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

[Slyhunter]

Also, GDP grew steadily in all cases of the minimum wage being raised in this country's history.

I would expect that. Why would it not? GDP grew in China, even while the average income was under $2 a day pre-78. Bad policies can screw over the lowest working people... and still have a growing GDP.

However, what you claim is not true.

GDP fell in 2008 and 2009. What happened in 2008? The minimum wage went up to $6.55. What happened in 2009? The minimum wage went up to $7.25.

So the fact is, you are wrong.

Lol you're talking about federal minimum wage which affects 3% of the population. There is no way that would have been the reason for the change in GDP.

If it only affects 3% of the population then what possible benefit could there be raising it?
Again, if 10/hr is good, why is 50/hr not better? You cannot answer this so you deflect. Because you are Billy Triple Fail.

The question is to pay people enough so they can support themselves. Driving businesses into bankruptcy by trying to pay them too much is stupid. There is a middle answer.

The middle answer is raising the minimum wage.

I was responding to why not $50.
It misses the point.

 

[Dragonlady]

The question is to pay people enough so they can support themselves. Driving businesses into bankruptcy by trying to pay them too much is stupid. There is a middle answer.

What part of HIGHEST CORPORATE PROFITS IN HISTORY, are you not seeing? The year that Walmart recorded the second highest in the US, the US government paid out 6.BILLION dollars in social assistance to Walmart employees. Walmart HR taught Walmart workers how to apply for government assistance to supplement their income. Every taxpayer in America contributed $2,500 to subsidize Walmart employees.

Walmart is the largest employer in the US. Had Walmart paid each of its employees just $100.00 a week more, it still would have had a healthy multi-billion profit, but you and I wouldn't be contributing to it "against our will'. Walmart wouldn't have been the second most profitable company in the US, but they would still have a multi-billion dollar profit.

Walmart has shown that they are aware of the optics on this and one of their goals with their increase in workers wages is to reduce the amount of government subsidies they're receiving, with the hope they will reduce their use of government programs and end reliance on earned income credits.

Jeb Bush says that workers incomes need to be increased but that can also be accomplished by increasing earned income credits. But that transfers the costs of these programs to those who earn enough to pay income taxes, and puts the American taxpayers in the position of giving assistance to their workers.

I can believe that conservatives, who claim to hate those who take their tax dollars against their will, are OK with subsidizing wages for some of your biggest earning corporations.

 

[Oldstyle]

Record CEO pay. Lowest payroll as a % of sales ever. Record corporate profits. Seems everyone is making more money except the people doing the labour that produced these record profits. Many corporations using the social safety net to subsidize those record profits.

And yet Republicans want to reduce the social safety net. Well, increasing low wages is one way to do that. And by having employers increase wages, the government bureaucracy which processes payments for government assistance payments isn't necessary so that the size of government can be reduced.

You would think that Republicans would be in favour of the working poor seeing their handouts reduced AND shrinking the size of government but no. Maybe it just makes too much sense to reduce government assistance for the employed.

Why the hate for lower income workers? They're working every day. You'd think that conservatives would want them treated fairly.

I'm curious, Dragonlady...do you not grasp the concept that a sizable increase of the minimum wage will mean an across the board increase in wages for everyone else? And that prices of goods and services will have to increase to pay for that additional labor cost? It's simple common sense. Yet you progressives ignore it because you're so "sold" on the populist concept of more money for the poor.

I not only grasp the concept, I'm counting on that happening. The thing you right wingers fail to understand that the rise in prices is much smaller than the right claims.

First off, when Clinton raised the MW, unemployment DROPPED, prices rose slightly but not enough to impact inflation. All of the right wing gloom and doom scenarios, which had been predicted, didn't happen.

Right now, lower income earners have a great deal of pent up demand. After 20 years of stagnant wages and loss of earning power, the working poor would buy consumer goods if they had any disposable income after paying for necessities.

Unemployment dropped during the Clinton years because of the Dot Com Boom. Saying that it dropped because Minimum Wage was increased is a totally false premise.

Let me see if I can put this in terms even you might understand. If I'm the "King" of a country and I give everybody a hefty raise and then turn around and increase their taxes...would I have REALLY given them anything? The working poor will only buy more consumer goods if the cost of those goods remains the same while their wages go up. So how do you keep the cost of consumer goods the same if the labor costs to produce those goods have increased substantially?

 

[Oldstyle]

We need to increase tariffs for countries that don't pay an American living wage so businesses in America can compete with them. If that makes the price of a TV go up, so be it.

I would suggest you look up the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act and see what happens when you impose tariffs on other countries.

 

[Billy000]

I would expect that. Why would it not? GDP grew in China, even while the average income was under $2 a day pre-78. Bad policies can screw over the lowest working people... and still have a growing GDP.

