Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This is preposterous.
Low wage jobs are not charity. They only exist because the employer needs them.
If an employer has 10 people working for him at $7.25 an hour, it's because he needs 10 man-hours of work done per hour.
If you lower the minimum wage to 6.25, does he hire an extra person? Of course not. He doesn't NEED an extra person. 10 people are getting the job done that he needs done...
...lower the minimum wage to 6.25, and all that happens is that the employer pockets an extra 10 bucks for every hour his people work.
As usual....wrong.
1. Employers, of course, are free to make adjustments in their use of labor. Often said adjustments are at the expense of the workers who are most disadvantaged in terms of their marketable skills. They will lose their jobs, or not be hired in the first place.
a. The workers who suffer most are the most marginal, usually youths, and racial minorities, disproportionally represented among low-skilled workers.
b. Not only are the above made less employable by minimum wage laws, but they lose the opportunity to upgrade their skills via on-the-job training.
2. The weight of research by academic scholars concludes that unemployment among some segments of the work force is directly related to legal minimum wages, See K.R. Kearl, et al., What Economists Think, and Alston, Kearl, and Vaughn, Is There Global Economic Consensus, both in the American Economic Review.
3. . You want to know how to solve the low-income
housing crisis? Get rid of Davis-Bacon. Thats what
Elzie Higginbottom says, and Higginbottom builds
low-income housing in Chicagos grim South Side
ghetto and manages his 2,500 units with a magic
touch .
The law requires Higginbottom to pay the
prevailing wage to all workers on federally assisted
projects of more than 11 units. In Chicago, that
means paying carpenters $23 an hour, including ben-
efits, and paying laborers $18.82 an hour for hauling
in the drywall .
So lets say Higginbottom wants to hire some of
the unskilled black men from the neighborhood
where he is building houses. He is black himself and
fiercely committed to building a social and economic
base in Chicagos poor neighborhoods.
But to give a
local guy a chance, Higginbottom has to pay him a
wage set by Department of Labor bureaucrats. Ive
got to start out a guy at $16 an hour to find out if he
knows how to dig a hole. I cant do that.
"Congress's Deconstruction Theory", by Patrick Barry, The Washington Monthly, January 1990, p. 10
Do you know of employers who hire workers they don't need, simply and only because they can get them for low wages?
Can you cite them specifically?
Nothing in the above rant has anything to do with what I posted, you asshole.
YOU POSTED:
"Low wage jobs are not charity. They only exist because the employer needs them."
SO what the f...k does that have to do with reality??? Of course the employer would LIKE workers to work for NOTHING! But he'd have no workers!
Employers want the lowest cost to produce a profit...DUH!!! do you understand???
"If an employer has 10 people working for him at $7.25 an hour, it's because he needs 10 man-hours of work done per hour."
First of all YOU are wrong! It is NOT $7.25 per hour BUT add the additional SS/Medicare/FUTA taxes which YOU obviously didn't know Employers pay,
THAT makes the job $8.26 per hour you dummy!
"If you lower the minimum wage to 6.25, does he hire an extra person? Of course not.
He doesn't NEED an extra person. 10 people are getting the job done that he needs done..."
How in the f..k do you know?? YOU don't! But at now $7.12 ($6.25 PLUS 87 cents for SS/Medicare/FUTA taxes)
He can INCREASE business hours, increase production INCREASE Profits with MORE workers dummy!!!
"lower the minimum wage to 6.25, and all that happens is that the employer pockets an extra 10 bucks for every hour his people work."
SO f..king WHAT the difference?? Is the employer as you said a CHARITY offering work for people because the business is an eleemosynary entity?
F..K no! So what if he did keep the difference??
Unlike you he probably won't hide the extra money under his mattress or bury in the backyard!
MOST likely would spend it ... YEA... increase consumption!! Or invest it.. YEA!!! lower interest rates!
All of the above is BETTER then RAISING the minimum to $9.00 which really means the employer pays $10.25/ hour with SS/Medicare/FUTA!!!
