Poll: Solid majority (71%) of Americans support Obama’s increase of the minimum wage

[whitehall]

1,021 adults? Why the hell do we need elections when 1,021 Americans represent the entire population?

 

[ba1614]

Good thing we don't have mob rule popular vote democracy, now ain't it??

And it's a good thing that those who oppose something that 71% of Americans support risk being voted out.

That's why I'd never make it in politics, I'd lose on what I stand for before I'd win by compromising my principles.

 

[Katzndogz]

C

Corporate profits are doing very well, companies are sitting on mountains of cash, CEO's and upper management are receiving record bonuses again.

Obviously, companies could pay more for labor and be doing just fine. Maybe the executives wouldn't have quite as big a bonus. But hey, 10 million a year vs 15 million a year. They will be fine.

Two ways the economy can be well stimulated. Either get more companies to hire more people, which they are not doing in great enough numbers. Or share some of the corporate profits with the working person by increasing their wages. More money to them is more money in circulation buying more goods and services, more tax dollars to the treasury and that's what makes the world go round.

Corporations don't pay minimum wage. They pay much more. WalMart pays more than minimum wage. The smaller the business enterprise and the smaller the operating profit margin the more likely it is that they will pay minimum wage.

 

[DaGoose]

Good thing we don't have mob rule popular vote democracy, now ain't it??

And it's a good thing that those who oppose something that 71% of Americans support risk being voted out.

That's why I'd never make it in politics, I'd lose on what I stand for before I'd win by compromising my principles.

And I would support your loss since you would probably support giving out corporate welfare to the tune of billions while sticking it up the ass of the common working man.

 

[DaGoose]

C

Corporate profits are doing very well, companies are sitting on mountains of cash, CEO's and upper management are receiving record bonuses again.

Obviously, companies could pay more for labor and be doing just fine. Maybe the executives wouldn't have quite as big a bonus. But hey, 10 million a year vs 15 million a year. They will be fine.

Two ways the economy can be well stimulated. Either get more companies to hire more people, which they are not doing in great enough numbers. Or share some of the corporate profits with the working person by increasing their wages. More money to them is more money in circulation buying more goods and services, more tax dollars to the treasury and that's what makes the world go round.

Corporations don't pay minimum wage. They pay much more. WalMart pays more than minimum wage. The smaller the business enterprise and the smaller the operating profit margin the more likely it is that they will pay minimum wage.

Wal-Mart hit with minimum wage lawsuit as walkout threat looms | Reuters

 

[JustSomeGuy]

And another cheap-shot by another elitist Romney supporter.

The truth. It sometimes hurt.

President Obama's re-election must hurt like crazy. This poll showing the overwhelming support for Obama's min-wage increase proposal must dig at your caw mightily. The latest job rate falling to 7.7 must sting.

The truth. It sometimes hurt. Powerfully!

I'm not going to lie. I'm saddened at the fact that the majority of Americans don't understand the fact that, all else being equal, when the cost of labor rises, companies demand less of it (or they raise the cost of good and services to compensate). And, yes, I'm saddened by the fact that the unemployment rate dropping because people give up looking for work is hailed as an accomplishment. I mean, what kind of moronic half-brain wouldn't be saddened by these things?

...Oh, wait. A liberal.

 

[ba1614]

And it's a good thing that those who oppose something that 71% of Americans support risk being voted out.

That's why I'd never make it in politics, I'd lose on what I stand for before I'd win by compromising my principles.

And I would support your loss since you would probably support giving out corporate welfare to the tune of billions while sticking it up the ass of the common working man.

No, you are projecting, I don't support corporate welfare anymore than I do welfare for the healthy useless individual on an ongoing basis.

 

[Derideo_Te]

How many people will be grateful for losing their jobs because of it?

It's not exactly a coincidence that we upped the minimum wage and we are not at significantly higher unemployment. Im not saying it was all caused by the minimum wage in and of itself, but it was definitely a factor.

When you artificially increase the cost of labor, you get less of it.

Not many people at all will lose their jobs. San Francisco pays $10 an hour min-wage and the are flourishing. Ditto for Sante Fe NM which also pays $10/hour minimum wage.

