CDZ The "Living Wage" Time Bomb

[Fishlore]

These doom-and-gloom fiscal scenarios have been circulating on the Interwebs for years. Their prophesies never turn out. Remember Glenn Beck and his gold coin scam? Raising the minimum wage and other wages does not increase the money supply (M1) and does not produce inflation.

Like doom-and-gloom about the housing bubble? Do you really believe that a $15/hr LIVING WAGE* at McDonald's will not raise their prices for hamburgers? Won't other wages have to be raised in order to maintain a differential for attracting more qualified employees? Don't you think it will discourage entry level employment?

*Did you even read the OP before posting your response?

Thank you for your condescending sarcasm. It helps me understand with whom I am dealing.

Raising the minimum wage doesn't necessarily raise the price of hamburgers for a couple of reasons:

Some or all of the wage increase may be paid for out of profits rather than by price increases. The fast food industry is immensely profitable and there is quite a bit of wage money to skim off the top.

The wage cost per hamburger has been dropping since Mr. Kroc took over the business. Increased productivity is the central core of the fast -food business model. Automated hamburgers mean fewer, better paid hamburger makers.

All employees, from entry level to the executive washroom level are hired for just one reason: their labor contributes more to the company than their wages cost. If the minimum wage employee doesn't meet that criterion, good bye; if she does, she gets the raise.

You ought to consider what happens to the extra money in the low-wage worker's pay packet. Unlike stockholder dividends, worker pay is spent locally on consumer items such as housing, food, and a night out at the hamburger stand. Increasing the dollar volume flowing through the bottom of the income pyramid is broadly stimulative. Trickle up is the real dynamic of the American economy, which is dominated by the consumer sector. Trickle down has created good jobs in China, not on Main St.

You don't have a clue about the profits at fast food places, Mcdonalds only owns like less then 10% of it's stores, the rest are own by small business folks, the profit margins are slim.

Can you tell me what percent of franchisees operate more than one location? Do you know what the initial buy-in is for a McDonald'a franchise? Do you know the average sale price for a franchise? No, you don't know any of these things. How can I tell? because you parrot the silly hog-wash about "small business owners." Friend you could hock everything you own and you wouldn't have half the money needed to buy even a faltering franchise location.

You don't know the basics and you don't know the numbers. What do you think the median "profit margin" is for a franchisee? Good luck finding that one on the Google.

Just to burnish your fast-food expertise, Ronald McDonald refers to his local operations as "restaurants," not "stores." And you say I haven't a clue? Really, it is to laugh.

Parrot? I think not, ya do know this is the CDZ correct? So why don't you stay on toppic and not make it a personal attack when you know you are starting to lose?

Btw if you must know, I am 50 doing well and have four high school friends

One owns three Arybys

One owns three hot dog stores

One owns a staffmart franchise

One owns a dance studio.

All in chicago they are far from rich, just upper class the only three friends I have that are millionaires is one who inherited his dad's automotive stores in Michigan, my old girlfriend who won the Illinois state lottery in 1997 and another old girlfriend who became a lawyer.

I know all about the profit margins of the small business. You don't have a clue.

To parrot as a verb means " a person who sedulously echoes another's words." I am not calling you a kind of bird. It is you who are directly insulting me, not the other way around.

I notice with some satisfaction that your completely irrelevant boast about your social life and romantic past is a mere deflection away from the fact that you cannot cite a single piece of factual evidence about your "small business" statement. You've got nothing and now we both know it. BTW, if your high school buddy wanted to sell his three Arbys, what would be the market value? I wonder if you even know that much, but at least you could call him up and ask. Pathetic, boastful, provincial and amusing. Wanna cracker?

 

[jwoodie]

Like doom-and-gloom about the housing bubble? Do you really believe that a $15/hr LIVING WAGE* at McDonald's will not raise their prices for hamburgers? Won't other wages have to be raised in order to maintain a differential for attracting more qualified employees? Don't you think it will discourage entry level employment?

*Did you even read the OP before posting your response?

Thank you for your condescending sarcasm. It helps me understand with whom I am dealing.

