Small Businesses in NYC Struggling with $15 Minimum Wage

[irosie91]

Lets try a liberal myth. OK? if $15/hour is good, why isn't $100/hour better? or $500? Lets make every working person in America a millionaire by making the minimum wage $500/hour. Why wouldn't that work?

Stupid question, to which you already know the answer. Companies were capable of paying a minimum wage equivalent to $25 per hour in terms of today's buying power, in the 1950's, when teenagers truly did make up the majority of the minimum wage work force. As America became richer and richer, less and less of that wealth went to the American workers and more and more to the investor classes.

Successive Republican governments have offloaded the costs of social programs welfare onto the middle class, while the investor classes continue to increase their share of nations' wealth and income. Amazon, which currently pays no taxes whatsoever, is now the most profitable company in America, and New York City was prepared to make the working people of New York pay for the infrastructure and increased transportation costs for their new headquarters. Corporations need to pay their own way - both in infrastructure, and wages.

$1.25 in the 1950s was equivalent to $ 25 today ??? in what universe.

Sounds about right

Workers in the 1950s earned $30-$40 a week. They supported families on that wage with one salary.

$1.25 bought you a lot

not as much as $25 today. NOPE no one could support a FAMILY back then on $40 per week except in real poverty----like no car----probably no phone, ---
maybe a three room apartment ---low end. $25 per hour-----at 40 hours is
$1000 per week for a teenager slinging burgers. why bother to stay in school? anyone got a job for me?

The problem is that very few teenage boys are slinging burgers. It's mostly young single moms with children to support. The average age of minimum wage workers is 27. $1000 per week translates to $750 per week take home, less $200 per week for child care, taking it down to $550 per week, net, after expenses, and our worker still doesn't have healthcare insurance for him/herself or any children they may be supporting. I don't know what rents are like where you live, but where I live, you can't find any apartment much under $800 per month, plus utilities, Much one big enough for a parent and child. Anything family size is over $1000 plus utilities, unless you can get into goverment owned, geared to income housing. The waiting list is currently two years here.

So really, by the time a single mother pays for withholding and taxes, child care, and rent, exactly how much of that glorious $1000 per week, is he or she going to have left, to cover food, clothing, school supplies, transportation, health care, and we're not talking luxury living here Rosie.

Every dollar this worker gets from government income supports costs taxpayers at least $1.25 to collect, process and pay out. Each dollar this employer gives their workers costs the employer $0.78, and the taxpayers $0.22, So, it's a whole lot cheaper for taxpayers to pay a slightly higher price for their goods and services, and lower taxes overall, with the added benefit that it cuts the size of government overall. Since, as you pointed out, the rich pay most of the taxes, they'll get most of the tax savings, thereby further reducing their net cost on the raises. Increasing the money going into the pockets of working Americans will enable them to spend and save, as they were able to do before Reagan changed the tax code, while providing stimulus to the economy by putting more money in the pockets of hard working Americans.

It's time for the rising tide of American prosperity to lift the dinghys as well as the yachts, because these people cannot bail fast enough right now.

you have no idea what is REALLY going on. I do-----I was once a single mom supporting a kid on virtually nothing. When I was a child----my mom faced that situation for a few years-----but not with one kid-----FIVE. The single working mother is an issue of SOCIAL dissolution-------I have known people from southeast asia who cannot UNDERSTAND how it happens in American families that a woman is so abandoned by her own family. It is a social issue based on our culture of
INDIVIDUALISM. One of the ladies who was so horrified by this American
phenomenon was a psychiatrist educated as a physician in India and in the US training as a psychiatrist. Her question "how does her mother and sibs IMAGINE she is going to recover if she has to go out----get a job ----and find a place to live and care for her child with NO HELP? No society can care for the
DETRITUS of the social system with BIG SALARIES for -----for viturally no economically viable contribution

 

[rightwinger]

Did you actually read the article you linked to?

One restaurant owner said:

You have to make sure nobody works more than 40 hours, so you don't have to pay overtime. Maybe she should hire a couple more people to ensure she doesn't get stuck with overtime.

And then there's this business owner:

McNally's complaint is that SHE'S not getting paid enough so she's opening two more stores to increase HER income. That should create close to 40 more jobs, so the OWNER can increase her income.

It's just awesome that people have to hire more people and let their existing workers have some sort of personal life after working 40 hours per week.

If you schedule employees for 32 hours a week, that would take care of the overtime. Pretty simple solutions for the employer.

You could schedule for 38 hours per week to ensure you don't go over. Then hire 2 more people to work 38 hour weeks to make up the shortfall, thus creating 2 new jobs, without increasing your costs.

Note that the bookstore owner is opting to open two more stores to increase HER income, because the wage increase is coming out of HER income directly. She's going to rent two locations, hire someone to make renovations and improvements, buy fixtures and equipment, and hire somewhere close to 20 more full time workers per store!!! Instead of sitting back on her huge profits, she's being forced to invest that money in the economy and create jobs to maintain her cushy lifetstyle.

How is this not a win for working Americans?

My experience is 35 hours at the most for a 40 hour work week and your costs.

Where does it state she is making huge profits? Where does it say she has a cushy lifestyle? Just because you own a business doesn't mean you are rich or living a cushy lifestyle. The idea that you believe that business owners are rich and lead a cushy lifestyle is pretty laughable.

Small business owners are a diverse set of people. Some are successful, many fail within their first year and some became wealthy. You get what you pay for, in terms of labor, location, and dozens of other decisions made, which determine success or failure.

Amazon and Wal-Mart have been very successful, and in their rise they have put mom and pop small business out of business, closing Main St. America in many small towns.

One of the deputies I supervised opened a restaurant and I watched and listened to him in his efforts just to sell the first taco. His family owned a very successful Mexican Rest. where worked during high school and college, so he knew what he was doing. He and his wife were very successful, but he was putting in 40 hours + in his day job, and many more in his new business.

