Bernie: "Today the Walton family of Walmart own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America."

[Brain357]

What happens when your customers have increased incomes?

Won't do them much good when all the prices have been proportionally jacked up, will it?

Well you would have to prove that is what will happen. Increased sales keep costs down.

Lower COSTS keep costs down. Increased sales don't magically appear out of nowhere. In fact, on top of higher costs, there is little reason to expect higher sales.

Joe is in the market to buy an American car. He can buy from Ford or from GM. But GM has perhaps just considerably jacked up the wages to its employees and as a result their cost per car has been jacked up too. Joe, working on a fixed budget and with a little bit of economic common sense (which his pinky43262 lacks), decides he really can't afford the added expense of the GM under such circumstances. So, he elects to buy the Ford.

AS the laws of supply and demand would have told you, pinky, the increased costs (payroll) to GM resulted in higher costs for their product and thus lower sales.

Common sense. Get some.

Min wage would effect every employer the same. Increased income means increased sales.

Incorrect. Increased income means higher prices, which mean lower sales. Inflation always eats up any wage increase and the only way to make a minimum wage work is to keep it so low that it doesn't really make much of a difference. That's what we've been doing. Here's a real life scenario. I need an income of $65,000/year to comfortably raise a family of three kids. We're not talking college here at all. Now, who's responsible to generate that income, me or a company that offers me a job at $7/hour?

No if people have more money they can spend more, increased sales. Increased sales counter increase in wages.

 

[Brain357]

Let the waltons be, envy really makes America an ugly place...

By paying so little their workers are on welfare, the government grows. I think that is a bad thing. You must love big government.

The government grows because libturds and all the people who get a check from the government (is there a distinction?) want it to grow.

And those people get a check from the gov because their employer hoses them. Either the gov or the employers need to provide for them. If you want small gov the only answer is the employer. This isn't so hard to understand.

Who is responsible to generate enough income to raise a family that was voluntarily created?

It doesn't really matter. Increased gov dependence leads to increased government. If you want small gov people need to make enough to support themselves.

 

[hadit]

Let the waltons be, envy really makes America an ugly place...

By paying so little their workers are on welfare, the government grows. I think that is a bad thing. You must love big government.

The government grows because libturds and all the people who get a check from the government (is there a distinction?) want it to grow.

And those people get a check from the gov because their employer hoses them. Either the gov or the employers need to provide for them. If you want small gov the only answer is the employer. This isn't so hard to understand.

If they don't like the terms of the deal, they are free to work elsewhere, so how are the being "hosed?" Wal-Mart is not their legal guardian and neither is the government. Neither has any legal or moral obligation to provide them with some minimum standard of living.

Your claim is pure communist horseshit.

Then you don't live in reality. We vote in this country. If the employer doesn't provide for them the government will. The only way to smaller gov is through employers providing better. Every full time employed person should make enough to not be on welfare. Only then will gov dependence shrink.

Here's reality. A job exists because the work done makes the company more money than it pays the worker. That's the bottom line. Make the job artificially expensive and it goes away. Either it gets outsourced to a cheaper alternative, automated out of existence, or is done without.

 

[hadit]

Let the waltons be, envy really makes America an ugly place...

By paying so little their workers are on welfare, the government grows. I think that is a bad thing. You must love big government.

The government grows because libturds and all the people who get a check from the government (is there a distinction?) want it to grow.

And those people get a check from the gov because their employer hoses them. Either the gov or the employers need to provide for them. If you want small gov the only answer is the employer. This isn't so hard to understand.

Who is responsible to generate enough income to raise a family that was voluntarily created?

It doesn't really matter. Increased gov dependence leads to increased government. If you want small gov people need to make enough to support themselves.

And who is responsible to make enough to support themselves? I'm making this real easy here.

 

[Brain357]

By paying so little their workers are on welfare, the government grows. I think that is a bad thing. You must love big government.

The government grows because libturds and all the people who get a check from the government (is there a distinction?) want it to grow.

And those people get a check from the gov because their employer hoses them. Either the gov or the employers need to provide for them. If you want small gov the only answer is the employer. This isn't so hard to understand.

Who is responsible to generate enough income to raise a family that was voluntarily created?

