Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
And they seem to think they can do it overnight with no negative impact at all.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.
Yep. It will increase the cost of living and create inflation. So those 60% of workers are going to feel jilted to satisfy 3.5% of the workforce. That's what a Democrat considers success. That's why they should never be allowed power.
Were you born like last tuesday?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.
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.
Pretty sure the proposal is for graduated increases over several years.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.
Were you born like last tuesday?
Why is it that what is historical fact seems to totally evade your conscience.
Normally I simply tell people like you that it's not my role to education them on basic history but, because I'm a sweet guy, I did the search for you.
Pretty sure the proposal is for graduated increases over several years.
If you've other information please source it.
And why would that be, if not to mitigate the negative impact and give the market time to adjust? And that's the thing - the market will adjust. You can't just dictate the value of labor (or anything else) by passing a law. Once things settle, the relative value of low wage workers will be the same. To put it another way, when the government decrees that a $10/hr job will now pay $15/hr, all they've really said is that $15 is now worth $10. The real value of the labor in doesn't change. If society doesn't value burger-flipping enough for someone to raise a family flipping burgers, when all is done, whatever games you play with the numbers, society still won't value burger-flipping enough for someone to raise a family flipping burgers.Pretty sure the proposal is for graduated increases over several years.
If you've other information please source it.
Show your calculations on how you arrived at the value they add. You have no control over any form of inflation.You only need to try to maximize your profit regardless of costs.The government can't force me to take labor that's more costly than value added.
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.
Market cost is what is mandated. Profit is more than just market value.What's nonsensical is the belief that you can mandate market value by government decree.
That is not how it works. Not all employees wages will be doubling. Price inflation for a burger at a fast food place will be five percent or less.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?
\
It is the supply side paradigm. Supply, supply, supply.Where does it say that?
Inflation happens. Value changes in response to any inflation. Profit is what Capitalists must seek regardless if they want to stay in business.And why would that be, if not to mitigate the negative impact and give the market time to adjust? And that's the thing - the market will adjust. You can't just dictate the value of labor (or anything else) by passing a law. Once things settle, the relative value of low wage workers will be the same. To put it another way, when the government decrees that a $10/hr job will now pay $15/hr, all they've really said is that $15 is now worth $10. The real value of the labor in doesn't change. If society doesn't value burger-flipping enough for someone to raise a family flipping burgers, when all is done, whatever games you play with the numbers, society still won't value burger-flipping enough for someone to raise a family flipping burgers.Pretty sure the proposal is for graduated increases over several years.
If you've other information please source it.
Stock can double overnight with no consequences.And they seem to think they can do it overnight with no negative impact at all.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.
Yep. It will increase the cost of living and create inflation. So those 60% of workers are going to feel jilted to satisfy 3.5% of the workforce. That's what a Democrat considers success. That's why they should never be allowed power.
IOW, you made it up like everything else.It is the supply side paradigm. Supply, supply, supply.Where does it say that?
Oh, Lord have mercy. You have truly lost it. The sad thing is, you actually think there's a valid comparison there. Here's a hint, there isn't. Here's another one, stock prices aren't arbitrarily set by the government. It's sad, but I really have to explain this to you.Stock can double overnight with no consequences.And they seem to think they can do it overnight with no negative impact at all.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.
Yep. It will increase the cost of living and create inflation. So those 60% of workers are going to feel jilted to satisfy 3.5% of the workforce. That's what a Democrat considers success. That's why they should never be allowed power.
Where do you get your numbers? Cite the source please, and don't try to wander off into your vague generalities like you always do. And, since you're short on math, a 50% increase is not doubling.That is not how it works. Not all employees wages will be doubling. Price inflation for a burger at a fast food place will be five percent or less.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?
\
And after the dust settles, they'll be back, complaining that $15/hr isn't enough and they'll want $20.And why would that be, if not to mitigate the negative impact and give the market time to adjust? And that's the thing - the market will adjust. You can't just dictate the value of labor (or anything else) by passing a law. Once things settle, the relative value of low wage workers will be the same. To put it another way, when the government decrees that a $10/hr job will now pay $15/hr, all they've really said is that $15 is now worth $10. The real value of the labor in doesn't change. If society doesn't value burger-flipping enough for someone to raise a family flipping burgers, when all is done, whatever games you play with the numbers, society still won't value burger-flipping enough for someone to raise a family flipping burgers.Pretty sure the proposal is for graduated increases over several years.
If you've other information please source it.
Show your calculations on how you arrived at the value they add.You only need to try to maximize your profit regardless of costs.The government can't force me to take labor that's more costly than value added.
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.
That is not how it works. Not all employees wages will be doubling. Price inflation for a burger at a fast food place will be five percent or less.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?
\