Raising the minimum wage doesn't necessarily raise the price of hamburgers for a couple of reasons:

Some or all of the wage increase may be paid for out of profits rather than by price increases. The fast food industry is immensely profitable and there is quite a bit of wage money to skim off the top.

The wage cost per hamburger has been dropping since Mr. Kroc took over the business. Increased productivity is the central core of the fast -food business model. Automated hamburgers mean fewer, better paid hamburger makers.

All employees, from entry level to the executive washroom level are hired for just one reason: their labor contributes more to the company than their wages cost. If the minimum wage employee doesn't meet that criterion, good bye; if she does, she gets the raise.

You ought to consider what happens to the extra money in the low-wage worker's pay packet. Unlike stockholder dividends, worker pay is spent locally on consumer items such as housing, food, and a night out at the hamburger stand. Increasing the dollar volume flowing through the bottom of the income pyramid is broadly stimulative. Trickle up is the real dynamic of the American economy, which is dominated by the consumer sector. Trickle down has created good jobs in China, not on Main St.

You don't have a clue about the profits at fast food places, Mcdonalds only owns like less then 10% of it's stores, the rest are own by small business folks, the profit margins are slim.

Can you tell me what percent of franchisees operate more than one location? Do you know what the initial buy-in is for a McDonald'a franchise? Do you know the average sale price for a franchise? No, you don't know any of these things. How can I tell? because you parrot the silly hog-wash about "small business owners." Friend you could hock everything you own and you wouldn't have half the money needed to buy even a faltering franchise location.

You don't know the basics and you don't know the numbers. What do you think the median "profit margin" is for a franchisee? Good luck finding that one on the Google.

Just to burnish your fast-food expertise, Ronald McDonald refers to his local operations as "restaurants," not "stores." And you say I haven't a clue? Really, it is to laugh.

Parrot? I think not, ya do know this is the CDZ correct? So why don't you stay on toppic and not make it a personal attack when you know you are starting to lose?

Btw if you must know, I am 50 doing well and have four high school friends

One owns three Arybys

One owns three hot dog stores

One owns a staffmart franchise

One owns a dance studio.

All in chicago they are far from rich, just upper class the only three friends I have that are millionaires is one who inherited his dad's automotive stores in Michigan, my old girlfriend who won the Illinois state lottery in 1997 and another old girlfriend who became a lawyer.

I know all about the profit margins of the small business. You don't have a clue.

To parrot as a verb means " a person who sedulously echoes another's words." I am not calling you a kind of bird. It is you who are directly insulting me, not the other way around.

I notice with some satisfaction that your completely irrelevant boast about your social life and romantic past is a mere deflection away from the fact that you cannot cite a single piece of factual evidence about your "small business" statement. You've got nothing and now we both know it. BTW, if your high school buddy wanted to sell his three Arbys, what would be the market value? I wonder if you even know that much, but at least you could call him up and ask. Pathetic, boastful, provincial and amusing. Wanna cracker?

Poor Fishlore has no one who will listen to him, so he subjects us to his irrelevant comments.

 

[Fishlore]

Thank you for your condescending sarcasm. It helps me understand with whom I am dealing.

Raising the minimum wage doesn't necessarily raise the price of hamburgers for a couple of reasons:

Some or all of the wage increase may be paid for out of profits rather than by price increases. The fast food industry is immensely profitable and there is quite a bit of wage money to skim off the top.

The wage cost per hamburger has been dropping since Mr. Kroc took over the business. Increased productivity is the central core of the fast -food business model. Automated hamburgers mean fewer, better paid hamburger makers.

All employees, from entry level to the executive washroom level are hired for just one reason: their labor contributes more to the company than their wages cost. If the minimum wage employee doesn't meet that criterion, good bye; if she does, she gets the raise.

You ought to consider what happens to the extra money in the low-wage worker's pay packet. Unlike stockholder dividends, worker pay is spent locally on consumer items such as housing, food, and a night out at the hamburger stand. Increasing the dollar volume flowing through the bottom of the income pyramid is broadly stimulative. Trickle up is the real dynamic of the American economy, which is dominated by the consumer sector. Trickle down has created good jobs in China, not on Main St.

