Put Up, or Shut Up; What are Republicans offering the Middle class? Be Specific

[westwall]

95% of the income gains have gone to the top 1% of earners since the 30s. Meanwhile, the min wage is way behind on inflation. If people have more money in their pockets they pump more money into the economy.

If we raised the wage to 10$ an hour, prices would only go up cents on the dollar. The market would easily correct itself.

Wouldn't you want to live in a country with less public assistance.

Doesn't matter. All raising the minimum wage has ever done is raise all other prices so the net effect is zero. That has been shown to be true from the inception of the minimum wage.

Yes CEO compensation is ridiculously high. Yes it needs to be reigned in. No argument from me. But your methods merely allow that bullshit to continue and never addresses the real issues. It merely puts it off for the next generation to deal with.

We ARE the next generation so now it has to be dealt with. In 1932 2% of the population controlled 76% of the nations wealth. Democrats took over both houses for FORTY continuous years and also held the POTUS for a good portion of that time.

When they were done 1% controlled 90% of the wealth. Who were the Dems working for? Because it certainly doesn't look like they were working for the middle class.

That's the point. You think that Democrats (and I am one) are always the good guy but I can show you historically their policies have done more to concentrate wealth in the hands of the few than all the Republican policies since they were founded.

That is a simple historical fact.

Show me the historical proof that democrats are responsible for the concentration of wealth.

If you're democrat, what democratic polices do you favor?

I don't understand why you are so convinced that prices would shoot way up. Yes, there will be a slight increase, but people will still be able to afford it. Meanwhile the extra money being pumped into the economy would eventually bring prices down AND create jobs.

Many more people would be off of public assistance.

Dude, do your own fucking work. The 90% number was read into the Congressional Record back when Clinton was Prez, the 1932 figures are from a American Communist Party newspaper from the era and go to wiki to see who controlled Congress (both houses) from the 40's to the 80's and look at how the middle class has suffered under that rule.

in other words nimrod, instead of kowtowing to the Party line DO SOME READING AND LEARN SOMETHING!

Going through life ignorant and opinionated ain't doing you any favors dude.

 

[Billy000]

What was the tax rate before and after the cut?

Are you so lazy that you can't even Google this information? For the highest margin, it was 39.6% before. It dropped to 35%.

Next time do your own Googling. It really isnt hard.

4.6/39.6 is less than 12%.

That's your enormous cut? LOL!

What were the cuts in the other brackets?

What's a good word for "bigger than enormous"?

lol dude you crack me up. You clearly have no understanding of the tax rate. Stop pretending that you do.

 

[westwall]

Are you so lazy that you can't even Google this information? For the highest margin, it was 39.6% before. It dropped to 35%.

Next time do your own Googling. It really isnt hard.

4.6/39.6 is less than 12%.

That's your enormous cut? LOL!

What were the cuts in the other brackets?

What's a good word for "bigger than enormous"?

lol dude you crack me up. You clearly have no understanding of the tax rate. Stop pretending that you do.

All you have done is be a cut and paste drone. You have no mind of your own dude. That's fucking pathetic.

 

[rdean]

The powers that be closed my thread because I posted a question that was too hard to answer.

So here it is again;

What are Republicans offering the Middle class? Be Specific

Jobs. You offer them handouts.

Now what are Democrats offering the middle class? Be specific.

Higher min wage so there are fewer jobs for those entering the workforce
Workplace protections for women and gays, insuring that employers will hire fewer of them
More regulations on business, costing them money in compliance that might have gone to wages and benefits
Health care mandates that insure that company policies are cancelled and employees thrown on the public system.
Looming inflation, eroding savings and devastating retireees on fixed incomes
What else could you want??

Prosperity through lower wages.
Regulation repeal is what ruined our economy.
If companies don't pay for health care, then the tax payers will at emergency room costs.
Republicans want to end Social Security. No "fixed" income. Problem solved.

All this is just common sense. What Republicans have to offer is suicide, an early death, no education, no good jobs. Just a miserable life. That's it.

