I don't understand why republicans reject both a minimum wage hike and welfare for the poor

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Sure. What drive a business to hire more employees? Increased demand. Where does increased demand come from? Consumers buying more goods.
What drives consumers to buy more goods?
Increased disposable income.

So if minimum wage was $100/hr people would have a lot more money to spent. We could all be rich!

No one is suggesting that.

Yes you are... that's exactly what you're suggesting. The only distinction is the percentage by which you will inflate the dollar (devalue the dollar).

Ya see the dollar amount is irrelevant, the result is always going to be the same as there is no means for it NOT to be... .

How about you explain why raising it devalues the dollar? Be specific.

Oh! I'd be very happy to.

Let's begin at the value of minimal skill. The Minimum being zero...

Now Zero Skill is worth 0 dollars.

What you're arguing is that we raise the value of zero skills to $15.

Now when we raise the value of $0 to $15...

Now... when $15 is the equivalent of $0... even you should be capable of realizing that this devalues the value which used to be represented by $15... to $0?

(LOL! Reader, enjoy yourself... you're about to be treated to a first class demonstration of the mental disorder OKA: delusion. It's the same mental disorder that presents Sexual Deviancy, Socialism, Islam and other manifestations of Evil.)

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Sure. What drive a business to hire more employees? Increased demand. Where does increased demand come from? Consumers buying more goods.
What drives consumers to buy more goods?
Increased disposable income.

So if minimum wage was $100/hr people would have a lot more money to spent. We could all be rich!

And you would still be dumb.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The rich make very little money through hard work...The people that are employed are the ones that produce the wealth that are skimmed deep into the riches pockets.

It is the little guy that breaks his back for the rich hog! So it isn't like the rich man is doing the work and the little guy is watching his idol feeling lucky he makes a cent of it.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

There is no free market moron.
The employer pays the lowest wage ALLOWED BY LAW.
Now it's time to raise it again.
The real wage for MW averaged around $9/hr for nearly fifty years of MW.
Why are you advocating for people to make less than they did fifty years ago? Don't you think wages should rise as time goes by?

You are an idiot. I guess every computer programmer in Silicon Valley is earning $7.50 or whatever the lowest wage allowed by law is.

The context was who determines the LEAST worth of an employee. Christ you fools are dense. Still waiting for the proof of rising unemployment from MW.

Move the goalposts when unmaksed as a moron.
Guess what: there are people getting less than min wage. They're called "unemployed."
You make a point that has been answered over and over: check the UE rates of those most likely to work MW jobs. Those rates have been going up steadily with every increase in MW.

I moved nothing. You just have nothing to counter with. Now show me how and why UE rates correlate to MW and why that has been the case for 77 years. How many jobs do you figure have been lost in those 77 years? How many have been created over the same period? Is it a net loss or gain in jobs over that period?

Of course you did. Another poster made the same point I did, responding to your post.
I already answered you. Look at UE rates of those most likely to work MW jobs and ask whether those rates are higher or lower now than they were 10 years ago. Hint: THey are much higher.

For the tenth time why don't YOU post those numbers to support YOUR claim. : )

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Does exactly the opposite as a lot more people can buy stuff and it increases the wealth of our nation through doing so. Conservatives don't know economics.

So true.
For example:
70% of our GDP is consumer spending.
80% of consumers are middle class and below.
By their estimation, somehow raising wages for the bulk of consumers damages our economy.

But yet cutting wages for the bottom 80% somehow will grow the economy. LOL. What will really happen is people just won't be able to afford it and our economy will decrease in size. The rich 1% will have to go to other countries as ours won't have the base to support their businesses.

Sure. What drive a business to hire more employees? Increased demand. Where does increased demand come from? Consumers buying more goods.
What drives consumers to buy more goods?
Increased disposable income.

So when the burger cost $8... and the employee making it cost $8... how many more of those burgers can the employee buy when they are being paid $15, for the same work?

(Yes... it's a trick question. With the trick being that the valid answer requires one to reason objectively. Now you've been given the key to the trick... which is from where the entertainment comes, as despite that, you'll still have no means to answer it.)

Objectively, I'm quite sure it's not a zero sum game. Your logic depends entirely on price rising equally with wages for every item and selling only one item per hr per employee.
What kind of fucked up business are you running?

