talking about.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Againsheila said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time the minimum wage has been increased, there are an increase in employment.
> 
> When poor people get more money, they spend it all, and this acts as an economic stimulus. Higher demand for the goods and services they are purchasing, increases employment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love it when people make absolute statements because absolute statements are always wrong. (Yes, that is an absolute statement, and it contradicts itself, which actually proves I am right.)
> 
> FYI, jobs always increase in a healthy economy, and the impact of wage hikes are limited outside the job market they affect the most. In order to see the actual impact of minimum wage hikes you need to look at the people who generally work those jobs, teenagers.
> 
> Minimum Wage Increase Leads to Higher Teen Unemployment Rate - WSJ.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The majority of people making minimum wage are adults and that's been the case as long as I can remember.
Click to expand...


Seriously?

Perhaps you should take the tike to inform the BLS that they got everything wrong.



> In 2012, 75.3 million workers in the United States age 16 and over  were paid at hourly rates, representing 59.0 percent of all wage and  salary workers. 1  Among those paid by the hour, 1.6 million earned exactly the prevailing  federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. About 2.0 million had wages  below the federal minimum.2  Together, these 3.6 million workers with wages at or below the federal  minimum made up 4.7 percent of all hourly paid workers. Tables 1 through  10 present data on a wide array of demographic and socioeconomic  characteristics for hourly paid workers earning at or below the federal  minimum wage. The following are some highlights from the 2012 data.
> 
> 
> Minimum wage workers tend to be young. Although workers under age  25 represented only about one-fifth of hourly paid workers, they made  up about half of those paid the Federal minimum wage or less. Among  employed teenagers paid by the hour, about 21 percent earned the minimum  wage or less, compared with about 3 percent of workers age 25 and over.  (See table 1 and table 7.)





Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2012


----------



## FA_Q2

Againsheila said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> If minimum wage were raised, presumably many people's wages would be bumped at least a little.  Even though only a small percentage of workers earn minimum wage, the people who started out at minimum wage and got raises would get upset if brand new employees suddenly got as much as they did, so lots of wages would go up.
> 
> So how many jobs would be created or saved by this move -- for instance because of the increase in spending money available for local spending?
> 
> And how many jobs would be lost -- for instance because the increase in American wages would make offshore labor look more appealing, or because business owners' profit margin wouldn't support a 20% hike in labor costs so they would let a small portion of their workforce go and hope for more productivity from the rest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, but I do know that the last several times the minimum wage was raised there was no net lose in jobs.  I think there's something wrong in a country where the top 1% can increase their income by more than 200% while the middle class worker remains stagnant and the minimum wage worker loses ground.
> 
> I know our economy was much healthier when the minimum wage had it's highest spending power in history and the top tax rate was 70%.
Click to expand...


Yet you have cited nothing to back that claim up ant your opposition has.  Why should w Felice that blanket stammer without anything to support it.

Sent from my ADR8995 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Againsheila

Quantum Windbag said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> If minimum wage were raised, presumably many people's wages would be bumped at least a little.  Even though only a small percentage of workers earn minimum wage, the people who started out at minimum wage and got raises would get upset if brand new employees suddenly got as much as they did, so lots of wages would go up.
> 
> So how many jobs would be created or saved by this move -- for instance because of the increase in spending money available for local spending?
> 
> And how many jobs would be lost -- for instance because the increase in American wages would make offshore labor look more appealing, or because business owners' profit margin wouldn't support a 20% hike in labor costs so they would let a small portion of their workforce go and hope for more productivity from the rest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, but I do know that the last several times the minimum wage was raised there was no net lose in jobs.  I think there's something wrong in a country where the top 1% can increase their income by more than 200% while the middle class worker remains stagnant and the minimum wage worker loses ground.
> 
> I know our economy was much healthier when the minimum wage had it's highest spending power in history and the top tax rate was 70%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No net loss in jobs.
> 
> That sounds great, doesn't it? Are you aware that even studies that claim to prove that minimum wage hikes do not affect employment numbers have repeatedly shown an immediate increase in unemployment after a hike? Or that they show that job growth is slower after the hike than it was before? If you can believe in jobs saved or created to argue in favor of stimulus plans that don't work, you can use the opposite metric, which I will call jobs disappeared or lost, to argue against wage hikes.
Click to expand...


So you have no problem with the top 1% increasing their income by more than 200% while the rest of us are stagnated or lose spending power?!?  Why is that?  You don't honestly thing they "earn" that increase do you?


----------



## OnePercenter

Quantum Windbag said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> All you are saying really is that prices need to come down.  Lower taxes and reduce strangling regulation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Walmart's effective tax rate for 2012 was 0.01%. How much lower do you want it to go? OBTW, how much was yours?
> 
> Which 'strangling regulation'? Safety guards for meat slicers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you pull that number out of thin air, or just make it up?
> 
> As for strangling regulations, here is one example.
Click to expand...


Here's Walmart's numbers. Do the math.

WMT Annual Income Statement - Wal-Mart Stores Inc. Annual Financials

Your example is an underfunded business. Try again.


----------



## Againsheila

A raising tide lifts all boats.  Except in America where 1% of our people are lifted more than 200% while the rest of us are flooded.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

OnePercenter said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Walmart's effective tax rate for 2012 was 0.01%. How much lower do you want it to go? OBTW, how much was yours?
> 
> Which 'strangling regulation'? Safety guards for meat slicers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you pull that number out of thin air, or just make it up?
> 
> As for strangling regulations, here is one example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's Walmart's numbers. Do the math.
> 
> WMT Annual Income Statement - Wal-Mart Stores Inc. Annual Financials
> 
> Your example is an underfunded business. Try again.
Click to expand...


Perhaps you should walk me through your version of the math. Even if I go really stupid, and assume that they pay income on the entire $446.95 billion they earned last year, and then assumed that $5.34 billion they paid in income taxes was their entire tax burden, I come up with a tax rate that is exactly 100 times higher than the one you have. In other words, not only would I have to not know that no one pays taxes on their revenue, I would also have to not know how to figure percentages.

*XXXXXXX*


----------



## OnePercenter

Here's a link

Effective Tax Rate Definition | Investopedia

Still waiting for one of those 'strangling regulation'.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Here's a link

Effective Tax Rate Definition | Investopedia

Still waiting for one of those 'strangling regulation'.[/QUOTE]

Damn, this is going to be fun.

Here is what your link says.



> The average rate at which an individual or corporation is taxed. The  effective tax rate for individuals is the average rate at which their  earned income is taxed. The effective tax rate for a corporation is the  average rate at which its pre-tax profits are taxed. An individual's  effective tax rate is calculated by dividing total tax expense by  taxable income. For corporations, the effective tax rate is computed by  dividing total tax expenses by the firm's earnings before taxes. The  effective tax rate is the net rate a taxpayer pays if all forms of taxes  are included and divided by taxable income.



Nothing there about math, interesting. Anyway, lets go back and use those numbers.

Pretax income for WalMart $24.4 billion, taxes were still $7.94 billion. That makes their effective tax rate a whopping 32.5%.

Want me to do the math to tell you how many orders of magnitude that puts you off by?


----------



## BillyZane

Amelia said:


> If minimum wage were raised, presumably many people's wages would be bumped at least a little.  Even though only a small percentage of workers earn minimum wage, the people who started out at minimum wage and got raises would get upset if brand new employees suddenly got as much as they did, so lots of wages would go up.
> 
> So how many jobs would be created or saved by this move -- for instance because of the increase in spending money available for local spending?
> 
> And how many jobs would be lost -- for instance because the increase in American wages would make offshore labor look more appealing, or because business owners' profit margin wouldn't support a 20% hike in labor costs so they would let a small portion of their workforce go and hope for more productivity from the rest?



Historically in this nation there is 2% higher unemployment the year after a raise in the minimum wage than the year prior to the raise, that increase is usually a one year bump then things return to the previous level.

Of course, that assumes a rational increase, which $15 an hour would not be. $10 an hour would be fine.

But it MUST be accompanied by two things.

1. A guarantee that the poverty threshold will not increase
2. An index to inflation. Set it to $10 an hour today and make sure that is is ALWAYS worth a relative $10 an hour.

Also, I would prefer to remove all welfare for able bodied people. Instead we should put people to work @ min wage for the government if they can't find a job elsewhere. I can't think of a single community that couldn't use more clean up or whatever.


----------



## Katzndogz

If the minimum wage was raised, in a year everyone who was poor would be just as poor.


----------



## BillyZane

Katzndogz said:


> If the minimum wage was raised, in a year everyone who was poor would be just as poor.



Probably correct.

So what?

You know who wouldn't be as poor? People like you and me who are paying taxes to go towards welfare for people who are being paid welfare wages.

I'd love for my taxes to be less. If that means McDonalds has to pay $10 per hour , than so be it.


----------



## BillyZane

Katzndogz said:


> If the minimum wage was raised, in a year everyone who was poor would be just as poor.



Probably correct.

So what?

You know who wouldn't be as poor? People like you and me who are paying taxes to go towards welfare for people who are being paid welfare wages.

I'd love for my taxes to be less. If that means McDonalds has to pay $10 per hour , than so be it.


----------



## asterism

BillyZane said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the minimum wage was raised, in a year everyone who was poor would be just as poor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably correct.
> 
> So what?
> 
> You know who wouldn't be as poor? People like you and me who are paying taxes to go towards welfare for people who are being paid welfare wages.
> 
> I'd love for my taxes to be less. If that means McDonalds has to pay $10 per hour , than so be it.
Click to expand...


There is no evidence to show that any rise in the minimum wage is followed by reductions in welfare and lower tax rates.


----------



## Againsheila

BillyZane said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> If minimum wage were raised, presumably many people's wages would be bumped at least a little.  Even though only a small percentage of workers earn minimum wage, the people who started out at minimum wage and got raises would get upset if brand new employees suddenly got as much as they did, so lots of wages would go up.
> 
> So how many jobs would be created or saved by this move -- for instance because of the increase in spending money available for local spending?
> 
> And how many jobs would be lost -- for instance because the increase in American wages would make offshore labor look more appealing, or because business owners' profit margin wouldn't support a 20% hike in labor costs so they would let a small portion of their workforce go and hope for more productivity from the rest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Historically in this nation there is 2% higher unemployment the year after a raise in the minimum wage than the year prior to the raise, that increase is usually a one year bump then things return to the previous level.
> 
> Of course, that assumes a rational increase, which $15 an hour would not be. $10 an hour would be fine.
> 
> But it MUST be accompanied by two things.
> 
> 1. A guarantee that the poverty threshold will not increase
> 2. An index to inflation. Set it to $10 an hour today and make sure that is is ALWAYS worth a relative $10 an hour.
> 
> Also, I would prefer to remove all welfare for able bodied people. Instead we should put people to work @ min wage for the government if they can't find a job elsewhere. I can't think of a single community that couldn't use more clean up or whatever.
Click to expand...


In most places you can't live on $10.00 an hour, even indexing it for inflation, requiring people to work for that is nothing more than slavery.  I'm all for people on welfare contributing, but give them a living wage.


----------



## Dragonlady

Neighborhood grocery stores weren't killed off by higher minimum wages, they were unable to compete with chain supermarkets which offered huge aisles filled with multiple choices for goods, at prices the one-off stores couldn't hope to compete with.  

Big chain stores have a competitive advantage over locally owned business because of volume purchasing. Your mom and pop store may buy a case or two of ketchup, but a chain of stores will buy hundreds of cases so they'll pay less per case than the small store which only buys a couple of cases. If the customer saves a few cents off of every item they purchase, their overall grocery bill will be much cheaper at the supermarket than the mom and pop store, and pretty soon the local grocer is closing his doors. 

When gas stations were able to purchase the technology to control and monitor the gas pumps without pumping the gas themselves, they stopped filling your tank for you and let you do it yourself, this saving the money paid to the gas jockeys. 

The services that mom and pop stores and gas stations provided didn't disappear because minimum wages went up, the disappeared because customers would rather have cheaper prices and more selection than great service. 

People don't shop at big box stores for a great shopping experience, they go there to get stuff cheap. If you want a sales clerk to personally assist you in putting together a great new wardrobe, you don't go Walmart. 

Higher minimum wages didn't kill mom and pop stores and their personal touch service, the demand for the cheapest possible prices did.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Dragonlady said:


> Neighborhood grocery stores weren't killed off by higher minimum wages, they were unable to compete with chain supermarkets which offered huge aisles filled with multiple choices for goods, at prices the one-off stores couldn't hope to compete with.
> 
> Big chain stores have a competitive advantage over locally owned business because of volume purchasing. Your mom and pop store may buy a case or two of ketchup, but a chain of stores will buy hundreds of cases so they'll pay less per case than the small store which only buys a couple of cases. If the customer saves a few cents off of every item they purchase, their overall grocery bill will be much cheaper at the supermarket than the mom and pop store, and pretty soon the local grocer is closing his doors.
> 
> When gas stations were able to purchase the technology to control and monitor the gas pumps without pumping the gas themselves, they stopped filling your tank for you and let you do it yourself, this saving the money paid to the gas jockeys.
> 
> The services that mom and pop stores and gas stations provided didn't disappear because minimum wages went up, the disappeared because customers would rather have cheaper prices and more selection than great service.
> 
> People don't shop at big box stores for a great shopping experience, they go there to get stuff cheap. If you want a sales clerk to personally assist you in putting together a great new wardrobe, you don't go Walmart.
> 
> Higher minimum wages didn't kill mom and pop stores and their personal touch service, the demand for the cheapest possible prices did.



Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better, but you should understand that you are lying to yourself.


----------



## Care4all

Quantum Windbag said:


> Here's a link
> 
> Effective Tax Rate Definition | Investopedia
> 
> Still waiting for one of those 'strangling regulation'.



Damn, this is going to be fun.

Here is what your link says.



> The average rate at which an individual or corporation is taxed. The  effective tax rate for individuals is the average rate at which their  earned income is taxed. The effective tax rate for a corporation is the  average rate at which its pre-tax profits are taxed. An individual's  effective tax rate is calculated by dividing total tax expense by  taxable income. For corporations, the effective tax rate is computed by  dividing total tax expenses by the firm's earnings before taxes. The  effective tax rate is the net rate a taxpayer pays if all forms of taxes  are included and divided by taxable income.





> Nothing there about math, interesting. Anyway, lets go back and use those numbers.
> 
> Pretax income for WalMart $24.4 billion, taxes were still $7.94 billion. That makes their effective tax rate a whopping 32.5%.
> 
> Want me to do the math to tell you how many orders of magnitude that puts you off by?




=======================
interesting

so on individuals it's on earned income but corporations it is on earned profits?  Are what individuals earn considered profits being taxed?


----------



## MeBelle

Quantum Windbag said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> All you are saying really is that prices need to come down.  Lower taxes and reduce strangling regulation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Walmart's effective tax rate for 2012 was 0.01%. How much lower do you want it to go? OBTW, how much was yours?
> 
> Which 'strangling regulation'? Safety guards for meat slicers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you pull that number out of thin air, or just make it up?
> 
> As for strangling regulations, here is one example.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O9cJMO4B18]Little American Dream Factory: Chicago Bureaucrats Put the Brakes on an Innovative Business - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...



He pulled it:

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT) | Income Taxes


----------



## Againsheila

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neighborhood grocery stores weren't killed off by higher minimum wages, they were unable to compete with chain supermarkets which offered huge aisles filled with multiple choices for goods, at prices the one-off stores couldn't hope to compete with.
> 
> Big chain stores have a competitive advantage over locally owned business because of volume purchasing. Your mom and pop store may buy a case or two of ketchup, but a chain of stores will buy hundreds of cases so they'll pay less per case than the small store which only buys a couple of cases. If the customer saves a few cents off of every item they purchase, their overall grocery bill will be much cheaper at the supermarket than the mom and pop store, and pretty soon the local grocer is closing his doors.
> 
> When gas stations were able to purchase the technology to control and monitor the gas pumps without pumping the gas themselves, they stopped filling your tank for you and let you do it yourself, this saving the money paid to the gas jockeys.
> 
> The services that mom and pop stores and gas stations provided didn't disappear because minimum wages went up, the disappeared because customers would rather have cheaper prices and more selection than great service.
> 
> People don't shop at big box stores for a great shopping experience, they go there to get stuff cheap. If you want a sales clerk to personally assist you in putting together a great new wardrobe, you don't go Walmart.
> 
> Higher minimum wages didn't kill mom and pop stores and their personal touch service, the demand for the cheapest possible prices did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better, but you should understand that you are lying to yourself.
Click to expand...


You know, you really did pick a perfect name for yourself.


----------



## BillyZane

Againsheila said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> If minimum wage were raised, presumably many people's wages would be bumped at least a little.  Even though only a small percentage of workers earn minimum wage, the people who started out at minimum wage and got raises would get upset if brand new employees suddenly got as much as they did, so lots of wages would go up.
> 
> So how many jobs would be created or saved by this move -- for instance because of the increase in spending money available for local spending?
> 
> And how many jobs would be lost -- for instance because the increase in American wages would make offshore labor look more appealing, or because business owners' profit margin wouldn't support a 20% hike in labor costs so they would let a small portion of their workforce go and hope for more productivity from the rest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Historically in this nation there is 2% higher unemployment the year after a raise in the minimum wage than the year prior to the raise, that increase is usually a one year bump then things return to the previous level.
> 
> Of course, that assumes a rational increase, which $15 an hour would not be. $10 an hour would be fine.
> 
> But it MUST be accompanied by two things.
> 
> 1. A guarantee that the poverty threshold will not increase
> 2. An index to inflation. Set it to $10 an hour today and make sure that is is ALWAYS worth a relative $10 an hour.
> 
> Also, I would prefer to remove all welfare for able bodied people. Instead we should put people to work @ min wage for the government if they can't find a job elsewhere. I can't think of a single community that couldn't use more clean up or whatever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In most places you can't live on $10.00 an hour, even indexing it for inflation, requiring people to work for that is nothing more than slavery.  I'm all for people on welfare contributing, but give them a living wage.
Click to expand...


Do NOT care.

The federal government's ONLY function is to provide a baseline wage that no state may have a minimum wage below. Beyond that, it up to states or localities to say "no that minimum won't work here"

Otherwise you end up with a situation where companies in the boonies of Mississippi are paying wages equal to costs in NYC and obviously that wouldn't work.


----------



## Againsheila

BillyZane said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> Historically in this nation there is 2% higher unemployment the year after a raise in the minimum wage than the year prior to the raise, that increase is usually a one year bump then things return to the previous level.
> 
> Of course, that assumes a rational increase, which $15 an hour would not be. $10 an hour would be fine.
> 
> But it MUST be accompanied by two things.
> 
> 1. A guarantee that the poverty threshold will not increase
> 2. An index to inflation. Set it to $10 an hour today and make sure that is is ALWAYS worth a relative $10 an hour.
> 
> Also, I would prefer to remove all welfare for able bodied people. Instead we should put people to work @ min wage for the government if they can't find a job elsewhere. I can't think of a single community that couldn't use more clean up or whatever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In most places you can't live on $10.00 an hour, even indexing it for inflation, requiring people to work for that is nothing more than slavery.  I'm all for people on welfare contributing, but give them a living wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do NOT care.
> 
> The federal government's ONLY function is to provide a baseline wage that no state may have a minimum wage below. Beyond that, it up to states or localities to say "no that minimum won't work here"
> 
> Otherwise you end up with a situation where companies in the boonies of Mississippi are paying wages equal to costs in NYC and obviously that wouldn't work.
Click to expand...


I concede your point.  You're talking about Federal Minimum Wage, I'm talking about Minimum Wage in general.


----------



## kaz

Amelia said:


> If minimum wage were raised, presumably many people's wages would be bumped at least a little.  Even though only a small percentage of workers earn minimum wage, the people who started out at minimum wage and got raises would get upset if brand new employees suddenly got as much as they did, so lots of wages would go up.
> 
> So how many jobs would be created or saved by this move -- for instance because of the increase in spending money available for local spending?
> 
> And how many jobs would be lost -- for instance because the increase in American wages would make offshore labor look more appealing, or because business owners' profit margin wouldn't support a 20% hike in labor costs so they would let a small portion of their workforce go and hope for more productivity from the rest?



As you say if you increase minimum wage you increase everyone's wages.  

So in the best case, if you think about it, that means that employers have to increase the price of products proportionally to cover that.  Which means now people can't afford them by the same amount they couldn't before and you need to increase the minimum wage again...

Worst case is that companies automate, consolidate and do without and you increase unemployment.

The answer, as always, is free markets.  Government making decisions for people never works out.


----------



## kaz

Dragonlady said:


> Neighborhood grocery stores weren't killed off by higher minimum wages, they were unable to compete with chain supermarkets which offered huge aisles filled with multiple choices for goods, at prices the one-off stores couldn't hope to compete with.



Granted wages were not the only factor, but think about the logic of what you just said.  You just said that neighborhood markets couldn't compete with the prices of larger competitors because larger competitors costs are lower, and then rejected that neighborhood stores paying higher wages impacted that.

Hmm...


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Care4all said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a link
> 
> Effective Tax Rate Definition | Investopedia
> 
> Still waiting for one of those 'strangling regulation'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, this is going to be fun.
> 
> Here is what your link says.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The average rate at which an individual or corporation is taxed. The  effective tax rate for individuals is the average rate at which their  earned income is taxed. The effective tax rate for a corporation is the  average rate at which its pre-tax profits are taxed. An individual's  effective tax rate is calculated by dividing total tax expense by  taxable income. For corporations, the effective tax rate is computed by  dividing total tax expenses by the firm's earnings before taxes. The  effective tax rate is the net rate a taxpayer pays if all forms of taxes  are included and divided by taxable income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing there about math, interesting. Anyway, lets go back and use those numbers.
> 
> Pretax income for WalMart $24.4 billion, taxes were still $7.94 billion. That makes their effective tax rate a whopping 32.5%.
> 
> Want me to do the math to tell you how many orders of magnitude that puts you off by?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> =======================
> interesting
> 
> so on individuals it's on earned income but corporations it is on earned profits?  Are what individuals earn considered profits being taxed?
Click to expand...


Take it up with the idiot, not me.


----------



## Dragonlady

kaz said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neighborhood grocery stores weren't killed off by higher minimum wages, they were unable to compete with chain supermarkets which offered huge aisles filled with multiple choices for goods, at prices the one-off stores couldn't hope to compete with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Granted wages were not the only factor, but think about the logic of what you just said.  You just said that neighborhood markets couldn't compete with the prices of larger competitors because larger competitors costs are lower, and then rejected that neighborhood stores paying higher wages impacted that.
> 
> Hmm...
Click to expand...


Your argument fails to note that the big chains have to pay the same minimum wages as the mom and pop stores so there is no cost savings to be had with staffing between the big chain and the Mom and Pop.  If anything, the big chain would have more highly paid staff, because they have an overall store manager, assistant manager, and managers for each of the major departments, so wages were the one area where Mom and Pop are on a more equal footing.

Big chains can negotiate "anchor tenant" store rents which are cheaper than market rents, as well as cheaper wholesale prices, so there are multiple areas of cost savings for the big chain which are not available to local one-offs, but wages are always subject to the same minimum wage.  Big chains get no breaks there at all.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Againsheila said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neighborhood grocery stores weren't killed off by higher minimum wages, they were unable to compete with chain supermarkets which offered huge aisles filled with multiple choices for goods, at prices the one-off stores couldn't hope to compete with.
> 
> Big chain stores have a competitive advantage over locally owned business because of volume purchasing. Your mom and pop store may buy a case or two of ketchup, but a chain of stores will buy hundreds of cases so they'll pay less per case than the small store which only buys a couple of cases. If the customer saves a few cents off of every item they purchase, their overall grocery bill will be much cheaper at the supermarket than the mom and pop store, and pretty soon the local grocer is closing his doors.
> 
> When gas stations were able to purchase the technology to control and monitor the gas pumps without pumping the gas themselves, they stopped filling your tank for you and let you do it yourself, this saving the money paid to the gas jockeys.
> 
> The services that mom and pop stores and gas stations provided didn't disappear because minimum wages went up, the disappeared because customers would rather have cheaper prices and more selection than great service.
> 
> People don't shop at big box stores for a great shopping experience, they go there to get stuff cheap. If you want a sales clerk to personally assist you in putting together a great new wardrobe, you don't go Walmart.
> 
> Higher minimum wages didn't kill mom and pop stores and their personal touch service, the demand for the cheapest possible prices did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better, but you should understand that you are lying to yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know, you really did pick a perfect name for yourself.
Click to expand...


If only you got the joke inherent in my choice.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

kaz said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neighborhood grocery stores weren't killed off by higher minimum wages, they were unable to compete with chain supermarkets which offered huge aisles filled with multiple choices for goods, at prices the one-off stores couldn't hope to compete with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Granted wages were not the only factor, but think about the logic of what you just said.  You just said that neighborhood markets couldn't compete with the prices of larger competitors because larger competitors costs are lower, and then rejected that neighborhood stores paying higher wages impacted that.
> 
> Hmm...
Click to expand...


Logic can be so annoying.


----------



## kaz

Dragonlady said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neighborhood grocery stores weren't killed off by higher minimum wages, they were unable to compete with chain supermarkets which offered [huge aisles filled with multiple choices for goods[color, at prices the one-off stores couldn't hope to compete with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Granted wages were not the only factor, but think about the logic of what you just said.  You just said that neighborhood markets couldn't compete with the prices of larger competitors because larger competitors costs are lower, and then rejected that neighborhood stores paying higher wages impacted that.
> 
> Hmm...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your argument fails to note that the big chains have to pay the same minimum wages as the mom and pop stores so there is no cost savings to be had with staffing between the big chain and the Mom and Pop.
Click to expand...




OK, let's do the unliberal thing and think this through.  You pointed out the big stores have big aisles and lots of products.  While the cost per employee is subject to the same minimum, and even if you speculated their personal wages are a bit higher (not sure why you think that given the Wal-Mart debates, but I'll stipulate to it anyway since it doesn't matter) the big chain stores are selling way more units per employee than the mom and pop.  So the labor cost ... per unit ..., which is what drives the ... unit price ..., is way lower.  Seriously, you didn't get that?  I find that astounding it's so obvious.


----------



## Againsheila




----------



## OnePercenter

Quantum Windbag said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you pull that number out of thin air, or just make it up?
> 
> As for strangling regulations, here is one example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's Walmart's numbers. Do the math.
> 
> WMT Annual Income Statement - Wal-Mart Stores Inc. Annual Financials
> 
> Your example is an underfunded business. Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you should walk me through your version of the math. Even if I go really stupid, and assume that they pay income on the entire $446.95 billion they earned last year, and then assumed that $5.34 billion they paid in income taxes was their entire tax burden, I come up with a tax rate that is exactly 100 times higher than the one you have. In other words, not only would I have to not know that no one pays taxes on their revenue, I would also have to not know how to figure percentages.
> 
> *XXXXXXX*
Click to expand...


Sure.  7.94B ÷ 446.95B = 0.017764850654435619196778163105493

Anything else?


----------



## BillyZane

OnePercenter said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's Walmart's numbers. Do the math.
> 
> WMT Annual Income Statement - Wal-Mart Stores Inc. Annual Financials
> 
> Your example is an underfunded business. Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you should walk me through your version of the math. Even if I go really stupid, and assume that they pay income on the entire $446.95 billion they earned last year, and then assumed that $5.34 billion they paid in income taxes was their entire tax burden, I come up with a tax rate that is exactly 100 times higher than the one you have. In other words, not only would I have to not know that no one pays taxes on their revenue, I would also have to not know how to figure percentages.
> 
> *XXXXXXX*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure.  7.94B ÷ 446.95B = 0.017764850654435619196778163105493
> 
> Anything else?
Click to expand...


You divided backwards there bud  It would be $446.9B / $7.94B = for roughly 5.6%


----------



## Dragonlady

Walmart, and other corporations, pay taxes on their NET income, not their gross income.  Walmart paid an effective tax rate of 31%, based on their net income.


----------



## BillyZane

Dragonlady said:


> Walmart, and other corporations, pay taxes on their NET income, not their gross income.  Walmart paid an effective tax rate of 31%, based on their net income.



What on God's green Earth does that have to do with the minimum wage? I mean Wal Mart certainly didn't cut back on executive compensation because of their taxes.

With $16B in net profits for the year, a person would be hard pressed to argue that Wal Mart couldn't afford to raise hourly wages a little. 

And further, if wages were higher and welfare subsidies were lower, perhaps EVERYONE'S taxes would go down, including Wal Marts.

But I'd bet you this. Ask Wal Mart if they would trade a $10 an hour min wage for a 20% tax rate , and I bet their accountants would turn that down right fast.


----------



## OnePercenter

BillyZane said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you should walk me through your version of the math. Even if I go really stupid, and assume that they pay income on the entire $446.95 billion they earned last year, and then assumed that $5.34 billion they paid in income taxes was their entire tax burden, I come up with a tax rate that is exactly 100 times higher than the one you have. In other words, not only would I have to not know that no one pays taxes on their revenue, I would also have to not know how to figure percentages.
> 
> *XXXXXXX*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.  7.94B ÷ 446.95B = 0.017764850654435619196778163105493
> 
> Anything else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You divided backwards there bud  It would be $446.9B / $7.94B = for roughly 5.6%
Click to expand...




> For corporations, the effective tax rate is computed by dividing total tax expenses by the firm's earnings before taxes.



Effective Tax Rate Definition | Investopedia

So Walmart's effective tax for 2012 is 7.94B divided by 446.95B = 0.02


----------



## OnePercenter

Dragonlady said:


> Walmart, and other corporations, pay taxes on their NET income, not their gross income.  Walmart paid an effective tax rate of 31%, based on their net income.



Effective tax is total taxes divided by total income. For Walmart it's 2%. For the average married couple it's 12%.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

OnePercenter said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's Walmart's numbers. Do the math.
> 
> WMT Annual Income Statement - Wal-Mart Stores Inc. Annual Financials
> 
> Your example is an underfunded business. Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you should walk me through your version of the math. Even if I go really stupid, and assume that they pay income on the entire $446.95 billion they earned last year, and then assumed that $5.34 billion they paid in income taxes was their entire tax burden, I come up with a tax rate that is exactly 100 times higher than the one you have. In other words, not only would I have to not know that no one pays taxes on their revenue, I would also have to not know how to figure percentages.
> 
> *XXXXXXX*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure.  7.94B ÷ 446.95B = 0.017764850654435619196778163105493
> 
> Anything else?
Click to expand...


Which is approximately 1.8%, not 0.01%, which is what you claimed.


----------



## asterism

OnePercenter said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.  7.94B ÷ 446.95B = 0.017764850654435619196778163105493
> 
> Anything else?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You divided backwards there bud  It would be $446.9B / $7.94B = for roughly 5.6%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For corporations, the effective tax rate is computed by dividing total tax expenses by the firm's earnings before taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Effective Tax Rate Definition | Investopedia
> 
> So Walmart's effective tax for 2012 is 7.94B divided by 446.95B = 0.02
Click to expand...


Are you honestly going to say that Wal Mart hat $447 Billion in EARNINGS?




That's some funny stuff there.  So riddle me this, oh Captain of Industry, what was Wal Mart's Revenue?  You claim they had earnings of $446.95B in earnings.


----------



## asterism

OnePercenter said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Walmart, and other corporations, pay taxes on their NET income, not their gross income.  Walmart paid an effective tax rate of 31%, based on their net income.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Effective tax is total taxes divided by total income. For Walmart it's 2%. For the average married couple it's 12%.
Click to expand...


Correct, income not revenue.  The average married couple doesn't have COGS.  You're clearly not a very educated "one percenter."  No wonder you're a liberal.


----------



## Care4all

asterism said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Walmart, and other corporations, pay taxes on their NET income, not their gross income.  Walmart paid an effective tax rate of 31%, based on their net income.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Effective tax is total taxes divided by total income. For Walmart it's 2%. For the average married couple it's 12%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct, income not revenue.  The average married couple doesn't have COGS.  You're clearly not a very educated "one percenter."  No wonder you're a liberal.
Click to expand...

but they do have elecetric bills and heat bills and water bills, and sometimes lawn maintenance and repair of their homes, and the costs of maids, costs of leasing or buying a car etc etc etc....which are expenses that are similar to businesses, that businesses can write off....effective rates are not comparable between individuals and business UNLESS you calculate taxes on the gross income revenues of both imho.....it may not be defined or calculated that way but to compare, equally and fairly, it should be...again, imo.

We are BOTH, the individual and the business, suppose to pay taxes only on our PROFITS....yet, from what I have read, 60% of all tax filers, only use the short form.....?  And maybe that is what the standard deduction is for....????  the deduction from our income....???  but it is NOT nearly enough to cover what it takes.....and having all those individuals filing the short form, no matter the income, only to have operating expenses equal to the one FLAT standard deduction amount is insane.....for the gvt to use that net as our profits, on the individual


----------



## OnePercenter

Care4all said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Effective tax is total taxes divided by total income. For Walmart it's 2%. For the average married couple it's 12%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, income not revenue.  The average married couple doesn't have COGS.  You're clearly not a very educated "one percenter."  No wonder you're a liberal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but they do have elecetric bills and heat bills and water bills, and sometimes lawn maintenance and repair of their homes, and the costs of maids, costs of leasing or buying a car etc etc etc....which are expenses that are similar to businesses, that businesses can write off....effective rates are not comparable between individuals and business UNLESS you calculate taxes on the gross income revenues of both imho.....it may not be defined or calculated that way but to compare, equally and fairly, it should be...again, imo.
> 
> We are BOTH, the individual and the business, suppose to pay taxes only on our PROFITS....yet, from what I have read, 60% of all tax filers, only use the short form.....?  And maybe that is what the standard deduction is for....????  the deduction from our income....???  but it is NOT nearly enough to cover what it takes.....and having all those individuals filing the short form, no matter the income, only to have operating expenses equal to the one FLAT standard deduction amount is insane.....for the gvt to use that net as our profits, on the individual
Click to expand...


You've missed the point. Effective tax rates are to compare (apples to apples) two or more taxable entities.


----------



## OnePercenter

asterism said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> You divided backwards there bud  It would be $446.9B / $7.94B = for roughly 5.6%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For corporations, the effective tax rate is computed by dividing total tax expenses by the firm's earnings before taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Effective Tax Rate Definition | Investopedia
> 
> So Walmart's effective tax for 2012 is 7.94B divided by 446.95B = 0.02
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you honestly going to say that Wal Mart hat $447 Billion in EARNINGS?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's some funny stuff there.  So riddle me this, oh Captain of Industry, what was Wal Mart's Revenue?  You claim they had earnings of $446.95B in earnings.
Click to expand...


Actually that's from Wal-Mart Stores Inc. Annual Financials.


----------



## OnePercenter

Quantum Windbag said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you should walk me through your version of the math. Even if I go really stupid, and assume that they pay income on the entire $446.95 billion they earned last year, and then assumed that $5.34 billion they paid in income taxes was their entire tax burden, I come up with a tax rate that is exactly 100 times higher than the one you have. In other words, not only would I have to not know that no one pays taxes on their revenue, I would also have to not know how to figure percentages.
> 
> *XXXXXXX*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.  7.94B ÷ 446.95B = 0.017764850654435619196778163105493
> 
> Anything else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is approximately *1.8%, not 0.01%*, which is what you claimed.
Click to expand...


Is that the new RWN math?


----------



## OnePercenter

asterism said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Walmart, and other corporations, pay taxes on their NET income, not their gross income.  Walmart paid an effective tax rate of 31%, based on their net income.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Effective tax is total taxes divided by total income. For Walmart it's 2%. For the average married couple it's 12%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct, income not revenue.  The average married couple doesn't have COGS.  You're clearly not a very educated "one percenter."  No wonder you're a liberal.
Click to expand...


Income/total income/revenue are the same thing.


----------



## hunarcy

Dragonlady said:


> Walmart, and other corporations, pay taxes on their NET income, not their gross income.  Walmart paid an effective tax rate of 31%, based on their net income.



While Obama's supporters over at GE paid ZERO in 2010.  Don't see much commentary on that.

General Electric Paid No Federal Taxes in 2010 - ABC News


----------



## OnePercenter

hunarcy said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Walmart, and other corporations, pay taxes on their NET income, not their gross income.  Walmart paid an effective tax rate of 31%, based on their net income.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While Obama's supporters over at GE paid ZERO in 2010.  Don't see much commentary on that.
Click to expand...


Answer this: How much of the ability for GE to do this came from Republicans? Then you'll have your answer.


----------



## itfitzme

Publius1787 said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the minimum wage was raised in a year the effect would be non existent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So no jobs would go overseas because of the raise?
> 
> Or would the job loss and the job creation balance out?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *This would happen if you mandated a "Living Wage"*
> 
> 
> *1)	Normal Goods *
> a.	Businesses dealing in normal goods will see an increased demand in sales. In the short term there will be a limited number of these goods, and thus, the increased demand will create a sharp increase of prices.
> 
> b.	Businesses dealing in normal goods will need to buy more supplies/raw materials to keep up with the demand for their finished goods. The increased demand in supplies/raw materials will likewise raise sharply the prices of supplies/raw materials.
> 
> c.	Businesses dealing in normal goods will need to hire more workers to keep up with the increased demand. They will do so hesitantly, as the cost of labor has likewise increased. A higher amount of scrutiny will be applied to job applicants as the applicants work experience must justify the new wage.
> 
> Ever wonder why we no longer have high school students gaining work experience servicing cars and filling tanks at service stations for small wages and tips? Blame the minimum wage. And fuel is a necessity good.
> 
> a.	In the short run, the increased demand for normal goods cannot be supplied by U.S. firms. Therefore, we will rely more heavily on imports. This will skew the balance of trade further out of our favor, and therefore, increase the national debt. See section 5 for further analysis on imports.
> 
> *2)	Inferior Goods *
> a.	Businesses dealing in inferior goods will see an immediate decline in demand combined with their shareholders selling their stock. Millions would lose their jobs. The vast majority of employees will not gain employment until the pricing adjustments in the markets settle.
> 
> *3)	Small Businesses*
> a.	Small businesses will not be able to afford the increased price of labor, combined with the increased price of raw materials/supplies. They will simply shut their doors. Small corporations will likewise see their stock plummet and millions will lose their jobs. Large corporations with a lot of reserve capital and large amounts of credit will be able to run deficits in the short run, filling and expanding in the vacuum left by small businesses and small corporations in the long run.
> 
> *4)	Wages*
> a.	Lets just say for example that the new living minimum wage is double the current federal minimum wage: $7.25 x 2= $14.5/hr (+-$30,160 per year). The people who would supposedly benefit the most would be low skilled workers right? Now what about the moderate skilled workers who were making $15/hr already? Would they sweat in the hot sun all day as a construction worker if they knew they could make the same stocking shelves at Wal-Mart? Would they freeze in the winter as an HVAC repairman crawling under peoples houses if they could make the same amount sweeping the floors as a janitor? Would you? Employers dealing in construction, heating/air, plumbing, etc., will need to considerably increase wages to keep their staff on board. Indeed, all skilled labor employers would need to increase the wages of their workers in order to remain competitive in the market for skilled labor, or else, their competitors will grab them. Moreover, high skilled labor would need to increase their pay and benefits.
> 
> *5)	Imports*
> 
> a.	In the short run the new demand for goods and services cannot possibly keep up with the increased demand for normal goods. Those goods will need to be imported if consumer demand is to be met. Thereby, the balance of trade will push the United States further into debt.
> 
> b.	The increased demand for imports will likewise increase the price for imported goods. Poorer countries would not be able to compete with the United States, and therefore, the result would be more world poverty. Indeed, overseas firms that can make a higher dollar from the increase in U.S. demand will gladly sell to us as opposed to poorer countries that pay less.
> 
> This would not be unlike when the U.S. incentivized the production of ethanol, making the production of corn more popular to U.S. based rice farmers. As we filled the gap by importing rice from foreign countries, other countries such as the Philippines had food riots.
> 
> Note: increasing tariffs on imports in an attempt to punish foreign competitors will have a reverse effect of further increasing the prices of our limited domestic goods and services.
> 
> c.	Having established that the increased demand for raw materials will be met from imports, investors will invest heavily in the expansion of overseas firms to produce those imports. With the new minimum wage at 14.50 combined with the highest corporate tax rate in the world, corporations dealing in raw materials are incentivized more than ever before to outsource jobs where the taxes are low, the labor is cheap, and the regulatory environment is more advantageous.
> 
> d.	There is good news. Some foreign overseas workers will see an increase in jobs and a decrease in unemployment. If the decrease in unemployment is enough, the demand for labor will increase wages and befits for their workers.
> 
> It would not be unlike Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, or South Korea during the 70s 80s and 90s whereas they experienced rapid economic growth and became Tiger Economies.
> 
> *6)	 Assuming that the living minimum wage were to work.*
> 
> a.	You would see a decline in college graduates. The largest motivating factor to become educated is so that a future worker can increase his/her marketability in the job market. If a person could make a reasonable living simply by graduating high school, or even dropping out of high school, he or she has lost much of the incentive to seek higher education or become more skilled. This would pollute the workforce with low skilled labor creating an environment of which the U.S. economy falls behind the rest of the world.
> 
> 
> Important Note: I did not truly go into the effects of doubling the labor costs of all minimum wage businesses, and the contributions of $2,307.24 in addition to the full time minimum wage salary of $30,160 per year. (The employer must match your 6.2% Social Security Tax and your 1.45% Medicare tax). So one employee on a living minimum wage at $14.5/hr. comes to roughly $32,467.64 per annum. Then the business needs to worry about federal and state taxes, rent, electricity, advertising, legal fees, water, supplies/materials, training, maintenance/repair, interest on loans, insurance, perhaps franchise fees, & etcetera. If you want to take it a step further think about 401K, paid vacation, healthcare, education benefits, and maternity leave, among other perks. The cost of all of this will skyrocket.
> 
> *Conclusion: *The disparity of wealth will still be there, the prices of goods and service will
> increase, and in the long run we still have the same, probably more, amount of poverty we started off with. In the interim, however, we accomplished the following:
> 
> 1) The new poverty line (100% poverty level) is $22,980 per year as opposed to the original $11,490 for a single person.
> 2) The Consumer Price Index has perhaps doubled if not more.
> 3) The national debt skyrocketed due to a disadvantageous balance of trade.
> 4) The rate of overseas investment and outsourced jobs dramatically increased.
> 5) High unemployment.
> 6) An increased market share for large corporations at the expense of small corporations and small businesses.
> 
> If you can get around all these problems then go ahead, institute a living minimum wage.
Click to expand...


That is all nice for one scenario given the "all other things being what they are" assumptions hold.

The reason education level requirements have increased has nothing to do with wages.  It has to do with the increase in education levels.  At one time, anyone could get a job as a teller at a bank, assuming you were not a creaton.  Now, a bachelor's degree is often a deciding point. Why?  Because as more and more people become educated, return on education declines.  There was a time, in 1910, when a high school diploma would land you a management position.

It would be fun to go down your list and find definitive proof and disproof for each point.

Some seem credible, under specific conditions.  Others, like "You would see a decline in college graduates. " are obviously incorrect.

The problem isn't the minimum wage level so much as the differential from low to high wages.  The spread.  It is the spread that has to change.

And, yeah, that absolute advantage problem with China is knarly.  

The basic conditions are that   GDP = PQ.  No matter what you do, Q isn't gonna rise unless there are more workers, more hours, and more efficiency.  Simply increasing the min wage isn't necessarily going to improve the problem unless either the massive losses in the work force recover and the income differential declines.

The minimum wage should never have been allowed to fall in real dollars in the first place.  At a minimum, all other things being equal, it should be tied to COLA.  That would at least eliminate the SNAP programs for minimum wage workers.  If there are programs available to the labor force and min wage isn't pegged to COLA, then the simple effect is that wages will fall below the poverty level and programs will pick them up.

The reality of the economy, of the labor market, is that if someone can live off of collecting cans and sleeping under the freeway overpass, then someone will have to.  

In the bigger picture, it really doesn't matter how low income earners put together their package of sustanance.  It can be either all income, some income and programs, income programs and bartering.  Whatever, it all comes out of the Q in GDP = PQ. In the long run, GDP = PQ = MV, and the V can be dropped.   In the end, it isn't the price that matters, that is just a nominal variable.  The real variables are quanity, labor hours, employment level, and efficiency.

We can play the game anyway we want to.  Slavery, poverty level wage workers, or taxes balancing incomes and corporate profits.  It all comes out the same.

How ever we cut it, Quantity divided by population has the identical average regardless of how it is distributed.  And left to it's own devices, the bottom wage will be as low as it can go.  

I like your list.  It is well thought out, as a starting point.  I hope to come back to it later.  It is, though, only one of a number of ways things could go, depending on other circumstances.  I am not sure if the list, in it's entirety, entirely internally compatable and consistent.  My first impression is that some are true under one set of particular circumstances while others are true under other.


----------



## FA_Q2

BillyZane said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the minimum wage was raised, in a year everyone who was poor would be just as poor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably correct.
> 
> So what?
> 
> You know who wouldn't be as poor? People like you and me who are paying taxes to go towards welfare for people who are being paid welfare wages.
> 
> I'd love for my taxes to be less. If that means McDonalds has to pay $10 per hour , than so be it.
Click to expand...


You assume incorrectly that welfare would decrease with higher wages.  That is false.  After the market settles back down, $10 becomes the new $7 as prices reflect the changes.  Those welfare benefits would need to change to reflect the new market realities.  Without increasing those benefits you essentially achieve one thing  reducing the value of welfare.

If that is the goal then why bother with the wage increase, just reduce the benefits directly without all the other destructive practices that you are creating with arbitrary wage increases.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Care4all said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Effective tax is total taxes divided by total income. For Walmart it's 2%. For the average married couple it's 12%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, income not revenue.  The average married couple doesn't have COGS.  You're clearly not a very educated "one percenter."  No wonder you're a liberal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but they do have elecetric bills and heat bills and water bills, and sometimes lawn maintenance and repair of their homes, and the costs of maids, costs of leasing or buying a car etc etc etc....which are expenses that are similar to businesses, that businesses can write off....effective rates are not comparable between individuals and business UNLESS you calculate taxes on the gross income revenues of both imho.....it may not be defined or calculated that way but to compare, equally and fairly, it should be...again, imo.
> 
> We are BOTH, the individual and the business, suppose to pay taxes only on our PROFITS....yet, from what I have read, 60% of all tax filers, only use the short form.....?  And maybe that is what the standard deduction is for....????  the deduction from our income....???  but it is NOT nearly enough to cover what it takes.....and having all those individuals filing the short form, no matter the income, only to have operating expenses equal to the one FLAT standard deduction amount is insane.....for the gvt to use that net as our profits, on the individual
Click to expand...



People make choices that negatively impact their taxes, and the way to fix that is punish the smart people? Are you sure you aren't a communist?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

OnePercenter said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.  7.94B ÷ 446.95B = 0.017764850654435619196778163105493
> 
> Anything else?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is approximately *1.8%, not 0.01%*, which is what you claimed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that the new RWN math?
Click to expand...



What?


----------



## FA_Q2

Care4all said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Effective tax is total taxes divided by total income. For Walmart it's 2%. For the average married couple it's 12%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, income not revenue.  The average married couple doesn't have COGS.  You're clearly not a very educated "one percenter."  No wonder you're a liberal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but they do have elecetric bills and heat bills and water bills, and sometimes lawn maintenance and repair of their homes, and the costs of maids, costs of leasing or buying a car etc etc etc....which are expenses that are similar to businesses, that businesses can write off....effective rates are not comparable between individuals and business UNLESS you calculate taxes on the gross income revenues of both imho.....it may not be defined or calculated that way but to compare, equally and fairly, it should be...again, imo.
> 
> We are BOTH, the individual and the business, suppose to pay taxes only on our PROFITS....yet, from what I have read, 60% of all tax filers, only use the short form.....?  And maybe that is what the standard deduction is for....????  the deduction from our income....???  but it is NOT nearly enough to cover what it takes.....and having all those individuals filing the short form, no matter the income, only to have operating expenses equal to the one FLAT standard deduction amount is insane.....for the gvt to use that net as our profits, on the individual
Click to expand...


And companies are not the same as people nor do they pay taxes in that matter.  They should NOT pay taxes in that manner either and nowhere in the world that I know of does such an asinine system exist.  They dont do this because the money that you are so bent on them paying taxes is NOT income  it is money recycled BACK into the company in order to create goods.  That is NOT what you do with your money at all.  Instead, you expend it on whatever you want at the moment.  No creation at all.  IF you were creating something to sell, it would be a business AND TAXED in that same manner.  Should you decide to create said business, your income would be taxed in the same way that Wal-Mart does but first you might actually have to offer something of value.  

What you are advocating ensures one thing  the complete collapse of how the market works and businesses ability to exist.

Here is what you are advocating: 
Wal-Mart sold 446.95 billion in sales.  If you were to tax that figure at 10% (still less than you are demanding but simplifies the math) you end up with a tax burden of 44.7 billion dollars.  Wall-Marts actual profits (pre-tax) were 25.7B meaning that Wal-Mart would be running at a net loss of 19B.  They either drastically increase prices, fire thousands or more likely both.  You want to equate this to a persons check  it would be like the government deciding that even though you took home 50k last year, you actually owe 100k in taxes because you own a big house.

You have completely misunderstood how taxes actually work to include the fact that you contradicted you OWN source (the one that defines taxes).


----------



## FA_Q2

hunarcy said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Walmart, and other corporations, pay taxes on their NET income, not their gross income.  Walmart paid an effective tax rate of 31%, based on their net income.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While Obama's supporters over at GE paid ZERO in 2010.  Don't see much commentary on that.
> 
> General Electric Paid No Federal Taxes in 2010 - ABC News
Click to expand...


It might be mostly ignored because it was an actual lie.  The article was debunked here a while ago  GE actually did pay taxes that year.


----------



## FA_Q2

OnePercenter said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.  7.94B ÷ 446.95B = 0.017764850654435619196778163105493
> 
> Anything else?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is approximately *1.8%, not 0.01%*, which is what you claimed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that the new RWN math?
Click to expand...


Actually it is basic math.  I understand now why you are so confused if something as simple as division and how numerals are expressed is confusing to you.  
Percentage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interestingly enough such concepts were used as far back as Rome according to the article.  That certainly precludes it from being &#8216;new.&#8217;


----------



## Sunshine

Publius1787 said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> If minimum wage were raised, presumably many people's wages would be bumped at least a little.  Even though only a small percentage of workers earn minimum wage, the people who started out at minimum wage and got raises would get upset if brand new employees suddenly got as much as they did, so lots of wages would go up.
> 
> So how many jobs would be created or saved by this move -- for instance because of the increase in spending money available for local spending?
> 
> And how many jobs would be lost -- for instance because the increase in American wages would make offshore labor look more appealing, or because business owners' profit margin wouldn't support a 20% hike in labor costs so they would let a small portion of their workforce go and hope for more productivity from the rest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lets just say for example that the new living minimum wage is double the current federal minimum wage: $7.25 x 2= $14.5/hr (+-$30,160 per year). The people who would supposedly benefit the most would be low skilled workers right? Now what about the moderate skilled workers who were making $15/hr already? Would they sweat in the hot sun all day as a construction worker if they knew they could make the same stocking shelves at Wal-Mart? Would they freeze in the winter as an HVAC repairman crawling under peoples houses if they could make the same amount sweeping the floors as a janitor? Would you? Employers dealing in construction, heating/air, plumbing, etc., will need to considerably increase wages to keep their staff on board. Indeed, all skilled labor employers would need to increase the wages of their workers in order to remain competitive in the market for skilled labor, or else, their competitors will grab them. Moreover, high skilled labor would need to increase their pay and benefits.
> 
> If you mandated a living wage you would only create a new poverty line with the same amount of poverty as you started off with, if not more, after the market settles down. There is indeed a reason why service stations no longer hire teenagers to service the cars of travelers.
Click to expand...


Where do you find an HVAC repairman for $15/hour.  My last service call was $75 for 15 minutes.


----------



## Sunshine

Sunni Man said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> If raising the minimum wage would end poverty, poverty would have been eradicated when the MW went from 75 cents an hour to $1.25 an hour.
> 
> Poverty is relative.  Pay people $100.00 an hour and they will still be poor.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.......
> 
> Even if the minimum wage went to $100 per hour.
> 
> Then a gallon of milk would cost $50 and a loaf of bread would be $25 at the grocery store.
> 
> Like Katzndogz said......it's all relative.    ..
Click to expand...


If you are on the bottom rung you are on the bottom until you, yourself, do something to move up.  Raising the minimum wage will not get you off the bottom rung.  Unless and until you decided to take some action like going to school or getting extra training of some kind to improve your socioeconomic status, you will be on the bottom rung.  No matter what.  All the other rungs are just going to adjust themselves to the location of the new bottom rung.  

I learned that when I did clerical work.  But my minimum wage clerical work was better than my mother's minimum wage retail work because I could work sitting down.  I got on my feet and off the bottom rung when I became a nurse.  Go to Vanderbilt to the hospital.  Every nurse there is going to school to be an NP.  Just ask them.  I found one who wasn't during my first hospitalization and she was a former student of mine.  I encouraged her to get more education because one day she will be too old to thump up and down those halls lifting and tugging.  I hope she takes the advice.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

FA_Q2 said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is approximately *1.8%, not 0.01%*, which is what you claimed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that the new RWN math?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it is basic math.  I understand now why you are so confused if something as simple as division and how numerals are expressed is confusing to you.
> Percentage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Interestingly enough such concepts were used as far back as Rome according to the article.  That certainly precludes it from being new.
Click to expand...


That depends on how old you are, doesn't it? Maybe he is a lot older than you think.


----------



## Sunshine

I wish someone could say with certainty, 'this or that would happen.'  But we don't know if there would be more jobs or less jobs or just different jobs.  We don't know if industry would relocate overseas.  Those decisions belong to the people who run the businesses.  They will choose to do what is most advantageous for their own business.  

One thing I know, what is a living wage is entirely subjective.  I know people who couldn't live on $1000/week.  And I know others who can live on a flat rock.