So the employer at $10.25 because of the $9.00 minimum has to let people go!
__________________
So you admit that the lower minimum wage just means higher profits for the employer, not more jobs for the worker.
You do understand that the lower the minimum wage, the more the worker will be eligible for in tax payer funded needs based benefits, right?
As usual....wrong.
1. Employers, of course, are free to make adjustments in their use of labor. Often said adjustments are at the expense of the workers who are most disadvantaged in terms of their marketable skills. They will lose their jobs, or not be hired in the first place.
a. The workers who suffer most are the most marginal, usually youths, and racial minorities, disproportionally represented among low-skilled workers.
b. Not only are the above made less employable by minimum wage laws, but they lose the opportunity to upgrade their skills via on-the-job training.
2. The weight of research by academic scholars concludes that unemployment among some segments of the work force is directly related to legal minimum wages, See K.R. Kearl, et al., What Economists Think, and Alston, Kearl, and Vaughn, Is There Global Economic Consensus, both in the American Economic Review.
3. . You want to know how to solve the low-income
housing crisis? Get rid of Davis-Bacon. Thats what
Elzie Higginbottom says, and Higginbottom builds
low-income housing in Chicagos grim South Side
ghetto and manages his 2,500 units with a magic
touch .
The law requires Higginbottom to pay the
prevailing wage to all workers on federally assisted
projects of more than 11 units. In Chicago, that
means paying carpenters $23 an hour, including ben-
efits, and paying laborers $18.82 an hour for hauling
in the drywall .
So lets say Higginbottom wants to hire some of
the unskilled black men from the neighborhood
where he is building houses. He is black himself and
fiercely committed to building a social and economic
base in Chicagos poor neighborhoods.
But to give a
local guy a chance, Higginbottom has to pay him a
wage set by Department of Labor bureaucrats. Ive
got to start out a guy at $16 an hour to find out if he
knows how to dig a hole. I cant do that.
"Congress's Deconstruction Theory", by Patrick Barry, The Washington Monthly, January 1990, p. 10
Do you know of employers who hire workers they don't need, simply and only because they can get them for low wages?
Can you cite them specifically?
Can you learn to read???
Employers hire workers they need....and would pay what the job is worth if busy-bodies and morons would leave it to them.
The post specifies carrying drywall or digging a hole. Even you could (probably) do those jobs efficiently.
What the job is worth is the question.
Adjusted for inflation (which is the only meaningful way to use historical economic data, btw)
we have been lowering the minimum wage since 1968.
What's gotten better?
Adjusted for inflation (which is the only meaningful way to use historical economic data, btw)
we have been lowering the minimum wage since 1968.
What's gotten better?
Executive compensation.
Do you know of employers who hire workers they don't need, simply and only because they can get them for low wages?
Can you cite them specifically?
OF course NOT because employers are profit oriented and NOT one employer will hire just because they can get them for lower wages!
BUT they will hire more to get more revenue if their costs are the same!
By hiring $7.12/hour (with taxes included) they can get MORE workers for the same costs.. therefore MORE production means more profits!!!
Are you really that economically ignorant???
BUT they are making these $8.25 hr ($7.25 min wage) workers work harder and therefore more mistakes etc. they would prefer MORE workers at lower wages
because they can get the same production with LESS errors!!!
Now here is what the Government massive Obamcare is causing PEOPLE TO WORK LESS HOURS!
And people having to do more with less co-workers!
John Mackey, Co-Founder and Co-CEO of Whole Foods, an outspoken critic of the Obama health reform law.
His chain already offers health care to workers at the 30-hour threshold. But the company may be forced to reconsider its full-time staffing levels, if the final employer mandate rules still being crafted by the Obama administration require companies to offer costly benefit options, he said.
Read more at Obamacare Fallout: Cut Worker Hours or Drop Coverage
"Say we're paying $3,200 a year for insurance for somebody, and the new regulations cost us $5,000 to insure somebody.
