Hey cons: if your solution to the min wage issue is to tell those people...

[Ray From Cleveland]

If that's the way the workers feel, they are free to start their own company and compete with their former employer. They can pay their employees whatever they think is fair. Why do you suppose nobody that complains about wages does that?

Ohh....Ohh....Ohhh....I know! I know! Because that takes effort and liberals refuse to give effort beyond going to a voting booth and pulling a lever!

Exactly. It's my experience with liberals and those who complain about the rich never once risked their own money in their lives. Oh sure, maybe they own a house or have an IRA, but I'm talking about real investments and real work to produce profit.

 

[hadit]

"Retaliation"? LOL!

• Retaliation for what?
• Who closes a successful business to "retaliate"? The would be cutting off their nose to spite their face

For Oakland city counsel considering raising the MW. Didnt you read your own link?

"Hundreds of Wal-Mart employees fasted this past November in protest for a $15 minimum wage, arguing that Wal-Mart employees do not make enough money to put food on the table.

Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf, a Democrat, has been leading statewide efforts to raise the minimum wage to $15."

And the point is......what? Why did they choose to work somewhere that they didn't make enough money to put food on their table? If everyone left, then Walmart would have no choice but to raise their pay rates to attract labor. That's the beauty of the free market. The people working their were clearly happy with their employment as they not only agreed to work for that much but chose to stay there.

The point is that they retaliated like I pointed out from your own link. How did you lose sight of my point?

People don't cut off their nose to spite their face when it comes to money and successful businesses. You view everything like an immature 6th grader. Walmart shut down their business because the minimum wage made it unsustainable. How is it "retaliation" to close the doors of a successful business?

How can the specific store being doing great but the wage was unsustainable? Its retaliation because it takes that tax revenue out of the city that raised the minimum wage. Why dont you have someone explain to you how cities get their revenue in regards to businesses.

Sounds like the city made a strategic mistake. All Walmart has to do then is open a bunch of stores 50 feet outside city limits. Did they in fact do that?

 

[hadit]

Greedy white Republican dude wants all poor folks to be disappeared. In his warped greedy little brain, he views the poor as unwashed 'Untouchables.' They shouldn't be allowed to exist. These are the kind of greedy bastids you're dealing with. So don't spend too much time trying to reason with them. They'll never get it.

Bubble popping time again. "Greedy white Republican dudes" are poor folks too. You're not really good at this, are you?

 

[P@triot]

Sounds like the city made a strategic mistake. All Walmart has to do then is open a bunch of stores 50 feet outside city limits. Did they in fact do that?

Oh....is that "all"? So 50 feet outside of city limits, is there available land for building a store? If so, what are the building codes in that city? What is the cost of demolishing one store and opening the other store? What ar the taxes in that other city?

 

[hadit]

So you're going to post a graph and then try and lie about what it shows?
Look at 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000 and right before the crash. All showing low unemployment when the value of MW is higher. Conversely the declines in value correspond to increasing unemployment.

I already posted the right graph. Since min wage jobs are a small percentage of overall jobs the increase wont show up in the general market. Look at populations that largely have min wage jobs and you'll find their UE rates have skyrocketed.

The right graph? No, you posted a graph only showing teens who don't need to work at all.

Carpe diem blog?
At least Taz had the BLS stats.

Quibble quibble deny deny.
There is no graph or article that would persuade you of what is obvious to everyone but you.

It's so obvious to the gullible.

It's obvious to the informed: you raise the price of something you sell less of it.

There are many jobs that have disappeared over time because they no longer generate enough value to offset the cost of employment.

 

[hadit]

Sounds like the city made a strategic mistake. All Walmart has to do then is open a bunch of stores 50 feet outside city limits. Did they in fact do that?

Oh....is that "all"? So 50 feet outside of city limits, is there available land for building a store? If so, what are the building codes in that city? What is the cost of demolishing one store and opening the other store? What ar the taxes in that other city?

