Effects of a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage in the city of los angeles

[debbietoo]

ECONOMIC STIMULUS

When workers’ households receive additional income, their increased spending stimulates growth in the local economy. Their increased purchases of groceries, clothes, meals out, health care, car repair services, and rental housing stimulates added purchases in the local supply chain. Jobs would be created in the same industries where workers would receive wage increases, including restaurants and retail stores. The increased buying power of workers would make these industries direct beneficiaries of the higher wages they would be paying.

The increased spending translates into added sales for local businesses and their suppliers, as well as added jobs at those businesses and their suppliers, and increased tax revenue for local, state and federal government.
Looking just at the stimulus effects, the added income that workers would receive from a $15 minimum wage would generate an estimated $9.2 billion in annual sales in Los Angeles County, and these increased sales would in turn create an estimated 64,700 new jobs in the county to meet the increased demand for goods and services.

GOVERNMENT AND SOCIAL SERVICE BENEFITS

Increased sales and employment would generate an estimated $1.3 billion in increased annual public revenue. Social safety net programs would receive $331 million of this revenue. One billion dollars would be general public revenue subject to legislative budget allocations by different levels of government.
An estimated 15 percent of this general public revenue would return to the City of Los Angeles, some through the city’s formula share of sales tax revenue, but the preponderance through state and federal budget allocations that return funds to the city. This share of public revenue would bring an estimated $152 million a year to the city.

Full article:

https://economicrt.org/publication/effects-of-a-fifteen-dollar-an-hour-minimum-wage-in-the-city-of-los-angeles/

Raising minimum wage is good for the economy and good for struggling American families!:smiley_bar:

[Subdermal]

Crazy I Dream Of Jeannie's shift started again...

[Subdermal]

My God! If that's true, we should raise it to $30, no?

[nathanbforrest45]

The strength of an economy is dependent on its productivity. When productivity increases (more goods produced at lower cost per unit) wages will increase as well. You cannot increase productivity merely by increasing the minimum wage. And if, as someone stated, increasing it to $15.00 is a benefit why not $30.00 or $40.00 or even $50.00 an hour.

People like the OP live in a dream world where unicorns exist and all you have to do is wish upon a star.

[Jets]

Sounds great in theory, but it does not factor in that payroll tends to be a companies biggest expense. If hours get slashed to absorb the cost of the wage increase the benefit is negated. If the company lays off employees for the same reason, they get punished worse.

Jmo

[Crepitus]

The strength of an economy is dependent on its productivity. When productivity increases (more goods produced at lower cost per unit) wages will increase as well. You cannot increase productivity merely by increasing the minimum wage. And if, as someone stated, increasing it to $15.00 is a benefit why not $30.00 or $40.00 or even $50.00 an hour.

People like the OP live in a dream world where unicorns exist and all you have to do is wish upon a star.
You don't see the contradiction inherent in that statement?

[zelmo1234]

$9 an hour
LOS ANGELES -- Mayor Eric Garcetti proposed Monday that the city gradually raise the minimum wage to $13.25 by 2017, up from the current $9 an hour.

First LA does not have a 15 dollar an hour minimum.

Next there are several things that you have to assume to make the statement above True.

#1 You have to assume that the owner of a company is going to take this increase our of his or her profits, Do any of you think that will happen?

#2 You have to assume that the employer is not going to automate, off shore, or lay off people and require others to do more.

#3 You have to assume that companies are not going to raise prices to cover the cost of these wages, or that they are going to give everyone that makes over 15 dollars will see their wages increase by the same amount. If not then everyone above the 15 dollar an hour will not have as much disposable income, so they will be spending less

#4 you have to assume that those on unemployment, Disability, and Welfare are going to get a raise to cover the cost of higher prices, If they do not, they will be purchasing less as well.

Of course anyone can see that it is not going to happen. I for one pay well above the 15 dollar an hour with everyone accept the person the cleans the office's They make about 13 so it would be a very small expense for me.

However, everyone of my employee's would be receiving a pay cut, because I have NO intentions of raising their wages to cover the cost of Inflation. Though I most likely will increase the amount of profit I take, to cover that for me? Sorry I am not taking a pay cut!

[NapRover]

LA Times not too enthused about it
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-minimum-wage-impacts-20160421-snap-htmlstory.html

[Cigar]

It will have the exact same negative effects as all the other minimum wage increases in history ... ZERO

We're all still here, the world didn't end and business still adapted and survived ...

:rollseyes: so much for all the drama and the drama queens.

[MisterVeritis]

I suppose the bottom line of the state-demanded increase in the minimum wages will be:
More automation of low-end jobs.
More unemployment at the entry level.
More concealed employment.
We will also see inflation. What could go wrong with this attempted wealth redistributive, Marxian plan?

[debbietoo]

It will have the exact same negative effects as all the other minimum wage increases in history ... ZERO

We're all still here, the world didn't end and business still adapted and survived ...

:rollseyes: so much for all the drama and the drama queens.


Exactly, and all the opinions of the economists must mean something. Numerous studies have been done and almost all of them agree that raising minimum wage has a minimal effect on unemployment and actually boosts the economy in several ways, as noted in the above article.

[Subdermal]

Exactly, and all the opinions of the economists must mean something. Numerous studies have been done and almost all of them agree that raising minimum wage has a minimal effect on unemployment and actually boosts the economy in several ways, as noted in the above article.

Then what makes $15/hr the correct number, and not $30/hr?

[MisterVeritis]

Exactly, and all the opinions of the economists must mean something. Numerous studies have been done and almost all of them agree that raising minimum wage has a minimal effect on unemployment and actually boosts the economy in several ways, as noted in the above article.
It used to be common knowledge that economists can be bought to make any sort of pronouncement one might wish to have. Economists have predicted twenty-five of the last three recessions.

State meddling is seen, rightly, as damage. People find ways to work around it or minimize its effects. Automating entry-level jobs will occur more quickly. And more people will take jobs in the shadow economy.

Marxists are foolish people who fail to take human traits into consideration.

[zelmo1234]

Exactly, and all the opinions of the economists must mean something. Numerous studies have been done and almost all of them agree that raising minimum wage has a minimal effect on unemployment and actually boosts the economy in several ways, as noted in the above article.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/09/01/the-absurdity-of-a-15-minimum-wage/#382c2db4483a

http://fortune.com/2015/07/30/1223726-15-hour-minimum-wage-workers-fast-food/

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/PA701.pdf

http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/17751-warning-to-seattle-seatac-businesses-slashing-benefits-overtime-in-wake-of-wage-hike

So there are many, many, many more economist that warn against it! Here is what will happen in nearly all restaurants

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=OIP.M708f951cf1cac5ad7abed2d0e2448cfao0&w=300&h=193&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0&r=0 (https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=picture+of+new+self+order+computers+in+mc donalds&view=detailv2&&id=967CBC2DBC52CD0CB6ECBF2702D8FD36F3ED8FB4&selectedIndex=0&ccid=cI%2bVHPHK&simid=608000111322991146&thid=OIP.M708f951cf1cac5ad7abed2d0e2448cfao0)

They can cut their staff by about 2/3

[Chris]

My God! If that's true, we should raise it to $30, no?

