The Dirty Little Truth About the Minimum Wage

[AntonToo]

You are stating falsehoods stemming from ignorance of what drives revenues

No, that's what YOU are doing.

Go to the Treasury Dept. website and you can find revenues for every year there. The first two years of the Bush cuts we had reduced revenue because he cut taxes on the middle income brackets. The third and fourth year we returned to around the same amount of revenue and by the fifth year we had increased tax revenues. Again, we cut top marginal rates and it always increases revenue. Every time.

Everything you just said was already addressed in my post (after 5 years revenues were down by 3-4%ofGDP compared to 2000). I don't know how to explain it to you in simpler terms, but let me try by means of proving contradiction of your standard:

Steps:

1. If what you say is correct, that tax-cuts cause revenues to increase, then the opposite effect should be observed when taxes are raised - CORRECT?

2. Take a look at the revenues and point me to a time when taxes were increased and revenues decreased - YOU CAN'T.

3. How can you possibly reconcile that tax-cuts and tax-raises BOTH cause increased revenue according to your standard - a blatant logical contradiction.

There is no reconciliation - your standard of proving causation is a proven bullshit.

You're comparing apples and bicycles. He's talking about the TOP tax rate, not taxes in general, and he's talking in dollars, NOT percent of GDP. Now get back in there, and let's have a clean fight.

nonsense, my 3 step proof does not rest on my standard (what you call bicycles) in any way. I am using his apple standard to demonstrate that it is total garbage.

If tax cuts have always correlated to more revenues and tax-raises have always correlated to more revenues then obviously there cannot be a defined causation effect from tax-rate change. That's because long term growth and inflation is consistently overriding factor relative to tax-cut, or raise volume. And it is because of that %ofGDP is the standard of revenue comparison.

 

[AntonToo]

1. If what you say is correct, that tax-cuts cause revenues to increase, then the opposite effect should be observed when taxes are raised - CORRECT?

Nope. It depends on when and where taxes are raised and by how much. As Friedman pointed out, you can increase tax rates during an economic boon and it doesn't affect revenue.

The rest of your suppositions are based on this fallacy so no need for me to address them. Again, any time (in modern history) we have lowered top marginal tax rates, it has resulted in increased revenues. Raising top marginal rates during a recession or depression has always resulted in less revenue. NOTE; TOP MARGINAL RATES... not ALL tax rates.

HA!

First you keep talking about how every time, no matter what, tax-cuts have caused increased revenues and now that I ask you what tax-raises have caused you start pleading about " it depends".

You are full of shit and it stinks a mile away.

 

[Rustic]

The fact remains the federal government is collecting more taxes than ever before dollarwise, and still the debt is skyrocketing. What is wrong with this picture?

Your ignorance, debt growth is not skyrocketing, growth has been SHRINKING under Obama.

This is the debt increases per year:

In big part due to increase in revenues, but also due to relatively slow growth of Federal spending...which will change as baby boomers are retiring and we have to take care of them in SS and Medicare spending.

Wrong, The data has been skyrocketing in for decades.

"Skyrocketing" means acceleration of debt build up, which is measured as change in annual deficit. Annual deficits have be shrinking under Obama.

if you're too stupid to understand the above I can't help you.

Shit for brains, The debt is only going up... at an extraordinarily fast rate. Fact
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

Shit for brains, going up is NOT the same thing as skyrocketing. Current 2% of GDP deficits is historically average rate.

Who cares who gives a shit about the fucking deficit.
225+ trillion dollars is what this country is in debt because of a fucking federal government that cannot live within his means you fucking moron. LOL

 

[Contumacious]

Most of you, like myself, have learned about the Great Depression through the prism of public education. We were taught that FDR came into office, implemented his New Deal policies and saved the day... Right? Or, at least that's the way it is portrayed. The actual reality is quite different. As we get older and go to college, we are able to read different accounts of what happened and we learn that many of his policies actually prolonged the Great Depression. In fact, many argue that it might not have ever been a "Great" depression if not for some of the things he did early on. Some have even speculated that if not for WWII, we may have never pulled ourselves out of the death spiral we were in. All of this stuff is highly debatable but I want to focus on just one policy that FDR enacted which is still with us today, and is still being paraded around by Progressives as something great and wonderful... The Federal Minimum Wage mandate.