You don't have a clue about the profits at fast food places, Mcdonalds only owns like less then 10% of it's stores, the rest are own by small business folks, the profit margins are slim.

Can you tell me what percent of franchisees operate more than one location? Do you know what the initial buy-in is for a McDonald'a franchise? Do you know the average sale price for a franchise? No, you don't know any of these things. How can I tell? because you parrot the silly hog-wash about "small business owners." Friend you could hock everything you own and you wouldn't have half the money needed to buy even a faltering franchise location.

You don't know the basics and you don't know the numbers. What do you think the median "profit margin" is for a franchisee? Good luck finding that one on the Google.

Just to burnish your fast-food expertise, Ronald McDonald refers to his local operations as "restaurants," not "stores." And you say I haven't a clue? Really, it is to laugh.

Parrot? I think not, ya do know this is the CDZ correct? So why don't you stay on toppic and not make it a personal attack when you know you are starting to lose?

Btw if you must know, I am 50 doing well and have four high school friends

One owns three Arybys

One owns three hot dog stores

One owns a staffmart franchise

One owns a dance studio.

All in chicago they are far from rich, just upper class the only three friends I have that are millionaires is one who inherited his dad's automotive stores in Michigan, my old girlfriend who won the Illinois state lottery in 1997 and another old girlfriend who became a lawyer.

I know all about the profit margins of the small business. You don't have a clue.

To parrot as a verb means " a person who sedulously echoes another's words." I am not calling you a kind of bird. It is you who are directly insulting me, not the other way around.

I notice with some satisfaction that your completely irrelevant boast about your social life and romantic past is a mere deflection away from the fact that you cannot cite a single piece of factual evidence about your "small business" statement. You've got nothing and now we both know it. BTW, if your high school buddy wanted to sell his three Arbys, what would be the market value? I wonder if you even know that much, but at least you could call him up and ask. Pathetic, boastful, provincial and amusing. Wanna cracker?

Poor Fishlore has no one who will listen to him, so he subjects us to his irrelevant comments.

Well, there is at least one pathetic laddie who is not only listening to him but is so inspired by what he hears that he takes to the Interwebs to make a perfect ass of himself in tribute. Perhaps Fishlore believes an audience of fools is better than no audience at all. This world is a veil of tears.

 

[320 Years of History]

While intuitively some of the remarks presented in this thread seem to make sense, upon actually investigating whether things "work" as described, I haven't found that they do. It strikes me as one of those things, like heliocentrism, about which "common wisdom" isn't borne out by the facts.

• It is employment rates not employment wages that correlate to and can cause inflation.
  • http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1182&context=key_workplace
    
  • http://cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf

• Study after study have shown that minimum wage increases, and especially gradual ones, have no discernable impact on the employment rate.
• The "McDonald's argument" is a pitiful one to even put forth seeing as over half the U.S. states and about a dozen cities have a higher-than-federal minimum wage, yet the restaurant industry thrives in all of them.

 

[jwoodie]

While intuitively some of the remarks presented in this thread seem to make sense, upon actually investigating whether things "work" as described, I haven't found that they do. It strikes me as one of those things, like heliocentrism, about which "common wisdom" isn't borne out by the facts.

• It is employment rates not employment wages that correlate to and can cause inflation.
  • http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1182&context=key_workplace
    
  • http://cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf

• Study after study have shown that minimum wage increases, and especially gradual ones, have no discernable impact on the employment rate.
• The "McDonald's argument" is a pitiful one to even put forth seeing as over half the U.S. states and about a dozen cities have a higher-than-federal minimum wage, yet the restaurant industry thrives in all of them.

Typical Liberal misinformation:

1. The first study only addresses employment rate effects on inflation, not wage increases.

2. The second study only found that modest increases in the minimum wage had little effect on employment rather than on entry-level hiring.

3. The only "pitiful" aspect of the "McDonald's argument" is the disingenuous attempt to equate its minimum wages with those of the restaurant industry as a whole, where tips often account for more than half of employees' earnings.

