What would happen to the economy if minimum wages are raised?

[Toddsterpatriot]

Only Capital has to work under Any form of Capitalism, not fools or horses.

Da comrade!

capitalism at its finest.

Works better than your Marxism.

choice is marxism? how do you figure, comrade? only the right is a bunch of communists and don't know it; the left is trying to be better poets, and know it.

choice is Marxism?

No. Your silly Marxist ideas are Marxism.

equal protection of the law is Marxism to the fantastical, right wing?

Unemployed people do have equal protection of the law in relation to employed people. DERP!

 

[Skull Pilot]

Public policy does that

Public policy keeps wages low? How? Why? Please explain further.

The government can set the legal amount for a living wage.

The government can set the legal amount for a living wage.

Yes, the government can do lots of stupid things. Doesn't mean they should though.

yet, we have a War on Drugs that the right, also prefers to pay for instead of higher wages.

And we should end the failed war on drugs but not to give the money to lazy fucks like you but to lower the tax rate so people who do work can keep more of their own money

Do try to be less selfish. There are many people who cannot work because they live in economically depressed areas of the country where industry has collapsed. There are also people who have major handicaps such as wounded soldiers back from fighting in the Middle East who cannot work and others of their comrades who suffer from stress and are unable to hold down a job. People who were born with congenital handicaps and debilitating conditions such as cerebral palsy. Then there are single parents who cannot afford child care should the go to work. The elderly who have worked all they lives and whose retirement funds were lost in the banking crash of 2008 may be too frail to work. These people are all your fellow Americans and are worthy of your concern and government help.

This moron posting doesn't have a handicap
Soldiers are eligible for disability and SS

This guy wants to choose not to work and collect unemployment.

And I don't care where you live there is always some kind of work to be had

 

[hadit]

you need to learn the legal definition of at will employment. It doesn't mean you can choose not to work and still get paid

Employment At Will: What Does It Mean? | Nolo.com

Job applicants and new employees are often perplexed to read--in a job application, employment contract, or employee handbook--that they will be employed "at will." They are even more troubled when they find out exactly what this language means: An at-will employee can be fired at any time, for any reason (except for a few illegal reasons, spelled out below). If the employer decides to let you go, that's the end of your job--and you have very limited legal rights to fight your termination.

employment is at the will of either party. it really is that simple, except to the fantastical, right wing. How Marxist of them.

You just can't make shit up. I gave you the LEGAL definition of at will employment if you want to make shit up you can't call anyone else fantastical

it is not a legal definition since it does not apply, equal protection of the law. it is a natural right to exercise your individual liberty, in pursuit of your individual civil liberty.

Which you already have. You are perfectly free to pursue a career, work a job, or do nothing. What you DON'T have is the right to force someone else to support you if you decide not to work, and you should never have that right.

yes, we do. capitalism is public policy. capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment. eminent domain applies.

in any case, it is paid for through tax monies; you are not paying anyone's wages.

Thus, it is welfare. If you acknowledge that, you will at least be honest in saying what you want is a guaranteed income and that it's not business' responsibility to provide it.

 

[hadit]

You mean to say, as I have said many times, that the only way a MW is sustainable is if you keep it low enough to not really matter. If the market price for a job is $10/hr, setting the MW at $9/hr doesn't effect it much. What it DOES do, though, is allow those who don't have much experience to get into the job and pick up some skills so they can justify the higher pay. You would take that away from them.

the minimum wage is more sustainable when it competes favorably with the cost of social services. thus, fifteen dollars an hour. anything less, merely subsidizes the rich.

For the millionth time who came up with the number $14 Buck's an hour?


Its worth $7 bucks an hour in new York city..

Compared to Alabama.

.

the cost of social services on average.

If you put your head in the freezer and your feet in the oven, on average you're fine. IOW, the cost of social services varies from region to region and so should any MW.

why? would the private sector be worse off? improving our Standard of living is what we will be accomplishing. no need to "leave the South, behind."

So you're okay with welfare providing some people a middle class lifestyle, even if they refuse to work? That's unsustainable.

 

[hadit]

There would be fewer working, period. The only question is how many fewer. Obviously, a higher MW kills jobs. Doubt it? Set it to $100/hr and ask what would happen. Now, you CAN have a MW that doesn't kill too many jobs all at once, but you have to keep it low enough that it really doesn't make much of a difference. We have already lost a lot of low end jobs to higher costs, but as long as the pace is gradual enough, not too many complain.

Politicians who care more about their working class families than corporation executive salaries and stockholders dividends will make a minimum wage a living wage by law.

No, they will not, and here is why.

