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

[The Rabbi]

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!

It's the difference between reasonable accommodation, and unreasonable.

What do you mean "accomodation"? We're not talking about seating people in a restaurant. If 10/hr MW is goingt o bring all kinds of benefits then why wouldnt $50/hr? Or 40? Or 20? And how do you know?

Benefits without outweighing the costs.
It is wrong to pay people so little they can't afford to live.
It is also wrong to pay people so much a company can't do business and remain profitable. So 50 an hour is outrageous.

To insure our local companies can compete in the world wide marketplace we should set tariffs on any country that doesn't pay an American living wage. Force prices to go up on luxuries so people who make those things can afford necessary items like food and lodgings.

Example, why is it I can buy a big screen tv for under $1000 and yet we can't pay Americans who make big screen tv's a living wage? Why is it we don't pay Americans to do so at all and import from other countries that don't pay an American living wage to make them. Why not raise tariffs until big screen tv's cost $5,000 or more to own so as to insure Americans can afford to buy bread, meat, and rent? Why are so many of our luxuries so cheap when so many of our items that are necessary to survive are comparably expensive? I want the price of our tv's to go up, I want low income people to be deprived of TV's if that means they don't have to be deprived of food as compensation.

Why does a watch, which last years, cost less than a meal which last a day? Why does a tv go for so little when rent is so high? Time to make the luxuries more expensive and the necessities less expensive.

You do that through tariffs on items we don't need. You do that through not taxing the things we do need.

I realze I'm not dealing with PhD material here but anyway.
Why is it wrong to pay people what they agree to be paid? Why isnt it wrong to dictate what sort of arrangement two people can have? Why isnt it wrong to discriminate against people whose job skills warrant only $5/hr and so are priced out of the market?
Do you think no businesses are affected when MW goes to 10/hr?
And your tariff idea is the dumbest thing since Smoot-Hawley.

When being priced out of the market means you starve to death, that's when.

What is wrong with charging more for luxuries so that people can afford necessities?

Please show me the people starving to death in this country.
That isnt what happens. What does happen is they are permanently unemployed

When someone, I forget when, imposed a "millionaires tax" on yachts to fund some crappy handout or other the effect was: companies in America that made yachts went out of business and their skilled workers went on unemployment. The tax didnt meet expectations for revenue and the program was underfunded.
IOW, a typical clusterfuck of a Dem program that had the opposite effect of what was intended.

 

[The Rabbi]

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!

It's the difference between reasonable accommodation, and unreasonable.

What do you mean "accomodation"? We're not talking about seating people in a restaurant. If 10/hr MW is goingt o bring all kinds of benefits then why wouldnt $50/hr? Or 40? Or 20? And how do you know?

Benefits without outweighing the costs.
It is wrong to pay people so little they can't afford to live.
It is also wrong to pay people so much a company can't do business and remain profitable. So 50 an hour is outrageous.

To insure our local companies can compete in the world wide marketplace we should set tariffs on any country that doesn't pay an American living wage. Force prices to go up on luxuries so people who make those things can afford necessary items like food and lodgings.

Example, why is it I can buy a big screen tv for under $1000 and yet we can't pay Americans who make big screen tv's a living wage? Why is it we don't pay Americans to do so at all and import from other countries that don't pay an American living wage to make them. Why not raise tariffs until big screen tv's cost $5,000 or more to own so as to insure Americans can afford to buy bread, meat, and rent? Why are so many of our luxuries so cheap when so many of our items that are necessary to survive are comparably expensive? I want the price of our tv's to go up, I want low income people to be deprived of TV's if that means they don't have to be deprived of food as compensation.

Why does a watch, which last years, cost less than a meal which last a day? Why does a tv go for so little when rent is so high? Time to make the luxuries more expensive and the necessities less expensive.

You do that through tariffs on items we don't need. You do that through not taxing the things we do need.

I realze I'm not dealing with PhD material here but anyway.
Why is it wrong to pay people what they agree to be paid? Why isnt it wrong to dictate what sort of arrangement two people can have? Why isnt it wrong to discriminate against people whose job skills warrant only $5/hr and so are priced out of the market?
Do you think no businesses are affected when MW goes to 10/hr?
And your tariff idea is the dumbest thing since Smoot-Hawley.