If they work fewer hours, we just saved $5,000 per person," because there is no mandate to provide coverage for part-time workers, he explained.
Read more at Obamacare Fallout: Cut Worker Hours or Drop Coverage
GREEDY BASTARD!!!
The only case where you would hire more workers at 7.00 per hour instead of 8.00 per hour would be if you were losing money on labor at 8.00 an hour.
Do you know of employers who hire workers they don't need, simply and only because they can get them for low wages?
Can you cite them specifically?
Can you learn to read???
Employers hire workers they need....and would pay what the job is worth if busy-bodies and morons would leave it to them.
The post specifies carrying drywall or digging a hole. Even you could (probably) do those jobs efficiently.
What the job is worth is the question.
Now you're agreeing with me and disagreeing with the idiot who started this thread.
You said I was wrong; now you're acknowledging I was right.
Adjusted for inflation (which is the only meaningful way to use historical economic data, btw)
we have been lowering the minimum wage since 1968.
What's gotten better?
Apparently not your insight. But, heck, your hand-wringing has improved remarkably.
Better: middle class status.
1. Lets be clear: the broadest and most accurate measure of living standard is real per capita consumption. That measure soared by 74% from 1980 to 2004. The Equality Of Reaganomics - Forbes
http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...ce=N&AllYearsChk=YES&Update=Update&JavaBox=no
a. A study of table 7.1 would show that between 1973 and 2004, it doubled. And between 1929 and 2004, real per capita consumption by American workers increased five fold. The fastest growth periods were 1983-1990 and 1992-2004, known as the Reagan boom.
b. For those who insist that wealth has fallen, this in a discussion of the recession: The decline in home prices and stock portfolios in 2008 wiped out gains in net worth from the previous three years, the Fed said. Median household net worth increased 17.7 percent between 2004 and 2007, but fell 3.2 percent from 2004 through last October, according to the Federal Reserve's Survey of Consumer Finances. Average American Net Worth Drops 23% - CBS News
c.Today, the country has gone a long way toward an appearance of classlessness. Americans of all sorts are awash in luxuries that would have dazzled their grandparents.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/15/national/class/OVERVIEW-FINAL.html?pagewanted=all
Can you learn to read???
Employers hire workers they need....and would pay what the job is worth if busy-bodies and morons would leave it to them.
The post specifies carrying drywall or digging a hole. Even you could (probably) do those jobs efficiently.
What the job is worth is the question.
Now you're agreeing with me and disagreeing with the idiot who started this thread.
You said I was wrong; now you're acknowledging I was right.
Hey look who agreed with you....another CEO.
No, Einstein....the employer who wants to hire unskilled or low skilled workers cannot because of the legal wage scales.
He could hire if there were a free market.
Adjusted for inflation (which is the only meaningful way to use historical economic data, btw)
we have been lowering the minimum wage since 1968.
What's gotten better?
Executive compensation.
Yes, and corporate profits:
As you can see, there has been a huge redistribution of wealth from the makers to the takers.
Lower the minimum wage.
That simple.
If you want the economic reality ask and I will share!
I think we should go back to company stores and wage tokens. Poor Corporations need all the help they can get.
OF course NOT because employers are profit oriented and NOT one employer will hire just because they can get them for lower wages!
BUT they will hire more to get more revenue if their costs are the same!
By hiring $7.12/hour (with taxes included) they can get MORE workers for the same costs.. therefore MORE production means more profits!!!
Are you really that economically ignorant???
BUT they are making these $8.25 hr ($7.25 min wage) workers work harder and therefore more mistakes etc. they would prefer MORE workers at lower wages
because they can get the same production with LESS errors!!!
Now here is what the Government massive Obamcare is causing PEOPLE TO WORK LESS HOURS!
And people having to do more with less co-workers!
John Mackey, Co-Founder and Co-CEO of Whole Foods, an outspoken critic of the Obama health reform law.