$3000, $3000000000000000000000000000000000!!!

[Oboe]

Debbie, you have no sense whatsoever.

[Subdermal]

$3000, $3000000000000000000000000000000000!!!

Of course. Naturally, let's not give her even more reason to avoid answering.

[zelmo1234]

While this is universally true, it is quite common.

Generally, those on the left are more involved with Government Jobs, Teaching, Foundations. or are Hourly workers.

Even when they do own and run companies, they dent so to be in investment banking, and / or they deal with government contracts.

So they don't understand in general the free market or what happens to profits? They don't understand that payroll of a company is an allotted percentage, and if you raise the price per hour, then you have to cut the hours so the dollars are the same, or raise prices, or automate so the % stays the same.

There is a believe that the top 10%er that is running the company is going to take less and that of course is just not true.

That is why minimum wages are so detrimental to the poor and lower middle class.

[Chris]

ECONOMIC STIMULUS

When workers’ households receive additional income, their increased spending stimulates growth in the local economy. Their increased purchases of groceries, clothes, meals out, health care, car repair services, and rental housing stimulates added purchases in the local supply chain. Jobs would be created in the same industries where workers would receive wage increases, including restaurants and retail stores. The increased buying power of workers would make these industries direct beneficiaries of the higher wages they would be paying.

The increased spending translates into added sales for local businesses and their suppliers, as well as added jobs at those businesses and their suppliers, and increased tax revenue for local, state and federal government.
Looking just at the stimulus effects, the added income that workers would receive from a $15 minimum wage would generate an estimated $9.2 billion in annual sales in Los Angeles County, and these increased sales would in turn create an estimated 64,700 new jobs in the county to meet the increased demand for goods and services.

GOVERNMENT AND SOCIAL SERVICE BENEFITS

Increased sales and employment would generate an estimated $1.3 billion in increased annual public revenue. Social safety net programs would receive $331 million of this revenue. One billion dollars would be general public revenue subject to legislative budget allocations by different levels of government.
An estimated 15 percent of this general public revenue would return to the City of Los Angeles, some through the city’s formula share of sales tax revenue, but the preponderance through state and federal budget allocations that return funds to the city. This share of public revenue would bring an estimated $152 million a year to the city.

Full article:

https://economicrt.org/publication/effects-of-a-fifteen-dollar-an-hour-minimum-wage-in-the-city-of-los-angeles/

Raising minimum wage is good for the economy and good for struggling American families!:smiley_bar:



Those are nice predictions and show just how reasoning from models can lead you astray--garbage in, garbage out. The same models predicted positive results in Seattle but the reality is something else:

https://i.snag.gy/hLaRif.jpg

@ Seattle's $15 Minimum Wage: Jobs Down, Unemployment Up. This Isn't Working, Is It? (http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/02/19/seattles-15-minimum-wage-jobs-down-unemployment-up-this-isnt-working-is-it/#2b402b137123)

[Chris]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/09/01/the-absurdity-of-a-15-minimum-wage/#382c2db4483a

http://fortune.com/2015/07/30/1223726-15-hour-minimum-wage-workers-fast-food/

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/PA701.pdf

http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/17751-warning-to-seattle-seatac-businesses-slashing-benefits-overtime-in-wake-of-wage-hike

So there are many, many, many more economist that warn against it! Here is what will happen in nearly all restaurants

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=OIP.M708f951cf1cac5ad7abed2d0e2448cfao0&w=300&h=193&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0&r=0 (https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=picture+of+new+self+order+computers+in+mc donalds&view=detailv2&&id=967CBC2DBC52CD0CB6ECBF2702D8FD36F3ED8FB4&selectedIndex=0&ccid=cI%2bVHPHK&simid=608000111322991146&thid=OIP.M708f951cf1cac5ad7abed2d0e2448cfao0)

They can cut their staff by about 2/3



Is that McDonald's? McD's is all in favor of raising the minimum wage. And why not. Their competing small sandwich shops can't afford it, will go out of business, and McD's gain market share...all the while developing automated kiosks to replace those min-wage employees.

[zelmo1234]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbuJYhX3prc

This is one of the best explanations of the minimum wage

[nathanbforrest45]

You don't see the contradiction inherent in that statement?


No, enlighten me please

[Crepitus]

No, enlighten me please
Where is the incentive to increase wages if your costs are going down and productivity is up?

[nathanbforrest45]

Where is the incentive to increase wages if your costs are going down and productivity is up?

The incentive comes from competition. If you won't increase wages your competitor will offer your better workers more money to come to work for them. You can then either match your competitor or lose your best workers. Wages are subject to the laws of supply and demand just like any other commodity. Furthermore, increased productivity generally means more technological elements of the work, ergo those with greater skills will make more money. No, your minimum wage drudges will not see an increase but anyone who wishes to better themselves will.

Sorry you appear to be a minimum wage drudge. I got over that 55 years ago.

[Crepitus]

The incentive comes from competition. If you won't increase wages your competitor will offer your better workers more money to come to work for them. You can then either match your competitor or lose your best workers. Wages are subject to the laws of supply and demand just like any other commodity. Furthermore, increased productivity generally means more technological elements of the work, ergo those with greater skills will make more money. No, your minimum wage drudges will not see an increase but anyone who wishes to better themselves will.

Sorry you appear to be a minimum wage drudge. I got over that 55 years ago.
You are assuming there is not a labor surplus and you know what they say about assuming....

I'm just gonna let the petty insult slide, I know you cons all own your own business and have hundreds of employees and huge comtracts and summer homes in Mexico and boats and McMansions and everything us poor liberal just can't ever get. I mean sure you do, you told us on the internet right?

[Cigar]

Exactly, and all the opinions of the economists must mean something. Numerous studies have been done and almost all of them agree that raising minimum wage has a minimal effect on unemployment and actually boosts the economy in several ways, as noted in the above article.

Facts don't matter to these people, and if you ask any of them if they ever lost a Job because of a Minimum Wage Increase, you won't here a peep out of them. :laugh:

Now watch them change the subject :wink:

[Oboe]

I got a job working at a dealership fixing automatic transmissions 10 years or so ago. It was a small town. They offered me 20 dollars an hour and I took the job. They were impressed with my ability and gave me a 3 dollar an hour raise. Most small towns don't have too many good tranny techs. Well the dealership at the other end of town wanted me so they offered me 31 dollars an hour. I took the job. That is how things work. I got what I got based on my ability and was able to meet the expectations and more the employer had. I made money for them and solved problems for them that would have cost them more then paying me.