"I realze I'm not dealing with PhD material here but anyway."

Ya don't say.
Tell us Dr. Dumble,
How have businesses been hurt historically
by MW increases? How many are lost each time?

A bunch. It's hard to measure something that's not there anymore.
But it is easy to show the rising tide of teen unemployment, as teens are priced out of the labor market by increasing min wage requirements.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

The MW is just a political tool Democrats use to buy votes by using somebody else's money.

It's genius really......but only if you are dishonest to the core.

 

[The Rabbi]

What do you mean "accomodation"? We're not talking about seating people in a restaurant. If 10/hr MW is goingt o bring all kinds of benefits then why wouldnt $50/hr? Or 40? Or 20? And how do you know?

Benefits without outweighing the costs.
It is wrong to pay people so little they can't afford to live.
It is also wrong to pay people so much a company can't do business and remain profitable. So 50 an hour is outrageous.

To insure our local companies can compete in the world wide marketplace we should set tariffs on any country that doesn't pay an American living wage. Force prices to go up on luxuries so people who make those things can afford necessary items like food and lodgings.

Example, why is it I can buy a big screen tv for under $1000 and yet we can't pay Americans who make big screen tv's a living wage? Why is it we don't pay Americans to do so at all and import from other countries that don't pay an American living wage to make them. Why not raise tariffs until big screen tv's cost $5,000 or more to own so as to insure Americans can afford to buy bread, meat, and rent? Why are so many of our luxuries so cheap when so many of our items that are necessary to survive are comparably expensive? I want the price of our tv's to go up, I want low income people to be deprived of TV's if that means they don't have to be deprived of food as compensation.

Why does a watch, which last years, cost less than a meal which last a day? Why does a tv go for so little when rent is so high? Time to make the luxuries more expensive and the necessities less expensive.

You do that through tariffs on items we don't need. You do that through not taxing the things we do need.

I realze I'm not dealing with PhD material here but anyway.
Why is it wrong to pay people what they agree to be paid? Why isnt it wrong to dictate what sort of arrangement two people can have? Why isnt it wrong to discriminate against people whose job skills warrant only $5/hr and so are priced out of the market?
Do you think no businesses are affected when MW goes to 10/hr?
And your tariff idea is the dumbest thing since Smoot-Hawley.

"I realze I'm not dealing with PhD material here but anyway."

Ya don't say.
Tell us Dr. Dumble,
How have businesses been hurt historically
by MW increases? How many are lost each time?

Are you still carrying the torch for an increase in federal gov't mandated MW despite the fact that only a few million Americans earn $7.25 (the majority of whom are between 16 and 24 years of age), that the labor market self-adjusts (many of our largest retailers are voluntarily raising wages) and that the real agenda of the MW war is to increase union wages, not improve the lives of MW earners? Once more for the terminally dense: we don't need federal meddling in the labor wage market.

If it's only a "few million", then why do you care?
How about state meddling? Nearly half the states already have a higher MW. How do you think they are faring?

We could ask as well: If it's only a few million then why are you pushing a MW increase?
The lowest skilled workers in those states are having an impossible time finding jobs, is how they're faring.

 

[SAYIT]

What do you mean "accomodation"? We're not talking about seating people in a restaurant. If 10/hr MW is goingt o bring all kinds of benefits then why wouldnt $50/hr? Or 40? Or 20? And how do you know?

Benefits without outweighing the costs.
It is wrong to pay people so little they can't afford to live.
It is also wrong to pay people so much a company can't do business and remain profitable. So 50 an hour is outrageous.

To insure our local companies can compete in the world wide marketplace we should set tariffs on any country that doesn't pay an American living wage. Force prices to go up on luxuries so people who make those things can afford necessary items like food and lodgings.