However, what you claim is not true.

GDP fell in 2008 and 2009. What happened in 2008? The minimum wage went up to $6.55. What happened in 2009? The minimum wage went up to $7.25.

So the fact is, you are wrong.

Lol you're talking about federal minimum wage which affects 3% of the population. There is no way that would have been the reason for the change in GDP.

If it only affects 3% of the population then what possible benefit could there be raising it?
Again, if 10/hr is good, why is 50/hr not better? You cannot answer this so you deflect. Because you are Billy Triple Fail.

The question is to pay people enough so they can support themselves. Driving businesses into bankruptcy by trying to pay them too much is stupid. There is a middle answer.

The middle answer is raising the minimum wage.

I was responding to why not $50.
It misses the point.

Oh ok. My bad.

 

[Spare_change]

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.

Your premise is flawed, your 'facts' are incorrect, and your argument fallacious.

You got a threesome!!!!

 

[Billy000]

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.

Your premise is flawed, your 'facts' are incorrect, and your argument fallacious.

You got a threesome!!!!

If that's what you truly believed than you would explain why. You can't. You know I'm right.

 

[ninja007]

hey OP- you know what I don't understand? Libs champion diversity but HATE Fox News.

 

[Spare_change]

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.

Your premise is flawed, your 'facts' are incorrect, and your argument fallacious.

You got a threesome!!!!

If that's what you truly believed than you would explain why. You can't. You know I'm right.

You asked for it ... you aren't going to like it ... but you asked for it.

Your argument is that by increasing the minimum wage, we could lower the cost of welfare. This is intrinsically wrong. Given the current value of welfare, raising the minimum wage will accomplish exactly nothing. Keep in mind that 26 states have welfare benefits that exceed $40,000. Raising the minimum wage to $30K has no impact. You are not going to see people jumping off $40K welfare checks in order to get a $30K check. In fact, you can expect that those on welfare will demand more because, after all, the minimum wagers got more, why shouldn't we?

Now, which politician do you believe is going to cut welfare? That is political suicide, and it will never happen.

You are absolutely right about one thing, though --- low wage jobs outnumber higher wage jobs since the recession. You can thank the liberals for that. By imposing onerous regulations and giveaway programs on employers, the government has forced employers to find unique solutions to cut their labor costs. This is been done through outsourcing overseas, cutting hours, and automation.

The Obama war on energy has driven the cost of business through the roof. Between refusal to allow drilling in the US, absolute political handjobs on the Keystone Pipeline, and ridiculously expensive, and economy devastating, government subsidies to alternative energy solutions (I'm not even going to talk about the abuse and misuse of government funds through incompetence that let to Solyndra and dozens others), the government continues to squeeze manufacturers.

Now, as for this nonsense about raising the minimum wage ... you need to face a simple truth. The average American worker has outpriced himself on the market. The quality and quantity of work received does not justify the cost in hiring and maintaining such an employee. The employer owes the employee nothing. He does NOT owe him a living - he does NOT owe him healthcare - he does NOT owe him a vacation - he does NOT owe him a retirement. Those are incentives employers should be free to use in order to attract the best workers available. The vast majority of today's workforce believes they are OWED a living. They aren't - they need to earn it.

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.

Now, for this absolutely insane idea that CEOs are against raising wages because it makes it easier for them to keep the money .... the function of a CEO is to make the most money can - for his investors. He doesn't get to keep those profits - it goes to the stockholders, of which he may, or may not, be one. Profitability is what keeps him employed - the more money he makes FOR HIS BOSSES - the more money he gets paid. If hiring more people will increase his profitability, he will hire them. If moving his operation to Malaysia will increase his profitability, he will move to Malaysia. This idea that a corporation has a social responsibility is, in a word, counter-intuitive. You are all excited about cutting the company's profitability, right up until you realize that means less tax income and a smaller retirement for you. So, in order to avoid that, you want to take the money from somebody else - anybody else - and the CEO is a convenient target.

I can explain it - I did explain it - and I know you are dangerously and disastrously wrong.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's amazing how much common sense is disregarded in favor of a government report.

If the minimum wage was applied directly to you, you would grasp this instinctively. You hire someone to mow your lawn for $25 a mow, and the government steps in and says the minimum lawn mowing wage is $50 a mow, you'd grasp that it's not worth it to pay someone to do that.

In every country with high minimum wages, people lose their jobs, and youth unemployment is nearly double what it is in the US.

Switzerland Strikes Down What Would Have Been World s Highest Minimum Wage - US News

Switzerland shot down the living wages, and ironically cited exactly that it would killl jobs.

Norway has no minimum wage at all.

Greece had a minimum wage tied to inflation, and the job losses were so bad, they had to revoke the inflation adjustment, and cut the minimum wage down.