LOL! Nonsense... the argument requires that those who are compensated with the currency which is required to pay the minimum wage in increased volume for no increase in productivity, will decrease the value of that currency by the percentage of the increase in value exchanged... over the stagnant production value.

There's literally no means that such can be avoided. If it makes ya feel better... as with all valid equations, the same is true in the inverse... wherein the value exchanged is constant for greater production... It is also true where the value exchanged remains constant for decreased production.

It doesn't matter what the value is... if it were a commodity, the value of the commodity would be devalued, wherein the same level of production required more chickens, or corn or grapes.

It's not even remotely debatable.

 

[Billy000]

Sure. What drive a business to hire more employees? Increased demand. Where does increased demand come from? Consumers buying more goods.
What drives consumers to buy more goods?
Increased disposable income.

So if minimum wage was $100/hr people would have a lot more money to spent. We could all be rich!

No one is suggesting that.

Yes you are... that's exactly what you're suggesting. The only distinction is the percentage by which you will inflate the dollar (devalue the dollar).

Ya see the dollar amount is irrelevant, the result is always going to be the same as there is no means for it NOT to be... .

How about you explain why raising it devalues the dollar? Be specific.

Oh! I'd be very happy to.

Let's begin at the value of minimal skill. The Minimum being zero...

Now Zero Skill is worth 0 dollars.

What you're arguing is that we raise the value of zero skills to $15.

Now when we raise the value of $0 to $15...

Now... when $15 is the equivalent of $0... even you should be capable of realizing that this devalues the value which used to be represented by $15... to $0?

(LOL! Reader, enjoy yourself... you're about to be treated to a first class demonstration of the mental disorder OKA: delusion. It's the same mental disorder that presents Sexual Deviancy, Socialism, Islam and other manifestations of Evil.)

Do you honestly believe that is how it works? The skills a worker brings is a variable that influences the value of the dollar? How is that even close to being quantifiable? What the fuck? Who told you that? Limbaugh? That's just stupid and does not make any sense.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Where do you people get this retarded idea that raising the minimum wage devalues the currency?

Does exactly the opposite as a lot more people can buy stuff and it increases the wealth of our nation through doing so. Conservatives don't know economics.

So true.
For example:
70% of our GDP is consumer spending.
80% of consumers are middle class and below.
By their estimation, somehow raising wages for the bulk of consumers damages our economy.

But yet cutting wages for the bottom 80% somehow will grow the economy. LOL. What will really happen is people just won't be able to afford it and our economy will decrease in size. The rich 1% will have to go to other countries as ours won't have the base to support their businesses.

Sure. What drive a business to hire more employees? Increased demand. Where does increased demand come from? Consumers buying more goods.
What drives consumers to buy more goods?
Increased disposable income.

Wrong
Wrong
Wrong
Wrong.
A post filled with misinformation. No wonder you supprt higher MW.

Too funny!

 

[dblack]

It is the little guy that breaks his back for the rich hog! So it isn't like the rich man is doing the work and the little guy is watching his idol feeling lucky he makes a cent of it.

So, the little guy is to blame! Why in the hell does he break his back for the rich hog? We should make it illegal.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

So true.
For example:
70% of our GDP is consumer spending.
80% of consumers are middle class and below.
By their estimation, somehow raising wages for the bulk of consumers damages our economy.

But yet cutting wages for the bottom 80% somehow will grow the economy. LOL. What will really happen is people just won't be able to afford it and our economy will decrease in size. The rich 1% will have to go to other countries as ours won't have the base to support their businesses.

Sure. What drive a business to hire more employees? Increased demand. Where does increased demand come from? Consumers buying more goods.
What drives consumers to buy more goods?
Increased disposable income.

So when the burger cost $8... and the employee making it cost $8... how many more of those burgers can the employee buy when they are being paid $15, for the same work?

(Yes... it's a trick question. With the trick being that the valid answer requires one to reason objectively. Now you've been given the key to the trick... which is from where the entertainment comes, as despite that, you'll still have no means to answer it.)

Objectively, I'm quite sure it's not a zero sum game. Your logic depends entirely on price rising equally with wages for every item and selling only one item per hr per employee.
What kind of fucked up business are you running?

LOL! Nonsense... the argument requires that those who are compensated with the currency which is required to pay the minimum wage in increased volume for no increase in productivity, will decrease the value of that currency by the percentage of the increase in value exchanged... over the stagnant production value.