Example, why is it I can buy a big screen tv for under $1000 and yet we can't pay Americans who make big screen tv's a living wage? Why is it we don't pay Americans to do so at all and import from other countries that don't pay an American living wage to make them. Why not raise tariffs until big screen tv's cost $5,000 or more to own so as to insure Americans can afford to buy bread, meat, and rent? Why are so many of our luxuries so cheap when so many of our items that are necessary to survive are comparably expensive? I want the price of our tv's to go up, I want low income people to be deprived of TV's if that means they don't have to be deprived of food as compensation.

Why does a watch, which last years, cost less than a meal which last a day? Why does a tv go for so little when rent is so high? Time to make the luxuries more expensive and the necessities less expensive.

You do that through tariffs on items we don't need. You do that through not taxing the things we do need.

I realze I'm not dealing with PhD material here but anyway.
Why is it wrong to pay people what they agree to be paid? Why isnt it wrong to dictate what sort of arrangement two people can have? Why isnt it wrong to discriminate against people whose job skills warrant only $5/hr and so are priced out of the market?
Do you think no businesses are affected when MW goes to 10/hr?
And your tariff idea is the dumbest thing since Smoot-Hawley.

"I realze I'm not dealing with PhD material here but anyway."

Ya don't say.
Tell us Dr. Dumble,
How have businesses been hurt historically
by MW increases? How many are lost each time?

Are you still carrying the torch for an increase in federal gov't mandated MW despite the fact that only a few million Americans earn $7.25 (the majority of whom are between 16 and 24 years of age), that the labor market self-adjusts (many of our largest retailers are voluntarily raising wages) and that the real agenda of the MW war is to increase union wages, not improve the lives of MW earners? Once more for the terminally dense: we don't need federal meddling in the labor wage market.

If it's only a "few million", then why do you care?
How about state meddling? Nearly half the states already have a higher MW. How do you think they are faring?

Why must you be told the same things repeatedly?
Raising the federal MW will not only cause all other ships to rise (and prices with them) but the MW Movement is just a smokescreen for across-the-board union wage hikes for those working under an MW+ contract.
So when will reality finally sink in for you?
As Jake Stark's post accurately displays, the states are capable of setting their own MWs based on the economic situation in their state and even some cities have taken action based on their conditions.
The federal gov't has no biz meddling in this matter.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

How do we reconcile this information with what the Cons are arguing?
How do states with higher MW compare with states at the Fed rate? How could they possibly compete if what the Cons say is true?
2014 Job Creation Faster in States that Raised the Minimum Wage
2014 Job Creation Faster in States that Raised the Minimum Wage CEPR Blog

The point is clearly that federal meddling is unnecessary. States in which, for whatever reasons, higher wages have lead to greater job creation (and could it not be argued that greater demand for labor forced the wage hikes?) did not require the feds MW to accomplish higher wages.

The state's with higher wages are due to state MW set higher than the Fed.
It's all MW dude. What's the difference?

 

[The Rabbi]

How do we reconcile this information with what the Cons are arguing?
How do states with higher MW compare with states at the Fed rate? How could they possibly compete if what the Cons say is true?
2014 Job Creation Faster in States that Raised the Minimum Wage
2014 Job Creation Faster in States that Raised the Minimum Wage CEPR Blog

The point is clearly that federal meddling is unnecessary. States in which, for whatever reasons, higher wages have lead to greater job creation (and could it not be argued that greater demand for labor forced the wage hikes?) did not require the feds MW to accomplish higher wages.

The state's with higher wages are due to state MW set higher than the Fed.
It's all MW dude. What's the difference?

Thats of course wrong.
Average Wages by State

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Benefits without outweighing the costs.
It is wrong to pay people so little they can't afford to live.
It is also wrong to pay people so much a company can't do business and remain profitable. So 50 an hour is outrageous.

To insure our local companies can compete in the world wide marketplace we should set tariffs on any country that doesn't pay an American living wage. Force prices to go up on luxuries so people who make those things can afford necessary items like food and lodgings.

Example, why is it I can buy a big screen tv for under $1000 and yet we can't pay Americans who make big screen tv's a living wage? Why is it we don't pay Americans to do so at all and import from other countries that don't pay an American living wage to make them. Why not raise tariffs until big screen tv's cost $5,000 or more to own so as to insure Americans can afford to buy bread, meat, and rent? Why are so many of our luxuries so cheap when so many of our items that are necessary to survive are comparably expensive? I want the price of our tv's to go up, I want low income people to be deprived of TV's if that means they don't have to be deprived of food as compensation.