1. They do hear from economists, and know that a MW raised that high that fast would kill the economy.
2. ANY MW that's supposed to be a "living wage" will end up simply chasing an ideal that can never be reached. First, jacking the MW increases inflation and within a short period of time erases any benefit. Secondly, those who got big raises and didn't lose their jobs and those who benefit politically from their votes will, in VERY short order, decide that whatever they set the MW to just isn't enough, and will insist on raising it yet again.
3. There is a significant number of people who would like to work and who would benefit from working, but don't need to be paid a lot to do so. Jacking the MW too high simply prices them out of the market, leaving them unemployed. You graduated from high school and want to start working? Great, just wait a few years until something opens up or enough experienced workers die to give you a spot.

Economists did not see the crash coming and cannot be trusted with predictions.

It is common sense that rapidly and drastically increasing the MW costs jobs.

Actually it is employer and commercial TV propaganda who care only about their own profits.

Okay, here's reality. Employers care about their profits, employees care about their paychecks and getting raises. Employers want to pay as little as possible for as much work as possible, and employees want to be paid as much as possible for as little work as possible. Now, how many new employees can a company hire and pay without profits?

 

[hadit]

No, they will not, and here is why.

1. They do hear from economists, and know that a MW raised that high that fast would kill the economy.
2. ANY MW that's supposed to be a "living wage" will end up simply chasing an ideal that can never be reached. First, jacking the MW increases inflation and within a short period of time erases any benefit. Secondly, those who got big raises and didn't lose their jobs and those who benefit politically from their votes will, in VERY short order, decide that whatever they set the MW to just isn't enough, and will insist on raising it yet again.
3. There is a significant number of people who would like to work and who would benefit from working, but don't need to be paid a lot to do so. Jacking the MW too high simply prices them out of the market, leaving them unemployed. You graduated from high school and want to start working? Great, just wait a few years until something opens up or enough experienced workers die to give you a spot.

Economists did not see the crash coming and cannot be trusted with predictions.

It is common sense that rapidly and drastically increasing the MW costs jobs.

only low end jobs. unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed can solve that problem.

Congratulations, you have unintentionally stumbled on a harsh reality about the MW. Raising it hurts the very people it is supposed to help, by destroying the low end jobs they need to get on the first rung of the job market. See, low end jobs are not intended to be long term. You are supposed to get in, get some experience and skills, then get raises and promotions to better jobs or leave to get a better one. Quite frankly, if you are still doing the same MW job after a few years, I have to wonder what you're doing wrong.

Your philosophy is both callous and out-of-touch with reality.

Exactly where? Can you give me an example of a MW job that is intended for someone to do for a lifetime?

 

[Wyatt earp]

You mean to say, as I have said many times, that the only way a MW is sustainable is if you keep it low enough to not really matter. If the market price for a job is $10/hr, setting the MW at $9/hr doesn't effect it much. What it DOES do, though, is allow those who don't have much experience to get into the job and pick up some skills so they can justify the higher pay. You would take that away from them.

the minimum wage is more sustainable when it competes favorably with the cost of social services. thus, fifteen dollars an hour. anything less, merely subsidizes the rich.

For the millionth time who came up with the number $14 Buck's an hour?


Its worth $7 bucks an hour in new York city..

Compared to Alabama.

.

the cost of social services on average.

If you put your head in the freezer and your feet in the oven, on average you're fine. IOW, the cost of social services varies from region to region and so should any MW.

why? would the private sector be worse off? improving our Standard of living is what we will be accomplishing. no need to "leave the South, behind."

Still Dont have a clue about profit margins and over 80% of the company's are small business own do you


And for the billionth time who sets the welfare number?



.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

An at-will employee can be fired at any time, for any reason.

this is good since it gives management control over the management of the company and who knows more about what is best for the company than the management. THe govt monopolist bureaucrats? Govt has no expertise, and no interest since the slub who got fired is no better or worse than the new hire who gets a new job that he badly needs.

If management fires the wrong people the company goes bankrupt! This is the beauty of Republican capitalism.

 

[danielpalos]

you mean, it is not, self-evident to the right? a minimum wage needs to compete favorably with the cost of social services, or people will simply resort to social services. low wages only helps the rich get richer faster, not improve our economy.

Many actually do just that and refuse to work because they can get more from welfare. But here's where the wheels fall off your tricycle. You have not addressed the purpose of MW jobs. They are NOT supposed to support a family of four, or even one in a comfortable fashion. They ARE, however, supposed to be vehicles where companies can get some things done that don't require a lot of training or experience to do, and for individuals to break into the job market.

mw jobs are entry level. that is not the point. everybody has to start somewhere.

the point is about equal protection of the law.

repeating the same shit over and over again doesn't make it true

If you don't work you do get equal protection under the law toy just don't get paid

that is going to change. why do you care if someone works if you don't care how much they make?

just the fantastical right wing, being cognitively dissonant, as usual.