 

[Billy000]

Doesn't matter. All raising the minimum wage has ever done is raise all other prices so the net effect is zero. That has been shown to be true from the inception of the minimum wage.

Yes CEO compensation is ridiculously high. Yes it needs to be reigned in. No argument from me. But your methods merely allow that bullshit to continue and never addresses the real issues. It merely puts it off for the next generation to deal with.

We ARE the next generation so now it has to be dealt with. In 1932 2% of the population controlled 76% of the nations wealth. Democrats took over both houses for FORTY continuous years and also held the POTUS for a good portion of that time.

When they were done 1% controlled 90% of the wealth. Who were the Dems working for? Because it certainly doesn't look like they were working for the middle class.

That's the point. You think that Democrats (and I am one) are always the good guy but I can show you historically their policies have done more to concentrate wealth in the hands of the few than all the Republican policies since they were founded.

That is a simple historical fact.

Show me the historical proof that democrats are responsible for the concentration of wealth.

If you're democrat, what democratic polices do you favor?

I don't understand why you are so convinced that prices would shoot way up. Yes, there will be a slight increase, but people will still be able to afford it. Meanwhile the extra money being pumped into the economy would eventually bring prices down AND create jobs.

Many more people would be off of public assistance.

Dude, do your own fucking work. The 90% number was read into the Congressional Record back when Clinton was Prez, the 1932 figures are from a American Communist Party newspaper from the era and go to wiki to see who controlled Congress (both houses) from the 40's to the 80's and look at how the middle class has suffered under that rule.

in other words nimrod, instead of kowtowing to the Party line DO SOME READING AND LEARN SOMETHING!

Going through life ignorant and opinionated ain't doing you any favors dude.

This isn't a difficult question to answer. What policies by the democrats created this problem? I never disputed the numbers you gave you tool. I want to know how dems caused it. Why is it their fault?

 

[thereisnospoon]

I'm asking a question that nobody can answer.

For your questions:

Gasoline and oil are priced on the market. No sitting President has any control. The rich are doing it.

Which EPA rules do you speak?

Who isn't getting care under ACA?

The VA is better than it was under Bush, but remains severely underfunded. Something you have to ask the Republicans about.

Raising the minimum wage would lift 16 million people out of poverty.




If that's true why were the gasoline prices cheaper during the Bush era? Obama famously said

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4]Obama: My Plan Makes Electricity Rates Skyrocket - YouTube[/ame]

How does that benefit the middle class? Energy price increases hurt the middle class. Basically, under Obama the ultra rich have been doing super well while the middle class suffers.

So. I ask you. What is the Democrat party going to do to help the middle class because right now every policy they are implementing is screwing them over big time.

Be specific.

Raising the minimum wage to 10.10 an hour would lift 16 million people out of poverty.

It would? Oh that's right. Obama said it so it must be true.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The powers that be closed my thread because I posted a question that was too hard to answer.

So here it is again;

What are Republicans offering the Middle class? Be Specific

Why do you think any political party should offer any group anything?
Why not be a responsible adult and take care of yourself.

How DARE you?
You can't say THAT!!!!!!

 

[Billy000]

4.6/39.6 is less than 12%.

That's your enormous cut? LOL!

What were the cuts in the other brackets?

What's a good word for "bigger than enormous"?

lol dude you crack me up. You clearly have no understanding of the tax rate. Stop pretending that you do.

All you have done is be a cut and paste drone. You have no mind of your own dude. That's fucking pathetic.

So me backing up everything Ive been saying with sources makes me "cut and paste drone"?

 

[Billy000]

Raising the minimum wage would lift 16 million people out of poverty.




If that's true why were the gasoline prices cheaper during the Bush era? Obama famously said

Obama: My Plan Makes Electricity Rates Skyrocket - YouTube

How does that benefit the middle class? Energy price increases hurt the middle class. Basically, under Obama the ultra rich have been doing super well while the middle class suffers.

So. I ask you. What is the Democrat party going to do to help the middle class because right now every policy they are implementing is screwing them over big time.

Be specific.

Raising the minimum wage to 10.10 an hour would lift 16 million people out of poverty.