Why does a watch, which last years, cost less than a meal which last a day? Why does a tv go for so little when rent is so high? Time to make the luxuries more expensive and the necessities less expensive.

You do that through tariffs on items we don't need. You do that through not taxing the things we do need.

I realze I'm not dealing with PhD material here but anyway.
Why is it wrong to pay people what they agree to be paid? Why isnt it wrong to dictate what sort of arrangement two people can have? Why isnt it wrong to discriminate against people whose job skills warrant only $5/hr and so are priced out of the market?
Do you think no businesses are affected when MW goes to 10/hr?
And your tariff idea is the dumbest thing since Smoot-Hawley.

"I realze I'm not dealing with PhD material here but anyway."

Ya don't say.
Tell us Dr. Dumble,
How have businesses been hurt historically
by MW increases? How many are lost each time?

Are you still carrying the torch for an increase in federal gov't mandated MW despite the fact that only a few million Americans earn $7.25 (the majority of whom are between 16 and 24 years of age), that the labor market self-adjusts (many of our largest retailers are voluntarily raising wages) and that the real agenda of the MW war is to increase union wages, not improve the lives of MW earners? Once more for the terminally dense: we don't need federal meddling in the labor wage market.

If it's only a "few million", then why do you care?
How about state meddling? Nearly half the states already have a higher MW. How do you think they are faring?

We could ask as well: If it's only a few million then why are you pushing a MW increase?
The lowest skilled workers in those states are having an impossible time finding jobs, is how they're faring.

Because it's no just a few million. That was your buddy's assertion. I simply asked why he cared.

 

[The Rabbi]

I realze I'm not dealing with PhD material here but anyway.
Why is it wrong to pay people what they agree to be paid? Why isnt it wrong to dictate what sort of arrangement two people can have? Why isnt it wrong to discriminate against people whose job skills warrant only $5/hr and so are priced out of the market?
Do you think no businesses are affected when MW goes to 10/hr?
And your tariff idea is the dumbest thing since Smoot-Hawley.

"I realze I'm not dealing with PhD material here but anyway."

Ya don't say.
Tell us Dr. Dumble,
How have businesses been hurt historically
by MW increases? How many are lost each time?

Are you still carrying the torch for an increase in federal gov't mandated MW despite the fact that only a few million Americans earn $7.25 (the majority of whom are between 16 and 24 years of age), that the labor market self-adjusts (many of our largest retailers are voluntarily raising wages) and that the real agenda of the MW war is to increase union wages, not improve the lives of MW earners? Once more for the terminally dense: we don't need federal meddling in the labor wage market.

If it's only a "few million", then why do you care?
How about state meddling? Nearly half the states already have a higher MW. How do you think they are faring?

We could ask as well: If it's only a few million then why are you pushing a MW increase?
The lowest skilled workers in those states are having an impossible time finding jobs, is how they're faring.

Because it's no just a few million. That was your buddy's assertion. I simply asked why he cared.

So how many is it?
Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers 2012
The actual number is 3.6M

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Benefits without outweighing the costs.
It is wrong to pay people so little they can't afford to live.
It is also wrong to pay people so much a company can't do business and remain profitable. So 50 an hour is outrageous.

To insure our local companies can compete in the world wide marketplace we should set tariffs on any country that doesn't pay an American living wage. Force prices to go up on luxuries so people who make those things can afford necessary items like food and lodgings.

Example, why is it I can buy a big screen tv for under $1000 and yet we can't pay Americans who make big screen tv's a living wage? Why is it we don't pay Americans to do so at all and import from other countries that don't pay an American living wage to make them. Why not raise tariffs until big screen tv's cost $5,000 or more to own so as to insure Americans can afford to buy bread, meat, and rent? Why are so many of our luxuries so cheap when so many of our items that are necessary to survive are comparably expensive? I want the price of our tv's to go up, I want low income people to be deprived of TV's if that means they don't have to be deprived of food as compensation.