----------



## Dragonlady

Sunshine said:


> One thing I know, what is a living wage is entirely subjective.  I know people who couldn't live on $1000/week.  And I know others who can live on a flat rock.



While this is true, there is a reasonable standard which is generally applied:  the cost of basic housing, food, clothing, utilities, and other necessities. 

To argue that people's ability, or lack thereof, to live frugally makes it impossible to know what a living wage would be, is just looking for excuses to do nothing. 

It's often said here that if you don't earn enough money to feed your family, you should take a second job. People brag about working two or three jobs to make ends meet, but what kind of parent can you be to a child when you're always working and never at home?  

The family values folk always say that women should stay home with their children and not work because raising the next generation is the most important job you'll ever do. Yet poor women are told to take a second and a third job to provide for their families. Who's raising their children?  

When my daughter was small, we took her to art galleries, museums, the Science Centre, the ballet, plays - anything that would make for fun outing. There are all sorts if ways of doing this stuff on the cheap. Teachers called this "enrichment" and said she benefitted from it enormously. I called it spending quality time with my child. If I were working 15 hours a day, I wouldn't have had the time or the energy to enrich my child's life.


----------



## Care4all

FA_Q2 said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, income not revenue.  The average married couple doesn't have COGS.  You're clearly not a very educated "one percenter."  No wonder you're a liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> but they do have elecetric bills and heat bills and water bills, and sometimes lawn maintenance and repair of their homes, and the costs of maids, costs of leasing or buying a car etc etc etc....which are expenses that are similar to businesses, that businesses can write off....effective rates are not comparable between individuals and business UNLESS you calculate taxes on the gross income revenues of both imho.....it may not be defined or calculated that way but to compare, equally and fairly, it should be...again, imo.
> 
> We are BOTH, the individual and the business, suppose to pay taxes only on our PROFITS....yet, from what I have read, 60% of all tax filers, only use the short form.....?  And maybe that is what the standard deduction is for....????  the deduction from our income....???  but it is NOT nearly enough to cover what it takes.....and having all those individuals filing the short form, no matter the income, only to have operating expenses equal to the one FLAT standard deduction amount is insane.....for the gvt to use that net as our profits, on the individual
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And companies are not the same as people nor do they pay taxes in that matter.  They should NOT pay taxes in that manner either and nowhere in the world that I know of does such an asinine system exist.  They dont do this because the money that you are so bent on them paying taxes is NOT income  it is money recycled BACK into the company in order to create goods.  That is NOT what you do with your money at all.  Instead, you expend it on whatever you want at the moment.  No creation at all.  IF you were creating something to sell, it would be a business AND TAXED in that same manner.  Should you decide to create said business, your income would be taxed in the same way that Wal-Mart does but first you might actually have to offer something of value.
> 
> What you are advocating ensures one thing  the complete collapse of how the market works and businesses ability to exist.
> 
> Here is what you are advocating:
> Wal-Mart sold 446.95 billion in sales.  If you were to tax that figure at 10% (still less than you are demanding but simplifies the math) you end up with a tax burden of 44.7 billion dollars.  Wall-Marts actual profits (pre-tax) were 25.7B meaning that Wal-Mart would be running at a net loss of 19B.  They either drastically increase prices, fire thousands or more likely both.  You want to equate this to a persons check  it would be like the government deciding that even though you took home 50k last year, you actually owe 100k in taxes because you own a big house.
> 
> You have completely misunderstood how taxes actually work to include the fact that you contradicted you OWN source (the one that defines taxes).
Click to expand...

I'm not advocating one way or the other on Walmart paying more taxes....I'd rather they pay their own employees more, the ones who actually do the work, and sell and stock and maintain their products so that they CAN sell what they sell and be profitable.  Paying employees more is actually TAX FREE for walmart....no?

and as far as taxes, BOTH parties are only suppose to pay taxes on their Profits...the individual is only suppose to pay taxes on their PROFITS, NOT their revenue...and if the gvt thinks that the standard deduction amount is covering operating expense for the average individual using the short form and all the other money is PROFIT, then something ain't right with that standard deduction amount imho....

According to Law, the gvt can only tax individuals on PROFIT as well....


----------



## hunarcy

OnePercenter said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Walmart, and other corporations, pay taxes on their NET income, not their gross income.  Walmart paid an effective tax rate of 31%, based on their net income.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While Obama's supporters over at GE paid ZERO in 2010.  Don't see much commentary on that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answer this: How much of the ability for GE to do this came from Republicans? Then you'll have your answer.
Click to expand...


In 2010, Democrats controlled the White House and Congress.  In fact, Democrats controlled  26 of the last 33 Congresses, during which the tax code as it is today was shaped.  So, you're right, I have my answer.

Democrats are hypocrites who blame Republicans as they ensure their cronies won't have to pay the same taxes as the rest of us.


----------



## OnePercenter

hunarcy said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> While Obama's supporters over at GE paid ZERO in 2010.  Don't see much commentary on that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answer this: How much of the ability for GE to do this came from Republicans? Then you'll have your answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In 2010, Democrats controlled the White House and Congress.  In fact, Democrats controlled  26 of the last 33 Congresses, during which the tax code as it is today was shaped.  So, you're right, I have my answer.
> 
> Democrats are hypocrites who blame Republicans as they ensure their cronies won't have to pay the same taxes as the rest of us.
Click to expand...


Really?

Meltdown 2008 Timeline

Show us how smart you are.


----------



## hunarcy

OnePercenter said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answer this: How much of the ability for GE to do this came from Republicans? Then you'll have your answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 2010, Democrats controlled the White House and Congress.  In fact, Democrats controlled  26 of the last 33 Congresses, during which the tax code as it is today was shaped.  So, you're right, I have my answer.
> 
> Democrats are hypocrites who blame Republicans as they ensure their cronies won't have to pay the same taxes as the rest of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> Meltdown 2008 Timeline
> 
> Show us how smart you are.
Click to expand...


I look at who controlled Congress when all those things happened and I realize that Democrats took control of Congress, made labor more expensive by passing a hike to the minimum wage and then blamed Republicans as the economy melted down.


----------



## Dragonlady

The economic meltdown was years in the making. It was the result of 10 years of Republican control of the public purse from 1996 to 2006.  While Bill Clinton was President, taxes and spending were balanced and responsible, but once Bush was elected, it was cut and spend all the way. 

The Democrats took back the House in 2006, taking control of the House in January of 2007, and their first fiscal year began in the Fall of 2007 as the outgoing Congress' last budget year ended in October, 2007. There is no way you can blame the Democrats for the results of 10 years of Republican mismanagement of the public purse because it takes years for the results of public policy to impact the general economy. 

Republicans never want to take responsibility for the messes they create and saying that it's the fault of the Democratic congress which had had control of the public purse for less than a year when the shit hit the fan is just laughably weak.


----------



## Kosh

Dragonlady said:


> The economic meltdown was years in the making. It was the result of 10 years of Republican control of the public purse from 1996 to 2006.  While Bill Clinton was President, taxes and spending were balanced and responsible, but once Bush was elected, it was cut and spend all the way.
> 
> The Democrats took back the House in 2006, taking control of the House in January of 2007, and their first fiscal year began in the Fall of 2007 as the outgoing Congress' last budget year ended in October, 2007. There is no way you can blame the Democrats for the results of 10 years of Republican mismanagement of the public purse because it takes years for the results of public policy to impact the general economy.
> 
> Republicans never want to take responsibility for the messes they create and saying that it's the fault of the Democratic congress which had had control of the public purse for less than a year when the shit hit the fan is just laughably weak.



Far left propaganda.


----------



## zeke

Kosh said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The economic meltdown was years in the making. It was the result of 10 years of Republican control of the public purse from 1996 to 2006.  While Bill Clinton was President, taxes and spending were balanced and responsible, but once Bush was elected, it was cut and spend all the way.
> 
> The Democrats took back the House in 2006, taking control of the House in January of 2007, and their first fiscal year began in the Fall of 2007 as the outgoing Congress' last budget year ended in October, 2007. There is no way you can blame the Democrats for the results of 10 years of Republican mismanagement of the public purse because it takes years for the results of public policy to impact the general economy.
> 
> Republicans never want to take responsibility for the messes they create and saying that it's the fault of the Democratic congress which had had control of the public purse for less than a year when the shit hit the fan is just laughably weak.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Far left propaganda.*
Click to expand...



That is a strong rebuttal right there. How long did you think on that response? Days?
Idiot.

Like I've said before; you all are confusing minimum wage with subsistence wages.

Subsistence wage workers are the ones who qualify for government programs to live.
Because they can't "subsist" on the wages they earn.

Minimum wage may be subsistence wages or it may not. You might work for a company as an in experienced, but trained, technical worker. This companies MINIMUM wage for the work to be performed might be 15 bucks an hour. With the prospect of making much more with more experience.

A subsistence wage worker has no reasonable prospects of making much (or any) more than the subsistence wage they were hired in at.

If you are a company hiring subsistence wage workers KNOWING that your workers qualify for and receive government assistance to live, and no one bitches about this, why pay more?


----------



## TooTall

Katzndogz said:


> If the minimum wage was raised in a year the effect would be non existent.



Since the cost of everything would increase rather sharply, the only ones that would really be affected are those elderly trying to get by on Social Security or are on a fixed income.  Most pensions don't have a COL adjustment as well.  And it would be forever, not just a year.


----------



## TooTall

Dragonlady said:


> The economic meltdown was years in the making. It was the result of 10 years of Republican control of the public purse from 1996 to 2006.  While Bill Clinton was President, taxes and spending were balanced and responsible, but once Bush was elected, it was cut and spend all the way.
> 
> The Democrats took back the House in 2006, taking control of the House in January of 2007, and their first fiscal year began in the Fall of 2007 as the outgoing Congress' last budget year ended in October, 2007. There is no way you can blame the Democrats for the results of 10 years of Republican mismanagement of the public purse because it takes years for the results of public policy to impact the general economy.
> 
> Republicans never want to take responsibility for the messes they create and saying that it's the fault of the Democratic congress which had had control of the public purse for less than a year when the shit hit the fan is just laughably weak.



Because the Republican House balanced spending and Clinton reluctantly signed the bills, there was low unemployment, an almost balanced budget and a thriving economy.
The terrorist attack on the WTC, collapse of the dotcom ecomomy, Hurricane Katrina, defense to the US from further attacks and the war on terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq got spending out of control during the Bush Administration.

Even then, we had 6 years of a thriving economy, low unemployment and manageable budget deficits until the Democrats took over in 2006 and did nothing about the housing crisis that eventually took down the economy.  

You are correct about it taking years to correct public policy, and the housing policy of selling houses to those who had no possible way of paying for them started under Clinton, and Bush was either unable or unwilling to change the policy.  The De mocrats refused to recognize it as a problem, and ignored Bush's warnings of the impending crisis.

If you think 5 trillion added to the national debt under Bush in 8 years is bad, what do you consider 7 trillion under Obama in 5 years?  At least the Republican House has lowered the deficit over the past two years, in spite of the Democrat Senate that refuses most of the House budgets.


----------



## hunarcy

Dragonlady said:


> The economic meltdown was years in the making. It was the result of 10 years of Republican control of the public purse from 1996 to 2006.  While Bill Clinton was President, taxes and spending were balanced and responsible, but once Bush was elected, it was cut and spend all the way.
> 
> The Democrats took back the House in 2006, taking control of the House in January of 2007, and their first fiscal year began in the Fall of 2007 as the outgoing Congress' last budget year ended in October, 2007. There is no way you can blame the Democrats for the results of 10 years of Republican mismanagement of the public purse because it takes years for the results of public policy to impact the general economy.
> 
> Republicans never want to take responsibility for the messes they create and saying that it's the fault of the Democratic congress which had had control of the public purse for less than a year when the shit hit the fan is just laughably weak.



Funny.  The FACT is that the economy was put in distress by the rise in minimum wage, which caused a cut back in hiring and a constriction of the job market.  People began to have trouble paying their mortgages at a time when interest rates began to rise causing ARMs to increase the interest rates people paid, causing even more people to lose their homes and that caused the housing bubble to burst.  You can blame it on Bush's tax cuts (which gave people MORE money in their pockets, so how you think that hurt the economy is beyond me) but those are the FACTS.  

Now, trot out your impotent arguments to deflect from the Democratic blame...it'll end up being  sound and fury, signifying nothing.


----------



## Againsheila

TooTall said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the minimum wage was raised in a year the effect would be non existent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since the cost of everything would increase rather sharply, the only ones that would really be affected are those elderly trying to get by on Social Security or are on a fixed income.  Most pensions don't have a COL adjustment as well.  And it would be forever, not just a year.
Click to expand...


Social Security is suppose to have a COLA.


----------



## TooTall

Againsheila said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the minimum wage was raised in a year the effect would be non existent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since the cost of everything would increase rather sharply, the only ones that would really be affected are those elderly trying to get by on Social Security or are on a fixed income.  Most pensions don't have a COL adjustment as well.  And it would be forever, not just a year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Social Security is suppose to have a COLA.
Click to expand...


The COLA in 2010 and 2011 was 0.0%  Anyone who thinks there was zero inflation for two years is delusional.  The Democrats keep changing the way the COLA is computed to make it less.  

Most who have private sector pensions do not have a COLA.


----------



## pinqy

TooTall said:


> The COLA in 2010 and 2011 was 0.0%  Anyone who thinks there was zero inflation for two years is delusional.  The Democrats keep changing the way the COLA is computed to make it less.


The formula has been the same since 1975: COLA is the percent change in 3rd quarter average of the CPI-W. 
3Q average 2008 was 215.495
2009, it was 211.001, a change of -2.085% so no COLA for 2010
In 2010, 3Qavg was 214.136 Now that's an increase of 1.486%, but not higher than the 2008 number, so again no COLA.
2011, it was 223.233 an increase of 3.6% and that was the COLA in 2012.
CPI-W is series CWUR0000SA0 found at BLS Series Report : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics


----------



## Indeependent

What I'd like to know from those who have started a business is...
When you designed your plan to present to the lender, did you rely on paying minimum wage?
OR, did you state a wage higher than minimum wage and pocket/invest/party on the rest?


----------



## oldfart

TooTall said:


> The Democrats keep changing the way the COLA is computed to make it less.



And your source for this is?  I know it's not the BLS methodological notes.


----------



## oldfart

Indeependent said:


> What I'd like to know from those who have started a business is...
> When you designed your plan to present to the lender, did you rely on paying minimum wage?
> OR, did you state a wage higher than minimum wage and pocket/invest/party on the rest?



I'm not sure what your question is implying.  All the businesses I have started or had an ownership interest in paid above prevailing industry compensation.  I don't like the quality of work you get with cheap labor.  I also train my people to do the job the way I want it done.  

We do a lot of business plans for people going to the bank.  If our firm name is on it, there is no blue sky or fudge factor in it.  Accountants have track records with lending officers and in any community, we all know each other.  You really don't do anyone a favor helping them get into a business they are going to fail at.


----------



## Indeependent

oldfart said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I'd like to know from those who have started a business is...
> When you designed your plan to present to the lender, did you rely on paying minimum wage?
> OR, did you state a wage higher than minimum wage and pocket/invest/party on the rest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what your question is implying.  All the businesses I have started or had an ownership interest in paid above prevailing industry compensation.  I don't like the quality of work you get with cheap labor.  I also train my people to do the job the way I want it done.
> 
> We do a lot of business plans for people going to the bank.  If our firm name is on it, there is no blue sky or fudge factor in it.  Accountants have track records with lending officers and in any community, we all know each other.  You really don't do anyone a favor helping them get into a business they are going to fail at.
Click to expand...


I'm referring to those who develop a business plan which includes stated wages.
Living in the suburbs I know plenty of people who get business loans and start building mansions well before the business becomes established.
Do lenders perform any quality assurance on the amount loaned and actually applied to the business?


----------



## Againsheila

pinqy said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The COLA in 2010 and 2011 was 0.0%  Anyone who thinks there was zero inflation for two years is delusional.  The Democrats keep changing the way the COLA is computed to make it less.
> 
> 
> 
> The formula has been the same since 1975: COLA is the percent change in 3rd quarter average of the CPI-W.
> 3Q average 2008 was 215.495
> 2009, it was 211.001, a change of -2.085% so no COLA for 2010
> In 2010, 3Qavg was 214.136 Now that's an increase of 1.486%, but not higher than the 2008 number, so again no COLA.
> 2011, it was 223.233 an increase of 3.6% and that was the COLA in 2012.
> CPI-W is series CWUR0000SA0 found at BLS Series Report : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Click to expand...


Democrats aren't the only one changing it.


----------



## pinqy

Againsheila said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The COLA in 2010 and 2011 was 0.0%  Anyone who thinks there was zero inflation for two years is delusional.  The Democrats keep changing the way the COLA is computed to make it less.
> 
> 
> 
> The formula has been the same since 1975: COLA is the percent change in 3rd quarter average of the CPI-W.
> 3Q average 2008 was 215.495
> 2009, it was 211.001, a change of -2.085% so no COLA for 2010
> In 2010, 3Qavg was 214.136 Now that's an increase of 1.486%, but not higher than the 2008 number, so again no COLA.
> 2011, it was 223.233 an increase of 3.6% and that was the COLA in 2012.
> CPI-W is series CWUR0000SA0 found at BLS Series Report : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Democrats aren't the only one changing it.
Click to expand...

No one has changed it since 1975 except for the time periods. 

I already gave the index used to calculate changes. And you can find the history of social security at 
Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA) Information


----------



## ShawnChris13

Amelia said:


> If minimum wage were raised, presumably many people's wages would be bumped at least a little.  Even though only a small percentage of workers earn minimum wage, the people who started out at minimum wage and got raises would get upset if brand new employees suddenly got as much as they did, so lots of wages would go up.
> 
> 
> 
> So how many jobs would be created or saved by this move -- for instance because of the increase in spending money available for local spending?
> 
> 
> 
> And how many jobs would be lost -- for instance because the increase in American wages would make offshore labor look more appealing, or because business owners' profit margin wouldn't support a 20% hike in labor costs so they would let a small portion of their workforce go and hope for more productivity from the rest?




I think a clear (theoretically, time will tell for sure) example of companies that will attempt to lose workers because of wage increases is McDonald's. Recently they purchased thousands of automated machines that would process orders. If I were a company looking to cut costs, that is certainly how I would do it. It could be that they were eventually going to reach the stage of an automated process given time, but market changes are surely a catalyst to speed along a process such as that.


----------



## Iceweasel

ShawnChris13 said:


> I think a clear (theoretically, time will tell for sure) example of companies that will attempt to lose workers because of wage increases is McDonald's. Recently they purchased thousands of automated machines that would process orders. If I were a company looking to cut costs, that is certainly how I would do it. It could be that they were eventually going to reach the stage of an automated process given time, but market changes are surely a catalyst to speed along a process such as that.


It's been proven many many times. Very few companies have people do work that machines can do better. So yes, the harder the low skilled worker pushes pay the more incentive there will be to replace them. No one is going to pay $10 for a fast food burger.


----------



## BillyZane

ShawnChris13 said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> If minimum wage were raised, presumably many people's wages would be bumped at least a little.  Even though only a small percentage of workers earn minimum wage, the people who started out at minimum wage and got raises would get upset if brand new employees suddenly got as much as they did, so lots of wages would go up.
> 
> 
> 
> So how many jobs would be created or saved by this move -- for instance because of the increase in spending money available for local spending?
> 
> 
> 
> And how many jobs would be lost -- for instance because the increase in American wages would make offshore labor look more appealing, or because business owners' profit margin wouldn't support a 20% hike in labor costs so they would let a small portion of their workforce go and hope for more productivity from the rest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think a clear (theoretically, time will tell for sure) example of companies that will attempt to lose workers because of wage increases is McDonald's. Recently they purchased thousands of automated machines that would process orders. If I were a company looking to cut costs, that is certainly how I would do it. It could be that they were eventually going to reach the stage of an automated process given time, but market changes are surely a catalyst to speed along a process such as that.
Click to expand...


Any successful business is going to automate when automating makes sense. That has NOTHING to do with the min wage law. I mean nothing at all.

This is one of the things that drives me crazy about Congress. They don't vote on laws based on the laws themselves, instead they get mired in a thousand petty side arguments.

The minimum wage law was designed for and should continue to function as nothing more than a bare minimum that hourly employees can be paid.  Factors such as automation and such should never come into play. And specifically about automation here is why it should be irrelevant. If McD , for example, were to automate completely does anyone here think that their next move would NOT be to cut the next tier of wages? Of course they would. Their new argument would be that the people managing the machines are minimum wage employees because that's the lowest job they have and so then assistant manager who are currently making about two dollars an hour more than minimum wage would suddenly find themselves being offered minimum wage.

We all know that is EXACTLY what will happen once these stores get automated. So, then you will have trained employees who are going to have to be at least some what skilled making $7.25 an hour? 

The current minimum wage is a travesty of the law. Why bother even having a minimum wage if that wage isn't appropriately set?


----------



## oldfart

Indeependent said:


> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I'd like to know from those who have started a business is...
> When you designed your plan to present to the lender, did you rely on paying minimum wage?
> OR, did you state a wage higher than minimum wage and pocket/invest/party on the rest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what your question is implying.  All the businesses I have started or had an ownership interest in paid above prevailing industry compensation.  I don't like the quality of work you get with cheap labor.  I also train my people to do the job the way I want it done.
> 
> We do a lot of business plans for people going to the bank.  If our firm name is on it, there is no blue sky or fudge factor in it.  Accountants have track records with lending officers and in any community, we all know each other.  You really don't do anyone a favor helping them get into a business they are going to fail at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm referring to those who develop a business plan which includes stated wages.
> Living in the suburbs I know plenty of people who get business loans and start building mansions well before the business becomes established.
> Do lenders perform any quality assurance on the amount loaned and actually applied to the business?
Click to expand...


Sorry for the delay in getting back to you;  I took a couple of days for some cardiac repair work.  Mine was scheduled maintenance, beats the hell out of most of the floor who were too busy to ever see a cardiologist.  

I've developed business plans for my main business since 1984.  Since it was a franchising firm, the plans had to comply with FTC Rule 436  and I had to have a UFOC.  If you want to start a franchise system, budget $50,000 to $250,000 for the legal work, UFOC, audits, and professional consulting.   I mention this because this is where I started in business plans:  make it legal.  I never dropped the habit.  

As you mentioned, there is a lot of bank fraud that goes along with many business start-ups.  Some never gets caught.  A few do serious jail time.  Most often its just a messy bankruptcy.  Some lenders do good due diligence while others do not.  Separating the two is the job of bank regulators, which is not a reassuring idea.  

It really all boils down to what you want and what you are willing to do to get it.  If you want make lots of money and don't mind a slight chance of jail time and a pretty good chance of financial ruin, just ask yourself what Gordon Gekko in "Wall Street" would do.   If you want to make a modest but comfortable living, have more control over your business, and enjoy things in life outside commerce; then by all means go into business. Just understand that no bank or venture capitalist is likely to fund a business plan for someone with little industry experience, a weak business plan, or less than full personal responsibility.  

Since my firm evolved into an accounting firm, I've seen a lot of people who wanted to start a business, and most of them were dissuaded when they found out what was really involve.  In a deal, it's the money man who calls the shots, and in six months that person will probably own everything.  There is always a story about people who got away with stuff on their taxes, or who got rich on a "deal", but I haven't seen many cases where that actually happened.


----------



## Mac1958

Publius1787 said:


> Lets just say for example that the new living minimum wage is double the current federal minimum wage: $7.25 x 2= $14.5/hr (+-$30,160 per year). The people who would supposedly benefit the most would be low skilled workers right? Now what about the moderate skilled workers who were making $15/hr already? Would they sweat in the hot sun all day as a construction worker if they knew they could make the same stocking shelves at Wal-Mart? Would they freeze in the winter as an HVAC repairman crawling under peoples houses if they could make the same amount sweeping the floors as a janitor? Would you? Employers dealing in construction, heating/air, plumbing, etc., will need to considerably increase wages to keep their staff on board. Indeed, all skilled labor employers would need to increase the wages of their workers in order to remain competitive in the market for skilled labor, or else, their competitors will grab them. Moreover, high skilled labor would need to increase their pay and benefits.
> 
> If you mandated a living wage you would only create a new poverty line with the same amount of poverty as you started off with, if not more, after the market settles down. There is indeed a reason why service stations no longer hire teenagers to service the cars of travelers.




You're making it way too complicated.  Those who throw out the $15 figure will neither understand this nor care.  They'll "feel" good about themselves and they don't want to know what the macro ramifications would look like.  If you point out the macro ramifications, such as the painfully obvious chain reaction this would cause, at some point they'll just blame the "greedy business owners".

They want to keep it shallow and simple.

.


----------



## candycorn

About 3% of all workers make minimum wage.  Raising it a few bucks over four years will do nothing to injure anyone.  Come off of it.


----------



## Iceweasel

candycorn said:


> About 3% of all workers make minimum wage.  Raising it a few bucks over four years will do nothing to injure anyone.  Come off of it.


First off, yes, too many people go to college. Some may be better off going to a trade school learning practicle application instead of theory. So it depends on what you want to get into, big ed has convinced us that we need them. And they charge accordingly.

Do you run a business? If so, take the few dollars per employee, per day, week and year out of your profits then get back to us.


----------



## candycorn

Iceweasel said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> About 3% of all workers make minimum wage.  Raising it a few bucks over four years will do nothing to injure anyone.  Come off of it.
> 
> 
> 
> First off, yes, too many people go to college. Some may be better off going to a trade school learning practicle application instead of theory. So it depends on what you want to get into, big ed has convinced us that we need them. And they charge accordingly.
> 
> Do you run a business? If so, take the few dollars per employee, per day, week and year out of your profits then get back to us.
Click to expand...


I agree that we desperately need to get the trades back into school but I think it should be at the high-school level.  We could never have too many people in college of any type...

If paying my minimum wage employees a few bucks more a week will coincide with my competitors paying their minimum wage employees a few bucks more a week, it's no problem.  Think about it an get back to us.


----------



## Iceweasel

candycorn said:


> I agree that we desperately need to get the trades back into school but I think it should be at the high-school level.  We could never have too many people in college of any type...
> 
> If paying my minimum wage employees a few bucks more a week will coincide with my competitors paying their minimum wage employees a few bucks more a week, it's no problem.  Think about it an get back to us.


If you think a trade can be learned at the high school level then you are very unfamiliar with trades in general. Which explains your thinking. Any professional trade requires quite a bit of knowledge. That electrian that comes over to troubleshoot your hottub spend countless hours getting his license and I'd agrue, knows a hell of a lot more about how the real world works that, say, the polysci professor.

Yes, the pay increase will jack up prices across the board but people are only willing to pay so much for the kind of work minimum wage employees do. I'm against any minimum wage but it certainly was never designed to raise a family on. You roll tacos for a year or two and more on. If it's a career for you, then I don't care that you can't raise a family, I say good ridance, the problem solved itself.


----------



## candycorn

Iceweasel said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that we desperately need to get the trades back into school but I think it should be at the high-school level.  We could never have too many people in college of any type...
> 
> If paying my minimum wage employees a few bucks more a week will coincide with my competitors paying their minimum wage employees a few bucks more a week, it's no problem.  Think about it an get back to us.
> 
> 
> 
> If you think a trade can be learned at the high school level then you are very unfamiliar with trades in general. Which explains your thinking. Any professional trade requires quite a bit of knowledge. That electrian that comes over to troubleshoot your hottub spend countless hours getting his license and I'd agrue, knows a hell of a lot more about how the real world works that, say, the polysci professor.
> 
> Yes, the pay increase will jack up prices across the board but people are only willing to pay so much for the kind of work minimum wage employees do. I'm against any minimum wage but it certainly was never designed to raise a family on. You roll tacos for a year or two and more on. If it's a career for you, then I don't care that you can't raise a family, I say good ridance, the problem solved itself.
Click to expand...


Well, I meant vocational education.  We got rid of it during my years in HS.  I think its a valuable thing that should be reinstated.  You dont lesrn a trade toe to tip but you do learn a skill.


----------



## Mathbud1

Dragonlady said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> One thing I know, what is a living wage is entirely subjective.  I know people who couldn't live on $1000/week.  And I know others who can live on a flat rock.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While this is true, there is a reasonable standard which is generally applied:  the cost of basic housing, food, clothing, utilities, and other necessities.
> 
> To argue that people's ability, or lack thereof, to live frugally makes it impossible to know what a living wage would be, is just looking for excuses to do nothing.
> 
> It's often said here that if you don't earn enough money to feed your family, you should take a second job. People brag about working two or three jobs to make ends meet, but what kind of parent can you be to a child when you're always working and never at home?
> 
> The family values folk always say that women should stay home with their children and not work because raising the next generation is the most important job you'll ever do. Yet poor women are told to take a second and a third job to provide for their families. Who's raising their children?
> 
> When my daughter was small, we took her to art galleries, museums, the Science Centre, the ballet, plays - anything that would make for fun outing. There are all sorts if ways of doing this stuff on the cheap. Teachers called this "enrichment" and said she benefitted from it enormously. I called it spending quality time with my child. If I were working 15 hours a day, I wouldn't have had the time or the energy to enrich my child's life.
Click to expand...


Just guessing you weren't working a minimum wage job either huh? Did you do something to qualify you to make more than $15 or did some kindly business person just donate the wage you were making?


----------



## Mathbud1

candycorn said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> About 3% of all workers make minimum wage.  Raising it a few bucks over four years will do nothing to injure anyone.  Come off of it.
> 
> 
> 
> First off, yes, too many people go to college. Some may be better off going to a trade school learning practicle application instead of theory. So it depends on what you want to get into, big ed has convinced us that we need them. And they charge accordingly.
> 
> Do you run a business? If so, take the few dollars per employee, per day, week and year out of your profits then get back to us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that we desperately need to get the trades back into school but I think it should be at the high-school level.  We could never have too many people in college of any type...
> 
> If paying my minimum wage employees a few bucks more a week will coincide with my competitors paying their minimum wage employees a few bucks more a week, it's no problem.  Think about it an get back to us.
Click to expand...


And what about your employees who were already making what you are now going to increase the minimum wage to?


----------



## Mathbud1

Some people are just blinded by their hate for big business. 

News flash: big business can absorb some increases in operating costs a heck of a lot better than a small business can. 

So let's do something that big business will barely feel, but that will crush smaller businesses. 

Does that really sound like a great idea to the people who (profess to) hate big business?


----------



## BillyZane

Mac1958 said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets just say for example that the new living minimum wage is double the current federal minimum wage: $7.25 x 2= $14.5/hr (+-$30,160 per year). The people who would supposedly benefit the most would be low skilled workers right? Now what about the moderate skilled workers who were making $15/hr already? Would they sweat in the hot sun all day as a construction worker if they knew they could make the same stocking shelves at Wal-Mart? Would they freeze in the winter as an HVAC repairman crawling under peoples houses if they could make the same amount sweeping the floors as a janitor? Would you? Employers dealing in construction, heating/air, plumbing, etc., will need to considerably increase wages to keep their staff on board. Indeed, all skilled labor employers would need to increase the wages of their workers in order to remain competitive in the market for skilled labor, or else, their competitors will grab them. Moreover, high skilled labor would need to increase their pay and benefits.
> 
> If you mandated a living wage you would only create a new poverty line with the same amount of poverty as you started off with, if not more, after the market settles down. There is indeed a reason why service stations no longer hire teenagers to service the cars of travelers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're making it way too complicated.  Those who throw out the $15 figure will neither understand this nor care.  They'll "feel" good about themselves and they don't want to know what the macro ramifications would look like.  If you point out the macro ramifications, such as the painfully obvious chain reaction this would cause, at some point they'll just blame the "greedy business owners".
> 
> They want to keep it shallow and simple.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


except of course that there is no chance of a $15 federal minimum wage. It won't happen. So shoulda, coulda, and woulda will never happen. Instead, we will see a $2 or so increase and we know from past increases that that will not cause the problems you guys are so afraid of


----------



## Mathbud1

BillyZane said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets just say for example that the new living minimum wage is double the current federal minimum wage: $7.25 x 2= $14.5/hr (+-$30,160 per year). The people who would supposedly benefit the most would be low skilled workers right? Now what about the moderate skilled workers who were making $15/hr already? Would they sweat in the hot sun all day as a construction worker if they knew they could make the same stocking shelves at Wal-Mart? Would they freeze in the winter as an HVAC repairman crawling under peoples houses if they could make the same amount sweeping the floors as a janitor? Would you? Employers dealing in construction, heating/air, plumbing, etc., will need to considerably increase wages to keep their staff on board. Indeed, all skilled labor employers would need to increase the wages of their workers in order to remain competitive in the market for skilled labor, or else, their competitors will grab them. Moreover, high skilled labor would need to increase their pay and benefits.
> 
> If you mandated a living wage you would only create a new poverty line with the same amount of poverty as you started off with, if not more, after the market settles down. There is indeed a reason why service stations no longer hire teenagers to service the cars of travelers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're making it way too complicated.  Those who throw out the $15 figure will neither understand this nor care.  They'll "feel" good about themselves and they don't want to know what the macro ramifications would look like.  If you point out the macro ramifications, such as the painfully obvious chain reaction this would cause, at some point they'll just blame the "greedy business owners".
> 
> They want to keep it shallow and simple.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> except of course that there is no chance of a $15 federal minimum wage. It won't happen. So shoulda, coulda, and woulda will never happen. Instead, we will see a $2 or so increase and *we know from past increases* that that will not cause the problems you guys are so afraid of
Click to expand...


And do you _know_ that past increases happened in the same economic circumstances as today?

If a person who is standing solidly is bumped, they may barely move. If the same person is already off balance a bump is all it will take to knock them off their feet.

You can't simply say that past increases had no dire consequences so an increase now will have no dire consequences.

That logic only holds water if the circumstances are the same.


----------



## Iceweasel

BillyZane said:


> except of course that there is no chance of a $15 federal minimum wage. It won't happen. So shoulda, coulda, and woulda will never happen. Instead, we will see a $2 or so increase and we know from past increases that that will not cause the problems you guys are so afraid of


If Americans keep voting stupidly then, you bet $15 hr could happen. This state has the highest minimum wage in the country and unemployment is sky high. You know for a fact that it's a coincidence and another $2 won't matter?


----------



## FA_Q2

BillyZane said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets just say for example that the new living minimum wage is double the current federal minimum wage: $7.25 x 2= $14.5/hr (+-$30,160 per year). The people who would supposedly benefit the most would be low skilled workers right? Now what about the moderate skilled workers who were making $15/hr already? Would they sweat in the hot sun all day as a construction worker if they knew they could make the same stocking shelves at Wal-Mart? Would they freeze in the winter as an HVAC repairman crawling under peoples houses if they could make the same amount sweeping the floors as a janitor? Would you? Employers dealing in construction, heating/air, plumbing, etc., will need to considerably increase wages to keep their staff on board. Indeed, all skilled labor employers would need to increase the wages of their workers in order to remain competitive in the market for skilled labor, or else, their competitors will grab them. Moreover, high skilled labor would need to increase their pay and benefits.
> 
> If you mandated a living wage you would only create a new poverty line with the same amount of poverty as you started off with, if not more, after the market settles down. There is indeed a reason why service stations no longer hire teenagers to service the cars of travelers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're making it way too complicated.  Those who throw out the $15 figure will neither understand this nor care.  They'll "feel" good about themselves and they don't want to know what the macro ramifications would look like.  If you point out the macro ramifications, such as the painfully obvious chain reaction this would cause, at some point they'll just blame the "greedy business owners".
> 
> They want to keep it shallow and simple.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> except of course that there is no chance of a $15 federal minimum wage. It won't happen. So shoulda, coulda, and woulda will never happen. Instead, we will see a $2 or so increase and we know from past increases that that will not cause the problems you guys are so afraid of
Click to expand...


Irrelevant.  The size of the increase only related to the actual size of the impact and the amount of market volatility that is experienced afterward.  IOW, a 2 dollar raise just causes smaller problems than a 5 dollar raise but they are the same problems.  

The big elephant in the room is that it is NOT going to help those that it is supposed to.  The poor are not going to be better off because you arbitrarily raise the number of pieces of paper they get to flip a burger or mop a floor.  The VALUE of that work has not changed even if the paper has.


----------



## candycorn

Mathbud1 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> First off, yes, too many people go to college. Some may be better off going to a trade school learning practicle application instead of theory. So it depends on what you want to get into, big ed has convinced us that we need them. And they charge accordingly.
> 
> Do you run a business? If so, take the few dollars per employee, per day, week and year out of your profits then get back to us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that we desperately need to get the trades back into school but I think it should be at the high-school level.  We could never have too many people in college of any type...
> 
> If paying my minimum wage employees a few bucks more a week will coincide with my competitors paying their minimum wage employees a few bucks more a week, it's no problem.  Think about it an get back to us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what about your employees who were already making what you are now going to increase the minimum wage to?
Click to expand...


If they are my employees, they're not making what I'm making.


----------



## Mathbud1

candycorn said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that we desperately need to get the trades back into school but I think it should be at the high-school level.  We could never have too many people in college of any type...
> 
> If paying my minimum wage employees a few bucks more a week will coincide with my competitors paying their minimum wage employees a few bucks more a week, it's no problem.  Think about it an get back to us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what about your employees who were already making what you are now going to increase the minimum wage to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they are my employees, they're not making what I'm making.
Click to expand...


I believe you have misunderstood.

You have an employee, let's call him Bob, who is currently making minimum wage because he is new and unskilled.

You have another employee, let's call her Sally, who is making $2 more than minimum wage because she is a supervisor who has proven her worth.

When the federally mandated minimum wage is raised by $2 you now have to start paying Bob that new wage.

At this point Bob is now making the same wage as Sally despite the fact that Sally has proven herself a better employee. If you don't want Sally to walk out the door (and I assume you don't because, as previously stated, Sally is a good employee) you now have to bump Sally's wage as well.

No problem?


----------



## candycorn

Mathbud1 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what about your employees who were already making what you are now going to increase the minimum wage to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they are my employees, they're not making what I'm making.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe you have misunderstood.
> 
> You have an employee, let's call him Bob, who is currently making minimum wage because he is new and unskilled.
> 
> You have another employee, let's call her Sally, who is making $2 more than minimum wage because she is a supervisor who has proven her worth.
> 
> When the federally mandated minimum wage is raised by $2 you now have to start paying Bob that new wage.
> 
> At this point Bob is now making the same wage as Sally despite the fact that Sally has proven herself a better employee. If you don't want Sally to walk out the door (and I assume you don't because, as previously stated, Sally is a good employee) you now have to bump Sally's wage as well.
> 
> No problem?
Click to expand...


I would have no problem raising Sally's pay.  Admittedly I don't know if the margin will be $2 per hour however.  

The reason I have no problem is that my competition across the street has a Bob and Sally too and are faced with the same problem.


----------



## Foxfyre

Mathbud1 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what about your employees who were already making what you are now going to increase the minimum wage to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they are my employees, they're not making what I'm making.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe you have misunderstood.
> 
> You have an employee, let's call him Bob, who is currently making minimum wage because he is new and unskilled.
> 
> You have another employee, let's call her Sally, who is making $2 more than minimum wage because she is a supervisor who has proven her worth.
> 
> When the federally mandated minimum wage is raised by $2 you now have to start paying Bob that new wage.
> 
> At this point Bob is now making the same wage as Sally despite the fact that Sally has proven herself a better employee. If you don't want Sally to walk out the door (and I assume you don't because, as previously stated, Sally is a good employee) you now have to bump Sally's wage as well.
> 
> No problem?
Click to expand...


That is the conundrum and the reality faced by employers.  Those people who have worked their way up to a living wage by doing good work and proving their worth to their employers will of course wonder why the inexperienced and far less productive newbie merits the same wages the longer termers are making.

And what the visionaries who imagine this perfect world in which everybody is entitled to a living wage whether they merit it or not--okay they just assume everybody merits it--but either way they don't consider that changing the formulas require change of other behaviors.   It is NEVER as simple as significantly raising the minimum wage.  It affects every single aspect of commerce and industry from utilities to infrastructure to raw materials to the finished product and it affects every single thing any of us buy in the marketplace and every aspect of our cost of living.


----------



## williepete

Labor is a commodity driven by the local market. 

While considering a nationwide mandated minimum wage, consider these two local markets:

The Dakota oil fields right now are paying top dollar for menial labor. The Golden Arches Dinner Club is offering a $300 signing bonus and 15 bucks an hour. 
--11 Shocking Facts about the North Dakota Oil Boom | The Fiscal Times

In Detroit, the economy is in the tank, unemployment is high while *47% of metro Detroiters are illiterate.*
--Detroit Literacy Coalition | Mission Statement

A new hire in any job is basically a trainee. It costs money and time to take them on. Only after they learn--if they learn, do they become an asset and not a liability on the balance sheet.

The Feds dictate a minimum wage of 15 bucks. OK. In the Dakota oil fields, they're already there. No problem. 

But you're telling a businessman trying to start a business in the weak economy of Detroit to pay an illiterate trainee 15 bucks an hour to do a job that requires reading and basic math skills? Really? How do you think that will play out? 

The D.C. Beltway critters can afford to live in fantasy world and dictate what they will. Their will always slams against the hard wall of reality.

Go ahead and make it 100 bucks an hour with 30 days paid vacation a year, matching 401K, a company car and top shelf medical. That may sound silly but the outcome will be similar.


----------



## Indeependent

Mathbud1 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what about your employees who were already making what you are now going to increase the minimum wage to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they are my employees, they're not making what I'm making.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe you have misunderstood.
> 
> You have an employee, let's call him Bob, who is currently making minimum wage because he is new and unskilled.
> 
> You have another employee, let's call her Sally, who is making $2 more than minimum wage because she is a supervisor who has proven her worth.
> 
> When the federally mandated minimum wage is raised by $2 you now have to start paying Bob that new wage.
> 
> At this point Bob is now making the same wage as Sally despite the fact that Sally has proven herself a better employee. If you don't want Sally to walk out the door (and I assume you don't because, as previously stated, Sally is a good employee) you now have to bump Sally's wage as well.
> 
> No problem?
Click to expand...



You don't have to bump Sally because if she's making only 2-3 dollars over minimum wage, she isn't going to leave just to be knocked down to entry level.
And if she CAN leave for more she would have left already.


----------



## candycorn

Indeependent said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they are my employees, they're not making what I'm making.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you have misunderstood.
> 
> You have an employee, let's call him Bob, who is currently making minimum wage because he is new and unskilled.
> 
> You have another employee, let's call her Sally, who is making $2 more than minimum wage because she is a supervisor who has proven her worth.
> 
> When the federally mandated minimum wage is raised by $2 you now have to start paying Bob that new wage.
> 
> At this point Bob is now making the same wage as Sally despite the fact that Sally has proven herself a better employee. If you don't want Sally to walk out the door (and I assume you don't because, as previously stated, Sally is a good employee) you now have to bump Sally's wage as well.
> 
> No problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have to bump Sally because if she's making only 2-3 dollars over minimum wage, she isn't going to leave just to be knocked down to entry level.
> And if she CAN leave for more she would have left already.
Click to expand...


Good point.


----------



## candycorn

Foxfyre said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they are my employees, they're not making what I'm making.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you have misunderstood.
> 
> You have an employee, let's call him Bob, who is currently making minimum wage because he is new and unskilled.
> 
> You have another employee, let's call her Sally, who is making $2 more than minimum wage because she is a supervisor who has proven her worth.
> 
> When the federally mandated minimum wage is raised by $2 you now have to start paying Bob that new wage.
> 
> At this point Bob is now making the same wage as Sally despite the fact that Sally has proven herself a better employee. If you don't want Sally to walk out the door (and I assume you don't because, as previously stated, Sally is a good employee) you now have to bump Sally's wage as well.
> 
> No problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the conundrum and the reality faced by employers.  Those people who have worked their way up to a living wage by doing good work and proving their worth to their employers will of course wonder why the inexperienced and far less productive newbie merits the same wages the longer termers are making.
> 
> And what the visionaries who imagine this perfect world in which everybody is entitled to a living wage whether they merit it or not--okay they just assume everybody merits it--but either way they don't consider that changing the formulas require change of other behaviors.   It is NEVER as simple as significantly raising the minimum wage.  It affects every single aspect of commerce and industry from utilities to infrastructure to raw materials to the finished product and it affects every single thing any of us buy in the marketplace and every aspect of our cost of living.
Click to expand...


One would think that when there are massive layoffs that all of the lives of the people affected by that employer would benefit exponentially if giving the guys on the shop floor a few more nickels or dimes an hour.  

I mean, think about it, if you lay off 10 of your 70 employees making $30,000 a year, you saved the company $300,000 in salary and about the same amount in benefits, insurance, etc....  So That is $600,000 you can now spread out to the other 60 employees.  So everyone gets an instant $10,000 raise right?  Somehow that never happens.  

For once, I'm not saying Foxy's analysis is total BS but the situation is rarely as inelastic as she and other heartless opponents of a small increase in the minimum wage make it out to be.


----------



## jasonnfree

Indeependent said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they are my employees, they're not making what I'm making.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you have misunderstood.
> 
> You have an employee, let's call him Bob, who is currently making minimum wage because he is new and unskilled.
> 
> You have another employee, let's call her Sally, who is making $2 more than minimum wage because she is a supervisor who has proven her worth.
> 
> When the federally mandated minimum wage is raised by $2 you now have to start paying Bob that new wage.
> 
> At this point Bob is now making the same wage as Sally despite the fact that Sally has proven herself a better employee. If you don't want Sally to walk out the door (and I assume you don't because, as previously stated, Sally is a good employee) you now have to bump Sally's wage as well.
> 
> No problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have to bump Sally because if she's making only 2-3 dollars over minimum wage, she isn't going to leave just to be knocked down to entry level.
> And if she CAN leave for more she would have left already.
Click to expand...


But now the boss is stuck with Sally's resentment for being more productive yet not making more money.  Employees can make you or break you.


----------



## bkeating

Raising minimum wage is not the best idea; at least raising it a lot, which would be dumb. Minimum wage jobs are really for people to get experience in, and to be able to put it on your resume, not to make a living. If it were to be raised at all, I would say raise it to 8 dollars an hour and that's it. Anything else would be too high.


----------



## itfitzme

Iceweasel said:


> If you think a trade can be learned at the high school level then you are very unfamiliar with trades in general. Which explains your thinking. Any professional trade requires quite a bit of knowledge. That electrian that comes over to troubleshoot your hottub spend countless hours getting his license and I'd agrue, knows a hell of a lot more about how the real world works that, say, the polysci professor.
> 
> Yes, the pay increase will jack up prices across the board but people are only willing to pay so much for the kind of work minimum wage employees do. I'm against any minimum wage but it certainly was never designed to raise a family on. You roll tacos for a year or two and more on. If it's a career for you, then I don't care that you can't raise a family, I say good ridance, the problem solved itself.



*"I'd agrue, knows a hell of a lot more about how the real world works that, say, the polysci professor."*

 You can argue it all you want and still be wrong.  There is nothing in particular about being a "polysci professor" or an "electrician" that has any bearing on knowing "a hell of a lot more about how the real world works."   Either may or may not know "a hell of a lot more about how the real world works", depending on what they do in addition to their particular professions.  A political science professor would know a hell of a lot more about political science while an electrician would know more about being an electrician.

Nor does the comparison have any relevance to the question of minimum wage as neither an electrician nor a polisci professor make minimum wage.  The median annual wage for an electrician is $49,840 and that of a political science professor is about twice that, depending on other factors.

*"pay increase will jack up prices across the board," * 

is not a correct statement.  There is no economic rule that requires a minimum wage pay increase to jack up prices across the board. How prices shift in response to increased labor costs depends on numerous factors including the elasticities of demand and supply as well as profit margins.  It also depends on the employment levels.  

The most direct and significant factors in aggregate standard of living is the level of employment along with efficiency of production.   This is an important point.  There is simply no reason that a single individual should not be able to support their self at minimum wage.  The efficiency of production in the US and the world, has steadily increased decade after decade.  A single individual has always been able to provide for themselves, at the very least.  This seems fairly obvious.  If it were not true, the human race would have died out a long time ago.  

*"it certainly was never designed to..."  * 

according to whom and what?  And, where has there been anyone arguing that minimum wage should be enough to raise a family?  One article states, "Tens of millions of low-wage workers in the United States are trapped in lives of poverty."  At the very least, the minimum wage should be a livable wage for an individual.  What more it should be is open to discussion, but framing it in terms of "never designed to raise a family" is simply hyperbole. It is whatever we decide it is and, given the continued increase in efficiency, it can be more and more with each passing decade.

*"I don't care that you can't raise a family,"* 

aside from just an extension of the previous hyperbole, exemplifies why there is no reason for anyone to care about you or your opinion, expecially people working for minimum wage.


----------



## Spoonman

Foxfyre said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they are my employees, they're not making what I'm making.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you have misunderstood.
> 
> You have an employee, let's call him Bob, who is currently making minimum wage because he is new and unskilled.
> 
> You have another employee, let's call her Sally, who is making $2 more than minimum wage because she is a supervisor who has proven her worth.
> 
> When the federally mandated minimum wage is raised by $2 you now have to start paying Bob that new wage.
> 
> At this point Bob is now making the same wage as Sally despite the fact that Sally has proven herself a better employee. If you don't want Sally to walk out the door (and I assume you don't because, as previously stated, Sally is a good employee) you now have to bump Sally's wage as well.
> 
> No problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the conundrum and the reality faced by employers.  Those people who have worked their way up to a living wage by doing good work and proving their worth to their employers will of course wonder why the inexperienced and far less productive newbie merits the same wages the longer termers are making.
> 
> And what the visionaries who imagine this perfect world in which everybody is entitled to a living wage whether they merit it or not--okay they just assume everybody merits it--but either way they don't consider that changing the formulas require change of other behaviors.   It is NEVER as simple as significantly raising the minimum wage.  It affects every single aspect of commerce and industry from utilities to infrastructure to raw materials to the finished product and it affects every single thing any of us buy in the marketplace and every aspect of our cost of living.
Click to expand...


we are already destroying competitiveness through political correctness and the assumption that a kid can't be allowed to fail. or a kid needs to be made to feel he is an equal at everything.  games with no scores.  no winners or losers.  people need to learn that they need to earn advancement and improvement. people need to have drive.  the ones who do succeed. but to many are learning, hey I can get by with out it.


----------



## itfitzme

Another question is whether it makes any sense to subsidise companies indirectly by providing SNAP and other general assistance to workers making less than a living wage.

It should be pretty obvious that if general assistance is available to workers making less than a certain wage level and minimum wage is below that level, then businesses will naturally pay less than that and workers will supliment their income with general assistance. (like SNAP.)

Roughly speaking, it seems that general assistance would kick in above a minimum wage of about $718.

Federal poverty level is $11490 a year for 2013.   SNAP 130% of poverty level is $1,245 a month.  100% is $958.   So, using the 130% for the sake of arguement, then that is $14940 per year.

Working 40 hours a week is 2080 hours a year, making that an hourly rate of $7.18.   

Roughly, it means that above that $7.18, then SNAP assistance is unavailable.  And, roughly speaking then, above $7.18 is a minimum livable wage.

That seems to be a baseline approach to measuring minimum wage.  Minimum wage sits at what?  $7.25 federal minimum?

Whether is should or should not be higher remains a question.  It seems, though, that $7.25 just squeeks in at the 130% poverty mark.  It may be that, in fact, the 130% poverty level is a function of the minimum wage standard.  

Seems important to put things into some context.


----------



## candycorn

jasonnfree said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you have misunderstood.
> 
> You have an employee, let's call him Bob, who is currently making minimum wage because he is new and unskilled.
> 
> You have another employee, let's call her Sally, who is making $2 more than minimum wage because she is a supervisor who has proven her worth.
> 
> When the federally mandated minimum wage is raised by $2 you now have to start paying Bob that new wage.
> 
> At this point Bob is now making the same wage as Sally despite the fact that Sally has proven herself a better employee. If you don't want Sally to walk out the door (and I assume you don't because, as previously stated, Sally is a good employee) you now have to bump Sally's wage as well.
> 
> No problem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have to bump Sally because if she's making only 2-3 dollars over minimum wage, she isn't going to leave just to be knocked down to entry level.
> And if she CAN leave for more she would have left already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But now the boss is stuck with Sally's resentment for being more productive yet not making more money.  Employees can make you or break you.
Click to expand...


I'd be happy to give Sally a raise but I don't know if it would be correlated to the rise in the minimum wage.  However, in truth, I would never have employees making the minimum wage to start with. If my competitors didn't follow suit, I'd probably end up with _their Sally's_ resumes on my desk.


----------



## Spoonman

candycorn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you have misunderstood.
> 
> You have an employee, let's call him Bob, who is currently making minimum wage because he is new and unskilled.
> 
> You have another employee, let's call her Sally, who is making $2 more than minimum wage because she is a supervisor who has proven her worth.
> 
> When the federally mandated minimum wage is raised by $2 you now have to start paying Bob that new wage.
> 
> At this point Bob is now making the same wage as Sally despite the fact that Sally has proven herself a better employee. If you don't want Sally to walk out the door (and I assume you don't because, as previously stated, Sally is a good employee) you now have to bump Sally's wage as well.
> 
> No problem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the conundrum and the reality faced by employers.  Those people who have worked their way up to a living wage by doing good work and proving their worth to their employers will of course wonder why the inexperienced and far less productive newbie merits the same wages the longer termers are making.
> 
> And what the visionaries who imagine this perfect world in which everybody is entitled to a living wage whether they merit it or not--okay they just assume everybody merits it--but either way they don't consider that changing the formulas require change of other behaviors.   It is NEVER as simple as significantly raising the minimum wage.  It affects every single aspect of commerce and industry from utilities to infrastructure to raw materials to the finished product and it affects every single thing any of us buy in the marketplace and every aspect of our cost of living.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One would think that when there are massive layoffs that all of the lives of the people affected by that employer would benefit exponentially if giving the guys on the shop floor a few more nickels or dimes an hour.
> 
> I mean, think about it, if you lay off 10 of your 70 employees making $30,000 a year, you saved the company $300,000 in salary and about the same amount in benefits, insurance, etc....  So That is $600,000 you can now spread out to the other 60 employees.  So everyone gets an instant $10,000 raise right?  Somehow that never happens.
> 
> For once, I'm not saying Foxy's analysis is total BS but the situation is rarely as inelastic as she and other heartless opponents of a small increase in the minimum wage make it out to be.
Click to expand...


if you are laying people off it is generally because you can't afford to keep those people.  you are making the cuts to keep the company profitable, not free up some extra cash you can hand out to the remaining employees.