It would? Oh that's right. Obama said it so it must be true.

That figure comes from the CBO.

 

[rdean]

Removing Obama from office would be very good for the middle class.
Assuming Biden was removed as well.

Because Republican policies have worked so well? Of course, you could provide some non-delusional examples.

Yeah, better than Obama's policies.

Hmm, yea, let's see. Republican deregulation gutted the economy. They turned it over to Obama while it was spiraling downward. Just a few months into his administration unemployment hit 10%. So it must have been Obama's fault.

And what have Republicans done to help the country out of the fix they put us in?

Senate GOP blocks jobs bill - CBS News

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Are you so lazy that you can't even Google this information? For the highest margin, it was 39.6% before. It dropped to 35%.

Next time do your own Googling. It really isnt hard.

4.6/39.6 is less than 12%.

That's your enormous cut? LOL!

What were the cuts in the other brackets?

What's a good word for "bigger than enormous"?

lol dude you crack me up. You clearly have no understanding of the tax rate. Stop pretending that you do.

You clearly have no understanding of the tax rate.

By all means, educate me.

Show me how tiny the rate reductions were for all but the rich.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Raising the minimum wage to 10.10 an hour would lift 16 million people out of poverty.

No, it wouldn't. Prices would rise up to cover the costs and they would be right back where they were. When I first entered the work force minimum wage was .80 cents an hour. Back then a house cost 9,000 bucks. Now minimum wage is whatever it happens to be, and that same house is 120,000.

It's called inflation. Take an economics class sometime. Take a look at what has happened to the value of money. Raising the minimum wage does nothing to help the middle class. Educating them to get better jobs, having better jobs, cheap energy costs so everyone can get where they need to be to work those jobs...that makes a difference.

You think slapping a bandage on a sucking chest wound is somehow going to be beneficial, but all it does is prolong the pain and suffering.

95% of the income gains have gone to the top 1% of earners since the 30s. Meanwhile, the min wage is way behind on inflation. If people have more money in their pockets they pump more money into the economy.

If we raised the wage to 10$ an hour, prices would only go up cents on the dollar. The market would easily correct itself.

Wouldn't you want to live in a country with less public assistance.

"95% of the income gains have gone to the top 1% of earners since the 30s"
You're going to play THAT card?
The compensation of those in the board room and those on the floor are mutually exclusive.
"If we raised the wage to 10$ an hour, prices would only go up cents on the dollar".....That's not able to be proved because all dissimilar businesses would be affected differently.
Most small businesses would be far more adversely affected by a dramatic increase in the min wage. As min wage is increased, hourly workers on all levels would have their wages increased.
Large companies, would feel it less, but those firms would look for ways to offset the additional labor costs. If price increases are not feasible, then control of labor costs would be the next solution. At that point jobs would have to be either outsourced to contractor companies or even eliminated.
Quite frankly, this min wage thing is nothing put an effort by the political left to shore up their voting base by playing the class envy card.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Doesn't it bother you productivity in the lower classses has risen 100% yet wages have remained flat and behind on inflation? Republicans will do jack shit about this problem.

How many unskilled foreigners do you think we can support?

You want to help unskilled Americans, seal the border and evict 15 million illegals.

Why would "Americans" or immigrants with welfare benefits work when they can get EBT and other benefits? That's only for those whose backs are still wet.

Bingo....And every November, they show up to vote for those who offer the free shit

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Because Republican policies have worked so well? Of course, you could provide some non-delusional examples.

Yeah, better than Obama's policies.

Hmm, yea, let's see. Republican deregulation gutted the economy. They turned it over to Obama while it was spiraling downward. Just a few months into his administration unemployment hit 10%. So it must have been Obama's fault.

And what have Republicans done to help the country out of the fix they put us in?

Senate GOP blocks jobs bill - CBS News

Republican deregulation gutted the economy.

Which regulations did the Republicans remove?

 

[Oldstyle]

Because Republican policies have worked so well? Of course, you could provide some non-delusional examples.

Yeah, better than Obama's policies.