It is interesting to note what FDR said on the day he signed this legislation into law. He said: "no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country." That was June 16, 1933. Some 83 years later, we have Progressive politicians out there screaming the same line. So, why has this policy not effectively worked to produce what was promised 83 years ago? The Progressives will say that we just haven't raised it enough. So we ask them, how much do you think we need to raise it? They tell us and we raise it. A few years go by and we're once again having the debate and the Progressives are again claiming we didn't raise it enough. For 83 years, we've chased the carrot on the stick in hopes of attaining this elusive "living wage" that will finally solve all our problems. It never does.

In her book, The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression, author Amity Shlaes makes a revealing and scathing discovery behind the idea of the minimum wage. This is the basis of what I want to talk about here today. While we have always been taught to believe the minimum wage was FDR's attempt to force companies to pay employees a decent wage, that's not the whole truth. Yes, there were some companies exploiting the conditions at the time to profit on the backs of desperate people. We've all watched Grapes of Wrath, we all know the horror stories... Progressives are good at emoting the worst case scenarios. But there were also people like Henry Ford who paid his employees well above the national average because he wanted them to be able to afford his product.

So what is the dirty little secret the Progressives fail to mention? Well, you have to remember, after the stock market crashed in 1929, millions and millions of people were laid off. Unemployment skyrocketed across the nation. This literally affected just about every family in the country. And if you weren't a laborer who earned a paycheck, you were probably a farmer and your plight was even worse. Because of the protectionist tariffs applied by Hoover, a tariff war had devastated agriculture and then came the droughts. So everyone was in bad shape across the board. Also keep in mind, we were not a very homogeneous society back then, there was a great deal of blatant racism and discrimination. Because of the lean financial situation, a lot of capitalists were looking for the cheapest way to provide labor and they found the black man was not afraid to work long hours for meager wages. They seemed to be much more productive for the low wages they demanded... more bang for the buck.

Now here is a trivia question for you... When was the last time black unemployment was lower than white unemployment in the US? Progressives are good at feeding you the propaganda that blacks have always had historically higher unemployment than whites, but that's not true. Shlaes points out, according to the 1930 census data, black unemployment was lower than white unemployment. The implementation of the Federal Minimum Wage was quite simply a measure to improve employment for whites at the expense of blacks. The year following the implementation of this law, we find black unemployment was double that of whites. Companies were not forced to hire black people, there were no laws protecting them from discrimination at the time. So when faced with the prospect of either hiring a black man or white man at the same mandated wage, they typically went with the white man. The Minimum Wage, so proudly promoted by Progressives to this day, was an abhorrently racist policy designed to improve employment opportunity for whites over blacks and minorities.

And just as in days past, the insistence on increasing the minimum wage is doing nothing for the unskilled worker, the low-education minorities, the working poor. When a capitalist is faced with having to hire people at a higher rate, they are going to naturally look at the more-skilled, higher-educated prospects first. And the first people to get the ax when they have to cut jobs are those who are lacking in those areas. So even though we now have all kinds of laws against discrimination based on race, the minimum wage continues to be a racist policy that ensures better job opportunity for skilled whites over lesser-skilled blacks and minorities. All the while, we are being pumped full of lies and propaganda from the Progressives.

The Depression of 1935 was caused by the Federal Reserve Board which was created by the progressives and the left wingers.

.

 

[AntonToo]

The fact remains the federal government is collecting more taxes than ever before dollarwise, and still the debt is skyrocketing. What is wrong with this picture?

Your ignorance, debt growth is not skyrocketing, growth has been SHRINKING under Obama.