So you think that increasing the cost of labor will somehow produce more of it?

History says that increasing wages stimulates the economy which leads to more jobs.

Henry Ford doubled the wages of his workers and ended up with lower costs than his competitors and a better product. On top of that he had more customers who could afford his cars but that was secondary.

The regressive mindset that cannot learn from the lessons of history are doomed to repeat the same mistakes.

 

[Pogo]

The truth. It sometimes hurt.

President Obama's re-election must hurt like crazy. This poll showing the overwhelming support for Obama's min-wage increase proposal must dig at your caw mightily. The latest job rate falling to 7.7 must sting.

The truth. It sometimes hurt. Powerfully!

I'm not going to lie. I'm saddened at the fact that the majority of Americans don't understand the fact that, all else being equal, when the cost of labor rises, companies demand less of it (or they raise the cost of good and services to compensate). And, yes, I'm saddened by the fact that the unemployment rate dropping because people give up looking for work is hailed as an accomplishment. I mean, what kind of moronic half-brain wouldn't be saddened by these things?

...Oh, wait. A liberal.

Once again, for the economics-retarded: there is no "cost of labor rising" in keeping the minimum wage up with COL and inflation. By letting it stagnate, the value of labour has already declined. Apparently the majority of Americans do understand that; what your limitation is eludes me.

I would put this into an even lower grade reading level if I knew how. See 34. "Cost of labor rises" my ass.

I'm continually stupefied that there walk among us those who vote, and post, against their own interests...

 

[Stephanie]

It's a poll by NBC folks, nuff said

 

[The Rabbi]

Not many people at all will lose their jobs. San Francisco pays $10 an hour min-wage and the are flourishing. Ditto for Sante Fe NM which also pays $10/hour minimum wage.

So you think that increasing the cost of labor will somehow produce more of it?

History says that increasing wages stimulates the economy which leads to more jobs.

Henry Ford doubled the wages of his workers and ended up with lower costs than his competitors and a better product. On top of that he had more customers who could afford his cars but that was secondary.

The regressive mindset that cannot learn from the lessons of history are doomed to repeat the same mistakes.

You flunked history as well as econ?

 

[JustSomeGuy]

President Obama's re-election must hurt like crazy. This poll showing the overwhelming support for Obama's min-wage increase proposal must dig at your caw mightily. The latest job rate falling to 7.7 must sting.

The truth. It sometimes hurt. Powerfully!

I'm not going to lie. I'm saddened at the fact that the majority of Americans don't understand the fact that, all else being equal, when the cost of labor rises, companies demand less of it (or they raise the cost of good and services to compensate). And, yes, I'm saddened by the fact that the unemployment rate dropping because people give up looking for work is hailed as an accomplishment. I mean, what kind of moronic half-brain wouldn't be saddened by these things?

...Oh, wait. A liberal.

Once again, for the economics-retarded: there is no "cost of labor rising" in keeping the minimum wage up with COL and inflation. By letting it stagnate, the value of labour has already declined. Apparently the majority of Americans do understand that; what your limitation is eludes me.

Your post has doesn't address mine.

Let's assume I own a McDonald's. Today I pay all of my employees $7.25 an hour. Tomorrow, the minimum wage rises and I have to pay my employees $9.00 an hour, or 24% more. I can either (A) eat the costs associated with having to pay my employees a higher wage, (B) raise the cost of some product I sell or (B) reduce my workforce. Which do you think is likely to happen?

I'll give you a hint; it ain't the first. Over the past thirty years there are numerous studies which show the second two issues occur far more often than the first.

I'm continually stupefied that there walk among us those who vote, and post, against their own interests...

Just what I was thinking.

 

[Derideo_Te]

So you think that increasing the cost of labor will somehow produce more of it?

History says that increasing wages stimulates the economy which leads to more jobs.

Henry Ford doubled the wages of his workers and ended up with lower costs than his competitors and a better product. On top of that he had more customers who could afford his cars but that was secondary.

The regressive mindset that cannot learn from the lessons of history are doomed to repeat the same mistakes.

You flunked history as well as econ?