Hmm, yea, let's see. Republican deregulation gutted the economy. They turned it over to Obama while it was spiraling downward. Just a few months into his administration unemployment hit 10%. So it must have been Obama's fault.

And what have Republicans done to help the country out of the fix they put us in?

Senate GOP blocks jobs bill - CBS News

Economically, Could Obama Be America's Worst President?
Comment Now
Follow Comments
US President Barack Obama speaks about the dea...

(Image credit: AFP/Getty Images via @daylife)

"The recession ended four years ago, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research. So Obamanomics has had plenty of time to produce a solid recovery. In fact, since the American historical record is the worse the recession, the stronger the recovery, Obama should have had an easy time producing a booming recovery by now.

Obama likes to tout that we are doing better now than at the worst of the recession. But every recovery is better than the recession, by definition. So that doesn’t mean much.

The right measure and comparison for Obama’s record is not to compare the recovery to the recession, but to compare Obama’s recovery with other recoveries from other recessions since the Great Depression. By that measure, what is clear is that Obamanomics has produced the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression, worse than what every other President who has faced a recession has achieved since the Great Depression.

In the 10 previous recessions since the Great Depression, prior to this last recession, the economy recovered all jobs lost during the recession after an average of 25 months after the prior jobs peak (when the recession began), according to the records kept by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. So the job effects of prior post Depression recessions have lasted an average of about 2 years. But under President Obama, by April, 2013, 64 months after the prior jobs peak, almost 5½ years, we still have not recovered all of the recession’s job losses. In April, 2013, there were an estimated 135.474 million American workers employed, still down about 2.6 million jobs from the prior peak of 138.056 million in January, 2008.

Ronald Reagan suffered a severe recession starting in 1981, which resulted from the monetary policy that broke the back of the roaring 1970s inflation. But all the job losses of that recession were recovered after 28 months, with the recovery fueled by traditional pro-growth policies. By this point in the Reagan recovery, 64 months after the recession started, jobs had grown 9.5% higher than where they were when the recession started, representing an increase of about 10 million more jobs. By contrast, in April, 2013, jobs in the Obama recovery were still about 2% below where they were when the recession started, about 2 ½ million less, or a shortfall of about 10 million jobs if you count population growth since the recession started, as discussed below.

Obama’s so-called recovery included the longest period since the Great Depression with unemployment above 8%, 43 months, from February, 2009, when Obama’s so-called stimulus costing nearly $1 trillion was passed, until August, 2012. It also included the longest period since the Great Depression with unemployment at 9.0% or above, 30 months, from April, 2009, until September, 2011. In fact, during the entire 65 years from January, 1948 to January, 2013, there were no months with unemployment over 8%, except for 26 months during the bitter 1981 – 1982 recession, which slayed the historic inflation of the 1970s. That is how inconsistent with the prior history of the American economy President Obama’s extended unemployment has been. That is some fundamental transformation of America.

Moreover, that U3 unemployment rate does not count the millions who have dropped out of the labor force during the recession and President Obama’s worst recovery since the Great Depression, who are not counted as unemployed because they are not considered in the work force. Even though the employment age population has increased by 12 million since the recession began, only 1 million more Americans are counted as in the labor force. With normal labor force participation rates, that implies another 7.3 million missing U.S. jobs, on top of the 2 ½ million missing jobs we are still short from when the recession began, for a total of about 10 million missing jobs.

If America enjoyed the same labor force participation rate as in 2008, the unemployment rate in December, 2012 would have been about 11%, compared to the monthly low of 4.4% in December, 2007, under President George Bush and his “failed” economic policies of the past. We will not see 4.4% unemployment again, without another fundamental transformation of America’s economic policies.

The number of unemployed in January, 2013, at the end of President Obama’s first term, was 7.7 million. Another 7.9 million were “employed part time for economic reasons.” The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reports, “These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job.”

Another 2.3 million were “marginally attached to the work force.” The BLS reports, “These individuals…wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. [But] [t]hey were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey.”

That puts the total army of the unemployed or underemployed at nearly 18 million Americans in January, 2013. They are all counted in the BLS calculation of the U6 unemployment rate, which still totaled 13.9% that month.