I don't care if they work or don't as long as they don't expect working people to pay for their shit

If you don't want to work then go find a spot in a national forest, build a shelter from sticks, rocks and leaves, collect firewood,trap mice and squirrels to eat and be 100% self supporting

If you don't want to do that then get a fucking job and earn enough to pay for your chosen lifestyle

only the right wing is that cognitively dissonant, with Any natural rate of unemployment.

 

[danielpalos]

capitalism at its finest.

Works better than your Marxism.

choice is marxism? how do you figure, comrade? only the right is a bunch of communists and don't know it; the left is trying to be better poets, and know it.

choice is Marxism?

No. Your silly Marxist ideas are Marxism.

equal protection of the law is Marxism to the fantastical, right wing?

Unemployed people do have equal protection of the law in relation to employed people. DERP!

no, they don't. derp.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Many actually do just that and refuse to work because they can get more from welfare. But here's where the wheels fall off your tricycle. You have not addressed the purpose of MW jobs. They are NOT supposed to support a family of four, or even one in a comfortable fashion. They ARE, however, supposed to be vehicles where companies can get some things done that don't require a lot of training or experience to do, and for individuals to break into the job market.

mw jobs are entry level. that is not the point. everybody has to start somewhere.

the point is about equal protection of the law.

repeating the same shit over and over again doesn't make it true

If you don't work you do get equal protection under the law toy just don't get paid

that is going to change. why do you care if someone works if you don't care how much they make?

just the fantastical right wing, being cognitively dissonant, as usual.

I don't care if they work or don't as long as they don't expect working people to pay for their shit

If you don't want to work then go find a spot in a national forest, build a shelter from sticks, rocks and leaves, collect firewood,trap mice and squirrels to eat and be 100% self supporting

If you don't want to do that then get a fucking job and earn enough to pay for your chosen lifestyle

only the right wing is that cognitively dissonant, with Any natural rate of unemployment.

You don't even know what "natural rate of unemployment" means, do you?

 

[danielpalos]

employment is at the will of either party. it really is that simple, except to the fantastical, right wing. How Marxist of them.

You just can't make shit up. I gave you the LEGAL definition of at will employment if you want to make shit up you can't call anyone else fantastical

it is not a legal definition since it does not apply, equal protection of the law. it is a natural right to exercise your individual liberty, in pursuit of your individual civil liberty.

Which you already have. You are perfectly free to pursue a career, work a job, or do nothing. What you DON'T have is the right to force someone else to support you if you decide not to work, and you should never have that right.

yes, we do. capitalism is public policy. capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment. eminent domain applies.

in any case, it is paid for through tax monies; you are not paying anyone's wages.

Thus, it is welfare. If you acknowledge that, you will at least be honest in saying what you want is a guaranteed income and that it's not business' responsibility to provide it.

it is you who is stuck on semantics; it is called, a solution. no one is asking business to do any other than hire people instead of whining about taxes.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Works better than your Marxism.

choice is marxism? how do you figure, comrade? only the right is a bunch of communists and don't know it; the left is trying to be better poets, and know it.

choice is Marxism?

No. Your silly Marxist ideas are Marxism.

equal protection of the law is Marxism to the fantastical, right wing?

Unemployed people do have equal protection of the law in relation to employed people. DERP!

no, they don't. derp.

What protections do they lack? Be specific.

 

[danielpalos]

the minimum wage is more sustainable when it competes favorably with the cost of social services. thus, fifteen dollars an hour. anything less, merely subsidizes the rich.

For the millionth time who came up with the number $14 Buck's an hour?


Its worth $7 bucks an hour in new York city..

Compared to Alabama.

.

the cost of social services on average.

If you put your head in the freezer and your feet in the oven, on average you're fine. IOW, the cost of social services varies from region to region and so should any MW.

why? would the private sector be worse off? improving our Standard of living is what we will be accomplishing. no need to "leave the South, behind."

So you're okay with welfare providing some people a middle class lifestyle, even if they refuse to work? That's unsustainable.

If they refuse to work, it means more jobs for the rest of us. only the right, never gets it.

 

[danielpalos]

the minimum wage is more sustainable when it competes favorably with the cost of social services. thus, fifteen dollars an hour. anything less, merely subsidizes the rich.

