Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You assume a lot of movement within income segments. It is in fact not that great. But, forget the 2%. What percent of the income growth over the past years do you think the upper 1% received. Take a look at the study below, taken from government numbers, and you will see that the upper 1% got 93%, while the remaining 99% shared the remaining 7%.S&P 500 hit 1500 today.
The wealthiest 2% of Americans have had no problem increasing wealth in the last four years, corporations are showing increased profits
For some reason, it is not trickling down with higher wages
That's not true. PLENTY of the wealthiest 2% aren't even wealthy anymore due to the last four years. The studies cited that show otherwise make the assumption that income and wealth brackets are static and they are not. SOME corporations are showing increased profits. MOST are not.
Top 1% Got 93% of Income Growth as Rich-Poor Gap Widened - Bloomberg
And your statement that only some corporations are making record profits??? That is a rather meaningless statement. It is always the case that we look at the aggregate corporate health, not individual cases. The point is that overall, corporations are doing extremely well. Look at the DOW. It pretty much tells the story. The economy, in terms of GNP and corporate profits, is extremely good. Our problem, still unemployment. Better, but not good enough. And, if you care to look at history, you will find no time in the us when during high unemployment, cutting taxes has ever helped. Though that is a more complex subject, which I would love to engage in should anyone care to do so.
I am sure you think I missed the actual number because you are a dumb ass.We are $6T in debt more now than we were 4 years ago. We continue to add that to that total. I am sure you missed that because you are a dumbass.
Your numbers are actual numbers. If you look at the national debt based on real inflation adjusted numbers, then the number has increased from $14.4T to $15.8T. And about 85% of the $14.4T was from Republican administrations.
Link?
I never said that there were people that didn't deserve enough to make ends meet. I asked what about the opportunities for those who don't need that much money? Low level starter jobs by teenagers, college students, people working part time second jobs, people looking to change careers, retirees looking for extra money without much responsibility, etc.
Should those jobs that provide low marginal value to companies just disappear?
I doubt you'll get a 'living wage' advocate to answer this question. If they did, the only honest answer would be the same as it is for any of these kinds of regulations: outliers will simply have to suck it up and take one for the team. They aren't fond of facing the authoritarian conformity at the core of all this.
Maybe if we posed the problem a little differently, a light would come on:
Let's say we have two jobs. Without any minimum wage requirements, job "A" pays $6/hr. Job "B" pays $12/hr. For illustration purposes, let's suppose job "A" is the equivalent of a "Wal-mart greeter" job. Job "B" is a ditch digger for a road crew. Clearly, the market value of the ditch digger - while still pretty low - is twice that of the greeter. We could do without the greeter, but the ditches have more pressing utility.
Now, let's say a living wage law is passed and now everyone with a job must get paid at least $12/hr. How would that shake out?
The first prediction is that the greeting job would go away. Many employers would unable or unwilling to double the wage of someone who is simply greeting customers as they walk in the door. So, implication #1 - unemployment increases.
But let's imagine there's a workaround for that. Maybe we pass another law requiring all retailers to have greeters, thus upping the demand for greeting professionals. In any case, how will this impact ditch-digging? Wouldn't most reasonable people choose greeting over ditch-digging, given that the pay is now the same and ditch-digging is obviously harder work?
The thing is, society still needs ditches dug. So, in order to get enough ditch-diggers to apply for the necessary jobs, employers will have to offer them higher wages. I assume even the pie-eyed reformers can follow how this would ripple out through all other wages and prices. We'll find a way to pay more for the jobs we value more. Ultimately, this ripple effects is passed on to consumers in the form of higher-prices: implication #2 - inflation increases - thus lower the buying power of every dollar earned.
The only way any of this "works", of course, is to replace the market with broad wage and price controls. That's implication #3, and creates a radically different government and society.
Sorry about that. thought I provided it.I am sure you think I missed the actual number because you are a dumb ass.We are $6T in debt more now than we were 4 years ago. We continue to add that to that total. I am sure you missed that because you are a dumbass.
Your numbers are actual numbers. If you look at the national debt based on real inflation adjusted numbers, then the number has increased from $14.4T to $15.8T. And about 85% of the $14.4T was from Republican administrations.
Link?
Perhaps you have a link that suggest what you say is true. You know, an actual link to an actual impartial, nonpartisan site. Your opinion is worthless, and always lines up perfectly with the bat shit crazy con sites, and fox.I never said that there were people that didn't deserve enough to make ends meet. I asked what about the opportunities for those who don't need that much money? Low level starter jobs by teenagers, college students, people working part time second jobs, people looking to change careers, retirees looking for extra money without much responsibility, etc.