After five years he was bought out by a chain, and within weeks his always crowded lunch crowd became less crowded, since prices went up, and quality went down. Today no one needed to wait in line during the noon hour.

Thank you for that story, it seems to be a common theme. I frequent the mom and pops, the better food the slightly higher prices and better customer service. I'm all for the small business, really hate the big chains.

Don’t remember the last time my wife and I ate at a chain restaurant

 

[rightwinger]

$1.25 in the 1950s was equivalent to $ 25 today ??? in what universe.

Sounds about right. Workers in the 1950s earned $30-$40 a week. They supported families on that wage with one salary. $1.25 bought you a lot

Typical BS pulled directly from your always ignorant ass. Many worked overtime or 2 jobs and most Americans lived far simpler lives.

Average family income in 1950 was $3,300 a year
Income of Families and Persons in the United States: 1950

That is $65/wk which conflicts BIGLY with your previous post claiming $30 - $40/wk.

The prob with mindless leftards like you is that you can never understand how 2+2=4.

Median salary today....$22.50 an hour

Median salary in 1950 was $3,300 a year or $1.57 an hour


$25 an hour today is equivalent of roughly $1.75 an hour in 1950

 

[irosie91]

Lets try a liberal myth. OK? if $15/hour is good, why isn't $100/hour better? or $500? Lets make every working person in America a millionaire by making the minimum wage $500/hour. Why wouldn't that work?

Stupid question, to which you already know the answer. Companies were capable of paying a minimum wage equivalent to $25 per hour in terms of today's buying power, in the 1950's, when teenagers truly did make up the majority of the minimum wage work force. As America became richer and richer, less and less of that wealth went to the American workers and more and more to the investor classes.

Successive Republican governments have offloaded the costs of social programs welfare onto the middle class, while the investor classes continue to increase their share of nations' wealth and income. Amazon, which currently pays no taxes whatsoever, is now the most profitable company in America, and New York City was prepared to make the working people of New York pay for the infrastructure and increased transportation costs for their new headquarters. Corporations need to pay their own way - both in infrastructure, and wages.

$1.25 in the 1950s was equivalent to $ 25 today ??? in what universe.

Sounds about right

Workers in the 1950s earned $30-$40 a week. They supported families on that wage with one salary.

$1.25 bought you a lot

not as much as $25 today. NOPE no one could support a FAMILY back then on $40 per week except in real poverty----like no car----probably no phone, ---
maybe a three room apartment ---low end. $25 per hour-----at 40 hours is
$1000 per week for a teenager slinging burgers. why bother to stay in school? anyone got a job for me?

The problem is that very few teenage boys are slinging burgers. It's mostly young single moms with children to support. The average age of minimum wage workers is 27. $1000 per week translates to $750 per week take home, less $200 per week for child care, taking it down to $550 per week, net, after expenses, and our worker still doesn't have healthcare insurance for him/herself or any children they may be supporting. I don't know what rents are like where you live, but where I live, you can't find any apartment much under $800 per month, plus utilities, Much one big enough for a parent and child. Anything family size is over $1000 plus utilities, unless you can get into goverment owned, geared to income housing. The waiting list is currently two years here.

So really, by the time a single mother pays for withholding and taxes, child care, and rent, exactly how much of that glorious $1000 per week, is he or she going to have left, to cover food, clothing, school supplies, transportation, health care, and we're not talking luxury living here Rosie.

Every dollar this worker gets from government income supports costs taxpayers at least $1.25 to collect, process and pay out. Each dollar this employer gives their workers costs the employer $0.78, and the taxpayers $0.22, So, it's a whole lot cheaper for taxpayers to pay a slightly higher price for their goods and services, and lower taxes overall, with the added benefit that it cuts the size of government overall. Since, as you pointed out, the rich pay most of the taxes, they'll get most of the tax savings, thereby further reducing their net cost on the raises. Increasing the money going into the pockets of working Americans will enable them to spend and save, as they were able to do before Reagan changed the tax code, while providing stimulus to the economy by putting more money in the pockets of hard working Americans.

It's time for the rising tide of American prosperity to lift the dinghys as well as the yachts, because these people cannot bail fast enough right now.

all four of my brothers were SLINGING BURGERS OR FRIES as teens-----had they not----they would never have made it thru the STATE COLLEGE-----even with scholarship and 'national defense loan'-------but they could not have supported a wife and kid on that salary. The local burger and fry places could not have made it without high school and college SLINGERS.
I was a baby sitter and jealous-------they made more money-----I had a bit of a handicap------at age 16----I looked kinda like 12. I finally got a job for $1.25 at age 18------but I had to supply my birth certificate-----BIRTH CERTIFICATE------driver's license was not enough

 

[Dragonlady]

It isn't just small businesses and it has nothing to do with the Minimum Wage.

Uh, if you read the article, you'll find out that new minimum wage does have something to do with it. Have you read any of the zillion studies that document the harmful effects of an excessive minimum wage?

The article has nobody in it saying they have shut down due to the MW and small businesses in NYC have a lower MW than larger employers. There are businesses like Dunkin Doughnuts and cell phone companies that are expanding in NYC. It is a matter of what you provide. Restaurants have a short shelf-life in the Age of the Foodie so their numbers have been going down in NYC for years. Major retailers have been pulling out or downsizing to showroom only stores because sales have moved online.

All that to say you never took business or economics 101 let alone run a lemonade stand as a kid.

Seriously dude it's not rocket science .

.

Macro economics is the very essence of rocket science. You just spout some stupid right wing talking points which have been endlessly debunked, not just by economic models but by the economic history of the United States.