It doesn't really matter. Increased gov dependence leads to increased government. If you want small gov people need to make enough to support themselves.

And who is responsible to make enough to support themselves? I'm making this real easy here.

Like I said, it doesn't matter. Gov will not get smaller as long as more people are dependent on government.

 

[hadit]

Won't do them much good when all the prices have been proportionally jacked up, will it?

Well you would have to prove that is what will happen. Increased sales keep costs down.

Lower COSTS keep costs down. Increased sales don't magically appear out of nowhere. In fact, on top of higher costs, there is little reason to expect higher sales.

Joe is in the market to buy an American car. He can buy from Ford or from GM. But GM has perhaps just considerably jacked up the wages to its employees and as a result their cost per car has been jacked up too. Joe, working on a fixed budget and with a little bit of economic common sense (which his pinky43262 lacks), decides he really can't afford the added expense of the GM under such circumstances. So, he elects to buy the Ford.

AS the laws of supply and demand would have told you, pinky, the increased costs (payroll) to GM resulted in higher costs for their product and thus lower sales.

Common sense. Get some.

Min wage would effect every employer the same. Increased income means increased sales.

Incorrect. Increased income means higher prices, which mean lower sales. Inflation always eats up any wage increase and the only way to make a minimum wage work is to keep it so low that it doesn't really make much of a difference. That's what we've been doing. Here's a real life scenario. I need an income of $65,000/year to comfortably raise a family of three kids. We're not talking college here at all. Now, who's responsible to generate that income, me or a company that offers me a job at $7/hour?

No if people have more money they can spend more, increased sales. Increased sales counter increase in wages.

The only way a company can pay employees more is by increasing sales volume (if they could do that, they already would be doing it), making more money (raising prices), or reducing costs (laying off workers, or getting taxes lowered). Tell us again about the unicorn.

 

[Brain357]

Well you would have to prove that is what will happen. Increased sales keep costs down.

Lower COSTS keep costs down. Increased sales don't magically appear out of nowhere. In fact, on top of higher costs, there is little reason to expect higher sales.

Joe is in the market to buy an American car. He can buy from Ford or from GM. But GM has perhaps just considerably jacked up the wages to its employees and as a result their cost per car has been jacked up too. Joe, working on a fixed budget and with a little bit of economic common sense (which his pinky43262 lacks), decides he really can't afford the added expense of the GM under such circumstances. So, he elects to buy the Ford.

AS the laws of supply and demand would have told you, pinky, the increased costs (payroll) to GM resulted in higher costs for their product and thus lower sales.

Common sense. Get some.

Min wage would effect every employer the same. Increased income means increased sales.

Incorrect. Increased income means higher prices, which mean lower sales. Inflation always eats up any wage increase and the only way to make a minimum wage work is to keep it so low that it doesn't really make much of a difference. That's what we've been doing. Here's a real life scenario. I need an income of $65,000/year to comfortably raise a family of three kids. We're not talking college here at all. Now, who's responsible to generate that income, me or a company that offers me a job at $7/hour?

No if people have more money they can spend more, increased sales. Increased sales counter increase in wages.

The only way a company can pay employees more is by increasing sales volume (if they could do that, they already would be doing it), making more money (raising prices), or reducing costs (laying off workers, or getting taxes lowered). Tell us again about the unicorn.

Increased wages lead to increased sales.

 

[Brain357]

By paying so little their workers are on welfare, the government grows. I think that is a bad thing. You must love big government.

The government grows because libturds and all the people who get a check from the government (is there a distinction?) want it to grow.

And those people get a check from the gov because their employer hoses them. Either the gov or the employers need to provide for them. If you want small gov the only answer is the employer. This isn't so hard to understand.

If they don't like the terms of the deal, they are free to work elsewhere, so how are the being "hosed?" Wal-Mart is not their legal guardian and neither is the government. Neither has any legal or moral obligation to provide them with some minimum standard of living.

Your claim is pure communist horseshit.

Then you don't live in reality. We vote in this country. If the employer doesn't provide for them the government will. The only way to smaller gov is through employers providing better. Every full time employed person should make enough to not be on welfare. Only then will gov dependence shrink.