[nathanbforrest45]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbuJYhX3prc

This is one of the best explanations of the minimum wage

Outstanding but I am sure the left will never understand the principles.

[Oboe]

They understand, they have what is called willful ignorance.

[zelmo1234]

Where is the incentive to increase wages if your costs are going down and productivity is up?

The reason that wages have declined is because Labor is on sale.

Back in 2005 McDonalds and BK were actually paying signing bonuses. In some areas of the country. because they could not find qualified workers.

The answer lies it full employment. Of all of the bad things about Trump, he understands this.

Companies exist to make profits. Taxes go directly against the bottom line. In other words anything that you take from me in taxes, I can't use to expand my business.

By lowing these rates I can afford more for labor and still be profitable. And if I am not shipping my products around the world, then I can' be more profitable. Once one company does this with lower taxes and a good labor force they can now undersell the imports with a better product. So the others will be forced to move back as well.

This creates more and more need for workers Soon instead of having 20 workers for every job, there are 3 jobs for every qualified worker, and wages naturally rise.

[Cigar]

I got a job working at a dealership fixing automatic transmissions 10 years or so ago. It was a small town. They offered me 20 dollars an hour and I took the job. They were impressed with my ability and gave me a 3 dollar an hour raise. Most small towns don't have too many good tranny techs. Well the dealership at the other end of town wanted me so they offered me 31 dollars an hour. I took the job. That is how things work. I got what I got based on my ability and was able to meet the expectations and more the employer had. I made money for them and solved problems for them that would have cost them more then paying me.

Would you have taken the Job for $8 ?

[nathanbforrest45]

You are assuming there is not a labor surplus and you know what they say about assuming....

I'm just gonna let the petty insult slide, I know you cons all own your own business and have hundreds of employees and huge comtracts and summer homes in Mexico and boats and McMansions and everything us poor liberal just can't ever get. I mean sure you do, you told us on the internet right?


I do own my own business and I have six employees. I have a 1500 square foot house in East Tennessee and my contracts are with other private businesses. I own two sailboats, one I paid $700.00 for and the other $800.00. That is a photo of the $700.00 boat in my avatar.

Explain please how a "labor surplus" factors into this? The laws of supply and demand apply to labor as well as commodities as I have already stated. If there is a surplus of labor then naturally labor cost will be lower if the government doesn't interfere. If the government does then the surplus will be even greater as is pointed out in the little video above.

When I started my business I only paid minimum wage. I did this for about a year and was going through employees like shit through a goose. They would leave me for an extra nickle an hour. I learned after the first year to pay what ever was the competitive rate, hire less people but with better experience and work ethics. I now have several employees who have been with me 20 years or more and who are making very good incomes.

Forcing a minimum wage that is not based on reality but on feel good policies will only result in fewer people working.

By the way, when I started my business in 1981 I couldn't go to potential clients and tell them I needed $50,000.00 a year in order to "make a living". I had to charge what the service was worth and increase my profits by either increasing my business, decreasing my cost, or both. Increasing my profits gave me the opportunity to not only make a very good income for myself but also for anyone I was need to hire to handle the increased business generated by being able to offer lower cost to my clients..

[zelmo1234]

For those of you on the left there is one question that you need to answer for the minimum wage increase to work

Where does the money come from to increase the wages???

[Oboe]

Would you have taken the Job for $8 ?

No. I could work in my garage and make more. I am mostly retired now. I still rebuild a transmission every so often for a friend. I usually make about 400-500 dollars for 2 days work.

[Subdermal]

Would you have taken the Job for $8 ?

Let's see if you know how this works (this is the part which is an exercise in futility: let's watch as Cigar walks quickly away from the substance of the topic):

If his answer is YES, would you be upset?

If his answer is NO, would they be able to find another equally qualified candidate?

What entity should determine the wage offered?

[nathanbforrest45]

Would you have taken the Job for $8 ?

Depends on the market doesn't it? If a new Corvette is for sale at Dealer (1) for $150,000.00 and $100,000.00 at Dealer (2) which would you buy? If Employer (1) is offering $8.00 an hour but employer (2) is offering $12.00 which would you take? If there were no employer (2) then what do you do?

I began my working career in 1969 in the rail industry. I was offered two jobs, one with a steel company and the other with a railroad. The railroad paid 50% higher wages. Guess which I took?

[AeonPax]

`
`
The company I work for, pays their part-time, unskilled labor, $11.30/hr, well above current minimum wage. At $15.00/hr, it would make that particular service we provide, unprofitable within a year, and we would discontinue providing that service to the public.

[Cigar]

Let's see if you know how this works (this is the part which is an exercise in futility: let's watch as @Cigar (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=294) walks quickly away from the substance of the topic):

If his answer is YES, would you be upset?

If his answer is NO, would they be able to find another equally qualified candidate?

What entity should determine the wage offered?

The Question was: Would you have taken the Job for $8 ?

What is the answer?

[Oboe]

I already told your retarded hide! :)

[Cigar]

I already told your retarded hide! :)

I asked you the questions and the real retard chosed answer ...

Like I've said before, if you don't want crap, don't dish it out, or I'll shove it right back in your face.

That's exactly how I roll sport.

[Oboe]

I asked you the questions and the real retard chosed answer ...

Like I've said before, if you don't want crap, don't dish it out, or I'll shove it right back in your face.

That's exactly how I roll sport.

Don't muck with me punk. I'll sock you good!

[Truth Detector]

$9 an hour
LOS ANGELES -- Mayor Eric Garcetti proposed Monday that the city gradually raise the minimum wage to $13.25 by 2017, up from the current $9 an hour.

First LA does not have a 15 dollar an hour minimum.

Next there are several things that you have to assume to make the statement above True.

#1 You have to assume that the owner of a company is going to take this increase our of his or her profits, Do any of you think that will happen?

#2 You have to assume that the employer is not going to automate, off shore, or lay off people and require others to do more.

#3 You have to assume that companies are not going to raise prices to cover the cost of these wages, or that they are going to give everyone that makes over 15 dollars will see their wages increase by the same amount. If not then everyone above the 15 dollar an hour will not have as much disposable income, so they will be spending less

#4 you have to assume that those on unemployment, Disability, and Welfare are going to get a raise to cover the cost of higher prices, If they do not, they will be purchasing less as well.

Of course anyone can see that it is not going to happen. I for one pay well above the 15 dollar an hour with everyone accept the person the cleans the office's They make about 13 so it would be a very small expense for me.

However, everyone of my employee's would be receiving a pay cut, because I have NO intentions of raising their wages to cover the cost of Inflation. Though I most likely will increase the amount of profit I take, to cover that for me? Sorry I am not taking a pay cut!

When have liberals like debbietoo concerned themselves with basic facts???