The OP is about the idea of a minimum "Living Wage" which is at least $15 per hour (and subject to future increases). Why does the Liberal response deliberately ignore this fact?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

You ought to consider what happens to the extra money in the low-wage worker's pay packet. Unlike stockholder dividends, worker pay is spent locally on consumer items such as housing, food, and a night out at the hamburger stand. Increasing the dollar volume flowing through the bottom of the income pyramid is broadly stimulative. Trickle up is the real dynamic of the American economy, which is dominated by the consumer sector. Trickle down has created good jobs in China, not on Main St.

Yes.

Economists have been teaching this for decades.

Never have been able to prove it really happens.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

• The "McDonald's argument" is a pitiful one to even put forth seeing as over half the U.S. states and about a dozen cities have a higher-than-federal minimum wage, yet the restaurant industry thrives in all of them.

Correct.

McDonalds pays a "market price" for the labor they get.

Why does the far left think they know what that is.

And how is it that the far left keeps appealing to some parts of economics and yet won't address the others ?

Selective listening.

 

[Kosh]

The far left has never defined what a living wage is in actual numbers..

So how much does one need to survive on like food, shelter and clothing?

 

[jwoodie]

The far left has never defined what a living wage is in actual numbers..

So how much does one need to survive on like food, shelter and clothing?

Make that for a family of four, just to show how ridiculous that idea is.

 

[Fishlore]

• The "McDonald's argument" is a pitiful one to even put forth seeing as over half the U.S. states and about a dozen cities have a higher-than-federal minimum wage, yet the restaurant industry thrives in all of them.

Correct.

McDonalds pays a "market price" for the labor they get.

Why does the far left think they know what that is.

And how is it that the far left keeps appealing to some parts of economics and yet won't address the others ?

Selective listening.

We haven't had a true "market price" for labor since the days of the slave auctions and we aren't going to go back now or ever. If you can't see why that is, i feel sorry for you, but America isn't going to abandon the minimum wage any more than we are going to go back to the gold standard. Get used to it.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

• The "McDonald's argument" is a pitiful one to even put forth seeing as over half the U.S. states and about a dozen cities have a higher-than-federal minimum wage, yet the restaurant industry thrives in all of them.

Correct.

McDonalds pays a "market price" for the labor they get.

Why does the far left think they know what that is.

And how is it that the far left keeps appealing to some parts of economics and yet won't address the others ?

Selective listening.

We haven't had a true "market price" for labor since the days of the slave auctions and we aren't going to go back now or ever. If you can't see why that is, i feel sorry for you, but America isn't going to abandon the minimum wage any more than we are going to go back to the gold standard. Get used to it.

Sorry you don't know what that means.

The market works all the time when it comes to labor.

Never said we would abandon the minimum wage.

It just seems stupid to double it right off the bat.

 

[Fishlore]

There is a market for labor; however, that market functions in radically different ways than, say, the market for soybeans. Even price support for soybeans doesn't function exactly the way the minimum wage law does. The original federal minimum wage act tied the minimum wage to 2/3 of the factory wage. Have you any idea of what 2/3 of the factory wage is today?

 

[dblack]

Raising the minimum wage doesn't necessarily raise the price of hamburgers for a couple of reasons:

Some or all of the wage increase may be paid for out of profits rather than by price increases. The fast food industry is immensely profitable and there is quite a bit of wage money to skim off the top.

Seriously? Why would they do that? Why would they suddenly have a change of heart and decide to take one for the team? Or, rather, why would raising the minimum wage inspire them to do that? This really is naive.

The wage cost per hamburger has been dropping since Mr. Kroc took over the business. Increased productivity is the central core of the fast -food business model. Automated hamburgers mean fewer, better paid hamburger makers.

All employees, from entry level to the executive washroom level are hired for just one reason: their labor contributes more to the company than their wages cost. If the minimum wage employee doesn't meet that criterion, good bye; if she does, she gets the raise.

Exactly. That's really all these MW do - they simply tell low-value laborers "tough shit, go on welfare!"

You ought to consider what happens to the extra money in the low-wage worker's pay packet.

Yep. Those who aren't fired will have more money to buy more expensive stuff. Of course, the workers who can't live up to the "new criterion" will be able to afford even less at that point, but hey "fuck them", right?"