Henry Ford - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ford was a pioneer of "welfare capitalism", designed to improve the lot of his workers and especially to reduce the heavy turnover that had many departments hiring 300 men per year to fill 100 slots. Efficiency meant hiring and keeping the best workers.[20]
Ford astonished the world in 1914 by offering a $5 per day wage ($120 today), which more than doubled the rate of most of his workers.[21] A Cleveland, Ohio newspaper editorialized that the announcement "shot like a blinding rocket through the dark clouds of the present industrial depression."[22] The move proved extremely profitable; instead of constant turnover of employees, the best mechanics in Detroit flocked to Ford, bringing their human capital and expertise, raising productivity, and lowering training costs.[23][24] Ford announced his $5-per-day program on January 5, 1914, raising the minimum daily pay from $2.34 to $5 for qualifying workers. It also set a new, reduced workweek, although the details vary in different accounts. Ford and Crowther in 1922 described it as six 8-hour days, giving a 48-hour week,[25] while in 1926 they described it as five 8-hour days, giving a 40-hour week.[26] (Apparently the program started with Saturdays as workdays and sometime later it was changed to a day off.)
Detroit was already a high-wage city, but competitors were forced to raise wages or lose their best workers.[27] Ford's policy proved, however, that paying people more would enable Ford workers to afford the cars they were producing and be good for the economy

 

[Pogo]

I'm not going to lie. I'm saddened at the fact that the majority of Americans don't understand the fact that, all else being equal, when the cost of labor rises, companies demand less of it (or they raise the cost of good and services to compensate). And, yes, I'm saddened by the fact that the unemployment rate dropping because people give up looking for work is hailed as an accomplishment. I mean, what kind of moronic half-brain wouldn't be saddened by these things?

...Oh, wait. A liberal.

Once again, for the economics-retarded: there is no "cost of labor rising" in keeping the minimum wage up with COL and inflation. By letting it stagnate, the value of labour has already declined. Apparently the majority of Americans do understand that; what your limitation is eludes me.

Your post has doesn't address mine.

Let's assume I own a McDonald's. Today I pay all of my employees $7.25 an hour. Tomorrow, the minimum wage rises and I have to pay my employees $9.00 an hour, or 24% more. I can either (A) eat the costs associated with having to pay my employees a higher wage, (B) raise the cost of some product I sell or (B) reduce my workforce. Which do you think is likely to happen?

I'll give you a hint; it ain't the first. Over the past thirty years there are numerous studies which show the second two issues occur far more often than the first.

I'm continually stupefied that there walk among us those who vote, and post, against their own interests...

Just what I was thinking.

What part are you missing here? My turn to give you a hint....

I'll simply go back to my owm example: when I entered the workforce in 1968 the minimum wage was $1.25. Would you pay $1.25 now? Of course not, nobody would work for that even if it was legal. But that $1.25 in 1968 dollars is the equivalent of $8.27 in 2013 dollars. Yet the current minimum wage is only $7.25 -- more than a dollar below that. In other words if I were a high school kid taking your job now at $7.25 I'd be making less than I did at $1.25 in 1968.

That means raising the minimum wage wouldn't be increasing your costs; it would be bringing your costs back into line after the free ride you're getting now. In other words, party's over for your corporate welfare. Until of course the next COL adjustment has to be made, which will again lag behind the realities of everyday COL -- as it always does. The first to profit from increased COL is the employer and the last is the worker. And somehow there are still the 29% whining "yes master may I not have another (raise)".

THAT is what I mean by posting against one's own interests. That assumes of course that you're on the side of the American worker, not the side against him. Time moves on; calling a simple COLA an "increase in labor costs" is just flat out dishonest. It's pointing to one side of the equation (absolute cost of labor) while completely ignoring the economic context (value of currency).

 

[Dubya]

I'm not going to lie. I'm saddened at the fact that the majority of Americans don't understand the fact that, all else being equal, when the cost of labor rises, companies demand less of it (or they raise the cost of good and services to compensate). And, yes, I'm saddened by the fact that the unemployment rate dropping because people give up looking for work is hailed as an accomplishment. I mean, what kind of moronic half-brain wouldn't be saddened by these things?

...Oh, wait. A liberal.