Why does a watch, which last years, cost less than a meal which last a day? Why does a tv go for so little when rent is so high? Time to make the luxuries more expensive and the necessities less expensive.

You do that through tariffs on items we don't need. You do that through not taxing the things we do need.

I realze I'm not dealing with PhD material here but anyway.
Why is it wrong to pay people what they agree to be paid? Why isnt it wrong to dictate what sort of arrangement two people can have? Why isnt it wrong to discriminate against people whose job skills warrant only $5/hr and so are priced out of the market?
Do you think no businesses are affected when MW goes to 10/hr?
And your tariff idea is the dumbest thing since Smoot-Hawley.

"I realze I'm not dealing with PhD material here but anyway."

Ya don't say.
Tell us Dr. Dumble,
How have businesses been hurt historically
by MW increases? How many are lost each time?

Are you still carrying the torch for an increase in federal gov't mandated MW despite the fact that only a few million Americans earn $7.25 (the majority of whom are between 16 and 24 years of age), that the labor market self-adjusts (many of our largest retailers are voluntarily raising wages) and that the real agenda of the MW war is to increase union wages, not improve the lives of MW earners? Once more for the terminally dense: we don't need federal meddling in the labor wage market.

If it's only a "few million", then why do you care?
How about state meddling? Nearly half the states already have a higher MW. How do you think they are faring?

Why must you be told the same things repeatedly?
Raising the federal MW will not only cause all other ships to rise (and prices with them) but the MW Movement is just a smokescreen for across-the-board union wage hikes for those working under an MW+ contract.
So when will reality finally sink in for you?
As Jake Stark's post accurately displays, the states are capable of setting their own MWs based on the economic situation in their state and even some cities have taken action based on their conditions.
The federal gov't has no biz meddling in this matter.

Smokescreen huh? I suppose you can support that.
MW is MW regardless of who sets it.There needs to be a Fed MW to protect workers in the states that have no MW laws.
Did you know that the FLSA actually exempts small businesses with less than $500,000 in annual sales from MW but most states choose to include them?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

How do we reconcile this information with what the Cons are arguing?
How do states with higher MW compare with states at the Fed rate? How could they possibly compete if what the Cons say is true?

2014 Job Creation Faster in States that Raised the Minimum Wage
2014 Job Creation Faster in States that Raised the Minimum Wage CEPR Blog

Cost of living is much lower in TX than say California. Labor jobs in tx pay 3 times minimum wage (ENTRY LEVEL.) The only people getting minimum wage in TX are the people doing jobs that are not worth more than the minimum wage.

What of the other 49 states? Where is the death and destruction this thread is filled with?

 

[The Rabbi]

How do we reconcile this information with what the Cons are arguing?
How do states with higher MW compare with states at the Fed rate? How could they possibly compete if what the Cons say is true?

2014 Job Creation Faster in States that Raised the Minimum Wage
2014 Job Creation Faster in States that Raised the Minimum Wage CEPR Blog

Cost of living is much lower in TX than say California. Labor jobs in tx pay 3 times minimum wage (ENTRY LEVEL.) The only people getting minimum wage in TX are the people doing jobs that are not worth more than the minimum wage.

What of the other 49 states? Where is the death and destruction this thread is filled with?

Over 40% unemployment among young people. That is a disaster. And it is totally due to higher min wage rates.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

It's the difference between reasonable accommodation, and unreasonable.

What do you mean "accomodation"? We're not talking about seating people in a restaurant. If 10/hr MW is goingt o bring all kinds of benefits then why wouldnt $50/hr? Or 40? Or 20? And how do you know?

Benefits without outweighing the costs.
It is wrong to pay people so little they can't afford to live.
It is also wrong to pay people so much a company can't do business and remain profitable. So 50 an hour is outrageous.

To insure our local companies can compete in the world wide marketplace we should set tariffs on any country that doesn't pay an American living wage. Force prices to go up on luxuries so people who make those things can afford necessary items like food and lodgings.