Here's reality. A job exists because the work done makes the company more money than it pays the worker. That's the bottom line. Make the job artificially expensive and it goes away. Either it gets outsourced to a cheaper alternative, automated out of existence, or is done without.

I know comrade, you think gov dependence is the only option. You are wrong.

 

[hadit]

Lower COSTS keep costs down. Increased sales don't magically appear out of nowhere. In fact, on top of higher costs, there is little reason to expect higher sales.

Joe is in the market to buy an American car. He can buy from Ford or from GM. But GM has perhaps just considerably jacked up the wages to its employees and as a result their cost per car has been jacked up too. Joe, working on a fixed budget and with a little bit of economic common sense (which his pinky43262 lacks), decides he really can't afford the added expense of the GM under such circumstances. So, he elects to buy the Ford.

AS the laws of supply and demand would have told you, pinky, the increased costs (payroll) to GM resulted in higher costs for their product and thus lower sales.

Common sense. Get some.

Min wage would effect every employer the same. Increased income means increased sales.

Incorrect. Increased income means higher prices, which mean lower sales. Inflation always eats up any wage increase and the only way to make a minimum wage work is to keep it so low that it doesn't really make much of a difference. That's what we've been doing. Here's a real life scenario. I need an income of $65,000/year to comfortably raise a family of three kids. We're not talking college here at all. Now, who's responsible to generate that income, me or a company that offers me a job at $7/hour?

No if people have more money they can spend more, increased sales. Increased sales counter increase in wages.

The only way a company can pay employees more is by increasing sales volume (if they could do that, they already would be doing it), making more money (raising prices), or reducing costs (laying off workers, or getting taxes lowered). Tell us again about the unicorn.

Increased wages lead to increased sales.

They also lead to job loss. Ever wonder why you don't have a teenager pump your gas, check your oil and water, and fill up your tires any more? You just keep mindlessly repeating the same mantra over and over again, as if that will make it true. It won't. Higher wages mean higher prices, which mean lower sales.

 

[hadit]

The government grows because libturds and all the people who get a check from the government (is there a distinction?) want it to grow.

And those people get a check from the gov because their employer hoses them. Either the gov or the employers need to provide for them. If you want small gov the only answer is the employer. This isn't so hard to understand.

If they don't like the terms of the deal, they are free to work elsewhere, so how are the being "hosed?" Wal-Mart is not their legal guardian and neither is the government. Neither has any legal or moral obligation to provide them with some minimum standard of living.

Your claim is pure communist horseshit.

Then you don't live in reality. We vote in this country. If the employer doesn't provide for them the government will. The only way to smaller gov is through employers providing better. Every full time employed person should make enough to not be on welfare. Only then will gov dependence shrink.

Here's reality. A job exists because the work done makes the company more money than it pays the worker. That's the bottom line. Make the job artificially expensive and it goes away. Either it gets outsourced to a cheaper alternative, automated out of existence, or is done without.

I know comrade, you think gov dependence is the only option. You are wrong.

Okay, so what is your option, other than artificially increasing the cost of everything?

 

[Brain357]

Min wage would effect every employer the same. Increased income means increased sales.

Incorrect. Increased income means higher prices, which mean lower sales. Inflation always eats up any wage increase and the only way to make a minimum wage work is to keep it so low that it doesn't really make much of a difference. That's what we've been doing. Here's a real life scenario. I need an income of $65,000/year to comfortably raise a family of three kids. We're not talking college here at all. Now, who's responsible to generate that income, me or a company that offers me a job at $7/hour?

No if people have more money they can spend more, increased sales. Increased sales counter increase in wages.

The only way a company can pay employees more is by increasing sales volume (if they could do that, they already would be doing it), making more money (raising prices), or reducing costs (laying off workers, or getting taxes lowered). Tell us again about the unicorn.

Increased wages lead to increased sales.

They also lead to job loss. Ever wonder why you don't have a teenager pump your gas, check your oil and water, and fill up your tires any more? You just keep mindlessly repeating the same mantra over and over again, as if that will make it true. It won't. Higher wages mean higher prices, which mean lower sales.

A min wage increase has never lead to increased unemployment. Nice scare tactic comrade.

 

[Brain357]

And those people get a check from the gov because their employer hoses them. Either the gov or the employers need to provide for them. If you want small gov the only answer is the employer. This isn't so hard to understand.