Once again, for the economics-retarded: there is no "cost of labor rising" in keeping the minimum wage up with COL and inflation. By letting it stagnate, the value of labour has already declined. Apparently the majority of Americans do understand that; what your limitation is eludes me.

Your post has doesn't address mine.

Let's assume I own a McDonald's. Today I pay all of my employees $7.25 an hour. Tomorrow, the minimum wage rises and I have to pay my employees $9.00 an hour, or 24% more. I can either (A) eat the costs associated with having to pay my employees a higher wage, (B) raise the cost of some product I sell or (B) reduce my workforce. Which do you think is likely to happen?

I'll give you a hint; it ain't the first. Over the past thirty years there are numerous studies which show the second two issues occur far more often than the first.

I'm continually stupefied that there walk among us those who vote, and post, against their own interests...

Just what I was thinking.

If you have a business and are paying employees $7.25 per hour, when you don't absolutely need them to work for you, then you're too stupid to own a business.

 

[The Rabbi]

History says that increasing wages stimulates the economy which leads to more jobs.

Henry Ford doubled the wages of his workers and ended up with lower costs than his competitors and a better product. On top of that he had more customers who could afford his cars but that was secondary.

The regressive mindset that cannot learn from the lessons of history are doomed to repeat the same mistakes.

You flunked history as well as econ?

Henry Ford - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ford was a pioneer of "welfare capitalism", designed to improve the lot of his workers and especially to reduce the heavy turnover that had many departments hiring 300 men per year to fill 100 slots. Efficiency meant hiring and keeping the best workers.[20]
Ford astonished the world in 1914 by offering a $5 per day wage ($120 today), which more than doubled the rate of most of his workers.[21] A Cleveland, Ohio newspaper editorialized that the announcement "shot like a blinding rocket through the dark clouds of the present industrial depression."[22] The move proved extremely profitable; instead of constant turnover of employees, the best mechanics in Detroit flocked to Ford, bringing their human capital and expertise, raising productivity, and lowering training costs.[23][24] Ford announced his $5-per-day program on January 5, 1914, raising the minimum daily pay from $2.34 to $5 for qualifying workers. It also set a new, reduced workweek, although the details vary in different accounts. Ford and Crowther in 1922 described it as six 8-hour days, giving a 48-hour week,[25] while in 1926 they described it as five 8-hour days, giving a 40-hour week.[26] (Apparently the program started with Saturdays as workdays and sometime later it was changed to a day off.)
Detroit was already a high-wage city, but competitors were forced to raise wages or lose their best workers.[27] Ford's policy proved, however, that paying people more would enable Ford workers to afford the cars they were producing and be good for the economy

Like I said, you flunked both courses, thus ripe for misinformation from Wiki.
A sad sack of shit, honestly.

 

[hunarcy]

I find this thread to be seriously depressing. The idea that people don't understand how raising the minimum wage drives up costs and hurts the value of our money supply is shocking...but not as shocking as someone using the fact that it has happened to try to support their idea that the minimum wage should be increased.

I weep!

 

[Derideo_Te]

You flunked history as well as econ?

Henry Ford - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ford was a pioneer of "welfare capitalism", designed to improve the lot of his workers and especially to reduce the heavy turnover that had many departments hiring 300 men per year to fill 100 slots. Efficiency meant hiring and keeping the best workers.[20]
Ford astonished the world in 1914 by offering a $5 per day wage ($120 today), which more than doubled the rate of most of his workers.[21] A Cleveland, Ohio newspaper editorialized that the announcement "shot like a blinding rocket through the dark clouds of the present industrial depression."[22] The move proved extremely profitable; instead of constant turnover of employees, the best mechanics in Detroit flocked to Ford, bringing their human capital and expertise, raising productivity, and lowering training costs.[23][24] Ford announced his $5-per-day program on January 5, 1914, raising the minimum daily pay from $2.34 to $5 for qualifying workers. It also set a new, reduced workweek, although the details vary in different accounts. Ford and Crowther in 1922 described it as six 8-hour days, giving a 48-hour week,[25] while in 1926 they described it as five 8-hour days, giving a 40-hour week.[26] (Apparently the program started with Saturdays as workdays and sometime later it was changed to a day off.)
Detroit was already a high-wage city, but competitors were forced to raise wages or lose their best workers.[27] Ford's policy proved, however, that paying people more would enable Ford workers to afford the cars they were producing and be good for the economy

Like I said, you flunked both courses, thus ripe for misinformation from Wiki.
A sad sack of shit, honestly.