----------



## Spoonman

candycorn said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have to bump Sally because if she's making only 2-3 dollars over minimum wage, she isn't going to leave just to be knocked down to entry level.
> And if she CAN leave for more she would have left already.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But now the boss is stuck with Sally's resentment for being more productive yet not making more money.  Employees can make you or break you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd be happy to give Sally a raise but I don't know if it would be correlated to the rise in the minimum wage.  However, in truth, I would never have employees making the minimum wage to start with. If my competitors didn't follow suit, I'd probably end up with _their Sally's_ resumes on my desk.
Click to expand...


and your competitors would be undercutting your prices and your sales would decline.  now you'll be laying off over paid sally's just to keep your doors open.


----------



## candycorn

Spoonman said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> But now the boss is stuck with Sally's resentment for being more productive yet not making more money.  Employees can make you or break you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be happy to give Sally a raise but I don't know if it would be correlated to the rise in the minimum wage.  However, in truth, I would never have employees making the minimum wage to start with. If my competitors didn't follow suit, I'd probably end up with _their Sally's_ resumes on my desk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and your competitors would be undercutting your prices and your sales would decline.  now you'll be laying off over paid sally's just to keep your doors open.
Click to expand...


Maybe...maybe not.  Sally is a good employee.  She gives the customers speedy refills of their iced green tea promptly; removes their plates; brings their food quickly...  Customers appreciate her and some to my bistro more often than the passive-resistance they experience from my competitor's staff.


----------



## Mathbud1

candycorn said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be happy to give Sally a raise but I don't know if it would be correlated to the rise in the minimum wage.  However, in truth, I would never have employees making the minimum wage to start with. If my competitors didn't follow suit, I'd probably end up with _their Sally's_ resumes on my desk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and your competitors would be undercutting your prices and your sales would decline.  now you'll be laying off over paid sally's just to keep your doors open.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe...maybe not.  Sally is a good employee.  She gives the customers speedy refills of their iced green tea promptly; removes their plates; brings their food quickly...  Customers appreciate her and some to my bistro more often than the passive-resistance they experience from my competitor's staff.
Click to expand...


But if Sally realizes that since the minimum wage had been raised she can go out and get a less demanding job for the same wage you are offering her, what is to keep her around unless you do bump her wage? 

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## Spoonman

candycorn said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be happy to give Sally a raise but I don't know if it would be correlated to the rise in the minimum wage.  However, in truth, I would never have employees making the minimum wage to start with. If my competitors didn't follow suit, I'd probably end up with _their Sally's_ resumes on my desk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and your competitors would be undercutting your prices and your sales would decline.  now you'll be laying off over paid sally's just to keep your doors open.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe...maybe not.  Sally is a good employee.  She gives the customers speedy refills of their iced green tea promptly; removes their plates; brings their food quickly...  Customers appreciate her and some to my bistro more often than the passive-resistance they experience from my competitor's staff.
Click to expand...


perhaps, if you cater to the rich.  other than that your doors will soon be shutting.


----------



## candycorn

Mathbud1 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> and your competitors would be undercutting your prices and your sales would decline.  now you'll be laying off over paid sally's just to keep your doors open.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe...maybe not.  Sally is a good employee.  She gives the customers speedy refills of their iced green tea promptly; removes their plates; brings their food quickly...  Customers appreciate her and some to my bistro more often than the passive-resistance they experience from my competitor's staff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But if Sally realizes that since the minimum wage had been raised she can go out and get a less demanding job for the same wage you are offering her, what is to keep her around unless you do bump her wage?
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Uh...okay???


----------



## Mathbud1

candycorn said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe...maybe not.  Sally is a good employee.  She gives the customers speedy refills of their iced green tea promptly; removes their plates; brings their food quickly...  Customers appreciate her and some to my bistro more often than the passive-resistance they experience from my competitor's staff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But if Sally realizes that since the minimum wage had been raised she can go out and get a less demanding job for the same wage you are offering her, what is to keep her around unless you do bump her wage?
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh...okay???
Click to expand...


If Sally is making more than the minimum wage it is likely because her job is more challenging than the jobs that make minimum wage. The demands of the job justify a higher wage. If less demanding jobs (ie minimum wage jobs) are bumped to match her pay, why will she stay in the more demanding job unless she gets a proportional increase? 

Also, the closer you are to entry level the more vertical advancement is open above you in your company. Staff to shift lead, shift lead to supervisor, supervisor to manager, etc. If you can take a job closer to entry level for the same wage, you increase the possibility for advancement.

Obviously there may be other mitigating factors, but a smart employee is not going to sit around and let you pay them the same in that kind of situation. 

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## candycorn

Spoonman said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> and your competitors would be undercutting your prices and your sales would decline.  now you'll be laying off over paid sally's just to keep your doors open.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe...maybe not.  Sally is a good employee.  She gives the customers speedy refills of their iced green tea promptly; removes their plates; brings their food quickly...  Customers appreciate her and some to my bistro more often than the passive-resistance they experience from my competitor's staff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> perhaps, if you cater to the rich.  other than that your doors will soon be shutting.
Click to expand...


I'd probably have my bistro in an upper-middle income neighborhood to start with; true.  

However, one of the reasons Chik-fil-a does well in some bad neighborhoods is because they emphasize service...there are usually flowers or greenery on the table, 
a big flagpole in the parking lot, a very clean playground, evenings where the mascot is there to entertain kids, staffs that ask your name and call it out when your order is ready, neatly arranged and clean condiment stations....  Nobody would argue that Chik-fil-a competes price-wise with Burger King or McDonalds.  There is no "dollar menu" at CFA.  Yet they are often times across the street from these low-price leaders and are doing very well.






http://media.chick-fil-a.com/Media/...nts/Chick-fil-A-interior-lg.jpg?download=true


----------



## Spoonman

candycorn said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe...maybe not.  Sally is a good employee.  She gives the customers speedy refills of their iced green tea promptly; removes their plates; brings their food quickly...  Customers appreciate her and some to my bistro more often than the passive-resistance they experience from my competitor's staff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> perhaps, if you cater to the rich.  other than that your doors will soon be shutting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd probably have my bistro in an upper-middle income neighborhood to start with; true.
> 
> However, one of the reasons Chik-fil-a does well in some bad neighborhoods is because they emphasize service...there are usually flowers or greenery on the table,
> a big flagpole in the parking lot, a very clean playground, evenings where the mascot is there to entertain kids, staffs that ask your name and call it out when your order is ready, neatly arranged and clean condiment stations....  Nobody would argue that Chik-fil-a competes price-wise with Burger King or McDonalds.  There is no "dollar menu" at CFA.  Yet they are often times across the street from these low-price leaders and are doing very well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://media.chick-fil-a.com/Media/...nts/Chick-fil-A-interior-lg.jpg?download=true
Click to expand...


all true,  but they still pay minimum wage


----------



## candycorn

Mathbud1 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But if Sally realizes that since the minimum wage had been raised she can go out and get a less demanding job for the same wage you are offering her, what is to keep her around unless you do bump her wage?
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...okay???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Sally is making more than the minimum wage it is likely because her job is more challenging than the jobs that make minimum wage. The demands of the job justify a higher wage. If less demanding jobs (ie minimum wage jobs) are bumped to match her pay, why will she stay in the more demanding job unless she gets a proportional increase?
> 
> Also, the closer you are to entry level the more vertical advancement is open above you in your company. Staff to shift lead, shift lead to supervisor, supervisor to manager, etc. If you can take a job closer to entry level for the same wage, you increase the possibility for advancement.
> 
> Obviously there may be other mitigating factors, but a smart employee is not going to sit around and let you pay them the same in that kind of situation.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Yeah, I gave Sally a raise.  If the raise isn't enticing enough...there is nothing I can do about that.


----------



## candycorn

Spoonman said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> perhaps, if you cater to the rich.  other than that your doors will soon be shutting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd probably have my bistro in an upper-middle income neighborhood to start with; true.
> 
> However, one of the reasons Chik-fil-a does well in some bad neighborhoods is because they emphasize service...there are usually flowers or greenery on the table,
> a big flagpole in the parking lot, a very clean playground, evenings where the mascot is there to entertain kids, staffs that ask your name and call it out when your order is ready, neatly arranged and clean condiment stations....  Nobody would argue that Chik-fil-a competes price-wise with Burger King or McDonalds.  There is no "dollar menu" at CFA.  Yet they are often times across the street from these low-price leaders and are doing very well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://media.chick-fil-a.com/Media/...nts/Chick-fil-A-interior-lg.jpg?download=true
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> all true,  but they still pay minimum wage
Click to expand...


Your point was that service made no difference unless you were catering to the rich.  
I think CFA employees make a tad more...not sure.  
CFA employees certainly work harder but they get Sundays off


----------



## Mathbud1

candycorn said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe...maybe not.  Sally is a good employee.  She gives the customers speedy refills of their iced green tea promptly; removes their plates; brings their food quickly...  Customers appreciate her and some to my bistro more often than the passive-resistance they experience from my competitor's staff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> perhaps, if you cater to the rich.  other than that your doors will soon be shutting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd probably have my bistro in an upper-middle income neighborhood to start with; true.
> 
> However, one of the reasons Chik-fil-a does well in some bad neighborhoods is because they emphasize service...there are usually flowers or greenery on the table,
> a big flagpole in the parking lot, a very clean playground, evenings where the mascot is there to entertain kids, staffs that ask your name and call it out when your order is ready, neatly arranged and clean condiment stations....  Nobody would argue that Chik-fil-a competes price-wise with Burger King or McDonalds.  There is no "dollar menu" at CFA.  Yet they are often times across the street from these low-price leaders and are doing very well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://media.chick-fil-a.com/Media/...nts/Chick-fil-A-interior-lg.jpg?download=true
Click to expand...


Agreed. I worked at chick-fil-a when I was younger. They strongly emphasize customer service to all of their employees. They also offer higher quality foods. But they aren't paying their cashiers more (or not much more) than minimum wage, and they are going to be affected by a minimum wage hike. At some point even high quality fast food is just too expensive for people to justify buying though. 

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## candycorn

Mathbud1 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> perhaps, if you cater to the rich.  other than that your doors will soon be shutting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd probably have my bistro in an upper-middle income neighborhood to start with; true.
> 
> However, one of the reasons Chik-fil-a does well in some bad neighborhoods is because they emphasize service...there are usually flowers or greenery on the table,
> a big flagpole in the parking lot, a very clean playground, evenings where the mascot is there to entertain kids, staffs that ask your name and call it out when your order is ready, neatly arranged and clean condiment stations....  Nobody would argue that Chik-fil-a competes price-wise with Burger King or McDonalds.  There is no "dollar menu" at CFA.  Yet they are often times across the street from these low-price leaders and are doing very well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://media.chick-fil-a.com/Media/...nts/Chick-fil-A-interior-lg.jpg?download=true
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed. I worked at chick-fil-a when I was younger. They strongly emphasize customer service to all of their employees. They also offer higher quality foods. But they aren't paying their cashiers more (or not much more) than minimum wage, and they are going to be affected by a minimum wage hike. At some point even high quality fast food is just too expensive for people to justify buying though.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Theorhetically a FMW increase of $0.25 per hour will hit all companies that pay minimum wages equally.  So CFA has no injury that MCD didn't experience.


----------



## Mathbud1

candycorn said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd probably have my bistro in an upper-middle income neighborhood to start with; true.
> 
> However, one of the reasons Chik-fil-a does well in some bad neighborhoods is because they emphasize service...there are usually flowers or greenery on the table,
> a big flagpole in the parking lot, a very clean playground, evenings where the mascot is there to entertain kids, staffs that ask your name and call it out when your order is ready, neatly arranged and clean condiment stations....  Nobody would argue that Chik-fil-a competes price-wise with Burger King or McDonalds.  There is no "dollar menu" at CFA.  Yet they are often times across the street from these low-price leaders and are doing very well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://media.chick-fil-a.com/Media/...nts/Chick-fil-A-interior-lg.jpg?download=true
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. I worked at chick-fil-a when I was younger. They strongly emphasize customer service to all of their employees. They also offer higher quality foods. But they aren't paying their cashiers more (or not much more) than minimum wage, and they are going to be affected by a minimum wage hike. At some point even high quality fast food is just too expensive for people to justify buying though.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Theorhetically a FMW increase of $0.25 per hour will hit all companies that pay minimum wages equally.  So CFA has no injury that MCD didn't experience.
Click to expand...


That's true, but McDonald's was cheaper to begin with. If both have to raise their prices, chick-fil-a as the more expensive option runs a bigger risk of passing the threshold that makes them too expensive for fast food to justify.

Also, I haven't heard anyone advocating that small of an increase. The increases I've heard more often suggested are more in the range of $1.75.


----------



## Spoonman

candycorn said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd probably have my bistro in an upper-middle income neighborhood to start with; true.
> 
> However, one of the reasons Chik-fil-a does well in some bad neighborhoods is because they emphasize service...there are usually flowers or greenery on the table,
> a big flagpole in the parking lot, a very clean playground, evenings where the mascot is there to entertain kids, staffs that ask your name and call it out when your order is ready, neatly arranged and clean condiment stations....  Nobody would argue that Chik-fil-a competes price-wise with Burger King or McDonalds.  There is no "dollar menu" at CFA.  Yet they are often times across the street from these low-price leaders and are doing very well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://media.chick-fil-a.com/Media/...nts/Chick-fil-A-interior-lg.jpg?download=true
> 
> 
> 
> 
> all true,  but they still pay minimum wage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your point was that service made no difference unless you were catering to the rich.
> I think CFA employees make a tad more...not sure.
> CFA employees certainly work harder but they get Sundays off
Click to expand...


that's service that doesn't come at high priced sally wages.  they get the same level of service from their minimum wage employees.  they position themselves as being something more than a low pried fast food joint.  BK tried it years ago.  they became the healthy alternative, expanded their menu, offered salads and low fat alternatives.  they still paid their employees the same amount.


----------



## asterism

itfitzme said:


> Another question is whether it makes any sense to subsidise companies indirectly by providing SNAP and other general assistance to workers making less than a living wage.
> 
> It should be pretty obvious that if general assistance is available to workers making less than a certain wage level and minimum wage is below that level, then businesses will naturally pay less than that and workers will supliment their income with general assistance. (like SNAP.)
> 
> Roughly speaking, it seems that general assistance would kick in above a minimum wage of about $718.
> 
> Federal poverty level is $11490 a year for 2013.   SNAP 130% of poverty level is $1,245 a month.  100% is $958.   So, using the 130% for the sake of arguement, then that is $14940 per year.
> 
> Working 40 hours a week is 2080 hours a year, making that an hourly rate of $7.18.
> 
> Roughly, it means that above that $7.18, then SNAP assistance is unavailable.  And, roughly speaking then, above $7.18 is a minimum livable wage.
> 
> That seems to be a baseline approach to measuring minimum wage.  Minimum wage sits at what?  $7.25 federal minimum?
> 
> Whether is should or should not be higher remains a question.  It seems, though, that $7.25 just squeeks in at the 130% poverty mark.  It may be that, in fact, the 130% poverty level is a function of the minimum wage standard.
> 
> Seems important to put things into some context.



My must all jobs pay a living wage when not all jobseekers need nor qualify for a living wage?


----------



## Spiderman

If minimum wage were raised about 3% of earners would have a couple more dollars a week to waste on shit they don't need.

Yeah big boost to the economy there.


----------



## Dragonlady

Spiderman said:


> If minimum wage were raised about 3% of earners would have a couple more dollars a week to waste on shit they don't need.
> 
> Yeah big boost to the economy there.



Since more than half of minimum wage earners are over 25, and a large percentage are single mothers supporting one or more children, that money will be spent on food, rent, clothing.  Non-essentials like that.


----------



## Papawx3

candycorn said:


> About 3% of all workers make minimum wage.  Raising it a few bucks over four years will do nothing to injure anyone.  Come off of it.



What you fail to understand is that for every minimum wage worker in any "private sector" organization, there are several more further up that corporate ladder who worked their way up from that same minimum wage job and pay scale. 
If you raise the minimum wage worker from his present $8.25 level up to $15.00 per hour, then you also have to similarly raise the wages of every one of those who are above him/her.   In order to make up for all those wage increases, you then have to raise the price of your company's product or service.  The higher you raise the prices of your products or services then the greater the chances are that you will price yourself out of the range of your customer's affordability and thus your company's competitiveness in the marketplace.   Soon, you will price yourself right out of business. 
In short, you can't afford to run a business if you have to pay your employees more than for what you can market your product or service.


----------



## Bluedog

Tough call here. I guess the amount of people who may get their hours cut needs to be weighed against the benefit of raising everyone's wages.

Catch 22 in my opinion.


----------



## Spiderman

Dragonlady said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> If minimum wage were raised about 3% of earners would have a couple more dollars a week to waste on shit they don't need.
> 
> Yeah big boost to the economy there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since more than half of minimum wage earners are over 25, and a large percentage are single mothers supporting one or more children, that money will be spent on food, rent, clothing.  Non-essentials like that.
Click to expand...


Yeah keep telling yourself that.


----------



## Papawx3

Bluedog said:


> Tough call here. I guess the amount of people who may get their hours cut needs to be weighed against the benefit of raising everyone's wages.
> 
> Catch 22 in my opinion.



Yep.  Corporate downsizing is sometimes necessary in order to remain in business.  You put a freeze on hiring; reduce your current labor force; consolidate job responsibility (make one worker perform the job of two thus eliminating the need for new hires); transfer jobs otherwise performed by 'minimum wage' workers to those further up the pay scale, but still are active employees.

IMO raising the minimum wage yet again might get good reviews by the low information voter, but it does nothing to eliminate or even reduce the rolls of the unemployed.  To the contrary, it vastly increases the chances that even more workers will be laid off and further increases the chances that more former workers will now have to rely on government assistance or other programs in order to provide for their families.


----------



## Mathbud1

Bluedog said:


> Tough call here. I guess the amount of people who may get their hours cut needs to be weighed against the benefit of raising everyone's wages.
> 
> Catch 22 in my opinion.



It really isn't a catch 22 though. What you are doing when you raise the minimum wage is artificially trying to make people's work worth more. The problem is it isn't actually worth more. It isn't benefiting the company more so they can't afford to pay more for it. It it hurts business, which hurts the economy. 

Even if there was more money out there right away for people to spend, how many companies are in industries that will see an increase in profits quickly? You can't assume that everyone will just buy more of everything. The people who ARE already meeting their minimum needs probably won't buy more at all. They'll stick it in savings.

So now you've got all these businesses who HAVE to pay their employees more but since they are in a non-necessity segment of the market they probably won't see any boost to profits to offset the added cost. Then, these businesses' buying power is decreased because their profits are cut, so they can't buy as much from other businesses. 

The small businesses that somehow managed to survive this economy aren't ready to take another hit like this.


----------



## candycorn

Papawx3 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> About 3% of all workers make minimum wage.  Raising it a few bucks over four years will do nothing to injure anyone.  Come off of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you fail to understand is that for every minimum wage worker in any "private sector" organization, there are several more further up that corporate ladder who worked their way up from that same minimum wage job and pay scale.
> If you raise the minimum wage worker from his present $8.25 level up to $15.00 per hour, then you also have to similarly raise the wages of every one of those who are above him/her.   In order to make up for all those wage increases, you then have to raise the price of your company's product or service.  The higher you raise the prices of your products or services then the greater the chances are that you will price yourself out of the range of your customer's affordability and thus your company's competitiveness in the marketplace.   Soon, you will price yourself right out of business.
> In short, you can't afford to run a business if you have to pay your employees more than for what you can market your product or service.
Click to expand...


Company A is a t 1234 Main Street.  Sells Widgets. Has 10 employees.  When the FMW rises, 2 of the employees will be forcibly paid more due to the FMW being raised.  Lets say it raises their pay by $1.00.  

Company B is at 1235 Main Street.  Also sells Widgets.  Also has 10 employees.  When the FMW rises, 2 of the employees will be forcibly paid more due to the FMW being raised. It also raises their pay by a buck.

The only thing that is changed is that the business owners now must react; do they take a lower profit of margin, do they try to make up the $2/hr by raising prices or being more efficient elsewhere?  

Company A has no advantage and neither does company B.


----------



## Foxfyre

Mathbud1 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But if Sally realizes that since the minimum wage had been raised she can go out and get a less demanding job for the same wage you are offering her, what is to keep her around unless you do bump her wage?
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...okay???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Sally is making more than the minimum wage it is likely because her job is more challenging than the jobs that make minimum wage. The demands of the job justify a higher wage. If less demanding jobs (ie minimum wage jobs) are bumped to match her pay, why will she stay in the more demanding job unless she gets a proportional increase?
> 
> Also, the closer you are to entry level the more vertical advancement is open above you in your company. Staff to shift lead, shift lead to supervisor, supervisor to manager, etc. If you can take a job closer to entry level for the same wage, you increase the possibility for advancement.
> 
> Obviously there may be other mitigating factors, but a smart employee is not going to sit around and let you pay them the same in that kind of situation.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


That's it exactly.  I don't really CARE all that much what the starting wage is so long as there is ample opportunity to improve it.  All I want is the chance to show an employer what I can do.  So I have started a lot of jobs at minimum age or at a lower rate than I consider acceptable, but I don't stay there long.

On top of the wage paid directly to the employee is the employer's portion of FICA, unemployment insurance, and in many cases the cost of general liability insurance and other add ons.    Make the starting wage too high--higher than the profit the employee can earn for the employer for some time--and the employee won't be hired at all.   A wage must always be based on what revenues the employee generates for the employer plus a reasonable profit.

But it does seem that a lot of folks here have never had even a basic course in economics, let alone have a sense of macroeconomics.  Increase the minimum wage and it affects every aspect of everything we buy and do.  And few employers can or are willing to just eat that extra expense, so they do pass it on.  And the cost of every aspect of doing business and/or living our lives also increases.  The other negatives include a higher percentage of using independent contractors, part timers, and temporary workers to deal with increased labor costs that can't be passed along to customers.

A far better plan is to get government out of it as much as possible and let the free market set the prices for everything, including labor.  The stronger the economy, the more full employment we have.  The more full employment we have, the more opportunity the worker has to sell his labor to the highest bidder.  And that always results in higher wages across the board for the lion's share of the work force.  And those starting at minimum wage will have much more opportunity to move up to a living wage at a faster rate.


----------



## BillyZane

Mathbud1 said:


> Bluedog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tough call here. I guess the amount of people who may get their hours cut needs to be weighed against the benefit of raising everyone's wages.
> 
> Catch 22 in my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It really isn't a catch 22 though. What you are doing when you raise the minimum wage is artificially trying to make people's work worth more. The problem is it isn't actually worth more. It isn't benefiting the company more so they can't afford to pay more for it. It it hurts business, which hurts the economy.
> 
> Even if there was more money out there right away for people to spend, how many companies are in industries that will see an increase in profits quickly? You can't assume that everyone will just buy more of everything. The people who ARE already meeting their minimum needs probably won't buy more at all. They'll stick it in savings.
> 
> So now you've got all these businesses who HAVE to pay their employees more but since they are in a non-necessity segment of the market they probably won't see any boost to profits to offset the added cost. Then, these businesses' buying power is decreased because their profits are cut, so they can't buy as much from other businesses.
> 
> The small businesses that somehow managed to survive this economy aren't ready to take another hit like this.
Click to expand...


The minimum wage itself is already an artificial value, so your argument is a non starter unless of course you can prove that those making minimum wage are paid so becuase that is what their job is worth. And of course you can not do that because there is no one here who believes that different jobs across different industries across different states just so happen to be worth the same amount per hour.

The minimum wage was NEVER meant to reflect what a job is worth to employers. Instead it intended to do exactly the opposite. The minimum wage law recognizes that companies will if given the chance take advantage of lower skilled employees and that the federal government will set a floor level of how much they can take advantage of them.

I'm sorry, but if you're paying a guy who sweeps and does dishes $7.25 an hour, you're taking advantage of that guy, and you better believe that if the minimum wage were $5 an hour, those who are now paying $7.25 an hour would suddenly decide "their jobs were only worth $5 an hour"


----------



## Mathbud1

candycorn said:


> Papawx3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> About 3% of all workers make minimum wage.  Raising it a few bucks over four years will do nothing to injure anyone.  Come off of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you fail to understand is that for every minimum wage worker in any "private sector" organization, there are several more further up that corporate ladder who worked their way up from that same minimum wage job and pay scale.
> If you raise the minimum wage worker from his present $8.25 level up to $15.00 per hour, then you also have to similarly raise the wages of every one of those who are above him/her.   In order to make up for all those wage increases, you then have to raise the price of your company's product or service.  The higher you raise the prices of your products or services then the greater the chances are that you will price yourself out of the range of your customer's affordability and thus your company's competitiveness in the marketplace.   Soon, you will price yourself right out of business.
> In short, you can't afford to run a business if you have to pay your employees more than for what you can market your product or service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Company A is a t 1234 Main Street.  Sells Widgets. Has 10 employees.  When the FMW rises, 2 of the employees will be forcibly paid more due to the FMW being raised.  Lets say it raises their pay by $1.00.
> 
> Company B is at 1235 Main Street.  Also sells Widgets.  Also has 10 employees.  When the FMW rises, 2 of the employees will be forcibly paid more due to the FMW being raised. It also raises their pay by a buck.
> 
> The only thing that is changed is that the business owners now must react; do they take a lower profit of margin, do they try to make up the $2/hr by raising prices or being more efficient elsewhere?
> 
> Company A has no advantage and neither does company B.
Click to expand...


What about Company C who also sells Widgets. They have 100 employees. Being a bigger company they have more options to adjust to the rise in minimum wage and are able to maintain their prices.

Company C does have an advantage.

No two businesses are exactly the same.


----------



## Mathbud1

BillyZane said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bluedog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tough call here. I guess the amount of people who may get their hours cut needs to be weighed against the benefit of raising everyone's wages.
> 
> Catch 22 in my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It really isn't a catch 22 though. What you are doing when you raise the minimum wage is artificially trying to make people's work worth more. The problem is it isn't actually worth more. It isn't benefiting the company more so they can't afford to pay more for it. It it hurts business, which hurts the economy.
> 
> Even if there was more money out there right away for people to spend, how many companies are in industries that will see an increase in profits quickly? You can't assume that everyone will just buy more of everything. The people who ARE already meeting their minimum needs probably won't buy more at all. They'll stick it in savings.
> 
> So now you've got all these businesses who HAVE to pay their employees more but since they are in a non-necessity segment of the market they probably won't see any boost to profits to offset the added cost. Then, these businesses' buying power is decreased because their profits are cut, so they can't buy as much from other businesses.
> 
> The small businesses that somehow managed to survive this economy aren't ready to take another hit like this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The minimum wage itself is already an artificial value, so your argument is a non starter unless of course you can prove that those making minimum wage are paid so becuase that is what their job is worth. And of course you can not do that because there is no one here who believes that different jobs across different industries across different states just so happen to be worth the same amount per hour.
> 
> The minimum wage was NEVER meant to reflect what a job is worth to employers. Instead it intended to do exactly the opposite. The minimum wage law recognizes that companies will if given the chance take advantage of lower skilled employees and that the federal government will set a floor level of how much they can take advantage of them.
> 
> I'm sorry, but if you're paying a guy who sweeps and does dishes $7.25 an hour, you're taking advantage of that guy, and you better believe that if the minimum wage were $5 an hour, those who are now paying $7.25 an hour would suddenly decide "their jobs were only worth $5 an hour"
Click to expand...


So why don't ALL jobs pay minimum wage then? If a company can simply arbitrarily decide what to pay their employees then all jobs should be minimum wage right? I mean that makes the most sense for the company doesn't it? Why ever pay people more than the minimum if a company is only out to "take advantage" of it's employees?


----------



## Foxfyre

Mathbud1 said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It really isn't a catch 22 though. What you are doing when you raise the minimum wage is artificially trying to make people's work worth more. The problem is it isn't actually worth more. It isn't benefiting the company more so they can't afford to pay more for it. It it hurts business, which hurts the economy.
> 
> Even if there was more money out there right away for people to spend, how many companies are in industries that will see an increase in profits quickly? You can't assume that everyone will just buy more of everything. The people who ARE already meeting their minimum needs probably won't buy more at all. They'll stick it in savings.
> 
> So now you've got all these businesses who HAVE to pay their employees more but since they are in a non-necessity segment of the market they probably won't see any boost to profits to offset the added cost. Then, these businesses' buying power is decreased because their profits are cut, so they can't buy as much from other businesses.
> 
> The small businesses that somehow managed to survive this economy aren't ready to take another hit like this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The minimum wage itself is already an artificial value, so your argument is a non starter unless of course you can prove that those making minimum wage are paid so becuase that is what their job is worth. And of course you can not do that because there is no one here who believes that different jobs across different industries across different states just so happen to be worth the same amount per hour.
> 
> The minimum wage was NEVER meant to reflect what a job is worth to employers. Instead it intended to do exactly the opposite. The minimum wage law recognizes that companies will if given the chance take advantage of lower skilled employees and that the federal government will set a floor level of how much they can take advantage of them.
> 
> I'm sorry, but if you're paying a guy who sweeps and does dishes $7.25 an hour, you're taking advantage of that guy, and you better believe that if the minimum wage were $5 an hour, those who are now paying $7.25 an hour would suddenly decide "their jobs were only worth $5 an hour"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why don't ALL jobs pay minimum wage then? If a company can simply arbitrarily decide what to pay their employees then all jobs should be minimum wage right? I mean that makes the most sense for the company doesn't it? Why ever pay people more than the minimum if a company is only out to "take advantage" of it's employees?
Click to expand...


What is missing from the equation is the supply and demand factor.  If you have thousands or milllions of people out of work, the employer 1) has fewer customers for his/her product or service and 2) has many more people to choose from who are willing to work for less which helps offset the loss of income due to fewer customers.  In times of high unemployment, wages will suffer.  And also it is a cinch to hire more temp workers and utilize part timers more.

But when the economy is strong and there is full employment, you may not be able to hire a part timer or temp employee with the skill sets or temperament or work ethic you need on short notice.  So the trend will be to hire the best people you can get on a full time basis and you pay them what you have to pay them to keep them.

The key is not to artificially raise wages.  The key is to promote and implement policy that encourages full employment.  And that takes care of the problem quite nicely.


----------



## Mathbud1

What minimum wage laws really do is tell workers, "you cannot get any job unless that job is worth at least x amount." and tell employers, "you cannot offer any job unless that job is worth x amount."

Don't kid yourself. If a job is not worth at least the minimum wage to a company that job won't be offered. If the company determines that having the floors swept and dishes done is worth $7.25 and the minimum wage is raised to $9, they won't offer a sweep-the-floors-and-do-dishes position anymore. They will offer a sweep-the-floors-do-the-dishes-cook-the-food--and-take-out-the-garbage position. And if that means there used to be two jobs and now there is just one, so be it.


----------



## Mathbud1

Foxfyre said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> The minimum wage itself is already an artificial value, so your argument is a non starter unless of course you can prove that those making minimum wage are paid so becuase that is what their job is worth. And of course you can not do that because there is no one here who believes that different jobs across different industries across different states just so happen to be worth the same amount per hour.
> 
> The minimum wage was NEVER meant to reflect what a job is worth to employers. Instead it intended to do exactly the opposite. The minimum wage law recognizes that companies will if given the chance take advantage of lower skilled employees and that the federal government will set a floor level of how much they can take advantage of them.
> 
> I'm sorry, but if you're paying a guy who sweeps and does dishes $7.25 an hour, you're taking advantage of that guy, and you better believe that if the minimum wage were $5 an hour, those who are now paying $7.25 an hour would suddenly decide "their jobs were only worth $5 an hour"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why don't ALL jobs pay minimum wage then? If a company can simply arbitrarily decide what to pay their employees then all jobs should be minimum wage right? I mean that makes the most sense for the company doesn't it? Why ever pay people more than the minimum if a company is only out to "take advantage" of it's employees?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is missing from the equation is the supply and demand factor.  If you have thousands or milllions of people out of work, the employer 1) has fewer customers for his/her product or service and 2) has many more people to choose from who are willing to work for less which helps offset the loss of income due to fewer customers.  In times of high unemployment, wages will suffer.  And also it is a cinch to hire more temp workers and utilize part timers more.
> 
> But when the economy is strong and there is full employment, you may not be able to hire a part timer or temp employee with the skill sets or temperament or work ethic you need on short notice.  So the trend will be to hire the best people you can get on a full time basis and you pay them what you have to pay them to keep them.
> 
> The key is not to artificially raise wages.  The key is to promote and implement policy that encourages full employment.  And that takes care of the problem quite nicely.
Click to expand...


My point was that wages are not arbitrarily set by companies. If companies could arbitrarily set wages wherever they wanted they would simply set ALL wages to $0 and have $0 cost for labor. That would be fantastic for their profit margin. Of course that is an imaginary world that doesn't exist since no worker values their effort at $0.


----------



## BillyZane

Mathbud1 said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It really isn't a catch 22 though. What you are doing when you raise the minimum wage is artificially trying to make people's work worth more. The problem is it isn't actually worth more. It isn't benefiting the company more so they can't afford to pay more for it. It it hurts business, which hurts the economy.
> 
> Even if there was more money out there right away for people to spend, how many companies are in industries that will see an increase in profits quickly? You can't assume that everyone will just buy more of everything. The people who ARE already meeting their minimum needs probably won't buy more at all. They'll stick it in savings.
> 
> So now you've got all these businesses who HAVE to pay their employees more but since they are in a non-necessity segment of the market they probably won't see any boost to profits to offset the added cost. Then, these businesses' buying power is decreased because their profits are cut, so they can't buy as much from other businesses.
> 
> The small businesses that somehow managed to survive this economy aren't ready to take another hit like this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The minimum wage itself is already an artificial value, so your argument is a non starter unless of course you can prove that those making minimum wage are paid so becuase that is what their job is worth. And of course you can not do that because there is no one here who believes that different jobs across different industries across different states just so happen to be worth the same amount per hour.
> 
> The minimum wage was NEVER meant to reflect what a job is worth to employers. Instead it intended to do exactly the opposite. The minimum wage law recognizes that companies will if given the chance take advantage of lower skilled employees and that the federal government will set a floor level of how much they can take advantage of them.
> 
> I'm sorry, but if you're paying a guy who sweeps and does dishes $7.25 an hour, you're taking advantage of that guy, and you better believe that if the minimum wage were $5 an hour, those who are now paying $7.25 an hour would suddenly decide "their jobs were only worth $5 an hour"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why don't ALL jobs pay minimum wage then? If a company can simply arbitrarily decide what to pay their employees then all jobs should be minimum wage right? I mean that makes the most sense for the company doesn't it? Why ever pay people more than the minimum if a company is only out to "take advantage" of it's employees?
Click to expand...


Simple

Because not all workers are lower level workers, nor are all jobs lower level jobs.

The minimum wage recognizes this and ONLY mandates a minimum. Notice there is no law protecting CEO wages, because CEOs don't get taken advantage of.

That is after all the purpose of the law, to protect the weak. Nothing more.


----------



## Foxfyre

BillyZane said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> The minimum wage itself is already an artificial value, so your argument is a non starter unless of course you can prove that those making minimum wage are paid so becuase that is what their job is worth. And of course you can not do that because there is no one here who believes that different jobs across different industries across different states just so happen to be worth the same amount per hour.
> 
> The minimum wage was NEVER meant to reflect what a job is worth to employers. Instead it intended to do exactly the opposite. The minimum wage law recognizes that companies will if given the chance take advantage of lower skilled employees and that the federal government will set a floor level of how much they can take advantage of them.
> 
> I'm sorry, but if you're paying a guy who sweeps and does dishes $7.25 an hour, you're taking advantage of that guy, and you better believe that if the minimum wage were $5 an hour, those who are now paying $7.25 an hour would suddenly decide "their jobs were only worth $5 an hour"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why don't ALL jobs pay minimum wage then? If a company can simply arbitrarily decide what to pay their employees then all jobs should be minimum wage right? I mean that makes the most sense for the company doesn't it? Why ever pay people more than the minimum if a company is only out to "take advantage" of it's employees?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simple
> 
> Because not all workers are lower level workers, nor are all jobs lower level jobs.
> 
> The minimum wage recognizes this and ONLY mandates a minimum. Notice there is no law protecting CEO wages, because CEOs don't get taken advantage of.
> 
> That is after all the purpose of the law, to protect the weak. Nothing more.
Click to expand...


How does shutting the 'weak' out of the job market altogether help them in any way?   Why not allow those 'weak' an opportunity to develop a work ethic, learn and develop marketable skills, and acquire references so they will no longer be 'weak' but rather have qualified themselves to merit a living wage?


----------



## BillyZane

Mathbud1 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why don't ALL jobs pay minimum wage then? If a company can simply arbitrarily decide what to pay their employees then all jobs should be minimum wage right? I mean that makes the most sense for the company doesn't it? Why ever pay people more than the minimum if a company is only out to "take advantage" of it's employees?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is missing from the equation is the supply and demand factor.  If you have thousands or milllions of people out of work, the employer 1) has fewer customers for his/her product or service and 2) has many more people to choose from who are willing to work for less which helps offset the loss of income due to fewer customers.  In times of high unemployment, wages will suffer.  And also it is a cinch to hire more temp workers and utilize part timers more.
> 
> But when the economy is strong and there is full employment, you may not be able to hire a part timer or temp employee with the skill sets or temperament or work ethic you need on short notice.  So the trend will be to hire the best people you can get on a full time basis and you pay them what you have to pay them to keep them.
> 
> The key is not to artificially raise wages.  The key is to promote and implement policy that encourages full employment.  And that takes care of the problem quite nicely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point was that wages are not arbitrarily set by companies. If companies could arbitrarily set wages wherever they wanted they would simply set ALL wages to $0 and have $0 cost for labor. That would be fantastic for their profit margin. Of course that is an imaginary world that doesn't exist since no worker values their effort at $0.
Click to expand...


Of course not at zero, but the line that lower level employees could be taken advantage of sans government intervention is a LOT lower than it is with government intervention.

Meaning if there were no minimum wage or say over time laws, there would be people working for $5 an hour working 70 or more hours a week for cheap ass employers and they wouldn't have a choice, because $5 an hour is certainly better than zero an hour and if they refused to work the unpaid overtime they would be fired.

Or perhaps we could return to the days of company towns where a person was paid in script and at the end of the week they were actually in debt to their employer.

The notion that a min wage law isn't needed is just stupid.


----------



## BillyZane

Foxfyre said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why don't ALL jobs pay minimum wage then? If a company can simply arbitrarily decide what to pay their employees then all jobs should be minimum wage right? I mean that makes the most sense for the company doesn't it? Why ever pay people more than the minimum if a company is only out to "take advantage" of it's employees?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple
> 
> Because not all workers are lower level workers, nor are all jobs lower level jobs.
> 
> The minimum wage recognizes this and ONLY mandates a minimum. Notice there is no law protecting CEO wages, because CEOs don't get taken advantage of.
> 
> That is after all the purpose of the law, to protect the weak. Nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does shutting the 'weak' out of the job market altogether help them in any way?
Click to expand...


who's shut out of the job market?

You live in fantasy land if you actually believe that the local mcdonalds would hire more people if the min wage were just removed.

They wouldn't  They staff at a certain level and if their labor costs went down due to lower wages then they would love that , it would mean more profit for them.

I actually own 2 businesses and guess what, I hire exactly as many people as I need to get the job done, and none of my employees make near the minimum wage.

If I need 5 people to run a shift, I hire 5 people I don't say hey I could afford a 6th person here and likewise if I NEED that 6th person, I need him and I don't put off hiring him or her because of the wages. Either I need him or I don't.


----------



## Spoonman

candycorn said:


> Papawx3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> About 3% of all workers make minimum wage.  Raising it a few bucks over four years will do nothing to injure anyone.  Come off of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you fail to understand is that for every minimum wage worker in any "private sector" organization, there are several more further up that corporate ladder who worked their way up from that same minimum wage job and pay scale.
> If you raise the minimum wage worker from his present $8.25 level up to $15.00 per hour, then you also have to similarly raise the wages of every one of those who are above him/her.   In order to make up for all those wage increases, you then have to raise the price of your company's product or service.  The higher you raise the prices of your products or services then the greater the chances are that you will price yourself out of the range of your customer's affordability and thus your company's competitiveness in the marketplace.   Soon, you will price yourself right out of business.
> In short, you can't afford to run a business if you have to pay your employees more than for what you can market your product or service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Company A is a t 1234 Main Street.  Sells Widgets. Has 10 employees.  When the FMW rises, 2 of the employees will be forcibly paid more due to the FMW being raised.  Lets say it raises their pay by $1.00.
> 
> Company B is at 1235 Main Street.  Also sells Widgets.  Also has 10 employees.  When the FMW rises, 2 of the employees will be forcibly paid more due to the FMW being raised. It also raises their pay by a buck.
> 
> The only thing that is changed is that the business owners now must react; do they take a lower profit of margin, do they try to make up the $2/hr by raising prices or being more efficient elsewhere?
> 
> Company A has no advantage and neither does company B.
Click to expand...


and what they do naturally is increase their prices.  so now everyone pays the increased prices, not just the handfull of people who get the slight raise.   all off a sudden goods across the board cost more so people get less for what they spend.  so in effect it hurts the economy.  it doens't put all of this extra cash put there all of a sudden like libs are claiming.  it actually makes spendable money less available because everyone takes a hit on the price increases.


----------



## Spoonman

BillyZane said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simple
> 
> Because not all workers are lower level workers, nor are all jobs lower level jobs.
> 
> The minimum wage recognizes this and ONLY mandates a minimum. Notice there is no law protecting CEO wages, because CEOs don't get taken advantage of.
> 
> That is after all the purpose of the law, to protect the weak. Nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does shutting the 'weak' out of the job market altogether help them in any way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> who's shut out of the job market?
> 
> You live in fantasy land if you actually believe that the local mcdonalds would hire more people if the min wage were just removed.
> 
> They wouldn't  They staff at a certain level and if their labor costs went down due to lower wages then they would love that , it would mean more profit for them.
> 
> I actually own 2 businesses and guess what, I hire exactly as many people as I need to get the job done, and none of my employees make near the minimum wage.
> 
> If I need 5 people to run a shift, I hire 5 people I don't say hey I could afford a 6th person here and likewise if I NEED that 6th person, I need him and I don't put off hiring him or her because of the wages. Either I need him or I don't.
Click to expand...


so you are trying to tell us if wages go up you don't raise your prices?


----------



## BillyZane

Spoonman said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papawx3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you fail to understand is that for every minimum wage worker in any "private sector" organization, there are several more further up that corporate ladder who worked their way up from that same minimum wage job and pay scale.
> If you raise the minimum wage worker from his present $8.25 level up to $15.00 per hour, then you also have to similarly raise the wages of every one of those who are above him/her.   In order to make up for all those wage increases, you then have to raise the price of your company's product or service.  The higher you raise the prices of your products or services then the greater the chances are that you will price yourself out of the range of your customer's affordability and thus your company's competitiveness in the marketplace.   Soon, you will price yourself right out of business.
> In short, you can't afford to run a business if you have to pay your employees more than for what you can market your product or service.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Company A is a t 1234 Main Street.  Sells Widgets. Has 10 employees.  When the FMW rises, 2 of the employees will be forcibly paid more due to the FMW being raised.  Lets say it raises their pay by $1.00.
> 
> Company B is at 1235 Main Street.  Also sells Widgets.  Also has 10 employees.  When the FMW rises, 2 of the employees will be forcibly paid more due to the FMW being raised. It also raises their pay by a buck.
> 
> The only thing that is changed is that the business owners now must react; do they take a lower profit of margin, do they try to make up the $2/hr by raising prices or being more efficient elsewhere?
> 
> Company A has no advantage and neither does company B.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and what they do naturally is increase their prices.  so now everyone pays the increased prices, not just the handfull of people who get the slight raise.   all off a sudden goods across the board cost more so people get less for what they spend.  so in effect it hurts the economy.  it doens't put all of this extra cash put there all of a sudden like libs are claiming.  it actually makes spendable money less available because everyone takes a hit on the price increases.
Click to expand...


I've looked at various studies and figures which all show about a 2% increase in prices for every 20% raise in the minimum wage.

And again, the reason is simple. Any company worth a crap is already charging as much for their products as their customers are willing to pay, or very close to it anyway.


----------



## Mathbud1

BillyZane said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Company A is a t 1234 Main Street.  Sells Widgets. Has 10 employees.  When the FMW rises, 2 of the employees will be forcibly paid more due to the FMW being raised.  Lets say it raises their pay by $1.00.
> 
> Company B is at 1235 Main Street.  Also sells Widgets.  Also has 10 employees.  When the FMW rises, 2 of the employees will be forcibly paid more due to the FMW being raised. It also raises their pay by a buck.
> 
> The only thing that is changed is that the business owners now must react; do they take a lower profit of margin, do they try to make up the $2/hr by raising prices or being more efficient elsewhere?
> 
> Company A has no advantage and neither does company B.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and what they do naturally is increase their prices.  so now everyone pays the increased prices, not just the handfull of people who get the slight raise.   all off a sudden goods across the board cost more so people get less for what they spend.  so in effect it hurts the economy.  it doens't put all of this extra cash put there all of a sudden like libs are claiming.  it actually makes spendable money less available because everyone takes a hit on the price increases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've looked at various studies and figures which all show about a 2% increase in prices for every 20% raise in the minimum wage.
> 
> And again, the reason is simple. Any company worth a crap is already charging as much for their products as their customers are willing to pay, or very close to it anyway.
Click to expand...


So if they can't raise their prices because customers won't tolerate it how do they offset the increased cost?


----------



## BillyZane

Mathbud1 said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> and what they do naturally is increase their prices.  so now everyone pays the increased prices, not just the handfull of people who get the slight raise.   all off a sudden goods across the board cost more so people get less for what they spend.  so in effect it hurts the economy.  it doens't put all of this extra cash put there all of a sudden like libs are claiming.  it actually makes spendable money less available because everyone takes a hit on the price increases.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've looked at various studies and figures which all show about a 2% increase in prices for every 20% raise in the minimum wage.
> 
> And again, the reason is simple. Any company worth a crap is already charging as much for their products as their customers are willing to pay, or very close to it anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if they can't raise their prices because customers won't tolerate it how do they offset the increased cost?
Click to expand...


Again simple.

Out of their own profits. The same way I , or any other businessperson, must do when our costs rise but we can't raise prices else we'd price ourselves out of the market. Yes it,s a fine line, and say $15 would upset that balance, but $10 would not.


----------



## Spoonman

BillyZane said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Company A is a t 1234 Main Street.  Sells Widgets. Has 10 employees.  When the FMW rises, 2 of the employees will be forcibly paid more due to the FMW being raised.  Lets say it raises their pay by $1.00.
> 
> Company B is at 1235 Main Street.  Also sells Widgets.  Also has 10 employees.  When the FMW rises, 2 of the employees will be forcibly paid more due to the FMW being raised. It also raises their pay by a buck.
> 
> The only thing that is changed is that the business owners now must react; do they take a lower profit of margin, do they try to make up the $2/hr by raising prices or being more efficient elsewhere?
> 
> Company A has no advantage and neither does company B.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and what they do naturally is increase their prices.  so now everyone pays the increased prices, not just the handfull of people who get the slight raise.   all off a sudden goods across the board cost more so people get less for what they spend.  so in effect it hurts the economy.  it doens't put all of this extra cash put there all of a sudden like libs are claiming.  it actually makes spendable money less available because everyone takes a hit on the price increases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've looked at various studies and figures which all show about a 2% increase in prices for every 20% raise in the minimum wage.
> 
> And again, the reason is simple. Any company worth a crap is already charging as much for their products as their customers are willing to pay, or very close to it anyway.
Click to expand...


and any company worth a crap maintains their profit margine.  When SGA or materials rise, so will the selling cost of the goods. if its a publicly held company, the street will damand it.   even if costs only rose by 2% that 2% hits the majority of the people who did not just get a wage increase with the increase in minimum wage


----------



## Spoonman

BillyZane said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've looked at various studies and figures which all show about a 2% increase in prices for every 20% raise in the minimum wage.
> 
> And again, the reason is simple. Any company worth a crap is already charging as much for their products as their customers are willing to pay, or very close to it anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if they can't raise their prices because customers won't tolerate it how do they offset the increased cost?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again simple.
> 
> Out of their own profits. The same way I , or any other businessperson, must do when our costs rise but we can't raise prices else we'd price ourselves out of the market. Yes it,s a fine line, and say $15 would upset that balance, but $10 would not.
Click to expand...


no, they cut SG&A.  something gives.   why do you think you see so many layoffs in a tough economy?  people aren't absorbing the losses with their profits.


----------



## Mathbud1

BillyZane said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've looked at various studies and figures which all show about a 2% increase in prices for every 20% raise in the minimum wage.
> 
> And again, the reason is simple. Any company worth a crap is already charging as much for their products as their customers are willing to pay, or very close to it anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if they can't raise their prices because customers won't tolerate it how do they offset the increased cost?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again simple.
> 
> Out of their own profits. The same way I , or any other businessperson, must do when our costs rise but we can't raise prices else we'd price ourselves out of the market. Yes it,s a fine line, and say $15 would upset that balance, but $10 would not.
Click to expand...


So companies take less profit, or they pass the cost on to consumers. Companies that take a hit to profit will be less able to grow and provide future jobs. Then, either companies that opted to pass on the cost will see a decrease in sales or consumer purchasing power will be reduced because they had to pay more.

Since the companies that can get away with charging more are probably the necessity-goods providers, the companies that offer non-necessity-goods, who are probably the ones who took a hit to profit to keep prices down, take another hit because the consumer has less non-necessity money left after paying the increased prices of the necessities.

At best, if workers are taking more money home they end up paying more for the necessities, non-necessity businesses eat the loss and don't grow as fast, and nobody really benefits.


----------



## BillyZane

Spoonman said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if they can't raise their prices because customers won't tolerate it how do they offset the increased cost?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again simple.
> 
> Out of their own profits. The same way I , or any other businessperson, must do when our costs rise but we can't raise prices else we'd price ourselves out of the market. Yes it,s a fine line, and say $15 would upset that balance, but $10 would not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no, they cut SG&A.  something gives.   why do you think you see so many layoffs in a tough economy?  people aren't absorbing the losses with their profits.
Click to expand...


You don't see layoffs when the minimum wage goes up UNLESS sales drop to Not by well run companies.

Look at Wal Mart tried that, they switched a bunch of people to part time and destaffed but it didn't take long for them to realize that doing so cost them sales, and thus cost them more profit than if they had maintained staffing at original levels

As I said, I have 2 businesses. and in each I staff to sales, not to a predetermined profit margin.  I don't pay minimum wage, so that doesn't affect me, but I DO give y people raises on a regular basis, and when I do I don't let another employee go or raise prices I just accept the extra cost of doing business and go on. Eventually over time when many wages have risen a certain amount then yes of course I have to raise my prices, but I don't do it every time a wage increases. 

Of course I also recognize that there are lots of greedy people out there who will try to raise prices far in excess of the increase to their costs, but that's their problem


----------



## Spoonman

BillyZane said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again simple.
> 
> Out of their own profits. The same way I , or any other businessperson, must do when our costs rise but we can't raise prices else we'd price ourselves out of the market. Yes it,s a fine line, and say $15 would upset that balance, but $10 would not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no, they cut SG&A.  something gives.   why do you think you see so many layoffs in a tough economy?  people aren't absorbing the losses with their profits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't see layoffs when the minimum wage goes up UNLESS sales drop to Not by well run companies.
> 
> Look at Wal Mart tried that, they switched a bunch of people to part time and destaffed but it didn't take long for them to realize that doing so cost them sales, and thus cost them more profit than if they had maintained staffing at original levels
> 
> As I said, I have 2 businesses. and in each I staff to sales, not to a predetermined profit margin.  I don't pay minimum wage, so that doesn't affect me, but I DO give y people raises on a regular basis, and when I do I don't let another employee go or raise prices I just accept the extra cost of doing business and go on. Eventually over time when many wages have risen a certain amount then yes of course I have to raise my prices, but I don't do it every time a wage increases.
> 
> Of course I also recognize that there are lots of greedy people out there who will try to raise prices far in excess of the increase to their costs, but that's their problem
Click to expand...


now if minimum wage goes up, all of your employees are impated by the increased cost of goods, and they get no raise.  so their spending power has dimminished.   and what is the level people will pay for a product.   When cigarettes were 35 cents a pack the thought was raising them to 50 cents would be a deterent. it wasn't.  the a dollar.  same thing.  and so on and so on until people are paying up to $10 a pack now.  they never reached the limit but the threshold they did cross was making the product more attractive to steal and opening up a huge black market.


----------



## BillyZane

Mathbud1 said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if they can't raise their prices because customers won't tolerate it how do they offset the increased cost?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again simple.
> 
> Out of their own profits. The same way I , or any other businessperson, must do when our costs rise but we can't raise prices else we'd price ourselves out of the market. Yes it,s a fine line, and say $15 would upset that balance, but $10 would not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So companies take less profit, or they pass the cost on to consumers. Companies that take a hit to profit will be less able to grow and provide future jobs. Then, either companies that opted to pass on the cost will see a decrease in sales or consumer purchasing power will be reduced because they had to pay more.
> 
> Since the companies that can get away with charging more are probably the necessity-goods providers, the companies that offer non-necessity-goods, who are probably the ones who took a hit to profit to keep prices down, take another hit because the consumer has less non-necessity money left after paying the increased prices of the necessities.
> 
> At best, if workers are taking more money home they end up paying more for the necessities, non-necessity businesses eat the loss and don't grow as fast, and nobody really benefits.
Click to expand...