Over and over and over, every time the minimum wage is levied, people lose their jobs.

Imposed minimum wage hikes hurt economies in American Samoa Northern Mariana Islands - Washington Times

American Samoa was crippled, with drastically increased prices, and high unemployment, all thanks to 'do-gooders' pushing the minimum wage.

How many times does the truth have to be splashed all over this forum, before all your little reports, and meaningless papers, and government statements are shown false? At one point does reality trump intellectual non-sense?

Also, GDP grew steadily in all cases of the minimum wage being raised in this country's history.

I would expect that. Why would it not? GDP grew in China, even while the average income was under $2 a day pre-78. Bad policies can screw over the lowest working people... and still have a growing GDP.

However, what you claim is not true.

GDP fell in 2008 and 2009. What happened in 2008? The minimum wage went up to $6.55. What happened in 2009? The minimum wage went up to $7.25.

So the fact is, you are wrong.

Lol you're talking about federal minimum wage which affects 3% of the population. There is no way that would have been the reason for the change in GDP.

If it only affects 3% of the population then what possible benefit could there be raising it?
Again, if 10/hr is good, why is 50/hr not better? You cannot answer this so you deflect. Because you are Billy Triple Fail.

The question is to pay people enough so they can support themselves. Driving businesses into bankruptcy by trying to pay them too much is stupid. There is a middle answer.

So driving some businesses into bankruptcy is OK? I'm not getting your point here. Either raising the minwage is good or its not. If 10/hr is good then why isnt 50/hr better?
Or do you agree that higher mandated wages would drive businesses into bankruptcy and cost jobs, esp in those industries that rely on low skilled workers?

 

[The Rabbi]

Also, GDP grew steadily in all cases of the minimum wage being raised in this country's history.

I would expect that. Why would it not? GDP grew in China, even while the average income was under $2 a day pre-78. Bad policies can screw over the lowest working people... and still have a growing GDP.

However, what you claim is not true.

GDP fell in 2008 and 2009. What happened in 2008? The minimum wage went up to $6.55. What happened in 2009? The minimum wage went up to $7.25.

So the fact is, you are wrong.

Lol you're talking about federal minimum wage which affects 3% of the population. There is no way that would have been the reason for the change in GDP.

If it only affects 3% of the population then what possible benefit could there be raising it?
Again, if 10/hr is good, why is 50/hr not better? You cannot answer this so you deflect. Because you are Billy Triple Fail.

The question is to pay people enough so they can support themselves. Driving businesses into bankruptcy by trying to pay them too much is stupid. There is a middle answer.

The middle answer is raising the minimum wage.

So you support $50/hr as min wage?

 

[The Rabbi]

I would expect that. Why would it not? GDP grew in China, even while the average income was under $2 a day pre-78. Bad policies can screw over the lowest working people... and still have a growing GDP.

However, what you claim is not true.

GDP fell in 2008 and 2009. What happened in 2008? The minimum wage went up to $6.55. What happened in 2009? The minimum wage went up to $7.25.

So the fact is, you are wrong.

Lol you're talking about federal minimum wage which affects 3% of the population. There is no way that would have been the reason for the change in GDP.

If it only affects 3% of the population then what possible benefit could there be raising it?
Again, if 10/hr is good, why is 50/hr not better? You cannot answer this so you deflect. Because you are Billy Triple Fail.

The question is to pay people enough so they can support themselves. Driving businesses into bankruptcy by trying to pay them too much is stupid. There is a middle answer.

The middle answer is raising the minimum wage.

I was responding to why not $50.
It misses the point.

How does it miss the point? It is the point! If 10/hr is good because it gives low wage workers money to spend and takes them off gov't programs then 50/hr would give them even more money to spend. Think of the jobs created by all that spending!

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Your premise is flawed, your 'facts' are incorrect, and your argument fallacious.

You got a threesome!!!!

That's why he's "Billy Triple Fail"!

 

[Billy000]

hey OP- you know what I don't understand? Libs champion diversity but HATE Fox News.

Well there is absolutely nothing diverse about it luckily, I'm guessing you are referring to the liberal contributors that pop up every once in a while for the conservative show hosts to dangle in front of the camera to give the illusion the network is diverse, but in reality the rightwing bullshit is a non stop onslaught that over shadows anything they ever say. Typically you have three conservatives on a panel talking over the sole liberal and drowning him out.

 

[Billy000]

I would expect that. Why would it not? GDP grew in China, even while the average income was under $2 a day pre-78. Bad policies can screw over the lowest working people... and still have a growing GDP.

However, what you claim is not true.

GDP fell in 2008 and 2009. What happened in 2008? The minimum wage went up to $6.55. What happened in 2009? The minimum wage went up to $7.25.