Example, why is it I can buy a big screen tv for under $1000 and yet we can't pay Americans who make big screen tv's a living wage? Why is it we don't pay Americans to do so at all and import from other countries that don't pay an American living wage to make them. Why not raise tariffs until big screen tv's cost $5,000 or more to own so as to insure Americans can afford to buy bread, meat, and rent? Why are so many of our luxuries so cheap when so many of our items that are necessary to survive are comparably expensive? I want the price of our tv's to go up, I want low income people to be deprived of TV's if that means they don't have to be deprived of food as compensation.

Why does a watch, which last years, cost less than a meal which last a day? Why does a tv go for so little when rent is so high? Time to make the luxuries more expensive and the necessities less expensive.

You do that through tariffs on items we don't need. You do that through not taxing the things we do need.

I realze I'm not dealing with PhD material here but anyway.
Why is it wrong to pay people what they agree to be paid? Why isnt it wrong to dictate what sort of arrangement two people can have? Why isnt it wrong to discriminate against people whose job skills warrant only $5/hr and so are priced out of the market?
Do you think no businesses are affected when MW goes to 10/hr?
And your tariff idea is the dumbest thing since Smoot-Hawley.

"I realze I'm not dealing with PhD material here but anyway."

Ya don't say.
Tell us Dr. Dumble,
How have businesses been hurt historically
by MW increases? How many are lost each time?

A bunch. It's hard to measure something that's not there anymore.
But it is easy to show the rising tide of teen unemployment, as teens are priced out of the labor market by increasing min wage requirements.

It's hard to measure something that isn't real.
It's so easy to show your unemployment data and why it correlates to MW but you haven't.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

How do we reconcile this information with what the Cons are arguing?
How do states with higher MW compare with states at the Fed rate? How could they possibly compete if what the Cons say is true?
2014 Job Creation Faster in States that Raised the Minimum Wage
2014 Job Creation Faster in States that Raised the Minimum Wage CEPR Blog

The point is clearly that federal meddling is unnecessary. States in which, for whatever reasons, higher wages have lead to greater job creation (and could it not be argued that greater demand for labor forced the wage hikes?) did not require the feds MW to accomplish higher wages.

The state's with higher wages are due to state MW set higher than the Fed.
It's all MW dude. What's the difference?

Thats of course wrong.
Average Wages by State

Try to keep it within the context of the previous posts. That is how it's supposed to work.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

How do we reconcile this information with what the Cons are arguing?
How do states with higher MW compare with states at the Fed rate? How could they possibly compete if what the Cons say is true?

2014 Job Creation Faster in States that Raised the Minimum Wage
2014 Job Creation Faster in States that Raised the Minimum Wage CEPR Blog

Cost of living is much lower in TX than say California. Labor jobs in tx pay 3 times minimum wage (ENTRY LEVEL.) The only people getting minimum wage in TX are the people doing jobs that are not worth more than the minimum wage.

What of the other 49 states? Where is the death and destruction this thread is filled with?

Over 40% unemployment among young people. That is a disaster. And it is totally due to higher min wage rates.

Hmm..I'm not seeing the MW correlation.

 

[The Rabbi]

How do we reconcile this information with what the Cons are arguing?
How do states with higher MW compare with states at the Fed rate? How could they possibly compete if what the Cons say is true?

2014 Job Creation Faster in States that Raised the Minimum Wage
2014 Job Creation Faster in States that Raised the Minimum Wage CEPR Blog

Cost of living is much lower in TX than say California. Labor jobs in tx pay 3 times minimum wage (ENTRY LEVEL.) The only people getting minimum wage in TX are the people doing jobs that are not worth more than the minimum wage.

What of the other 49 states? Where is the death and destruction this thread is filled with?

Over 40% unemployment among young people. That is a disaster. And it is totally due to higher min wage rates.

Hmm..I'm not seeing the MW correlation.

Because you're stupid. Hint: When was the last time MW was raised?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

How do we reconcile this information with what the Cons are arguing?
How do states with higher MW compare with states at the Fed rate? How could they possibly compete if what the Cons say is true?