But the Shadow Government Statistics website also includes in its “SGS Alternative Unemployment Rate” long term discouraged workers, those who wanted and were available for work for more than a year, and had looked for a job, but not in the prior 4 weeks. That is how the BLS U6 unemployment rate was calculated prior to the changes made in the early 1990s under the Clinton Administration. Including these workers as well raises the SGS unemployment rate for April, 2013 to 23%. That seems more consistent with how the economy still feels for the majority of Americans, despite Democrat Party controlled media cheerleading.

This utterly failed jobs record of Obamanomics reflects the more basic reality that the economy has not been growing under President Obama. In the 10 post depression recessions before President Obama, the economy recovered the lost GDP during the recession within an average of 4.5 quarters after the recession started. But it took Obama’s recovery 16 quarters, or 4 years, to reach that point. Today, 21 quarters, or 5 plus years, after the recession started, the economy (real GDP) has grown just 3.2% above where it was when the recession started. By sharp contrast, at this point in the Reagan recovery, the economy had boomed by 18.6%, almost one fifth.

Obama’s economic performance has even been much worse than Bush’s. Jeffrey H. Anderson, a senior fellow at the Pacific Research Institute, writes in Investors Business Daily on January 13, “Prior to Obama, the second term of President Bush featured the weakest gains in the gross domestic product in some time, with average annual (inflation-adjusted) GDP growth of just 1.9%, [according to the official stats at the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)]” But average annual real GDP growth during Obama’s entire first term was less than half as much at a pitiful 0.8%, according to the same official source.

Even Jimmy Carter produced 4 times as much economic growth during his one term as Obama did during his entire first term. In fact, as Anderson notes, real GDP growth under Obama has been the worst of any President in the last 60 years!

But it’s even worse than that. Obama’s real GDP growth has actually been less than half as much as the worst of any President in the last 60 years. In other words, even if you doubled actual GDP growth under President Obama, it would still be the worst record of any President in the last 60 years!

Anderson adds, “In fact, the real GDP in 2009 was lower than it had been three years earlier (in 2006).” That has happened only twice before in the last 100 years at least, maybe in American history. One was in 1933 and 1934, at the height of the Great Depression. The other was in 1946 – 1948, when the World War II economy was powering down.

And what happened in the years after those two experiences? From 1935 – 1937, real GDP growth reached a peak of 13.1% in one year (1936). From 1949 – 1951, real GDP growth reached a peak of 8.7% (in 1950). That reflects once again the basic principle for the American economy that the worse the recession, the stronger the recovery. That is what Obama should have produced for America. But under Obama, real GDP growth in the following years, 2010 – 2012, peaked at only 2.4% (in 2010). “[A]nd never again hit even that meager mark in the two years following ObamaCare’s passage,” Anderson adds. Yes, Obama and his sycophants really are transforming America, into a banana republic.

Even if the economy finally breaks out into some real growth during this year, that is only because of the long overdue real recovery that is still straining to break out inside this economy, as indicated by the data above for 1936, in the depths of the depression, and the postwar boom that started in 1950. That and the startling Reagan recovery from the 1970s are the standard for Obamanomics. Don’t be fooled by some way overdue short term growth spurt this year that just reflects the basic cycles of the economy. Unless the fundamentals of Obamanomics are changed, the result will be long term stagnation compared to the historic, world leading, booming economic growth of the American Dream.

In his 2013 State of the Union Address, President Obama said, “A growing economy that creates good, middle class jobs, that must be the North Star that guides our efforts.” But the slow growth, and negligible job creation under Obama, in turn have caused steeply declining middle class incomes. The latest numbers compiled from the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey show that real median household income declined by more than $4,500 during Obama’s first term, about 8%, meaning effectively that the middle class has lost annually the equivalent of one month’s pay under Obama. Even President Bush again did better during his disastrous second term, when real median household income at least rose by 1.7%, not enough, but still positive rather than negative.

