$15 minimum wage would destroy 1.4 Million jobs

[Toddsterpatriot]

The government can't force me to take labor that's more costly than value added.

You only need to try to maximize your profit regardless of costs.

If I could raise the price with no ill-effect, I would have done so already.

So how much should wages be for someone who adds $10/hour of value?

Show your calculations.

 

[DudleySmith]

Businesses fail all the time. What typical consumer will have a problem with five percent price inflation for the products they usually buy; fast food for example?

So that five dollar burger is gonna cost me $5.25?

Outrageous!

I don't think mny of these so-called 'conservatives' have ever filled out their own 1040 EZ, much less have a clue to what labor costs are in any business as a percentage of total costs. Their '$10 hamburger' days were already here when MW was $6.25 an hour a long time ago.

 

[DudleySmith]

The government can't force me to take labor that's more costly than value added.

You only need to try to maximize your profit regardless of costs.

If I could raise the price with no ill-effect, I would have done so already.

So how much should wages be for someone who adds $10/hour of value?

Show your calculations.

Why should your employees 'add value' when you don't add any yourself?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The government can't force me to take labor that's more costly than value added.

You only need to try to maximize your profit regardless of costs.

If I could raise the price with no ill-effect, I would have done so already.

So how much should wages be for someone who adds $10/hour of value?

Show your calculations.

Why should your employees 'add value' when you don't add any yourself?

Why should your employees 'add value'

For the wages they earn.

 

[DudleySmith]

We could fix our wage issues by getting rid of all the near monopolies we have.

How would you do that?

lol especially since monopolies are the natural inevitable result of laissez faire economics, which the right wingers claim is markets being efficient n stuff.

 

[DudleySmith]

The government can't force me to take labor that's more costly than value added.

You only need to try to maximize your profit regardless of costs.

If I could raise the price with no ill-effect, I would have done so already.

So how much should wages be for someone who adds $10/hour of value?

Show your calculations.

Why should your employees 'add value' when you don't add any yourself?

Why should your employees 'add value'

For the wages they earn.

If they're earning then they are adding value. You just aren't charging enough and a bad manager is all.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If they're earning then they are adding value.

And if they're adding less than the minimum wage, they'll no longer be employed.

So how much should wages be for someone who adds $10/hour of value?

 

[DudleySmith]

The government can't force me to take labor that's more costly than value added.

You only need to try to maximize your profit regardless of costs.

And just because a market is glutted doesn't mean you're entitled to cheaper labor. Go into another business if there is no profit in the one you're in if you're paying rock bottom wages already. It's your pay dragging down the business, not your employees. there is a reason they don't put four McDonalds on a street intersection.

 

[dblack]

The government can't force me to take labor that's more costly than value added.

You only need to try to maximize your profit regardless of costs.

If I could raise the price with no ill-effect, I would have done so already.

So how much should wages be for someone who adds $10/hour of value?

Show your calculations.

It doesn't really matter. What you pay your employees is none of his business.

 

[Dadoalex]

Increase in 1996 in the middle of the 2nd greatest economic expansion in history
Increases in 2006-2009 preceded the longest economic expansion in US history.

Really, it's just math. Which, I suppose, is why you're confused. Anyone who thinks 74M is more than 83M has definite math issues.

What does 74 and 83 have to do with this? I never said anything about it. Merely pointing out that increasing wages for 3.5% of our workforce has nothing to do with the economy. You couldn't even make a case for it because there is no correlation.

It has do do with your obvious math disability.

So...

Given you obvious math disability your claims are obviously well, just wrong.

A person making , say, $10/hour gets an increase over several years to $15 per hour
What do you think that person does with the extra money?
That's right, he spends it. On groceries, washing machines, cars,...
Republicans with their tax cuts make these same claims then proceed to cut taxes for the 1%.

Increased spending at the bottom increases economic activity which increases hiring and decreases unemployment.
Every tax cut since Bush in 01 has made this claim.
If returning $40 at the endo of the year is supposed to increase economic activity imagine what increasing the paycheck by 50% will do.