Minimum Wage - Wage and Hour Division (WHD) - U.S. Department of Labor

This is a list of the increases to the minimum wage from 1938, until today. Then came the ascendancy of Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of Economics which promoted the idea of absolute free market economies. Nixon was an accolate but after the poverty and violence that followed the restructuring of several South American countries under free market economies, even Nixon raised the minimum wage in nearly every year of his second term, as did Ford, and Carter.

Until Ronald Reagan was elected, Presidents on both sides of the aisle consistently raised the minimum wage. Not Reagan. While exhorting American workers to get rid of the unions as holding back their wages and benefits and stealing their union dues, Reagan didn't raise the minimum wage once during his Administration. Bush 41 raised the MM, but all MM wage increases ceased the moment the Republicans took over the House and it was not until 12 years later when Dems took back the House and Senate, that MM wage workers received another raise. Since 2010, when Republicans retook the House, there has been no increase in the minimum wage. That's 29 of the last 40 years, that everyone in America got wages except the poorest workers, the ones who are increasingly dependent on government assistance, funded by middle class taxpayers. The last 40 years has been the wealthiest period in the history of the world, and most of that wealth has gone to the top.

The workers need a raise - a big one, because in the last 40 years, the poor workers in the USA have had 9 raises.

Then add up the increases in inflation and you will see that any increase in wages has been more than wiped out by increases in the cost of living.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Lets try a liberal myth. OK? if $15/hour is good, why isn't $100/hour better? or $500? Lets make every working person in America a millionaire by making the minimum wage $500/hour. Why wouldn't that work?

Stupid question, to which you already know the answer. Companies were capable of paying a minimum wage equivalent to $25 per hour in terms of today's buying power, in the 1950's, when teenagers truly did make up the majority of the minimum wage work force. As America became richer and richer, less and less of that wealth went to the American workers and more and more to the investor classes.

Successive Republican governments have offloaded the costs of social programs welfare onto the middle class, while the investor classes continue to increase their share of nations' wealth and income. Amazon, which currently pays no taxes whatsoever, is now the most profitable company in America, and New York City was prepared to make the working people of New York pay for the infrastructure and increased transportation costs for their new headquarters. Corporations need to pay their own way - both in infrastructure, and wages.

$1.25 in the 1950s was equivalent to $ 25 today ??? in what universe.

Sounds about right

Workers in the 1950s earned $30-$40 a week. They supported families on that wage with one salary.

$1.25 bought you a lot

not as much as $25 today. NOPE no one could support a FAMILY back then on $40 per week except in real poverty----like no car----probably no phone, ---
maybe a three room apartment ---low end. $25 per hour-----at 40 hours is
$1000 per week for a teenager slinging burgers. why bother to stay in school? anyone got a job for me?

The problem is that very few teenage boys are slinging burgers. It's mostly young single moms with children to support. The average age of minimum wage workers is 27. $1000 per week translates to $750 per week take home, less $200 per week for child care, taking it down to $550 per week, net, after expenses, and our worker still doesn't have healthcare insurance for him/herself or any children they may be supporting. I don't know what rents are like where you live, but where I live, you can't find any apartment much under $800 per month, plus utilities, Much one big enough for a parent and child. Anything family size is over $1000 plus utilities, unless you can get into goverment owned, geared to income housing. The waiting list is currently two years here.

So really, by the time a single mother pays for withholding and taxes, child care, and rent, exactly how much of that glorious $1000 per week, is he or she going to have left, to cover food, clothing, school supplies, transportation, health care, and we're not talking luxury living here Rosie.

Every dollar this worker gets from government income supports costs taxpayers at least $1.25 to collect, process and pay out. Each dollar this employer gives their workers costs the employer $0.78, and the taxpayers $0.22, So, it's a whole lot cheaper for taxpayers to pay a slightly higher price for their goods and services, and lower taxes overall, with the added benefit that it cuts the size of government overall. Since, as you pointed out, the rich pay most of the taxes, they'll get most of the tax savings, thereby further reducing their net cost on the raises. Increasing the money going into the pockets of working Americans will enable them to spend and save, as they were able to do before Reagan changed the tax code, while providing stimulus to the economy by putting more money in the pockets of hard working Americans.

It's time for the rising tide of American prosperity to lift the dinghys as well as the yachts, because these people cannot bail fast enough right now.

What a story, mostly young single moms flipping burgers? You have evidence of this? I didn't think so.

Why is it people have children they can't afford and then they become the liability of taxpayers? Why is it the fathers of these children are not contributing to the support of their children?

Sure, that situation can happen, but I believe it's extremely rare, especially among burger flippers.

So there is a huge minimum wage increase. That helps this mother and her kids? Minimum wage creates a domino effect. You can't force wages to go up on any certain group of people. Then when all is said and done, this mother is in no better shape with the new minimum wage as she was with the old one, because it creates inflation, and now everything she needs to buy is so much more expensive that the extra money is eaten up.

So who really benefits by a huge increase in minimum wage? Not the worker in the long run. Certainly not the business. Government? DING! DING! DINGN! Now we're talking, because the more people make, the more taxes they must also pay.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well that's shocking.

That it is.

Only a moron wouldn't see small businesses closing because of that ridiculous $15 dollar an hour minimum wage.

Minimum wage was never meant to support anyone. It was meant for high school kids to make a little cash at night and on summer vacation.

Only idiots would demand a $15 dollar an hour minimum wage. Prices will go up to cover it. Hours will be cut, workers let go and small businesses will just close.

Not to smart.

What they fail to understand is when an employer gives a dollar an hour raise, it costs the employer more than that dollar. Other things increase in cost as well, such as vacation time where you are getting paid to not work. Social Security and Medicare contributions since your employer has to match those contributions and you will be paying more into them. Insurances increase as well because if something happens to you like getting laid off or getting hurt on the job, the payout is based on how much you make per month.

When you take a huge pay increase like this, the employer has to take huge other losses on top of it.

