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.
Why is anyone making the statutory minimum wage if wages were keeping up with inflation?Over the time frame the minimum wage stagnated for around a decade and States and municipalities felt the need to enact non-Capitalism wage laws by statute.Because it doesn't help those at the current minimum wage now. You make it seem like subsidizing employers who offer cheap wages is a good thing. Why are wages not keeping up with inflation? We would not need any statutory wages if Capitalism worked as well in real life as it does in right wing fantasy.It helps those who live in those areas. Why are you not petitioning your local government to raise your MW if you think it's too low?Some have raised their minimum wage to adjust for a higher cost of living. That doesn't help anyone making a minimum wage that was stagnant for around a decade.Why don't cities and states set their own MW to whatever level they think exceeds what someone can get from welfare?
Why are wages not keeping up with inflation?
Over what time frame? Link?
Over the time frame the minimum wage stagnated for around a decade
So you lied. Wages are keeping up with inflation but the minimum wage isn't.
Thanks for admitting your lie.
That's irrelevant. If you want your MW to go up, you should be petitioning your local governments because they have the ability to set their MW to whatever level the voters demand. Therefore, if the cost of living in your area is high, your MW can be as well. Sounds to me like a copout, that everyone's blaming Washington when they can do it themselves.Because it doesn't help those at the current minimum wage now. You make it seem like subsidizing employers who offer cheap wages is a good thing. Why are wages not keeping up with inflation? We would not need any statutory wages if Capitalism worked as well in real life as it does in right wing fantasy.It helps those who live in those areas. Why are you not petitioning your local government to raise your MW if you think it's too low?Some have raised their minimum wage to adjust for a higher cost of living. That doesn't help anyone making a minimum wage that was stagnant for around a decade.Why don't cities and states set their own MW to whatever level they think exceeds what someone can get from welfare?
Red States are cheaper because they have lower tax rates, regulations and lower overall costs of living. What can buy a dump of a one bedroom house in San Francisco can buy a really nice house in Texas. And when nut cases escape the blue states they always try to destroy the red areas they escape to. Something about not understanding cause and effect.Red States are cheaper for the same reason third world economies are cheaper. Besides, if enough people from blue States move there, they will eventually realize how fantastical right wingers are and vote blue instead of red.Companies move locations all the time to cut costs. Why aren't you complaining that companies in NYC face unfair competition from companies based in Texas that have much lower costs? It would be up to the companies to decide if they wanted to move from a high cost area to a low cost one. Naturally, after they moved, they would put upward pressure on wages in their new area. Ever consider that?National standards are more comprehensive and ensure all of your competition has the same wage rate.Here's a shocker. Businesses are not responsible to help anyone maintain a lifestyle. And answer me this. Cities and states seem to have figured out that they can set their MW as high as they want to. Why are you not complaining to your local governments that your MW is too low?
That's not exactly a badge of honor. Was that after you graduated from selling used cars?I made my living in commercial real estate.
That depends on the cost differential. If you have to pay an employee more per hour than you would a cleaning company, you'd be foolish to cut the cleaning company. Same with plowing the parking lot. The owner would have to have his own equipment, transport it to the parking lot, carry insurance to protect him if he damages a car or city property and take the time out of his day to do the plowing. He would be stupid to do that if he was getting the equivalent of $100/hr from the company and would pay a service $50/hr.Who's going to do the work of the 1.4 million?
It's not as if employers keep surplus workers around the shop just in case.
They'll just get by with one or 2 less employees.
Or maybe the business won't hire a cleaning company and have their workers sweep up
Maybe the owner will plow his own parking lot instead of paying someone else to do it?
There are millions of ways to save a little money here and there
I sure as hell never sold used cars or real estate LOLThat's not exactly a badge of honor. Was that after you graduated from selling used cars?I made my living in commercial real estate.
And I suppose you're Mother Fucking Theresa
And they can offset those costs...by cutting management salaries.That depends on the cost differential. If you have to pay an employee more per hour than you would a cleaning company, you'd be foolish to cut the cleaning company. Same with plowing the parking lot. The owner would have to have his own equipment, transport it to the parking lot, carry insurance to protect him if he damages a car or city property and take the time out of his day to do the plowing. He would be stupid to do that if he was getting the equivalent of $100/hr from the company and would pay a service $50/hr.Who's going to do the work of the 1.4 million?
It's not as if employers keep surplus workers around the shop just in case.
They'll just get by with one or 2 less employees.