Please point to one increase in the federal minimum wage which has caused anything close to what you suggest. 

What you and others fail to admit is that the minimum wage has NOT kept up with costs. It simply hasn't . It's worth 77% of what it was just 25 years ago. 

It's worth 60% of what it was in 1968, and I would dare say that United States was in a far better position economically in 1968 then we are today.

Now, on the other hand, I believe that any increase in the minimum wage should be fully coupled with a decrease in taxes since raising wages should lower the number of people eligible for welfare, and yes I would insist that the welfare threshold remain where it is.

The math is simple, add $4000 roughly to the minimum wage earners salary and then take away $3000 or whatever in welfare that they are no longer eligible for , then at least spend that money paying down the debt if you're not going to return it to the taxpayers.


----------



## Foxfyre

Spoonman said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if they can't raise their prices because customers won't tolerate it how do they offset the increased cost?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again simple.
> 
> Out of their own profits. The same way I , or any other businessperson, must do when our costs rise but we can't raise prices else we'd price ourselves out of the market. Yes it,s a fine line, and say $15 would upset that balance, but $10 would not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no, they cut SG&A.  something gives.   why do you think you see so many layoffs in a tough economy?  people aren't absorbing the losses with their profits.
Click to expand...


In order to have personal freedom without the headaches of corporate or office politics, etc., many of us small business owners run small businesses for profits that may be no better than or sometimes even less than what we could earn working for wages.  But there still has to be a reasonable rate of return when we are risking most or all of our assets, and if the business owner isn't putting some of the profit back into the business, it is a rare business that will survive.  When the costs of doing business outweigh the opportunity for profit, there isn't much point in doing business.  And when the business owner folds up his tent, all those jobs go away.  

Expecting a business to absorb much higher costs via lower profits is not realistic or practical or good business, and it ain't gonna happen.

Just as there is a ripple effect that benefits all or most when one segment begins to prosper, there is a converse negative ripple effect when one segment begins to falter.  The service sector is a valid component of the economy, much more so than is actually optimun for a healthy economy, and it is almost all very labor intensive, and a huge percentage of it is in the non-critical or non-essential sector.  Make that service more expensive than customers are willing to pay and a whole lot of those customers will decide they just can't afford that service any more.  So those service jobs go away, there are fewer customers for the non-service sector, and those jobs suffer too.

In Australia, the minimum wage is like $15/hour.  Australians like that.  But they don't like the reduced hours many of them now work because employers just can't work them full time at that wage.  The same things happens in America when you make wages more than the profit margins of the business can bear.

It is all relative.  And we have to look at the whole big picture and see all the benefits and all the consequences of the policies we implement.


----------



## Mathbud1

BillyZane said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again simple.
> 
> Out of their own profits. The same way I , or any other businessperson, must do when our costs rise but we can't raise prices else we'd price ourselves out of the market. Yes it,s a fine line, and say $15 would upset that balance, but $10 would not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So companies take less profit, or they pass the cost on to consumers. Companies that take a hit to profit will be less able to grow and provide future jobs. Then, either companies that opted to pass on the cost will see a decrease in sales or consumer purchasing power will be reduced because they had to pay more.
> 
> Since the companies that can get away with charging more are probably the necessity-goods providers, the companies that offer non-necessity-goods, who are probably the ones who took a hit to profit to keep prices down, take another hit because the consumer has less non-necessity money left after paying the increased prices of the necessities.
> 
> At best, if workers are taking more money home they end up paying more for the necessities, non-necessity businesses eat the loss and don't grow as fast, and nobody really benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please point to one increase in the federal minimum wage which has caused anything close to what you suggest.
> 
> What you and others fail to admit is that the minimum wage has NOT kept up with costs. It simply hasn't . It's worth 77% of what it was just 25 years ago.
> 
> It's worth 60% of what it was in 1968, and I would dare say that United States was in a far better position economically in 1968 then we are today.
> 
> Now, on the other hand, I believe that any increase in the minimum wage should be fully coupled with a decrease in taxes since raising wages should lower the number of people eligible for welfare, and yes I would insist that the welfare threshold remain where it is.
> 
> The math is simple, add $4000 roughly to the minimum wage earners salary and then take away $3000 or whatever in welfare that they are no longer eligible for , then at least spend that money paying down the debt if you're not going to return it to the taxpayers.
Click to expand...


Do you know what happens when you are flying an airplane and change your heading by a small amount? Not much up front. Small change, small effect. When you get to the other side of the country? "Wait, I'm in Florida? I was going to New York though."

Just because there is no dramatic immediate effect does not mean that the overall effect could not be massive.

Also, when these other increases happened, was the economic situation the same as it is today?


----------



## Papawx3

Mathbud1 said:


> What minimum wage laws really do is tell workers, "you cannot get any job unless that job is worth at least x amount." and tell employers, "you cannot offer any job unless that job is worth x amount."
> 
> Don't kid yourself. If a job is not worth at least the minimum wage to a company that job won't be offered. If the company determines that having the floors swept and dishes done is worth $7.25 and the minimum wage is raised to $9, they won't offer a sweep-the-floors-and-do-dishes position anymore. They will offer a sweep-the-floors-do-the-dishes-cook-the-food--and-take-out-the-garbage position. And if that means there used to be two jobs and now there is just one, so be it.



Again, I have to add the question of what happens to the guy who used to sweep the floors and take out the garbage and only a few months ago was promoted from that position to that of waiter, bartender or other customer service related position and is NOW getting paid $9 per hour?  And the head waiter whom he replaced and is now making $11 per hour?  And the manager who also moved up the ladder and is now making $13 or $14.00 an hour?  Do you expect for all these people to sit on their hands and not say a thing about the lower-level guy who just got a huge pay raise just because some politician says he should?
It's not ever a simple as giving a new guy a couple of extra bucks in his paycheck.  It's NEVER that easy.


----------



## Spoonman

Foxfyre said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again simple.
> 
> Out of their own profits. The same way I , or any other businessperson, must do when our costs rise but we can't raise prices else we'd price ourselves out of the market. Yes it,s a fine line, and say $15 would upset that balance, but $10 would not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no, they cut SG&A.  something gives.   why do you think you see so many layoffs in a tough economy?  people aren't absorbing the losses with their profits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In order to have personal freedom without the headaches of corporate or office politics, etc., many of us small business owners run small businesses for profits that may be no better than or sometimes even less than what we could earn working for wages.  But there still has to be a reasonable rate of return when we are risking most or all of our assets, and if the business owner isn't putting some of the profit back into the business, it is a rare business that will survive.  When the costs of doing business outweigh the opportunity for profit, there isn't much point in doing business.  And when the business owner folds up his tent, all those jobs go away.
> 
> Expecting a business to absorb much higher costs via lower profits is not realistic or practical or good business, and it ain't gonna happen.
> 
> Just as there is a ripple effect that benefits all or most when one segment begins to prosper, there is a converse negative ripple effect when one segment begins to falter.  The service sector is a valid component of the economy, much more so than is actually optimun for a healthy economy, and it is almost all very labor intensive, and a huge percentage of it is in the non-critical or non-essential sector.  Make that service more expensive than customers are willing to pay and a whole lot of those customers will decide they just can't afford that service any more.  So those service jobs go away, there are fewer customers for the non-service sector, and those jobs suffer too.
> 
> In Australia, the minimum wage is like $15/hour.  Australians like that.  But they don't like the reduced hours many of them now work because employers just can't work them full time at that wage.  The same things happens in America when you make wages more than the profit margins of the business can bear.
> 
> It is all relative.  And we have to look at the whole big picture and see all the benefits and all the consequences of the policies we implement.
Click to expand...


right, and today, especially still in the midst of a 7 year recession any business is already running lean.  they don't have much room to absorb.  it is one thing to suggest raising the minimum wage in a strong economy, when companies may have strong margins and room to work.  but when businesses are already failing right and left, companies are struggling to stay afloat, unemployment is high, inflation is already taxing consumer spending, it is absolutely absurd.


----------



## Spoonman

BillyZane said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again simple.
> 
> Out of their own profits. The same way I , or any other businessperson, must do when our costs rise but we can't raise prices else we'd price ourselves out of the market. Yes it,s a fine line, and say $15 would upset that balance, but $10 would not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So companies take less profit, or they pass the cost on to consumers. Companies that take a hit to profit will be less able to grow and provide future jobs. Then, either companies that opted to pass on the cost will see a decrease in sales or consumer purchasing power will be reduced because they had to pay more.
> 
> Since the companies that can get away with charging more are probably the necessity-goods providers, the companies that offer non-necessity-goods, who are probably the ones who took a hit to profit to keep prices down, take another hit because the consumer has less non-necessity money left after paying the increased prices of the necessities.
> 
> At best, if workers are taking more money home they end up paying more for the necessities, non-necessity businesses eat the loss and don't grow as fast, and nobody really benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please point to one increase in the federal minimum wage which has caused anything close to what you suggest.
> 
> What you and others fail to admit is that the minimum wage has NOT kept up with costs. It simply hasn't . It's worth 77% of what it was just 25 years ago.
> 
> It's worth 60% of what it was in 1968, and I would dare say that United States was in a far better position economically in 1968 then we are today.
> 
> Now, on the other hand, I believe that any increase in the minimum wage should be fully coupled with a decrease in taxes since raising wages should lower the number of people eligible for welfare, and yes I would insist that the welfare threshold remain where it is.
> 
> The math is simple, add $4000 roughly to the minimum wage earners salary and then take away $3000 or whatever in welfare that they are no longer eligible for , then at least spend that money paying down the debt if you're not going to return it to the taxpayers.
Click to expand...


don't forget to also take away their obamacare subsidies.  these people will be spending more than they make


----------



## BillyZane

Spoonman said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> no, they cut SG&A.  something gives.   why do you think you see so many layoffs in a tough economy?  people aren't absorbing the losses with their profits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see layoffs when the minimum wage goes up UNLESS sales drop to Not by well run companies.
> 
> Look at Wal Mart tried that, they switched a bunch of people to part time and destaffed but it didn't take long for them to realize that doing so cost them sales, and thus cost them more profit than if they had maintained staffing at original levels
> 
> As I said, I have 2 businesses. and in each I staff to sales, not to a predetermined profit margin.  I don't pay minimum wage, so that doesn't affect me, but I DO give y people raises on a regular basis, and when I do I don't let another employee go or raise prices I just accept the extra cost of doing business and go on. Eventually over time when many wages have risen a certain amount then yes of course I have to raise my prices, but I don't do it every time a wage increases.
> 
> Of course I also recognize that there are lots of greedy people out there who will try to raise prices far in excess of the increase to their costs, but that's their problem
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> now if minimum wage goes up, all of your employees are impated by the increased cost of goods, and they get no raise.  so their spending power has dimminished.   and what is the level people will pay for a product.   When cigarettes were 35 cents a pack the thought was raising them to 50 cents would be a deterent. it wasn't.  the a dollar.  same thing.  and so on and so on until people are paying up to $10 a pack now.  they never reached the limit but the threshold they did cross was making the product more attractive to steal and opening up a huge black market.
Click to expand...


Uh huh. Meanwhile the minimum wage has actually DECREASED over the years (in real value) and yet prices have sky rocketed.

Let's look at McD for a moment, and I only choose them because the data is so easily obtained.

In 1964 the min wage was $1.25 an hour and McD was selling cheeseburgers for $.15

The Food Timeline--historic food prices
Federal Minimum Wage Rates, 1955?2013 | Infoplease.com

That means a person could work at McD and buy 8.34 cheeseburgers for every hour worked (before taxes)

Today the min wage is $7.25 and McD gets $1.10 for a cheeseburger. Meaning of course that before taxes a person could buy 6.59 cheeseburgers per hour worked.

And of course add into that that up until say the last 7 or so years, fast foods routinely let their employees have a free meal while working, but have taken that away as well in order to increase their own profits.


So I like to look at real dollars.

CPI Inflation Calculator

Using this tool we see that McDonalds burgers actually cost the same in 2013 as they did in 1964 because $1.10 today is the equal of $.15 in 1964.

But if we look at wages we see that McD is only paying $.96 per hour while selling $.15 cheeseburgers compared $1.25 an hour while selling $.15 cheeseburgers in 1964.

No matter how you look at it the crying that prices will increase if wages are increased is bunk because prices have currently remained constant over the years while wages have DECREASED. And I'm quite sure that if we looked at other business models over that time frame we would see the same.

I'd rather someone honestly admitted that they just don't care about poor people then see them try to justify the current minimum wage or worse try to claim that doing away with the minimum wage would help any workers.


----------



## Mathbud1

Papawx3 said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What minimum wage laws really do is tell workers, "you cannot get any job unless that job is worth at least x amount." and tell employers, "you cannot offer any job unless that job is worth x amount."
> 
> Don't kid yourself. If a job is not worth at least the minimum wage to a company that job won't be offered. If the company determines that having the floors swept and dishes done is worth $7.25 and the minimum wage is raised to $9, they won't offer a sweep-the-floors-and-do-dishes position anymore. They will offer a sweep-the-floors-do-the-dishes-cook-the-food--and-take-out-the-garbage position. And if that means there used to be two jobs and now there is just one, so be it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I have to add the question of what happens to the guy who used to sweep the floors and take out the garbage and only a few months ago was promoted from that position to that of waiter, bartender or other customer service related position and is NOW getting paid $9 per hour?  And the head waiter whom he replaced and is now making $11 per hour?  And the manager who also moved up the ladder and is now making $13 or $14.00 an hour?  Do you expect for all these people to sit on their hands and not say a thing about the lower-level guy who just got a huge pay raise just because some politician says he should?
> It's not ever a simple as giving a new guy a couple of extra bucks in his paycheck.  It's NEVER that easy.
Click to expand...


Too true. I brought the same issue up in my previous post about Bob and Sally. When Bob gets bumped up Sally's gonna want a raise too.


----------



## BillyZane

Spoonman said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> no, they cut SG&A.  something gives.   why do you think you see so many layoffs in a tough economy?  people aren't absorbing the losses with their profits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In order to have personal freedom without the headaches of corporate or office politics, etc., many of us small business owners run small businesses for profits that may be no better than or sometimes even less than what we could earn working for wages.  But there still has to be a reasonable rate of return when we are risking most or all of our assets, and if the business owner isn't putting some of the profit back into the business, it is a rare business that will survive.  When the costs of doing business outweigh the opportunity for profit, there isn't much point in doing business.  And when the business owner folds up his tent, all those jobs go away.
> 
> Expecting a business to absorb much higher costs via lower profits is not realistic or practical or good business, and it ain't gonna happen.
> 
> Just as there is a ripple effect that benefits all or most when one segment begins to prosper, there is a converse negative ripple effect when one segment begins to falter.  The service sector is a valid component of the economy, much more so than is actually optimun for a healthy economy, and it is almost all very labor intensive, and a huge percentage of it is in the non-critical or non-essential sector.  Make that service more expensive than customers are willing to pay and a whole lot of those customers will decide they just can't afford that service any more.  So those service jobs go away, there are fewer customers for the non-service sector, and those jobs suffer too.
> 
> In Australia, the minimum wage is like $15/hour.  Australians like that.  But they don't like the reduced hours many of them now work because employers just can't work them full time at that wage.  The same things happens in America when you make wages more than the profit margins of the business can bear.
> 
> It is all relative.  And we have to look at the whole big picture and see all the benefits and all the consequences of the policies we implement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> right, and today, especially still in the midst of a 7 year recession any business is already running lean.  they don't have much room to absorb.  it is one thing to suggest raising the minimum wage in a strong economy, when companies may have strong margins and room to work.  but when businesses are already failing right and left, companies are struggling to stay afloat, unemployment is high, inflation is already taxing consumer spending, it is absolutely absurd.
Click to expand...


bullshit , plain and simple. Read any economic report and you will see that profits are up nearly across the board over the last few years. The ONLY difference being that the stock holders of these corporations are the ones keeping the profits. 

Wal Mart, as an example, made $16 BILLION in PROFIT last year. No company is making anywhere near $16B in profit in a lean economy, not even one as big as Wal Mart.

20 companies that made the most - Exxon Mobil (1) - FORTUNE

lean economy my ass. You meant to say GREEDY economy.


----------



## BillyZane

Mathbud1 said:


> Papawx3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What minimum wage laws really do is tell workers, "you cannot get any job unless that job is worth at least x amount." and tell employers, "you cannot offer any job unless that job is worth x amount."
> 
> Don't kid yourself. If a job is not worth at least the minimum wage to a company that job won't be offered. If the company determines that having the floors swept and dishes done is worth $7.25 and the minimum wage is raised to $9, they won't offer a sweep-the-floors-and-do-dishes position anymore. They will offer a sweep-the-floors-do-the-dishes-cook-the-food--and-take-out-the-garbage position. And if that means there used to be two jobs and now there is just one, so be it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I have to add the question of what happens to the guy who used to sweep the floors and take out the garbage and only a few months ago was promoted from that position to that of waiter, bartender or other customer service related position and is NOW getting paid $9 per hour?  And the head waiter whom he replaced and is now making $11 per hour?  And the manager who also moved up the ladder and is now making $13 or $14.00 an hour?  Do you expect for all these people to sit on their hands and not say a thing about the lower-level guy who just got a huge pay raise just because some politician says he should?
> It's not ever a simple as giving a new guy a couple of extra bucks in his paycheck.  It's NEVER that easy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too true. I brought the same issue up in my previous post about Bob and Sally. When Bob gets bumped up Sally's gonna want a raise too.
Click to expand...


Sally can want in one hand and shit in the other for all that goes. We're ONLY discussing a government mandate here, nothing more. I don't want the government mandating what anyone above minimum wage earns. I only want them mandating a minimum wage. If you make => minimum wage you're on your own.


----------



## Spoonman

BillyZane said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see layoffs when the minimum wage goes up UNLESS sales drop to Not by well run companies.
> 
> Look at Wal Mart tried that, they switched a bunch of people to part time and destaffed but it didn't take long for them to realize that doing so cost them sales, and thus cost them more profit than if they had maintained staffing at original levels
> 
> As I said, I have 2 businesses. and in each I staff to sales, not to a predetermined profit margin.  I don't pay minimum wage, so that doesn't affect me, but I DO give y people raises on a regular basis, and when I do I don't let another employee go or raise prices I just accept the extra cost of doing business and go on. Eventually over time when many wages have risen a certain amount then yes of course I have to raise my prices, but I don't do it every time a wage increases.
> 
> Of course I also recognize that there are lots of greedy people out there who will try to raise prices far in excess of the increase to their costs, but that's their problem
> 
> 
> 
> 
> now if minimum wage goes up, all of your employees are impated by the increased cost of goods, and they get no raise.  so their spending power has dimminished.   and what is the level people will pay for a product.   When cigarettes were 35 cents a pack the thought was raising them to 50 cents would be a deterent. it wasn't.  the a dollar.  same thing.  and so on and so on until people are paying up to $10 a pack now.  they never reached the limit but the threshold they did cross was making the product more attractive to steal and opening up a huge black market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh huh. Meanwhile the minimum wage has actually DECREASED over the years (in real value) and yet prices have sky rocketed.
> 
> Let's look at McD for a moment, and I only choose them because the data is so easily obtained.
> 
> In 1964 the min wage was $1.25 an hour and McD was selling cheeseburgers for $.15
> 
> The Food Timeline--historic food prices
> Federal Minimum Wage Rates, 1955?2013 | Infoplease.com
> 
> That means a person could work at McD and buy 8.34 cheeseburgers for every hour worked (before taxes)
> 
> Today the min wage is $7.25 and McD gets $1.10 for a cheeseburger. Meaning of course that before taxes a person could buy 6.59 cheeseburgers per hour worked.
> 
> And of course add into that that up until say the last 7 or so years, fast foods routinely let their employees have a free meal while working, but have taken that away as well in order to increase their own profits.
> 
> 
> So I like to look at real dollars.
> 
> CPI Inflation Calculator
> 
> Using this tool we see that McDonalds burgers actually cost the same in 2013 as they did in 1964 because $1.10 today is the equal of $.15 in 1964.
> 
> But if we look at wages we see that McD is only paying $.96 per hour while selling $.15 cheeseburgers compared $1.25 an hour while selling $.15 cheeseburgers in 1964.
> 
> No matter how you look at it the crying that prices will increase if wages are increased is bunk because prices have currently remained constant over the years while wages have DECREASED. And I'm quite sure that if we looked at other business models over that time frame we would see the same.
> 
> I'd rather someone honestly admitted that they just don't care about poor people then see them try to justify the current minimum wage or worse try to claim that doing away with the minimum wage would help any workers.
Click to expand...


wages in general have decreased in value over time.  but now here is a key difference.  workers at minimum wage have a safety net.  entitlements. they have methods to supplement their income.  now the middle class is just forced to absorb it.  over time, they can't. and they join the ranks of those needing entitlements.   giving them a modest increase doesn not put them in a better states.  what they gain in income they lose in lost entitlements and increased costs of goods and services.


----------



## Mathbud1

BillyZane said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see layoffs when the minimum wage goes up UNLESS sales drop to Not by well run companies.
> 
> Look at Wal Mart tried that, they switched a bunch of people to part time and destaffed but it didn't take long for them to realize that doing so cost them sales, and thus cost them more profit than if they had maintained staffing at original levels
> 
> As I said, I have 2 businesses. and in each I staff to sales, not to a predetermined profit margin.  I don't pay minimum wage, so that doesn't affect me, but I DO give y people raises on a regular basis, and when I do I don't let another employee go or raise prices I just accept the extra cost of doing business and go on. Eventually over time when many wages have risen a certain amount then yes of course I have to raise my prices, but I don't do it every time a wage increases.
> 
> Of course I also recognize that there are lots of greedy people out there who will try to raise prices far in excess of the increase to their costs, but that's their problem
> 
> 
> 
> 
> now if minimum wage goes up, all of your employees are impated by the increased cost of goods, and they get no raise.  so their spending power has dimminished.   and what is the level people will pay for a product.   When cigarettes were 35 cents a pack the thought was raising them to 50 cents would be a deterent. it wasn't.  the a dollar.  same thing.  and so on and so on until people are paying up to $10 a pack now.  they never reached the limit but the threshold they did cross was making the product more attractive to steal and opening up a huge black market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh huh. Meanwhile the minimum wage has actually DECREASED over the years (in real value) and yet prices have sky rocketed.
> 
> Let's look at McD for a moment, and I only choose them because the data is so easily obtained.
> 
> In 1964 the min wage was $1.25 an hour and McD was selling cheeseburgers for $.15
> 
> The Food Timeline--historic food prices
> Federal Minimum Wage Rates, 1955?2013 | Infoplease.com
> 
> That means a person could work at McD and buy 8.34 cheeseburgers for every hour worked (before taxes)
> 
> Today the min wage is $7.25 and McD gets $1.10 for a cheeseburger. Meaning of course that before taxes a person could buy 6.59 cheeseburgers per hour worked.
> 
> And of course add into that that up until say the last 7 or so years, fast foods routinely let their employees have a free meal while working, but have taken that away as well in order to increase their own profits.
> 
> 
> So I like to look at real dollars.
> 
> CPI Inflation Calculator
> 
> Using this tool we see that McDonalds burgers actually cost the same in 2013 as they did in 1964 because $1.10 today is the equal of $.15 in 1964.
> 
> But if we look at wages we see that McD is only paying $.96 per hour while selling $.15 cheeseburgers compared $1.25 an hour while selling $.15 cheeseburgers in 1964.
> 
> No matter how you look at it the crying that prices will increase if wages are increased is bunk because prices have currently remained constant over the years while wages have DECREASED. And I'm quite sure that if we looked at other business models over that time frame we would see the same.
> 
> I'd rather someone honestly admitted that they just don't care about poor people then see them try to justify the current minimum wage or worse try to claim that doing away with the minimum wage would help any workers.
Click to expand...


Trying to look objectively at what the real impact of a change would be does not equate to not caring about poor people. If you make decisions based on emotion, chances are you are going to do more harm than good. If you INTEND to help the poor and make a decision that ultimately hurts them and everyone else you aren't being compassionate.

And if you use sob stories to guilt people into emotional action especially for political motivations you aren't being compassionate.


----------



## BillyZane

Spoonman said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> now if minimum wage goes up, all of your employees are impated by the increased cost of goods, and they get no raise.  so their spending power has dimminished.   and what is the level people will pay for a product.   When cigarettes were 35 cents a pack the thought was raising them to 50 cents would be a deterent. it wasn't.  the a dollar.  same thing.  and so on and so on until people are paying up to $10 a pack now.  they never reached the limit but the threshold they did cross was making the product more attractive to steal and opening up a huge black market.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh huh. Meanwhile the minimum wage has actually DECREASED over the years (in real value) and yet prices have sky rocketed.
> 
> Let's look at McD for a moment, and I only choose them because the data is so easily obtained.
> 
> In 1964 the min wage was $1.25 an hour and McD was selling cheeseburgers for $.15
> 
> The Food Timeline--historic food prices
> Federal Minimum Wage Rates, 1955?2013 | Infoplease.com
> 
> That means a person could work at McD and buy 8.34 cheeseburgers for every hour worked (before taxes)
> 
> Today the min wage is $7.25 and McD gets $1.10 for a cheeseburger. Meaning of course that before taxes a person could buy 6.59 cheeseburgers per hour worked.
> 
> And of course add into that that up until say the last 7 or so years, fast foods routinely let their employees have a free meal while working, but have taken that away as well in order to increase their own profits.
> 
> 
> So I like to look at real dollars.
> 
> CPI Inflation Calculator
> 
> Using this tool we see that McDonalds burgers actually cost the same in 2013 as they did in 1964 because $1.10 today is the equal of $.15 in 1964.
> 
> But if we look at wages we see that McD is only paying $.96 per hour while selling $.15 cheeseburgers compared $1.25 an hour while selling $.15 cheeseburgers in 1964.
> 
> No matter how you look at it the crying that prices will increase if wages are increased is bunk because prices have currently remained constant over the years while wages have DECREASED. And I'm quite sure that if we looked at other business models over that time frame we would see the same.
> 
> I'd rather someone honestly admitted that they just don't care about poor people then see them try to justify the current minimum wage or worse try to claim that doing away with the minimum wage would help any workers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wages in general have decreased in value over time.  but now here is a key difference.  workers at minimum wage have a safety net.  entitlements. they have methods to supplement their income.  now the middle class is just forced to absorb it.  over time, they can't. and they join the ranks of those needing entitlements.   giving them a modest increase doesn not put them in a better states.  what they gain in income they lose in lost entitlements and increased costs of goods and services.
Click to expand...


That's some twisting to justify there, but let me be blunt and frank.

I don't care if those who are too stupid to move beyond a minimum wage job survive or not. Frankly we'd be far better off if they didn't. However, I recognize that that isn't going to happen, so my alternate plan is to raise the minimum wage to $10 an hour, and push those people from being eligible for any welfare. Yes, I agree if you take someone's welfare and make them subsist, on $10 an hour, they are actually losing money per year. Don't care, all I care about is getting able bodied people off welfare.

In fact, I'll go further, I would completely end welfare for anyone who could work , but isn't. 

It should be WORK FARE. If you don't have a job, you go down to your local city hall and they assign you a job, you work it just like you would a regular job, then you get paid minimum wage tax free.  Even if you're just out scooping dog shit at the local park, at least you're trying. No more sitting at home waiting for that welfare check.

If you won't work, tough shit starve.

If you just can't physically work , then there are programs to help you and they should remain in place, however the process of qualifying for those should tighten up.

Why should we the tax payers be subsidizing a too low minimum wage? It's beyond ridiculous.


----------



## BillyZane

Mathbud1 said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> now if minimum wage goes up, all of your employees are impated by the increased cost of goods, and they get no raise.  so their spending power has dimminished.   and what is the level people will pay for a product.   When cigarettes were 35 cents a pack the thought was raising them to 50 cents would be a deterent. it wasn't.  the a dollar.  same thing.  and so on and so on until people are paying up to $10 a pack now.  they never reached the limit but the threshold they did cross was making the product more attractive to steal and opening up a huge black market.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh huh. Meanwhile the minimum wage has actually DECREASED over the years (in real value) and yet prices have sky rocketed.
> 
> Let's look at McD for a moment, and I only choose them because the data is so easily obtained.
> 
> In 1964 the min wage was $1.25 an hour and McD was selling cheeseburgers for $.15
> 
> The Food Timeline--historic food prices
> Federal Minimum Wage Rates, 1955?2013 | Infoplease.com
> 
> That means a person could work at McD and buy 8.34 cheeseburgers for every hour worked (before taxes)
> 
> Today the min wage is $7.25 and McD gets $1.10 for a cheeseburger. Meaning of course that before taxes a person could buy 6.59 cheeseburgers per hour worked.
> 
> And of course add into that that up until say the last 7 or so years, fast foods routinely let their employees have a free meal while working, but have taken that away as well in order to increase their own profits.
> 
> 
> So I like to look at real dollars.
> 
> CPI Inflation Calculator
> 
> Using this tool we see that McDonalds burgers actually cost the same in 2013 as they did in 1964 because $1.10 today is the equal of $.15 in 1964.
> 
> But if we look at wages we see that McD is only paying $.96 per hour while selling $.15 cheeseburgers compared $1.25 an hour while selling $.15 cheeseburgers in 1964.
> 
> No matter how you look at it the crying that prices will increase if wages are increased is bunk because prices have currently remained constant over the years while wages have DECREASED. And I'm quite sure that if we looked at other business models over that time frame we would see the same.
> 
> I'd rather someone honestly admitted that they just don't care about poor people then see them try to justify the current minimum wage or worse try to claim that doing away with the minimum wage would help any workers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trying to look objectively at what the real impact of a change would be does not equate to not caring about poor people. If you make decisions based on emotion, chances are you are going to do more harm than good. If you INTEND to help the poor and make a decision that ultimately hurts them and everyone else you aren't being compassionate.
> 
> And if you use sob stories to guilt people into emotional action especially for political motivations you aren't being compassionate.
Click to expand...


sob stories? I'm using facts to show you that the tax payer is subsidizing wages that are lower than they should be. Simple as that.

You meanwhile are refusing to admit that yes the minimum wage is 23% lower than it was even 25 years ago.


----------



## Politico

Programs to help. BS. Disabled people are screwed left and right in this country.


----------



## Mathbud1

BillyZane said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papawx3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I have to add the question of what happens to the guy who used to sweep the floors and take out the garbage and only a few months ago was promoted from that position to that of waiter, bartender or other customer service related position and is NOW getting paid $9 per hour?  And the head waiter whom he replaced and is now making $11 per hour?  And the manager who also moved up the ladder and is now making $13 or $14.00 an hour?  Do you expect for all these people to sit on their hands and not say a thing about the lower-level guy who just got a huge pay raise just because some politician says he should?
> It's not ever a simple as giving a new guy a couple of extra bucks in his paycheck.  It's NEVER that easy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too true. I brought the same issue up in my previous post about Bob and Sally. When Bob gets bumped up Sally's gonna want a raise too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sally can want in one hand and shit in the other for all that goes. We're ONLY discussing a government mandate here, nothing more. I don't want the government mandating what anyone above minimum wage earns. I only want them mandating a minimum wage. If you make => minimum wage you're on your own.
Click to expand...


OK! 

Let's see how long you can keep workers in jobs that used to pay above the minimum wage and don't after the change. "I know you have more responsibilities and all, but since the government didn't mandate a change for you you're stuck making the same as the people you supervise. Please don't quit though."


----------



## BillyZane

Mathbud1 said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too true. I brought the same issue up in my previous post about Bob and Sally. When Bob gets bumped up Sally's gonna want a raise too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sally can want in one hand and shit in the other for all that goes. We're ONLY discussing a government mandate here, nothing more. I don't want the government mandating what anyone above minimum wage earns. I only want them mandating a minimum wage. If you make => minimum wage you're on your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK!
> 
> Let's see how long you can keep workers in jobs that used to pay above the minimum wage and don't after the change. "I know you have more responsibilities and all, but since the government didn't mandate a change for you you're stuck making the same as the people you supervise. Please don't quit though."
Click to expand...


LOL , they won't quit and in most cases will get a raise on their own.

Look, at least try to keep your arguments sensible I mean this is supposed to be the adult area of the board is it not?

If the min wage is raised to $10 an hour , obviously anyone making less than that is going to be bumped up. I seriously doubt anyone making $15 an hour is suddenly going to get pissed and quit their jobs because they are only making $5 an hour more than the person who they were making $8 an hour more than  

But , if they choose to, hey it's a free country they can quit if they want.  Personally I'd fire any employee of mine who came to me with a whine about what another employee was making. And I mean on the spot, you're fired.


----------



## Mathbud1

BillyZane said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh huh. Meanwhile the minimum wage has actually DECREASED over the years (in real value) and yet prices have sky rocketed.
> 
> Let's look at McD for a moment, and I only choose them because the data is so easily obtained.
> 
> In 1964 the min wage was $1.25 an hour and McD was selling cheeseburgers for $.15
> 
> The Food Timeline--historic food prices
> Federal Minimum Wage Rates, 1955?2013 | Infoplease.com
> 
> That means a person could work at McD and buy 8.34 cheeseburgers for every hour worked (before taxes)
> 
> Today the min wage is $7.25 and McD gets $1.10 for a cheeseburger. Meaning of course that before taxes a person could buy 6.59 cheeseburgers per hour worked.
> 
> And of course add into that that up until say the last 7 or so years, fast foods routinely let their employees have a free meal while working, but have taken that away as well in order to increase their own profits.
> 
> 
> So I like to look at real dollars.
> 
> CPI Inflation Calculator
> 
> Using this tool we see that McDonalds burgers actually cost the same in 2013 as they did in 1964 because $1.10 today is the equal of $.15 in 1964.
> 
> But if we look at wages we see that McD is only paying $.96 per hour while selling $.15 cheeseburgers compared $1.25 an hour while selling $.15 cheeseburgers in 1964.
> 
> No matter how you look at it the crying that prices will increase if wages are increased is bunk because prices have currently remained constant over the years while wages have DECREASED. And I'm quite sure that if we looked at other business models over that time frame we would see the same.
> 
> I'd rather someone honestly admitted that they just don't care about poor people then see them try to justify the current minimum wage or worse try to claim that doing away with the minimum wage would help any workers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trying to look objectively at what the real impact of a change would be does not equate to not caring about poor people. If you make decisions based on emotion, chances are you are going to do more harm than good. If you INTEND to help the poor and make a decision that ultimately hurts them and everyone else you aren't being compassionate.
> 
> And if you use sob stories to guilt people into emotional action especially for political motivations you aren't being compassionate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sob stories? I'm using facts to show you that the tax payer is subsidizing wages that are lower than they should be. Simple as that.
> 
> You meanwhile are refusing to admit that yes the minimum wage is 23% lower than it was even 25 years ago.
Click to expand...


I did not in any way refuse to admit that the minimum wage is lower than it was 25 years ago. It is also higher, in real dollars, than it was the day it was first passed into law.

That isn't the point. The fact is, as someone just pointed out, MOST wages are worth less than they were 25 years ago.

The point is, making changes to try to adjust the minimum wage to match it's value at some arbitrary point in the past without thoroughly examining the ramifications such a change would cause is foolish and reckless.


----------



## Mathbud1

BillyZane said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sally can want in one hand and shit in the other for all that goes. We're ONLY discussing a government mandate here, nothing more. I don't want the government mandating what anyone above minimum wage earns. I only want them mandating a minimum wage. If you make => minimum wage you're on your own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK!
> 
> Let's see how long you can keep workers in jobs that used to pay above the minimum wage and don't after the change. "I know you have more responsibilities and all, but since the government didn't mandate a change for you you're stuck making the same as the people you supervise. Please don't quit though."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL , they won't quit and in most cases will get a raise on their own.
> 
> Look, at least try to keep your arguments sensible I mean this is supposed to be the adult area of the board is it not?
> 
> If the min wage is raised to $10 an hour , obviously anyone making less than that is going to be bumped up. I seriously doubt anyone making $15 an hour is suddenly going to get pissed and quit their jobs because they are only making $5 an hour more than the person who they were making $8 an hour more than
> 
> But , if they choose to, hey it's a free country they can quit if they want.  Personally I'd fire any employee of mine who came to me with a whine about what another employee was making. And I mean on the spot, you're fired.
Click to expand...


So it isn't reasonable for a supervisor who works harder, has more responsibilities and makes $10/hr to be frustrated when the people that they supervise are suddenly bumped to match them?

That is not a realistic or adult thing to consider?

I think it is you who are not being realistic. If you let the person leave as you suggest, are you going to hire the replacement at the same wage? Good luck getting anyone to work a more demanding job for the new minimum wage.


----------



## Iceweasel

itfitzme said:


> You can argue it all you want and still be wrong.  There is nothing in particular about being a "polysci professor" or an "electrician" that has any bearing on knowing "a hell of a lot more about how the real world works."   Either may or may not know "a hell of a lot more about how the real world works", depending on what they do in addition to their particular professions.  A political science professor would know a hell of a lot more about political science while an electrician would know more about being an electrician.


The polysci professor may very well not know much more than the garbage he was taught. That's why I said 'how real world works'.


> Nor does the comparison have any relevance to the question of minimum wage as neither an electrician nor a polisci professor make minimum wage.  The median annual wage for an electrician is $49,840 and that of a political science professor is about twice that, depending on other factors.


If you don't want to read then don't but don't respond to discussions that you clearly have not read. I was talking with her about trades, she brought up high school education.


> *"pay increase will jack up prices across the board," *
> 
> is not a correct statement.  There is no economic rule that requires a minimum wage pay increase to jack up prices across the board. How prices shift in response to increased labor costs depends on numerous factors including the elasticities of demand and supply as well as profit margins.  It also depends on the employment levels.


Wrong. Incorrect. Error. Try again, blah blah blah. Does that normally work for you? Yes, it raises prices across the board, how could it not? The burgers here cost more than burgers in lesser minimum wage areas. It's true in delivery, restaurant, housekeeping, anything you can think of. I've got real world experience here, not polysci horsepoop.   


> The most direct and significant factors in aggregate standard of living is the level of employment along with efficiency of production.   This is an important point.  There is simply no reason that a single individual should not be able to support their self at minimum wage.  The efficiency of production in the US and the world, has steadily increased decade after decade.  A single individual has always been able to provide for themselves, at the very least.  This seems fairly obvious.  If it were not true, the human race would have died out a long time ago.


Huh? What a bunch of fuzzy math. Adults don't stay at minimum wage, unless the economy is in the tank, like now. When it's going good you must pay more to keep them, and you raise your prices accordingly. What our ancestors did has no bearing on state or federal minimum wage laws. I don't know where you got the idea that an average ancestor could support himself, buy a house and live the equivelant standard of living of today's minimum wage recipient. That's a whole lotta if and or maybes. 


> *"it certainly was never designed to..."  *
> 
> according to whom and what?  And, where has there been anyone arguing that minimum wage should be enough to raise a family?  One article states, "Tens of millions of low-wage workers in the United States are trapped in lives of poverty."  At the very least, the minimum wage should be a livable wage for an individual.  What more it should be is open to discussion, but framing it in terms of "never designed to raise a family" is simply hyperbole. It is whatever we decide it is and, given the continued increase in efficiency, it can be more and more with each passing decade.
> 
> *"I don't care that you can't raise a family,"*
> 
> aside from just an extension of the previous hyperbole, exemplifies why there is no reason for anyone to care about you or your opinion, expecially people working for minimum wage.


You can extend comments into whatrever fantasy you want. You've already got a really good start. All that drivel was to tell me you don't care what I think? Wow. Big hat, no cattle. Read more, swagger less.


----------



## itfitzme

Iceweasel said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can argue it all you want and still be wrong.  There is nothing in particular about being a "polysci professor" or an "electrician" that has any bearing on knowing "a hell of a lot more about how the real world works."   Either may or may not know "a hell of a lot more about how the real world works", depending on what they do in addition to their particular professions.  A political science professor would know a hell of a lot more about political science while an electrician would know more about being an electrician.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The polysci professor may very well not know much more than the garbage he was taught. That's why I said 'how real world works'.
Click to expand...


The problem is that you have no clue "how the real world works."  You like to use the phrase, as if it means something.  You have no education in political science, yet have an unqualified opinion about the value of a political science eduation.

I suspect that you have no college education at well, yet have an unqualified opinion on the value of the information that is gained from a college education.  

Why is it that people that lack any clue to "how the real world works" make claims regaring "how the real world works"?


----------



## Spoonman

BillyZane said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh huh. Meanwhile the minimum wage has actually DECREASED over the years (in real value) and yet prices have sky rocketed.
> 
> Let's look at McD for a moment, and I only choose them because the data is so easily obtained.
> 
> In 1964 the min wage was $1.25 an hour and McD was selling cheeseburgers for $.15
> 
> The Food Timeline--historic food prices
> Federal Minimum Wage Rates, 1955?2013 | Infoplease.com
> 
> That means a person could work at McD and buy 8.34 cheeseburgers for every hour worked (before taxes)
> 
> Today the min wage is $7.25 and McD gets $1.10 for a cheeseburger. Meaning of course that before taxes a person could buy 6.59 cheeseburgers per hour worked.
> 
> And of course add into that that up until say the last 7 or so years, fast foods routinely let their employees have a free meal while working, but have taken that away as well in order to increase their own profits.
> 
> 
> So I like to look at real dollars.
> 
> CPI Inflation Calculator
> 
> Using this tool we see that McDonalds burgers actually cost the same in 2013 as they did in 1964 because $1.10 today is the equal of $.15 in 1964.
> 
> But if we look at wages we see that McD is only paying $.96 per hour while selling $.15 cheeseburgers compared $1.25 an hour while selling $.15 cheeseburgers in 1964.
> 
> No matter how you look at it the crying that prices will increase if wages are increased is bunk because prices have currently remained constant over the years while wages have DECREASED. And I'm quite sure that if we looked at other business models over that time frame we would see the same.
> 
> I'd rather someone honestly admitted that they just don't care about poor people then see them try to justify the current minimum wage or worse try to claim that doing away with the minimum wage would help any workers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wages in general have decreased in value over time.  but now here is a key difference.  workers at minimum wage have a safety net.  entitlements. they have methods to supplement their income.  now the middle class is just forced to absorb it.  over time, they can't. and they join the ranks of those needing entitlements.   giving them a modest increase doesn not put them in a better states.  what they gain in income they lose in lost entitlements and increased costs of goods and services.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's some twisting to justify there, but let me be blunt and frank.
> 
> I don't care if those who are too stupid to move beyond a minimum wage job survive or not. Frankly we'd be far better off if they didn't. However, I recognize that that isn't going to happen, so my alternate plan is to raise the minimum wage to $10 an hour, and push those people from being eligible for any welfare. Yes, I agree if you take someone's welfare and make them subsist, on $10 an hour, they are actually losing money per year. Don't care, all I care about is getting able bodied people off welfare.
> 
> In fact, I'll go further, I would completely end welfare for anyone who could work , but isn't.
> 
> It should be WORK FARE. If you don't have a job, you go down to your local city hall and they assign you a job, you work it just like you would a regular job, then you get paid minimum wage tax free.  Even if you're just out scooping dog shit at the local park, at least you're trying. No more sitting at home waiting for that welfare check.
> 
> If you won't work, tough shit starve.
> 
> If you just can't physically work , then there are programs to help you and they should remain in place, however the process of qualifying for those should tighten up.
> 
> Why should we the tax payers be subsidizing a too low minimum wage? It's beyond ridiculous.
Click to expand...


so explain to me exactly what the twisting is? 

ok, so we historically increase minimum wage in roughly 10% incriments and now you want to boost it almost 40%?


----------



## candycorn

Foxfyre said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...okay???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Sally is making more than the minimum wage it is likely because her job is more challenging than the jobs that make minimum wage. The demands of the job justify a higher wage. If less demanding jobs (ie minimum wage jobs) are bumped to match her pay, why will she stay in the more demanding job unless she gets a proportional increase?
> 
> Also, the closer you are to entry level the more vertical advancement is open above you in your company. Staff to shift lead, shift lead to supervisor, supervisor to manager, etc. If you can take a job closer to entry level for the same wage, you increase the possibility for advancement.
> 
> Obviously there may be other mitigating factors, but a smart employee is not going to sit around and let you pay them the same in that kind of situation.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's it exactly.  I don't really CARE all that much what the starting wage is so long as there is ample opportunity to improve it.  All I want is the chance to show an employer what I can do.  So I have started a lot of jobs at minimum age or at a lower rate than I consider acceptable, but I don't stay there long.
> 
> On top of the wage paid directly to the employee is the employer's portion of FICA, unemployment insurance, and in many cases the cost of general liability insurance and other add ons.    Make the starting wage too high--higher than the profit the employee can earn for the employer for some time--and the employee won't be hired at all.   A wage must always be based on what revenues the employee generates for the employer plus a reasonable profit.
> 
> But it does seem that a lot of folks here have never had even a basic course in economics, let alone have a sense of macroeconomics.  Increase the minimum wage and it affects every aspect of everything we buy and do.  And few employers can or are willing to just eat that extra expense, so they do pass it on.  And the cost of every aspect of doing business and/or living our lives also increases.  The other negatives include a higher percentage of using independent contractors, part timers, and temporary workers to deal with increased labor costs that can't be passed along to customers.
> 
> A far better plan is to get government out of it as much as possible and let the free market set the prices for everything, including labor.  The stronger the economy, the more full employment we have.  The more full employment we have, the more opportunity the worker has to sell his labor to the highest bidder.  And that always results in higher wages across the board for the lion's share of the work force.  And those starting at minimum wage will have much more opportunity to move up to a living wage at a faster rate.
Click to expand...


Total nonsense. 

When there are fewer than 10 guys outside of Home Depot willing to work for whatever they are going to get paid, I'll believe you.


----------



## itfitzme

Iceweasel said:


> "pay increase will jack up prices across the board,"
> 
> is not a correct statement. There is no economic rule that requires a minimum wage pay increase to jack up prices across the board. How prices shift in response to increased labor costs depends on numerous factors including the elasticities of demand and supply as well as profit margins. It also depends on the employment levels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. Incorrect. Error. Try again, blah blah blah. Does that normally work for you? Yes, it raises prices across the board, how could it not? The burgers here cost more than burgers in lesser minimum wage areas. It's true in delivery, restaurant, housekeeping, anything you can think of. I've got real world experience here, not polysci horsepoop.
> .
Click to expand...


No it does not necessarily raise prices across the board. Why should it?  

Your claim to real world experience is meaningless.  Your personal anechdotes mean nothing.  

Everyone has "real world experience".  You have noticed, all those people walking around in "the real world", getting "real world experience", right?

"Real world experience" without the intelligence to grasp the lessons from that experience is meaningless.  Buying pints of vodka every weekend doesn't count as "real world experience" relevant to understanding economics any more than driving drunk counts as "real world experience" in understanding how an internal combusion engine works.

Prices are dependent upon numourous factors that can be generally categorized as including income, costs, current prices, supply and demand quanities, the elasticities of both the supply and demand, employment levels, unemployment rate and more.

The fact is that a simple increase in minumum wage does not summarily translate to "jacking up prices across the board."

The simplest point is that, all other things being equal, an increase in minumum wage increases the amount of money being spent in the economy.  One simple effect is that of increasing demand which then drives increased production.  Increasing the minimum wage may simply increase employment and GDP. It all kind of depends on a number of economic factors, not the least of which is that the current level of employment is far short of full output.

What most significant factors that affect real prices of goods are employment levels, the number of labor hours spent producing goods, and the efficiency of that production.  

More people working means more stuff per person means lower real prices.  Increasing minumum wage changes the relative balance of incomes. It does not guarantee "jacking up prices across the board."


----------



## Spoonman

candycorn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Sally is making more than the minimum wage it is likely because her job is more challenging than the jobs that make minimum wage. The demands of the job justify a higher wage. If less demanding jobs (ie minimum wage jobs) are bumped to match her pay, why will she stay in the more demanding job unless she gets a proportional increase?
> 
> Also, the closer you are to entry level the more vertical advancement is open above you in your company. Staff to shift lead, shift lead to supervisor, supervisor to manager, etc. If you can take a job closer to entry level for the same wage, you increase the possibility for advancement.
> 
> Obviously there may be other mitigating factors, but a smart employee is not going to sit around and let you pay them the same in that kind of situation.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's it exactly.  I don't really CARE all that much what the starting wage is so long as there is ample opportunity to improve it.  All I want is the chance to show an employer what I can do.  So I have started a lot of jobs at minimum age or at a lower rate than I consider acceptable, but I don't stay there long.
> 
> On top of the wage paid directly to the employee is the employer's portion of FICA, unemployment insurance, and in many cases the cost of general liability insurance and other add ons.    Make the starting wage too high--higher than the profit the employee can earn for the employer for some time--and the employee won't be hired at all.   A wage must always be based on what revenues the employee generates for the employer plus a reasonable profit.
> 
> But it does seem that a lot of folks here have never had even a basic course in economics, let alone have a sense of macroeconomics.  Increase the minimum wage and it affects every aspect of everything we buy and do.  And few employers can or are willing to just eat that extra expense, so they do pass it on.  And the cost of every aspect of doing business and/or living our lives also increases.  The other negatives include a higher percentage of using independent contractors, part timers, and temporary workers to deal with increased labor costs that can't be passed along to customers.
> 
> A far better plan is to get government out of it as much as possible and let the free market set the prices for everything, including labor.  The stronger the economy, the more full employment we have.  The more full employment we have, the more opportunity the worker has to sell his labor to the highest bidder.  And that always results in higher wages across the board for the lion's share of the work force.  And those starting at minimum wage will have much more opportunity to move up to a living wage at a faster rate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Total nonsense.
> 
> When there are fewer than 10 guys outside of Home Depot willing to work for whatever they are going to get paid, I'll believe you.
Click to expand...


but in all honesty, those guys should be deported and not given jobs.


----------



## Mathbud1

candycorn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Sally is making more than the minimum wage it is likely because her job is more challenging than the jobs that make minimum wage. The demands of the job justify a higher wage. If less demanding jobs (ie minimum wage jobs) are bumped to match her pay, why will she stay in the more demanding job unless she gets a proportional increase?
> 
> Also, the closer you are to entry level the more vertical advancement is open above you in your company. Staff to shift lead, shift lead to supervisor, supervisor to manager, etc. If you can take a job closer to entry level for the same wage, you increase the possibility for advancement.
> 
> Obviously there may be other mitigating factors, but a smart employee is not going to sit around and let you pay them the same in that kind of situation.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's it exactly.  I don't really CARE all that much what the starting wage is so long as there is ample opportunity to improve it.  All I want is the chance to show an employer what I can do.  So I have started a lot of jobs at minimum age or at a lower rate than I consider acceptable, but I don't stay there long.
> 
> On top of the wage paid directly to the employee is the employer's portion of FICA, unemployment insurance, and in many cases the cost of general liability insurance and other add ons.    Make the starting wage too high--higher than the profit the employee can earn for the employer for some time--and the employee won't be hired at all.   A wage must always be based on what revenues the employee generates for the employer plus a reasonable profit.
> 
> But it does seem that a lot of folks here have never had even a basic course in economics, let alone have a sense of macroeconomics.  Increase the minimum wage and it affects every aspect of everything we buy and do.  And few employers can or are willing to just eat that extra expense, so they do pass it on.  And the cost of every aspect of doing business and/or living our lives also increases.  The other negatives include a higher percentage of using independent contractors, part timers, and temporary workers to deal with increased labor costs that can't be passed along to customers.
> 
> A far better plan is to get government out of it as much as possible and let the free market set the prices for everything, including labor.  The stronger the economy, the more full employment we have.  The more full employment we have, the more opportunity the worker has to sell his labor to the highest bidder.  And that always results in higher wages across the board for the lion's share of the work force.  And those starting at minimum wage will have much more opportunity to move up to a living wage at a faster rate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Total nonsense.
> 
> When there are fewer than 10 guys outside of Home Depot willing to work for whatever they are going to get paid, I'll believe you.
Click to expand...


Your comment about guys waiting outside of Home Depot does not seem to be related directly to anything Foxfyre said. What was that in response to?


----------



## candycorn

Mathbud1 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papawx3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you fail to understand is that for every minimum wage worker in any "private sector" organization, there are several more further up that corporate ladder who worked their way up from that same minimum wage job and pay scale.
> If you raise the minimum wage worker from his present $8.25 level up to $15.00 per hour, then you also have to similarly raise the wages of every one of those who are above him/her.   In order to make up for all those wage increases, you then have to raise the price of your company's product or service.  The higher you raise the prices of your products or services then the greater the chances are that you will price yourself out of the range of your customer's affordability and thus your company's competitiveness in the marketplace.   Soon, you will price yourself right out of business.
> In short, you can't afford to run a business if you have to pay your employees more than for what you can market your product or service.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Company A is a t 1234 Main Street.  Sells Widgets. Has 10 employees.  When the FMW rises, 2 of the employees will be forcibly paid more due to the FMW being raised.  Lets say it raises their pay by $1.00.
> 
> Company B is at 1235 Main Street.  Also sells Widgets.  Also has 10 employees.  When the FMW rises, 2 of the employees will be forcibly paid more due to the FMW being raised. It also raises their pay by a buck.
> 
> The only thing that is changed is that the business owners now must react; do they take a lower profit of margin, do they try to make up the $2/hr by raising prices or being more efficient elsewhere?
> 
> Company A has no advantage and neither does company B.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about Company C who also sells Widgets. They have 100 employees. Being a bigger company they have more options to adjust to the rise in minimum wage and are able to maintain their prices.
> 
> Company C does have an advantage.
> 
> No two businesses are exactly the same.
Click to expand...


Yes but if you raise the FMW, they are affected the same by the move; you have to pay minimum wage employees more.  Company C, above, seems to have more of a disadvantage since the FMW hike would likely cost them more in terms of labor.  Not sure why you say they have an advantage or these "options" unless you mean costs of the widgets is lower due to volume.