What YOU fail to realize is that the small business owner can deduct ALL of those costs from their gross income and reduce their tax liability accordingly. Every dollar an employer spends on wages, only costs the business owner 78 cents because they would pay income tax of 22% on that additional profit, so the business owner is only out of pocket 78 cents, not one dollar.

On the other hand, earned income credits cost taxpayers $3 billion per year just for administration of this program. That's over and above the costs of the benefits paid to low income workers.

Earned Income Tax Credit: Small Benefits, Large Costs

By shifting the burden for employee wages back to the employer, the economy will save all of the costs of running this program, as well as the costs of the benefits paid. Employers are only paying 78 cents on the dollar for every dollar of wage increases they pay.

You're picking up the peanuts while being trampled by the elephants, Ray. The Waltons don't need more dividends, stop paying their workers for them.

Walmart doesn't give anybody social benefits, only government does that, and they really don't have to.

As I explained, giving raises is a lot more than just the dollar amount itself. It costs the employer much more, and no, a tax write off does not mean you get that back from government. It means you don't pay taxes on those expenses, but you still pay them.

Your claims are just as goofy as Piglosi who once said people on welfare and unemployment stimulate the economy.

People who are on social programs will never get off of them unless they are kicked off. Force their employer to increase their salary, they will just work less hours to continue getting those benefits.

 

[jasonnfree]

$1.25 in the 1950s was equivalent to $ 25 today ??? in what universe.

Sounds about right. Workers in the 1950s earned $30-$40 a week. They supported families on that wage with one salary. $1.25 bought you a lot

Typical BS pulled directly from your always ignorant ass. Many worked overtime or 2 jobs and most Americans lived far simpler lives.

Average family income in 1950 was $3,300 a year
Income of Families and Persons in the United States: 1950

That is $65/wk which conflicts BIGLY with your previous post claiming $30 - $40/wk.

The prob with mindless leftards like you is that you can never understand how 2+2=4.

What he says is true. Even in L.A. County, California you could make it on a buck, a buck and a quarter an hour and have an apartment and own a car in the early '60's. Guys living with their parents after turning 19 or 20 were ridiculed unless they were going to college. It's the inequality of wealth index we have now, and it's getting worse as far as I can see.

 

[Dragonlady]

Stupid question, to which you already know the answer. Companies were capable of paying a minimum wage equivalent to $25 per hour in terms of today's buying power, in the 1950's, when teenagers truly did make up the majority of the minimum wage work force. As America became richer and richer, less and less of that wealth went to the American workers and more and more to the investor classes.

Successive Republican governments have offloaded the costs of social programs welfare onto the middle class, while the investor classes continue to increase their share of nations' wealth and income. Amazon, which currently pays no taxes whatsoever, is now the most profitable company in America, and New York City was prepared to make the working people of New York pay for the infrastructure and increased transportation costs for their new headquarters. Corporations need to pay their own way - both in infrastructure, and wages.

$1.25 in the 1950s was equivalent to $ 25 today ??? in what universe.

Sounds about right

Workers in the 1950s earned $30-$40 a week. They supported families on that wage with one salary.

$1.25 bought you a lot

not as much as $25 today. NOPE no one could support a FAMILY back then on $40 per week except in real poverty----like no car----probably no phone, ---
maybe a three room apartment ---low end. $25 per hour-----at 40 hours is
$1000 per week for a teenager slinging burgers. why bother to stay in school? anyone got a job for me?

The problem is that very few teenage boys are slinging burgers. It's mostly young single moms with children to support. The average age of minimum wage workers is 27. $1000 per week translates to $750 per week take home, less $200 per week for child care, taking it down to $550 per week, net, after expenses, and our worker still doesn't have healthcare insurance for him/herself or any children they may be supporting. I don't know what rents are like where you live, but where I live, you can't find any apartment much under $800 per month, plus utilities, Much one big enough for a parent and child. Anything family size is over $1000 plus utilities, unless you can get into goverment owned, geared to income housing. The waiting list is currently two years here.

So really, by the time a single mother pays for withholding and taxes, child care, and rent, exactly how much of that glorious $1000 per week, is he or she going to have left, to cover food, clothing, school supplies, transportation, health care, and we're not talking luxury living here Rosie.

Every dollar this worker gets from government income supports costs taxpayers at least $1.25 to collect, process and pay out. Each dollar this employer gives their workers costs the employer $0.78, and the taxpayers $0.22, So, it's a whole lot cheaper for taxpayers to pay a slightly higher price for their goods and services, and lower taxes overall, with the added benefit that it cuts the size of government overall. Since, as you pointed out, the rich pay most of the taxes, they'll get most of the tax savings, thereby further reducing their net cost on the raises. Increasing the money going into the pockets of working Americans will enable them to spend and save, as they were able to do before Reagan changed the tax code, while providing stimulus to the economy by putting more money in the pockets of hard working Americans.

It's time for the rising tide of American prosperity to lift the dinghys as well as the yachts, because these people cannot bail fast enough right now.

you have no idea what is REALLY going on. I do-----I was once a single mom supporting a kid on virtually nothing. When I was a child----my mom faced that situation for a few years-----but not with one kid-----FIVE. The single working mother is an issue of SOCIAL dissolution-------I have known people from southeast asia who cannot UNDERSTAND how it happens in American families that a woman is so abandoned by her own family. It is a social issue based on our culture of
INDIVIDUALISM. One of the ladies who was so horrified by this American
phenomenon was a psychiatrist educated as a physician in India and in the US training as a psychiatrist. Her question "how does her mother and sibs IMAGINE she is going to recover if she has to go out----get a job ----and find a place to live and care for her child with NO HELP? No society can care for the
DETRITUS of the social system with BIG SALARIES for -----for viturally no economically viable contribution

My father died when I was eleven years old. My mother raised two children on a widow's pension, and working as a caregiver for the five children of the registered nurse who lived around the corner. I got a paper route so I could have spending money to go to a movie. I was also a single mother of two toddler age children with a deadbeat dad after my first marriage ended. I know all to well how it works.