 

[Fishlore]

Sorry, not right. What's missing is the larg

Raising the minimum wage doesn't necessarily raise the price of hamburgers for a couple of reasons:

Some or all of the wage increase may be paid for out of profits rather than by price increases. The fast food industry is immensely profitable and there is quite a bit of wage money to skim off the top.

Seriously? Why would they do that? Why would they suddenly have a change of heart and decide to take one for the team? Or, rather, why would raising the minimum wage inspire them to do that? This really is naive.

The wage cost per hamburger has been dropping since Mr. Kroc took over the business. Increased productivity is the central core of the fast -food business model. Automated hamburgers mean fewer, better paid hamburger makers.

All employees, from entry level to the executive washroom level are hired for just one reason: their labor contributes more to the company than their wages cost. If the minimum wage employee doesn't meet that criterion, good bye; if she does, she gets the raise.

Exactly. That's really all these MW do - they simply tell low-value laborers "tough shit, go on welfare!"

You ought to consider what happens to the extra money in the low-wage worker's pay packet.

Yep. Those who aren't fired will have more money to buy more expensive stuff. Of course, the workers who can't live up to the "new criterion" will be able to afford even less at that point, but hey "fuck them", right?"

No, not right. What's missing is the larger issue that each individual worker is something much more than just a unit of production, s/he is an American citizen, a member of the American community and a child of God. Workers who are not profitable cannot be junked like a broken down piece of equipment. The inability to see our individual American brothers and sisters a part of something larger and more precious than the economic system which serves that larger entity is the fundamental mistake of today's so-called "conservatives."

Real conservatism puts the economy in service to a higher entity. That entity may be described in some places as "Queen and country," elsewhere as "the fatherland" or perhaps "the motherland" more often "one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." What ever term you use to describe it, it is axiomatic that the economy serves a broader interest than just the wealth of the individual in a zero-sum contest for the most toys.

Todays "conservatives" have lost sight of this basic truth in their idolatry of the "free market." The apotheosis of consumerism is not patriotism.

 

[320 Years of History]

While intuitively some of the remarks presented in this thread seem to make sense, upon actually investigating whether things "work" as described, I haven't found that they do. It strikes me as one of those things, like heliocentrism, about which "common wisdom" isn't borne out by the facts.

• It is employment rates not employment wages that correlate to and can cause inflation.
  • http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1182&context=key_workplace
    
  • http://cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf

• Study after study have shown that minimum wage increases, and especially gradual ones, have no discernable impact on the employment rate.
• The "McDonald's argument" is a pitiful one to even put forth seeing as over half the U.S. states and about a dozen cities have a higher-than-federal minimum wage, yet the restaurant industry thrives in all of them.

Typical Liberal misinformation:

1. The first study only addresses employment rate effects on inflation, not wage increases.

2. The second study only found that modest increases in the minimum wage had little effect on employment rather than on entry-level hiring.

3. The only "pitiful" aspect of the "McDonald's argument" is the disingenuous attempt to equate its minimum wages with those of the restaurant industry as a whole, where tips often account for more than half of employees' earnings.

The OP is about the idea of a minimum "Living Wage" which is at least $15 per hour (and subject to future increases). Why does the Liberal response deliberately ignore this fact?

Red:
For most readers, the information in the first study alone should have been enough for them to posit/accept that implementing the "Living Wage" of $15/hr as a minimum will constitute a wage increase for millions of people and that wage increases don't cause inflation. The document provided in the second bullet, (as opposed to the second study) establishes that modest wage increases don't cause inflation and so they may have wondered if immodest ones (whatever constitutes "immodest") also do not. In seeking an answer to that question, the reader would have endeavored to find out and come across any of the following:

• https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/36750/1/MPRA_paper_36750.pdf
  
• Minimum Wage Mythbusters - U.S. Department of Labor
  
• What Will Happen to the Economy If We Raise the Minimum Wage? | VICE News

By the end of their own additional examination of the matter, astute readers would most likely realize the assertion that stated in the OP that " the generous idea of a Living Wage [is] a recipe for inflation rates not seen since the 1970s" must necessarily be very questionable at best. At a minimum, they'd recognize that what seems as though it should be intuitively obvious is not necessarily the way wages affect inflation.