Should those jobs that provide low marginal value to companies just disappear?
I doubt you'll get a 'living wage' advocate to answer this question. If they did, the only honest answer would be the same as it is for any of these kinds of regulations: outliers will simply have to suck it up and take one for the team. They aren't fond of facing the authoritarian conformity at the core of all this.
You're not going to get an "honest" answer because the reality of what happens when you raise minimum wage is the complete opposite of what progressives naively hope will happen...a hope vested in some vague concept of "fairness".
Maybe if we posed the problem a little differently, a light would come on:
Let's say we have two jobs. Without any minimum wage requirements, job "A" pays $6/hr. Job "B" pays $12/hr. For illustration purposes, let's suppose job "A" is the equivalent of a "Wal-mart greeter" job. Job "B" is a ditch digger for a road crew. Clearly, the market value of the ditch digger - while still pretty low - is twice that of the greeter. We could do without the greeter, but the ditches have more pressing utility.
Now, let's say a living wage law is passed and now everyone with a job must get paid at least $12/hr. How would that shake out?
The first prediction is that the greeting job would go away. Many employers would unable or unwilling to double the wage of someone who is simply greeting customers as they walk in the door. So, implication #1 - unemployment increases.
But let's imagine there's a workaround for that. Maybe we pass another law requiring all retailers to have greeters, thus upping the demand for greeting professionals. In any case, how will this impact ditch-digging? Wouldn't most reasonable people choose greeting over ditch-digging, given that the pay is now the same and ditch-digging is obviously harder work?
The thing is, society still needs ditches dug. So, in order to get enough ditch-diggers to apply for the necessary jobs, employers will have to offer them higher wages. I assume even the pie-eyed reformers can follow how this would ripple out through all other wages and prices. We'll find a way to pay more for the jobs we value more. Ultimately, this ripple effects is passed on to consumers in the form of higher-prices: implication #2 - inflation increases - thus lower the buying power of every dollar earned.
The only way any of this "works", of course, is to replace the market with broad wage and price controls. That's implication #3, and creates a radically different government and society.
A very nice job of explaining EXACTLY what happens when economic reality collides with vague concepts of "fairness". Thank you, Dblack!
Maybe if we posed the problem a little differently, a light would come on:
Let's say we have two jobs. Without any minimum wage requirements, job "A" pays $6/hr. Job "B" pays $12/hr. For illustration purposes, let's suppose job "A" is the equivalent of a "Wal-mart greeter" job. Job "B" is a ditch digger for a road crew. Clearly, the market value of the ditch digger - while still pretty low - is twice that of the greeter. We could do without the greeter, but the ditches have more pressing utility.
Now, let's say a living wage law is passed and now everyone with a job must get paid at least $12/hr. How would that shake out?
The first prediction is that the greeting job would go away. Many employers would unable or unwilling to double the wage of someone who is simply greeting customers as they walk in the door. So, implication #1 - unemployment increases.
But let's imagine there's a workaround for that. Maybe we pass another law requiring all retailers to have greeters, thus upping the demand for greeting professionals. In any case, how will this impact ditch-digging? Wouldn't most reasonable people choose greeting over ditch-digging, given that the pay is now the same and ditch-digging is obviously harder work?
The thing is, society still needs ditches dug. So, in order to get enough ditch-diggers to apply for the necessary jobs, employers will have to offer them higher wages. I assume even the pie-eyed reformers can follow how this would ripple out through all other wages and prices. We'll find a way to pay more for the jobs we value more. Ultimately, this ripple effects is passed on to consumers in the form of higher-prices: implication #2 - inflation increases - thus lower the buying power of every dollar earned.
The only way any of this "works", of course, is to replace the market with broad wage and price controls. That's implication #3, and creates a radically different government and society.
A very nice job of explaining EXACTLY what happens when economic reality collides with vague concepts of "fairness". Thank you, Dblack!
Something tells me you two have only read about digging ditches in very old books, and have never actually seen a hole being dug, let alone a backhoe. Its done by skilled labor now, which certainly isnt going
Walmart greeters dont factor into employment competition, its the bottom of the barrel, no accountants are going to ditch their job paying x6 as much in order to be a walmart greeter, but the people that do take that job, if theyre not working there, they're probably not working at all. Bringing the minimum wage up will not hurt at all.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/16/opinion/wal-mart-offers-jobs-to-veterans.html?_r=1&
edit and again, germany isnt practicing austerity on itself, its forcing it on its neighbors.