----------



## candycorn

Spoonman said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papawx3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you fail to understand is that for every minimum wage worker in any "private sector" organization, there are several more further up that corporate ladder who worked their way up from that same minimum wage job and pay scale.
> If you raise the minimum wage worker from his present $8.25 level up to $15.00 per hour, then you also have to similarly raise the wages of every one of those who are above him/her.   In order to make up for all those wage increases, you then have to raise the price of your company's product or service.  The higher you raise the prices of your products or services then the greater the chances are that you will price yourself out of the range of your customer's affordability and thus your company's competitiveness in the marketplace.   Soon, you will price yourself right out of business.
> In short, you can't afford to run a business if you have to pay your employees more than for what you can market your product or service.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Company A is a t 1234 Main Street.  Sells Widgets. Has 10 employees.  When the FMW rises, 2 of the employees will be forcibly paid more due to the FMW being raised.  Lets say it raises their pay by $1.00.
> 
> Company B is at 1235 Main Street.  Also sells Widgets.  Also has 10 employees.  When the FMW rises, 2 of the employees will be forcibly paid more due to the FMW being raised. It also raises their pay by a buck.
> 
> The only thing that is changed is that the business owners now must react; do they take a lower profit of margin, do they try to make up the $2/hr by raising prices or being more efficient elsewhere?
> 
> Company A has no advantage and neither does company B.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and what they do naturally is increase their prices.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily.



Spoonman said:


> so now everyone pays the increased prices, not just the handfull of people who get the slight raise.   all off a sudden goods across the board cost more so people get less for what they spend.  so in effect it hurts the economy.  it doens't put all of this extra cash put there all of a sudden like libs are claiming.


The raise in the minimum wage puts more money in the pocket of the employees making minimum wage.  



Spoonman said:


> it actually makes spendable money less available because everyone takes a hit on the price increases.



Well, prices seem to be going up pretty regularly anyway; at least this will come with the added benefit of having some of the "have-nots" with some more money in their pockets.


----------



## itfitzme

Iceweasel said:


> The most direct and significant factors in aggregate standard of living is the level of employment along with efficiency of production. This is an important point. There is simply no reason that a single individual should not be able to support their self at minimum wage. The efficiency of production in the US and the world, has steadily increased decade after decade. A single individual has always been able to provide for themselves, at the very least. This seems fairly obvious. If it were not true, the human race would have died out a long time ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? What a bunch of fuzzy math. Adults don't stay at minimum wage, unless the economy is in the tank, like now. When it's going good you must pay more to keep them, and you raise your prices accordingly. What our ancestors did has no bearing on state or federal minimum wage laws. I don't know where you got the idea that an average ancestor could support himself, buy a house and live the equivelant standard of living of today's minimum wage recipient. That's a whole lotta if and or maybes.
Click to expand...


There is nothing "fuzzy" about the fact that production of goods and services depends on labor hours worked, the efficiency of the production, along with the availability of the materials used in producing the product. 

Yeah, I see the problem you're having.  You clearly have some bullshit definition of what "minimum wage" is, a definition that you haven't had the sense to put into words and examine.  

 "Minimum wage" is the hourly wage that has been set by the government as being the minumum hourly wage that an employer must pay employees.

"Minumum wage" is not "the hourly amount that employers pay teenagers.   "Minimum wage" is not "the hourly wage that is less than the amount that adults will accept."

You are using a bs definition and then drawing conclusions based on the implications of your bs definition.

"Minimum wage" is simply the minumum amount that employers are required to pay.


----------



## candycorn

Mathbud1 said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> and what they do naturally is increase their prices.  so now everyone pays the increased prices, not just the handfull of people who get the slight raise.   all off a sudden goods across the board cost more so people get less for what they spend.  so in effect it hurts the economy.  it doens't put all of this extra cash put there all of a sudden like libs are claiming.  it actually makes spendable money less available because everyone takes a hit on the price increases.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've looked at various studies and figures which all show about a 2% increase in prices for every 20% raise in the minimum wage.
> 
> And again, the reason is simple. Any company worth a crap is already charging as much for their products as their customers are willing to pay, or very close to it anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if they can't raise their prices because customers won't tolerate it how do they offset the increased cost?
Click to expand...


Back when there was some shortages in bell peppers due to freezes and whatnot, what pizza companies did with an increase in cost of goods was stop purchasing bell peppers.

Honestly, the deduction that if the FMW goes up on Tuesday, you'll see price increases on Wednesday is malarkey.  True, the increase in pay has to be made up somewhere but not necessarily always on what the consumer pays.


----------



## itfitzme

candycorn said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> so now everyone pays the increased prices, not just the handfull of people who get the slight raise.   all off a sudden goods across the board cost more so people get less for what they spend.  so in effect it hurts the economy.  it doens't put all of this extra cash put there all of a sudden like libs are claiming.
> 
> 
> 
> The raise in the minimum wage puts more money in the pocket of the employees making minimum wage.
Click to expand...


Yeah, that seems to be the mis-perception.  It appears that some are adding a host of erroneous conditions attached to what "minimum wage" is.

They appear to include, "the wage that teenagers get paid."  and "the wage that is to low to live on."

Then, a host of completely incorrect conclusions are drawn based on completely non-sense definitions.

I believe you have caught on to it, that "minimum wage" is the wage that is the minimum.  And, yeah, raising it put more money into the pockets of employees making minumum wage.


----------



## Mathbud1

candycorn said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've looked at various studies and figures which all show about a 2% increase in prices for every 20% raise in the minimum wage.
> 
> And again, the reason is simple. Any company worth a crap is already charging as much for their products as their customers are willing to pay, or very close to it anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if they can't raise their prices because customers won't tolerate it how do they offset the increased cost?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back when there was some shortages in bell peppers due to freezes and whatnot, what pizza companies did with an increase in cost of goods was stop purchasing bell peppers.
> 
> Honestly, the deduction that if the FMW goes up on Tuesday, you'll see price increases on Wednesday is malarkey.  True, the increase in pay has to be made up somewhere but not necessarily always on what the consumer pays.
Click to expand...


There is the key though isn't it. 

"the increase in pay has to be made up somewhere"

It seems, and this seems to be the reason you are all-for raising the FMW, that you expect that difference to be made up by a reduction in corporate profit rather than any of the other ways that it could be made up.

Is that accurate?


----------



## Politico

Yes, Right until they have to take it back out again to cover higher costing goods.


----------



## itfitzme

Foxfyre said:


> That's it exactly.  I don't really CARE all that much what the starting wage is so long as there is ample opportunity to improve it.  All I want is the chance to show an employer what I can do.  So I have started a lot of jobs at minimum age or at a lower rate than I consider acceptable, but I don't stay there long.
> 
> On top of the wage paid directly to the employee is the employer's portion of FICA, unemployment insurance, and in many cases the cost of general liability insurance and other add ons.    Make the starting wage too high--higher than the profit the employee can earn for the employer for some time--and the employee won't be hired at all.   A wage must always be based on what revenues the employee generates for the employer plus a reasonable profit.
> 
> But it does seem that a lot of folks here have never had even a basic course in economics, let alone have a sense of macroeconomics.  Increase the minimum wage and it affects every aspect of everything we buy and do.  And few employers can or are willing to just eat that extra expense, so they do pass it on.  And the cost of every aspect of doing business and/or living our lives also increases.  The other negatives include a higher percentage of using independent contractors, part timers, and temporary workers to deal with increased labor costs that can't be passed along to customers.
> 
> A far better plan is to get government out of it as much as possible and let the free market set the prices for everything, including labor.  The stronger the economy, the more full employment we have.  The more full employment we have, the more opportunity the worker has to sell his labor to the highest bidder.  And that always results in higher wages across the board for the lion's share of the work force.  And those starting at minimum wage will have much more opportunity to move up to a living wage at a faster rate.



Why do people that have never taken college level courses in macro and micro economics always say things like, "that a lot of folks here have never had even a basic course in economics, let alone have a sense of macroeconomics"?

Do tell, seeing as you have this excellent education in micro and macro economics, what is the profit margin maximization cuttoff point for a firm?


----------



## Mathbud1

itfitzme said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> so now everyone pays the increased prices, not just the handfull of people who get the slight raise.   all off a sudden goods across the board cost more so people get less for what they spend.  so in effect it hurts the economy.  it doens't put all of this extra cash put there all of a sudden like libs are claiming.
> 
> 
> 
> The raise in the minimum wage puts more money in the pocket of the employees making minimum wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, that seems to be the mis-perception.  It appears that some are adding a host of erroneous conditions attached to what "minimum wage" is.
> 
> They appear to include, "the wage that teenagers get paid."  and "the wage that is to low to live on."
> 
> Then, a host of completely incorrect conclusions are drawn based on completely non-sense definitions.
> 
> I believe you have caught on to it, that "minimum wage" is the wage that is the minimum.  And, yeah, raising it put more money into the pockets of employees making minumum wage.
Click to expand...


It is not as simple though as just "put[ting] more money into the pockets of employees making minimum wage."

You cannot ignore all the different things that are connected to the artificial floor that is put on wages. Yes, we all know that the minimum wage is the lowest wage allowed by the government. No, we are not going to pretend like changing that minimum is going to have no effect other than putting money in some poor people's pockets.


----------



## itfitzme

Mathbud1 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if they can't raise their prices because customers won't tolerate it how do they offset the increased cost?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Back when there was some shortages in bell peppers due to freezes and whatnot, what pizza companies did with an increase in cost of goods was stop purchasing bell peppers.
> 
> Honestly, the deduction that if the FMW goes up on Tuesday, you'll see price increases on Wednesday is malarkey.  True, the increase in pay has to be made up somewhere but not necessarily always on what the consumer pays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is the key though isn't it.
> 
> "the increase in pay has to be made up somewhere"
> 
> It seems, and this seems to be the reason you are all-for raising the FMW, that you expect that difference to be made up by a reduction in corporate profit rather than any of the other ways that it could be made up.
> 
> Is that accurate?
Click to expand...


I can answer this one for candycorn.  It is perfectly obvious that her point is,

*"but not necessarily always on what the consumer pays."*

Clearly, you expect the difference to be made up by always on what the consumer pays.

Yeah, that's the point.  And you finally got it.  That your understanding of how economics goes is erroneous, based on false assumptions of "always".


----------



## itfitzme

Mathbud1 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The raise in the minimum wage puts more money in the pocket of the employees making minimum wage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that seems to be the mis-perception.  It appears that some are adding a host of erroneous conditions attached to what "minimum wage" is.
> 
> They appear to include, "the wage that teenagers get paid."  and "the wage that is to low to live on."
> 
> Then, a host of completely incorrect conclusions are drawn based on completely non-sense definitions.
> 
> I believe you have caught on to it, that "minimum wage" is the wage that is the minimum.  And, yeah, raising it put more money into the pockets of employees making minumum wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not as simple though as just "put[ting] more money into the pockets of employees making minimum wage."
> 
> You cannot ignore all the different things that are connected to the artificial floor that is put on wages. Yes, we all know that the minimum wage is the lowest wage allowed by the government. No, we are not going to pretend like changing that minimum is going to have no effect other than putting money in some poor people's pockets.
Click to expand...


That is exactly what you do, ignore all the effects except the one you like.  Who do you think you're kidding but yourself?  You are the only one ignoring "all the different things."  

What you want is to ignore all the different things except the ones that lead to the conclusion that you want to highlight.  Then, when taken to task on it by anyone with critical thinking skills, you create some in-group/out-group in your mind so that you can justify to yourself that you are lacking objectivity and biased in perception.  Really, what do you expect to get as a response to what you obviously know are erroneous and biased statements and conclusions?

There is a hell of a lot of exploration and understanding that can be gleaned from basic principles.  Unfortunately, your insistance on taking a biased perspective based on some emotional fantacy of "good guys" and "bad guys" just relegates the convo to endless circles around your purposful bs.

No one, questioning the full effects of minumum wage are "all the different things that are connected to the artificial floor that is put on wages." except you, for one.


----------



## Mathbud1

itfitzme said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back when there was some shortages in bell peppers due to freezes and whatnot, what pizza companies did with an increase in cost of goods was stop purchasing bell peppers.
> 
> Honestly, the deduction that if the FMW goes up on Tuesday, you'll see price increases on Wednesday is malarkey.  True, the increase in pay has to be made up somewhere but not necessarily always on what the consumer pays.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is the key though isn't it.
> 
> "the increase in pay has to be made up somewhere"
> 
> It seems, and this seems to be the reason you are all-for raising the FMW, that you expect that difference to be made up by a reduction in corporate profit rather than any of the other ways that it could be made up.
> 
> Is that accurate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can answer this one for candycorn.  It is perfectly obvious that her point is,
> 
> *"but not necessarily always on what the consumer pays."*
> 
> Clearly, you expect the difference to be made up by always on what the consumer pays.
> 
> Yeah, that's the point.  And you finally got it.  That your understanding of how economics goes is erroneous, based on false assumptions of "always".
Click to expand...


I never, in any of my posts, claimed that the only possible effect of raising the minimum wage would be higher consumer costs. I did not make any assumptions of "always" other than this: when there is a cause there will be an effect.  

I have tried to explain why I believe that that effect will be, in the net, negative. Basically, all you have done is deny that there will be any negative effect at all without logically defending that point with anything.

I very clearly understand that there are many different factors involved in the complex system that is the economy. I am, further, very experienced in analyzing complex systems for the interactions of their disparate components. One key in any complex system is that any serious change in one component will be felt by most, if not all, other components in the system.

So, if you are done trying to sound superior for your economic training, please explain how raising the minimum wage COULD NOT POSSIBLY lead to an increase in prices.


----------



## itfitzme

Now that we've established that the anti-FMW-increase posters on this thread have been knowingly arguing a biased position, perhaps we can get onto a more realistic examination of what raising the minimum wage may most likely do?

The economy fell in productivity considerably through the recession.  

The loss in economic activity is clear in real GDP terms.






---Real GDP---

The employment to population level has fallen since 2000, losing the majority of it through the recession and collapsing to pre 1985 levels.





---EmpRatio---

On the other hand, productivity, production output per worker, remained fairly steady in its upward trend.





---Efficiency---

So, in general, there was no deadweight loss by shedding workers.  There was no adjustment except simply that the economy just stopped utilizing that much available labor.

Never the less, it isn't like all those people just vanished.  That lost productivity means that average standard of living fell.





---Standard of Living---

So the economy is now well below full output.  If those unemployed were to simply be employed at whatever the prevailing average income is, standard of living would be back where it should be, on the upward linear trend from post 2009.  In fact, given that full employment is short of the 2000 maximum, standard of living would be even higher.

How high may be estimated by extending the pre 2000 trend in the longer view here.






That is a considerable amount of missing RGDP per capita and aggregate RGDP.

And there is the thing.


----------



## candycorn

Mathbud1 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if they can't raise their prices because customers won't tolerate it how do they offset the increased cost?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Back when there was some shortages in bell peppers due to freezes and whatnot, what pizza companies did with an increase in cost of goods was stop purchasing bell peppers.
> 
> Honestly, the deduction that if the FMW goes up on Tuesday, you'll see price increases on Wednesday is malarkey.  True, the increase in pay has to be made up somewhere but not necessarily always on what the consumer pays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is the key though isn't it.
> 
> "the increase in pay has to be made up somewhere"
> 
> It seems, and this seems to be the reason you are all-for raising the FMW, that you expect that difference to be made up by a reduction in corporate profit rather than any of the other ways that it could be made up.
> 
> Is that accurate?
Click to expand...


No, I expect prices to rise.I would like for companies to again care about their customers (internal and external) because I think when you have good employees that you nurture, care about, mentor, provide opportunity for, etc... that creates happier customers.  I keep going back to MCD.  Used to be one of my "of course" options for lunch.  Now it's almost an afterthougth.


----------



## itfitzme

There is an opportunity cost to the labor that was shed from 2000 on, much of it during the recession.  That unemployed labor still consumes, regardless.

Minimum wage can increase without increasing real prices.  In the current economic conditions, there is considerable leeway for an increase in minimum wage without increasing prices.   All that unemployed labor hours is why minimum wage can increase without impacting real prices.  Real prices, real GDP are equivalent to labor hours.  That unutilized labor is one definable source of real income available for a minimum wage increase.

Increasing minimum wage does not require an increase in real prices.


----------



## itfitzme

Mathbud1 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is the key though isn't it.
> 
> "the increase in pay has to be made up somewhere"
> 
> It seems, and this seems to be the reason you are all-for raising the FMW, that you expect that difference to be made up by a reduction in corporate profit rather than any of the other ways that it could be made up.
> 
> Is that accurate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can answer this one for candycorn.  It is perfectly obvious that her point is,
> 
> *"but not necessarily always on what the consumer pays."*
> 
> Clearly, you expect the difference to be made up by always on what the consumer pays.
> 
> Yeah, that's the point.  And you finally got it.  That your understanding of how economics goes is erroneous, based on false assumptions of "always".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never, in any of my posts, claimed that the only possible effect of raising the minimum wage would be higher consumer costs. I did not make any assumptions of "always" other than this: when there is a cause there will be an effect.
> 
> I have tried to explain why I believe that that effect will be, in the net, negative. Basically, all you have done is deny that there will be any negative effect at all without logically defending that point with anything.
> 
> I very clearly understand that there are many different factors involved in the complex system that is the economy. I am, further, very experienced in analyzing complex systems for the interactions of their disparate components. One key in any complex system is that any serious change in one component will be felt by most, if not all, other components in the system.
> 
> So, if you are done trying to sound superior for your economic training, please explain how raising the minimum wage COULD NOT POSSIBLY lead to an increase in prices.
Click to expand...


Then you are not reading your own posts as well as the posts you respond to because no one has ever said that "raising minimum wage COULD NOT POSSIBLY leae to an increase in prices."

There isn't a single post in this thread that overtly states or even implies that.  You're making that up in your own mind.

You hurt ego isn't my problem.  I have never "tried to sound superior".  That is just your own subjective personal issue that has nothing to do with me.

There is no general law of complex systems that requires a change in one variable to "negatively affect" all other variables.  So it is a piss poor reason upon which to base policy.

Even if it were true that raising minimum wage "might" increase prices, "might" is a piss poor reason upon which to base policy.

One simple fact is that if minimum wage were pegged to COLA, doing so would NEVER be an economic problem.  The reason is simple.  Economic/production efficiency always increases so standard of living per worker constantly increases.  This guarantees, at least till we run out of oil, that the available goods and services that that minimum wage buys is always increasing.  CPI pegged min wage is a constant real dollar amount for the same basket of goods.  And with effiency constantly increasing, then the number of baskets of goods available is always increasing ahead of the consumption of minimum wage earners.

To put it another way.  Every year, a minimum wage earner is producing more and more stuff compared to the year before.  Real dollar minimum wage earning only buy the same amount of stuff year after year.  So, every year, CPI pegged mimimum wage earners are producing ever increasingly more than they consume.

In the larger part of this "complex system", increasing minimum wage will seldom result in real price increases.  It can't.  And in the smaller number of conditions that it might, the fundamental problem is somerhing else so serious that increased min wage is the least of the problems.

That's actually quite interesting now that I think of it.  At the very least, the real value of minimum wage labor has increased continuoisly since the invention of ways to improve efficiency.  And seeing as the real value, the real output has constantly increased, then the question is, "why, how amd under whatmconditions should real minimum wages ever go down?"

Why should minimum wage not increase seeing as efficiency and inflation always goes up?


----------



## Mathbud1

itfitzme said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can answer this one for candycorn.  It is perfectly obvious that her point is,
> 
> *"but not necessarily always on what the consumer pays."*
> 
> Clearly, you expect the difference to be made up by always on what the consumer pays.
> 
> Yeah, that's the point.  And you finally got it.  That your understanding of how economics goes is erroneous, based on false assumptions of "always".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never, in any of my posts, claimed that the only possible effect of raising the minimum wage would be higher consumer costs. I did not make any assumptions of "always" other than this: when there is a cause there will be an effect.
> 
> I have tried to explain why I believe that that effect will be, in the net, negative. Basically, all you have done is deny that there will be any negative effect at all without logically defending that point with anything.
> 
> I very clearly understand that there are many different factors involved in the complex system that is the economy. I am, further, very experienced in analyzing complex systems for the interactions of their disparate components. One key in any complex system is that any serious change in one component will be felt by most, if not all, other components in the system.
> 
> So, if you are done trying to sound superior for your economic training, please explain how raising the minimum wage COULD NOT POSSIBLY lead to an increase in prices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you are not reading your own posts as well as the posts you respond to because no one has ever said that "raising minimum wage COULD NOT POSSIBLY leae to an increase in prices."
> 
> There isn't a single post in this thread that overtly states or even implies that.  You're making that up in your own mind.
> 
> You hurt ego isn't my problem.  I have never "tried to sound superior".  That is just your own subjective personal issue that has nothing to do with me.
> 
> There is no general law of complex systems that requires a change in one variable to "negatively affect" all other variables.  So it is a piss poor reason upon which to base policy.
> 
> Even if it were true that raising minimum wage "might" increase prices, "might" is a piss poor reason upon which to base policy.
> 
> One simple fact is that if minimum wage were pegged to COLA, doing so would NEVER be an economic problem.  The reason is simple.  Economic/production efficiency always increases so standard of living per worker constantly increases.  This guarantees, at least till we run out of oil, that the available goods and services that that minimum wage buys is always increasing.  CPI pegged min wage is a constant real dollar amount for the same basket of goods.  And with effiency constantly increasing, then the number of baskets of goods available is always increasing ahead of the consumption of minimum wage earners.
> 
> To put it another way.  Every year, a minimum wage earner is producing more and more stuff compared to the year before.  Real dollar minimum wage earning only buy the same amount of stuff year after year.  So, every year, CPI pegged mimimum wage earners are producing ever increasingly more than they consume.
> 
> In the larger part of this "complex system", increasing minimum wage will seldom result in real price increases.  It can't.  And in the smaller number of conditions that it might, the fundamental problem is somerhing else so serious that increased min wage is the least of the problems.
> 
> That's actually quite interesting now that I think of it.  At the very least, the real value of minimum wage labor has increased continuoisly since the invention of ways to improve efficiency.  And seeing as the real value, the real output has constantly increased, then the question is, "why, how amd under whatmconditions should real minimum wages ever go down?"
> 
> Why should minimum wage not increase seeing as efficiency and inflation always goes up?
Click to expand...


First off, my ego is fine. I said you were trying to sound superior, not that you were succeeding. It was indeed a subjective analysis of your postings.

Now, what you are saying seems to have merit at least when applied to certain jobs. Workers at companies that produce a good probably do get more produced year to year based on changes made by the company that facilitate increased efficiency. I work at a company that produces a good and can see that in practice. Nobody at that company (at least that I know of) is making minimum wage which is in keeping with what you describe. 

However, it does not seem to hold up in other cases. How is a fast food worker "producing more and more stuff" every year? What about someone answering phones in a call center or cleaning rooms in a hotel? Jobs like that do not seem to be gaining in efficiency every year other than the personal efficiency of an individual learning a skill and improving it. 

In fact none of what you said really seems to argue for a federally mandated minimum wage. Rather it seems an argument that the real value of some jobs will increase yearly which seems to be born out by the market itself without the interference of a federal mandate. 

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## itfitzme

Mathbud1 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never, in any of my posts, claimed that the only possible effect of raising the minimum wage would be higher consumer costs. I did not make any assumptions of "always" other than this: when there is a cause there will be an effect.
> 
> I have tried to explain why I believe that that effect will be, in the net, negative. Basically, all you have done is deny that there will be any negative effect at all without logically defending that point with anything.
> 
> I very clearly understand that there are many different factors involved in the complex system that is the economy. I am, further, very experienced in analyzing complex systems for the interactions of their disparate components. One key in any complex system is that any serious change in one component will be felt by most, if not all, other components in the system.
> 
> So, if you are done trying to sound superior for your economic training, please explain how raising the minimum wage COULD NOT POSSIBLY lead to an increase in prices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are not reading your own posts as well as the posts you respond to because no one has ever said that "raising minimum wage COULD NOT POSSIBLY leae to an increase in prices."
> 
> There isn't a single post in this thread that overtly states or even implies that.  You're making that up in your own mind.
> 
> You hurt ego isn't my problem.  I have never "tried to sound superior".  That is just your own subjective personal issue that has nothing to do with me.
> 
> There is no general law of complex systems that requires a change in one variable to "negatively affect" all other variables.  So it is a piss poor reason upon which to base policy.
> 
> Even if it were true that raising minimum wage "might" increase prices, "might" is a piss poor reason upon which to base policy.
> 
> One simple fact is that if minimum wage were pegged to COLA, doing so would NEVER be an economic problem.  The reason is simple.  Economic/production efficiency always increases so standard of living per worker constantly increases.  This guarantees, at least till we run out of oil, that the available goods and services that that minimum wage buys is always increasing.  CPI pegged min wage is a constant real dollar amount for the same basket of goods.  And with effiency constantly increasing, then the number of baskets of goods available is always increasing ahead of the consumption of minimum wage earners.
> 
> To put it another way.  Every year, a minimum wage earner is producing more and more stuff compared to the year before.  Real dollar minimum wage earning only buy the same amount of stuff year after year.  So, every year, CPI pegged mimimum wage earners are producing ever increasingly more than they consume.
> 
> In the larger part of this "complex system", increasing minimum wage will seldom result in real price increases.  It can't.  And in the smaller number of conditions that it might, the fundamental problem is somerhing else so serious that increased min wage is the least of the problems.
> 
> That's actually quite interesting now that I think of it.  At the very least, the real value of minimum wage labor has increased continuoisly since the invention of ways to improve efficiency.  And seeing as the real value, the real output has constantly increased, then the question is, "why, how amd under whatmconditions should real minimum wages ever go down?"
> 
> Why should minimum wage not increase seeing as efficiency and inflation always goes up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First off, my ego is fine. I said you were trying to sound superior, not that you were succeeding. It was indeed a subjective analysis of your postings.
> 
> Now, what you are saying seems to have merit at least when applied to certain jobs. Workers at companies that produce a good probably do get more produced year to year based on changes made by the company that facilitate increased efficiency. I work at a company that produces a good and can see that in practice. Nobody at that company (at least that I know of) is making minimum wage which is in keeping with what you describe.
> 
> However, it does not seem to hold up in other cases. How is a fast food worker "producing more and more stuff" every year? What about someone answering phones in a call center or cleaning rooms in a hotel? Jobs like that do not seem to be gaining in efficiency every year other than the personal efficiency of an individual learning a skill and improving it.
> 
> In fact none of what you said really seems to argue for a federally mandated minimum wage. Rather it seems an argument that the real value of some jobs will increase yearly which seems to be born out by the market itself without the interference of a federal mandate.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Yeah, dude, your ego is all up in it.  Your personal percetion of someone else "sounding superior" is just that.  You start out by being offensive, then you blame other people when they point out you're an @SSH0!#.  

Yeah, sure, it's everyone else, not you with your "I am, further, very experienced in analyzing complex systems" bullshit that is "trying to sound superior".  Do you have a clue?

Yeah, everyone has been producing more and more stuff each year.  That is how most of econonomic growth works.  We process information faster, we build houses faster.  We produce food with less effort. 

Agriculture efficiency has increased massively since the turn of the century, along with everything else, when automation first began.  "In 1870, 70-80 percent of the US population was employed in agriculture. As of 2008, less than 2 percent of the population is directly employed in agriculture."  That is an incredible increase in productivity.

And really, you think that McDonald's employees aren't producing and serving more and more per employee with each passing year? Call centers?  Staffing agencies?  Manufacturing? Do you have a clue what efficiencty is?  Efficiency is output per person. 

I will show it to you again;






The total economic output of the United States has increased from .035 billion dollars(chained 2009) per thousand employees in 1948 to 0.11 billion dollars (chained 2009) per thousand employees in 2013,

That would be a 314% improvement in productivity. And it isn't "certain jobs".  It is all jobs, across the board.  Fishing industry has increased in productivity. Entertainment, education, automobile mechanics, apartment managers, and the list goes on and on.

What absurd personal definition of efficiency have you made up?


----------



## OnePercenter

Once again;

-Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.

-Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-off&#8217;s/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees.

-Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2013 price structure.

-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years.


----------



## Mathbud1

itfitzme said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are not reading your own posts as well as the posts you respond to because no one has ever said that "raising minimum wage COULD NOT POSSIBLY leae to an increase in prices."
> 
> There isn't a single post in this thread that overtly states or even implies that.  You're making that up in your own mind.
> 
> You hurt ego isn't my problem.  I have never "tried to sound superior".  That is just your own subjective personal issue that has nothing to do with me.
> 
> There is no general law of complex systems that requires a change in one variable to "negatively affect" all other variables.  So it is a piss poor reason upon which to base policy.
> 
> Even if it were true that raising minimum wage "might" increase prices, "might" is a piss poor reason upon which to base policy.
> 
> One simple fact is that if minimum wage were pegged to COLA, doing so would NEVER be an economic problem.  The reason is simple.  Economic/production efficiency always increases so standard of living per worker constantly increases.  This guarantees, at least till we run out of oil, that the available goods and services that that minimum wage buys is always increasing.  CPI pegged min wage is a constant real dollar amount for the same basket of goods.  And with effiency constantly increasing, then the number of baskets of goods available is always increasing ahead of the consumption of minimum wage earners.
> 
> To put it another way.  Every year, a minimum wage earner is producing more and more stuff compared to the year before.  Real dollar minimum wage earning only buy the same amount of stuff year after year.  So, every year, CPI pegged mimimum wage earners are producing ever increasingly more than they consume.
> 
> In the larger part of this "complex system", increasing minimum wage will seldom result in real price increases.  It can't.  And in the smaller number of conditions that it might, the fundamental problem is somerhing else so serious that increased min wage is the least of the problems.
> 
> That's actually quite interesting now that I think of it.  At the very least, the real value of minimum wage labor has increased continuoisly since the invention of ways to improve efficiency.  And seeing as the real value, the real output has constantly increased, then the question is, "why, how amd under whatmconditions should real minimum wages ever go down?"
> 
> Why should minimum wage not increase seeing as efficiency and inflation always goes up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First off, my ego is fine. I said you were trying to sound superior, not that you were succeeding. It was indeed a subjective analysis of your postings.
> 
> Now, what you are saying seems to have merit at least when applied to certain jobs. Workers at companies that produce a good probably do get more produced year to year based on changes made by the company that facilitate increased efficiency. I work at a company that produces a good and can see that in practice. Nobody at that company (at least that I know of) is making minimum wage which is in keeping with what you describe.
> 
> However, it does not seem to hold up in other cases. How is a fast food worker "producing more and more stuff" every year? What about someone answering phones in a call center or cleaning rooms in a hotel? Jobs like that do not seem to be gaining in efficiency every year other than the personal efficiency of an individual learning a skill and improving it.
> 
> In fact none of what you said really seems to argue for a federally mandated minimum wage. Rather it seems an argument that the real value of some jobs will increase yearly which seems to be born out by the market itself without the interference of a federal mandate.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, dude, your ego is all up in it.  Your personal percetion of someone else "sounding superior" is just that.  You start out by being offensive, then you blame other people when they point out you're an @SSH0!#.
> 
> Yeah, sure, it's everyone else, not you with your "I am, further, very experienced in analyzing complex systems" bullshit that is "trying to sound superior".  Do you have a clue?
> 
> Yeah, everyone has been producing more and more stuff each year.  That is how most of econonomic growth works.  We process information faster, we build houses faster.  We produce food with less effort.
> 
> Agriculture efficiency has increased massively since the turn of the century, along with everything else, when automation first began.  "In 1870, 70-80 percent of the US population was employed in agriculture. As of 2008, less than 2 percent of the population is directly employed in agriculture."  That is an incredible increase in productivity.
> 
> And really, you think that McDonald's employees aren't producing and serving more and more per employee with each passing year? Call centers?  Staffing agencies?  Manufacturing? Do you have a clue what efficiencty is?  Efficiency is output per person.
> 
> I will show it to you again;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The total economic output of the United States has increased from .035 billion dollars(chained 2009) per thousand employees in 1948 to 0.11 billion dollars (chained 2009) per thousand employees in 2013,
> 
> That would be a 314% improvement in productivity. And it isn't "certain jobs".  It is all jobs, across the board.  Fishing industry has increased in productivity. Entertainment, education, automobile mechanics, apartment managers, and the list goes on and on.
> 
> What absurd personal definition of efficiency have you made up?
Click to expand...


You do realize you are in the CDZ right? Take a breath.

The problem is you are trying to apply a 10,000 foot view of overall increased efficiency to every individual job. Even if you accept the premise that every job has increased in efficiency, it doesn't necessarily follow that every job has increased the same amount in efficiency. You also can't ignore the possibility that there are jobs that have not appreciably increased in efficiency just because the overall efficiency has increased.


----------



## itfitzme

Mathbud1 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> First off, my ego is fine. I said you were trying to sound superior, not that you were succeeding. It was indeed a subjective analysis of your postings.
> 
> Now, what you are saying seems to have merit at least when applied to certain jobs. Workers at companies that produce a good probably do get more produced year to year based on changes made by the company that facilitate increased efficiency. I work at a company that produces a good and can see that in practice. Nobody at that company (at least that I know of) is making minimum wage which is in keeping with what you describe.
> 
> However, it does not seem to hold up in other cases. How is a fast food worker "producing more and more stuff" every year? What about someone answering phones in a call center or cleaning rooms in a hotel? Jobs like that do not seem to be gaining in efficiency every year other than the personal efficiency of an individual learning a skill and improving it.
> 
> In fact none of what you said really seems to argue for a federally mandated minimum wage. Rather it seems an argument that the real value of some jobs will increase yearly which seems to be born out by the market itself without the interference of a federal mandate.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, dude, your ego is all up in it.  Your personal percetion of someone else "sounding superior" is just that.  You start out by being offensive, then you blame other people when they point out you're an @SSH0!#.
> 
> Yeah, sure, it's everyone else, not you with your "I am, further, very experienced in analyzing complex systems" bullshit that is "trying to sound superior".  Do you have a clue?
> 
> Yeah, everyone has been producing more and more stuff each year.  That is how most of econonomic growth works.  We process information faster, we build houses faster.  We produce food with less effort.
> 
> Agriculture efficiency has increased massively since the turn of the century, along with everything else, when automation first began.  "In 1870, 70-80 percent of the US population was employed in agriculture. As of 2008, less than 2 percent of the population is directly employed in agriculture."  That is an incredible increase in productivity.
> 
> And really, you think that McDonald's employees aren't producing and serving more and more per employee with each passing year? Call centers?  Staffing agencies?  Manufacturing? Do you have a clue what efficiencty is?  Efficiency is output per person.
> 
> I will show it to you again;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The total economic output of the United States has increased from .035 billion dollars(chained 2009) per thousand employees in 1948 to 0.11 billion dollars (chained 2009) per thousand employees in 2013,
> 
> That would be a 314% improvement in productivity. And it isn't "certain jobs".  It is all jobs, across the board.  Fishing industry has increased in productivity. Entertainment, education, automobile mechanics, apartment managers, and the list goes on and on.
> 
> What absurd personal definition of efficiency have you made up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do realize you are in the CDZ right? Take a breath.
> 
> The problem is you are trying to apply a 10,000 foot view of overall increased efficiency to every individual job. Even if you accept the premise that every job has increased in efficiency, it doesn't necessarily follow that every job has increased the same amount in efficiency. You also can't ignore the possibility that there are jobs that have not appreciably increased in efficiency just because the overall efficiency has increased.
Click to expand...


Your point being what?  

You start our by being offensive, then blaming other people.  Yeah, so it's the CDZ?  That means what to you, that you say things like "trying to sound superior for your economic training" then you are clueless that you start shit?

What part of "starting by being offensive" don't you get?  You use the second person pronoun then you get all "Oh, you're being personal..."

And, you've made no case that raising minumum wage will summarily increase prices.  You are the one making generalized and unproven statements based on some "complex systems" bull shit.

You think "complex systems......" isn't a  10,000 foot view?

Really, you actually believe you are making any sound arguments based on "complex systems"?


----------



## itfitzme

OnePercenter said:


> Once again;
> 
> -Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.
> 
> -Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees.
> 
> -Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2013 price structure.
> 
> -Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years.



Maybe... But whatever is done, it shouldn't be done to quickly.  The economy doesn't do well with sudden changes.


----------



## Mathbud1

itfitzme said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, dude, your ego is all up in it.  Your personal percetion of someone else "sounding superior" is just that.  You start out by being offensive, then you blame other people when they point out you're an @SSH0!#.
> 
> Yeah, sure, it's everyone else, not you with your "I am, further, very experienced in analyzing complex systems" bullshit that is "trying to sound superior".  Do you have a clue?
> 
> Yeah, everyone has been producing more and more stuff each year.  That is how most of econonomic growth works.  We process information faster, we build houses faster.  We produce food with less effort.
> 
> Agriculture efficiency has increased massively since the turn of the century, along with everything else, when automation first began.  "In 1870, 70-80 percent of the US population was employed in agriculture. As of 2008, less than 2 percent of the population is directly employed in agriculture."  That is an incredible increase in productivity.
> 
> And really, you think that McDonald's employees aren't producing and serving more and more per employee with each passing year? Call centers?  Staffing agencies?  Manufacturing? Do you have a clue what efficiencty is?  Efficiency is output per person.
> 
> I will show it to you again;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The total economic output of the United States has increased from .035 billion dollars(chained 2009) per thousand employees in 1948 to 0.11 billion dollars (chained 2009) per thousand employees in 2013,
> 
> That would be a 314% improvement in productivity. And it isn't "certain jobs".  It is all jobs, across the board.  Fishing industry has increased in productivity. Entertainment, education, automobile mechanics, apartment managers, and the list goes on and on.
> 
> What absurd personal definition of efficiency have you made up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize you are in the CDZ right? Take a breath.
> 
> The problem is you are trying to apply a 10,000 foot view of overall increased efficiency to every individual job. Even if you accept the premise that every job has increased in efficiency, it doesn't necessarily follow that every job has increased the same amount in efficiency. You also can't ignore the possibility that there are jobs that have not appreciably increased in efficiency just because the overall efficiency has increased.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your point being what?
> 
> You start our by being offensive, then blaming other people.  Yeah, so it's the CDZ?  That means what to you, that you say things like "trying to sound superior for your economic training" then you are clueless that you start shit?
> 
> What part of "starting by being offensive" don't you get?  You use the second person pronoun then you get all "Oh, you're being personal..."
> 
> And, you've made no case that raising minumum wage will summarily increase prices.  You are the one making generalized and unproven statements based on some "complex systems" bull shit.
> 
> You think "complex systems......" isn't a  10,000 foot view?
> 
> Really, you actually believe you are making any sound arguments based on "complex systems"?
Click to expand...


First, calm down. You are the only one here flying off the handle. That isn't helping the discussion. Me calmly pointing out that you coming into the thread immediately telling people that they should shut-up-about-economics-because-they-obviously-know-nothing-about-it sounds like you trying to sound superior might have been the worst thing anyone has ever said to you, if it was, and you need an apology for it, here you go: I'm sorry.

Second, you keep claiming that I think "raising minumum wage will summarily increase prices." Check the thread. I never said that. If you think I did, please quote it. You either have me confused with someone else, or are misunderstanding what I wrote. 

Now, if efficiency in every minimum wage job is not increasing at the same rate, then the value of every minimum wage job is also not increasing at the same rate. The FMW affects every minimum wage job.


----------



## OnePercenter

itfitzme said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again;
> 
> -Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.
> 
> -Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees.
> 
> -Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2013 price structure.
> 
> -Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe... But whatever is done, it shouldn't be done to quickly.  The economy doesn't do well with sudden changes.
Click to expand...


You mean tens of billions in consumer spending? The economy will do well.


----------



## itfitzme

OnePercenter said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again;
> 
> -Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.
> 
> -Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees.
> 
> -Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2013 price structure.
> 
> -Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe... But whatever is done, it shouldn't be done to quickly.  The economy doesn't do well with sudden changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean tens of billions in consumer spending? The economy will do well.
Click to expand...


Which hasn't occured quickly.  What did occur quickly was the collapse in consumer spending at the onset of the recession.

Sudden increases in spending, in a time frame that is apparently called "the very short run", causes inflation because output doesn't have time to adjust.


----------



## itfitzme

Mathbud1 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize you are in the CDZ right? Take a breath.
> 
> The problem is you are trying to apply a 10,000 foot view of overall increased efficiency to every individual job. Even if you accept the premise that every job has increased in efficiency, it doesn't necessarily follow that every job has increased the same amount in efficiency. You also can't ignore the possibility that there are jobs that have not appreciably increased in efficiency just because the overall efficiency has increased.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your point being what?
> 
> You start our by being offensive, then blaming other people.  Yeah, so it's the CDZ?  That means what to you, that you say things like "trying to sound superior for your economic training" then you are clueless that you start shit?
> 
> What part of "starting by being offensive" don't you get?  You use the second person pronoun then you get all "Oh, you're being personal..."
> 
> And, you've made no case that raising minumum wage will summarily increase prices.  You are the one making generalized and unproven statements based on some "complex systems" bull shit.
> 
> You think "complex systems......" isn't a  10,000 foot view?
> 
> Really, you actually believe you are making any sound arguments based on "complex systems"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, calm down. You are the only one here flying off the handle. That isn't helping the discussion. Me calmly pointing out that you coming into the thread immediately telling people that they should shut-up-about-economics-because-they-obviously-know-nothing-about-it sounds like you trying to sound superior might have been the worst thing anyone has ever said to you, if it was, and you need an apology for it, here you go: I'm sorry.
> 
> Second, you keep claiming that I think "raising minumum wage will summarily increase prices." Check the thread. I never said that. If you think I did, please quote it. You either have me confused with someone else, or are misunderstanding what I wrote.
> 
> Now, if efficiency in every minimum wage job is not increasing at the same rate, then the value of every minimum wage job is also not increasing at the same rate. The FMW affects every minimum wage job.
Click to expand...


I'm responding to what you present. If you aren't able to express yourself clearly, that's your own problem.  It just goes back to my point, an inability to take personal responsibility, gotta blame someone else.


----------



## Mathbud1

itfitzme said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your point being what?
> 
> You start our by being offensive, then blaming other people.  Yeah, so it's the CDZ?  That means what to you, that you say things like "trying to sound superior for your economic training" then you are clueless that you start shit?
> 
> What part of "starting by being offensive" don't you get?  You use the second person pronoun then you get all "Oh, you're being personal..."
> 
> And, you've made no case that raising minumum wage will summarily increase prices.  You are the one making generalized and unproven statements based on some "complex systems" bull shit.
> 
> You think "complex systems......" isn't a  10,000 foot view?
> 
> Really, you actually believe you are making any sound arguments based on "complex systems"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, calm down. You are the only one here flying off the handle. That isn't helping the discussion. Me calmly pointing out that you coming into the thread immediately telling people that they should shut-up-about-economics-because-they-obviously-know-nothing-about-it sounds like you trying to sound superior might have been the worst thing anyone has ever said to you, if it was, and you need an apology for it, here you go: I'm sorry.
> 
> Second, you keep claiming that I think "raising minumum wage will summarily increase prices." Check the thread. I never said that. If you think I did, please quote it. You either have me confused with someone else, or are misunderstanding what I wrote.
> 
> Now, if efficiency in every minimum wage job is not increasing at the same rate, then the value of every minimum wage job is also not increasing at the same rate. The FMW affects every minimum wage job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm responding to what you present. If you aren't able to express yourself clearly, that's your own problem.  It just goes back to my point, an inability to take personal responsibility, gotta blame someone else.
Click to expand...


If I presented it, show me where. 

I didn't. 

Misinterpret what someone says then say, "not my problem, if you can't express yourself clearly." Nice. 

Sounds more like you just don't like anyone questioning your reasoning. 

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## OnePercenter

itfitzme said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe... But whatever is done, it shouldn't be done to quickly.  The economy doesn't do well with sudden changes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean tens of billions in consumer spending? The economy will do well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which hasn't occured quickly.  What did occur quickly was the collapse in consumer spending at the onset of the recession.
> 
> Sudden increases in spending, in a time frame that is apparently called "the very short run", causes inflation because output doesn't have time to adjust.
Click to expand...


How can it cause inflation when prices are caped?


----------



## itfitzme

OnePercenter said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean tens of billions in consumer spending? The economy will do well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which hasn't occured quickly.  What did occur quickly was the collapse in consumer spending at the onset of the recession.
> 
> Sudden increases in spending, in a time frame that is apparently called "the very short run", causes inflation because output doesn't have time to adjust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can it cause inflation when prices are caped?
Click to expand...


What prices are capped?


----------



## OnePercenter

itfitzme said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which hasn't occured quickly.  What did occur quickly was the collapse in consumer spending at the onset of the recession.
> 
> Sudden increases in spending, in a time frame that is apparently called "the very short run", causes inflation because output doesn't have time to adjust.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can it cause inflation when prices are caped?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What prices are capped?
Click to expand...


Post #249 '-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years.'


----------



## itfitzme

OnePercenter said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can it cause inflation when prices are caped?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What prices are capped?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post #249 '-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years.'
Click to expand...


Who said that?


----------



## OnePercenter

itfitzme said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> What prices are capped?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Post #249 '-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said that?
Click to expand...


Post #249. Read it.


----------



## itfitzme

OnePercenter said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Post #249 '-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post #249. Read it.
Click to expand...


Why?  Prices aren't capped.  So I really don't care.


----------



## OnePercenter

itfitzme said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Post #249. Read it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?  Prices aren't capped.  So I really don't care.
Click to expand...


You don't want to know how to fix the economy?


----------



## itfitzme

Here we go, elasticity of minimum wage.








> Estimated minimum wage effects on employment from a meta-study of 64 studies showed insignificant employment effect (both practically and statistically) from minimum-wage raises supporting the Keynesian model. The most precise estimates were heavily clustered at or near zero employment effects (elasticity = 0).





> The strongest evidence suggests that the most important channels of adjustment are: reductions in labor turnover; improvements in organizational efficiency; reductions in wages of higher earners ("wage compression"); and small price increases.
> Given the relatively small cost to employers of modest increases in the minimum wage, these adjustment mechanisms appear to be more than sufficient to avoid employment losses, even for employers with a large share of low-wage workers.



Basically, little if any effect on employment or prices.

Schmitt, John (February 2013). "Why Does the Minimum Wage Have No Discernible Effect on Employment?". Center for Economic and Policy Research. Retrieved 2013-10-06.

http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf

Minimum wage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## asterism

itfitzme said:


> Here we go, elasticity of minimum wage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Estimated minimum wage effects on employment from a meta-study of 64 studies showed insignificant employment effect (both practically and statistically) from minimum-wage raises supporting the Keynesian model. The most precise estimates were heavily clustered at or near zero employment effects (elasticity = 0).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The strongest evidence suggests that the most important channels of adjustment are: reductions in labor turnover; improvements in organizational efficiency; reductions in wages of higher earners ("wage compression"); and small price increases.
> Given the relatively small cost to employers of modest increases in the minimum wage, these adjustment mechanisms appear to be more than sufficient to avoid employment losses, even for employers with a large share of low-wage workers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Basically, little if any effect on employment or prices.
> 
> Schmitt, John (February 2013). "Why Does the Minimum Wage Have No Discernible Effect on Employment?". Center for Economic and Policy Research. Retrieved 2013-10-06.
> 
> http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf
> 
> Minimum wage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Union propaganda:



> The Center for Economic and Policy Research is proud of the support that we receive. Approximately 80% of our funding comes from grants made by foundations. We are also supported by an ever-growing number of individuals who have made personal donations to our work. To join our ranks of individuals donors, click on Donate.
> 
> Support in 2012 includes:
> 
> American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE)
> American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)
> Arca Foundation
> Atlantic Philanthropies
> Ford Foundation
> Moriah Foundation
> National Association of Letter Carriers
> National Bankers Foundation
> Public Welfare Foundation
> Rockefeller Brothers Fund
> Russell Sage Foundation
> Service Employees International Union (SEIU)
> Sloan Foundation
> Streisand Foundation
> The Advocacy Fund
> United Steelworkers



Our Funders

Now why would unions want an increase in the minimum wage?



> The real reason is that some unions and their members directly benefit from minimum wage increaseseven when nary a union member actually makes the minimum wage.
> 
> The Center for Union Facts analyzed collective-bargaining agreements obtained from the Department of Labor's Office of Labor-Management Standards. The data indicate that a number of unions in the service, retail and hospitality industries peg their base-line wages to the minimum wage.
> 
> The Labor Department's collective-bargaining agreements file has a limited number of contracts available, so we were unable to determine how widespread the practice is. But the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union says that pegging its wages to the federal minimum is commonplace. On its website, the UFCW notes that "oftentimes, union contracts are triggered to implement wage hikes in the case of minimum wage increases." Such increases, the UFCW says, are "one of the many advantages of being a union member."



Richard Berman: Why Unions Want a Higher Minimum Wage - WSJ.com


----------



## itfitzme

asterism said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here we go, elasticity of minimum wage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Estimated minimum wage effects on employment from a meta-study of 64 studies showed insignificant employment effect (both practically and statistically) from minimum-wage raises supporting the Keynesian model. The most precise estimates were heavily clustered at or near zero employment effects (elasticity = 0).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Basically, little if any effect on employment or prices.
> 
> Schmitt, John (February 2013). "Why Does the Minimum Wage Have No Discernible Effect on Employment?". Center for Economic and Policy Research. Retrieved 2013-10-06.
> 
> http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf
> 
> Minimum wage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Union propaganda:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Center for Economic and Policy Research is proud of the support that we receive. Approximately 80% of our funding comes from grants made by foundations. We are also supported by an ever-growing number of individuals who have made personal donations to our work. To join our ranks of individuals donors, click on Donate.
> 
> Support in 2012 includes:
> 
> American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE)
> American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)
> Arca Foundation
> Atlantic Philanthropies
> Ford Foundation
> Moriah Foundation
> National Association of Letter Carriers
> National Bankers Foundation
> Public Welfare Foundation
> Rockefeller Brothers Fund
> Russell Sage Foundation
> Service Employees International Union (SEIU)
> Sloan Foundation
> Streisand Foundation
> The Advocacy Fund
> United Steelworkers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our Funders
> 
> Now why would unions want an increase in the minimum wage?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The real reason is that some unions and their members directly benefit from minimum wage increaseseven when nary a union member actually makes the minimum wage.
> 
> The Center for Union Facts analyzed collective-bargaining agreements obtained from the Department of Labor's Office of Labor-Management Standards. The data indicate that a number of unions in the service, retail and hospitality industries peg their base-line wages to the minimum wage.
> 
> The Labor Department's collective-bargaining agreements file has a limited number of contracts available, so we were unable to determine how widespread the practice is. But the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union says that pegging its wages to the federal minimum is commonplace. On its website, the UFCW notes that "oftentimes, union contracts are triggered to implement wage hikes in the case of minimum wage increases." Such increases, the UFCW says, are "one of the many advantages of being a union member."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Richard Berman: Why Unions Want a Higher Minimum Wage - WSJ.com
Click to expand...


Everyone understands that you are not capable of objective scientific reasoning but that doesn't mean anyone else isn't.  Empirical evidence is empirical evidence whether you like tbe answers or not.  And so far, all I've seen is a complete lack of any remote reasoning to support the idea that raising min wage necessarily causes increases in price or declines in employment.  And, empirical evidence fails to support it as well.

Your opinion about the motives behimd the study mean nothing except as testimony to your own biases.

Why, for instance, would a drug company bother studying a drug that they didn't believe worked.  Why would compamy bother marketing a product it didn't expect to sell?

You're point is meaningless.


----------



## oldfart

asterism said:


> Richard Berman: Why Unions Want a Higher Minimum Wage - WSJ.com



Your links make no effort to provide any evidence against the study.  This usually means that your sources have no evidence or reasoning to support their position and so they resort to attacks on the source.   Please give a full citation to any actual economic studies you are relying upon.  I'm pretty sure you have none.


----------



## asterism

itfitzme said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here we go, elasticity of minimum wage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Basically, little if any effect on employment or prices.
> 
> Schmitt, John (February 2013). "Why Does the Minimum Wage Have No Discernible Effect on Employment?". Center for Economic and Policy Research. Retrieved 2013-10-06.
> 
> http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf
> 
> Minimum wage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Union propaganda:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Funders
> 
> Now why would unions want an increase in the minimum wage?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The real reason is that some unions and their members directly benefit from minimum wage increaseseven when nary a union member actually makes the minimum wage.
> 
> The Center for Union Facts analyzed collective-bargaining agreements obtained from the Department of Labor's Office of Labor-Management Standards. The data indicate that a number of unions in the service, retail and hospitality industries peg their base-line wages to the minimum wage.
> 
> The Labor Department's collective-bargaining agreements file has a limited number of contracts available, so we were unable to determine how widespread the practice is. But the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union says that pegging its wages to the federal minimum is commonplace. On its website, the UFCW notes that "oftentimes, union contracts are triggered to implement wage hikes in the case of minimum wage increases." Such increases, the UFCW says, are "one of the many advantages of being a union member."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Richard Berman: Why Unions Want a Higher Minimum Wage - WSJ.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone understands that you are not capable of objective scientific reasoning but that doesn't mean anyone else isn't.  Empirical evidence is empirical evidence whether you like tbe answers or not.  And so far, all I've seen is a complete lack of any remote reasoning to support the idea that raising min wage necessarily causes increases in price or declines in employment.  And, empirical evidence fails to support it as well.
> 
> Your opinion about the motives behimd the study mean nothing except as testimony to your own biases.
> 
> Why, for instance, would a drug company bother studying a drug that they didn't believe worked.  Why would compamy bother marketing a product it didn't expect to sell?
> 
> You're point is meaningless.
Click to expand...




oldfart said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> Richard Berman: Why Unions Want a Higher Minimum Wage - WSJ.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your links make no effort to provide any evidence against the study.  This usually means that your sources have no evidence or reasoning to support their position and so they resort to attacks on the source.   Please give a full citation to any actual economic studies you are relying upon.  I'm pretty sure you have none.
Click to expand...


Show me evidence that either of you have given oil company studies on CO2 any consideration at all.