Highlighting the highly circumspect nature of the OP premise I quoted earlier in this paragraph (along with the opposing premise) was the intent of my sharing the information I did. Additionally, the content I provided addressed relevant employment-and-inflation matters such as productivity gains and wage hikes.


Blue:
Is someone trying to establish that correspondence? I did not.


Other:
Elsewhere in the forum, you chided me for investing the effort to fully develop and support the points I sought to make, stating that it makes my posts too long. Upon reading your remark in that regard, along with reading some of the responses you've made to my longer posts, I inferred that you don't bother to read them thoroughly. With post #24 in this thread, rather than present my full argument showing that one of your statements with which I took exception, the one I quoted, could/should not be relied upon by critical thinkers seeking to evaluate the entire OP, I merely pointed you (and other readers) to the content that, were they to read it, would have made clear to them the need for a good deal of skepticism regarding its veracity and applicability to the matter of the "Living Wage" as presented by you.

Given your remarks above, it's now clear that you didn't appreciate the "short post" approach I took either. Furthermore, your remarks in response to post #24 suggest that you didn't even thoroughly read the papers to which I pointed you, let alone seek out comparable corroborating or refuting info and share it with us. Neither did you refute the assertions regarding the impact wage increase have on the economy by providing your own well developed argument. What you did was remark showing you did not read and analyze, in the aggregate, the information in the several studies and the facts/observations in them.

I am thus led to conclude that it really doesn't matter how comprehensively one attempts to engage you on a given topic. I believe that you are more determined to share and stand on, perhaps even market, your views and put forth ideas and false premises rather than test their merit/relevance. I don't mind that that be what you want to do when you post -- it's a free forum and I can't do a damn thing about it if you do -- but I do want to know for sure if it is. To be sure, some of your some of your remarks seem well developed and based on accurate premises. Others, not so much. It is the variability that leads me to wonder just what the deal is.

FWIW, I don't ask or require that you, or anyone, read my posts, long or short. I just ask that if one doesn't read them (including linked content) thoroughly, that one not reply to them. Alternatively, if you feel compelled to reply to a small part of a longer post, please at least make it clear that you are doing so absent knowing/understanding the context of that small part in relation to the whole post.

 

[dblack]

Sorry, not right. What's missing is the larg

Raising the minimum wage doesn't necessarily raise the price of hamburgers for a couple of reasons:

Some or all of the wage increase may be paid for out of profits rather than by price increases. The fast food industry is immensely profitable and there is quite a bit of wage money to skim off the top.

Seriously? Why would they do that? Why would they suddenly have a change of heart and decide to take one for the team? Or, rather, why would raising the minimum wage inspire them to do that? This really is naive.

The wage cost per hamburger has been dropping since Mr. Kroc took over the business. Increased productivity is the central core of the fast -food business model. Automated hamburgers mean fewer, better paid hamburger makers.

All employees, from entry level to the executive washroom level are hired for just one reason: their labor contributes more to the company than their wages cost. If the minimum wage employee doesn't meet that criterion, good bye; if she does, she gets the raise.

Exactly. That's really all these MW do - they simply tell low-value laborers "tough shit, go on welfare!"

You ought to consider what happens to the extra money in the low-wage worker's pay packet.

Yep. Those who aren't fired will have more money to buy more expensive stuff. Of course, the workers who can't live up to the "new criterion" will be able to afford even less at that point, but hey "fuck them", right?"

No, not right. What's missing is the larger issue that each individual worker is something much more than just a unit of production, s/he is an American citizen, a member of the American community and a child of God. Workers who are not profitable cannot be junked like a broken down piece of equipment. The inability to see our individual American brothers and sisters a part of something larger and more precious than the economic system which serves that larger entity is the fundamental mistake of today's so-called "conservatives."

Yep I agree. But minimum wage increases won't help them. It's delusional law designed to placate idiots and control labor.

Real conservatism puts the economy in service to a higher entity.

That's why I'm not a conservative.

 

[320 Years of History]

... it is axiomatic that the economy serves a broader interest than just the wealth of the individual in a zero-sum contest for the most toys....