If they really wanted to retaliate, that's exactly what they would do. Go to the surrounding counties and work out a deal so the counties get the tax revenue and the city watches customers stream out every day to buy stuff. Obviously, retaliation was not the motive. It would be stupid, anyway, to take on a city that can make your business suffer.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

It's never been proven that MW increases have any significant or long term affects on unemployment. Please post up the graph that shows the correlated increase in unemployment for every time the MW has been raised.

Your chart seems to show unemployment dropping when MW is higher and rising when in decline.

I suppose it could seem like that if you're dyslexic.

So you're going to post a graph and then try and lie about what it shows?
Look at 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000 and right before the crash. All showing low unemployment when the value of MW is higher. Conversely the declines in value correspond to increasing unemployment.

I've lied about nothing. It's not my fault that you can't correctly read a graph.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

It's never been proven that MW increases have any significant or long term affects on unemployment. Please post up the graph that shows the correlated increase in unemployment for every time the MW has been raised.

OK what do I win?

Hardly cause and effect. The rate is all over the place. What factors contribute to teenage unemployment? Only MW?

DENY!

I'll use you compadre's chart since it at least is sourced properly. You'll find that the unemployment rate for teens rises and falls right along with the overall rate.
So far no one has shown me the chart that shows the effects you all predict. 80 years of MW an no one has compiled the data to show MW as a direct cause for increased unemployment?

View attachment 75205

I am not responsible for that chart and I argue it's methodolog is unsound to look at "real" mw.

Real just means adjusted for the value of the dollar at the time the chart was made so 1967 dollars can be charted with current dollars.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

It's never been proven that MW increases have any significant or long term affects on unemployment. Please post up the graph that shows the correlated increase in unemployment for every time the MW has been raised.

Your chart seems to show unemployment dropping when MW is higher and rising when in decline.

I suppose it could seem like that if you're dyslexic.

So you're going to post a graph and then try and lie about what it shows?
Look at 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000 and right before the crash. All showing low unemployment when the value of MW is higher. Conversely the declines in value correspond to increasing unemployment.

I've lied about nothing. It's not my fault that you can't correctly read a graph.

Yet you won't say why I'm reading it wrong.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Since min wage jobs are a small percentage of overall jobs the increase wont show up in the general market. Look at populations that largely have min wage jobs and you'll find their UE rates have skyrocketed.

That....

If you look at the graph the line that shows unemployment for those ages 16 to 24 shows a direct correlation with the minimum wage and unemployment. People who lack education in economics seem to have a hard time with this stuff. I honestly don't know why because it's not that complicated.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

So you're going to post a graph and then try and lie about what it shows?
Look at 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000 and right before the crash. All showing low unemployment when the value of MW is higher. Conversely the declines in value correspond to increasing unemployment.

I already posted the right graph. Since min wage jobs are a small percentage of overall jobs the increase wont show up in the general market. Look at populations that largely have min wage jobs and you'll find their UE rates have skyrocketed.

The right graph? No, you posted a graph only showing teens who don't need to work at all.

Carpe diem blog?
At least Taz had the BLS stats.

Quibble quibble deny deny.
There is no graph or article that would persuade you of what is obvious to everyone but you.

It's so obvious to the gullible.

It's obvious to the informed: you raise the price of something you sell less of it.

Show the damage you claim will be done by showing how it occurred in the past. By your logic no one should have a job after 80 yrs of MW increases.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Yep, there isn't any evidence for a long term effect..Of course, I'd rather there were a law that forced businesses to dole out the huge surplus to the workers instead to all going to the ceo. That would probably do more to solve the wage problem.

The biggest problem is a few take most of the pie and the workers get fucked even with increased productivity.

Um.....what "wage problem"? I never cease to laugh at how liberals set themselves up as the ultimate arbiter of all things in society. I'm not aware of any "wage problem" (and neither is the rest of society). Just curious how it is that you get to decide to all of humanity that one exists?