But your solution is to wring your hands and moan about how grandma and grandpa aren't pulling their weight in poor families, and helping out their kids. That's because grandma and grandpa aren't doing so well either and are probably still working to support themselves. Or worse. Life expectancy in poor neighbourhoods, where access to health care is free clinics and emergency rooms, is on a par with Third World shithole countries. Statistically, minorities receive inferior health care to white Americans and have higher death rates.

And then you have a criminal justice system which criminalizes young non-white males at much higher rates than young white males facing similar charges, sending larger numbers of them to prisons, so both ecoomically and socially, there are good and valid reasons why your Asian model is at best, an unrealistic idea.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

$1.25 in the 1950s was equivalent to $ 25 today ??? in what universe.

Sounds about right

Workers in the 1950s earned $30-$40 a week. They supported families on that wage with one salary.

$1.25 bought you a lot

not as much as $25 today. NOPE no one could support a FAMILY back then on $40 per week except in real poverty----like no car----probably no phone, ---
maybe a three room apartment ---low end. $25 per hour-----at 40 hours is
$1000 per week for a teenager slinging burgers. why bother to stay in school? anyone got a job for me?

The problem is that very few teenage boys are slinging burgers. It's mostly young single moms with children to support. The average age of minimum wage workers is 27. $1000 per week translates to $750 per week take home, less $200 per week for child care, taking it down to $550 per week, net, after expenses, and our worker still doesn't have healthcare insurance for him/herself or any children they may be supporting. I don't know what rents are like where you live, but where I live, you can't find any apartment much under $800 per month, plus utilities, Much one big enough for a parent and child. Anything family size is over $1000 plus utilities, unless you can get into goverment owned, geared to income housing. The waiting list is currently two years here.

So really, by the time a single mother pays for withholding and taxes, child care, and rent, exactly how much of that glorious $1000 per week, is he or she going to have left, to cover food, clothing, school supplies, transportation, health care, and we're not talking luxury living here Rosie.

Every dollar this worker gets from government income supports costs taxpayers at least $1.25 to collect, process and pay out. Each dollar this employer gives their workers costs the employer $0.78, and the taxpayers $0.22, So, it's a whole lot cheaper for taxpayers to pay a slightly higher price for their goods and services, and lower taxes overall, with the added benefit that it cuts the size of government overall. Since, as you pointed out, the rich pay most of the taxes, they'll get most of the tax savings, thereby further reducing their net cost on the raises. Increasing the money going into the pockets of working Americans will enable them to spend and save, as they were able to do before Reagan changed the tax code, while providing stimulus to the economy by putting more money in the pockets of hard working Americans.

It's time for the rising tide of American prosperity to lift the dinghys as well as the yachts, because these people cannot bail fast enough right now.

you have no idea what is REALLY going on. I do-----I was once a single mom supporting a kid on virtually nothing. When I was a child----my mom faced that situation for a few years-----but not with one kid-----FIVE. The single working mother is an issue of SOCIAL dissolution-------I have known people from southeast asia who cannot UNDERSTAND how it happens in American families that a woman is so abandoned by her own family. It is a social issue based on our culture of
INDIVIDUALISM. One of the ladies who was so horrified by this American
phenomenon was a psychiatrist educated as a physician in India and in the US training as a psychiatrist. Her question "how does her mother and sibs IMAGINE she is going to recover if she has to go out----get a job ----and find a place to live and care for her child with NO HELP? No society can care for the
DETRITUS of the social system with BIG SALARIES for -----for viturally no economically viable contribution

My father died when I was eleven years old. My mother raised two children on a widow's pension, and working as a caregiver for the five children of the registered nurse who lived around the corner. I got a paper route so I could have spending money to go to a movie. I was also a single mother of two toddler age children with a deadbeat dad after my first marriage ended. I know all to well how it works.

But your solution is to wring your hands and moan about how grandma and grandpa aren't pulling their weight in poor families, and helping out their kids. That's because grandma and grandpa aren't doing so well either and are probably still working to support themselves. Or worse. Life expectancy in poor neighbourhoods, where access to health care is free clinics and emergency rooms, is on a par with Third World shithole countries. Statistically, minorities receive inferior health care to white Americans and have higher death rates.

And then you have a criminal justice system which criminalizes young non-white males at much higher rates than young white males facing similar charges, sending larger numbers of them to prisons, so both ecoomically and socially, there are good and valid reasons why your Asian model is at best, an unrealistic idea.

Our justice system doesn't sweep people off the street and throw them in prison. If you want to stay out of prison, don't break any laws. Believe it or not, most people (including many minorities) live their life that way.

 

[Wyatt earp]

It isn't just small businesses and it has nothing to do with the Minimum Wage.

Uh, if you read the article, you'll find out that new minimum wage does have something to do with it. Have you read any of the zillion studies that document the harmful effects of an excessive minimum wage?

The article has nobody in it saying they have shut down due to the MW and small businesses in NYC have a lower MW than larger employers. There are businesses like Dunkin Doughnuts and cell phone companies that are expanding in NYC. It is a matter of what you provide. Restaurants have a short shelf-life in the Age of the Foodie so their numbers have been going down in NYC for years. Major retailers have been pulling out or downsizing to showroom only stores because sales have moved online.

All that to say you never took business or economics 101 let alone run a lemonade stand as a kid.

Seriously dude it's not rocket science .

.

Macro economics is the very essence of rocket science. You just spout some stupid right wing talking points which have been endlessly debunked, not just by economic models but by the economic history of the United States.