A person making , say, $10/hour gets an increase over several years to $15 per hour
What do you think that person does with the extra money?

Well, if his value added is less than $15/hour, he goes on unemployment.

If that person was unable to do the job he would have been fired at $10, 9, 8, 7.25.

You comment is nonsensical.

 

[Dadoalex]

It has do do with your obvious math disability.

So...

Given you obvious math disability your claims are obviously well, just wrong.

A person making , say, $10/hour gets an increase over several years to $15 per hour
What do you think that person does with the extra money?
That's right, he spends it. On groceries, washing machines, cars,...
Republicans with their tax cuts make these same claims then proceed to cut taxes for the 1%.

Increased spending at the bottom increases economic activity which increases hiring and decreases unemployment.
Every tax cut since Bush in 01 has made this claim.
If returning $40 at the endo of the year is supposed to increase economic activity imagine what increasing the paycheck by 50% will do.

Your theory is so flawed. First of all increasing the wage will get employers to hire less people, invest in automation such as many fast food places have already done with more to come, and it will create a domino effect.

When the domino effect does a complete circle, everything else costs more money. The additional wage the MW worker now has won't buy them anymore than they have today. Food will go up, dining will be a little more expensive, rent will likely increase, gasoline will have to go up. Everything increases.

The only two things that is really accomplished is that government gets more money via payroll taxes, and it will cause inflation. All you have to do is look what's happening between blue and red states. You do better in life making $15.00 an hour in a red state than you do $20.00 an hour in a blue state. The costs of living are different.

And you show a complete ignorance of actual economics.

A business operates with the minimum level of staffing required to run the business.
Cutting employees cuts the business' ability to function.
Increasing pay increases the competence of employees as less competent employees are replaced by better employees interested in the better wage.
This increases the business' performance.
Increasing the wages at the lower level increases economic activity, the basis of every tax cut Republicans have ever supported.
By increasing that economic activity at the lowest level we increase hiring at that level which reduces unemployment
Which, in turn, reduces government spending
The business owner may, in the short term, experience lower profits but, over the longer term, their businesses will grow because of increased demand.

This really is just basic economics and, unlike Truman, you don't need two hands to figure it out.

Cutting employees cuts the business' ability to function.

So does paying them more than they produce.

The business owner may, in the short term, experience lower profits but, over the longer term, their businesses will grow because of increased demand.

I love this claim!
After you're increased employment costs by 50%, how much is demand going to increase?

What was the purpose of the payroll tax cut?
To put more money in the hands of the lowest earners
BECAUSE
When those people get money they spend it which increases demand.
The same is true of a minimum wage increase.

Why is this basic economic truth so hard for you people to understand?

 

[dblack]

Increase in 1996 in the middle of the 2nd greatest economic expansion in history
Increases in 2006-2009 preceded the longest economic expansion in US history.

Really, it's just math. Which, I suppose, is why you're confused. Anyone who thinks 74M is more than 83M has definite math issues.

What does 74 and 83 have to do with this? I never said anything about it. Merely pointing out that increasing wages for 3.5% of our workforce has nothing to do with the economy. You couldn't even make a case for it because there is no correlation.

It has do do with your obvious math disability.

So...

Given you obvious math disability your claims are obviously well, just wrong.

A person making , say, $10/hour gets an increase over several years to $15 per hour
What do you think that person does with the extra money?
That's right, he spends it. On groceries, washing machines, cars,...
Republicans with their tax cuts make these same claims then proceed to cut taxes for the 1%.

Increased spending at the bottom increases economic activity which increases hiring and decreases unemployment.
Every tax cut since Bush in 01 has made this claim.
If returning $40 at the endo of the year is supposed to increase economic activity imagine what increasing the paycheck by 50% will do.

A person making , say, $10/hour gets an increase over several years to $15 per hour
What do you think that person does with the extra money?

Well, if his value added is less than $15/hour, he goes on unemployment.