Or maybe the business won't hire a cleaning company and have their workers sweep up
Maybe the owner will plow his own parking lot instead of paying someone else to do it?
There are millions of ways to save a little money here and there
and you don't think the cleaning company will have to pay their cleaners 15 an hour too?
So not only do your labor costs go up but you now have to pay the cleaners more too.
And since plowing is usually done before the business opens or after it closes it doesn't cut into the owners productivity at work so why pay a guy to do it?
I didn't sell real estate. I bought it and rented it outI sure as hell never sold used cars or real estate LOLThat's not exactly a badge of honor. Was that after you graduated from selling used cars?I made my living in commercial real estate.
And I suppose you're Mother Fucking Theresa
Just how much do you think the average small business owner makes?And they can offset those costs...by cutting management salaries.That depends on the cost differential. If you have to pay an employee more per hour than you would a cleaning company, you'd be foolish to cut the cleaning company. Same with plowing the parking lot. The owner would have to have his own equipment, transport it to the parking lot, carry insurance to protect him if he damages a car or city property and take the time out of his day to do the plowing. He would be stupid to do that if he was getting the equivalent of $100/hr from the company and would pay a service $50/hr.Who's going to do the work of the 1.4 million?
It's not as if employers keep surplus workers around the shop just in case.
They'll just get by with one or 2 less employees.
Or maybe the business won't hire a cleaning company and have their workers sweep up
Maybe the owner will plow his own parking lot instead of paying someone else to do it?
There are millions of ways to save a little money here and there
and you don't think the cleaning company will have to pay their cleaners 15 an hour too?
So not only do your labor costs go up but you now have to pay the cleaners more too.
And since plowing is usually done before the business opens or after it closes it doesn't cut into the owners productivity at work so why pay a guy to do it?
Uuuuu there's a thought huh?
But then you identify with management and not with rank and file employees so you'd never cut THEIR salaries woudja
Hey. I saw this and thought about this threadI sure as hell never sold used cars or real estate LOLThat's not exactly a badge of honor. Was that after you graduated from selling used cars?I made my living in commercial real estate.
And I suppose you're Mother Fucking Theresa
www.cbsnews.com
30 states already have a MW that is higher than the Federal MW.Hey. I saw this and thought about this threadI sure as hell never sold used cars or real estate LOLThat's not exactly a badge of honor. Was that after you graduated from selling used cars?I made my living in commercial real estate.
And I suppose you're Mother Fucking Theresa
Here's where workers are getting a pay raise this year
Half of U.S. states are raising their minimum wage this year, benefiting almost 7 million workers, by one estimate.
And I saw a Trump supporter bragging that wages for low wage workers went up under Trump. He had nothing to do with those minimum wage increases. Probably voted on before he was even president. But then he uses the min wage increase to say look people are doing better because of me.
When he and all Republicans are/were/will always be against those minimum wage increases. Give Democrats credit for those increased wages.
Then Republicans will say all that did was cause inflation. You can't win with Republicans. And even when they are wrong, they still aren't wrong.
Several decades of good economic years, along with minimum wage increases over the last 83 years, I'm guessing...not really.The first time the 'we will lose jobs if the minimum wage is raised' argument was used was in 1938..when FDR got the wage raised to .25 cents an hour.
Did anyone lose their job when he did that?
After the Republican Great Depression, FDR put this nation back to work, in part by raising taxes on income above $3 to $4 million a year (in today's dollars) to 91 percent, and corporate taxes to over 50% of profits. The revenue from those income taxes built dams, roads, bridges, sewers, water systems, schools, hospitals, train stations, railways, an interstate highway system, and airports. It educated a generation returning from World War II. It acted as a cap on the rare but occasional obsessively greedy person taking so much out of the economy that it impoverished the rest of us.
Roll Back the Reagan Tax Cuts | Common Dreams
Our bridges are falling apart (among other things), and its Ronald Reagan's fault. A few hours before the bridge collapsed in Minnesota, a news release landed (among hundreds) in my email inbox. It was from the right-wing "Heartland Institute" and a Minnesota conservative group calling itself...www.commondreams.org
But the rich fought back, and won big-time in 1980 when Reagan, until then the fringe "Voodoo economics" candidate who was heading into the election trailing far behind Jimmy Carter, was swept into the White House on a wave of public concern of the Iranians taking US hostages. Reagan promptly cut income taxes on the very rich from 70% down to 27%. Corporate tax rates were also cut so severely that they went from representing over 33% of total federal tax receipts in 1951 to less than 9% in 1983 (they're still in that neighborhood, the lowest in the industrialized world).