----------



## BillyZane

asterism said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> Union propaganda:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Funders
> 
> Now why would unions want an increase in the minimum wage?
> 
> 
> 
> Richard Berman: Why Unions Want a Higher Minimum Wage - WSJ.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone understands that you are not capable of objective scientific reasoning but that doesn't mean anyone else isn't.  Empirical evidence is empirical evidence whether you like tbe answers or not.  And so far, all I've seen is a complete lack of any remote reasoning to support the idea that raising min wage necessarily causes increases in price or declines in employment.  And, empirical evidence fails to support it as well.
> 
> Your opinion about the motives behimd the study mean nothing except as testimony to your own biases.
> 
> Why, for instance, would a drug company bother studying a drug that they didn't believe worked.  Why would compamy bother marketing a product it didn't expect to sell?
> 
> You're point is meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> Richard Berman: Why Unions Want a Higher Minimum Wage - WSJ.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your links make no effort to provide any evidence against the study.  This usually means that your sources have no evidence or reasoning to support their position and so they resort to attacks on the source.   Please give a full citation to any actual economic studies you are relying upon.  I'm pretty sure you have none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me evidence that either of you have given oil company studies on CO2 any consideration at all.
Click to expand...


What does that have to do with anything?


The fact is that we can actually look at you know history and use the figures to see that reasonable minimum wage increases have little impact on employment numbers OR prices.

Shouldn't a clean debate section mean not allowing people to ignore facts?


----------



## Dragonlady

I've seen it posted here that if minimum wages were raised 20%, then fast food prices would have to be raised by 20% to pay for the increase, and prices on other goods and services would also have to rise by 20% and the minimum wage workers would be no better off.  Posters further said that liberals were too stupid to understand this basic premise.

Well, I'm a liberal and the idea that raising minimum wages by 20% would cause fast food prices, or prices on anything would have to rise by 20% is so completely inaccurate, I question the intelligence of anyone who believes this and I can explaiin why.  The cost of the labour to make the burger is not the ONLY cost which is factored into the price of the burger.  In fact, it's only a small fraction of the price of the burger.  There's the cost of the ingredients, the capital costs of the equipment, furniture and fixtures in the store, the costs of mortgage/rent and utilities for the store, franchise fees and profit - none of which is affected by the wage increase given to the staff cooking and serving the burgers.

This is not just true of the fast food industry, but of any business which employs people at minimum wage.  Wages are just one component of the costs of goods and services sold, so that raises in wages may increase the cost of producing the item, but they're not the ONLY cost involved.  This is a detailed study which says that raising the minimum wage to $10.50 per hour would lead to a price increase of only 2.7%, which is a far more realistic figure than 20%.  

http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/research_brief/PERI_fast_food_wages.pdf

MacDonalds and Walmart are two of the most profitable corporations in the world.  Both do business in countries where the minimum wage is much higher than in the US, and both are very profitable in those jurisdictions.  If Walmart can be very profitable in Canada, where minimum wages are over $10 an hour, taxes are higher, and costs generally are higher, why can't they pay decent wages in the US?  Why are American taxpayers subsidizing Walmart employees with food stamps, and Medicaid while Walmart is the 2nd most profitable company in the US, and why do right wingers think this is a GOOD thing?

Shouldn't Walmart and MacDonalds (another of the most profitable corporations in the US whose employees heavily rely on government programs) be required to pay their employees enough in wages to keep their employees off public assistance?


----------



## itfitzme

Dragonlady said:


> I've seen it posted here that if minimum wages were raised 20%, then fast food prices would have to be raised by 20% to pay for the increase, and prices on other goods and services would also have to rise by 20% and the minimum wage workers would be no better off.  Posters further said that liberals were too stupid to understand this basic premise.
> 
> Well, I'm a liberal and the idea that raising minimum wages by 20% would cause fast food prices, or prices on anything would have to rise by 20% is so completely inaccurate, I question the intelligence of anyone who believes this and I can explaiin why.  The cost of the labour to make the burger is not the ONLY cost which is factored into the price of the burger.  In fact, it's only a small fraction of the price of the burger.  There's the cost of the ingredients, the capital costs of the equipment, furniture and fixtures in the store, the costs of mortgage/rent and utilities for the store, franchise fees and profit - none of which is affected by the wage increase given to the staff cooking and serving the burgers.
> 
> This is not just true of the fast food industry, but of any business which employs people at minimum wage.  Wages are just one component of the costs of goods and services sold, so that raises in wages may increase the cost of producing the item, but they're not the ONLY cost involved.  This is a detailed study which says that raising the minimum wage to $10.50 per hour would lead to a price increase of only 2.7%, which is a far more realistic figure than 20%.
> 
> http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/research_brief/PERI_fast_food_wages.pdf
> 
> MacDonalds and Walmart are two of the most profitable corporations in the world.  Both do business in countries where the minimum wage is much higher than in the US, and both are very profitable in those jurisdictions.  If Walmart can be very profitable in Canada, where minimum wages are over $10 an hour, taxes are higher, and costs generally are higher, why can't they pay decent wages in the US?  Why are American taxpayers subsidizing Walmart employees with food stamps, and Medicaid while Walmart is the 2nd most profitable company in the US, and why do right wingers think this is a GOOD thing?
> 
> Shouldn't Walmart and MacDonalds (another of the most profitable corporations in the US whose employees heavily rely on government programs) be required to pay their employees enough in wages to keep their employees off public assistance?



Yeah, the problem with their reasoning is that they forget that spending also increases by 20% when wages and prices increase by 20%.  

They do only a partial analysis because their predisposition allows them to only recognize info that supports their bias and ignores everything else.

I can guarantee that as soon as they say "liberal", it is an admission that they are biased.  By accusing everyone else of what they are obviously guilty of, they justify their inability at objective thought.

Actually, your recognition of the feedback that occurs between public assistance and falling wages tells me you have a clean objective view, "liberal" or not.  Something has to give. Do we stop providing assistance to people working at Walmart for poverty level income or do we raise minimum wage?  Little honest and objective though it required to figure that one out.


----------



## Tresha91203

BillyZane said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simple
> 
> Because not all workers are lower level workers, nor are all jobs lower level jobs.
> 
> The minimum wage recognizes this and ONLY mandates a minimum. Notice there is no law protecting CEO wages, because CEOs don't get taken advantage of.
> 
> That is after all the purpose of the law, to protect the weak. Nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does shutting the 'weak' out of the job market altogether help them in any way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> who's shut out of the job market?
> 
> You live in fantasy land if you actually believe that the local mcdonalds would hire more people if the min wage were just removed.
> 
> They wouldn't  They staff at a certain level and if their labor costs went down due to lower wages then they would love that , it would mean more profit for them.
> 
> I actually own 2 businesses and guess what, I hire exactly as many people as I need to get the job done, and none of my employees make near the minimum wage.
> 
> If I need 5 people to run a shift, I hire 5 people I don't say hey I could afford a 6th person here and likewise if I NEED that 6th person, I need him and I don't put off hiring him or her because of the wages. Either I need him or I don't.
Click to expand...


I need another employee but wont have the revenue without more enrolls. Fyi, none of my staff make min wage but starting salary is $10 per hour and requires a degree. We are a secondary job for the record, their primary jobs are as teachers (and one accountant). Same job in Seattle would be closer to $15. It is the same business franchise, just different costs of living in those areas.

Here, you can buy a mobile home brand new for under 50k, insurance runs under $100 per month, and utilities will be low. It is cheaper here than an apartment by far, and you own it so rent it out when you are able to build your dream home. Most places here, you can set it up behind your parents house (not if they live in a subdivision obviously).  Cant do that in Seattle.  

My salaries have changed by as much as 50% between south louisiana, pacific nw and vancouver bc. Same me, same resume, different town. Mobile homes are for farms there and everyone moves to apartments. They also keep roommates. Roommates are not common here at all outside of dorms. Places are just different. We arent going to be able to make these kinds of decisions for the nation as a whole. People in Seattle are closer in culture to those in vancouver than new orleans. Cost of living is impacted by that culture.


----------



## BillyZane

Tresha91203 said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does shutting the 'weak' out of the job market altogether help them in any way?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> who's shut out of the job market?
> 
> You live in fantasy land if you actually believe that the local mcdonalds would hire more people if the min wage were just removed.
> 
> They wouldn't  They staff at a certain level and if their labor costs went down due to lower wages then they would love that , it would mean more profit for them.
> 
> I actually own 2 businesses and guess what, I hire exactly as many people as I need to get the job done, and none of my employees make near the minimum wage.
> 
> If I need 5 people to run a shift, I hire 5 people I don't say hey I could afford a 6th person here and likewise if I NEED that 6th person, I need him and I don't put off hiring him or her because of the wages. Either I need him or I don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I need another employee but wont have the revenue without more enrolls.* Fyi, none of my staff make min wage but starting salary is $10 per hour and requires a degree. We are a secondary job for the record, their primary jobs are as teachers (and one accountant). Same job in Seattle would be closer to $15. It is the same business franchise, just different costs of living in those areas.
> 
> Here, you can buy a mobile home brand new for under 50k, insurance runs under $100 per month, and utilities will be low. It is cheaper here than an apartment by far, and you own it so rent it out when you are able to build your dream home. Most places here, you can set it up behind your parents house (not if they live in a subdivision obviously).  Cant do that in Seattle.
> 
> My salaries have changed by as much as 50% between south louisiana, pacific nw and vancouver bc. Same me, same resume, different town. Mobile homes are for farms there and everyone moves to apartments. They also keep roommates. Roommates are not common here at all outside of dorms. Places are just different. We arent going to be able to make these kinds of decisions for the nation as a whole. People in Seattle are closer in culture to those in vancouver than new orleans. Cost of living is impacted by that culture.
Click to expand...


then sir, you currently do not NEED another employee. You don't need another employee until AFTER the revenue justifies it, although there are cases where hiring an employee before the need is there makes sense to.

Likewise , if you're running efficiently, you aren't going to be able to get rid of an employee just because the minimum wage goes up, because then you would be understaffed


----------



## candycorn

itfitzme said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen it posted here that if minimum wages were raised 20%, then fast food prices would have to be raised by 20% to pay for the increase, and prices on other goods and services would also have to rise by 20% and the minimum wage workers would be no better off.  Posters further said that liberals were too stupid to understand this basic premise.
> 
> Well, I'm a liberal and the idea that raising minimum wages by 20% would cause fast food prices, or prices on anything would have to rise by 20% is so completely inaccurate, I question the intelligence of anyone who believes this and I can explaiin why.  The cost of the labour to make the burger is not the ONLY cost which is factored into the price of the burger.  In fact, it's only a small fraction of the price of the burger.  There's the cost of the ingredients, the capital costs of the equipment, furniture and fixtures in the store, the costs of mortgage/rent and utilities for the store, franchise fees and profit - none of which is affected by the wage increase given to the staff cooking and serving the burgers.
> 
> This is not just true of the fast food industry, but of any business which employs people at minimum wage.  Wages are just one component of the costs of goods and services sold, so that raises in wages may increase the cost of producing the item, but they're not the ONLY cost involved.  This is a detailed study which says that raising the minimum wage to $10.50 per hour would lead to a price increase of only 2.7%, which is a far more realistic figure than 20%.
> 
> http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/research_brief/PERI_fast_food_wages.pdf
> 
> MacDonalds and Walmart are two of the most profitable corporations in the world.  Both do business in countries where the minimum wage is much higher than in the US, and both are very profitable in those jurisdictions.  If Walmart can be very profitable in Canada, where minimum wages are over $10 an hour, taxes are higher, and costs generally are higher, why can't they pay decent wages in the US?  Why are American taxpayers subsidizing Walmart employees with food stamps, and Medicaid while Walmart is the 2nd most profitable company in the US, and why do right wingers think this is a GOOD thing?
> 
> Shouldn't Walmart and MacDonalds (another of the most profitable corporations in the US whose employees heavily rely on government programs) be required to pay their employees enough in wages to keep their employees off public assistance?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the problem with their reasoning is that they forget that spending also increases by 20% when wages and prices increase by 20%.
> 
> They do only a partial analysis because their predisposition allows them to only recognize info that supports their bias and ignores everything else.
Click to expand...

Can you give me an example?  You're stating that if wages go up X, prices increase by X too, right?  

If the FMW went up $0.05 at McDonalds, you'd see a $0.05 raise in what exactly?  The Big Mac, Quarter-Pounder, McNuggets?  On all drinks?


What exactly?


----------



## itfitzme

candycorn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen it posted here that if minimum wages were raised 20%, then fast food prices would have to be raised by 20% to pay for the increase, and prices on other goods and services would also have to rise by 20% and the minimum wage workers would be no better off.  Posters further said that liberals were too stupid to understand this basic premise.
> 
> Well, I'm a liberal and the idea that raising minimum wages by 20% would cause fast food prices, or prices on anything would have to rise by 20% is so completely inaccurate, I question the intelligence of anyone who believes this and I can explain why.  The cost of the labour to make the burger is not the ONLY cost which is factored into the price of the burger.  In fact, it's only a small fraction of the price of the burger.  There's the cost of the ingredients, the capital costs of the equipment, furniture and fixtures in the store, the costs of mortgage/rent and utilities for the store, franchise fees and profit - none of which is affected by the wage increase given to the staff cooking and serving the burgers.
> 
> This is not just true of the fast food industry, but of any business which employs people at minimum wage.  Wages are just one component of the costs of goods and services sold, so that raises in wages may increase the cost of producing the item, but they're not the ONLY cost involved.  This is a detailed study which says that raising the minimum wage to $10.50 per hour would lead to a price increase of only 2.7%, which is a far more realistic figure than 20%.
> 
> http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/research_brief/PERI_fast_food_wages.pdf
> 
> MacDonalds and Walmart are two of the most profitable corporations in the world.  Both do business in countries where the minimum wage is much higher than in the US, and both are very profitable in those jurisdictions.  If Walmart can be very profitable in Canada, where minimum wages are over $10 an hour, taxes are higher, and costs generally are higher, why can't they pay decent wages in the US?  Why are American taxpayers subsidizing Walmart employees with food stamps, and Medicaid while Walmart is the 2nd most profitable company in the US, and why do right wingers think this is a GOOD thing?
> 
> Shouldn't Walmart and MacDonalds (another of the most profitable corporations in the US whose employees heavily rely on government programs) be required to pay their employees enough in wages to keep their employees off public assistance?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the problem with their reasoning is that they forget that spending also increases by 20% when wages and prices increase by 20%.
> 
> They do only a partial analysis because their predisposition allows them to only recognize info that supports their bias and ignores everything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you give me an example?  You're stating that if wages go up X, prices increase by X too, right?
> 
> If the FMW went up $0.05 at McDonalds, you'd see a $0.05 raise in what exactly?  The Big Mac, Quarter-Pounder, McNuggets?  On all drinks?
> 
> 
> What exactly?
Click to expand...


I can't figure out what you are talking about.  General wage increases and general price increases aren't specific to anything.  What a minimum wage increase does, in general, is simply wage compression.  It raises the standard of living for minimum wage workers by reducing the income spread.  

The simplest view is to consider an economy where income is all identical. Everyone works for X per hour, producing Q goods. Everyone spends their X dollars per hour on Q goods.  Simply increasing the X per hour isn't going to impact the Q goods produced as the increased income all gets spent on the Q goods. Everyone makes more money, everyone spends more money, everyone still works the same amount of hours producing the same amount of goods that the same amount of people consume.

Now, consider an economy with an income spread.  Everyone works so many hours producing so many goods.  The lower end of income is minimum wage.  When minimum wage is raised, the average wage increases.  The lower end increases, the upper end remains the same.  The average price increases. Still, same amount of people producing and consuming the same amount of goods.  The only difference is that the income spread is smaller.  Minimum wage workers are now a bit closer to the average and now afford a bit more of the goods.

That is pretty much the basic conclusion that the empirical evidence supports.

The effect that is a bit harder to factor in is the fact that increasing the money supply tends to increase production ahead of prices.  And decreasing the money supply tends to decrease production ahead of decreasing prices.  The money supply has a mechanical aspect to it.

I suspect that this same effect is at play with minimum wage because the economy isn't homogeneous.  Minimum wage and lower income workers buy products at businesses that pay minimum wage and lower incomes.  Walmart, Walgreen's, Target, McDonalds, Taco Bell, FoodMax, etc, tend to make up a "sub economy" within which the monies used by lower income workers flows.  As inflation reduces the effective value of minimum wage, the amount of monies flowing in the lower income economy gets smaller relative to the whole.  Or, we might say that it fails to grow as effectively as it should.  I suspect that this tends to cause the lower income economy to wind down.

This last part is just my sense of it.   The fact of the general effect of increasing and decreasing money supply is well established, though I can't say "well understood".  That Target workers tend to purchase at Target, McDonalds, Walgreen's and Foodmax isn't to much of a leap.  So I don't believe I am to far off on declining real value of minimum wage having a real effect in kind of "winding down" the economy. The opposite would be that increasing the minimum wage would tend to increase output.  Maintaining a real dollar value of minimum wage (COLA) would tend to keep standard of living steady.

What appears to be NOT TRUE is the idea that increasing minimum wage increases unemployment.


----------



## candycorn

itfitzme said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the problem with their reasoning is that they forget that spending also increases by 20% when wages and prices increase by 20%.
> 
> They do only a partial analysis because their predisposition allows them to only recognize info that supports their bias and ignores everything else.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you give me an example?  You're stating that if wages go up X, prices increase by X too, right?
> 
> If the FMW went up $0.05 at McDonalds, you'd see a $0.05 raise in what exactly?  The Big Mac, Quarter-Pounder, McNuggets?  On all drinks?
> 
> 
> What exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't figure out what you are talking about.  General wage increases and general price increases aren't specific to anything.  What a minimum wage increase does, in general, is simply wage compression.  It raises the standard of living for minimum wage workers by reducing the income spread.
> 
> The simplest view is to consider an economy where income is all identical. Everyone works for X per hour, producing Q goods. Everyone spends their X dollars per hour on Q goods.  Simply increasing the X per hour isn't going to impact the Q goods produced as the increased income all gets spent on the Q goods. Everyone makes more money, everyone spends more money, everyone still works the same amount of hours producing the same amount of goods that the same amount of people consume.
> 
> Now, consider an economy with an income spread.  Everyone works so many hours producing so many goods.  The lower end of income is minimum wage.  When minimum wage is raised, the average wage increases.  The lower end increases, the upper end remains the same.  The average price increases. Still, same amount of people producing and consuming the same amount of goods.  The only difference is that the income spread is smaller.  Minimum wage workers are now a bit closer to the average and now afford a bit more of the goods.
> 
> That is pretty much the basic conclusion that the empirical evidence supports.
> 
> The effect that is a bit harder to factor in is the fact that increasing the money supply tends to increase production ahead of prices.  And decreasing the money supply tends to decrease production ahead of decreasing prices.  The money supply has a mechanical aspect to it.
> 
> I suspect that this same effect is at play with minimum wage because the economy isn't homogeneous.  Minimum wage and lower income workers buy products at businesses that pay minimum wage and lower incomes.  Walmart, Walgreen's, Target, McDonalds, Taco Bell, FoodMax, etc, tend to make up a "sub economy" within which the monies used by lower income workers flows.  As inflation reduces the effective value of minimum wage, the amount of monies flowing in the lower income economy gets smaller relative to the whole.  Or, we might say that it fails to grow as effectively as it should.  I suspect that this tends to cause the lower income economy to wind down.
> 
> This last part is just my sense of it.   The fact of the general effect of increasing and decreasing money supply is well established, though I can't say "well understood".  That Target workers tend to purchase at Target, McDonalds, Walgreen's and Foodmax isn't to much of a leap.  So I don't believe I am to far off on declining real value of minimum wage having a real effect in kind of "winding down" the economy. The opposite would be that increasing the minimum wage would tend to increase output.  Maintaining a real dollar value of minimum wage (COLA) would tend to keep standard of living steady.
> 
> What appears to be NOT TRUE is the idea that increasing minimum wage increases unemployment.
Click to expand...


Okay.

What I had heard more than few times is that if you were to start paying Nancy $0.50 more per hour on Monday, on Tuesday you'd have to raise your prices.  As if you have one sales unit and sell only one of them per day.  I mis-understood what you had wrote.


----------



## itfitzme

candycorn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you give me an example?  You're stating that if wages go up X, prices increase by X too, right?
> 
> If the FMW went up $0.05 at McDonalds, you'd see a $0.05 raise in what exactly?  The Big Mac, Quarter-Pounder, McNuggets?  On all drinks?
> 
> 
> What exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't figure out what you are talking about.  General wage increases and general price increases aren't specific to anything.  What a minimum wage increase does, in general, is simply wage compression.  It raises the standard of living for minimum wage workers by reducing the income spread.
> 
> The simplest view is to consider an economy where income is all identical. Everyone works for X per hour, producing Q goods. Everyone spends their X dollars per hour on Q goods.  Simply increasing the X per hour isn't going to impact the Q goods produced as the increased income all gets spent on the Q goods. Everyone makes more money, everyone spends more money, everyone still works the same amount of hours producing the same amount of goods that the same amount of people consume.
> 
> Now, consider an economy with an income spread.  Everyone works so many hours producing so many goods.  The lower end of income is minimum wage.  When minimum wage is raised, the average wage increases.  The lower end increases, the upper end remains the same.  The average price increases. Still, same amount of people producing and consuming the same amount of goods.  The only difference is that the income spread is smaller.  Minimum wage workers are now a bit closer to the average and now afford a bit more of the goods.
> 
> That is pretty much the basic conclusion that the empirical evidence supports.
> 
> The effect that is a bit harder to factor in is the fact that increasing the money supply tends to increase production ahead of prices.  And decreasing the money supply tends to decrease production ahead of decreasing prices.  The money supply has a mechanical aspect to it.
> 
> I suspect that this same effect is at play with minimum wage because the economy isn't homogeneous.  Minimum wage and lower income workers buy products at businesses that pay minimum wage and lower incomes.  Walmart, Walgreen's, Target, McDonalds, Taco Bell, FoodMax, etc, tend to make up a "sub economy" within which the monies used by lower income workers flows.  As inflation reduces the effective value of minimum wage, the amount of monies flowing in the lower income economy gets smaller relative to the whole.  Or, we might say that it fails to grow as effectively as it should.  I suspect that this tends to cause the lower income economy to wind down.
> 
> This last part is just my sense of it.   The fact of the general effect of increasing and decreasing money supply is well established, though I can't say "well understood".  That Target workers tend to purchase at Target, McDonalds, Walgreen's and Foodmax isn't to much of a leap.  So I don't believe I am to far off on declining real value of minimum wage having a real effect in kind of "winding down" the economy. The opposite would be that increasing the minimum wage would tend to increase output.  Maintaining a real dollar value of minimum wage (COLA) would tend to keep standard of living steady.
> 
> What appears to be NOT TRUE is the idea that increasing minimum wage increases unemployment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay.
> 
> What I had heard more than few times is that if you were to start paying Nancy $0.50 more per hour on Monday, on Tuesday you'd have to raise your prices.  As if you have one sales unit and sell only one of them per day.  I mis-understood what you had wrote.
Click to expand...


And that seems right.  Assuming the company just meets costs, as a free market firm should, then if Nancy earns $0.50 more per hour on Monday then you'd certainly have to raise prices on Tuesday, or however long it takes to get goods from production to the store shelf. By the time the next Monday comes around, or however long a pay period is, Nancy would see it is her paycheck and be able to pay that $0.50 more.  

It is interesting to note the little details like we get paid three weeks after we do the work.  Paychecks come every two weeks after a one week lag time.  So the work we do on the week of the 1st through the 7th has better than a week on the store shelves before the revenues find their way into out paycheck on the third week.  So it really is the $0.50 Nancy gets paid per hour in the first week of the Month means prices go up that week and Nancy actually sees her paycheck go up by the third week. By the time the fourth week comes around, she can afford the increased prices that showed up two weeks prior.

Seems to me you've got it spot on.  For simplicity sake, we can think of it as being one sales unit per day.  For practical purposes, I think of it as being a "standard basket of goods", as if Nancy produced a grocery cart full of stuff.  She doesn't, of course, but unless we are concerned with how efficient production is, it doesn't matter.

Of course, in reality, every company doesn't necessarily have all or any minimum wage employees. The trick which thinking economics is being able to find the simpler model that answers the question without over complicating things.  For many practical analysis, we can think of the economy as one big company producing one big basket of goods for one huge household of 300 million people (big mansion).  As money flowed back and forth between business and household, paycheck, purchases, paycheck, purchases, it has to be the same total amount.  For many practical purposes, the time period is irrelevant. It can be Monday, Tuesday, or this week, the next week.


----------



## itfitzme

candycorn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen it posted here that if minimum wages were raised 20%, then fast food prices would have to be raised by 20% to pay for the increase, and prices on other goods and services would also have to rise by 20% and the minimum wage workers would be no better off.  Posters further said that liberals were too stupid to understand this basic premise.
> 
> Well, I'm a liberal and the idea that raising minimum wages by 20% would cause fast food prices, or prices on anything would have to rise by 20% is so completely inaccurate, I question the intelligence of anyone who believes this and I can explaiin why.  The cost of the labour to make the burger is not the ONLY cost which is factored into the price of the burger.  In fact, it's only a small fraction of the price of the burger.  There's the cost of the ingredients, the capital costs of the equipment, furniture and fixtures in the store, the costs of mortgage/rent and utilities for the store, franchise fees and profit - none of which is affected by the wage increase given to the staff cooking and serving the burgers.
> 
> This is not just true of the fast food industry, but of any business which employs people at minimum wage.  Wages are just one component of the costs of goods and services sold, so that raises in wages may increase the cost of producing the item, but they're not the ONLY cost involved.  This is a detailed study which says that raising the minimum wage to $10.50 per hour would lead to a price increase of only 2.7%, which is a far more realistic figure than 20%.
> 
> http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/research_brief/PERI_fast_food_wages.pdf
> 
> MacDonalds and Walmart are two of the most profitable corporations in the world.  Both do business in countries where the minimum wage is much higher than in the US, and both are very profitable in those jurisdictions.  If Walmart can be very profitable in Canada, where minimum wages are over $10 an hour, taxes are higher, and costs generally are higher, why can't they pay decent wages in the US?  Why are American taxpayers subsidizing Walmart employees with food stamps, and Medicaid while Walmart is the 2nd most profitable company in the US, and why do right wingers think this is a GOOD thing?
> 
> Shouldn't Walmart and MacDonalds (another of the most profitable corporations in the US whose employees heavily rely on government programs) be required to pay their employees enough in wages to keep their employees off public assistance?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the problem with their reasoning is that they forget that spending also increases by 20% when wages and prices increase by 20%.
> 
> They do only a partial analysis because their predisposition allows them to only recognize info that supports their bias and ignores everything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you give me an example?  You're stating that if wages go up X, prices increase by X too, right?
> 
> If the FMW went up $0.05 at McDonalds, you'd see a $0.05 raise in what exactly?  The Big Mac, Quarter-Pounder, McNuggets?  On all drinks?
> 
> 
> What exactly?
Click to expand...


Alternatively, what may easily happen is simply that the profit margin on soft drinks goes down.  Apparently, everyone knows that the big profit margin is on the soft drinks.

Turns out to be a good search term;

Google Search: Profit Margin On Soft Drinks

Top 5 food mark-ups where restaurants make huge profits - DailyFinance

"





> 1. Non-Alcoholic Beverages
> This would include all soft drinks, coffee, and tea. The cost for restaurants in this area is literally pennies on the dollar. This is why many restaurants and chains switched to "free refills" without worrying one bit about their bottom line. These items cost the restaurant between 5 cents and 20 cents per serving. Keep that in mind the next time you want to order a $2.50 Coke. Soda is so cheap that paper cups, when used, represent a bigger expense than the soda itself. "



It is almost as if the hamburger and fries is complementary, just to get you to buy the soft drink.


----------



## BillyZane

itfitzme said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the problem with their reasoning is that they forget that spending also increases by 20% when wages and prices increase by 20%.
> 
> They do only a partial analysis because their predisposition allows them to only recognize info that supports their bias and ignores everything else.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you give me an example?  You're stating that if wages go up X, prices increase by X too, right?
> 
> If the FMW went up $0.05 at McDonalds, you'd see a $0.05 raise in what exactly?  The Big Mac, Quarter-Pounder, McNuggets?  On all drinks?
> 
> 
> What exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Alternatively, what may easily happen is simply that the profit margin on soft drinks goes down.  Apparently, everyone knows that the big profit margin is on the soft drinks.
> 
> Turns out to be a good search term;
> 
> Google Search: Profit Margin On Soft Drinks
> 
> Top 5 food mark-ups where restaurants make huge profits - DailyFinance
> 
> "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Non-Alcoholic Beverages
> This would include all soft drinks, coffee, and tea. The cost for restaurants in this area is literally pennies on the dollar. This is why many restaurants and chains switched to "free refills" without worrying one bit about their bottom line. These items cost the restaurant between 5 cents and 20 cents per serving. Keep that in mind the next time you want to order a $2.50 Coke. Soda is so cheap that paper cups, when used, represent a bigger expense than the soda itself. "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is almost as if the hamburger and fries is complementary, just to get you to buy the soft drink.
Click to expand...


Same thing with movie theaters. They actually lose money on every movie they show if you don't count concessions. But that $40 for 2 drinks a popcorn and a candy sure makes them money.

Ever used a SodaStream? Machine costs like 100 bucks. Then a refill of CO2 is $15 and a refill of syrup is around $6.

The CO2 cartridge can produce 60 liters of soda. So that is $.25 per liter.
The syrup can produce 12 liters . So that's $.20 per liter.

Total cost of $.45 per liter, which is CONSIDERABLY less than what you pay when you go out to eat or what have you.

No one should feel sorry for these places when discussing a minimum wage increase, they are making PLENTY of money.


----------



## itfitzme

That link;

PERI_fast_food_wages

Has a very precise statement;



> In what follows, we provide a step-by-step illustration of how the minimum wage impacts the business costs of fast-food restaurants to explain: (1) why* a 44.8 percent federal minimum wage hike from $7.25 to $10.50 would result in a modest cost in-crease equal to 2.7 percent of its sales revenue for the average fast-food establishment*, consistent with past research findings;


----------



## itfitzme

The supply and demand diagram for a no effective change would be something along these lines.





Quantity produced and consumed remains the same, before and after, while price goes up along with income.

I think that this, from the cited study, 





show that the change wouldn't be simple a shift but would also cause the curves to change slope.

I'm pretty the demand curve would change as shown here;





At lower quantity, the demand price wouldn't change because minimum wage isn't increasing the lower volume, higher price end of the demand curve.

I"m not sure about the supply curve, though.


----------



## Dragonlady

itfitzme said:


> That link;
> 
> PERI_fast_food_wages
> 
> Has a very precise statement;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In what follows, we provide a step-by-step illustration of how the minimum wage impacts the business costs of fast-food restaurants to explain: (1) why* a 44.8 percent federal minimum wage hike from $7.25 to $10.50 would result in a modest cost in-crease equal to 2.7 percent of its sales revenue for the average fast-food establishment*, consistent with past research findings;
Click to expand...


I posted a link to this study up thread.  Please note that the level of increase in the wages (44%) is substantial higher than the price increase to pay for it (2.7%).  This is why the idea of a global price increase on all goods and services equal to the percentage increase in the minimum wage is a false rationale.

I saw a *Republican* businessman on TV on the weekend, who espoused the notion that an increase in the federal minimum wage to $12.50 per hour would result in a one-time increase in the cost of living of 0.7% - that's less than 1% across the board.  He also said that such an increase would result in a cost savings in Medicare and food stamps, in the neighbourhood of $50 to $60 billion dollars.  

But keep on believing that increasing the minimum wage would be the end of the world as you know it.


----------



## itfitzme

Dragonlady said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> That link;
> 
> PERI_fast_food_wages
> 
> Has a very precise statement;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In what follows, we provide a step-by-step illustration of how the minimum wage impacts the business costs of fast-food restaurants to explain: (1) why* a 44.8 percent federal minimum wage hike from $7.25 to $10.50 would result in a modest cost in-crease equal to 2.7 percent of its sales revenue for the average fast-food establishment*, consistent with past research findings;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I posted a link to this study up thread.  Please note that the level of increase in the wages (44%) is substantial higher than the price increase to pay for it (2.7%).  This is why the idea of a global price increase on all goods and services equal to the percentage increase in the minimum wage is a false rationale.
> 
> I saw a *Republican* businessman on TV on the weekend, who espoused the notion that an increase in the federal minimum wage to $12.50 per hour would result in a one-time increase in the cost of living of 0.7% - that's less than 1% across the board.  He also said that such an increase would result in a cost savings in Medicare and food stamps, in the neighbourhood of $50 to $60 billion dollars.
> 
> But keep on believing that increasing the minimum wage would be the end of the world as you know it.
Click to expand...


I am pretty sure that we are in agreement on this.  I think I positive rep'ed you on the linked study.

It supports other studies that show minimum wage hikes as compressing wages.


----------



## Dragonlady

itfitzme said:


> I am pretty sure that we are in agreement on this.  I think I positive rep'ed you on the linked study.
> 
> It supports other studies that show minimum wage hikes as compressing wages.



My apologies.  My comments weren't directed at you but rather at those who continue to believe that raising minimum wages will result in huge price increases and job losses.  I quoted your post because it confirmed and supported what I was saying, not because I wanted to respond to or refute it.  Sorry I wasn't clear in that.


----------



## KGB

Dragonlady said:


> I've seen it posted here that if minimum wages were raised 20%, then fast food prices would have to be raised by 20% to pay for the increase, and prices on other goods and services would also have to rise by 20% and the minimum wage workers would be no better off.  Posters further said that liberals were too stupid to understand this basic premise.
> 
> Well, I'm a liberal and the idea that raising minimum wages by 20% would cause fast food prices, or prices on anything would have to rise by 20% is so completely inaccurate, I question the intelligence of anyone who believes this and I can explaiin why.  The cost of the labour to make the burger is not the ONLY cost which is factored into the price of the burger.  In fact, it's only a small fraction of the price of the burger.  There's the cost of the ingredients, the capital costs of the equipment, furniture and fixtures in the store, the costs of mortgage/rent and utilities for the store, franchise fees and profit - none of which is affected by the wage increase given to the staff cooking and serving the burgers.
> 
> This is not just true of the fast food industry, but of any business which employs people at minimum wage.  Wages are just one component of the costs of goods and services sold, so that raises in wages may increase the cost of producing the item, but they're not the ONLY cost involved.  This is a detailed study which says that raising the minimum wage to $10.50 per hour would lead to a price increase of only 2.7%, which is a far more realistic figure than 20%.
> 
> http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/research_brief/PERI_fast_food_wages.pdf
> 
> MacDonalds and Walmart are two of the most profitable corporations in the world.  Both do business in countries where the minimum wage is much higher than in the US, and both are very profitable in those jurisdictions.  If Walmart can be very profitable in Canada, where minimum wages are over $10 an hour, taxes are higher, and costs generally are higher, why can't they pay decent wages in the US?  Why are American taxpayers subsidizing Walmart employees with food stamps, and Medicaid while Walmart is the 2nd most profitable company in the US, and why do right wingers think this is a GOOD thing?
> 
> Shouldn't Walmart and MacDonalds (another of the most profitable corporations in the US whose employees heavily rely on government programs) be required to pay their employees enough in wages to keep their employees off public assistance?



my suggestion to you is to pick up a book on earned value & read it.  Companies hire/fire people based on the profit margin that person produces.  For example, on an engineering project, my engineers produce profit for me with the hours they put in.  They also do so at different rates, so a senior engineer (who I pay more) might cut more so into my profit margin than a junior one.  That isn't to say that I just use junior guys, since I might need a senior engineer to handle a tricky piece of the project.  Ok, cost of doing business.  Anyway, when you raise the minimum wage, you aren't getting 20% more profitability out of the same employee, you are just getting 20% more cost.

Restaurants price food items down to the ingredient.  These prices rise & fall over time so they are not a constant.  They also portion meals accordingly so they aren't wasting their profit margin.  Watch any episode of Restaurant Impossible & you'll see what I am talking about.  

Back to why McDonalds & Walmart make a profit in places like Canada with higher social costs.  Simple.  The earned value per employee allows them to do so.  Plus, they might have different procedures on containing food costs, shipping fees, leases, etc.  In other words, the business climate is different.  However, the earned value margin gives them the flexibility to do this & still make a profit.


----------



## Dragonlady

You've missed my entire point and your post on earned value shows a total ignorance of the realities of economics. 

My parents owned a restaurant. I know how the economics work. I was a bank manager for many years before I went to work with lawyers. 

Your post ignores the supply and demand of wage pricing which is what really drives wages. Those whose skills are in short supply, will always get higher wages as employers compete to hire them and retain their services. As soon as there is a glut of such individuals, their value will fall. 

When the NAFTA deal was signed, furniture and cabinet manufacturers moved out of Canada to the US and thousand of tradesmen were thrown out of work. The trade paid about $15 per hr. at the time for shop work. Competition for the few jobs that were available was fierce but the work, which hadn't changed, and the earned value of which hadn't changed, now paid $8 per hr.  That's how the job market really works. 

Walmart and MacDonalds are two of the most profitable corporations in America. Both could easily afford to pay higher wages to their employees and still be very profitable companies. Both pay their top executives salaries in excess of $15 million. And both encourage and assist their employees in obtaining food stamps and other federal assistance. 

These companies could afford to raise wages to their minimum wage employees to levels where they would no longer qualify for federal assistance and still be very profitable. Each dollar of additional wages paid would only cost them 65 cents since the remaining 35 would be a reduction of the company's federal taxes on profits. 

It's time for the government to stop subsidizing these companies low wages.


----------



## Mac1958

.

Good conversation above, adding some badly needed nuance.

I'd need to see the data on dynamic scoring rather than static scoring.

Raise someone from $8 an hour to $10 an hour, that's a 25% raise, and that increase could probably be absorbed.  That's static scoring.

But what about those making $9, $10, $11, $12 and up?  You're not going to give them raises too?  How can you get away with that?  How does wage pricing justify that? At what point is it "fair" to stop the domino effect of arbitrary wage increases?  And who, pray tell, is going to decide that?

Are we really sure that just plopping more arbitrary regulations and cost increases on companies is the only answer for people who choose not to improve their own lives?  I'd also like to know when we went from understanding that the purpose of a corporation being to maximize shareholder value to, instead, taking care of its employees' financial needs based on completely arbitrary platitudes like "living wage".

This topic is perfectly reasonable.  But show me that data, justify the wage pricing using dynamic scoring, consider and address the cultural effect (if you think there could be any), and then we can have a realistic conversation, that would be interesting, fascinating.  But most conversations I see on this topic are terribly simplistic.

.


----------



## Dragonlady

Mac1958 said:


> This topic is perfectly reasonable.  But show me that data, justify the wage pricing using dynamic scoring, consider and address the cultural effect (if you think there could be any), and then we can have a realistic conversation, that would be interesting, fascinating.  But most conversations I see on this topic are terribly simplistic.
> 
> .



Because the effect on other wages cannot be modelled or predicted, it's difficult to get reliable statistics and therefore difficult to create models, so we have to go for the more simplistic studies and discussions.  We do know that in the past, when the minimum wage was increased, unemployment did not go up, it went down, and prices didn't rise appreciably.

One thing is certain:  The cost of food stamps and Medicaid given to low income earners is much higher than the value of assistance received because of administration costs for these programs.  It would be much cheaper for Walmart and MacDonalds (and other high volume minimum wage employers) to pay their employees a wage high enough to disqualify their workers from receiving assistance, than it is for the government to supplement their wages with income assistance programs because of the costs of qualifying the recipients and administering their assistance.

Currently every US taxpayer subsidizes Walmart to the tune of $2500 per year, whether you shop there or not.  Walmart's minimum wage employees don't pay federal income taxes.  If Walmart paid them $100 per week more, the employees would no longer qualify for government assistance, and would be paying federal income tax.  Walmart's profits would fall from $15B per year to $10B per year, which means they wouldn't be the second most profitable company in the US but they would still be very profitable.

It's way past time for the American taxpayer to stop subsidizing the Walton family.  Those people don't need the money.


----------



## BillyZane

KGB said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen it posted here that if minimum wages were raised 20%, then fast food prices would have to be raised by 20% to pay for the increase, and prices on other goods and services would also have to rise by 20% and the minimum wage workers would be no better off.  Posters further said that liberals were too stupid to understand this basic premise.
> 
> Well, I'm a liberal and the idea that raising minimum wages by 20% would cause fast food prices, or prices on anything would have to rise by 20% is so completely inaccurate, I question the intelligence of anyone who believes this and I can explaiin why.  The cost of the labour to make the burger is not the ONLY cost which is factored into the price of the burger.  In fact, it's only a small fraction of the price of the burger.  There's the cost of the ingredients, the capital costs of the equipment, furniture and fixtures in the store, the costs of mortgage/rent and utilities for the store, franchise fees and profit - none of which is affected by the wage increase given to the staff cooking and serving the burgers.
> 
> This is not just true of the fast food industry, but of any business which employs people at minimum wage.  Wages are just one component of the costs of goods and services sold, so that raises in wages may increase the cost of producing the item, but they're not the ONLY cost involved.  This is a detailed study which says that raising the minimum wage to $10.50 per hour would lead to a price increase of only 2.7%, which is a far more realistic figure than 20%.
> 
> http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/research_brief/PERI_fast_food_wages.pdf
> 
> MacDonalds and Walmart are two of the most profitable corporations in the world.  Both do business in countries where the minimum wage is much higher than in the US, and both are very profitable in those jurisdictions.  If Walmart can be very profitable in Canada, where minimum wages are over $10 an hour, taxes are higher, and costs generally are higher, why can't they pay decent wages in the US?  Why are American taxpayers subsidizing Walmart employees with food stamps, and Medicaid while Walmart is the 2nd most profitable company in the US, and why do right wingers think this is a GOOD thing?
> 
> Shouldn't Walmart and MacDonalds (another of the most profitable corporations in the US whose employees heavily rely on government programs) be required to pay their employees enough in wages to keep their employees off public assistance?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> my suggestion to you is to pick up a book on earned value & read it.  Companies hire/fire people based on the profit margin that person produces.  For example, on an engineering project, my engineers produce profit for me with the hours they put in.  They also do so at different rates, so a senior engineer (who I pay more) might cut more so into my profit margin than a junior one.  That isn't to say that I just use junior guys, since I might need a senior engineer to handle a tricky piece of the project.  Ok, cost of doing business.  Anyway, when you raise the minimum wage, you aren't getting 20% more profitability out of the same employee, you are just getting 20% more cost.
> 
> Restaurants price food items down to the ingredient.  These prices rise & fall over time so they are not a constant.  They also portion meals accordingly so they aren't wasting their profit margin.  Watch any episode of Restaurant Impossible & you'll see what I am talking about.
> 
> Back to why McDonalds & Walmart make a profit in places like Canada with higher social costs.  Simple.  The earned value per employee allows them to do so.  Plus, they might have different procedures on containing food costs, shipping fees, leases, etc.  In other words, the business climate is different.  However, the earned value margin gives them the flexibility to do this & still make a profit.
Click to expand...


And all that is relative and you know it. We could own two identical companies and each decide that we want to earn more profit off each employee's labor. 

ALL the minimum wage law does is set a bare maximum on how much profit an employer can make from an employee and it is PROVEN that without such a constraint some companies WILL take advantage.

The historical numbers prove beyond a doubt that companies somehow manage to survive, nay even thrive when the minimum wage is raised. The crying otherwise is just that, crying.


----------



## BillyZane

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> Good conversation above, adding some badly needed nuance.
> 
> I'd need to see the data on dynamic scoring rather than static scoring.
> 
> Raise someone from $8 an hour to $10 an hour, that's a 25% raise, and that increase could probably be absorbed.  That's static scoring.
> 
> But what about those making $9, $10, $11, $12 and up?  You're not going to give them raises too?  How can you get away with that?  How does wage pricing justify that? At what point is it "fair" to stop the domino effect of arbitrary wage increases?  And who, pray tell, is going to decide that?
> 
> Are we really sure that just plopping more arbitrary regulations and cost increases on companies is the only answer for people who choose not to improve their own lives?  I'd also like to know when we went from understanding that the purpose of a corporation being to maximize shareholder value to, instead, taking care of its employees' financial needs based on completely arbitrary platitudes like "living wage".
> 
> This topic is perfectly reasonable.  But show me that data, justify the wage pricing using dynamic scoring, consider and address the cultural effect (if you think there could be any), and then we can have a realistic conversation, that would be interesting, fascinating.  But most conversations I see on this topic are terribly simplistic.
> 
> .



I don't know if companies will give those making $12,$15 an hour a raise or not, and frankly I don't care. Those people aren't on welfare so none of my business what they make.

And you are absolutely right, it is the job of a corporation to make money for the stock holders and nothing else.

This is why we have a myriad of regulations which tell corporations "no you can't do that" for example, wouldn't it be cheaper to just throw your garbage out on the street than it would be to pay someone to haul it off? Of course it would be, so a company solely driven by profit would NOT pay someone to haul off the trash if the government didn't make them. And so on and so forth.


----------



## Tresha91203

Other than the sudden change of meaning lately for words like "subsidy" and "loophole," I agree with this.  Federal minimum wage has been raised many times. Nothing catastrophic happened.  It does narrow the gap slightly. It does slightly negatively impact middle earners. While I dont think I agree with the concept, and I think there should be a better way, this is not a hill to die on for me ... maybe a paper cut.




Dragonlady said:


> Because the effect on other wages cannot be modelled or predicted, it's difficult to get reliable statistics and therefore difficult to create models, so we have to go for the more simplistic studies and discussions.  We do know that in the past, when the minimum wage was increased, unemployment did not go up, it went down, and prices didn't rise appreciably.
> 
> One thing is certain:  The cost of food stamps and Medicaid given to low income earners is much higher than the value of assistance received because of administration costs for these programs.  It would be much cheaper for Walmart and MacDonalds (and other high volume minimum wage employers) to pay their employees a wage high enough to disqualify their workers from receiving assistance, than it is for the government to supplement their wages with income assistance programs because of the costs of qualifying the recipients and administering their assistance.
> 
> Currently every US taxpayer subsidizes Walmart to the tune of $2500 per year, whether you shop there or not.  Walmart's minimum wage employees don't pay federal income taxes.  If Walmart paid them $100 per week more, the employees would no longer qualify for government assistance, and would be paying federal income tax.  Walmart's profits would fall from $15B per year to $10B per year, which means they wouldn't be the second most profitable company in the US but they would still be very profitable.
> 
> It's way past time for the American taxpayer to stop subsidizing the Walton family.  Those people don't need the money.


----------



## Foxfyre

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> Good conversation above, adding some badly needed nuance.
> 
> I'd need to see the data on dynamic scoring rather than static scoring.
> 
> Raise someone from $8 an hour to $10 an hour, that's a 25% raise, and that increase could probably be absorbed.  That's static scoring.
> 
> But what about those making $9, $10, $11, $12 and up?  You're not going to give them raises too?  How can you get away with that?  How does wage pricing justify that? At what point is it "fair" to stop the domino effect of arbitrary wage increases?  And who, pray tell, is going to decide that?
> 
> Are we really sure that just plopping more arbitrary regulations and cost increases on companies is the only answer for people who choose not to improve their own lives?  I'd also like to know when we went from understanding that the purpose of a corporation being to maximize shareholder value to, instead, taking care of its employees' financial needs based on completely arbitrary platitudes like "living wage".
> 
> This topic is perfectly reasonable.  But show me that data, justify the wage pricing using dynamic scoring, consider and address the cultural effect (if you think there could be any), and then we can have a realistic conversation, that would be interesting, fascinating.  But most conversations I see on this topic are terribly simplistic.
> 
> .



That is the crux of the problem.  Your current employees who started at minimum wage and have merited raises to $10 - $12 - $15/hour will certainly feel their worth diminished if you start the untrained, inexperienced newbie at the wage they are making.  That is a dynamic that the charts, graphs, and other numbers don't reflect.  But that dynamic is why a raise in the minimum wage invariably drives up other wages as well.  

Also those charts and graphs of raw wages don't reflect the additional cost to the employer in FICA contributions, SUTA, FUTA, work comp, and in many cases general liability premiums and, for some businesses, the cost of bonding, E&O, and other general costs of doing business.

Nor do they reflect the additional costs in many other products and services the employer must use in the business.  It is those inflationary pressures that reduce the buying power of the minimum wage year by year just as all of us see our dollars buying less each year than they did the year before.

Less than 3% of American workers are paid minimum wage and few of those stay at minimum wage for prolonged periods.  There is no advantage to them or any of us to artificially raise wages and increase the costs of living and doing business by an even greater amount.  Let the free market set the wages as well as the price of everything else, and it is almost certain that our dollars will buy more than they do now.


----------



## Dragonlady

Foxfyre said:


> Less than 3% of American workers are paid minimum wage and few of those stay at minimum wage for prolonged periods.  There is no advantage to them or any of us to artificially raise wages and increase the costs of living and doing business by an even greater amount.  Let the free market set the wages as well as the price of everything else, and it is almost certain that our dollars will buy more than they do now.



While less than 3% of workers are paid minimum wage, it's not true that few stay at minimum wage for prolonged periods.  Most minimum wage earners are over 25 and many are supporting families.

The free market is setting wages, and they're doing so by encouraging their employees to apply for SNAP and Medicaid which are paid for by taxpayers.  In effect, they're asking taxpayers to subsidize their cheap labour costs so they can maximize their profits.  You seem to have no problem with that.  I wouldn't want to give the Walton Family $2500 per year, but you seem fine with it.  The same holds true of MacDonald's.  I'm saying make these big corporations pay for their own employees wages and benefits, just like every other small business in the country.  Stop giving subsidies to the most profitable corporations in America.


----------



## Foxfyre

Dragonlady said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Less than 3% of American workers are paid minimum wage and few of those stay at minimum wage for prolonged periods.  There is no advantage to them or any of us to artificially raise wages and increase the costs of living and doing business by an even greater amount.  Let the free market set the wages as well as the price of everything else, and it is almost certain that our dollars will buy more than they do now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While less than 3% of workers are paid minimum wage, it's not true that few stay at minimum wage for prolonged periods.  Most minimum wage earners are over 25 and many are supporting families.
> 
> The free market is setting wages, and they're doing so by encouraging their employees to apply for SNAP and Medicaid which are paid for by taxpayers.  In effect, they're asking taxpayers to subsidize their cheap labour costs so they can maximize their profits.  You seem to have no problem with that.  I wouldn't want to give the Walton Family $2500 per year, but you seem fine with it.  The same holds true of MacDonald's.  I'm saying make these big corporations pay for their own employees wages and benefits, just like every other small business in the country.  Stop giving subsidies to the most profitable corporations in America.
Click to expand...


You have no basis to say what I am or am not fine with unless I tell you, so please put that non sequitur straw man back on the shelf.  Nobody forces anybody to work for the Waltons and what agreement the Waltons have with those who choose to work for them should be nobody's business but theirs.

I happen to believe in the concept of unalienable rights that the Constitution was designed to recognize and protect, and I am opposed to the federal government making anybody do anything other than what is absolutely essential to protect those rights and allow the various states to function as one nation.  I know that is a concept that all liberals and even some conservatives are incapable of understanding, let alone embracing, but you might as well not go the big government solution route because you'll get the same answer from me every time.

Anybody raising a family on minimum wage on purpose is an irresponsible idiot.  Unexpected circumstances do happen.  Because I married a man who go transferred a lot, I have had to start over many times, often at minimum wage or less, in a new place.  But I was happy to get those jobs because I knew that once I got my foot in the door, I could prove my worth to an employer and earn a much better salary.  And if that didn't happen, it was a good platform from which to net a better job with somebody else.  A hand up to those who are having a hard time through no fault of their own is fine but is something that should be handled at the state, local, or private level.  But start a family before capable of supporting one?  Not something that should be condoned or encouraged or subsidized by mandate ever.

Let the free market set the wages and stop worrying about anybody having it better than somebody else.  That way everybody has a chance to do better.  As long as the government tries to achieve more equality by fiat, the underachievement will continue to be rewarded and therefore achievement discouraged.  And the income equalities will only get worse.


----------



## BillyZane

Foxfyre said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Less than 3% of American workers are paid minimum wage and few of those stay at minimum wage for prolonged periods.  There is no advantage to them or any of us to artificially raise wages and increase the costs of living and doing business by an even greater amount.  Let the free market set the wages as well as the price of everything else, and it is almost certain that our dollars will buy more than they do now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While less than 3% of workers are paid minimum wage, it's not true that few stay at minimum wage for prolonged periods.  Most minimum wage earners are over 25 and many are supporting families.
> 
> The free market is setting wages, and they're doing so by encouraging their employees to apply for SNAP and Medicaid which are paid for by taxpayers.  In effect, they're asking taxpayers to subsidize their cheap labour costs so they can maximize their profits.  You seem to have no problem with that.  I wouldn't want to give the Walton Family $2500 per year, but you seem fine with it.  The same holds true of MacDonald's.  I'm saying make these big corporations pay for their own employees wages and benefits, just like every other small business in the country.  Stop giving subsidies to the most profitable corporations in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no basis to say what I am or am not fine with unless I tell you, so please put that non sequitur straw man back on the shelf.  Nobody forces anybody to work for the Waltons and what agreement the Waltons have with those who choose to work for them should be nobody's business but theirs.
> 
> I happen to believe in the concept of unalienable rights that the Constitution was designed to recognize and protect, and I am opposed to the federal government making anybody do anything other than what is absolutely essential to protect those rights and allow the various states to function as one nation.  I know that is a concept that liberals are incapable of understanding, let alone embracing, but you might as well not go there because you'll get the same answer from me every time.
> 
> Anybody raising a family on minimum wage on purpose is an irresponsible idiot.  Unexpected circumstances do happen.  Because I married a man who go transferred a lot, I have had to start over many times, often at minimum wage or less, in a new place.  But I was happy to get those jobs because I knew that once I got my foot in the door, I could prove my worth to an employer and earn a much better salary.  And if that didn't happen, it was a good platform from which to net a better job with somebody else.  But start a family before capable of supporting one?  Not something that should be condoned or encouraged or subsidized by mandate ever.
> 
> Nobody owes me a dang thing other than to allow me my unalienable rights that infringe on nobody else's rights.  You should not be responsible for providing me with shelter, food, clothing, healthcare, transportation, recreation, or anything elsel.
Click to expand...