2014 Job Creation Faster in States that Raised the Minimum Wage
2014 Job Creation Faster in States that Raised the Minimum Wage CEPR Blog

Cost of living is much lower in TX than say California. Labor jobs in tx pay 3 times minimum wage (ENTRY LEVEL.) The only people getting minimum wage in TX are the people doing jobs that are not worth more than the minimum wage.

What of the other 49 states? Where is the death and destruction this thread is filled with?

Over 40% unemployment among young people. That is a disaster. And it is totally due to higher min wage rates.

Hmm..I'm not seeing the MW correlation.

Because you're stupid. Hint: When was the last time MW was raised?

Yes, Dr. Dumble, I'm stupid because I don't see MW anywhere on your "proof".
What does it mean when the line takes a sharp downturn ?

 

[The Rabbi]

Cost of living is much lower in TX than say California. Labor jobs in tx pay 3 times minimum wage (ENTRY LEVEL.) The only people getting minimum wage in TX are the people doing jobs that are not worth more than the minimum wage.

What of the other 49 states? Where is the death and destruction this thread is filled with?

Over 40% unemployment among young people. That is a disaster. And it is totally due to higher min wage rates.

Hmm..I'm not seeing the MW correlation.

Because you're stupid. Hint: When was the last time MW was raised?

Yes, Dr. Dumble, I'm stupid because I don't see MW anywhere on your "proof".
What does it mean when the line takes a sharp downturn ?

Reading Charts and Graphs TV411

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

Since you're talking about rate of inflation, here are the facts:

In 1960, minimum wage was $1.00 and that would be $7.93 in today dollars.
In 1975, minimum wage was $2.10 and that would be $9.16 in today dollars.

The $15 today would be equivalent of $1.89 in 1960, and $3.44 in 1975.

Inflation calculator

Like it or not, your adjusted to inflation numbers are false. How did you come up with $15 an hour anyways? Crystal bowl, lefties talking points or... well, surprise me.

 

[Andylusion]

I realze I'm not dealing with PhD material here but anyway.
Why is it wrong to pay people what they agree to be paid? Why isnt it wrong to dictate what sort of arrangement two people can have? Why isnt it wrong to discriminate against people whose job skills warrant only $5/hr and so are priced out of the market?
Do you think no businesses are affected when MW goes to 10/hr?
And your tariff idea is the dumbest thing since Smoot-Hawley.

"I realze I'm not dealing with PhD material here but anyway."

Ya don't say.
Tell us Dr. Dumble,
How have businesses been hurt historically
by MW increases? How many are lost each time?

Are you still carrying the torch for an increase in federal gov't mandated MW despite the fact that only a few million Americans earn $7.25 (the majority of whom are between 16 and 24 years of age), that the labor market self-adjusts (many of our largest retailers are voluntarily raising wages) and that the real agenda of the MW war is to increase union wages, not improve the lives of MW earners? Once more for the terminally dense: we don't need federal meddling in the labor wage market.

If it's only a "few million", then why do you care?
How about state meddling? Nearly half the states already have a higher MW. How do you think they are faring?

Why must you be told the same things repeatedly?
Raising the federal MW will not only cause all other ships to rise (and prices with them) but the MW Movement is just a smokescreen for across-the-board union wage hikes for those working under an MW+ contract.
So when will reality finally sink in for you?
As Jake Stark's post accurately displays, the states are capable of setting their own MWs based on the economic situation in their state and even some cities have taken action based on their conditions.
The federal gov't has no biz meddling in this matter.

Smokescreen huh? I suppose you can support that.
MW is MW regardless of who sets it.There needs to be a Fed MW to protect workers in the states that have no MW laws.
Did you know that the FLSA actually exempts small businesses with less than $500,000 in annual sales from MW but most states choose to include them?

But it doesn't "protect" workers, because the ultimate minimum wage is always zero.

If I can't make money hiring people... then I don't hire them.

Norway doesn't even have a minimum wage at all. Ironically during the worst of the economic down turn, the result was that unemployment rate in Norway barely went over 3.5%.

Compare that to the US, which "Protected" workers by raising the minimum wage from $5.25 in 2007, to $7.25 by 2009. Yeah, 'protected' them from having a wage, with a 11% unemployment rate.

You are not protecting them. You are harming them.