The result was devastating. Our government was suddenly so badly awash in red ink that Reagan doubled the tax paid only by people earning less than $40,000/year (FICA), and then began borrowing from the huge surplus this new tax was accumulating in the Social Security Trust Fund. Even with that, Reagan had to borrow more money in his 8 years than the sum total of all presidents from George Washington to Jimmy Carter combined.
In addition to badly throwing the nation into debt, Reagan's tax cut blew out the ceiling on the accumulation of wealth, leading to a new Gilded Age and the rise of a generation of super-wealthy that hadn't been seen since the Robber Baron era of the 1890s or the Roaring 20s.
And, most tragically, Reagan's tax cuts caused America to stop investing in infrastructure. As a nation, we've been coasting since the early 1980s, living on borrowed money while we burn through (in some cases literally) the hospitals, roads, bridges, steam tunnels, and other infrastructure we built in the Golden Age of the Middle Class between the 1940s and the 1980s.
We even stopped investing in the intellectual infrastructure of this nation: college education. A degree that a student in the 1970s could have paid for by working as a waitress now means incurring massive and life-altering debt for all but the very wealthy. Reagan, who as governor ended free tuition at the University of California, put into place the foundations for the explosion in college tuition we see today.
Sure, but a professional cleaning company will have all the equipment necessary to get the job done faster, thus costing less. And, consider that a business owner doesn't set his work schedule by the times the business is open or closed. Any time spent freezing his butt off in the parking lot is time spent not working on the business.That depends on the cost differential. If you have to pay an employee more per hour than you would a cleaning company, you'd be foolish to cut the cleaning company. Same with plowing the parking lot. The owner would have to have his own equipment, transport it to the parking lot, carry insurance to protect him if he damages a car or city property and take the time out of his day to do the plowing. He would be stupid to do that if he was getting the equivalent of $100/hr from the company and would pay a service $50/hr.Who's going to do the work of the 1.4 million?
It's not as if employers keep surplus workers around the shop just in case.
They'll just get by with one or 2 less employees.
Or maybe the business won't hire a cleaning company and have their workers sweep up
Maybe the owner will plow his own parking lot instead of paying someone else to do it?
There are millions of ways to save a little money here and there
and you don't think the cleaning company will have to pay their cleaners 15 an hour too?
So not only do your labor costs go up but you now have to pay the cleaners more too.
And since plowing is usually done before the business opens or after it closes it doesn't cut into the owners productivity at work so why pay a guy to do it?
Have you ever done a cost comparison between total management pay and total non-management pay? In a large company, the CEO might make a million +, but if there are 10,000 employees, you could give his entire salary to the rest of the company and they would hardly notice.And they can offset those costs...by cutting management salaries.That depends on the cost differential. If you have to pay an employee more per hour than you would a cleaning company, you'd be foolish to cut the cleaning company. Same with plowing the parking lot. The owner would have to have his own equipment, transport it to the parking lot, carry insurance to protect him if he damages a car or city property and take the time out of his day to do the plowing. He would be stupid to do that if he was getting the equivalent of $100/hr from the company and would pay a service $50/hr.Who's going to do the work of the 1.4 million?
It's not as if employers keep surplus workers around the shop just in case.
They'll just get by with one or 2 less employees.
Or maybe the business won't hire a cleaning company and have their workers sweep up
Maybe the owner will plow his own parking lot instead of paying someone else to do it?
There are millions of ways to save a little money here and there
and you don't think the cleaning company will have to pay their cleaners 15 an hour too?
So not only do your labor costs go up but you now have to pay the cleaners more too.
And since plowing is usually done before the business opens or after it closes it doesn't cut into the owners productivity at work so why pay a guy to do it?
Uuuuu there's a thought huh?
But then you identify with management and not with rank and file employees so you'd never cut THEIR salaries woudja
That assumes that a CEO of a company with 10,000 employees only makes 1 million..and that there aren't MANY managerial types in that company making big bucks.Have you ever done a cost comparison between total management pay and total non-management pay? In a large company, the CEO might make a million +, but if there are 10,000 employees, you could give his entire salary to the rest of the company and they would hardly notice.And they can offset those costs...by cutting management salaries.That depends on the cost differential. If you have to pay an employee more per hour than you would a cleaning company, you'd be foolish to cut the cleaning company. Same with plowing the parking lot. The owner would have to have his own equipment, transport it to the parking lot, carry insurance to protect him if he damages a car or city property and take the time out of his day to do the plowing. He would be stupid to do that if he was getting the equivalent of $100/hr from the company and would pay a service $50/hr.Who's going to do the work of the 1.4 million?