For the millionth time who came up with the number $14 Buck's an hour?


Its worth $7 bucks an hour in new York city..

Compared to Alabama.

.

the cost of social services on average.

If you put your head in the freezer and your feet in the oven, on average you're fine. IOW, the cost of social services varies from region to region and so should any MW.

why? would the private sector be worse off? improving our Standard of living is what we will be accomplishing. no need to "leave the South, behind."

Still Dont have a clue about profit margins and over 80% of the company's are small business own do you


And for the billionth time who sets the welfare number?



.

doesn't matter; UI taxes are too expensive and don't do enough. we could be lowering our tax burde.

and, why do you care if you don't have independent estimate. just slacking?

 

[danielpalos]

An at-will employee can be fired at any time, for any reason.

this is good since it gives management control over the management of the company and who knows more about what is best for the company than the management. THe govt monopolist bureaucrats? Govt has no expertise, and no interest since the slub who got fired is no better or worse than the new hire who gets a new job that he badly needs.

If management fires the wrong people the company goes bankrupt! This is the beauty of Republican capitalism.

unless they are too big to fail; then, they lie about it and fire the "little guys".

 

[hadit]

You just can't make shit up. I gave you the LEGAL definition of at will employment if you want to make shit up you can't call anyone else fantastical

it is not a legal definition since it does not apply, equal protection of the law. it is a natural right to exercise your individual liberty, in pursuit of your individual civil liberty.

Which you already have. You are perfectly free to pursue a career, work a job, or do nothing. What you DON'T have is the right to force someone else to support you if you decide not to work, and you should never have that right.

yes, we do. capitalism is public policy. capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment. eminent domain applies.

in any case, it is paid for through tax monies; you are not paying anyone's wages.

Thus, it is welfare. If you acknowledge that, you will at least be honest in saying what you want is a guaranteed income and that it's not business' responsibility to provide it.

it is you who is stuck on semantics; it is called, a solution. no one is asking business to do any other than hire people instead of whining about taxes.

Businesses hire people to do work. If they don't need any more people, they don't hire any more. If they have work to be done that is only worth $7/hr, they're not going to pay $15/hr to get it done. Be honest and say you want a guaranteed income and you want to force businesses to provide it so you can pretend it's not welfare.

 

[hadit]

For the millionth time who came up with the number $14 Buck's an hour?


Its worth $7 bucks an hour in new York city..

Compared to Alabama.

.

the cost of social services on average.

If you put your head in the freezer and your feet in the oven, on average you're fine. IOW, the cost of social services varies from region to region and so should any MW.

why? would the private sector be worse off? improving our Standard of living is what we will be accomplishing. no need to "leave the South, behind."

So you're okay with welfare providing some people a middle class lifestyle, even if they refuse to work? That's unsustainable.

If they refuse to work, it means more jobs for the rest of us. only the right, never gets it.

We already have a very anemic labor participation rate and a very, very large debt. We don't need a bunch more people converted from producers into consumers. And, you failed to deal with the question, are you okay with welfare giving some people a middle class lifestyle while giving others the lowest of the lower classes? Doesn't that violate your little "equal protection under the law" faux mantra?

 

[Spare_change]

i gotta love all this ...

The goal of an employer is to pay you $1 for a million dollars worth of work.
The goal of an employee is to get a million dollars for $1 worth of work

They are both going to be disappointed.

IF I am supposed to ensure that I pay you a living wage, you have to be worth a living wage. If you want a living wage, make yourself worth it.

Our country is built on self improvement and self determination. YOU determine your value, I don't.

Your understanding of economics is void of ethics.

Is this where I get the "... thy brother's keeper ... " speech?

i have a responsibility to my stockholders. Economics has no ethics.

Perhaps in America there is no place for ethics among the business class. You might be right there.

You think there is 'somewhere' that there is???

You are so seriously deluded.

Yes, where I live in the European Union, ethics and a sense of fairness underpins legislation for decent wages and working conditions.

LOL !!!!

Obviously, you don't deal with the same EU companies that I do. Cheating, lies, and bribes are the usual way of business.

 

[hadit]

An at-will employee can be fired at any time, for any reason.

this is good since it gives management control over the management of the company and who knows more about what is best for the company than the management. THe govt monopolist bureaucrats? Govt has no expertise, and no interest since the slub who got fired is no better or worse than the new hire who gets a new job that he badly needs.

If management fires the wrong people the company goes bankrupt! This is the beauty of Republican capitalism.

unless they are too big to fail; then, they lie about it and fire the "little guys".

A company in financial difficulty reduces costs where possible. If they got rid of management, there would be no company left.