If that person was unable to do the job he would have been fired at $10, 9, 8, 7.25.

You comment is nonsensical.

What's nonsensical is the belief that you can mandate market value by government decree.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It has do do with your obvious math disability.

So...

Given you obvious math disability your claims are obviously well, just wrong.

A person making , say, $10/hour gets an increase over several years to $15 per hour
What do you think that person does with the extra money?
That's right, he spends it. On groceries, washing machines, cars,...
Republicans with their tax cuts make these same claims then proceed to cut taxes for the 1%.

Increased spending at the bottom increases economic activity which increases hiring and decreases unemployment.
Every tax cut since Bush in 01 has made this claim.
If returning $40 at the endo of the year is supposed to increase economic activity imagine what increasing the paycheck by 50% will do.

Your theory is so flawed. First of all increasing the wage will get employers to hire less people, invest in automation such as many fast food places have already done with more to come, and it will create a domino effect.

When the domino effect does a complete circle, everything else costs more money. The additional wage the MW worker now has won't buy them anymore than they have today. Food will go up, dining will be a little more expensive, rent will likely increase, gasoline will have to go up. Everything increases.

The only two things that is really accomplished is that government gets more money via payroll taxes, and it will cause inflation. All you have to do is look what's happening between blue and red states. You do better in life making $15.00 an hour in a red state than you do $20.00 an hour in a blue state. The costs of living are different.

And you show a complete ignorance of actual economics.

A business operates with the minimum level of staffing required to run the business.
Cutting employees cuts the business' ability to function.
Increasing pay increases the competence of employees as less competent employees are replaced by better employees interested in the better wage.
This increases the business' performance.
Increasing the wages at the lower level increases economic activity, the basis of every tax cut Republicans have ever supported.
By increasing that economic activity at the lowest level we increase hiring at that level which reduces unemployment
Which, in turn, reduces government spending
The business owner may, in the short term, experience lower profits but, over the longer term, their businesses will grow because of increased demand.

This really is just basic economics and, unlike Truman, you don't need two hands to figure it out.

Cutting employees cuts the business' ability to function.

So does paying them more than they produce.

The business owner may, in the short term, experience lower profits but, over the longer term, their businesses will grow because of increased demand.

I love this claim!
After you're increased employment costs by 50%, how much is demand going to increase?

What was the purpose of the payroll tax cut?
To put more money in the hands of the lowest earners
BECAUSE
When those people get money they spend it which increases demand.
The same is true of a minimum wage increase.

Why is this basic economic truth so hard for you people to understand?

What was the purpose of the payroll tax cut?

Why are you bringing a temporary tax cut into the discussion?

After you've increased employment costs by 50%, how much is demand going to increase?

When those people get money they spend it which increases demand.

If you want to argue that taxes should be cut, I won't disagree.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Increase in 1996 in the middle of the 2nd greatest economic expansion in history
Increases in 2006-2009 preceded the longest economic expansion in US history.

Really, it's just math. Which, I suppose, is why you're confused. Anyone who thinks 74M is more than 83M has definite math issues.

What does 74 and 83 have to do with this? I never said anything about it. Merely pointing out that increasing wages for 3.5% of our workforce has nothing to do with the economy. You couldn't even make a case for it because there is no correlation.

It has do do with your obvious math disability.

So...

Given you obvious math disability your claims are obviously well, just wrong.

A person making , say, $10/hour gets an increase over several years to $15 per hour
What do you think that person does with the extra money?
That's right, he spends it. On groceries, washing machines, cars,...
Republicans with their tax cuts make these same claims then proceed to cut taxes for the 1%.

Increased spending at the bottom increases economic activity which increases hiring and decreases unemployment.
Every tax cut since Bush in 01 has made this claim.
If returning $40 at the endo of the year is supposed to increase economic activity imagine what increasing the paycheck by 50% will do.

A person making , say, $10/hour gets an increase over several years to $15 per hour
What do you think that person does with the extra money?

Well, if his value added is less than $15/hour, he goes on unemployment.