As was stated already; if $15 can work such fabulous miracles, why not $30 an hour or even $45???? You will NEVER get an honest answer from the economically challenged leftTards as to why they think $35 or $45 an hour won't work better than a trite $15 an hour......EVER.

[Truth Detector]

It will have the exact same negative effects as all the other minimum wage increases in history ... ZERO

We're all still here, the world didn't end and business still adapted and survived ...

:rollseyes: so much for all the drama and the drama queens.


There is some truth to the bolded; it has ZERO effect in raising ANYONE out of poverty or improving their lives. If anything, it has the exact opposite effect. But I don't expect economically ignorant Liberals to comprehend this FACT.

[Truth Detector]

Exactly, and all the opinions of the economists must mean something. Numerous studies have been done and almost all of them agree that raising minimum wage has a minimal effect on unemployment and actually boosts the economy in several ways, as noted in the above article.

Link us up with all these economists who claim that arbitrary minimum wage laws lift people out of poverty; I would LOVE to see who they are.

[Truth Detector]

Facts don't matter to these people, and if you ask any of them if they ever lost a Job because of a Minimum Wage Increase, you won't here a peep out of them. :laugh:

Now watch them change the subject :wink:

:rofl: @ you talking about facts. Now THAT is some funny bullschit there!!! :rofl:

So Ceeegar; why not $45 an hour?

[Subdermal]

Where is the incentive to increase wages if your costs are going down and productivity is up?

:facepalm:

The fear of losing the employee to another employer who offers a better opportunity!

My GOD you leftists are economically daft!

[nathanbforrest45]

`
`
The company I work for, pays their part-time, unskilled labor, $11.30/hr, well above current minimum wage. At $15.00/hr, it would make that particular service we provide, unprofitable within a year, and we would discontinue providing that service to the public.

A number of years ago fast food restaurants were exempt from minimum wage requirements if they hired mentally "challenged" adults to work in the restaurants. This was a win win for both the restaurant and the workers. It allowed the restaurant an opportunity to keep the dining rooms debris free since the main job they had was to clear the tables and sweep the floors. They would also bring you extras you might need. It gave the workers a sense of self worth since they saw themselves as no different than any other worker in the place and were in fact more friendly and attentive than the drones doing the burger flipping. In the infinite wisdom of the government labor wonks it was deemed that it was demeaning to them to earn a smaller wage than anyone else in the facility. So, the wages had to be raised. What happened? Well, when was the last time you saw a handicapped person cleaning tables in McDonalds?

[Subdermal]

You are assuming there is not a labor surplus and you know what they say about assuming....

I'm just gonna let the petty insult slide, I know you cons all own your own business and have hundreds of employees and huge comtracts and summer homes in Mexico and boats and McMansions and everything us poor liberal just can't ever get. I mean sure you do, you told us on the internet right?

:biglaugh:

Right to the ad hom response - obviously to due to an internal decision that your counter is insufficiently compelling.

If you knew anything about economics - and you don't - you'd understand that an economic environment which creates the dynamic which you cite (you stated: productivity on the increase while costs are decreasing), you'd also understand that the fear of losing an employee to a better offer has far less to do with labor saturation, and MORE to do with the value of the individual.

In an environment you cite, the employer now can focus even more on additional productivity by replacing weak employees with strong ones.

But you are economically illiterate - and you leftists base all your Government interventionist policies upon your ignorance.

[Subdermal]

Facts don't matter to these people, and if you ask any of them if they ever lost a Job because of a Minimum Wage Increase, you won't here a peep out of them. :laugh:

Now watch them change the subject :wink:

You don't have the knowledge to engage in this topic, clown.

Unemployment does increase after a minimum wage increase, Chris's irrefutable post about the change in Seattle PROVES it.

So your attempt to claim otherwise is totally invalid.

Now let's watch you ignore this retort, and change the subject, Cigar.

[Subdermal]

The Question was: Would you have taken the Job for $8 ?

What is the answer?

:facepalm: HE ALREADY ANSWERED, you buffoon!

[Subdermal]

A number of years ago fast food restaurants were exempt from minimum wage requirements if they hired mentally "challenged" adults to work in the restaurants. This was a win win for both the restaurant and the workers. It allowed the restaurant an opportunity to keep the dining rooms debris free since the main job they had was to clear the tables and sweep the floors. They would also bring you extras you might need. It gave the workers a sense of self worth since they saw themselves as no different than any other worker in the place and were in fact more friendly and attentive than the drones doing the burger flipping. In the infinite wisdom of the government labor wonks it was deemed that it was demeaning to them to earn a smaller wage than anyone else in the facility. So, the wages had to be raised. What happened? Well, when was the last time you saw a handicapped person cleaning tables in McDonalds?

Such a good point. I do remember seeing special needs people working in McDonald's, just as you said.

What a perfect illustration of Zelmo's cartoon on MW.

[Peter1469]

Robots can say "do you want fries with that."

Liberals are hell bent on destroying the economy.

[Cigar]

You don't have the knowledge to engage in this topic, clown.

Unemployment does increase after a minimum wage increase, Chris's irrefutable post about the change in Seattle PROVES it.

So your attempt to claim otherwise is totally invalid.

Now let's watch you ignore this retort, and change the subject, @Cigar (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=294).

Correct, my business never bothered to pay people minimum wage; business get what they pay for.

[Subdermal]

Let's see if you know how this works (this is the part which is an exercise in futility: let's watch as @Cigar (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=294) walks quickly away from the substance of the topic):

If his answer is YES, would you be upset?

If his answer is NO, would they be able to find another equally qualified candidate?

What entity should determine the wage offered?

Oh Cigar: I'll give you a second chance. Oboe already answered your question. I asked you three here, and you thought that it was a legit tactic to avoid answering my questions, and instead try to ask me one.

Why do you think you have a right to have your question answered when you didn't extend the same courtesy to questions you were asked first?

Go ahead and answer these questions fully, and I'll answer yours. That's how proper discourse works - not that you'd know a thing about that.

[Cigar]

Robots can say "do you want fries with that."

Liberals are hell bent on destroying the economy.

But isn't odd the the Economy is always better with Liberal :grin:

BTW ... how's you Investments doing, since March 2nd 2009? :tongue:

[Cigar]

And let's watch @Ciggar run away from the topic, just as I predicted.

You are a loser clown, Cigar. You cannot hold your own on this topic because you don't know sht.

Hey DS, the Topic is the Effects of $15 Minimum Wage ... have you lost a Job over Minimum Wage ... ever in your life?

[Subdermal]

Correct, my business never bothered to pay people minimum wage; business get what they pay for.

:facepalm:

How was that a germane answer??

[Cigar]

:facepalm:

How was that a germane answer??

Do you own a Business?

[Subdermal]

Hey DS, the Topic is the Effects of $15 Minimum Wage ... have you lost a Job over Minimum Wage ... ever in your life?