You seem to be having some difficulty gleaning the salient points from my hypothetical example. That's OK. Different people learn in different ways. Anyway, it wasn't my intention to distract you by referencing the Wal-Mart greeter job in the example. Please feel free to substitute any job (for any employer), with a wage currently below the proposed minimum, if that helps you focus.
No, the junior cashier would be released and not replaced because no company would pay almost double for labor than what the market will bear. Customers would have to wait in longer lines and unemployment rates would soar. The company does not have to worry much, because you can bet your sweet ass that competitors would be doing exactly the same. Giving the senior cashier a $3 raise would be a very high price to pay for everyone else.You seem to be having some difficulty gleaning the salient points from my hypothetical example. That's OK. Different people learn in different ways. Anyway, it wasn't my intention to distract you by referencing the Wal-Mart greeter job in the example. Please feel free to substitute any job (for any employer), with a wage currently below the proposed minimum, if that helps you focus.
Im not having trouble. An accountant is making $30 an hour, the IT guy is making $35, the minimum wage goes up to $15, they make some small talk at the lunchtable. The end. Oh but thats not fair, I completely dodged the subject. One cashier is making $8 an hour, another with seniority is making $12 an hour, minimum wage goes up to $15, now theyre earning the same, the one with seniority might try to make a fuss about it, but if they had the power to go to $17 an hour, they would have had it before the minimum wage went up to begin with. You can pretend that the poor impoverished business leaders deserve whatever money they allocate themselves, even at the expense of their company's viability. Well they do, but they bear the responsibility of running their company into the ground if they throw a temper tantrum and fire a bunch of people they needed instead of just taking a paycut.
I can only imagine you're being deliberately obtuse. The retailers would remain largely unscathed because all their competitors would do exactly the same and people would still shop and seek the best value for their money as service standards uniformly fall and unemployment rise, perhaps making Obama's job record look good by contrast.Yes, the shit companies do that lose business to the company that doesnt think it can get by having one of its 15 registers open. In the meantime WE THE PEOPLE are stuck picking up the tab for these companies that dont pay a living wage.
Yes, the shit companies do that lose business to the company that doesnt think it can get by having one of its 15 registers open. In the meantime WE THE PEOPLE are stuck picking up the tab for these companies that dont pay a living wage.
And, if you can do so, please try to find a link that shows unemployment being increased as a result of minimum wage increases. You absolutely ignore the fact that those who's wage goes up SPEND that extra salary, immediatly. And the result of that spending is increased demand. Perhaps even some increases in prices. So, you have to determine if you are willing to pay a couple bucks more per month to see less unemployment and fewer people living in poverty;Yes, the shit companies do that lose business to the company that doesnt think it can get by having one of its 15 registers open. In the meantime WE THE PEOPLE are stuck picking up the tab for these companies that dont pay a living wage.
Wow, you really must still be angry over getting let go from that bagger job.
All companies will do the same thing, since they face the same issue--overpriced labor. They will fire employees, they will automate. What they won't do is pay everyone the new wage.
Are you really that ignorant that you cannot see that? Do you think it is just a corporate plot and the right thing is for the execs just to suck it up and sacrifice some of their salary?
And, if you can do so, please try to find a link that shows unemployment being increased as a result of minimum wage increases. You absolutely ignore the fact that those who's wage goes up SPEND that extra salary, immediatly. And the result of that spending is increased demand. Perhaps even some increases in prices. So, you have to determine if you are willing to pay a couple bucks more per month to see less unemployment and fewer people living in poverty;Yes, the shit companies do that lose business to the company that doesnt think it can get by having one of its 15 registers open. In the meantime WE THE PEOPLE are stuck picking up the tab for these companies that dont pay a living wage.
Wow, you really must still be angry over getting let go from that bagger job.
All companies will do the same thing, since they face the same issue--overpriced labor. They will fire employees, they will automate. What they won't do is pay everyone the new wage.
Are you really that ignorant that you cannot see that? Do you think it is just a corporate plot and the right thing is for the execs just to suck it up and sacrifice some of their salary?
There is no real question that raising minimum wages has always increased the employment rate over a fairly short period. There is a question, of course, as to how far you can increase it before things go the wrong way. But a few bucks is probably not the problem.
And, before you have us all in tears over those poor corporate execs, consider the following:
Top 1% Got 93% of Income Growth as Rich-Poor Gap Widened - Bloomberg
There is no real question that raising minimum wages has always increased the employment rate over a fairly short period. -
Right, keep telling yourselves that you're going to shop at the place where its like a soviet gulag, all standing in line for 4 hours to buy a pair of shoes;