This is the debt increases per year:

In big part due to increase in revenues, but also due to relatively slow growth of Federal spending...which will change as baby boomers are retiring and we have to take care of them in SS and Medicare spending.

Wrong, The data has been skyrocketing in for decades.

"Skyrocketing" means acceleration of debt build up, which is measured as change in annual deficit. Annual deficits have be shrinking under Obama. In 2009 it was increased by 1.3T in 2015 it was increased by 0.4T - a clear slow down, not acceleration.

if you're too stupid to understand the above I can't help you.

The debt is only going up... fact

Yup. And the dirty little secret is this: Give Washington more revenue and what do you think they'll do with it? Reducing the debt is never an option they'll take.

...except the FACTS.

More revenues since recession meant lower deficits and less debt accumulation.

Yes, it absolutely matters and when Trump and GOP are going to pass another round of tax-cuts while chasing it up with TRILLION DOLLAR STIMULUS in the middle of near full employment and consistent growth, guess what's going to happen. SHITLOAD MORE DEBT.

This is the fiscal belligerence you rightwingers have arrived at. Pathetic.

 

[danielpalos]

Most of you, like myself, have learned about the Great Depression through the prism of public education. We were taught that FDR came into office, implemented his New Deal policies and saved the day... Right? Or, at least that's the way it is portrayed. The actual reality is quite different. As we get older and go to college, we are able to read different accounts of what happened and we learn that many of his policies actually prolonged the Great Depression. In fact, many argue that it might not have ever been a "Great" depression if not for some of the things he did early on. Some have even speculated that if not for WWII, we may have never pulled ourselves out of the death spiral we were in. All of this stuff is highly debatable but I want to focus on just one policy that FDR enacted which is still with us today, and is still being paraded around by Progressives as something great and wonderful... The Federal Minimum Wage mandate.

It is interesting to note what FDR said on the day he signed this legislation into law. He said: "no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country." That was June 16, 1933. Some 83 years later, we have Progressive politicians out there screaming the same line. So, why has this policy not effectively worked to produce what was promised 83 years ago? The Progressives will say that we just haven't raised it enough. So we ask them, how much do you think we need to raise it? They tell us and we raise it. A few years go by and we're once again having the debate and the Progressives are again claiming we didn't raise it enough. For 83 years, we've chased the carrot on the stick in hopes of attaining this elusive "living wage" that will finally solve all our problems. It never does.

In her book, The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression, author Amity Shlaes makes a revealing and scathing discovery behind the idea of the minimum wage. This is the basis of what I want to talk about here today. While we have always been taught to believe the minimum wage was FDR's attempt to force companies to pay employees a decent wage, that's not the whole truth. Yes, there were some companies exploiting the conditions at the time to profit on the backs of desperate people. We've all watched Grapes of Wrath, we all know the horror stories... Progressives are good at emoting the worst case scenarios. But there were also people like Henry Ford who paid his employees well above the national average because he wanted them to be able to afford his product.

So what is the dirty little secret the Progressives fail to mention? Well, you have to remember, after the stock market crashed in 1929, millions and millions of people were laid off. Unemployment skyrocketed across the nation. This literally affected just about every family in the country. And if you weren't a laborer who earned a paycheck, you were probably a farmer and your plight was even worse. Because of the protectionist tariffs applied by Hoover, a tariff war had devastated agriculture and then came the droughts. So everyone was in bad shape across the board. Also keep in mind, we were not a very homogeneous society back then, there was a great deal of blatant racism and discrimination. Because of the lean financial situation, a lot of capitalists were looking for the cheapest way to provide labor and they found the black man was not afraid to work long hours for meager wages. They seemed to be much more productive for the low wages they demanded... more bang for the buck.