There's literally no means that such can be avoided. If it makes ya feel better... as with all valid equations, the same is true in the inverse... wherein the value exchanged is constant for greater production... It is also true where the value exchanged remains constant for decreased production.

It doesn't matter what the value is... if it were a commodity, the value of the commodity would be devalued, wherein the same level of production required more chickens, or corn or grapes.

It's not even remotely debatable.

So what's the value of the commodity,
( wages), when productivity rises professor?

 

[ScienceRocks]

But yet cutting wages for the bottom 80% somehow will grow the economy. LOL. What will really happen is people just won't be able to afford it and our economy will decrease in size. The rich 1% will have to go to other countries as ours won't have the base to support their businesses.

Sure. What drive a business to hire more employees? Increased demand. Where does increased demand come from? Consumers buying more goods.
What drives consumers to buy more goods?
Increased disposable income.

So when the burger cost $8... and the employee making it cost $8... how many more of those burgers can the employee buy when they are being paid $15, for the same work?

(Yes... it's a trick question. With the trick being that the valid answer requires one to reason objectively. Now you've been given the key to the trick... which is from where the entertainment comes, as despite that, you'll still have no means to answer it.)

Objectively, I'm quite sure it's not a zero sum game. Your logic depends entirely on price rising equally with wages for every item and selling only one item per hr per employee.
What kind of fucked up business are you running?

LOL! Nonsense... the argument requires that those who are compensated with the currency which is required to pay the minimum wage in increased volume for no increase in productivity, will decrease the value of that currency by the percentage of the increase in value exchanged... over the stagnant production value.

There's literally no means that such can be avoided. If it makes ya feel better... as with all valid equations, the same is true in the inverse... wherein the value exchanged is constant for greater production... It is also true where the value exchanged remains constant for decreased production.

It doesn't matter what the value is... if it were a commodity, the value of the commodity would be devalued, wherein the same level of production required more chickens, or corn or grapes.

It's not even remotely debatable.

So what's the value of the commodity,
( wages), when productivity rises professor?

And yet the libertarians will say that this is fair? Working someone harder and harder just to get peanuts, while the super rich takes most of the profit. These libertarians don't have a clue about morality or what is right.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I marvel at how common sense eludes so many people.

I'm going to keep the math basic for people to understand.

All companies have a budget allocated to labor costs. Let's say your labor budget is $40. If the minimum wage is $5 you could hire 8 people.

Now let's say the government raises the minimum wage to $8. Your budget hasn't changed. You aren't producing anything more than you were previously. The raise was completely arbitrary and does not factor in the realities of your business.

To stay within your budget you end up firing 3 people.

This isn't complicated. It's not the businesses being mean. It's just the reality on the ground. It's basic math.

Lemonade stand accounting at it's finest. Congrats!

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Sure. What drive a business to hire more employees? Increased demand. Where does increased demand come from? Consumers buying more goods.
What drives consumers to buy more goods?
Increased disposable income.

So if minimum wage was $100/hr people would have a lot more money to spent. We could all be rich!

No one is suggesting that.

Yes you are... that's exactly what you're suggesting. The only distinction is the percentage by which you will inflate the dollar (devalue the dollar).

Ya see the dollar amount is irrelevant, the result is always going to be the same as there is no means for it NOT to be... .

Knee deep in the weeds dude. You still haven't established that employment is harmed.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So if minimum wage was $100/hr people would have a lot more money to spent. We could all be rich!

No one is suggesting that.

Yes you are... that's exactly what you're suggesting. The only distinction is the percentage by which you will inflate the dollar (devalue the dollar).

Ya see the dollar amount is irrelevant, the result is always going to be the same as there is no means for it NOT to be... .

How about you explain why raising it devalues the dollar? Be specific.

Oh! I'd be very happy to.

Let's begin at the value of minimal skill. The Minimum being zero...

Now Zero Skill is worth 0 dollars.

What you're arguing is that we raise the value of zero skills to $15.

Now when we raise the value of $0 to $15...

Now... when $15 is the equivalent of $0... even you should be capable of realizing that this devalues the value which used to be represented by $15... to $0?

(LOL! Reader, enjoy yourself... you're about to be treated to a first class demonstration of the mental disorder OKA: delusion. It's the same mental disorder that presents Sexual Deviancy, Socialism, Islam and other manifestations of Evil.)