Even if you start from when the recession ended in June, 2009, the decline in median real household income since then has been greater than it was during the recession. Four years into the supposed Obama recovery, real median household income has declined nearly 6% as compared to June, 2009. That is more than twice the decline of 2.6% that occurred during the recession from December, 2007 until June, 2009. As the Wall Street Journal summarized in its August 25-26, 2012 weekend edition, “For household income, in other words, the Obama recovery has been worse than the Bush recession.”

Despite his rhetoric, Obama has failed to deliver for the poor as well. But we know Obama loves the poor, because he has created so many of them. Indeed, the only thing booming under Obamanomics has been poverty. Poverty has soared under Obama, with the number of Americans in poverty increasing to the highest level in the more than 50 years that the Census Bureau has been tracking poverty. Over the last 5 years, the number in poverty has increased by nearly 31%, to 49.7 million, with the poverty rate climbing by over 30% to 16.1%. This is another natural result of negligible economic growth, paltry job creation, declining real wages, and the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression.

These dismal results of Obamanomics have been produced because all of Obama’s economic policies are thoroughly anti-growth, indeed, the opposite of what is needed for long term booming growth. Instead of cutting tax rates, which provides incentives for increased production, Obama has been focused on raising rates. Instead of deregulation, which increases the cost of doing business, and results in barriers to productive activity (see, e.g., Keystone Pipeline), Obama has been all about increasing regulation. Instead of cutting spending, Obama entered office exploding spending during his first two years, and was only restrained when the people elected Republicans to control the House.

And instead of adopting monetary policies that would produce a stable dollar, Obama’s monetary polices have mimicked the devaluationist ones previously embraced by George W. Bush on the way to sagging investment, and with the latter, slow growth. President Obama derided Mitt Romney during the 2012 campaign as proposing to bring back the same economic policies that led to the financial crisis in the first place. But it is Obama who is bringing back precisely those policies, overregulating banks to make loans on the basis of supposed fairness. Moreover, Obama’s Fed has thrown oil on the bonfire with its zero interest rate, and runaway quantitative easing policies. With those policies having been in place for years now, they are the foundation of the current economy, which is just another bubble that will pop when the Fed tries to implement any exit strategy."

Economically, Could Obama Be America's Worst President? - Forbes

 

[Billy000]

No, it wouldn't. Prices would rise up to cover the costs and they would be right back where they were. When I first entered the work force minimum wage was .80 cents an hour. Back then a house cost 9,000 bucks. Now minimum wage is whatever it happens to be, and that same house is 120,000.

It's called inflation. Take an economics class sometime. Take a look at what has happened to the value of money. Raising the minimum wage does nothing to help the middle class. Educating them to get better jobs, having better jobs, cheap energy costs so everyone can get where they need to be to work those jobs...that makes a difference.

You think slapping a bandage on a sucking chest wound is somehow going to be beneficial, but all it does is prolong the pain and suffering.

95% of the income gains have gone to the top 1% of earners since the 30s. Meanwhile, the min wage is way behind on inflation. If people have more money in their pockets they pump more money into the economy.

If we raised the wage to 10$ an hour, prices would only go up cents on the dollar. The market would easily correct itself.

Wouldn't you want to live in a country with less public assistance.

"95% of the income gains have gone to the top 1% of earners since the 30s"
You're going to play THAT card?
The compensation of those in the board room and those on the floor are mutually exclusive.
"If we raised the wage to 10$ an hour, prices would only go up cents on the dollar".....That's not able to be proved because all dissimilar businesses would be affected differently.
Most small businesses would be far more adversely affected by a dramatic increase in the min wage. As min wage is increased, hourly workers on all levels would have their wages increased.
Large companies, would feel it less, but those firms would look for ways to offset the additional labor costs. If price increases are not feasible, then control of labor costs would be the next solution. At that point jobs would have to be either outsourced to contractor companies or even eliminated.
Quite frankly, this min wage thing is nothing put an effort by the political left to shore up their voting base by playing the class envy card.

According to the CBO we MAY lose about 500,000 jobs in total to the economy. That's manageable considering the benefits far out weigh it.

 

[Oldstyle]

95% of the income gains have gone to the top 1% of earners since the 30s. Meanwhile, the min wage is way behind on inflation. If people have more money in their pockets they pump more money into the economy.