You have no right to ask a question of someone who asked you three first.

[nathanbforrest45]

Hey DS, the Topic is the Effects of $15 Minimum Wage ... have you lost a Job over Minimum Wage ... ever in your life?

I was always worth more than that.

[Subdermal]

Do you own a Business?

I'll ask again: HOW WAS YOUR ANSWER GERMANE?

[Subdermal]

I was always worth more than that.

Me too - and proof of that was actually securing jobs my entire life above that level.

That is the only proof of worth. Not what some Government wonk stupidly claims.

[nathanbforrest45]

Do you own a Business?


I do

[Cigar]

Oh @Cigar (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=294): I'll give you a second chance. Oboe already answered your question. I asked you three here, and you thought that it was a legit tactic to avoid answering my questions, and instead try to ask me one.

Why do you think you have a right to have your question answered when you didn't extend the same courtesy to questions you were asked first?

Go ahead and answer these questions fully, and I'll answer yours. That's how proper discourse works - not that you'd know a thing about that.

THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION:
What Entity Should Determine the Wage Offered?

THE ANSWER:
The Entity that SHOULD determine the Minimum Wage; The Federal Fair Labor Standards Act!
The Entity that SHOULD determine the Maximum Wage; The Employer

If you need someone to explain the economics behind my answer, Go to F'cking School

[Cigar]

I do

The you should already know what happen if you don't follow FLSA

Enough said

[Cigar]

http://www.jarofquotes.com/img/quotes/f14fd69a894861080f3d1f631437d68e.jpg (http://www.jarofquotes.com/view.php?tag=i%5C%27m%20a%20mack&page=10)

[Subdermal]

THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION:
What Entity Should Determine the Wage Offered?

THE ANSWER:
The Entity that SHOULD determine the Minimum Wage; The Federal Fair Labor Standards Act!
The Entity that SHOULD determine the Maximum Wage; The Employer

If you need someone to explain the economics behind my answer, Go to F'cking School

That was my third question. You did not answer the first two.

But: in your third answer, you do not cite an 'economic' reason. You cite a political reason. As Chris demonstrated, the economics behind a MW increase are negative: resulting in fewer jobs and a decelerating economy.

During Bush, the economy was accelerated, and McDonald's could not find workers for less than $11.50/yr. Do you know why that is?

[Mac-7]

ECONOMIC STIMULUS

When workers’ households receive additional income, their increased spending stimulates growth in the local economy. Their increased purchases of groceries, clothes, meals out, health care, car repair services, and rental housing stimulates added purchases in the local supply chain. Jobs would be created in the same industries where workers would receive wage increases, including restaurants and retail stores. The increased buying power of workers would make these industries direct beneficiaries of the higher wages they would be paying.

The increased spending translates into added sales for local businesses and their suppliers, as well as added jobs at those businesses and their suppliers, and increased tax revenue for local, state and federal government.
Looking just at the stimulus effects, the added income that workers would receive from a $15 minimum wage would generate an estimated $9.2 billion in annual sales in Los Angeles County, and these increased sales would in turn create an estimated 64,700 new jobs in the county to meet the increased demand for goods and services.

GOVERNMENT AND SOCIAL SERVICE BENEFITS

Increased sales and employment would generate an estimated $1.3 billion in increased annual public revenue. Social safety net programs would receive $331 million of this revenue. One billion dollars would be general public revenue subject to legislative budget allocations by different levels of government.
An estimated 15 percent of this general public revenue would return to the City of Los Angeles, some through the city’s formula share of sales tax revenue, but the preponderance through state and federal budget allocations that return funds to the city. This share of public revenue would bring an estimated $152 million a year to the city.

Full article:

https://economicrt.org/publication/effects-of-a-fifteen-dollar-an-hour-minimum-wage-in-the-city-of-los-angeles/

Raising minimum wage is good for the economy and good for struggling American families!:smiley_bar:

Instead of mandating an artificial minimum wage why not allow the law of supply and demand do what it does best?

namely close the border with mexico and deport illegal aliens

then there would be fewer workers looking for jobs and higher wages paid by employers

[Subdermal]

The you should already know what happen if you don't follow FLSA

Enough said

Your retort is not germane. We're not discussing what the law is. We're discussing whether the law is correct, and what the law - if any - should be.

[Chris]

THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION:
What Entity Should Determine the Wage Offered?

THE ANSWER:
The Entity that SHOULD determine the Minimum Wage; The Federal Fair Labor Standards Act!
The Entity that SHOULD determine the Maximum Wage; The Employer

If you need someone to explain the economics behind my answer, Go to F'cking School



Yes, please explain the economics of your answer.

[nathanbforrest45]

The you should already know what happen if you don't follow FLSA

Enough said
That isn't the issue here. Are you saying that if the government makes a law then no matter what the outcome may actually be then the law is correct and the outcome is actually wrong and should be ignored?????

Really, you believe that?

The law is the law is the law and can never be changed?

[AeonPax]

A number of years ago fast food restaurants were exempt from minimum wage requirements if they hired mentally "challenged" adults to work in the restaurants. This was a win win for both the restaurant and the workers. It allowed the restaurant an opportunity to keep the dining rooms debris free since the main job they had was to clear the tables and sweep the floors. They would also bring you extras you might need. It gave the workers a sense of self worth since they saw themselves as no different than any other worker in the place and were in fact more friendly and attentive than the drones doing the burger flipping. In the infinite wisdom of the government labor wonks it was deemed that it was demeaning to them to earn a smaller wage than anyone else in the facility. So, the wages had to be raised. What happened? Well, when was the last time you saw a handicapped person cleaning tables in McDonalds?
`
I haven't been inside of a McDonalds for for years. While traveling, I've picked up coffee in their drive-thru.....I get your point though. The jobs that did pay well have long since been outsourced, courtesy of the same government that wants to kill meaningful employment just to make the pc democrats feel good.

[Newpublius]

It will have the exact same negative effects as all the other minimum wage increases in history ... ZERO


And yet we see youth unemployment double, triple the general unemployment rate.

When we discuss increasing the minimum wage, little change may be seen on the margin, but let's not forget the existing minimum wage is already having its predicted impact.

[Newpublius]

The Entity that SHOULD determine the Minimum Wage; The Federal Fair Labor Standards Act!

Because you're incapable to say 'no'?

If two men want to get married, clearly you can see why the state shouldn't impose its morals on them. This should be readily obvious to you.

If two others want to engage in a voluntary exchange, who are you to stop them?

[zelmo1234]

Correct, my business never bothered to pay people minimum wage; business get what they pay for.