What is truly sad is that instead of providing something to refute what I posted and subsequently substantiated you can do no better than to project your own shortcomings.

 

[JustSomeGuy]

Once again, for the economics-retarded: there is no "cost of labor rising" in keeping the minimum wage up with COL and inflation. By letting it stagnate, the value of labour has already declined. Apparently the majority of Americans do understand that; what your limitation is eludes me.

Your post has doesn't address mine.

Let's assume I own a McDonald's. Today I pay all of my employees $7.25 an hour. Tomorrow, the minimum wage rises and I have to pay my employees $9.00 an hour, or 24% more. I can either (A) eat the costs associated with having to pay my employees a higher wage, (B) raise the cost of some product I sell or (B) reduce my workforce. Which do you think is likely to happen?

I'll give you a hint; it ain't the first. Over the past thirty years there are numerous studies which show the second two issues occur far more often than the first.

I'm continually stupefied that there walk among us those who vote, and post, against their own interests...

Just what I was thinking.

What part are you missing here? My turn to give you a hint....

I'll simply go back to my owm example: when I entered the workforce in 1968 the minimum wage was $1.25. Would you pay $1.25 now? Of course not, nobody would work for that even if it was legal. But that $1.25 in 1968 dollars is the equivalent of $8.27 in 2013 dollars. Yet the current minimum wage is only $7.25 -- more than a dollar below that. In other words if I were a high school kid taking your job now at $7.25 I'd be making less than I did at $1.25 in 1968.

That means raising the minimum wage wouldn't be increasing your costs; it would be bringing your costs back into line after the free ride you're getting now. In other words, party's over for your corporate welfare. Until of course the next COL adjustment has to be made, which will again lag behind the realities of everyday COL -- as it always does. The first to profit from increased COL is the employer and the last is the worker. And somehow there are still the 29% whining "yes master may I not have another (raise)".

THAT is what I mean by posting against one's own interests. That assumes of course that you're on the side of the American worker, not the side against him. Time moves on; calling a simple COLA an "increase in labor costs" is just flat out dishonest. It's pointing to one side of the equation (absolute cost of labor) while completely ignoring the economic context (value of currency).

Nice red herring. What does this post have to do with anything? That's right. Nothing. You didn't even attempt to address the central issue of my post. Instead, you sidestepped it (not merely once, but twice).

Once again, for the economics-retarded: there is no "cost of labor rising" in keeping the minimum wage up with COL and inflation. By letting it stagnate, the value of labour has already declined. Apparently the majority of Americans do understand that; what your limitation is eludes me.

Your post has doesn't address mine.

Let's assume I own a McDonald's. Today I pay all of my employees $7.25 an hour. Tomorrow, the minimum wage rises and I have to pay my employees $9.00 an hour, or 24% more. I can either (A) eat the costs associated with having to pay my employees a higher wage, (B) raise the cost of some product I sell or (B) reduce my workforce. Which do you think is likely to happen?

I'll give you a hint; it ain't the first. Over the past thirty years there are numerous studies which show the second two issues occur far more often than the first.

I'm continually stupefied that there walk among us those who vote, and post, against their own interests...

Just what I was thinking.

If you have a business and are paying employees $7.25 per hour, when you don't absolutely need them to work for you, then you're too stupid to own a business.

People get paid minimum wage because they're doing a job any 15 year old with a day's training can do.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Not many people at all will lose their jobs. San Francisco pays $10 an hour min-wage and the are flourishing. Ditto for Sante Fe NM which also pays $10/hour minimum wage.

So you think that increasing the cost of labor will somehow produce more of it?

Workers are very grateful for their increase thus turnover is dramatically reduced. Workers have more to spend and the local economy benefits greatly. Everyone is happy!

How is turn over reduced when all the minimum wage workers are still making an equal wage? What's the different if they're all making $7.75 an hour now ( or what ever it is) or all making $9.25 next year. They're still making minimum wage.