If we raised the wage to 10$ an hour, prices would only go up cents on the dollar. The market would easily correct itself.

Wouldn't you want to live in a country with less public assistance.

"95% of the income gains have gone to the top 1% of earners since the 30s"
You're going to play THAT card?
The compensation of those in the board room and those on the floor are mutually exclusive.
"If we raised the wage to 10$ an hour, prices would only go up cents on the dollar".....That's not able to be proved because all dissimilar businesses would be affected differently.
Most small businesses would be far more adversely affected by a dramatic increase in the min wage. As min wage is increased, hourly workers on all levels would have their wages increased.
Large companies, would feel it less, but those firms would look for ways to offset the additional labor costs. If price increases are not feasible, then control of labor costs would be the next solution. At that point jobs would have to be either outsourced to contractor companies or even eliminated.
Quite frankly, this min wage thing is nothing put an effort by the political left to shore up their voting base by playing the class envy card.

According to the CBO we MAY lose about 500,000 jobs in total to the economy. That's manageable considering the benefits far out weigh it.

I'm sure that view will console the 500,000 who lose those jobs, Billy! Manageable? Really?

Here's a novel concept...how about having an economic policy that creates jobs instead of one that takes them away?

 

[Dad2three]

"95% of the income gains have gone to the top 1% of earners since the 30s"
You're going to play THAT card?
The compensation of those in the board room and those on the floor are mutually exclusive.
"If we raised the wage to 10$ an hour, prices would only go up cents on the dollar".....That's not able to be proved because all dissimilar businesses would be affected differently.
Most small businesses would be far more adversely affected by a dramatic increase in the min wage. As min wage is increased, hourly workers on all levels would have their wages increased.
Large companies, would feel it less, but those firms would look for ways to offset the additional labor costs. If price increases are not feasible, then control of labor costs would be the next solution. At that point jobs would have to be either outsourced to contractor companies or even eliminated.
Quite frankly, this min wage thing is nothing put an effort by the political left to shore up their voting base by playing the class envy card.

According to the CBO we MAY lose about 500,000 jobs in total to the economy. That's manageable considering the benefits far out weigh it.

I'm sure that view will console the 500,000 who lose those jobs, Billy! Manageable? Really?

Here's a novel concept...how about having an economic policy that creates jobs instead of one that takes them away?

“CBO’s estimates of the impact of raising the minimum wage on employment does not reflect the current consensus view of economists,” Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Jason Furman wrote in a blog post. “The bulk of academic studies, have concluded that the effects on employment of minimum wage increases in the range now under consideration are likely to be small to nonexistent.”



The report found this hike would result in total employment being lower by 500,000 fewer jobs by 2016.

It found 900,000 fewer people would be living in poverty by 2016 and that families below the poverty line would receive $5 billion more in income.



AFL-CIO union President Richard Trumka dismissed the CBO finding as “noise.”

“Every time momentum builds for lifting wages, conservative ideologues say it will cost jobs,” he said. “Let’s raise the wage and we’ll prove the CBO wrong again.”


CBO: Wage hike to cost 500K jobs | TheHill


The Job Loss Myth

The Most Rigorous Research Shows Minimum Wage Increases Do Not Reduce Employment


Indicative is a 2013 survey by the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business in which leading economists agreed by a nearly 4 to 1 margin that the benefits of raising and indexing the minimum wage outweigh the costs.


The Job Loss Myth | Raise The Minimum Wage

 

[Kosh]

So in other words the far left has nothing to offer to the middle class.

Except to pay higher taxes.
Pay more for energy.
Pay more for food.
etc.

Yep there are some reason to vote far left if you are in the middle class.

 

[Oldstyle]

I'm amused by the notion that increasing wages isn't going to increase the cost of goods and services. Get ready, Middle Class...your disposable income is about to get decimated once again. Add in the higher cost for electricity due to Obama's looming EPA regulations and higher prices for gasoline because the Middle East is going up in flames...and you're pretty much hosed if you're a member of the American Middle Class!