So tell me Cigar, IL minimum wage it

Illinois · Minimum wage
https://www.bing.com/th?id=Ae37f2b049ca129a89352f87b61573fa0&w=72&h=42&c=7&rs=1&qlt=80&cdv=1&pid=16.1 (https://www.bing.com/search?q=state+of+illinois&filters=ufn%3a%22state+of+illinois%22+sid%3a%22413 1acb8-628a-4241-8920-ca79eab9dade%22&FORM=SNAPST)

$8.25 USD per hour (2015



So if the raise the minimum wage to $15.00 That is an increase of $6.75 per hour

Are you going to raise your employee's wages by the same amount, if so where is the money going to come from?

And If you are not planning on raising their wages, Why do you think they deserve a pay cut?

[zelmo1234]

But isn't odd the the Economy is always better with Liberal :grin:

BTW ... how's you Investments doing, since March 2nd 2009? :tongue:

That is not the Question?

On investments we have QE 1,2 and round 3. the printing of money to prop up the Stock markets is causing inflation that is larger than our GDP growth. But the Obama administration has take several key indicators out of the equation

Even then we need to look at what has happened since the previous highs in the market, not the bottom of the correction cause by the crisis.

https://norberthaupt.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/dow-jones1.jpg?w=1000&h=378 (https://norberthaupt.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/dow-jones1.jpg)

When you take the Billions and Billions that the Government has invested into the market. The record is not all that impressive.

[zelmo1234]

THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION:
What Entity Should Determine the Wage Offered?

THE ANSWER:
The Entity that SHOULD determine the Minimum Wage; The Federal Fair Labor Standards Act!
The Entity that SHOULD determine the Maximum Wage; The Employer

If you need someone to explain the economics behind my answer, Go to F'cking School

All of them should be the Employer.

The employee has the choice to accept or decline the job.

The answer to your questions, would you take a job for $8 per hour, the answer is if that is all I had, YES, But I would continue to look for a better job and take the first one that paid more.

[Newpublius]

[QUOTE=zelmo1234;1682526]So tell me Cigar, IL minimum wage it

Illinois · Minimum wage

[zelmo1234]

I find it very sad that our friends on the left will not attempt to address the following questions

#1 When you raise the Minimum wage? Where does the money come from?

#2 Do you think that the percentage allotted to payroll increases when the minimum wage goes up?

#3 What happens to the buying power of those that were making over what the new minimum wage is?

[DGUtley]

Next the leftists will tell us what to charge and wonder how we became Venezuela.

[Safety]

Debbie, you have no sense whatsoever.

Address the message not the messenger, if you don't like the topic, move to another one you can discuss civilly

[Safety]

You don't have the knowledge to engage in this topic, clown.

Unemployment does increase after a minimum wage increase, Chris's irrefutable post about the change in Seattle PROVES it.

So your attempt to claim otherwise is totally invalid.

Now let's watch you ignore this retort, and change the subject, Cigar.


http://static.tumblr.com/d51ca9efec62167176657cdeedb1dcda/vgeb2j6/ySPnblbbd/tumblr_static_9z557y1l0zk0ccssogos04scw.jpg (http://imonacidd.tumblr.com/)


And let's watch Cigar run away from the topic, just as I predicted.

You are a loser clown, Cigar. You cannot hold your own on this topic because you don't know sht.

Knock off the petty grade school insults, take the personal assessments to the PM function

[Ransom]

City of Los Angeles is in the state of California

http://www.usdebtclock.org/state-debt-clocks/state-of-california-debt-clock.html

Illinois being discussed

http://www.usdebtclock.org/state-debt-clocks/state-of-illinois-debt-clock.html

It is in fact unsustainable. If you look to debt to income ratios they scorch near 20%, Illinois's 2 of every 12 on food stamps should alarm.

Min wage is a political gimmick and job killer

[debbietoo]

It used to be common knowledge that economists can be bought to make any sort of pronouncement one might wish to have. Economists have predicted twenty-five of the last three recessions.

State meddling is seen, rightly, as damage. People find ways to work around it or minimize its effects. Automating entry-level jobs will occur more quickly. And more people will take jobs in the shadow economy.

Marxists are foolish people who fail to take human traits into consideration.

Marx's critique of the ideology of the human rights thus departs from the counterrevolutionary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterrevolutionary) critique by Edmund Burke (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke), who dismissed the "rights of Man" in favour of the "rights of the individual": it is not grounded on an opposition to the Enlightenment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment)'suniversalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universality_(philosophy)) and humanist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism) project on behalf of the right of tradition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradition), as in Burke's case, but rather on the claim that the ideology of economism and the ideology of the human rights are the reverse sides of the same coin. However, as Étienne Balibar puts it, "the accent put on those contradictions can not not ring out on the signification of 'human rights', since these therefore appears both as the language in which exploitation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploitation_of_labour) masks itself and as the one in which the exploited class struggle express itself: more than a truth or an illusion, it is therefore a stake".[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist_philosophy#cite_note-4) Das Kapital ironizes on the "pompous catalogue of the human rights" in comparison to the "modestMagna Charta of a day work limited by law":

The creation of a normal working-day is, therefore, the product of a protracted civil war, more or less dissembled, between the capitalist class and the working-class... It must be acknowledged that our labourer comes out of the process of production other than he entered. In the market he stood as owner of the commodity "labour-power" face to face with other owners of commodities, dealer against dealer. The contract by which he sold to the capitalist his labour-power proved, so to say, in black and white that he disposed of himself freely. The bargain concluded, it is discovered that he was no "free agent," that the time for which he is free to sell his labour-power is the time for which he is forced to sell it, that in fact the vampire will not lose its hold on him "so long as there is a muscle, a nerve, a drop of blood to be exploited." For "protection" against "the serpent of their agonies," the labourers must put their heads together, and, as a class, compel the passing of a law, an all-powerful social barrier that shall prevent the very workers from selling, by voluntary contract with capital, themselves and their families into slavery and death. In place of the pompous catalogue of the "inalienable rights of man" comes the modest Magna Charta of a legally limited working-day, which shall make clear "when the time which the worker sells is ended, and when his own begins. Quantum mutatus ab illo![How changed from what he/it was!]"[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist_philosophy#cite_note-5)

I think working class Americans have truly reached a breaking point. They are tired of working for starvation wages. They continue to see the rich getting richer by the minute, while paying less taxes percentage wise. The gap between the rich and the poor in this Country continues to grow by astronomical rates, including child poverty, and this is something we can no longer ignore. We have tried "trickle down economic policies" and they have not worked for the majority of Americans; those policies have failed the 99 percent. No matter how you slice it, cutting taxes for wealthiest Americans, slashing America's safety nets and educational programs just doesn't cut it for America's middle class. It may work for America's elite, but it doesn't work for the majority of America and we know it! No more fooling us!:applause:

[Subdermal]