If they don't like the terms of the deal, they are free to work elsewhere, so how are the being "hosed?" Wal-Mart is not their legal guardian and neither is the government. Neither has any legal or moral obligation to provide them with some minimum standard of living.

Your claim is pure communist horseshit.

Then you don't live in reality. We vote in this country. If the employer doesn't provide for them the government will. The only way to smaller gov is through employers providing better. Every full time employed person should make enough to not be on welfare. Only then will gov dependence shrink.

Here's reality. A job exists because the work done makes the company more money than it pays the worker. That's the bottom line. Make the job artificially expensive and it goes away. Either it gets outsourced to a cheaper alternative, automated out of existence, or is done without.

I know comrade, you think gov dependence is the only option. You are wrong.

Okay, so what is your option, other than artificially increasing the cost of everything?

Looks like min wage increase most likely.

Personally I would kick out illegals and those here from foreign countries working. Then I would change corp tax structure to give breaks to companies that hire here and pay well. I'd let them pay zero If they are providing for their employees.

 

[hadit]

Incorrect. Increased income means higher prices, which mean lower sales. Inflation always eats up any wage increase and the only way to make a minimum wage work is to keep it so low that it doesn't really make much of a difference. That's what we've been doing. Here's a real life scenario. I need an income of $65,000/year to comfortably raise a family of three kids. We're not talking college here at all. Now, who's responsible to generate that income, me or a company that offers me a job at $7/hour?

No if people have more money they can spend more, increased sales. Increased sales counter increase in wages.

The only way a company can pay employees more is by increasing sales volume (if they could do that, they already would be doing it), making more money (raising prices), or reducing costs (laying off workers, or getting taxes lowered). Tell us again about the unicorn.

Increased wages lead to increased sales.

They also lead to job loss. Ever wonder why you don't have a teenager pump your gas, check your oil and water, and fill up your tires any more? You just keep mindlessly repeating the same mantra over and over again, as if that will make it true. It won't. Higher wages mean higher prices, which mean lower sales.

A min wage increase has never lead to increased unemployment. Nice scare tactic comrade.

For one simple reason. The increase was always small enough that it didn't matter. Here's a reality you obviously are either ignorant of or are strenuously avoiding. Over half American workers earn $20/hour or less. Do you have that firmly fixed in your mind? Good. Now, the current rage is to increase the MW to $15/hour. Put those two together for a moment and actually think, not feel, about it. Every person who now makes $20/hour is making significantly more than MW. Raise it to $15/hour and what do you think they will do? That's right, they will demand a raise for themselves, because everyone who was making between MW and $15/hour just got a raise and they're suddenly making just a little over MW. Now, do you REALLY think (again, not feel, because your feelings are irrelevant) that the economy can sustain over half the work force simultaneously getting or demanding big raises or they'll leave without prices going up? If you do, there's little hope for you.

 

[hadit]

If they don't like the terms of the deal, they are free to work elsewhere, so how are the being "hosed?" Wal-Mart is not their legal guardian and neither is the government. Neither has any legal or moral obligation to provide them with some minimum standard of living.

Your claim is pure communist horseshit.

Then you don't live in reality. We vote in this country. If the employer doesn't provide for them the government will. The only way to smaller gov is through employers providing better. Every full time employed person should make enough to not be on welfare. Only then will gov dependence shrink.

Here's reality. A job exists because the work done makes the company more money than it pays the worker. That's the bottom line. Make the job artificially expensive and it goes away. Either it gets outsourced to a cheaper alternative, automated out of existence, or is done without.

I know comrade, you think gov dependence is the only option. You are wrong.

Okay, so what is your option, other than artificially increasing the cost of everything?

Looks like min wage increase most likely.

Personally I would kick out illegals and those here from foreign countries working. Then I would change corp tax structure to give breaks to companies that hire here and pay well. I'd let them pay zero If they are providing for their employees.

That would go a long way toward making higher wages sustainable. You do know, though, that you would run afoul of the anti business brigade that freaks out at the thought of a company not paying any income taxes?

 

[Brain357]

No if people have more money they can spend more, increased sales. Increased sales counter increase in wages.