It's not as if employers keep surplus workers around the shop just in case.
They'll just get by with one or 2 less employees.
Or maybe the business won't hire a cleaning company and have their workers sweep up
Maybe the owner will plow his own parking lot instead of paying someone else to do it?
There are millions of ways to save a little money here and there
and you don't think the cleaning company will have to pay their cleaners 15 an hour too?
So not only do your labor costs go up but you now have to pay the cleaners more too.
And since plowing is usually done before the business opens or after it closes it doesn't cut into the owners productivity at work so why pay a guy to do it?
Uuuuu there's a thought huh?
But then you identify with management and not with rank and file employees so you'd never cut THEIR salaries woudja
www.epi.org
PromplySeveral decades of good economic years, along with minimum wage increases over the last 83 years, I'm guessing...not really.The first time the 'we will lose jobs if the minimum wage is raised' argument was used was in 1938..when FDR got the wage raised to .25 cents an hour.
Did anyone lose their job when he did that?
After the Republican Great Depression, FDR put this nation back to work, in part by raising taxes on income above $3 to $4 million a year (in today's dollars) to 91 percent, and corporate taxes to over 50% of profits. The revenue from those income taxes built dams, roads, bridges, sewers, water systems, schools, hospitals, train stations, railways, an interstate highway system, and airports. It educated a generation returning from World War II. It acted as a cap on the rare but occasional obsessively greedy person taking so much out of the economy that it impoverished the rest of us.
Roll Back the Reagan Tax Cuts | Common Dreams
Our bridges are falling apart (among other things), and its Ronald Reagan's fault. A few hours before the bridge collapsed in Minnesota, a news release landed (among hundreds) in my email inbox. It was from the right-wing "Heartland Institute" and a Minnesota conservative group calling itself...
But the rich fought back, and won big-time in 1980 when Reagan, until then the fringe "Voodoo economics" candidate who was heading into the election trailing far behind Jimmy Carter, was swept into the White House on a wave of public concern of the Iranians taking US hostages. Reagan promptly cut income taxes on the very rich from 70% down to 27%. Corporate tax rates were also cut so severely that they went from representing over 33% of total federal tax receipts in 1951 to less than 9% in 1983 (they're still in that neighborhood, the lowest in the industrialized world).
The result was devastating. Our government was suddenly so badly awash in red ink that Reagan doubled the tax paid only by people earning less than $40,000/year (FICA), and then began borrowing from the huge surplus this new tax was accumulating in the Social Security Trust Fund. Even with that, Reagan had to borrow more money in his 8 years than the sum total of all presidents from George Washington to Jimmy Carter combined.
In addition to badly throwing the nation into debt, Reagan's tax cut blew out the ceiling on the accumulation of wealth, leading to a new Gilded Age and the rise of a generation of super-wealthy that hadn't been seen since the Robber Baron era of the 1890s or the Roaring 20s.
And, most tragically, Reagan's tax cuts caused America to stop investing in infrastructure. As a nation, we've been coasting since the early 1980s, living on borrowed money while we burn through (in some cases literally) the hospitals, roads, bridges, steam tunnels, and other infrastructure we built in the Golden Age of the Middle Class between the 1940s and the 1980s.
We even stopped investing in the intellectual infrastructure of this nation: college education. A degree that a student in the 1970s could have paid for by working as a waitress now means incurring massive and life-altering debt for all but the very wealthy. Reagan, who as governor ended free tuition at the University of California, put into place the foundations for the explosion in college tuition we see today.
I've noticed you couldn't defend the claims Thom made in this silly article.......
Do you see all his errors?
Reagan promptly cut income taxes on the very rich from 70% down to 27%.
Promptly? How promptly?
Corporate tax rates were also cut so severely that they went from representing over 33% of total federal tax receipts in 1951 to less than 9% in 1983
How severely did Reagan cut the corporate tax rate?
It must have been a lot to drop receipts to 9% in 1983. Right?
Introduction and key findings
Chief executive officers (CEOs) of the largest firms in the U.S. earn far more today than they did in the mid-1990s and many times what they earned in the 1960s or late 1970s. They also earn far more than the typical worker, and their pay has grown much more rapidly. Importantly, rising CEO pay does not reflect rising value of skills, but rather CEOs’ use of their power to set their own pay. And this growing power at the top has been driving the growth of inequality in our country.