Minimum Wage - Wage and Hour Division (WHD) - U.S. Department of Labor

This is a list of the increases to the minimum wage from 1938, until today. Then came the ascendancy of Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of Economics which promoted the idea of absolute free market economies. Nixon was an accolate but after the poverty and violence that followed the restructuring of several South American countries under free market economies, even Nixon raised the minimum wage in nearly every year of his second term, as did Ford, and Carter.

Until Ronald Reagan was elected, Presidents on both sides of the aisle consistently raised the minimum wage. Not Reagan. While exhorting American workers to get rid of the unions as holding back their wages and benefits and stealing their union dues, Reagan didn't raise the minimum wage once during his Administration. Bush 41 raised the MM, but all MM wage increases ceased the moment the Republicans took over the House and it was not until 12 years later when Dems took back the House and Senate, that MM wage workers received another raise. Since 2010, when Republicans retook the House, there has been no increase in the minimum wage. That's 29 of the last 40 years, that everyone in America got wages except the poorest workers, the ones who are increasingly dependent on government assistance, funded by middle class taxpayers. The last 40 years has been the wealthiest period in the history of the world, and most of that wealth has gone to the top.

The workers need a raise - a big one, because in the last 40 years, the poor workers in the USA have had 9 raises.

Then add up the increases in inflation and you will see that any increase in wages has been more than wiped out by increases in the cost of living.

Of course the workers need a big raise, you sure as hell not going to get it raising the minimum wage, instead of 2% of workers making minimum 30% plus will be making MINIMUM WAGE if it goes to $15 bucks an hour.


Once again tell me the difference between this $8.00 dollar burger basket in Wyoming ( Minimum wage $7.25)

And this $12 dollar burger basket in Colorado (minimum wage $11.25)

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

$1.25 in the 1950s was equivalent to $ 25 today ??? in what universe.

Sounds about right. Workers in the 1950s earned $30-$40 a week. They supported families on that wage with one salary. $1.25 bought you a lot

Typical BS pulled directly from your always ignorant ass. Many worked overtime or 2 jobs and most Americans lived far simpler lives.

Average family income in 1950 was $3,300 a year
Income of Families and Persons in the United States: 1950

That is $65/wk which conflicts BIGLY with your previous post claiming $30 - $40/wk.

The prob with mindless leftards like you is that you can never understand how 2+2=4.

What he says is true. Even in L.A. County, California you could make it on a buck, a buck and a quarter an hour and have an apartment and own a car in the early '60's. Guys living with their parents after turning 19 or 20 were ridiculed unless they were going to college. It's the inequality of wealth index we have now, and it's getting worse as far as I can see.

Wealth inequity has nothing to do with it. If we took every single dollar from every rich person in this country, it won't benefit you one bit. It will just make government richer.

 

[Papageorgio]

$1.25 in the 1950s was equivalent to $ 25 today ??? in what universe.

Sounds about right

Workers in the 1950s earned $30-$40 a week. They supported families on that wage with one salary.

$1.25 bought you a lot

not as much as $25 today. NOPE no one could support a FAMILY back then on $40 per week except in real poverty----like no car----probably no phone, ---
maybe a three room apartment ---low end. $25 per hour-----at 40 hours is
$1000 per week for a teenager slinging burgers. why bother to stay in school? anyone got a job for me?

The problem is that very few teenage boys are slinging burgers. It's mostly young single moms with children to support. The average age of minimum wage workers is 27. $1000 per week translates to $750 per week take home, less $200 per week for child care, taking it down to $550 per week, net, after expenses, and our worker still doesn't have healthcare insurance for him/herself or any children they may be supporting. I don't know what rents are like where you live, but where I live, you can't find any apartment much under $800 per month, plus utilities, Much one big enough for a parent and child. Anything family size is over $1000 plus utilities, unless you can get into goverment owned, geared to income housing. The waiting list is currently two years here.

So really, by the time a single mother pays for withholding and taxes, child care, and rent, exactly how much of that glorious $1000 per week, is he or she going to have left, to cover food, clothing, school supplies, transportation, health care, and we're not talking luxury living here Rosie.

Every dollar this worker gets from government income supports costs taxpayers at least $1.25 to collect, process and pay out. Each dollar this employer gives their workers costs the employer $0.78, and the taxpayers $0.22, So, it's a whole lot cheaper for taxpayers to pay a slightly higher price for their goods and services, and lower taxes overall, with the added benefit that it cuts the size of government overall. Since, as you pointed out, the rich pay most of the taxes, they'll get most of the tax savings, thereby further reducing their net cost on the raises. Increasing the money going into the pockets of working Americans will enable them to spend and save, as they were able to do before Reagan changed the tax code, while providing stimulus to the economy by putting more money in the pockets of hard working Americans.

It's time for the rising tide of American prosperity to lift the dinghys as well as the yachts, because these people cannot bail fast enough right now.

you have no idea what is REALLY going on. I do-----I was once a single mom supporting a kid on virtually nothing. When I was a child----my mom faced that situation for a few years-----but not with one kid-----FIVE. The single working mother is an issue of SOCIAL dissolution-------I have known people from southeast asia who cannot UNDERSTAND how it happens in American families that a woman is so abandoned by her own family. It is a social issue based on our culture of
INDIVIDUALISM. One of the ladies who was so horrified by this American
phenomenon was a psychiatrist educated as a physician in India and in the US training as a psychiatrist. Her question "how does her mother and sibs IMAGINE she is going to recover if she has to go out----get a job ----and find a place to live and care for her child with NO HELP? No society can care for the
DETRITUS of the social system with BIG SALARIES for -----for viturally no economically viable contribution

My father died when I was eleven years old. My mother raised two children on a widow's pension, and working as a caregiver for the five children of the registered nurse who lived around the corner. I got a paper route so I could have spending money to go to a movie. I was also a single mother of two toddler age children with a deadbeat dad after my first marriage ended. I know all to well how it works.