His chain already offers health care to workers at the 30-hour threshold. But the company may be forced to reconsider its full-time staffing levels, if the final employer mandate rules still being crafted by the Obama administration require companies to offer costly benefit options, he said.
Read more at Obamacare Fallout: Cut Worker Hours or Drop Coverage
"Say we're paying $3,200 a year for insurance for somebody, and the new regulations cost us $5,000 to insure somebody.
If they work fewer hours, we just saved $5,000 per person," because there is no mandate to provide coverage for part-time workers, he explained.
Read more at Obamacare Fallout: Cut Worker Hours or Drop Coverage
GREEDY BASTARD!!!
The only case where you would hire more workers at 7.00 per hour instead of 8.00 per hour would be if you were losing money on labor at 8.00 an hour.
How come your not out there hiring folks?
Oh...cause you never had a business....just lots of opinions about how awful folks with businesses are.
Now you're agreeing with me and disagreeing with the idiot who started this thread.
You said I was wrong; now you're acknowledging I was right.
Hey look who agreed with you....another CEO.
No, Einstein....the employer who wants to hire unskilled or low skilled workers cannot because of the legal wage scales.
He could hire if there were a free market.
In other words, we could build the I-Phone and several thousand other products here instead of in China,
if American workers could be forced to work for 50 cents an hour.
I think we should go back to company stores and wage tokens. Poor Corporations need all the help they can get.
Good idea. As long as people are working they should be happy since money can't buy happiness. The employers will prosper and will trickle down their profits on the employees. We could call it trickle down.
The only case where you would hire more workers at 7.00 per hour instead of 8.00 per hour would be if you were losing money on labor at 8.00 an hour.
How come your not out there hiring folks?
Oh...cause you never had a business....just lots of opinions about how awful folks with businesses are.
If you can't make a profit paying workers at least the current minimum wage, then you're probably not cut out to be a businessman,
at least not in America.
I think we should go back to company stores and wage tokens. Poor Corporations need all the help they can get.
Lower the minimum wage.
That simple.
If you want the economic reality ask and I will share!
Nothing in the above rant has anything to do with what I posted, you asshole.
YOU POSTED:
"Low wage jobs are not charity. They only exist because the employer needs them."
SO what the f...k does that have to do with reality??? Of course the employer would LIKE workers to work for NOTHING! But he'd have no workers!
Employers want the lowest cost to produce a profit...DUH!!! do you understand???
"If an employer has 10 people working for him at $7.25 an hour, it's because he needs 10 man-hours of work done per hour."
First of all YOU are wrong! It is NOT $7.25 per hour BUT add the additional SS/Medicare/FUTA taxes which YOU obviously didn't know Employers pay,
THAT makes the job $8.26 per hour you dummy!
"If you lower the minimum wage to 6.25, does he hire an extra person? Of course not.
He doesn't NEED an extra person. 10 people are getting the job done that he needs done..."
How in the f..k do you know?? YOU don't! But at now $7.12 ($6.25 PLUS 87 cents for SS/Medicare/FUTA taxes)
He can INCREASE business hours, increase production INCREASE Profits with MORE workers dummy!!!
"lower the minimum wage to 6.25, and all that happens is that the employer pockets an extra 10 bucks for every hour his people work."
SO f..king WHAT the difference?? Is the employer as you said a CHARITY offering work for people because the business is an eleemosynary entity?
F..K no! So what if he did keep the difference??
Unlike you he probably won't hide the extra money under his mattress or bury in the backyard!
MOST likely would spend it ... YEA... increase consumption!! Or invest it.. YEA!!! lower interest rates!
All of the above is BETTER then RAISING the minimum to $9.00 which really means the employer pays $10.25/ hour with SS/Medicare/FUTA!!!
So the employer at $10.25 because of the $9.00 minimum has to let people go!
__________________
So you admit that the lower minimum wage just means higher profits for the employer, not more jobs for the worker.
You do understand that the lower the minimum wage, the more the worker will be eligible for in tax payer funded needs based benefits, right?