So the fact is, you are wrong.

Lol you're talking about federal minimum wage which affects 3% of the population. There is no way that would have been the reason for the change in GDP.

If it only affects 3% of the population then what possible benefit could there be raising it?
Again, if 10/hr is good, why is 50/hr not better? You cannot answer this so you deflect. Because you are Billy Triple Fail.

The question is to pay people enough so they can support themselves. Driving businesses into bankruptcy by trying to pay them too much is stupid. There is a middle answer.

The middle answer is raising the minimum wage.

So you support $50/hr as min wage?

No moron, I never said that.

 

[The Rabbi]

hey OP- you know what I don't understand? Libs champion diversity but HATE Fox News.

Well there is absolutely nothing diverse about it luckily, I'm guessing you are referring to the liberal contributors that pop up every once in a while for the conservative show hosts to dangle in front of the camera to give the illusion the network is diverse, but in reality the rightwing bullshit is a non stop onslaught that over shadows anything they ever say. Typically you have three conservatives on a panel talking over the sole liberal and drowning him out.

How many conservatives are on MSNBC?

 

[The Rabbi]

Lol you're talking about federal minimum wage which affects 3% of the population. There is no way that would have been the reason for the change in GDP.

If it only affects 3% of the population then what possible benefit could there be raising it?
Again, if 10/hr is good, why is 50/hr not better? You cannot answer this so you deflect. Because you are Billy Triple Fail.

The question is to pay people enough so they can support themselves. Driving businesses into bankruptcy by trying to pay them too much is stupid. There is a middle answer.

The middle answer is raising the minimum wage.

So you support $50/hr as min wage?

No moron, I never said that.

I know. Why not? If 10/hr is good isnt 50/hr better? Wouldnt that unleash a torrent of consumer spending and drive the economy to new heights?
Come on, Billy. Dont fail now. Be consistent. If a higher min wage is good then let's really give a meaningful raise to America. Dont you think American workers are worth 50/hr?

 

[Billy000]

If it only affects 3% of the population then what possible benefit could there be raising it?
Again, if 10/hr is good, why is 50/hr not better? You cannot answer this so you deflect. Because you are Billy Triple Fail.

The question is to pay people enough so they can support themselves. Driving businesses into bankruptcy by trying to pay them too much is stupid. There is a middle answer.

The middle answer is raising the minimum wage.

So you support $50/hr as min wage?

No moron, I never said that.

I know. Why not? If 10/hr is good isnt 50/hr better? Wouldnt that unleash a torrent of consumer spending and drive the economy to new heights?
Come on, Billy. Dont fail now. Be consistent. If a higher min wage is good then let's really give a meaningful raise to America. Dont you think American workers are worth 50/hr?

Lol it's amazing how hard you try. Don't you ever get exhausted with your ridiculous responses to my threads? I mean my god you reply to all of them desperately trying to feel right and validated. It's pretty sad.

The obvious answer is that any idiot would tell you 50 is too much and would damage the economy. 15 however wouldn't be too much and would be barely kept up with inflation which is what is fair. Is it really so hard for you to figure that out?

 

[The Rabbi]

The question is to pay people enough so they can support themselves. Driving businesses into bankruptcy by trying to pay them too much is stupid. There is a middle answer.

The middle answer is raising the minimum wage.

So you support $50/hr as min wage?

No moron, I never said that.

I know. Why not? If 10/hr is good isnt 50/hr better? Wouldnt that unleash a torrent of consumer spending and drive the economy to new heights?
Come on, Billy. Dont fail now. Be consistent. If a higher min wage is good then let's really give a meaningful raise to America. Dont you think American workers are worth 50/hr?

Lol it's amazing how hard you try. Don't you ever get exhausted with your ridiculous responses to my threads? I mean my god you reply to all of them desperately trying to feel right and validated. It's pretty sad.

The obvious answer is that any idiot would tell you 50 is too much and would damage the economy. 15 however wouldn't be too much and would be barely kept up with inflation which is what is fair. Is it really so hard for you to figure that out?

Why is 15 not too much but 50 is too much? What is the line between just right and too much? How do you know?
Preparing for Billy Triple fail fail response in 3...2...1....

 

[Billy000]

hey OP- you know what I don't understand? Libs champion diversity but HATE Fox News.

Well there is absolutely nothing diverse about it luckily, I'm guessing you are referring to the liberal contributors that pop up every once in a while for the conservative show hosts to dangle in front of the camera to give the illusion the network is diverse, but in reality the rightwing bullshit is a non stop onslaught that over shadows anything they ever say. Typically you have three conservatives on a panel talking over the sole liberal and drowning him out.

How many conservatives are on MSNBC?

Apparently you never watch Morning Joe or watch the shows with conservative guests.