But your solution is to wring your hands and moan about how grandma and grandpa aren't pulling their weight in poor families, and helping out their kids. That's because grandma and grandpa aren't doing so well either and are probably still working to support themselves. Or worse. Life expectancy in poor neighbourhoods, where access to health care is free clinics and emergency rooms, is on a par with Third World shithole countries. Statistically, minorities receive inferior health care to white Americans and have higher death rates.

And then you have a criminal justice system which criminalizes young non-white males at much higher rates than young white males facing similar charges, sending larger numbers of them to prisons, so both ecoomically and socially, there are good and valid reasons why your Asian model is at best, an unrealistic idea.

Why are the Aboriginals incarcerated in Canada at 4.5 their population rate? Seems like the Canadians practice their own racism.

 

[Papageorgio]

Here is the typical minimum wage worker in the United States.

Characteristics of minimum wage workers, 2017 : BLS Reports: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Highlights:

Age. Minimum wage workers tend to be young. Although workers under age 25 represented only about one-fifth of hourly paid workers, they made up about half of those paid the federal minimum wage or less. Among employed teenagers (ages 16 to 19) paid by the hour, about 8 percent earned the minimum wage or less, compared with about 1 percent of workers age 25 and older.

Full- and part-time status. About 6 percent of part-time workers (persons who usually work fewer than 35 hours per week) were paid the federal minimum wage or less, compared with about 1 percent of full-time workers.

The other interesting stat is that the minimum wage of $2.90 an hour is the equivalent $10.23 an hour in 2019.

 

[Dragonlady]

Stupid question, to which you already know the answer. Companies were capable of paying a minimum wage equivalent to $25 per hour in terms of today's buying power, in the 1950's, when teenagers truly did make up the majority of the minimum wage work force. As America became richer and richer, less and less of that wealth went to the American workers and more and more to the investor classes.

Successive Republican governments have offloaded the costs of social programs welfare onto the middle class, while the investor classes continue to increase their share of nations' wealth and income. Amazon, which currently pays no taxes whatsoever, is now the most profitable company in America, and New York City was prepared to make the working people of New York pay for the infrastructure and increased transportation costs for their new headquarters. Corporations need to pay their own way - both in infrastructure, and wages.

$1.25 in the 1950s was equivalent to $ 25 today ??? in what universe.

Sounds about right

Workers in the 1950s earned $30-$40 a week. They supported families on that wage with one salary.

$1.25 bought you a lot

not as much as $25 today. NOPE no one could support a FAMILY back then on $40 per week except in real poverty----like no car----probably no phone, ---
maybe a three room apartment ---low end. $25 per hour-----at 40 hours is
$1000 per week for a teenager slinging burgers. why bother to stay in school? anyone got a job for me?

The problem is that very few teenage boys are slinging burgers. It's mostly young single moms with children to support. The average age of minimum wage workers is 27. $1000 per week translates to $750 per week take home, less $200 per week for child care, taking it down to $550 per week, net, after expenses, and our worker still doesn't have healthcare insurance for him/herself or any children they may be supporting. I don't know what rents are like where you live, but where I live, you can't find any apartment much under $800 per month, plus utilities, Much one big enough for a parent and child. Anything family size is over $1000 plus utilities, unless you can get into goverment owned, geared to income housing. The waiting list is currently two years here.

So really, by the time a single mother pays for withholding and taxes, child care, and rent, exactly how much of that glorious $1000 per week, is he or she going to have left, to cover food, clothing, school supplies, transportation, health care, and we're not talking luxury living here Rosie.

Every dollar this worker gets from government income supports costs taxpayers at least $1.25 to collect, process and pay out. Each dollar this employer gives their workers costs the employer $0.78, and the taxpayers $0.22, So, it's a whole lot cheaper for taxpayers to pay a slightly higher price for their goods and services, and lower taxes overall, with the added benefit that it cuts the size of government overall. Since, as you pointed out, the rich pay most of the taxes, they'll get most of the tax savings, thereby further reducing their net cost on the raises. Increasing the money going into the pockets of working Americans will enable them to spend and save, as they were able to do before Reagan changed the tax code, while providing stimulus to the economy by putting more money in the pockets of hard working Americans.

It's time for the rising tide of American prosperity to lift the dinghys as well as the yachts, because these people cannot bail fast enough right now.

all four of my brothers were SLINGING BURGERS OR FRIES as teens-----had they not----they would never have made it thru the STATE COLLEGE-----even with scholarship and 'national defense loan'-------but they could not have supported a wife and kid on that salary. The local burger and fry places could not have made it without high school and college SLINGERS.
I was a baby sitter and jealous-------they made more money-----I had a bit of a handicap------at age 16----I looked kinda like 12. I finally got a job for $1.25 at age 18------but I had to supply my birth certificate-----BIRTH CERTIFICATE------driver's license was not enough

Those days are long gone. My brothers were in the army and navy as teenagers. My oldest brother apprecticed as an electrician. My middle brother owned a farm, and my youngest brother was in sales. I was the only one of my siblings to make it past high school, but all my siblings made a decent living for themselves and their families, and helped their own children to complete university. My brother and his wife offered to help me pay for my schooling. I couldn't have done it without them, even with working full-time all summer, every summer.

Today the good wage, production jobs are gone, and low skill workers are competing with students and young workers entering the workforce for low wage jobs.

 

[mikegriffith1]

And, of course, liberals never bother to ask, "What if a given job is *not* worth $15 per hour?" Hey? What if the job is so basic and easy that it's not worth paying someone $15 per hour to do? Do liberals just think that all businesses have money trees?

 

[Wry Catcher]

$1.25 in the 1950s was equivalent to $ 25 today ??? in what universe.

Sounds about right. Workers in the 1950s earned $30-$40 a week. They supported families on that wage with one salary. $1.25 bought you a lot

Typical BS pulled directly from your always ignorant ass. Many worked overtime or 2 jobs and most Americans lived far simpler lives.