If that person was unable to do the job he would have been fired at $10, 9, 8, 7.25.

You comment is nonsensical.

If that person was unable to do the job he would have been fired at $10, 9, 8, 7.25.

Who said they couldn't do the job? Where?

It's a question of valued added versus wages paid. Why are liberals unable to understand the issue?

 

[Dadoalex]

Welcome to 2021. Perhaps you'd like to update your information from 1976?

In the Bush economic collapse lots of jobs were lost that never came back. Those people are now working those minimum wage jobs. Whether it is paying $15 for a kid for 6 hours a week or $15 for a 40 yo woman working 40 hours.

One more thing...

Every increase in the minimum wage since 1995 has been followed by significant increases in employment, economic activity, and stock values. Your masters want the increased stock values and the extra few bucks they don't want to pay their employees.

You need to do better homework. The last several federal MW increases were in what some call the worst recession in history, although I disagree with that living through the Reagan era when you couldn't even get a McDonald's job.

History of Federal Minimum Wage Rates Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 1938 - 2009

www.dol.gov

Increase in 1996 in the middle of the 2nd greatest economic expansion in history
Increases in 2006-2009 preceded the longest economic expansion in US history.

Really, it's just math. Which, I suppose, is why you're confused. Anyone who thinks 74M is more than 83M has definite math issues.

These people are as much into class warfare and any Red is; they can't fthom the fact that more money in workers' pockets means more spending in local businesses and less reliance on govt. relief programs. they're fine with corporate welfare and legal protections for themselves from creditors and customers, though. they're also afraid that raising minimum wage might inspire those illegal aliens the GOP loves so much to ask for another 50 cents an hour or something.

Perhaps it would be a good exercise for them to look back at the economy from the 50s to 70s when the Republican party started their multi-decade war on unions.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Perhaps it would be a good exercise for them to look back at the economy from the 50s to 70s when the Republican party started their multi-decade war on unions.

How did they have a war on unions? And don't say Reagan. He only dismantled one union for striking when they weren't allowed to.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What was the purpose of the payroll tax cut?
To put more money in the hands of the lowest earners
BECAUSE
When those people get money they spend it which increases demand.
The same is true of a minimum wage increase.

Why is this basic economic truth so hard for you people to understand?

Because when you increase one group of wages, especially that dramatically, it creates a domino effect. That increases the cost of living, and at the end, the person who's minimum wage increased isn't any further ahead because everything they buy or services they use goes up in price.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Walmart actually had their HR people helping employees with how to get on numerous welfare programs as part of their employee orientation program.

I keep reading that over and over again, but have yet to see somebody post a reliable site to that claim.

Walmart is the target of the left. What they don't tell people is Walmart treats their management pretty well. They treat their office staff pretty well. They treat their warehouse people pretty well. They treat their truck drivers well. Yet when the left talks about Walmart, they only talk about the lowly shelf stocker or the floor sweepers.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

To "demand" is to ask for something -- presumably to be in a position to quit if one's demands are not met.

Increase the MW to $15.00 an hour, and that's the exact position they will be in.

 

[hadit]

So 1.4 million Americans "make" less than $15/hour. If these are starter jobs — then your starting wage determines your earnings for the rest of your life under the Democrats' EEO/DOE system.

You max out at $25-30/hour in the prime of your career, by by that time inflation will have reduced your real wages to no more than today's minimum wage.

Your kids will then be even poorer that you were at their age.

No, I said minimum wage which today is something like $7.70 an hour or in that area. If it goes to $15.00 an hour, it will create a domino effect and everybody regardless of what they make will demand a huge increase as well, and of course it will lead to inflation.

I worked minimum wage jobs when I was younger in the later 70's. There is no way anybody gets inflated out if they get out of that minimum wage job and advance themselves. I had to switch companies and different fields several times in my life to get ahead. That's the idea.

60%+ of American workers earn $20/hr or less. Almost all of them will either get or demand a raise. That has a big effect on the market.

Supply side economics is supposed to supply regardless.

Where does it say that?