Now here is a trivia question for you... When was the last time black unemployment was lower than white unemployment in the US? Progressives are good at feeding you the propaganda that blacks have always had historically higher unemployment than whites, but that's not true. Shlaes points out, according to the 1930 census data, black unemployment was lower than white unemployment. The implementation of the Federal Minimum Wage was quite simply a measure to improve employment for whites at the expense of blacks. The year following the implementation of this law, we find black unemployment was double that of whites. Companies were not forced to hire black people, there were no laws protecting them from discrimination at the time. So when faced with the prospect of either hiring a black man or white man at the same mandated wage, they typically went with the white man. The Minimum Wage, so proudly promoted by Progressives to this day, was an abhorrently racist policy designed to improve employment opportunity for whites over blacks and minorities.

And just as in days past, the insistence on increasing the minimum wage is doing nothing for the unskilled worker, the low-education minorities, the working poor. When a capitalist is faced with having to hire people at a higher rate, they are going to naturally look at the more-skilled, higher-educated prospects first. And the first people to get the ax when they have to cut jobs are those who are lacking in those areas. So even though we now have all kinds of laws against discrimination based on race, the minimum wage continues to be a racist policy that ensures better job opportunity for skilled whites over lesser-skilled blacks and minorities. All the while, we are being pumped full of lies and propaganda from the Progressives.

The poor always get the civic shaft, under Any form of Capitalism. We can't even afford, equal protection of the law, usually.

We have a federal Doctrine and State laws regarding the legal concept of employment, at the will of either party.

EDD should have to prove for-Cause employment to deny benefits.

 

[Boss]

The poor always get the civic shaft, under Any form of Capitalism. We can't even afford, equal protection of the law, usually.

We have a federal Doctrine and State laws regarding the legal concept of employment, at the will of either party.

EDD should have to prove for-Cause employment to deny benefits.

It's easy to make statements of platitude without much thought. Don't the poor pretty much get the "civic shaft" under ANY system? I don't recall any Soviet or Chinese peasants becoming ruling class elites. And "equal protection" is a constitutional construct not found in most other systems.

Employment can only happen when Capitalism exists. Otherwise, there is nothing to produce wages. Some will argue this isn't true because you could work for the government,,, but the government relies on capitalism happening in order to generate revenue to pay you. If you hate capitalism you must love slavery. That's all you can have without capitalism.

When it comes to Capitalism, there are different forms. The type we embraced in America with a constitution and individual liberty endowed by a Creator, is called Free Market Capitalism. This is where parties engage in a voluntary exchange of goods and services for remuneration and price is determined by laws of supply and demand. Free enterprise ensures competition in a free market, which in turn ensures the most equitable and fair outcomes. When you hamper free enterprise and interfere with free markets through government regulation and collusion with crony capitalists, you do indeed punish the working class and poor. It's because you no longer have a true free market.

 

[danielpalos]

The poor always get the civic shaft, under Any form of Capitalism. We can't even afford, equal protection of the law, usually.

We have a federal Doctrine and State laws regarding the legal concept of employment, at the will of either party.

EDD should have to prove for-Cause employment to deny benefits.

It's easy to make statements of platitude without much thought. Don't the poor pretty much get the "civic shaft" under ANY system? I don't recall any Soviet or Chinese peasants becoming ruling class elites. And "equal protection" is a constitutional construct not found in most other systems.

Employment can only happen when Capitalism exists. Otherwise, there is nothing to produce wages. Some will argue this isn't true because you could work for the government,,, but the government relies on capitalism happening in order to generate revenue to pay you. If you hate capitalism you must love slavery. That's all you can have without capitalism.

When it comes to Capitalism, there are different forms. The type we embraced in America with a constitution and individual liberty endowed by a Creator, is called Free Market Capitalism. This is where parties engage in a voluntary exchange of goods and services for remuneration and price is determined by laws of supply and demand. Free enterprise ensures competition in a free market, which in turn ensures the most equitable and fair outcomes. When you hamper free enterprise and interfere with free markets through government regulation and collusion with crony capitalists, you do indeed punish the working class and poor. It's because you no longer have a true free market.

We have our Declaration of Independence.