Average family income in 1950 was $3,300 a year
Income of Families and Persons in the United States: 1950

That is $65/wk which conflicts BIGLY with your previous post claiming $30 - $40/wk.

The prob with mindless leftards like you is that you can never understand how 2+2=4.

SATIT seems to want others to believe the rest of us are all stupid. The sad fact is he can't respond with decorum, which is déclassé, whose every post includes an ad hominem.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Did you actually read the article you linked to?

One restaurant owner said:

You have to make sure nobody works more than 40 hours, so you don't have to pay overtime. Maybe she should hire a couple more people to ensure she doesn't get stuck with overtime.

And then there's this business owner:

McNally's complaint is that SHE'S not getting paid enough so she's opening two more stores to increase HER income. That should create close to 40 more jobs, so the OWNER can increase her income.

It's just awesome that people have to hire more people and let their existing workers have some sort of personal life after working 40 hours per week.

If you schedule employees for 32 hours a week, that would take care of the overtime. Pretty simple solutions for the employer.

You could schedule for 38 hours per week to ensure you don't go over. Then hire 2 more people to work 38 hour weeks to make up the shortfall, thus creating 2 new jobs, without increasing your costs.

Note that the bookstore owner is opting to open two more stores to increase HER income, because the wage increase is coming out of HER income directly. She's going to rent two locations, hire someone to make renovations and improvements, buy fixtures and equipment, and hire somewhere close to 20 more full time workers per store!!! Instead of sitting back on her huge profits, she's being forced to invest that money in the economy and create jobs to maintain her cushy lifetstyle.

How is this not a win for working Americans?

My experience is 35 hours at the most for a 40 hour work week and your costs.

Where does it state she is making huge profits? Where does it say she has a cushy lifestyle? Just because you own a business doesn't mean you are rich or living a cushy lifestyle. The idea that you believe that business owners are rich and lead a cushy lifestyle is pretty laughable.

Small business owners are a diverse set of people. Some are successful, many fail within their first year and some became wealthy. You get what you pay for, in terms of labor, location, and dozens of other decisions made, which determine success or failure.

Amazon and Wal-Mart have been very successful, and in their rise they have put mom and pop small business out of business, closing Main St. America in many small towns.

One of the deputies I supervised opened a restaurant and I watched and listened to him in his efforts just to sell the first taco. His family owned a very successful Mexican Rest. where worked during high school and college, so he knew what he was doing. He and his wife were very successful, but he was putting in 40 hours + in his day job, and many more in his new business.

After five years he was bought out by a chain, and within weeks his always crowded lunch crowd became less crowded, since prices went up, and quality went down. Today no one needed to wait in line during the noon hour.

Thank you for that story, it seems to be a common theme. I frequent the mom and pops, the better food the slightly higher prices and better customer service. I'm all for the small business, really hate the big chains.

I've only been to a Wal-Mart once, only because I could only find a cell phone my 90 year old dad could operate.

 

[Wry Catcher]

And, of course, liberals never bother to ask, "What if a given job is *not* worth $15 per hour?" Hey? What if the job is so basic and easy that it's not worth paying someone $15 per hour to do? Do liberals just think that all businesses have money trees?

What you are saying, as I understand it, is that some people are not worth having the job in which they are currently employed doing.

It is the job of supervisors or the owner to hire and train their employees. If those competent to do the job don't apply - no benefits and a poor wage - it's the owner's fault and s/he will fail every time.

 

[Papageorgio]

If you schedule employees for 32 hours a week, that would take care of the overtime. Pretty simple solutions for the employer.

You could schedule for 38 hours per week to ensure you don't go over. Then hire 2 more people to work 38 hour weeks to make up the shortfall, thus creating 2 new jobs, without increasing your costs.

Note that the bookstore owner is opting to open two more stores to increase HER income, because the wage increase is coming out of HER income directly. She's going to rent two locations, hire someone to make renovations and improvements, buy fixtures and equipment, and hire somewhere close to 20 more full time workers per store!!! Instead of sitting back on her huge profits, she's being forced to invest that money in the economy and create jobs to maintain her cushy lifetstyle.

How is this not a win for working Americans?

My experience is 35 hours at the most for a 40 hour work week and your costs.

Where does it state she is making huge profits? Where does it say she has a cushy lifestyle? Just because you own a business doesn't mean you are rich or living a cushy lifestyle. The idea that you believe that business owners are rich and lead a cushy lifestyle is pretty laughable.

Small business owners are a diverse set of people. Some are successful, many fail within their first year and some became wealthy. You get what you pay for, in terms of labor, location, and dozens of other decisions made, which determine success or failure.

Amazon and Wal-Mart have been very successful, and in their rise they have put mom and pop small business out of business, closing Main St. America in many small towns.

One of the deputies I supervised opened a restaurant and I watched and listened to him in his efforts just to sell the first taco. His family owned a very successful Mexican Rest. where worked during high school and college, so he knew what he was doing. He and his wife were very successful, but he was putting in 40 hours + in his day job, and many more in his new business.

After five years he was bought out by a chain, and within weeks his always crowded lunch crowd became less crowded, since prices went up, and quality went down. Today no one needed to wait in line during the noon hour.

Thank you for that story, it seems to be a common theme. I frequent the mom and pops, the better food the slightly higher prices and better customer service. I'm all for the small business, really hate the big chains.

I've only been to a Wal-Mart once, only because I could only find a cell phone my 90 year old dad could operate.

Now that is funny, I went there as well for my 94 year old dad to get him a cellphone he could operate. My local store could not order it. It had these big buttons and three instant dial buttons. Not sure they make the phone anymore, the VA gave him a I-phone 10 last week and an instructor that is working with him to use the phone more effectively.