Do you honestly believe that is how it works?

ROFLMNAO!

I know for an incontrovertible fact, that that is how it works. But in fairness... that's only because there is no other way that it CAN WORK.

The skills a worker brings is a variable that influences the value of the dollar? How is that even close to being quantifiable?

By the currency used as the exchanged value.


(Reader, Can I call 'em or what? I say it here and it comes out THERE!)

 

[ScienceRocks]

America needs to go back to the economics of the 40's, 50's and 60's that cared about building America and the middle class.

If the rich want to go to china. Well, let them.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Sure. What drive a business to hire more employees? Increased demand. Where does increased demand come from? Consumers buying more goods.
What drives consumers to buy more goods?
Increased disposable income.

So if minimum wage was $100/hr people would have a lot more money to spent. We could all be rich!

No one is suggesting that.

Yes you are... that's exactly what you're suggesting. The only distinction is the percentage by which you will inflate the dollar (devalue the dollar).

Ya see the dollar amount is irrelevant, the result is always going to be the same as there is no means for it NOT to be... .

Knee deep in the weeds dude. You still haven't established that employment is harmed.

Yes... but in fairness, that's because I am not claiming that employment is harmed. Employment is what it is... it is not effected by the addled policy of children and fools. It's the EMPLOYED and FORMERLY employed who are harmed.

Ya see scamp... when the currency with which one is compensated is devalued by the artificial increase in the value exchanged for stagnant productivity, then the value for which the employee exchanges it for the product and services they need, want and desire... is LESS.

And it is THERE, Dude... wherein the EMPLOYEE and those who are FORMER Employees, are harmed.

 

[Borillar]

Believe it or not, both the left and the right want to end welfare for the poor. The left just has a realistic and humane way of doing it.

$153 billion of public assistance is spent on people because of their low wage jobs. 18 million people make less than $10.10 per hour. How many more do you think make less than $15? If the minimum was raised to $10.10, republicans are to stupid/immature to realize that far less people would be eligible for programs like food stamps. It would dramatically fix the fucking problem of the poor on welfare!

Like it or not, $15 as a minimum wage would be a base wage kept up with the rate of inflation. The last time someone could live comfortably off 10.10 per hour was the fucking 60s. Since the recession, low wage jobs out number higher wage jobs. That means MILLIONS OF PEOPLE have no choice but to accept low wage jobs.

As long as it was gradually raised over a couple of years, the initial cost to the market would be minimized. Prices would go up, but not nearly enough to offset the consumer spending power created by it. Consumer spending would boom. The market would begin to create jobs. Way more than the jobs that would have been scrapped initially. Prices would also go down.

Look the only reason most (not all) CEOs are against raising wages is because it just easier to for them to keep the ridiculous money they make rather than invest in a strong labor force. The average CEO makes over 300x what the average worker makes. Sure we can all agree CEOs deserve a wealthy life for all their hard work, but do you really think they deserve 300x more?

Hell no.

It's simple. The republicans want to create a permanent underclass. They have shown they aren't about improving the economy. They are all about the wealthy, the investor class and maximizing their wealth while squeezing the middle class out of existence. It makes sense for them to create a resentment among the middle class for the poor and impoverished and to blame them for their own condition. This guarantees that the supremacy of the wealthy remains unchallenged by those not yet desperate enough to work for scraps in a service economy dedicated to providing for the needs of the affluent.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

It's simple. The republicans want to create a permanent underclass.

More straw reasoning from those of permanent intellectual underclass.

 

[saveliberty]

32 pages of this subject really? Minimum wage and welfare are basically the same thing: Giving money to folks who don't make enough money because they lack skill levels sufficient to provide for themselves.

 

[ScienceRocks]

It's simple. The republicans want to create a permanent underclass.

More straw reasoning from those of permanent intellectual underclass.

Why is he wrong? It seems to me that your party is willing to allow the rich to pay the kind of wages you see in Vietnam. Tell me how this doesn't increase the size of the under class?

 

[ScienceRocks]

32 pages of this subject really? Minimum wage and welfare are basically the same thing: Giving money to folks who don't make enough money because they lack skill levels sufficient to provide for themselves.

So you'd just allow the rich to take all the profits and fuck the worker in the ass. I don't think this is good with maintaining our middle class.