The only way a company can pay employees more is by increasing sales volume (if they could do that, they already would be doing it), making more money (raising prices), or reducing costs (laying off workers, or getting taxes lowered). Tell us again about the unicorn.

Increased wages lead to increased sales.

They also lead to job loss. Ever wonder why you don't have a teenager pump your gas, check your oil and water, and fill up your tires any more? You just keep mindlessly repeating the same mantra over and over again, as if that will make it true. It won't. Higher wages mean higher prices, which mean lower sales.

A min wage increase has never lead to increased unemployment. Nice scare tactic comrade.

For one simple reason. The increase was always small enough that it didn't matter. Here's a reality you obviously are either ignorant of or are strenuously avoiding. Over half American workers earn $20/hour or less. Do you have that firmly fixed in your mind? Good. Now, the current rage is to increase the MW to $15/hour. Put those two together for a moment and actually think, not feel, about it. Every person who now makes $20/hour is making significantly more than MW. Raise it to $15/hour and what do you think they will do? That's right, they will demand a raise for themselves, because everyone who was making between MW and $15/hour just got a raise and they're suddenly making just a little over MW. Now, do you REALLY think (again, not feel, because your feelings are irrelevant) that the economy can sustain over half the work force simultaneously getting or demanding big raises or they'll leave without prices going up? If you do, there's little hope for you.

Oh my god, raises? People could support themselves without the government? That would be aweful comrade.

 

[hadit]

The only way a company can pay employees more is by increasing sales volume (if they could do that, they already would be doing it), making more money (raising prices), or reducing costs (laying off workers, or getting taxes lowered). Tell us again about the unicorn.

Increased wages lead to increased sales.

They also lead to job loss. Ever wonder why you don't have a teenager pump your gas, check your oil and water, and fill up your tires any more? You just keep mindlessly repeating the same mantra over and over again, as if that will make it true. It won't. Higher wages mean higher prices, which mean lower sales.

A min wage increase has never lead to increased unemployment. Nice scare tactic comrade.

For one simple reason. The increase was always small enough that it didn't matter. Here's a reality you obviously are either ignorant of or are strenuously avoiding. Over half American workers earn $20/hour or less. Do you have that firmly fixed in your mind? Good. Now, the current rage is to increase the MW to $15/hour. Put those two together for a moment and actually think, not feel, about it. Every person who now makes $20/hour is making significantly more than MW. Raise it to $15/hour and what do you think they will do? That's right, they will demand a raise for themselves, because everyone who was making between MW and $15/hour just got a raise and they're suddenly making just a little over MW. Now, do you REALLY think (again, not feel, because your feelings are irrelevant) that the economy can sustain over half the work force simultaneously getting or demanding big raises or they'll leave without prices going up? If you do, there's little hope for you.

Oh my god, raises? People could support themselves without the government? That would be aweful comrade.

And what do you think would happen to the economy? Companies don't make enough money to give 62% of their workers a big raise. Bye-bye jobs. Is it better to have a low paying job or no job at all?

 

[Brain357]

Then you don't live in reality. We vote in this country. If the employer doesn't provide for them the government will. The only way to smaller gov is through employers providing better. Every full time employed person should make enough to not be on welfare. Only then will gov dependence shrink.

Here's reality. A job exists because the work done makes the company more money than it pays the worker. That's the bottom line. Make the job artificially expensive and it goes away. Either it gets outsourced to a cheaper alternative, automated out of existence, or is done without.

I know comrade, you think gov dependence is the only option. You are wrong.

Okay, so what is your option, other than artificially increasing the cost of everything?

Looks like min wage increase most likely.

Personally I would kick out illegals and those here from foreign countries working. Then I would change corp tax structure to give breaks to companies that hire here and pay well. I'd let them pay zero If they are providing for their employees.

That would go a long way toward making higher wages sustainable. You do know, though, that you would run afoul of the anti business brigade that freaks out at the thought of a company not paying any income taxes?

Yes but I think there are wins for everybody.
Repubs should like Less gov dependence, less welfare.
Dems should like better pay and benefits.
Corps should like zero taxes.
Should give great spark to economy.

 

[Brain357]

Increased wages lead to increased sales.