So wages today have the same buying power as they did in the past?

 

[P@triot]

Yep, there isn't any evidence for a long term effect..Of course, I'd rather there were a law that forced businesses to dole out the huge surplus to the workers instead to all going to the ceo. That would probably do more to solve the wage problem.

The biggest problem is a few take most of the pie and the workers get fucked even with increased productivity.

Um.....what "wage problem"? I never cease to laugh at how liberals set themselves up as the ultimate arbiter of all things in society. I'm not aware of any "wage problem" (and neither is the rest of society). Just curious how it is that you get to decide to all of humanity that one exists?

So wages today have the same buying power as they did in the past?

So minimum wage workers of the past are still making minimum wage? Funny, anywhere I've ever worked (though admittedly I've never worked in the minimum wage sector), people received annual reviews and raises in accordance with their performance. Am I wrong to assume that every person who started making minimum wage is 2015 is not making more in 2016 if they did a decent job?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Yep, there isn't any evidence for a long term effect..Of course, I'd rather there were a law that forced businesses to dole out the huge surplus to the workers instead to all going to the ceo. That would probably do more to solve the wage problem.

The biggest problem is a few take most of the pie and the workers get fucked even with increased productivity.

Um.....what "wage problem"? I never cease to laugh at how liberals set themselves up as the ultimate arbiter of all things in society. I'm not aware of any "wage problem" (and neither is the rest of society). Just curious how it is that you get to decide to all of humanity that one exists?

So wages today have the same buying power as they did in the past?

So minimum wage workers of the past are still making minimum wage? Funny, anywhere I've ever worked (though admittedly I've never worked in the minimum wage sector), people received annual reviews and raises in accordance with their performance. Am I wrong to assume that every person who started making minimum wage is 2015 is not making more in 2016 if they did a decent job?

That's it, play dumb. Maybe you can't help it.

 

[P@triot]

Yep, there isn't any evidence for a long term effect..Of course, I'd rather there were a law that forced businesses to dole out the huge surplus to the workers instead to all going to the ceo. That would probably do more to solve the wage problem.

The biggest problem is a few take most of the pie and the workers get fucked even with increased productivity.

Um.....what "wage problem"? I never cease to laugh at how liberals set themselves up as the ultimate arbiter of all things in society. I'm not aware of any "wage problem" (and neither is the rest of society). Just curious how it is that you get to decide to all of humanity that one exists?

So wages today have the same buying power as they did in the past?

So minimum wage workers of the past are still making minimum wage? Funny, anywhere I've ever worked (though admittedly I've never worked in the minimum wage sector), people received annual reviews and raises in accordance with their performance. Am I wrong to assume that every person who started making minimum wage is 2015 is not making more in 2016 if they did a decent job?

That's it, play dumb. Maybe you can't help it.

That's an odd response. Am I supposed to assume that I am correct (and maybe you're embarrassed at your failure to account for annual raises)? If I'm wrong, I'm all ears. What have you got for me?

 

[Arizona Willie]

Yep, there isn't any evidence for a long term effect..Of course, I'd rather there was a law that forced businesses to dole out the huge surplus to the workers instead to all going to the ceo. That would probably do more to solve the wage problem.

Yeah....because communism has worked sooooo well over the decades all over the world

========
This idea of distributing profit is NOT communism --- it's called ' PROFIT SHARING '.
Why shouldn't the people who make the product / service share in the profits?

Even Henry Ford, many many years ago, wanted his workers to make enough money to buy the cars they were making.

 

[P@triot]

Yep, there isn't any evidence for a long term effect..Of course, I'd rather there was a law that forced businesses to dole out the huge surplus to the workers instead to all going to the ceo. That would probably do more to solve the wage problem.