So then obviously your proposal would be to do away with all labor related laws and just let employees fend for themselves......

Fortunately we learned our lesson when we tried that the first time.

Here's my problem with all this rah rah let the free market bs

Some of yall are for it, when you're for it, and no other time. 

For example, in a truly free market there would be nothing preventing even minimum wage employees from forming a union and exerting some pressure to have a say in what they earn, but some of yall, and I don't know where you stood on this particular issue, rant and rave anytime a minimum wage worker suggest forming a union or boycotting until they get better pay, or scream bloody murder any time they even ASK for a raise.

You see, the free market is not a company telling employees what they will pay, a free market is both sitting down and coming to a reasonable agreement on wages between them. One that makes both parties happy

Unfortunately, people are greedy , which only is a problem when one person has more power than another. When you have one thousand people applying for 100 jobs, there is no free market because in a free market each of those 1000 might demand a better wage, but when each of those knows there is only a 10% chance of them getting the job, they have no power to demand a higher wage if they want ANY chance of getting a job

It would be like if I owned a gas station in the middle of nowhere and you showed up , and were obviously in trouble and I immediately doubled the price of my gas. You would have NO power to debate that issue with me. Pay what I ask or go without . If however , there are several gas stations selling gas in my area, my power is less.


----------



## Mac1958

Foxfyre said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Good conversation above, adding some badly needed nuance.
> 
> I'd need to see the data on dynamic scoring rather than static scoring.
> 
> Raise someone from $8 an hour to $10 an hour, that's a 25% raise, and that increase could probably be absorbed.  That's static scoring.
> 
> But what about those making $9, $10, $11, $12 and up?  You're not going to give them raises too?  How can you get away with that?  How does wage pricing justify that? At what point is it "fair" to stop the domino effect of arbitrary wage increases?  And who, pray tell, is going to decide that?
> 
> Are we really sure that just plopping more arbitrary regulations and cost increases on companies is the only answer for people who choose not to improve their own lives?  I'd also like to know when we went from understanding that the purpose of a corporation being to maximize shareholder value to, instead, taking care of its employees' financial needs based on completely arbitrary platitudes like "living wage".
> 
> This topic is perfectly reasonable.  But show me that data, justify the wage pricing using dynamic scoring, consider and address the cultural effect (if you think there could be any), and then we can have a realistic conversation, that would be interesting, fascinating.  But most conversations I see on this topic are terribly simplistic.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the crux of the problem.  Your current employees who started at minimum wage and have merited raises to $10 - $12 - $15/hour will certainly feel their worth diminished if you start the untrained, inexperienced newbie at the wage they are making.  That is a dynamic that the charts, graphs, and other numbers don't reflect.  But that dynamic is why a raise in the minimum wage invariably drives up other wages as well.
> 
> Also those charts and graphs of raw wages don't reflect the additional cost to the employer in FICA contributions, SUTA, FUTA, work comp, and in many cases general liability premiums and, for some businesses, the cost of bonding, E&O, and other general costs of doing business.
> 
> Nor do they reflect the additional costs in many other products and services the employer must use in the business.  It is those inflationary pressures that reduce the buying power of the minimum wage year by year just as all of us see our dollars buying less each year than they did the year before.
> 
> Less than 3% of American workers are paid minimum wage and few of those stay at minimum wage for prolonged periods.  There is no advantage to them or any of us to artificially raise wages and increase the costs of living and doing business by an even greater amount.  Let the free market set the wages as well as the price of everything else, and it is almost certain that our dollars will buy more than they do now.
Click to expand...



If we're going to have a serious conversation on this topic, these issues have to be addressed.  Simplistic platitudes like "living wage" and "the business has enough money" do nothing to add to the conversation, and betray an abject lack of understanding of fundamental macro business economics.  They also do nothing to address the cultural issue of increasing pay for no reason other than "fairness".

I agree that there is a significant problem.  I also agree that having to publicly support people who aren't making enough money on their job is not a good thing.  But just arbitrarily slapping more costs and regulations on business with virtually no attention paid to their ramifications, and completely ignoring the capacity of the individual to improve their own lives, is either naive or intellectually dishonest.  Or both.

.


----------



## BillyZane

Mac1958 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Good conversation above, adding some badly needed nuance.
> 
> I'd need to see the data on dynamic scoring rather than static scoring.
> 
> Raise someone from $8 an hour to $10 an hour, that's a 25% raise, and that increase could probably be absorbed.  That's static scoring.
> 
> But what about those making $9, $10, $11, $12 and up?  You're not going to give them raises too?  How can you get away with that?  How does wage pricing justify that? At what point is it "fair" to stop the domino effect of arbitrary wage increases?  And who, pray tell, is going to decide that?
> 
> Are we really sure that just plopping more arbitrary regulations and cost increases on companies is the only answer for people who choose not to improve their own lives?  I'd also like to know when we went from understanding that the purpose of a corporation being to maximize shareholder value to, instead, taking care of its employees' financial needs based on completely arbitrary platitudes like "living wage".
> 
> This topic is perfectly reasonable.  But show me that data, justify the wage pricing using dynamic scoring, consider and address the cultural effect (if you think there could be any), and then we can have a realistic conversation, that would be interesting, fascinating.  But most conversations I see on this topic are terribly simplistic.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the crux of the problem.  Your current employees who started at minimum wage and have merited raises to $10 - $12 - $15/hour will certainly feel their worth diminished if you start the untrained, inexperienced newbie at the wage they are making.  That is a dynamic that the charts, graphs, and other numbers don't reflect.  But that dynamic is why a raise in the minimum wage invariably drives up other wages as well.
> 
> Also those charts and graphs of raw wages don't reflect the additional cost to the employer in FICA contributions, SUTA, FUTA, work comp, and in many cases general liability premiums and, for some businesses, the cost of bonding, E&O, and other general costs of doing business.
> 
> Nor do they reflect the additional costs in many other products and services the employer must use in the business.  It is those inflationary pressures that reduce the buying power of the minimum wage year by year just as all of us see our dollars buying less each year than they did the year before.
> 
> Less than 3% of American workers are paid minimum wage and few of those stay at minimum wage for prolonged periods.  There is no advantage to them or any of us to artificially raise wages and increase the costs of living and doing business by an even greater amount.  Let the free market set the wages as well as the price of everything else, and it is almost certain that our dollars will buy more than they do now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If we're going to have a serious conversation on this topic, these issues have to be addressed.  Simplistic platitudes like "living wage" and "the business has enough money" do nothing to add to the conversation, and betray an abject lack of understanding of fundamental macro business economics.  They also do nothing to address the cultural issue of increasing pay for no reason other than "fairness".
> 
> I agree that there is a significant problem.  I also agree that having to publicly support people who aren't making enough money on their job is not a good thing.  But just arbitrarily slapping more costs and regulations on business with virtually no attention paid to their ramifications, and completely ignoring the capacity of the individual to improve their own lives, is either naive or intellectually dishonest.  Or both.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Absolutely! There are people on BOTH sides of this issue who simply aren't thinking. They are primarily for or against this based on nothing more than which political party supports it and which opposes it.

A raise to $15 or higher would be catastrophic, it would result in the total destruction of our economy, but $10 would not. Yet the majority of people simply won't admit that the middle position is the best course for everyone. I don't understand the refusal to look at facts before rendering an opinion. At $10 an hour you're looking at an extra $90 a week per employee (full time that is) Let's look at say a typical McDonalds which averages $2,400,000 in sales per year

Biggest Fast Food Companies in Industry by Average Unit Volume - QSR magazine

A normal staff at a McDonalds is around 30 non management employees. Now worst, case we assume ALL of them are minimum wage employees and so they are all IMMEDIATELY moved up to $10 an hour. That's an extra $90 per person * 30 persons for an extra $2700 a week * 52 weeks (again we're talking worst case scenario for the franchise owner) and we come up with an extra $140,400 in payroll. Or .05% of sales. 

Now someone explain to me how anyone could be illogical enough to believe that prices would have to rise by 20% or MORE to cover an extra 1/2% in costs relative to sales?

McDonalds Corp themselves sales a franchise owner can expect to earn a 10% profit on gross sales per year which is $240K per year in profit for the owner. Even if he absorbed the ENTIRE cost of the hike in the worst case scenario his profit would only drop to $228K a year. I mean come on , this BS about prices having to go up so much is so easily dispelled.


----------



## itfitzme

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> Good conversation above, adding some badly needed nuance.
> 
> I'd need to see the data on dynamic scoring rather than static scoring.
> 
> Raise someone from $8 an hour to $10 an hour, that's a 25% raise, and that increase could probably be absorbed.  That's static scoring.
> 
> But what about those making $9, $10, $11, $12 and up?  You're not going to give them raises too?  How can you get away with that?  How does wage pricing justify that? At what point is it "fair" to stop the domino effect of arbitrary wage increases?  And who, pray tell, is going to decide that?
> 
> Are we really sure that just plopping more arbitrary regulations and cost increases on companies is the only answer for people who choose not to improve their own lives?  I'd also like to know when we went from understanding that the purpose of a corporation being to maximize shareholder value to, instead, taking care of its employees' financial needs based on completely arbitrary platitudes like "living wage".
> 
> This topic is perfectly reasonable.  But show me that data, justify the wage pricing using dynamic scoring, consider and address the cultural effect (if you think there could be any), and then we can have a realistic conversation, that would be interesting, fascinating.  But most conversations I see on this topic are terribly simplistic.
> 
> .



The current conversation about raising the minimum wage is in no way arbitrary. 

The convo has brought forth a few good sources of info on the subject, sources which are not "terribly simplistic".  These include;

Minimum wage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf

and 

http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/research_brief/PERI_fast_food_wages.pdf

Increasing the minimum wage has the positive effect of increasing wages that above minimum.  It isn't an unlimited "domino effect" that continues up the scale in an unlimited fashion.  It adjusts the slope of the wage curve with current estimates being that the marginal change goes to zero at about $12.00 per hour.   Adjusting the minimum wage is all that is necessary as the market sorts out the rest.

There is no "rule" that "the purpose of a corporation being to maximize shareholder value".  Indeed, the purpose of any company is to provide a living for the people that work for the company. In other words, the primary purpose of a company or corporation is and always has been that of "taking care of its employees' financial needs".  It is called "wages" and "salary".   If corporations simply "maximized shareholder value" and didn't pay anyone wages, no one would work for the company and it would cease to exist. 

Wages are supposed to "cost companies". In fact, all money that circulates in the economy pays for labor at some point up the supply chain. The Earth doesn't charge for resources.  The cost of obtaining those resources is the cost of the labor that extracts it.  The ocean doesn't charge for the fish. The Sun doesn't charge for the sunlight. The Earth doesn't charge for the oil. At some point up the supply chain; it is labor that builds the fishing boat; builds the oil rig; plants, waters, and picks the corn.  The entire economy is all about paying wages to members of households so they can buy the goods, pay the rents, and obtain the services that are needed for their lives.

The notion that people making minimum wage choose not to improve their own lives" is simply ungrounded, not based on data or anecdotal evidence.  All evidence says quite the opposite, that the overwhelming majority of people do everything that they can to improve their own lives."  The single factor that stands in their way is the realities of opportunities.  We do not live in a world unfettered by other people where everything that is available is available for our taking. 

The reality of the free market that is fundamental to micro and macro economics is that, at the very least, individual companies and workers are price takers.  The "invisible hand" of the market place sets wages and prices.  And, there is no rule that presupposes that the wages and prices set by the markets are, in any way, "fair".   A significant part of the markets is that there is typically an imbalance of market power.  And that imbalance never leans in the direction of low wage workers. A quantitiative measure of market power is in wage and price elasticity.


----------



## midcan5

Discussions about minimum wage seem irrelevant given the reality of trade and especially trade with third world nations. We now have billion of dollar deficits with Vietnam - if you can really believe that. No worry about jobs you just simply won't have a job. 

NAFTA moved jobs out, all trade agreements move jobs to third world, cheap labor, slave labor, places, helps the bottom line. Now TPP is poised to do the same. Unreal.  Even the Japanese don't like this so called agreement. 

See excerpt from a book everyone should read below links to info on TPP. 

https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/01/15

https://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/07/03-0

https://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/01/17-7


"The lesson they have drawn is clear: if lesser civilizations will assume the hands-on work, the more advanced West can concentrate on working with its brain. Thanks to the proliferation of business schools, this self-interested approach has almost instantaneously been converted into a philosophical rationale. Rosabeth Moss Kanter at the Harvard Business School writes as a leading thinker of the "post-entrepreneurial company," as if this were an intended and welcome result of business evolution. She sees companies marrying "the best of the creative, entrepreneurial approach with the discipline, focus and teamwork of an agile innovative corporation." She writes confidently of "the coming demise of bureaucracy and hierarchy." 

Kanter's critique of the big, old American corporations is in many ways accurate. *But the changes she imagines are dependent on the fact that much of the entrepreneurial and unbeatable competition from the Third World owes its success to social injustice. This does "not seem to have made an impact on the intellect of management thinkers or of managers in general. In their exciting role as capitalists they talk endlessly about the innate value of competition. To be competitive is their equivalent of morality. They treat competition as if it were a universal value enshrined within a single definition. Thus they miss the essential relativity of competition. Of course a nation which uses nineteenth-century social standards as a basis for industrial production will produce cheaper goods than one which uses middle-class standards. But even the rolling back of social policy sought by the New Right in the United States and Britain will not reduce production costs to Third World levels.*

For example, heavy industries, such as steel, have been hard hit by Korean production. In 1979, the American industry employed 435,000 people. Ten years later, it employed 169,000. Why is Korean steel so much cheaper? Before the recent worker protests, Koreans were putting in the longest average work week in the world - fifty-seven hours. In return they earned 10 percent of a Western salary. Since the Korean cost of living is quite high, the workers live in slum conditions. Unions have been virtually banned and strikes forbidden. The work conditions are reminiscent of nineteenth-century England. In 1986, 1,660 workers were killed on the job; 141,809 were injured. 
Given the modern manager's devotion to an international "standard" of competition, the effect of the marginal improvement in social conditions brought about in Korea by persistent and violent street demonstrations has been to weaken Korea's attractiveness as a capitalist producer. The citizen who listens to the modern rhetoric of free markets and free men would assume that a bit more social justice and democracy are good things. The cause of Western civilization has been advanced. The manager, however, sets aside rhetoric when it comes to specifics. From his point of view, Korea is now less competitive. 

*For those companies that wish to sell in the North American market, it is now far more competitive to produce goods by using the southern American States and northern Mexico in tandem. Social standards in the American South were never high, but they are now being reinstitutionalized at a low level by industrial investors in search of cheap, unsecured, and unprotected labour. A few hours farther south, across the border, is a massive assembly area called the Maquiladora zone. The southern American states function at half the wage levels of the north, of Canada and of Europe. The Maquiladora zone functions at mid-nineteenth-century levels of child labour laws and factory safety regulations. Wages are a tenth those of the developed world. Dangerous chemicals and explosives can be processed there without the expense of protection for the worker or the environment. A product manufactured between Tennessee and Mexico is now more competitive than one manufactured in Asia."*

pp 366,367 'Voltaire's Bastards: The Dictatorship of Reason in the West' John Ralston Saul


----------



## zeke

KGB said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen it posted here that if minimum wages were raised 20%, then fast food prices would have to be raised by 20% to pay for the increase, and prices on other goods and services would also have to rise by 20% and the minimum wage workers would be no better off.  Posters further said that liberals were too stupid to understand this basic premise.
> 
> Well, I'm a liberal and the idea that raising minimum wages by 20% would cause fast food prices, or prices on anything would have to rise by 20% is so completely inaccurate, I question the intelligence of anyone who believes this and I can explaiin why.  The cost of the labour to make the burger is not the ONLY cost which is factored into the price of the burger.  In fact, it's only a small fraction of the price of the burger.  There's the cost of the ingredients, the capital costs of the equipment, furniture and fixtures in the store, the costs of mortgage/rent and utilities for the store, franchise fees and profit - none of which is affected by the wage increase given to the staff cooking and serving the burgers.
> 
> This is not just true of the fast food industry, but of any business which employs people at minimum wage.  Wages are just one component of the costs of goods and services sold, so that raises in wages may increase the cost of producing the item, but they're not the ONLY cost involved.  This is a detailed study which says that raising the minimum wage to $10.50 per hour would lead to a price increase of only 2.7%, which is a far more realistic figure than 20%.
> 
> http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/research_brief/PERI_fast_food_wages.pdf
> 
> MacDonalds and Walmart are two of the most profitable corporations in the world.  Both do business in countries where the minimum wage is much higher than in the US, and both are very profitable in those jurisdictions.  If Walmart can be very profitable in Canada, where minimum wages are over $10 an hour, taxes are higher, and costs generally are higher, why can't they pay decent wages in the US?  Why are American taxpayers subsidizing Walmart employees with food stamps, and Medicaid while Walmart is the 2nd most profitable company in the US, and why do right wingers think this is a GOOD thing?
> 
> Shouldn't Walmart and MacDonalds (another of the most profitable corporations in the US whose employees heavily rely on government programs) be required to pay their employees enough in wages to keep their employees off public assistance?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> my suggestion to you is to pick up a book on earned value & read it.  Companies hire/fire people based on the profit margin that person produces.  For example, on an engineering project, my engineers produce profit for me with the hours they put in.  They also do so at different rates, so a senior engineer (who I pay more) might cut more so into my profit margin than a junior one.  That isn't to say that I just use junior guys, since I might need a senior engineer to handle a tricky piece of the project.  Ok, cost of doing business.  Anyway, when you raise the minimum wage, you aren't getting 20% more profitability out of the same employee, you are just getting 20% more cost.
> 
> Restaurants price food items down to the ingredient.  These prices rise & fall over time so they are not a constant.  They also portion meals accordingly so they aren't wasting their profit margin.  Watch any episode of Restaurant Impossible & you'll see what I am talking about.
> 
> Back to why McDonalds & Walmart make a profit in places like Canada with higher social costs.  Simple.  The earned value per employee allows them to do so.  Plus, they might have different procedures on containing food costs, shipping fees, leases, etc.  In other words, the business climate is different.  However, the earned value margin gives them the flexibility to do this & still make a profit.
Click to expand...



In other words; Canadians and other who still make a profit and pay their employees better (for doing the exact same job, selling the exact same product) are just better business 
people than Americans.

Or are they less greedy? 

Or did the Canadian government get tired of subsidizing employees with jobs and made the employer pay a better wage.

Of course, the Canadian McDonald's don't have to worry about health care costs for employees.


----------



## Foxfyre

Higher wages in Canada correspond with significantly higher costs of living in Canada.  Significantly increase wages in the the USA and we will see significantly higher costs of living here too.   Local purchasing power in the USA averages 25.4% higher than the same purchasing power in Canada.

The devil is always in the details isn't it.

The USA is not mistreating its people by not having a higher minimum wage.

Cost Of Living Comparison Between Canada And United States


----------



## OnePercenter

Foxfyre said:


> Higher wages in Canada correspond with significantly higher costs of living in Canada.  Significantly increase wages in the the USA and we will see significantly higher costs of living here too.   Local purchasing power in the USA averages 25.4% higher than the same purchasing power in Canada.
> 
> The devil is always in the details isn't it.
> 
> The USA is not mistreating its people by not having a higher minimum wage.
> 
> Cost Of Living Comparison Between Canada And United States



I see you link forgets to mention healthcare, which makes it moot.


----------



## Dragonlady

Canada also had Old Age Security which is an income supplement to low income seniors over and above the Canada Pension Plan which is like your social security. 

We have a lot of cradle to the grave social programs which the US doesn't have which contribute to the higher costs of goods. 

We also spend more money on education and infrastructure. All of this extra spending on people, improves the overall quality of life in Canada. 

One thing that also impacts prices is higher energy costs because we live in a colder climate so we use a lot more energy. This impacts our costs across the board.


----------



## Tresha91203

I found cost of living to be similar enough. My lifestyle did not change much financially. We remained on the same rung of the ladder as we were in the US.

The countries are very different, though. Prices are higher, but so are wages. Children are less expensive. I dont have kids so didnt get all the details, but you get money every year for each kid. Real estate prices are astronomical in the cities, and it is common to rent out your basement to ease the sting; however, you can get land in more rural areas cheaper, and if you are willing to move out of the more moderate zone, really cheap. 

Canadians are an awesome people. They are aliens, but cool ones ;-)  Most of America think in terms of the individual, even the ones who think they are for the group. I did not find that worldview there from the Canadians.


----------



## Roguewave

When President Obama demands a 39% minimum wage increase for his chosen beneficiaries does he factor in the commensurate decrease in buying power of those on fixed income from the resulting inflationary spiral?


----------



## Joe Steel

Roguewave said:


> When President Obama demands a 39% minimum wage increase for his chosen beneficiaries does he factor in the commensurate decrease in buying power of those on fixed income from the resulting inflationary spiral?



No.  Why should he?  Neither of those things will occur.

The decrease in buying power assumes prices will rise.  However, the overwhelming weight of evidence says that won't happen.


----------



## Iceweasel

Joe Steel said:


> The decrease in buying power assumes prices will rise.  However, the overwhelming weight of evidence says that won't happen.


Overwhelming? Prices haven't gone up in your neck of the woods?


----------



## Roguewave

Joe Steel said:


> Roguewave said:
> 
> 
> 
> When President Obama demands a 39% minimum wage increase for his chosen beneficiaries does he factor in the commensurate decrease in buying power of those on fixed income from the resulting inflationary spiral?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Why should he?  Neither of those things will occur.
> 
> The decrease in buying power assumes prices will rise.  However, the overwhelming weight of evidence says that won't happen.
Click to expand...


It's good to know that business owners will just subtract the forced wage increases from their bottom line. We should not stop at 39% in bestowing favors then, and pry, say, 100% raises out of the bastiches, if there are no consequences. I love this kind of math.


----------



## BillyZane

Roguewave said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roguewave said:
> 
> 
> 
> When President Obama demands a 39% minimum wage increase for his chosen beneficiaries does he factor in the commensurate decrease in buying power of those on fixed income from the resulting inflationary spiral?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Why should he?  Neither of those things will occur.
> 
> The decrease in buying power assumes prices will rise.  However, the overwhelming weight of evidence says that won't happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's good to know that business owners will just subtract the forced wage increases from their bottom line. We should not stop at 39% in bestowing favors then, and pry, say, 100% raises out of the bastiches, if there are no consequences. I love this kind of math.
Click to expand...


What a bunch of nonsense and I can't believe it's allowed to be used in a supposed clean zone.

Plenty of businesses could pay better wages if they wanted to, they of course don't want to.


----------



## SwimExpert

BillyZane said:


> Plenty of businesses could pay better wages if they wanted to,* they of course don't want to*.



So what makes you think that they'll simply roll and accept a lower profit margin if Congress passes a minimum wage increase?


----------



## Foxfyre

OnePercenter said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Higher wages in Canada correspond with significantly higher costs of living in Canada.  Significantly increase wages in the the USA and we will see significantly higher costs of living here too.   Local purchasing power in the USA averages 25.4% higher than the same purchasing power in Canada.
> 
> The devil is always in the details isn't it.
> 
> The USA is not mistreating its people by not having a higher minimum wage.
> 
> Cost Of Living Comparison Between Canada And United States
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see you link forgets to mention healthcare, which makes it moot.
Click to expand...


No dear.  Purchasing power is purchasing power.  That 25% additional purchasing power would buy a lot of healthcare.


----------



## BillyZane

SwimExpert said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> Plenty of businesses could pay better wages if they wanted to,* they of course don't want to*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what makes you think that they'll simply roll and accept a lower profit margin if Congress passes a minimum wage increase?
Click to expand...


To some degree, yes.

If I'm selling hamburgers, I'm ALREADY selling them at the highest price my customers will pay. If my costs go up, my customers don't care, my burgers are only worth so much to them. Price them too high and they won't sell.

Some of you guys forget this simple economic fact, if you ever knew it in the first place. Labor costs are the same as any other cost and the customer doesn't care what your profit margin is. Of course inflation could change things, but there is no evidence that supports the theory that a min wage increase causes inflation.


----------



## Roguewave

BillyZane said:


> ...there is no evidence that supports the theory that a min wage increase causes inflation.



If you really believed that, then why on earth would you stop at a mere 39% raise in gifting your beneficiaries? When you are dealing in magic, ask for the moon.


----------



## FA_Q2

BillyZane said:


> SwimExpert said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> Plenty of businesses could pay better wages if they wanted to,* they of course don't want to*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what makes you think that they'll simply roll and accept a lower profit margin if Congress passes a minimum wage increase?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To some degree, yes.
> 
> If I'm selling hamburgers, I'm ALREADY selling them at the highest price my customers will pay. If my costs go up, my customers don't care, my burgers are only worth so much to them. Price them too high and they won't sell.
> 
> Some of you guys forget this simple economic fact, if you ever knew it in the first place. Labor costs are the same as any other cost and the customer doesn't care what your profit margin is. Of course inflation could change things, but there is no evidence that supports the theory that a min wage increase causes inflation.
Click to expand...


Except that is absolutely incorrect.  You are acting as though the prices and sales are static  they are not.
It is correct that they are charging what they perceive to be the best price point for their hamburgers BUT it is not the only price point.  IF you decrease the profit margin per hamburger than the business needs to find a new price (likely higher) point.  That means they will sell fewer hamburgers but at a better profit margin.  If you eat into the profit margin by increasing wages then it is quite possible the company is going to find a new price point that gets them the best profitability.

So what does that mean? 

It means that the burger joint is going to make fewer burgers ergo have fewer employees.  They are also likely to have more expensive burgers.  Who have you helped then?  No one.

Fewer people working and STILL more expensive product.


----------



## bayoubill

Amelia said:


> If minimum wage were raised, presumably many people's wages would be bumped at least a little.  Even though only a small percentage of workers earn minimum wage, the people who started out at minimum wage and got raises would get upset if brand new employees suddenly got as much as they did, so lots of wages would go up.
> 
> So how many jobs would be created or saved by this move -- for instance because of the increase in spending money available for local spending?
> 
> And how many jobs would be lost -- for instance because the increase in American wages would make offshore labor look more appealing, or because business owners' profit margin wouldn't support a 20% hike in labor costs so they would let a small portion of their workforce go and hope for more productivity from the rest?



The most immediate effect most folks would see would be that it costs more for their breakfast at McDonald's.... and it would take 'em longer to get it... and the place wouldn't be kept up as well as it had been before...


----------



## SwimExpert

BillyZane said:


> SwimExpert said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> Plenty of businesses could pay better wages if they wanted to,* they of course don't want to*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what makes you think that they'll simply roll and accept a lower profit margin if Congress passes a minimum wage increase?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To some degree, yes.
> 
> If I'm selling hamburgers, I'm ALREADY selling them at the highest price my customers will pay. If my costs go up, my customers don't care, my burgers are only worth so much to them. Price them too high and they won't sell.
> 
> Some of you guys forget this simple economic fact, if you ever knew it in the first place. Labor costs are the same as any other cost and the customer doesn't care what your profit margin is. Of course inflation could change things, but there is no evidence that supports the theory that a min wage increase causes inflation.
Click to expand...


Burgers are not the economy.  Goods and services are different.  Some are more luxury, some are necessity, some are convenience.  Most are some combination of the two.  By providing something that the consumer requires the company has leverage over the consumer.  Thus, raising the price of what you are selling is not likely to prove harmful, so long as the increase is not extraordinary.

But since you used burgers as an example, so will I.  If I'm a greedy, evil business owner who sells burgers, and my labor costs go up, I can very easily offset those costs.  Chances are, the increase will amount to somewhere around $.02 per meal.  So I'm going to raise my prices $.10 a burger.  And $.10 a soda.  And $.05 per order of fries.  Nothing extreme.  Just something small that the consumer will scarcely register.  If some people start to make some noise about it then I'll tell them the truth.  That it's a reaction to the increased minimum wage.  I'll also tell them some tripe about how I allegedly managed to minimize the price increases.  This will make people think I care about them and will help them to quickly forget about their concerns.  After all, it's just a few cents.

So while I'm spending an extra $.02 per meal in labor, I'm collecting an extra $.25 per meal in revenue.  What a profit margin!  Meanwhile, I'm not the only one doing this.  Every other business is out there doing the same thing.  Price increases here and there that are pretty negligible for the consumer, but a huge profit for the business.  It doesn't take very long for a consumer doing grocery shopping to fill up their cart with food that is now $25 more expensive than before, across a month's food buying.  Then there's that tiny extra they're paying in gas.  Maybe only adds up to $10 a month.  Then there's their miscellaneous things like soap, shampoo, toilet paper, shaving cream and razors.  It's not that big of a deal, only $5 a month those nickel-and-dime price increases.

And one of the reasons I can get away with these little increases is because there are people who now have more money in their pockets.  Their ability to pay has increased, so their willingness to pay increases.  And since my price increases are seemingly negligible, _my business_ is giving them a deal, it seems.

And it increases, on and on.  That minimum wage worker quickly ends up in the same position as before.  Their increased pay is worth no more to them than their previous pay.  But you know the real kicker to all of this?  There _is_ one person who does actually benefit.  *And that's me, the greedy, evil business owner who managed to turn the increase of minimum wage into increased profit margins for myself, simply by nickel-and-diming each and every single person who walks through my door with seemingly negligible increases in my prices.*

And this is how the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.


----------



## BillSPrestonEsq

Though I'm hesitant to support any government intervention, I don't think raising minimum wage is necessarily a bad thing. I could be good for the country IF, at the same time government handouts were cut and the savings passed on to business in the form of a corporate tax cut.

It doesn't mean everyone would cooperate. But, it could give uneducated unskilled workers the ability to make a reasonable amount of money without hurting business and without rising prices for consumers or hurting other employees wages or work week.
Maybe even give those living off government the motivation to cut the cord and find a job. Especially if those government programs took cuts. Just an idea, I don't think m.w. requirements would be necessary if we didn't have the level of government involvement in business we do now, but since this is where we are at it could  actually be a move towards less government involvement.


----------



## Dragonlady

I fail to understand why people are so deeply concerned about raising the minimum in wage when most people who work for minimum wage are employed by the most profitable companies in the USA - including MacDonalds and Walmart. These are companies which openly assist their workers in applying for government assistance programs to supplement their wages. 

These are companies which pay their executives millions of dollars while helping their front line workers apt for food stamps. There is something very wrong with this. Especially considering these companies also operate very profitably in other countries with higher minim wages than the USA. 

I don't think there should be cutbacks in programs which assist the poor but I do think that wages should be increased to the point that those who have full time jobs shouldn't need government assistance to get by.


----------



## Politico

Because who they are employed by is irrelevant.


----------



## Iceweasel

Dragonlady said:


> I fail to understand why people are so deeply concerned about raising the minimum in wage when most people who work for minimum wage are employed by the most profitable companies in the USA - including MacDonalds and Walmart. These are companies which openly assist their workers in applying for government assistance programs to supplement their wages.
> 
> These are companies which pay their executives millions of dollars while helping their front line workers apt for food stamps. There is something very wrong with this. Especially considering these companies also operate very profitably in other countries with higher minim wages than the USA.
> 
> I don't think there should be cutbacks in programs which assist the poor but I do think that wages should be increased to the point that those who have full time jobs shouldn't need government assistance to get by.


As I mentioned to you before, state and federal regulations make it more tempting for a company to hire two part timers instead of one full timer. And minimum wage jobs are not designed to raise families with. It's a starter position for the young or semi-retired low level grunt work. People used to wait to make families or get two jobs. Walmart didn't create the system.

Nor do you have any concept of how franchises work. The owner of your local McDs probably isn't rich and is only the CEO of his store(s). Taking more of his profit will mean price increases or layoffs or closures. 

As far as the corporations, they are global like never before. Look at the foreign countries US franchises have invaded. By what measure would that not be more profitable?


----------



## SwimExpert

Dragonlady said:


> I fail to understand why people are so deeply concerned about raising the minimum in wage when most people who work for minimum wage are employed by the most profitable companies in the USA - including MacDonalds and Walmart. These are companies which openly assist their workers in applying for government assistance programs to supplement their wages.



Why be concerned?  It's fairly simple.  *Far reaching government regulation that does not accomplish its desired results is always a bad idea*.

Personally, I am very disturbed by companies like McDonalds and Walmart actively fleecing the tax payers into subsidizing THEIR payrolls.  I would be all too happy to see that practice end.  Raising the minimum wage will not accomplish that.


----------



## BillyZane

SwimExpert said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SwimExpert said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what makes you think that they'll simply roll and accept a lower profit margin if Congress passes a minimum wage increase?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To some degree, yes.
> 
> If I'm selling hamburgers, I'm ALREADY selling them at the highest price my customers will pay. If my costs go up, my customers don't care, my burgers are only worth so much to them. Price them too high and they won't sell.
> 
> Some of you guys forget this simple economic fact, if you ever knew it in the first place. Labor costs are the same as any other cost and the customer doesn't care what your profit margin is. Of course inflation could change things, but there is no evidence that supports the theory that a min wage increase causes inflation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Burgers are not the economy.  Goods and services are different.  Some are more luxury, some are necessity, some are convenience.  Most are some combination of the two.  By providing something that the consumer requires the company has leverage over the consumer.  Thus, raising the price of what you are selling is not likely to prove harmful, so long as the increase is not extraordinary.
> 
> But since you used burgers as an example, so will I.  If I'm a greedy, evil business owner who sells burgers, and my labor costs go up, I can very easily offset those costs.  Chances are, the increase will amount to somewhere around $.02 per meal.  So I'm going to raise my prices $.10 a burger.  And $.10 a soda.  And $.05 per order of fries.  Nothing extreme.  Just something small that the consumer will scarcely register.  If some people start to make some noise about it then I'll tell them the truth.  That it's a reaction to the increased minimum wage.  I'll also tell them some tripe about how I allegedly managed to minimize the price increases.  This will make people think I care about them and will help them to quickly forget about their concerns.  After all, it's just a few cents.
> 
> So while I'm spending an extra $.02 per meal in labor, I'm collecting an extra $.25 per meal in revenue.  What a profit margin!  Meanwhile, I'm not the only one doing this.  Every other business is out there doing the same thing.  Price increases here and there that are pretty negligible for the consumer, but a huge profit for the business.  It doesn't take very long for a consumer doing grocery shopping to fill up their cart with food that is now $25 more expensive than before, across a month's food buying.  Then there's that tiny extra they're paying in gas.  Maybe only adds up to $10 a month.  Then there's their miscellaneous things like soap, shampoo, toilet paper, shaving cream and razors.  It's not that big of a deal, only $5 a month those nickel-and-dime price increases.
> 
> And one of the reasons I can get away with these little increases is because there are people who now have more money in their pockets.  Their ability to pay has increased, so their willingness to pay increases.  And since my price increases are seemingly negligible, _my business_ is giving them a deal, it seems.
> 
> And it increases, on and on.  That minimum wage worker quickly ends up in the same position as before.  Their increased pay is worth no more to them than their previous pay.  But you know the real kicker to all of this?  There _is_ one person who does actually benefit.  *And that's me, the greedy, evil business owner who managed to turn the increase of minimum wage into increased profit margins for myself, simply by nickel-and-diming each and every single person who walks through my door with seemingly negligible increases in my prices.*
> 
> And this is how the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.
Click to expand...


except for , once again, what you claim will happen has NEVER happened when the minimum wage was increased, not once in multiple increases have we seen an increase in prices.

In fact, what we DO see is that prices are ALREADY being increased without any corresponding increase in wages. Making the entire argument moot.


----------



## SwimExpert

BillyZane said:


> except for , once again, what you claim will happen has NEVER happened when the minimum wage was increased, not once in multiple increases have we seen an increase in prices.



That is simply not true.



> In fact, what we DO see is that prices are ALREADY being increased without any corresponding increase in wages. Making the entire argument moot.



I guess that disproves your previous argument.


----------



## auditor0007

Amelia said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> If minimum wage were raised, presumably many people's wages would be bumped at least a little.  Even though only a small percentage of workers earn minimum wage, the people who started out at minimum wage and got raises would get upset if brand new employees suddenly got as much as they did, so lots of wages would go up.
> 
> So how many jobs would be created or saved by this move -- for instance because of the increase in spending money available for local spending?
> 
> And how many jobs would be lost -- for instance because the increase in American wages would make offshore labor look more appealing, or because business owners' profit margin wouldn't support a 20% hike in labor costs so they would let a small portion of their workforce go and hope for more productivity from the rest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lets just say for example that the new living minimum wage is double the current federal minimum wage: $7.25 x 2= $14.5/hr (+-$30,160 per year). The people who would supposedly benefit the most would be low skilled workers right? Now what about the moderate skilled workers who were making $15/hr already? Would they sweat in the hot sun all day as a construction worker if they knew they could make the same stocking shelves at Wal-Mart? Would they freeze in the winter as an HVAC repairman crawling under peoples houses if they could make the same amount sweeping the floors as a janitor? Would you? Employers dealing in construction, heating/air, plumbing, etc., will need to considerably increase wages to keep their staff on board. Indeed, all skilled labor employers would need to increase the wages of their workers in order to remain competitive in the market for skilled labor, or else, their competitors will grab them. Moreover, high skilled labor would need to increase their pay and benefits.
> 
> If you mandated a living wage you would only create a new poverty line with the same amount of poverty after the market settles down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I'm assuming that wages for skilled labor would also rise.
> 
> With millions being paid more, there would be more tax revenue.
> 
> 
> 
> I am curious about what the new standards would be for public assistance -- would the poverty line just be arbitrarily bumped up in accordance with the rise in minimum wage?  As you say, it seems likely it would.
> 
> But more taxes would be going into the coffer, so there would be more money for public projects.  That could mean more jobs.
Click to expand...


First off, doubling the minimum wage is unrealistic, imo.  That does not mean that we could not raise it by up to 50%.  This would cause some inflation, and yes, wages for everyone would creep up a little bit.  The big thing is that it would put a tremendous amount of additional money into the economy as lower paid workers tend to spend just about every dollar they earn.  That would lead to the need for more workers.  The real key is to increase wages without causing massive inflation. It's a bit tricky but it can be done.


----------



## Muhammed

The thing that disgusts me is that it seems that most of the people who are against raising the minimum wage are people who don't make much more than the minimum wage. 

The reason they oppose the minimum wage is based solely on their false sense of superiority over those who make minimum wage.

They are idiots.


----------



## BillyZane

SwimExpert said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> except for , once again, what you claim will happen has NEVER happened when the minimum wage was increased, not once in multiple increases have we seen an increase in prices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is simply not true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, what we DO see is that prices are ALREADY being increased without any corresponding increase in wages. Making the entire argument moot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess that disproves your previous argument.
Click to expand...


How exactly do prices rising independently of a minimum wage increase prove that prices do rise because of a minimum wage increase?

Answer? It doesn't.

That's like saying that a batter's average going up when the pitcher doesn't throw fast balls proves it goes down when he doesn't throw fastballs


----------



## SwimExpert

BillyZane said:


> SwimExpert said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> except for , once again, what you claim will happen has NEVER happened when the minimum wage was increased, not once in multiple increases have we seen an increase in prices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is simply not true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, what we DO see is that prices are ALREADY being increased without any corresponding increase in wages. Making the entire argument moot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess that disproves your previous argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How exactly do prices rising independently of a minimum wage increase prove that prices do rise because of a minimum wage increase?
> 
> Answer? It doesn't.
> 
> That's like saying that a batter's average going up when the pitcher doesn't throw fast balls proves it goes down when he doesn't throw fastballs
Click to expand...


I think you're deliberately trying to be deceptive now.  Your previous argument was that the price of burgers won't go up, because the price is already set to the maximum that it can be, and consumers won't pay more for it because they don't value it at a higher price.

Now, you are saying that prices are going up all around us.  These two premises are direct contradictions.


----------



## BillyZane

SwimExpert said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SwimExpert said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is simply not true.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess that disproves your previous argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How exactly do prices rising independently of a minimum wage increase prove that prices do rise because of a minimum wage increase?
> 
> Answer? It doesn't.
> 
> That's like saying that a batter's average going up when the pitcher doesn't throw fast balls proves it goes down when he doesn't throw fastballs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you're deliberately trying to be deceptive now.  Your previous argument was that the price of burgers won't go up, because the price is already set to the maximum that it can be, and consumers won't pay more for it because they don't value it at a higher price.
> 
> Now, you are saying that prices are going up all around us.  These two premises are direct contradictions.
Click to expand...


No they are not.

Prices are always going up as consumers are willing to pay more for products. What we see currently is that consumers ARE willing to pay more for products, even without a minimum wage increase. At the same time, we have no proof that a minimum wage increase leads to consumers being willing to pay more for products.

IOW if I give one of my employees a $1 an hour raise there is no proof that my customers are going to be willing to pay more for my products because of that.


----------



## SwimExpert

Yes, they are.  Either prices are going up and up and up, or they will not go up because they are already at the maximum of what people are willing to pay.  

One or the other.  It is impossible for both to be true.  Pick one.


----------



## BillyZane

SwimExpert said:


> Yes, they are.  Either prices are going up and up and up, or they will not go up because they are already at the maximum of what people are willing to pay.
> 
> One or the other.  It is impossible for both to be true.  Pick one.



oh good lord, I thought this was the adult section of the board

Prices are always rising IF the customer is willing to pay more. That doesn't  negate the fact that you have NO proof that a raise in the minimum wage has ever been the cause of a rise in prices.

In other words, inflation has remained pretty much the same whether the minimum wage is increased or not.


----------



## Mr. President

You can't effectively raise minimum wage without being able to cap prices of merchandise.  You must therefore fix your import export taxation laws to benefit job creation at home building a need for corporations to hire American workers to stay profitable then raise the minimum wage 2 dollars adding on tax incentives that offset the change in wage for the corporation.


----------



## Politico

BillyZane said:


> SwimExpert said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they are.  Either prices are going up and up and up, or they will not go up because they are already at the maximum of what people are willing to pay.
> 
> One or the other.  It is impossible for both to be true.  Pick one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh good lord, I thought this was the adult section of the board
> 
> Prices are always rising IF the customer is willing to pay more. That doesn't  negate the fact that you have NO proof that a raise in the minimum wage has ever been the cause of a rise in prices.
> 
> In other words, inflation has remained pretty much the same whether the minimum wage is increased or not.
Click to expand...


How silly. Labor is a upwards of 30% of a business budget. You can't increase that liability and not expect them to increase prices.


----------



## Iceweasel

Politico said:


> How silly. Labor is a upwards of 30% of a business budget. You can't increase that liability and not expect them to increase prices.


I've yet to see one of our liberal economic experts own a business for a day. It's all theory with no practical knowledge.


----------



## BillyZane

Iceweasel said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> 
> How silly. Labor is a upwards of 30% of a business budget. You can't increase that liability and not expect them to increase prices.
> 
> 
> 
> I've yet to see one of our liberal economic experts own a business for a day. It's all theory with no practical knowledge.
Click to expand...


I own 2 businesses and am not liberal. I also don't pay anywhere near the minimum wage. Primarily because I don't want minimum labor.

But labor is just like any other cost, the prices fluctuate over time, my costs on everything have went up over the last year. I don't raise my prices every time one of those costs go up, eventually if the total costs go too high, yes I have to raise prices, but this idea that prices will HAVE to go up if the minimum wage is raised is ridiculous. AND history has proven it false.


----------



## Iceweasel

BillyZane said:


> But labor is just like any other cost, the prices fluctuate over time, my costs on everything have went up over the last year. I don't raise my prices every time one of those costs go up, eventually if the total costs go too high, yes I have to raise prices, but this idea that prices will HAVE to go up if the minimum wage is raised is ridiculous. AND history has proven it false.


Labor is a huge determining factor for pricing your services, yours and your employees. Paying a dollar more for an item is one thing, especially if it's still profitable but paying a full timer a dollar an hour more all year is no small matter. What historical evidence are you eluding to?


----------



## Dragonlady

Iceweasel said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> 
> How silly. Labor is a upwards of 30% of a business budget. You can't increase that liability and not expect them to increase prices.
> 
> 
> 
> I've yet to see one of our liberal economic experts own a business for a day. It's all theory with no practical knowledge.
Click to expand...


I have owned a business, as have my parents and other family members. We're all liberals.


----------



## Iceweasel

I've yet to see one of our liberal economic experts own a business for a day. It's all theory with no practical knowledge.





> I have owned a business, as have my parents and other family members. We're all liberals.


Yes I know liberals own businesses. Google is way left and they are filthy sticking rich and it costs a fortune to advertise with them. Yet we never see their name mentioned from the left when we hear about corporate greed. Maybe you are qualified to answer why that is.


----------



## BillyZane

Iceweasel said:


> I've yet to see one of our liberal economic experts own a business for a day. It's all theory with no practical knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have owned a business, as have my parents and other family members. We're all liberals.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I know liberals own businesses. Google is way left and they are filthy sticking rich and it costs a fortune to advertise with them. Yet we never see their name mentioned from the left when we hear about corporate greed. Maybe you are qualified to answer why that is.
Click to expand...


You're clearly the one with no knowledge here.

Let's take a fictional restaurant.

Let's assume 10 wage earners at minimum wage .Now let's take the industry standard and say that labor is 30% of sales. So $2,900 * .30X gives us x=$sales per week.

Or $8700 i sales per week.

Now, let's assume minimum wage is raised to $10 an hour giving this restaurant an additional labor cost of $900 a week for a total of $3700 in labor costs.  Or a 10% increase in costs. 

Now remember, this is abut the WORST case scenario b/c few if any businesses have all their employees at minimum wage. So we can set 10% as the most a companies payroll would go up by if the minimum wage were raised to $10 an hour.

So, we can see that unless greedy and stupid a company should raise prices by no more than 10% to offset increased labor costs. An increase of 10% given that the minimum wage increased would be acceptable to consumers but any more than that and consumers would likely balk.

So your #3 with cheese would go from $3.69 to $4. Now , I don't know about you , but I find myself noticing that prices have ALREADY been rising by about that much every year without any minimum wage increase. Meaning no likely impact on pricing, which once again, if you look at historical inflation data you would see it agrees with that assesment


----------



## BillyZane

Iceweasel said:


> I've yet to see one of our liberal economic experts own a business for a day. It's all theory with no practical knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have owned a business, as have my parents and other family members. We're all liberals.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I know liberals own businesses. Google is way left and they are filthy sticking rich and it costs a fortune to advertise with them. Yet we never see their name mentioned from the left when we hear about corporate greed. Maybe you are qualified to answer why that is.
Click to expand...


Very poor choice to bring up Google in this thread to make your "point"

Google Salaries and Benefits | Glassdoor

Google is near or at the top of the pay scale in nearly every job.

NO ONE cares how greedy a company is as long as we the taxpayer aren't subsidizing them or their wages.


----------



## Iceweasel

BillyZane said:


> Very poor choice to bring up Google in this thread to make your "point"
> 
> Google Salaries and Benefits | Glassdoor
> 
> Google is near or at the top of the pay scale in nearly every job.
> 
> NO ONE cares how greedy a company is as long as we the taxpayer aren't subsidizing them or their wages.


Google is wildly successful because they don't have much in the way of competition. You can't use their salary figures in highly competive fields. But that isn't what we were talking about. Not subsidized huh?


Google's Billions In Internet Subsidies... -SVW
Google is the world's single largest user of Internet bandwidth. But it doesn't have to pay for most of the bandwidth it consumes, in the form of its spiderbots copying web pages, and YouTube video streams.

A study in December 2008 estimated Google's 'free' bandwidth use to be about $6.9 billion, today it could be double that amount. [Precursor study- December 2008]

Scott Cleland, head of Precursor, is a leading Google critic especially of its position supporting net neutrality. Google has been lobbying the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to maintain net neutrality regulations, which prevent Telcos from charging companies for bandwidth based on usage. He claims that Google is pushing net neutrality because it is the biggest beneficiary of such rules.


----------



## Iceweasel

BillyZane said:


> You're clearly the one with no knowledge here.
> 
> Let's take a fictional restaurant.
> 
> Let's assume 10 wage earners at minimum wage .Now let's take the industry standard and say that labor is 30% of sales. So $2,900 * .30X gives us x=$sales per week.
> 
> Or $8700 i sales per week.


What does 10 emplyees at minimum wage have to do with weekly sales figures?


> Now, let's assume minimum wage is raised to $10 an hour giving this restaurant an additional labor cost of $900 a week for a total of $3700 in labor costs.  Or a 10% increase in costs.
> 
> Now remember, this is abut the WORST case scenario b/c few if any businesses have all their employees at minimum wage. So we can set 10% as the most a companies payroll would go up by if the minimum wage were raised to $10 an hour.
> 
> So, we can see that unless greedy and stupid a company should raise prices by no more than 10% to offset increased labor costs. An increase of 10% given that the minimum wage increased would be acceptable to consumers but any more than that and consumers would likely balk.


Many restaurants are barely squeaking by. If they sell alcohol that's where they make the money. And you don't think a $3,600 increase in obligations will hurt the profit margin? BTW, 900x4=3,600 not 3,700. I will assume that you are not the accountant at the restaurant.


> So your #3 with cheese would go from $3.69 to $4. Now , I don't know about you , but I find myself noticing that prices have ALREADY been rising by about that much every year without any minimum wage increase. Meaning no likely impact on pricing, which once again, if you look at historical inflation data you would see it agrees with that assesment


No, you left out cost increases for everything else. Rent, utilities, food, equipment, repairs, taxes, supplies, etc.


----------



## Dragonlady

Amazing that conservatives are prepared to accept that costs on everything have gone up but still not prepared to accept that this is also true for their workers. Rent, food car expenses, everything has gone up for working folks except their wages. Americans have increased productivity and profits. Shouldn't they be entitled to a raise as a reward for this?

Not according to conservatives. That money should go to executives and shareholders but not the people who did the work that made it happen.


----------



## OnePercenter

Dragonlady said:


> Amazing that conservatives are prepared to accept that costs on everything have gone up but still not prepared to accept that this is also true for their workers. Rent, food car expenses, everything has gone up for working folks except their wages. Americans have increased productivity and profits. Shouldn't they be entitled to a raise as a reward for this?
> 
> Not according to conservatives. That money should go to executives and shareholders but not the people who did the work that made it happen.



Right on! 

That's why my plan is a win-win

-Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.

-Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees.

-Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2013 price structure.

-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years.

-Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.


----------



## Iceweasel

Dragonlady said:


> Amazing that conservatives are prepared to accept that costs on everything have gone up but still not prepared to accept that this is also true for their workers. Rent, food car expenses, everything has gone up for working folks except their wages. Americans have increased productivity and profits. Shouldn't they be entitled to a raise as a reward for this?
> 
> Not according to conservatives. That money should go to executives and shareholders but not the people who did the work that made it happen.


Wages have gone up, what are you talking about? I agree that they haven't gone up enough but it's due to the poor economy. I'd like to see the stats on American workers being more productive. Are you sure that isn't due to automation?


----------



## BillyZane

Iceweasel said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're clearly the one with no knowledge here.
> 
> Let's take a fictional restaurant.
> 
> Let's assume 10 wage earners at minimum wage .Now let's take the industry standard and say that labor is 30% of sales. So $2,900 * .30X gives us x=$sales per week.
> 
> Or $8700 i sales per week.
> 
> 
> 
> What does 10 emplyees at minimum wage have to do with weekly sales figures?
> 
> 
> 
> Now, let's assume minimum wage is raised to $10 an hour giving this restaurant an additional labor cost of $900 a week for a total of $3700 in labor costs.  Or a 10% increase in costs.
> 
> Now remember, this is abut the WORST case scenario b/c few if any businesses have all their employees at minimum wage. So we can set 10% as the most a companies payroll would go up by if the minimum wage were raised to $10 an hour.
> 
> So, we can see that unless greedy and stupid a company should raise prices by no more than 10% to offset increased labor costs. An increase of 10% given that the minimum wage increased would be acceptable to consumers but any more than that and consumers would likely balk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many restaurants are barely squeaking by. If they sell alcohol that's where they make the money. And you don't think a $3,600 increase in obligations will hurt the profit margin? BTW, 900x4=3,600 not 3,700. I will assume that you are not the accountant at the restaurant.
> 
> 
> 
> So your #3 with cheese would go from $3.69 to $4. Now , I don't know about you , but I find myself noticing that prices have ALREADY been rising by about that much every year without any minimum wage increase. Meaning no likely impact on pricing, which once again, if you look at historical inflation data you would see it agrees with that assesment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you left out cost increases for everything else. Rent, utilities, food, equipment, repairs, taxes, supplies, etc.
Click to expand...


If quibbling over a $100 math error is the best you have, well then I'm wasting my time

Oh, and any restaurant, or other business, that is barely getting by should consider shutting the doors.  FAR too many people open businesses that fail because they are stupid

No successful restaurant, or indeed ANY, business is going to fail because of a 10% , again AT MOST, increase in labor costs.

You seem to be suggesting that you believe the minimum wage law is in place to help support barely operable businesses stay afloat, it is not.


----------



## Foxfyre

OnePercenter said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing that conservatives are prepared to accept that costs on everything have gone up but still not prepared to accept that this is also true for their workers. Rent, food car expenses, everything has gone up for working folks except their wages. Americans have increased productivity and profits. Shouldn't they be entitled to a raise as a reward for this?
> 
> Not according to conservatives. That money should go to executives and shareholders but not the people who did the work that made it happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right on!
> 
> That's why my plan is a win-win
> 
> -Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.
> 
> -Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees.
> 
> -Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2013 price structure.
> 
> -Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years.
> 
> -Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.
Click to expand...


Just one comment here.  Google government price controls and read up on the history and consequences of that somehwere other than on leftwing propaganda sites.  Here is a good place to start but is defnitely not the only or last word on the subject:

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/2001/4/morton.pdf

Much of the same dynamics occur with government controlling the cost of labor.


----------



## Dragonlady

Iceweasel said:


> Wages have gone up, what are you talking about? I agree that they haven't gone up enough but it's due to the poor economy. I'd like to see the stats on American workers being more productive. Are you sure that isn't due to automation?