Marx's critique of the ideology of the human rights thus departs from the counterrevolutionary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterrevolutionary) critique by Edmund Burke (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke), who dismissed the "rights of Man" in favour of the "rights of the individual": it is not grounded on an opposition to the Enlightenment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment)'suniversalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universality_(philosophy)) and humanist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism) project on behalf of the right of tradition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradition), as in Burke's case, but rather on the claim that the ideology of economism and the ideology of the human rights are the reverse sides of the same coin. However, as Étienne Balibar puts it, "the accent put on those contradictions can not not ring out on the signification of 'human rights', since these therefore appears both as the language in which exploitation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploitation_of_labour) masks itself and as the one in which the exploited class struggle express itself: more than a truth or an illusion, it is therefore a stake".[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist_philosophy#cite_note-4) Das Kapital ironizes on the "pompous catalogue of the human rights" in comparison to the "modestMagna Charta of a day work limited by law":

The creation of a normal working-day is, therefore, the product of a protracted civil war, more or less dissembled, between the capitalist class and the working-class... It must be acknowledged that our labourer comes out of the process of production other than he entered. In the market he stood as owner of the commodity "labour-power" face to face with other owners of commodities, dealer against dealer. The contract by which he sold to the capitalist his labour-power proved, so to say, in black and white that he disposed of himself freely. The bargain concluded, it is discovered that he was no "free agent," that the time for which he is free to sell his labour-power is the time for which he is forced to sell it, that in fact the vampire will not lose its hold on him "so long as there is a muscle, a nerve, a drop of blood to be exploited." For "protection" against "the serpent of their agonies," the labourers must put their heads together, and, as a class, compel the passing of a law, an all-powerful social barrier that shall prevent the very workers from selling, by voluntary contract with capital, themselves and their families into slavery and death. In place of the pompous catalogue of the "inalienable rights of man" comes the modest Magna Charta of a legally limited working-day, which shall make clear "when the time which the worker sells is ended, and when his own begins. Quantum mutatus ab illo![How changed from what he/it was!]"[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist_philosophy#cite_note-5)

I think working class Americans have truly reached a breaking point. They are tired of working for starvation wages. They continue to see the rich getting richer by the minute, while paying less taxes percentage wise. The gap between the rich and the poor in this Country continues to grow by astronomical rates, including child poverty, and this is something we can no longer ignore. We have tried "trickle down economic policies" and they have not worked for the majority of Americans; those policies have failed the 99 percent. No matter how you slice it, cutting taxes for wealthiest Americans, slashing America's safety nets and educational programs just doesn't cut it for America's middle class. It may work for America's elite, but it doesn't work the majority of America and they know it! No more fooling us!:applause:




Dime store Barbara Eden's shift kicked in again.

Reagan presided over the longest unchecked economic expansion in history. It was the only time Supply Side economics was attempted, and it worked so well that liberals have spent the last 30 years stomping out the forest fire as a result.

[debbietoo]

GOP Presidents Have Been the Worst Contributors to
the Federal Debt


The only reason Obama is second to Reagan is because of the debt he inherited from Bush, and the policies that were already in place when he took office, such as TARP, and the Wall Street bank bailouts. The stimulus was expensive, however, it created many jobs.

In terms of total increase in "federal debt to GDP" under U.S. presidents in the post-World War II era, Republican presidents during their terms have contributed far more to the debt load of the nation than Democrats.
Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush all added to the federal debt significantly on a percent of GDP basis. On the Democratic side, President Obama -- who inherited the worst financial crisis in this era from his predecessor -- also ranks high in terms of contributing to the federal debt as a percentage of GDP.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/gop-presidents-have-been-the-worst-contributors-to-the-federal-debt/264193 (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/gop-presidents-have-been-the-worst-contributors-to-the-federal-debt/264193/)

It has been shown through history, and this was a very thorough and extensive study, that our economy always does better under the watch of a democratic President, and this is a proven fact. There is nothing you can do or say to disprove this fact.

[Bethere]

Dime store Barbara Eden's shift kicked in again.

Reagan presided over the longest unchecked economic expansion in history. It was the only time Supply Side economics was attempted, and it worked so well that liberals have spent the last 30 years stomping out the forest fire as a result.

Shame on you for attacking debbie!

Besides that? You are wrong as always.

The longest peacetime economic expansion belongs to bill clinton.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_economic_expansions_in_the_United_States
15772

[Subdermal]

Oh look. Clown liberal has his fire stomping boots on - and offers a ridiculous bar graph that doesn't make his point.

:biglaugh:

[Mac-7]

Marx's critique of the ideology of the human rights thus departs from the counterrevolutionary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterrevolutionary) critique by Edmund Burke (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke), who dismissed the "rights of Man" in favour of the "rights of the individual": it is not grounded on an opposition to the Enlightenment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment)'suniversalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universality_(philosophy)) and humanist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism) project on behalf of the right of tradition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradition), as in Burke's case, but rather on the claim that the ideology of economism and the ideology of the human rights are the reverse sides of the same coin. However, as Étienne Balibar puts it, "the accent put on those contradictions can not not ring out on the signification of 'human rights', since these therefore appears both as the language in which exploitation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploitation_of_labour) masks itself and as the one in which the exploited class struggle express itself: more than a truth or an illusion, it is therefore a stake".[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist_philosophy#cite_note-4) Das Kapital ironizes on the "pompous catalogue of the human rights" in comparison to the "modestMagna Charta of a day work limited by law":

The creation of a normal working-day is, therefore, the product of a protracted civil war, more or less dissembled, between the capitalist class and the working-class... It must be acknowledged that our labourer comes out of the process of production other than he entered. In the market he stood as owner of the commodity "labour-power" face to face with other owners of commodities, dealer against dealer. The contract by which he sold to the capitalist his labour-power proved, so to say, in black and white that he disposed of himself freely. The bargain concluded, it is discovered that he was no "free agent," that the time for which he is free to sell his labour-power is the time for which he is forced to sell it, that in fact the vampire will not lose its hold on him "so long as there is a muscle, a nerve, a drop of blood to be exploited." For "protection" against "the serpent of their agonies," the labourers must put their heads together, and, as a class, compel the passing of a law, an all-powerful social barrier that shall prevent the very workers from selling, by voluntary contract with capital, themselves and their families into slavery and death. In place of the pompous catalogue of the "inalienable rights of man" comes the modest Magna Charta of a legally limited working-day, which shall make clear "when the time which the worker sells is ended, and when his own begins. Quantum mutatus ab illo![How changed from what he/it was!]"[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist_philosophy#cite_note-5)

I think working class Americans have truly reached a breaking point. They are tired of working for starvation wages. They continue to see the rich getting richer by the minute, while paying less taxes percentage wise. The gap between the rich and the poor in this Country continues to grow by astronomical rates, including child poverty, and this is something we can no longer ignore. We have tried "trickle down economic policies" and they have not worked for the majority of Americans; those policies have failed the 99 percent. No matter how you slice it, cutting taxes for wealthiest Americans, slashing America's safety nets and educational programs just doesn't cut it for America's middle class. It may work for America's elite, but it doesn't work for the majority of America and we know it! No more fooling us!:applause:



I'm convinced that liberals were educated at the Rube Goldberg School of Economics

You want government micromanage the economy which it is not equipped to do

I hope you won't ignore me this time when I tell you that because of illegal aliens there are too many workers chasing too few jobs

Close the border and deport most of the illegals and wages for American workers will rise naturally

[zelmo1234]

Shame on you for attacking debbie!