Does it even serve that at all? When did the "contest" become a zero-sum one?

 

[jwoodie]

FWIW, I don't ask or require that you, or anyone, read my posts, long or short. I just ask that if one doesn't read them (including linked content) thoroughly, that one not reply to them.

Your disingenuous self-righteousness is proven by the fact that YOU have tried to hijack MY OP on the LIVING WAGE issue by posting interminable filibustery regarding the MINIMUM WAGE.

In addition, your pretense of citing objective studies is transparently obvious. By indiscriminately mixing fact and conjecture, they only serve to reinforce your predetermined political beliefs. At the very least, you could acknowledge that there are equally authoritative studies that come to opposite conclusions:

The Evidence Is Piling Up That Higher Minimum Wages Kill Jobs

 

[320 Years of History]

Your disingenuous self-righteousness is proven by the fact that YOU have tried to hijack MY OP on the LIVING WAGE issue by posting interminable filibustery regarding the MINIMUM WAGE.

In addition, your pretense of citing objective studies is transparently obvious. By indiscriminately mixing fact and conjecture, they only serve to reinforce your predetermined political beliefs. At the very least, you could acknowledge that there are equally authoritative studies that come to opposite conclusions:

The Evidence Is Piling Up That Higher Minimum Wages Kill Jobs

Red:
??? You expressly cited and impact of the minimum wage -- inflation -- in YOUR OP. To show the unassuredness of your claimed consequence of increasing the minimum wage and to show that there is not a link between employment wages and inflation, and that the link is between employment rates, that I wrote remarks I first shared in this thread. I also provided references that show that job loss is but one means employers have for managing wage hikes and that it is not at all a given that job cuts are the means employers will take to deal with mandated increases in wages.

The Law of Unintended Consequences:

Just as the laudable goal of Affordable Housing was the genesis of the mortgage meltdown, so is the generous idea of a Living Wage a recipe for inflation rates not seen since the 1970s. A rising tide lifts all boats, and substantially raising the minimum wage, without a corresponding increase in productivity, will inevitably lift other wages as well. With more dollars competing for the same goods and services, higher prices (inflation) will surely follow.

...

 

[jwoodie]

Your disingenuous self-righteousness is proven by the fact that YOU have tried to hijack MY OP on the LIVING WAGE issue by posting interminable filibustery regarding the MINIMUM WAGE.

In addition, your pretense of citing objective studies is transparently obvious. By indiscriminately mixing fact and conjecture, they only serve to reinforce your predetermined political beliefs. At the very least, you could acknowledge that there are equally authoritative studies that come to opposite conclusions:

The Evidence Is Piling Up That Higher Minimum Wages Kill Jobs

Red:
??? You expressly cited and impact of the minimum wage -- inflation -- in YOUR OP. To show the unassuredness of your claimed consequence of increasing the minimum wage and to show that there is not a link between employment wages and inflation, and that the link is between employment rates, that I wrote remarks I first shared in this thread. I also provided references that show that job loss is but one means employers have for managing wage hikes and that it is not at all a given that job cuts are the means employers will take to deal with mandated increases in wages.

The Law of Unintended Consequences:

Just as the laudable goal of Affordable Housing was the genesis of the mortgage meltdown, so is the generous idea of a Living Wage a recipe for inflation rates not seen since the 1970s. A rising tide lifts all boats, and substantially raising the minimum wage, without a corresponding increase in productivity, will inevitably lift other wages as well. With more dollars competing for the same goods and services, higher prices (inflation) will surely follow.

...

OK, I get it: You need reading glasses. The title subject of this thread is the "LIVING WAGE," which I referred to as "SUBSTANTIALLY RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE WITHOUT A CORRESPONDING INCREASE IN PRODUCTIVITY." Is that easier to read now?

Your reactionary response was to mischaracterize my post as an attack on the entire concept of the minimum wage and then cite questionable studies which, by their own admission, only postulated the possible effects of modest and gradual increases thereof. The citation in my last post was, as stated, a reference to other studies that have come to opposite conclusions. Since you are apparently not interested in reading them, I can only conclude that you are a partisan ideologue who believes that obfuscation and misdirection are legitimate means of rebuttal.