Yeah....because communism has worked sooooo well over the decades all over the world

========
This idea of distributing profit is NOT communism --- it's called ' PROFIT SHARING '.
Why shouldn't the people who make the product / service share in the profits?

Even Henry Ford, many many years ago, wanted his workers to make enough money to buy the cars they were making.

Because the people who own and/or run the company have decided that's not the business model that will work best for their operations (and who are you or the government to decide otherwise?).

Again...it's very easy to sit on the sideline whining. Whether it is you or those workers in question, tell them to start a business and "profit share" if they think it's so great. Step up to the plate. Get in the game. None of you are helping anyone by sitting on the sideline whining.

 

[Asclepias]

For Oakland city counsel considering raising the MW. Didnt you read your own link?

"Hundreds of Wal-Mart employees fasted this past November in protest for a $15 minimum wage, arguing that Wal-Mart employees do not make enough money to put food on the table.

Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf, a Democrat, has been leading statewide efforts to raise the minimum wage to $15."

And the point is......what? Why did they choose to work somewhere that they didn't make enough money to put food on their table? If everyone left, then Walmart would have no choice but to raise their pay rates to attract labor. That's the beauty of the free market. The people working their were clearly happy with their employment as they not only agreed to work for that much but chose to stay there.

The point is that they retaliated like I pointed out from your own link. How did you lose sight of my point?

People don't cut off their nose to spite their face when it comes to money and successful businesses. You view everything like an immature 6th grader. Walmart shut down their business because the minimum wage made it unsustainable. How is it "retaliation" to close the doors of a successful business?

How can the specific store being doing great but the wage was unsustainable? Its retaliation because it takes that tax revenue out of the city that raised the minimum wage. Why dont you have someone explain to you how cities get their revenue in regards to businesses.

Sounds like the city made a strategic mistake. All Walmart has to do then is open a bunch of stores 50 feet outside city limits. Did they in fact do that?

No they couldnt do that. The geography and zoning in Oakland wont permit that I am familiar with this since I grew up there. However they do have Walmarts in cities right next to Oakland such as San Leandro and Alameda.

 

[P@triot]

Yep, there isn't any evidence for a long term effect..Of course, I'd rather there was a law that forced businesses to dole out the huge surplus to the workers instead to all going to the ceo. That would probably do more to solve the wage problem.

Yeah....because communism has worked sooooo well over the decades all over the world

========
This idea of distributing profit is NOT communism --- it's called ' PROFIT SHARING '.
Why shouldn't the people who make the product / service share in the profits?

Even Henry Ford, many many years ago, wanted his workers to make enough money to buy the cars they were making.

And you know what - Henry Ford was exceptionally successful. The business model he chose worked for him. It doesn't mean it would work for everyone. And remember, Henry Ford operated in an era when we had about 75% Constitutional government.

Now, business owners have to operate in an environment where we essentially have 20% Constitutional government. The federal government (thanks to people who share you ideology) has decimated businesses with regulations, taxes, etc. Get the government the frick out of the way and you'd see a lot more businesses able to profit share.

Here is what liberal policy delivers every time to any nation dumb enough to implement it...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/16/w...cine-inside-venezuelas-failing-hospitals.html

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yep, there isn't any evidence for a long term effect..Of course, I'd rather there was a law that forced businesses to dole out the huge surplus to the workers instead to all going to the ceo. That would probably do more to solve the wage problem.

Yeah....because communism has worked sooooo well over the decades all over the world

========
This idea of distributing profit is NOT communism --- it's called ' PROFIT SHARING '.
Why shouldn't the people who make the product / service share in the profits?

Even Henry Ford, many many years ago, wanted his workers to make enough money to buy the cars they were making.

The idea of profit sharing when mandated by the government is Communism. If companies want to offer it on their own, it's called a benefit.

If you think profit sharing is necessary, here's an idea: If you work at Walmart and want profit sharing, buy Walmart stocks and you can indeed share in their profits. That works for any company you may work for that's on the market today.