They also lead to job loss. Ever wonder why you don't have a teenager pump your gas, check your oil and water, and fill up your tires any more? You just keep mindlessly repeating the same mantra over and over again, as if that will make it true. It won't. Higher wages mean higher prices, which mean lower sales.

A min wage increase has never lead to increased unemployment. Nice scare tactic comrade.

For one simple reason. The increase was always small enough that it didn't matter. Here's a reality you obviously are either ignorant of or are strenuously avoiding. Over half American workers earn $20/hour or less. Do you have that firmly fixed in your mind? Good. Now, the current rage is to increase the MW to $15/hour. Put those two together for a moment and actually think, not feel, about it. Every person who now makes $20/hour is making significantly more than MW. Raise it to $15/hour and what do you think they will do? That's right, they will demand a raise for themselves, because everyone who was making between MW and $15/hour just got a raise and they're suddenly making just a little over MW. Now, do you REALLY think (again, not feel, because your feelings are irrelevant) that the economy can sustain over half the work force simultaneously getting or demanding big raises or they'll leave without prices going up? If you do, there's little hope for you.

Oh my god, raises? People could support themselves without the government? That would be aweful comrade.

And what do you think would happen to the economy? Companies don't make enough money to give 62% of their workers a big raise. Bye-bye jobs. Is it better to have a low paying job or no job at all?

Well we have cities doing it now. So far no gloom and doom.

 

[hadit]

They also lead to job loss. Ever wonder why you don't have a teenager pump your gas, check your oil and water, and fill up your tires any more? You just keep mindlessly repeating the same mantra over and over again, as if that will make it true. It won't. Higher wages mean higher prices, which mean lower sales.

A min wage increase has never lead to increased unemployment. Nice scare tactic comrade.

For one simple reason. The increase was always small enough that it didn't matter. Here's a reality you obviously are either ignorant of or are strenuously avoiding. Over half American workers earn $20/hour or less. Do you have that firmly fixed in your mind? Good. Now, the current rage is to increase the MW to $15/hour. Put those two together for a moment and actually think, not feel, about it. Every person who now makes $20/hour is making significantly more than MW. Raise it to $15/hour and what do you think they will do? That's right, they will demand a raise for themselves, because everyone who was making between MW and $15/hour just got a raise and they're suddenly making just a little over MW. Now, do you REALLY think (again, not feel, because your feelings are irrelevant) that the economy can sustain over half the work force simultaneously getting or demanding big raises or they'll leave without prices going up? If you do, there's little hope for you.

Oh my god, raises? People could support themselves without the government? That would be aweful comrade.

And what do you think would happen to the economy? Companies don't make enough money to give 62% of their workers a big raise. Bye-bye jobs. Is it better to have a low paying job or no job at all?

Well we have cities doing it now. So far no gloom and doom.

Cities where the cost of living is already high enough that $15/hour won't make much of a dent. Do it nation wide and there's a big cost.

 

[Brain357]

A min wage increase has never lead to increased unemployment. Nice scare tactic comrade.

For one simple reason. The increase was always small enough that it didn't matter. Here's a reality you obviously are either ignorant of or are strenuously avoiding. Over half American workers earn $20/hour or less. Do you have that firmly fixed in your mind? Good. Now, the current rage is to increase the MW to $15/hour. Put those two together for a moment and actually think, not feel, about it. Every person who now makes $20/hour is making significantly more than MW. Raise it to $15/hour and what do you think they will do? That's right, they will demand a raise for themselves, because everyone who was making between MW and $15/hour just got a raise and they're suddenly making just a little over MW. Now, do you REALLY think (again, not feel, because your feelings are irrelevant) that the economy can sustain over half the work force simultaneously getting or demanding big raises or they'll leave without prices going up? If you do, there's little hope for you.

Oh my god, raises? People could support themselves without the government? That would be aweful comrade.

And what do you think would happen to the economy? Companies don't make enough money to give 62% of their workers a big raise. Bye-bye jobs. Is it better to have a low paying job or no job at all?

Well we have cities doing it now. So far no gloom and doom.

Cities where the cost of living is already high enough that $15/hour won't make much of a dent. Do it nation wide and there's a big cost.

Well national increases haven't had a big cost and these big city increases haven't either. I see little reason to believe in that gloom and doom.