For low and middle income workers, the wages haven't kept pace with inflation. A lot of that is due to manufacturing moving offshore. The competition for the remaining jobs has been so brisk that companies don't have to raise wages to attract workers because of the high number of people looking for work. 

Every time I see the Walmart add talking about bringing manufacturing jobs back to the US, I throw up a little in my mouth. Walmart was instrumental in a lot of jobs going overseas in the first place. They pushed suppliers to move manufacturing to third world countries to cut wholesale prices.


----------



## BillyZane

Iceweasel said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing that conservatives are prepared to accept that costs on everything have gone up but still not prepared to accept that this is also true for their workers. Rent, food car expenses, everything has gone up for working folks except their wages. Americans have increased productivity and profits. Shouldn't they be entitled to a raise as a reward for this?
> 
> Not according to conservatives. That money should go to executives and shareholders but not the people who did the work that made it happen.
> 
> 
> 
> Wages have gone up, what are you talking about? I agree that they haven't gone up enough but it's due to the poor economy. I'd like to see the stats on American workers being more productive. Are you sure that isn't due to automation?
Click to expand...


Jesus man, how many excuses are willing to make for businesses who are too cheap to pay a decent wage?

Sure automation has made Americans more productive, and theoretically that means more profit per employee for the employer. Meanwhile the stupid tax payer is subsidizing these wages.


----------



## BillyZane

Foxfyre said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing that conservatives are prepared to accept that costs on everything have gone up but still not prepared to accept that this is also true for their workers. Rent, food car expenses, everything has gone up for working folks except their wages. Americans have increased productivity and profits. Shouldn't they be entitled to a raise as a reward for this?
> 
> Not according to conservatives. That money should go to executives and shareholders but not the people who did the work that made it happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right on!
> 
> That's why my plan is a win-win
> 
> -Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.
> 
> -Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees.
> 
> -Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2013 price structure.
> 
> -Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years.
> 
> -Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just one comment here.  Google government price controls and read up on the history and consequences of that somehwere other than on leftwing propaganda sites.  Here is a good place to start but is defnitely not the only or last word on the subject:
> 
> http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/2001/4/morton.pdf
> 
> Much of the same dynamics occur with government controlling the cost of labor.
Click to expand...


his minimum wage is way too high as well.


----------



## OnePercenter

Foxfyre said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing that conservatives are prepared to accept that costs on everything have gone up but still not prepared to accept that this is also true for their workers. Rent, food car expenses, everything has gone up for working folks except their wages. Americans have increased productivity and profits. Shouldn't they be entitled to a raise as a reward for this?
> 
> Not according to conservatives. That money should go to executives and shareholders but not the people who did the work that made it happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right on!
> 
> That's why my plan is a win-win
> 
> -Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.
> 
> -Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees.
> 
> -Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2013 price structure.
> 
> -Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years.
> 
> -Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just one comment here.  Google government price controls and read up on the history and consequences of that somehwere other than on leftwing propaganda sites.  Here is a good place to start but is defnitely not the only or last word on the subject:
> 
> http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/2001/4/morton.pdf
> 
> Much of the same dynamics occur with government controlling the cost of labor.
Click to expand...


Former price controls don't include a huge subsidy, mine does.


----------



## OnePercenter

BillyZane said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right on!
> 
> That's why my plan is a win-win
> 
> -Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.
> 
> -Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees.
> 
> -Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2013 price structure.
> 
> -Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years.
> 
> -Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just one comment here.  Google government price controls and read up on the history and consequences of that somehwere other than on leftwing propaganda sites.  Here is a good place to start but is defnitely not the only or last word on the subject:
> 
> http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/2001/4/morton.pdf
> 
> Much of the same dynamics occur with government controlling the cost of labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> his minimum wage is way too high as well.
Click to expand...


Not so. Take price increases (1970-2013) on three key items; food, shelter, and transportation, you'll find that I'm spot-on.


----------



## eddy106

I think you are missing an important point. If the minimum wage were raised, then all items that you buy at the store would also have to rise to cover those costs. Many want to argue that raising the minimum wage would lower the amount of poverty.  Studies conducted on this remain very inconclusive. In fact, if everything rises, then the poverty level will have to rise too.  If it were true that raising minimum wage put an end to poverty, then when wages went from 75 cents to a dollar, poverty would have ended, and we all know that was not the case.


----------



## BillyZane

eddy106 said:


> I think you are missing an important point. If the minimum wage were raised, then all items that you buy at the store would also have to rise to cover those costs. Many want to argue that raising the minimum wage would lower the amount of poverty.  Studies conducted on this remain very inconclusive. In fact, if everything rises, then the poverty level will have to rise too.  If it were true that raising minimum wage put an end to poverty, then when wages went from 75 cents to a dollar, poverty would have ended, and we all know that was not the case.



There's a balance there for sure. You raise the minimum wage to $15 or higher and yes, prices will have to rise. Even a healthy business couldn't absorb that.

But $10 an hour? That's negligible in the grand scheme of things and I think most consumers would simply refuse to pay much higher prices than what we see now.

I just don't know how anyone can defend the current minimum wage with a straight face. I mean no person should have to expand an hour of labor at any job just to buy a gallon of milk. And that's basically where we are. An hour at minimum wage will after taxes pay for a gallon of milk.


----------



## Iceweasel

BillyZane said:


> I just don't know how anyone can defend the current minimum wage with a straight face. I mean no person should have to expand an hour of labor at any job just to buy a gallon of milk. And that's basically where we are. An hour at minimum wage will after taxes pay for a gallon of milk.


I wouldn't defend it at all. Government has no business setting wages. That isn't why our government was formed. If it costs X amount of dollars to live the employer will have to pay x amount of dollars to keep someone worthwhile. Somehow we managed before the law went into effect. True story.


----------



## OnePercenter

eddy106 said:


> I think you are missing an important point. If the minimum wage were raised, then all items that you buy at the store would also have to rise to cover those costs. Many want to argue that raising the minimum wage would lower the amount of poverty.  Studies conducted on this remain very inconclusive. In fact, if everything rises, then the poverty level will have to rise too.  If it were true that raising minimum wage put an end to poverty, then when wages went from 75 cents to a dollar, poverty would have ended, and we all know that was not the case.



That's why my plan is perfect. None of what you state will happen.


----------



## OnePercenter

Iceweasel said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't know how anyone can defend the current minimum wage with a straight face. I mean no person should have to expand an hour of labor at any job just to buy a gallon of milk. And that's basically where we are. An hour at minimum wage will after taxes pay for a gallon of milk.
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't defend it at all. *Government has no business setting wages.* That isn't why our government was formed. If it costs X amount of dollars to live the employer will have to pay x amount of dollars to keep someone worthwhile. Somehow we managed before the law went into effect. True story.
Click to expand...


Regulations are to control greed.


----------



## Iceweasel

OnePercenter said:


> Regulations are to control greed.


Define greed.


----------



## OnePercenter

Iceweasel said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regulations are to control greed.
> 
> 
> 
> Define greed.
Click to expand...


Intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth and power.


----------



## Iceweasel

OnePercenter said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regulations are to control greed.
> 
> 
> 
> Define greed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth and power.
Click to expand...

That's rather vague isn't it?


----------



## OnePercenter

Iceweasel said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Define greed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth and power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's rather vague isn't it?
Click to expand...


No, spot-on.


----------



## Iceweasel

OnePercenter said:


> No, spot-on.


That's an evasion. That's why I asked. It's impossible to regulate with your definition.


----------



## OnePercenter

Iceweasel said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, spot-on.
> 
> 
> 
> That's an evasion. That's why I asked. It's impossible to regulate with your definition.
Click to expand...


How about the non-profit requirement in the HMO act that Reagan reversed.


----------



## OnePercenter

Iceweasel said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, spot-on.
> 
> 
> 
> That's an evasion. That's why I asked. It's impossible to regulate with your definition.
Click to expand...


Blade guards on meat slicers.


----------



## BobPlumb

OnePercenter said:


> eddy106 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are missing an important point. If the minimum wage were raised, then all items that you buy at the store would also have to rise to cover those costs. Many want to argue that raising the minimum wage would lower the amount of poverty.  Studies conducted on this remain very inconclusive. In fact, if everything rises, then the poverty level will have to rise too.  If it were true that raising minimum wage put an end to poverty, then when wages went from 75 cents to a dollar, poverty would have ended, and we all know that was not the case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's why my plan is perfect. None of what you state will happen.
Click to expand...


Because you say so...............


----------



## OnePercenter

BobPlumb said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eddy106 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are missing an important point. If the minimum wage were raised, then all items that you buy at the store would also have to rise to cover those costs. Many want to argue that raising the minimum wage would lower the amount of poverty.  Studies conducted on this remain very inconclusive. In fact, if everything rises, then the poverty level will have to rise too.  If it were true that raising minimum wage put an end to poverty, then when wages went from 75 cents to a dollar, poverty would have ended, and we all know that was not the case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's why my plan is perfect. None of what you state will happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you say so...............
Click to expand...


-I eliminate ALL taxes for business. 

-I put tens of billions per year back into the economy by putting it back into the hands of the middle-class. 

-I reduce the cost of employees for business to the amount of all taxes and fees currently being paid, and subsidies any additional costs for businesses with 200 or less employees.

What's wrong with that?


----------



## BobPlumb

No plan is perfect.  Just ask Murphy.


----------



## beagle9

Amelia said:


> If minimum wage were raised, presumably many people's wages would be bumped at least a little.  Even though only a small percentage of workers earn minimum wage, the people who started out at minimum wage and got raises would get upset if brand new employees suddenly got as much as they did, so lots of wages would go up.
> 
> So how many jobs would be created or saved by this move -- for instance because of the increase in spending money available for local spending?
> 
> And how many jobs would be lost -- for instance because the increase in American wages would make offshore labor look more appealing, or because business owners' profit margin wouldn't support a 20% hike in labor costs so they would let a small portion of their workforce go and hope for more productivity from the rest?


Catch 22 is what it is really, and the most powerful will win unless something of equal power could keep the peace between it all. 

Now the government as is being looked at by many to be that intervention, has a terrible track record of doing what is right or negotiating anything that seems to be right and/or righteous anymore it seems.

If people would do right on their own, it sure would help, but it seems anymore that they want to teach the government how to be a dictator, and that is a very bad thing for this nation to end up with.

The government is also working hard to slam the door on all those who are becoming weakened by their actions over time, so look out because this nation is being set up by it all as we speak. Not sure what the future will bring anymore, but thank goodness I'm old, and I won't be around to see it when it gets terribly bad for so many, and continues to get terribly good for so few.


----------



## Iceweasel

OnePercenter said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, spot-on.
> 
> 
> 
> That's an evasion. That's why I asked. It's impossible to regulate with your definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about the non-profit requirement in the HMO act that Reagan reversed.
Click to expand...

Profit equals greed? Is that your point?


----------



## Agit8r

Amelia said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> If raising the minimum wage would end poverty, poverty would have been eradicated when the MW went from 75 cents an hour to $1.25 an hour.
> 
> Poverty is relative.  Pay people $100.00 an hour and they will still be poor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But if rents and gas and food go up and wages stay the same, then people will be poorer.
Click to expand...


Exactly.  That is why minimum wage workers are poorer now than in the late 60s; because $1.25 then was worth what $9 is now.


----------



## Iceweasel

Agit8r said:


> Exactly.  That is why minimum wage workers are poorer now than in the late 60s; because $1.25 then was worth what $9 is now.


I'm skeptical of your claims but have you calculated the standard of living? What did an average 60s minimum wage worker have compared to today. Looking strictly at inflation rates doesn't paint the entire picture.


----------



## BillyZane

Iceweasel said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't know how anyone can defend the current minimum wage with a straight face. I mean no person should have to expand an hour of labor at any job just to buy a gallon of milk. And that's basically where we are. An hour at minimum wage will after taxes pay for a gallon of milk.
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't defend it at all. Government has no business setting wages. That isn't why our government was formed. If it costs X amount of dollars to live the employer will have to pay x amount of dollars to keep someone worthwhile. Somehow we managed before the law went into effect. True story.
Click to expand...


Actually, that's EXACTLY the purpose of government, to protect the weak from the strong. Otherwise why have one at all? Why have laws against murder? I mean if you can't prevent your own murder too bad.

And your "we survived before the law" is pretty silly. Employees were treated like shit, and sometimes even killed by their employers before the government started passing regulations.


----------



## Iceweasel

BillyZane said:


> Actually, that's EXACTLY the purpose of government, to protect the weak from the strong. Otherwise why have one at all? Why have laws against murder? I mean if you can't prevent your own murder too bad.
> 
> And your "we survived before the law" is pretty silly. Employees were treated like shit, and sometimes even killed by their employers before the government started passing regulations.


We were discussing the minimum wage, not every sin ever done by a human or business.


----------



## SwimExpert

Iceweasel said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  That is why minimum wage workers are poorer now than in the late 60s; because $1.25 then was worth what $9 is now.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm skeptical of your claims but have you calculated the standard of living? What did an average 60s minimum wage worker have compared to today. Looking strictly at inflation rates doesn't paint the entire picture.
Click to expand...


----------



## oldfart

BillyZane said:


> Actually, that's EXACTLY the purpose of government, to protect the weak from the strong.



That may be what a sixth grade civics text says, but anyone who looks at any political system would recognize that the primary purpose of any political system and government is to protect and advance the interests of those who control it.  If a system is controlled by a bureaucracy, the system will defend that bureaucracy above all else, regardless of whether it is a set of government departments, or a corporate structure.  The model of the American government which predicts the behavior of Congress the best, for example, is to regard Congress as the coordinating committee of the wealthiest and the power elite in government and business.  Both the Tea Party and Progressives rail against it from opposite sides of the spectrum, but the outcome is constrained by what very large campaign contributors, the ideological think tanks, industrial special interests (like coal, petroleum, big pharma, private prison corporations, etc) and similar very narrow constituencies which comprise perhaps 00.001% of the population find in their narrow interests.  

This situation does not apply equally to both Left and Right (each side sees the other as a nefarious conspiracy controlling the outcome) but the critique of the center is symmetrical.  Both sides want to "throw the rascals out", but disagree on what should replace them.  So both of these groups get screwed.  They are the Left Opposition and Right Opposition playing the game that Stalin won.  



BillyZane said:


> Why have laws against murder? I mean if you can't prevent your own murder too bad.



The government does not prevent murder, it sanctions who is allowed to commit it with impunity.  Look at the recent Florida murder trials.  The state's interest is not in reducing the number of killings, but in making sure killings are either done for the benefit of the state, by persons favored by the state, or are severely punished.  Neither concepts of justice nor the welfare of society has anything to do with it.  



BillyZane said:


> And your "we survived before the law" is pretty silly. Employees were treated like shit, and sometimes even killed by their employers before the government started passing regulations.



And for the benefit of whom?


----------



## OnePercenter

Iceweasel said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's an evasion. That's why I asked. It's impossible to regulate with your definition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the non-profit requirement in the HMO act that Reagan reversed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Profit equals greed? Is that your point?
Click to expand...


Reagan removed competition in the industry, and today we can see why competition is necessary.


----------



## beagle9

I guess it is *supposed* by the government, that all *jobs or companies are created equal*, and this is regardless of the types of businesses or the various business models that are out there.  I think the main thing is to make sure that companies are satisfying a grading system of some sort. It should be a system set up or created by the government, where as if a company wants to be involved, then this grading system would show that they (the companies being graded or looked at) would have a suitable pay scale system set up that would show that they have an entrance pay, and also an annual or performance based raise system intact which is based upon the merit system as it should be, along with a benefit package if can be afforded to the employee's, as well as an exiting strategy, otherwise known as a retirement plan if can be afforded also to it's employee's. 

Once these minimum standard requirements are met in order to join the grading system for those employing more than 25 workers, and no less than 25 workers, then a grade is given for the best pay system set up that is put forward by these individual companies in documentation therefore given to the government grading system, and this in regards to their employee's and how they are being treated in each company that voluntarily participates in the program. Then the grades would determine the awards or subsidies that are to be given by the feds, and this whether it be in perks for being a great company, having a great owner(s) for whom will promote such things as these that are mentioned above. The only reason for the government getting involved in a blanket minimum wage campaign, is to possibly redistribute wealth in which it feels has been held back by the greedy, and therefore causing some serious ripples in the overall economy because of, and especially on the consumerism side of the equation. Now once the government makes it's move if it thinks that this is what happened, then it should follow up with the grading system as so not to have to continue to become involved in such moves in the near future. 

I say let's give them a raise this time on the blanket scale, and then begin the grading system from here on out. The feds might never have to be involved it such things again, as the embarrassment of a company not doing right by it's employee's, would be known, as well as the company cutting itself out of the awards and perks in which it could get by doing the right thing to the best of it's ability. Now for the companies that opt out of the awards program, well who would want to work for them ? So it would probably be best to stay clear of them if at all possible.  Just ideas yall, so hash over them and then think about other answers to these things if you have some good answers or ideas also


----------



## OnePercenter

beagle9 said:


> I guess it is *supposed* by the government, that all *jobs or companies are created equal*, and this is regardless of the types of businesses or the various business models that are out there.  I think the main thing is to make sure that companies are satisfying a grading system of some sort, that should be set up or created by the government if it wants to be involved like they are wanting always to be, where as this grading system would show that they (the companies being graded or looked at) would have a suitable pay scale system set up that would show that they have an entrance pay, also an annual or performance based raise system intact which is based upon the merit system as it should be, along with a benefit package if can be afforded to the employee's, as well as an exiting strategy, otherwise known as a retirement plan if can be afforded also to it's employee's.
> 
> Once these minimum standard requirements are met by those employing more than 25 workers, and no less than 25 workers, then a grade is given for the best pay system set up that is put forward by these individual companies in documentation therefore given to the government grading system, and this in regards to their employee's and how they are being treated in each company that voluntarily participates in the program. Then the grades would determine the awards or subsidies that are to be given by the feds, and this whether it be in perks for being a great company, having a great owner(s) for whom will promote such things as these that are mentioned above. The only reason for the government getting involved in a blanket minimum wage campaign, is to possibly redistribute wealth in which it feels has been held back by the greedy, and therefore causing some serious ripples in the overall economy because of, and especially on the consumerism side of the equation. Now once the government makes it's move if it thinks that this is what happened, then it should follow up with the grading system as so not to have to continue to become involved in such moves again or in the near future.
> 
> I say let's give them a raise this time on the blanket scale, and then begin the grading system from here on out. The feds might never have to be involved it such things again, as the embarrassment of a company not doing right by it's employee's, would be known, as well as the company cutting itself out of the awards and perks in which it could get by doing the right thing to the best of it's ability. Now for the companies that opt out of the awards program, well who would want to work for them ? So it would probably be best to stay clear of them if at all possible.  Just ideas yall, so hash over them and then think about other answers to these things if you have some good answers or ideas also



All businesses and jobs are fundamentally the same.


----------



## beagle9

onepercenter said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> i guess it is *supposed* by the government, that all *jobs or companies are created equal*, and this is regardless of the types of businesses or the various business models that are out there.  I think the main thing is to make sure that companies are satisfying a grading system of some sort, that should be set up or created by the government if it wants to be involved like they are wanting always to be, where as this grading system would show that they (the companies being graded or looked at) would have a suitable pay scale system set up that would show that they have an entrance pay, also an annual or performance based raise system intact which is based upon the merit system as it should be, along with a benefit package if can be afforded to the employee's, as well as an exiting strategy, otherwise known as a retirement plan if can be afforded also to it's employee's.
> 
> Once these minimum standard requirements are met by those employing more than 25 workers, and no less than 25 workers, then a grade is given for the best pay system set up that is put forward by these individual companies in documentation therefore given to the government grading system, and this in regards to their employee's and how they are being treated in each company that voluntarily participates in the program. Then the grades would determine the awards or subsidies that are to be given by the feds, and this whether it be in perks for being a great company, having a great owner(s) for whom will promote such things as these that are mentioned above. The only reason for the government getting involved in a blanket minimum wage campaign, is to possibly redistribute wealth in which it feels has been held back by the greedy, and therefore causing some serious ripples in the overall economy because of, and especially on the consumerism side of the equation. Now once the government makes it's move if it thinks that this is what happened, then it should follow up with the grading system as so not to have to continue to become involved in such moves again or in the near future.
> 
> I say let's give them a raise this time on the blanket scale, and then begin the grading system from here on out. The feds might never have to be involved it such things again, as the embarrassment of a company not doing right by it's employee's, would be known, as well as the company cutting itself out of the awards and perks in which it could get by doing the right thing to the best of it's ability. Now for the companies that opt out of the awards program, well who would want to work for them ? So it would probably be best to stay clear of them if at all possible.  Just ideas yall, so hash over them and then think about other answers to these things if you have some good answers or ideas also
> 
> 
> 
> 
> all businesses and jobs are fundamentally the same.
Click to expand...

huh ?


----------



## beagle9

Yall jumped this before I could edit it, so here is the finished product.

I guess it is supposed by the government, that *all jobs or companies are created equal*, and this is regardless of the types of businesses or the various business models that are out there. I think the main thing is to make sure that companies are satisfying a grading system of some sort. It should be a system set up or created by the government, where as if a company wants to be involved, then this grading system would show that they (the companies being graded or looked at) would have a suitable pay scale system set up that would show that they have an entrance pay, and also an annual or performance based raise system intact which is based upon the merit system as it should be, along with a benefit package if can be afforded to the employee's, as well as an exiting strategy, otherwise known as a retirement plan if can be afforded also to it's employee's. 

Once these minimum standard requirements are met in order to join the grading system for those employing more than 25 workers, and no less than 25 workers, then a grade is given for the best pay system set up that is put forward by these individual companies in documentation therefore given to the government grading system, and this in regards to their employee's and how they are being treated in each company that voluntarily participates in the program. Then the grades would determine the awards or subsidies that are to be given by the feds, and this whether it be in perks for being a great company, having a great owner(s) for whom will promote such things as these that are mentioned above. The only reason for the government getting involved in a blanket minimum wage campaign, is to possibly redistribute wealth in which it feels has been held back by the greedy, and therefore causing some serious ripples in the overall economy because of, and especially on the consumerism side of the equation. Now once the government makes it's move if it thinks that this is what happened, then it should follow up with the grading system as so not to have to continue to become involved in such moves in the near future. 

I say let's give them a raise this time on the blanket scale, and then begin the grading system from here on out. The feds might never have to be involved it such things again, as the embarrassment of a company not doing right by it's employee's, would be known, as well as the company cutting itself out of the awards and perks in which it could get by doing the right thing to the best of it's ability. Now for the companies that opt out of the awards program, well who would want to work for them ? So it would probably be best to stay clear of them if at all possible. Just ideas yall, so hash over them and then think about other answers to these things if you have some good answers or ideas also


----------



## beagle9

Uh oh, now those two posting are the same as I read them back, so maybe you didn't jump it before I edited it.. LOL


----------



## OnePercenter

beagle9 said:


> onepercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> i guess it is *supposed* by the government, that all *jobs or companies are created equal*, and this is regardless of the types of businesses or the various business models that are out there.  I think the main thing is to make sure that companies are satisfying a grading system of some sort, that should be set up or created by the government if it wants to be involved like they are wanting always to be, where as this grading system would show that they (the companies being graded or looked at) would have a suitable pay scale system set up that would show that they have an entrance pay, also an annual or performance based raise system intact which is based upon the merit system as it should be, along with a benefit package if can be afforded to the employee's, as well as an exiting strategy, otherwise known as a retirement plan if can be afforded also to it's employee's.
> 
> Once these minimum standard requirements are met by those employing more than 25 workers, and no less than 25 workers, then a grade is given for the best pay system set up that is put forward by these individual companies in documentation therefore given to the government grading system, and this in regards to their employee's and how they are being treated in each company that voluntarily participates in the program. Then the grades would determine the awards or subsidies that are to be given by the feds, and this whether it be in perks for being a great company, having a great owner(s) for whom will promote such things as these that are mentioned above. The only reason for the government getting involved in a blanket minimum wage campaign, is to possibly redistribute wealth in which it feels has been held back by the greedy, and therefore causing some serious ripples in the overall economy because of, and especially on the consumerism side of the equation. Now once the government makes it's move if it thinks that this is what happened, then it should follow up with the grading system as so not to have to continue to become involved in such moves again or in the near future.
> 
> I say let's give them a raise this time on the blanket scale, and then begin the grading system from here on out. The feds might never have to be involved it such things again, as the embarrassment of a company not doing right by it's employee's, would be known, as well as the company cutting itself out of the awards and perks in which it could get by doing the right thing to the best of it's ability. Now for the companies that opt out of the awards program, well who would want to work for them ? So it would probably be best to stay clear of them if at all possible.  Just ideas yall, so hash over them and then think about other answers to these things if you have some good answers or ideas also
> 
> 
> 
> 
> all businesses and jobs are fundamentally the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> huh ?
Click to expand...


Again, all businesses and jobs are fundamentally the same.

Name two of each and I'll show you.


----------



## SwimExpert

OnePercenter said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> onepercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> all businesses and jobs are fundamentally the same.
> 
> 
> 
> huh ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, all businesses and jobs are fundamentally the same.
> 
> Name two of each and I'll show you.
Click to expand...


Church pastor and adult film actress.


----------



## OnePercenter

SwimExpert said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> huh ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, all businesses and jobs are fundamentally the same.
> 
> Name two of each and I'll show you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Church pastor and adult film actress.
Click to expand...


I thought you were going to make it hard!

Both are 10-99 employees.


----------



## SwimExpert

That's it?!?  Based on that, they are "fundamentally the same"?  Oh, for crying out loud, what a pathetic joke.


----------



## OnePercenter

SwimExpert said:


> That's it?!?  Based on that, they are "fundamentally the same"?  Oh, for crying out loud, what a pathetic joke.



The comment was



> i guess it is supposed by the government, that all jobs or companies are created equal



The answer is; they are.


----------



## beagle9

OnePercenter said:


> SwimExpert said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's it?!?  Based on that, they are "fundamentally the same"?  Oh, for crying out loud, what a pathetic joke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The comment was
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i guess it is supposed by the government, that all jobs or companies are created equal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The answer is; they are.
Click to expand...

The answer is they aren't, so we will agree to disagree then..


----------



## FA_Q2

OnePercenter said:


> SwimExpert said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's it?!?  Based on that, they are "fundamentally the same"?  Oh, for crying out loud, what a pathetic joke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The comment was
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i guess it is supposed by the government, that all jobs or companies are created equal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The answer is; they are.
Click to expand...


Waitress, construction worker and store clerk at a gas station.

One can be paid under minimum wage, another does not get a lunch break but one gets both.

No they arent.  Pay scales, minimum wage laws and work/rest cycles are different in different industries.  The government does not treat all jobs or companies the same  it would be silly to.


----------



## beagle9

FA_Q2 said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SwimExpert said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's it?!?  Based on that, they are "fundamentally the same"?  Oh, for crying out loud, what a pathetic joke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The comment was
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i guess it is supposed by the government, that all jobs or companies are created equal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The answer is; they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Waitress, construction worker and store clerk at a gas station.
> 
> One can be paid under minimum wage, another does not get a lunch break but one gets both.
> 
> No they aren&#8217;t.  Pay scales, minimum wage laws and work/rest cycles are different in different industries.  The government does not treat all jobs or companies the same &#8211; it would be silly to.
Click to expand...

It also should be that way in concerns of retirement to be (treated differently) also, but the government treats retirement eligibility as the same or in a socialistic manor. Now why do they do this you suppose ? I think it is because they hope that people die before they get to draw it in most cases, therefore they can steal some of that money back from them or never have to pay it out if at all possible in most cases.

There is no way that an AX man (see the show) should be forced to retire at the same age as someone who barely lifts a pen in their life, and wasn't exposed to the elements & the hardships like the Ax man was, but they both retire from the system at the same age ? The Ax man should be able to retire at 55, where as the office clerk needs to stay on till at least 62. Both jobs or skills are needed in the land, and Americans are those who do this work, but why the socialistic manor in which they are both treated, especially when they are in no way the same, and shouldn't be looked at or treated the same at all when it comes to retirement from the system, so it is a mystery to me.  Now why is that or did I already answer it earlier in the post ?


----------



## History

Presumably that means less jobs, less hours, higher prices for products and services, and/or less entry level positions for 16-18 year olds to get out in the world and gain experience, that's what it means.. May be a combination of 2 of them, may be a combination of all 4 depending on the type of company.
Actually add that minimum wage increase with the Obamacare bill, and you have superior business destructiveness. But that is what liberals want right??


----------



## OnePercenter

FA_Q2 said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SwimExpert said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's it?!?  Based on that, they are "fundamentally the same"?  Oh, for crying out loud, what a pathetic joke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The comment was
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i guess it is supposed by the government, that all jobs or companies are created equal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The answer is; they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Waitress, construction worker and store clerk at a gas station.
> 
> One can be paid under minimum wage, another does not get a lunch break but one gets both.
> 
> No they arent.  Pay scales, minimum wage laws and work/rest cycles are different in different industries.  The government does not treat all jobs or companies the same  it would be silly to.
Click to expand...


They are all hourly employees.


----------



## FA_Q2

OnePercenter said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The comment was
> 
> 
> 
> The answer is; they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Waitress, construction worker and store clerk at a gas station.
> 
> One can be paid under minimum wage, another does not get a lunch break but one gets both.
> 
> No they arent.  Pay scales, minimum wage laws and work/rest cycles are different in different industries.  The government does not treat all jobs or companies the same  it would be silly to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are all hourly employees.
Click to expand...


And that pointless remark was supposed to????

Your original (incorrect) supposition was that the government treated all jobs the same.  I show you that is blatantly false and you state that they are all hourly jobs as if that has anything to do with the point at all.

Further, even that statement is false as construction workers are not always hourly.  Many such positions pay piecework.


----------



## BillyZane

oldfart said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, that's EXACTLY the purpose of government, to protect the weak from the strong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That may be what a sixth grade civics text says, but anyone who looks at any political system would recognize that the primary purpose of any political system and government is to protect and advance the interests of those who control it.  If a system is controlled by a bureaucracy, the system will defend that bureaucracy above all else, regardless of whether it is a set of government departments, or a corporate structure.  The model of the American government which predicts the behavior of Congress the best, for example, is to regard Congress as the coordinating committee of the wealthiest and the power elite in government and business.  Both the Tea Party and Progressives rail against it from opposite sides of the spectrum, but the outcome is constrained by what very large campaign contributors, the ideological think tanks, industrial special interests (like coal, petroleum, big pharma, private prison corporations, etc) and similar very narrow constituencies which comprise perhaps 00.001% of the population find in their narrow interests.
> 
> This situation does not apply equally to both Left and Right (each side sees the other as a nefarious conspiracy controlling the outcome) but the critique of the center is symmetrical.  Both sides want to "throw the rascals out", but disagree on what should replace them.  So both of these groups get screwed.  They are the Left Opposition and Right Opposition playing the game that Stalin won.
> 
> 
> 
> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why have laws against murder? I mean if you can't prevent your own murder too bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government does not prevent murder, it sanctions who is allowed to commit it with impunity.  Look at the recent Florida murder trials.  The state's interest is not in reducing the number of killings, but in making sure killings are either done for the benefit of the state, by persons favored by the state, or are severely punished.  Neither concepts of justice nor the welfare of society has anything to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> And your "we survived before the law" is pretty silly. Employees were treated like shit, and sometimes even killed by their employers before the government started passing regulations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And for the benefit of whom?
Click to expand...


Your argument would be better suited to one of saying that the government has forgotten its primary purpose, and I'd agree with you in that. This federal government certainly has forgotten its primary goal and we could spend an entire week listing programs and laws which support that argument; however that does not mean that the primary goal of government no longer exists, it simply means THIS government has forgotten its place - an by this government let's be clear that Obama is merely the latest , and perhaps most egregious , leader to do so.


----------



## oldfart

BillyZane said:


> Your argument would be better suited to one of saying that the government has forgotten its primary purpose, and I'd agree with you in that. This federal government certainly has forgotten its primary goal and we could spend an entire week listing programs and laws which support that argument; however that does not mean that the primary goal of government no longer exists, it simply means THIS government has forgotten its place - an by this government let's be clear that Obama is merely the latest , and perhaps most egregious , leader to do so.



Let me try to clarify my argument.  All governments have a tendency to abuse of individual rights, just as all economic systems have a tendency to concentration of power.  These situations are not abnormalities, they are the essence of how humans behave in such institutions.  This is why the Founders passed a Bill of Rights and established a Constitution with checks and balances.  They also wrote passionately that even these safeguards were not enough without a citizenry that cared deeply about these values and was vigilant to cut short any abuses.  

My argument is that a parallel argument applies to concentrations of economic power and corporate governance, and especially to the interaction of political/regulatory power and economic power.  The natural tendencies of these systems must have a counterweight of perpetual vigilance against abuse.  Absent that counterweight, we will have neither security, freedom, nor prosperity as a nation.


----------



## Spoonman

Tea Party 2 - Obama 0

Does Obama have a CBO problem? - The Week


----------



## beagle9

oldfart said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument would be better suited to one of saying that the government has forgotten its primary purpose, and I'd agree with you in that. This federal government certainly has forgotten its primary goal and we could spend an entire week listing programs and laws which support that argument; however that does not mean that the primary goal of government no longer exists, it simply means THIS government has forgotten its place - an by this government let's be clear that Obama is merely the latest , and perhaps most egregious , leader to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me try to clarify my argument.  All governments have a tendency to abuse of individual rights, just as all economic systems have a tendency to concentration of power.  These situations are not abnormalities, they are the essence of how humans behave in such institutions.  This is why the Founders passed a Bill of Rights and established a Constitution with checks and balances.  *They also wrote passionately that even these safeguards were not enough without a citizenry that cared deeply about these values and was vigilant to cut short any abuses.  *
> My argument is that a parallel argument applies to concentrations of economic power and corporate governance, and especially to the interaction of political/regulatory power and economic power.  The natural tendencies of these systems must have a counterweight of perpetual vigilance against abuse.  Absent that counterweight, we will have neither security, freedom, nor prosperity as a nation.
Click to expand...


Man you take that which is spoken above, and apply it to some other threads here, and it would drive certain people crazy...LOL


----------



## oldfart

beagle9 said:


> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument would be better suited to one of saying that the government has forgotten its primary purpose, and I'd agree with you in that. This federal government certainly has forgotten its primary goal and we could spend an entire week listing programs and laws which support that argument; however that does not mean that the primary goal of government no longer exists, it simply means THIS government has forgotten its place - an by this government let's be clear that Obama is merely the latest , and perhaps most egregious , leader to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me try to clarify my argument.  All governments have a tendency to abuse of individual rights, just as all economic systems have a tendency to concentration of power.  These situations are not abnormalities, they are the essence of how humans behave in such institutions.  This is why the Founders passed a Bill of Rights and established a Constitution with checks and balances.  *They also wrote passionately that even these safeguards were not enough without a citizenry that cared deeply about these values and was vigilant to cut short any abuses.  *
> My argument is that a parallel argument applies to concentrations of economic power and corporate governance, and especially to the interaction of political/regulatory power and economic power.  The natural tendencies of these systems must have a counterweight of perpetual vigilance against abuse.  Absent that counterweight, we will have neither security, freedom, nor prosperity as a nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Man you take that which is spoken above, and apply it to some other threads here, and it would drive certain people crazy...LOL
Click to expand...


I learned long ago that there is no way to draft a legal document such as a trust agreement that protects the trustor when that person has no one whose judgment he or she trusts to act in his/her stead.  Similarly no law or constitution can avoid bad results if the people administering it exercise bad judgment.  We waste a lot of time drying to draft solutions to stupidity in both law and legislation.  It can help, but it's not a real solution.


----------



## Foxfyre

oldfart said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument would be better suited to one of saying that the government has forgotten its primary purpose, and I'd agree with you in that. This federal government certainly has forgotten its primary goal and we could spend an entire week listing programs and laws which support that argument; however that does not mean that the primary goal of government no longer exists, it simply means THIS government has forgotten its place - an by this government let's be clear that Obama is merely the latest , and perhaps most egregious , leader to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me try to clarify my argument.  All governments have a tendency to abuse of individual rights, just as all economic systems have a tendency to concentration of power.  These situations are not abnormalities, they are the essence of how humans behave in such institutions.  This is why the Founders passed a Bill of Rights and established a Constitution with checks and balances.  They also wrote passionately that even these safeguards were not enough without a citizenry that cared deeply about these values and was vigilant to cut short any abuses.
> 
> My argument is that a parallel argument applies to concentrations of economic power and corporate governance, and especially to the interaction of political/regulatory power and economic power.  The natural tendencies of these systems must have a counterweight of perpetual vigilance against abuse.  Absent that counterweight, we will have neither security, freedom, nor prosperity as a nation.
Click to expand...


The only counterweight that will ever be of maximum effectiveness is the character and values of the culture.  We once considered a hand shake on a deal as a sacred trust.  Those days are long gone and the USA now has more lawyers per capita than anywhere else in the world.  Now the motive is mostly to get as much as everybody else gets which is what drives this whole minimum wage nonsense.  The culture no longer holds the value that to earn what we have is a virtue.  Too many want somebody to bypass the earning part and go straight to the reward as some sort of unalienable right for just being born.


----------



## protectionist

Amelia said:


> If minimum wage were raised, presumably many people's wages would be bumped at least a little.  Even though only a small percentage of workers earn minimum wage, the people who started out at minimum wage and got raises would get upset if brand new employees suddenly got as much as they did, so lots of wages would go up.
> 
> So how many jobs would be created or saved by this move -- for instance because of the increase in spending money available for local spending?
> 
> And how many jobs would be lost -- for instance because the increase in American wages would make offshore labor look more appealing, or because business owners' profit margin wouldn't support a 20% hike in labor costs so they would let a small portion of their workforce go and hope for more productivity from the rest?



Business owners CANNOT just let people go from their staffs to lower their costs.  The reason a company has the number of workers they do is because that is the number at which they make the most money.  If they lay off workers, their sales get reduced, and they LOSE money.


----------



## Foxfyre

protectionist said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> If minimum wage were raised, presumably many people's wages would be bumped at least a little.  Even though only a small percentage of workers earn minimum wage, the people who started out at minimum wage and got raises would get upset if brand new employees suddenly got as much as they did, so lots of wages would go up.
> 
> So how many jobs would be created or saved by this move -- for instance because of the increase in spending money available for local spending?
> 
> And how many jobs would be lost -- for instance because the increase in American wages would make offshore labor look more appealing, or because business owners' profit margin wouldn't support a 20% hike in labor costs so they would let a small portion of their workforce go and hope for more productivity from the rest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Business owners CANNOT just let people go from their staffs to lower their costs.  The reason a company has the number of workers they do is because that is the number at which they make the most money.  If they lay off workers, their sales get reduced, and they LOSE money.
Click to expand...


They also lose money if those workers are paid more than their labor earns for the business.  The reason wages are what they are is because that is what the employer is willing to pay to get the labor he/she needs.  Artificially increase those wages, and many employers will just shift the work to others or do it themselves or do without.

The best medicine to get wages up is full employment.  That makes the workers wages a sellers market and employers will invariably pay more to get the best of the much more limited work force available to hire.  But, you have everybody working who wants to work and that puts a lot more money into the economy so some increases in prices are not painful and don't cost the employer customers as they do when money is tight.

A raise in the minimum wage is far more likely to discourage full employment and, most especially in recession, it will discourage a lot of hiring while it is likely to raise the standard of living for only a very few.


----------



## TooTall

Amelia said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> If minimum wage were raised, presumably many people's wages would be bumped at least a little.  Even though only a small percentage of workers earn minimum wage, the people who started out at minimum wage and got raises would get upset if brand new employees suddenly got as much as they did, so lots of wages would go up.
> 
> So how many jobs would be created or saved by this move -- for instance because of the increase in spending money available for local spending?
> 
> And how many jobs would be lost -- for instance because the increase in American wages would make offshore labor look more appealing, or because business owners' profit margin wouldn't support a 20% hike in labor costs so they would let a small portion of their workforce go and hope for more productivity from the rest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lets just say for example that the new living minimum wage is double the current federal minimum wage: $7.25 x 2= $14.5/hr (+-$30,160 per year). The people who would supposedly benefit the most would be low skilled workers right? Now what about the moderate skilled workers who were making $15/hr already? Would they sweat in the hot sun all day as a construction worker if they knew they could make the same stocking shelves at Wal-Mart? Would they freeze in the winter as an HVAC repairman crawling under peoples houses if they could make the same amount sweeping the floors as a janitor? Would you? Employers dealing in construction, heating/air, plumbing, etc., will need to considerably increase wages to keep their staff on board. Indeed, all skilled labor employers would need to increase the wages of their workers in order to remain competitive in the market for skilled labor, or else, their competitors will grab them. Moreover, high skilled labor would need to increase their pay and benefits.
> 
> If you mandated a living wage you would only create a new poverty line with the same amount of poverty after the market settles down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I'm assuming that wages for skilled labor would also rise.
> 
> With millions being paid more, there would be more tax revenue.
> 
> 
> 
> I am curious about what the new standards would be for public assistance -- would the poverty line just be arbitrarily bumped up in accordance with the rise in minimum wage?  As you say, it seems likely it would.
> 
> 
> But more taxes would be going into the coffer, so there would be more money for public projects.  That could mean more jobs.
Click to expand...


The more taxes the feds collect the more they spend increasing the deficit and adding to the national debt.  At some point that has to end.


----------



## protectionist

Foxfyre said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> If minimum wage were raised, presumably many people's wages would be bumped at least a little.  Even though only a small percentage of workers earn minimum wage, the people who started out at minimum wage and got raises would get upset if brand new employees suddenly got as much as they did, so lots of wages would go up.
> 
> So how many jobs would be created or saved by this move -- for instance because of the increase in spending money available for local spending?
> 
> And how many jobs would be lost -- for instance because the increase in American wages would make offshore labor look more appealing, or because business owners' profit margin wouldn't support a 20% hike in labor costs so they would let a small portion of their workforce go and hope for more productivity from the rest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Business owners CANNOT just let people go from their staffs to lower their costs.  The reason a company has the number of workers they do is because that is the number at which they make the most money.  If they lay off workers, their sales get reduced, and they LOSE money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They also lose money if those workers are paid more than their labor earns for the business.  The reason wages are what they are is because that is what the employer is willing to pay to get the labor he/she needs.  Artificially increase those wages, and many employers will just shift the work to others or do it themselves or do without.
> 
> The best medicine to get wages up is full employment.  That makes the workers wages a sellers market and employers will invariably pay more to get the best of the much more limited work force available to hire.  But, you have everybody working who wants to work and that puts a lot more money into the economy so some increases in prices are not painful and don't cost the employer customers as they do when money is tight.
> 
> A raise in the minimum wage is far more likely to discourage full employment and, most especially in recession, it will discourage a lot of hiring while it is likely to raise the standard of living for only a very few.
Click to expand...


Your post doesn't fly for one simple reason.  You have completely overlooked the sales$$$ increases that come with MW increases (from the increase in DISPOSABLE INCOME).  What to do if the MW goes up ?  Be happy at the increase in sales$$$. And if one is paying MW, he probably can't afford to be in business in the first place.  Solution for him ?  Get a job (like the rest of us, who also can't afford it)


----------



## protectionist

TooTall said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let&#8217;s just say for example that the new &#8220;living&#8221; minimum wage is double the current federal minimum wage: $7.25 x 2= $14.5/hr (+-$30,160 per year). The people who would supposedly benefit the most would be low skilled workers right? Now what about the moderate skilled workers who were making $15/hr already? Would they sweat in the hot sun all day as a construction worker if they knew they could make the same stocking shelves at Wal-Mart? Would they freeze in the winter as an HVAC repairman crawling under people&#8217;s houses if they could make the same amount sweeping the floors as a janitor? Would you? Employers dealing in construction, heating/air, plumbing, etc., will need to considerably increase wages to keep their staff on board. Indeed, all skilled labor employers would need to increase the wages of their workers in order to remain competitive in the market for skilled labor, or else, their competitors will grab them. Moreover, high skilled labor would need to increase their pay and benefits.
> 
> If you mandated a living wage you would only create a new poverty line with the same amount of poverty after the market settles down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I'm assuming that wages for skilled labor would also rise.
> 
> With millions being paid more, there would be more tax revenue.
> 
> I am curious about what the new standards would be for public assistance -- would the poverty line just be arbitrarily bumped up in accordance with the rise in minimum wage?  As you say, it seems likely it would.
> 
> But more taxes would be going into the coffer, so there would be more money for public projects.  That could mean more jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The more taxes the feds collect the more they spend increasing the deficit and adding to the national debt.  At some point that has to end.
Click to expand...


But if the more taxes that Amelia mentioned, created jobs in ICE, CBP, building the Mexican border fence, and other things to stop immigration and deport illegal aliens, this would DECREASE the deficit and debt.


----------



## beagle9

protectionist said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> If minimum wage were raised, presumably many people's wages would be bumped at least a little.  Even though only a small percentage of workers earn minimum wage, the people who started out at minimum wage and got raises would get upset if brand new employees suddenly got as much as they did, so lots of wages would go up.
> 
> So how many jobs would be created or saved by this move -- for instance because of the increase in spending money available for local spending?
> 
> And how many jobs would be lost -- for instance because the increase in American wages would make offshore labor look more appealing, or because business owners' profit margin wouldn't support a 20% hike in labor costs so they would let a small portion of their workforce go and hope for more productivity from the rest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Business owners CANNOT just let people go from their staffs to lower their costs.  The reason a company has the number of workers they do is because that is the number at which they make the most money.  If they lay off workers, their sales get reduced, and they LOSE money.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily so, because I know of companies who have what is referred to as the clique (a group of friends and sometimes family members), for which they have working (loaded up) in the management staff mainly, and they will be the last that will go just because they are in the clique or have a clique operating within. They are attempted to be protected, and I have seen a company or companies figure that when they have to begin laying off their friends/family and/or their buddies, then they might as well shut the doors after that. There are also many jobs that are made up, even though they are not positions that are needed nor do they actually have much value at all for the company and it's plan, but there they are anyway.

There are many factors that are missed in these things, because nothing is set in stone or run properly as one would think it is or should be, and this is pretty much the case many times, but is not always considered. Now there is nothing wrong with having a clique or people for whom can be trusted, just as long as they don't drown you when it gets right down to it. This happens in families all the time, where the kids take the parents out, because the parents tried to help them no matter what, but the kids used them instead of saw it for what it was, and therefore destroyed the whole family like a virus that couldn't be stopped from within.


----------



## Spoonman

protectionist said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> If minimum wage were raised, presumably many people's wages would be bumped at least a little.  Even though only a small percentage of workers earn minimum wage, the people who started out at minimum wage and got raises would get upset if brand new employees suddenly got as much as they did, so lots of wages would go up.
> 
> So how many jobs would be created or saved by this move -- for instance because of the increase in spending money available for local spending?
> 
> And how many jobs would be lost -- for instance because the increase in American wages would make offshore labor look more appealing, or because business owners' profit margin wouldn't support a 20% hike in labor costs so they would let a small portion of their workforce go and hope for more productivity from the rest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Business owners CANNOT just let people go from their staffs to lower their costs.  The reason a company has the number of workers they do is because that is the number at which they make the most money.  If they lay off workers, their sales get reduced, and they LOSE money.
Click to expand...


not true. work forces are one of the first things to get reduced when a company looks to tighten its belt.  whether it is a head count reduction. eliminating higher salaried employees and replacing with lower cost new hires through restructuring, decreasing benefits. outsourcing or temp labor.  companies can and do reduce labor costs to increase profitability.  companies absolutely will reduce labor costs to remain profitable.  that's what layoffs are an why they always come when a company or the economy is stressed.


----------



## OnePercenter

FA_Q2 said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Waitress, construction worker and store clerk at a gas station.
> 
> One can be paid under minimum wage, another does not get a lunch break but one gets both.
> 
> No they arent.  Pay scales, minimum wage laws and work/rest cycles are different in different industries.  The government does not treat all jobs or companies the same  it would be silly to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are all hourly employees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that pointless remark was supposed to????
> 
> Your original (incorrect) supposition was that the government treated all jobs the same.  I show you that is blatantly false and you state that they are all hourly jobs as if that has anything to do with the point at all.
> 
> Further, even that statement is false as construction workers are not always hourly.  Many such positions pay piecework.
Click to expand...


That doesn't relieve the employer of the employee to pay a minimum HOURLY RATE.


----------



## beagle9

Spoonman said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> If minimum wage were raised, presumably many people's wages would be bumped at least a little.  Even though only a small percentage of workers earn minimum wage, the people who started out at minimum wage and got raises would get upset if brand new employees suddenly got as much as they did, so lots of wages would go up.
> 
> So how many jobs would be created or saved by this move -- for instance because of the increase in spending money available for local spending?
> 
> And how many jobs would be lost -- for instance because the increase in American wages would make offshore labor look more appealing, or because business owners' profit margin wouldn't support a 20% hike in labor costs so they would let a small portion of their workforce go and hope for more productivity from the rest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Business owners CANNOT just let people go from their staffs to lower their costs.  The reason a company has the number of workers they do is because that is the number at which they make the most money.  If they lay off workers, their sales get reduced, and they LOSE money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not true. work forces are one of the first things to get reduced when a company looks to tighten its belt.  whether it is a head count reduction. eliminating higher salaried employees and replacing with lower cost new hires through restructuring, decreasing benefits. outsourcing or temp labor.  companies can and do reduce labor costs to increase profitability.  companies absolutely will reduce labor costs to remain profitable.  that's what layoffs are an why they always come when a company or the economy is stressed.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, but it could be said also that companies for whom are operating immorally and greedy, have to be looked at closely sometimes, and especially if they are a huge risk to large amounts of American workers and their safety.  As well the proper treatments of the workers and the customers are at stake. It is usually found within the whole scheme of things that all that are involved together, are connected in many ways, so the domino effect is always present. This is why we have labor laws and minimum wage laws, and on and on it has all went over the years. Don't yall wish we could just stop the bad people from making it bad for all ? I mean because that is the way it seems to go when gone unchecked like it has for a while. Now I guess what the government had found over time, and in the past was that greed if allowed to run rampant, was a huge threat to the economy on whole, and if it wasn't looked at with a keen eye, then huge ramifications would take place in a domino effect on the economy, while the bad guy's just take their golden parachutes and just fly away scott free. Now I also think that the government has a role, but it doesn't need to force anything. All it has to do is begin a program that out's the bad guy's to the public, and they can do this by a grading system just like they have for resteraunts. 

Good company, good employer, good community & good city resident, good money manager, good Stewart of the environment, great employer and/or etc. should be recognized with rewards by the government or other, and also they should have a gold star placed by their name for all to see when do right. The others could show up on a scale from one to ten to be graded also, and then the companies who are found with criminals running them or abusers running them, well all of them will go to jail just like they should go to jail, and if a vacuum is created in the company, it should be filled with the ones who were abused, otherwise to then take it over if they would qualify for that take over.  It's only right!


----------



## longknife

*Nightmare of Increasing Minimum Wage*

I'm not enough of an economist to judge the validity of this but felt it was worthwhile giving you the link and chance to discuss it @ Warning letter to WH: 500 economists describe nightmare of Obama?s minimum wage hike - BizPac Review


----------



## Foxfyre

The minimum wage was NEVER intended to be a living wage, and before there was so much government meddling, it was a modest compensation during the period that an employee was trained or learned the ropes or otherwise was not ready to earn a profit for the employer.  A very small percentage of the population works for minimum wage, and those who do are generally not productive enough to merit more than minimum wage.   Those who are capable of earning more than minimum wage will soon earn more than minimum wage with the same employer or they will move on to better jobs where they can earn compensation commensurate with their skill sets, abilities, and work ethic.

The more the government meddles with wage mandates, the more we see commerce and industry changing their behavior to cope with what are often unworkable demands by government.  And while we see little or no change in poverty levels with each minimum wage increase, we do see a growing hard core of unemployable--people, generally the very young, who are seen as not worth the time and trouble and significant expense to hire and train at a wage that is just too expensive to do that.

Unintended consequences of good intentions.


----------



## beagle9

Foxfyre said:


> The minimum wage was NEVER intended to be a living wage, and before there was so much government meddling, it was a modest compensation during the period that an employee was trained or learned the ropes or otherwise was not ready to earn a profit for the employer.  A very small percentage of the population works for minimum wage, and those who do are generally not productive enough to merit more than minimum wage.   *Those who are capable of earning more than minimum wage will soon earn more than minimum wage with the same employer or they will move on to better jobs where they can earn compensation commensurate with their skill sets, abilities, and work ethic.*The more the government meddles with wage mandates, the more we see commerce and industry changing their behavior to cope with what are often unworkable demands by government.  And while we see little or no change in poverty levels with each minimum wage increase, we do see a growing hard core of unemployable--people, generally the very young, who are seen as not worth the time and trouble and significant expense to hire and train at a wage that is just too expensive to do that.
> 
> Unintended consequences of good intentions.



There has been a problem with the old standard in which you stated above, and it is that over time trends have been changed and established by big companies and major corporations differently, and a *unionism* had been established between them all at the top levels and in mid level managements (i.e. hey you don't do that over there now, or you will mess me up over here), so lets get together and set standards that suit us as a collective in these things and/or within the new standards that will be set, then we can take the added profits earned and rule the world someday. In the meantime the work force in America gets more unstable as the days move forward, and they become more broke as the greed was then being stacked against them. Then there was the corporate welfare that was given by the government (who was either fooled or had become corrupted by lobbyist), and this was in the form of welfare and foodstamps given to the employee's of multi-million dollar companies (e.g. ??????????), because the companies figured out another way of making profit in this form and/or way also (fattening their bottom lines). Otherwise they would pay people in a socialistic manor across the board, and this regardless of company individualism in the markets, and they would allow the government to subsidize the rest. This is why things are sooooooo messed up today, and it is why there is so much unemployment and broke and in debt Americans now. 

Now we have to all sit here and watch this dog and pony show that is going on... It's soo sad.


----------