Besides that? You are wrong as always.

The longest peacetime economic expansion belongs to bill clinton.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_economic_expansions_in_the_United_States
15772

I want you to look at this Graph in conjunction with the policies that were happening at the time in the USA

In 1982 Reagan passed one of the largest Tax cuts in the History of our nation. that set us on a booming economy until 1990 What did Bush the elder do in 1990? He went back on his work and he raised taxes.

You can see what Bill Clinton Cut Taxes in 1996 and what happened to the economy after that, His best years of growth were after the tax cuts.

Look how short the Recession was after 911 due to the Bush Tax Cuts. We just lost the Financial sector of the USA and just a few short blips on the radar.

Of course we were building the Housing Bubble since Carter signed the Equity in Housing Bill and Clinton Sealed it's Fate when he signed the community reinvestment act. Forcing Banks to make loans to people that could never pay it back.

And if you chart continued you would see the slow Recovery on the entire chart?

Why is that? Because all that Tax money you take out of the economy, can't be invested into creating jobs.

And even if the government is going to invest the money, only about half on a good day makes it there they rest is eaten up by the cost of government.

[Oboe]

Oh look. Clown liberal has his fire stomping boots on - and offers a ridiculous bar graph that doesn't make his point.

:biglaugh:

Internet graphs are like internet polls, worthless and prove nothing.

[zelmo1234]

GOP Presidents Have Been the Worst Contributors to
the Federal Debt


The only reason Obama is second to Reagan is because of the debt he inherited from Bush, and the policies that were already in place when he took office, such as TARP, and the Wall Street bank bailouts. The stimulus was expensive, however, it created many jobs.

In terms of total increase in "federal debt to GDP" under U.S. presidents in the post-World War II era, Republican presidents during their terms have contributed far more to the debt load of the nation than Democrats.
Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush all added to the federal debt significantly on a percent of GDP basis. On the Democratic side, President Obama -- who inherited the worst financial crisis in this era from his predecessor -- also ranks high in terms of contributing to the federal debt as a percentage of GDP.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/gop-presidents-have-been-the-worst-contributors-to-the-federal-debt/264193 (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/gop-presidents-have-been-the-worst-contributors-to-the-federal-debt/264193/)

It has been shown through history, and this was a very thorough and extensive study, that our economy always does better under the watch of a democratic President, and this is a proven fact. There is nothing you can do or say to disprove this fact.



Debbie this is not True. Obama has been President for 8 years His first two the GOP could not do anything to stop him, on any issue. He could have done everything that he promised.

The Debt from Obama has to do with the stagnant economy, the ACA, Green Energy, and Massive Government spending. I believe you to be a good person. but you can't listen to the talking points.

Look at the spending. It is not GWB.

Also you keep saying that Trickle Down does not work? But under Obama the Wealth Gap, Income Gap, an inequality have exploded? Why do you think that is?

You have told us it is because the GOP have blocked Obama legislation. And that would be an acceptable Answer if, and only if you can tell me which piece of legislation that the GOP blocked that you feel would have made the biggest Difference in the economy.

None of you on the left every answer that question, because when you look into it, you see that Obama has been very effective in getting everything that he wants.

So please take the time to research and answer some of these question if you still feel the same. If you can't answer the question? then you are believing a lie.

[zelmo1234]

Internet graphs are like internet polls, worthless and prove nothing.

Actually I think that his Graph is very, very telling.

[Standing Wolf]

How well some aspect of the American economy did under this or that President is another side road away from the subject of the OP. Individual actions and policies are not automatically "good" or desirable because their initiators were doing an overall positive job for the economy or because they happened to be serving at a time when things in that realm were doing well generally.

I'm afraid this is another one of those topics where the accepted, PC Liberal position is something of an embarrassment to me, personally. It seems to be based, more than anything, on generating sympathy for unskilled, low-income workers and antipathy toward "fat cat" business owners, and very little else.

I note that in the surveys that purport to show a consensus among professional economists that the effect of a sizeable mandated minimum wage increase would have a "minimal" effect on unemployment, the fine print points out that the majority of even those who are of that opinion believe that the financial benefit to those who don't lose their jobs outweighs the total loss of income among those who do. In other words, yes, some people will lose their income all together, but those who are kept on will be doing better, so let's focus on them. It begins to take on a sort of "lifeboat" vibe - where some will be set adrift to drown or be eaten by sharks in order to lighten the load and make the ride more comfortable for those still in the boat.

[nathanbforrest45]

Is Debbietoo attempting to say the group has rights but the individuals of that group do not? How exactly does that work?

[nathanbforrest45]

One of the previous post stated that if there were a "surplus of labor" workers could not go to other companies or demand higher wages. That is in fact true, because of the laws of supply and demand. The question then becomes why is there a surplus of labor. Does the poster believe that companies will not hire necessary personnel in order to keep the overall wage level low? They may in fact need 10 employees but will only hire five so there are 5 extra people looking for work? Does that really make sense to anyone? There is a "surplus of labor" because there is a "deficit of work" requiring that labor. That deficit normally comes from a lack of sales of what ever product the company is engaged in selling, be it widgets or services. Perhaps there is a "surplus of labor" in the saddle making business because there was a change in technology and now what is required is wheelwrights to make automobile wheels. Perhaps there is a "surplus of labor" because of a general decline in the economy and all businesses are showing sharp declines in sales, therefore requiring fewer workers to produce fewer goods.

How exactly would increasing the minimum wage and thereby raising the cost of doing business to an already failing business increase the sales of that business and therefore require the additional workers or increased wages for existing workers?

As has been asked repeatedly without anyone remotely giving an answer, where will those dollars come from?

[Newpublius]

GOP Presidents Have Been the Worst Contributors to
the Federal Debt


The only reason Obama is second to Reagan is because of the debt he inherited from Bush, and the policies that were already in place when he took office, such as TARP, and the Wall Street bank bailouts. The stimulus was expensive, however, it created many jobs.

In terms of total increase in "federal debt to GDP" under U.S. presidents in the post-World War II era, Republican presidents during their terms have contributed far more to the debt load of the nation than Democrats.
Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush all added to the federal debt significantly on a percent of GDP basis. On the Democratic side, President Obama -- who inherited the worst financial crisis in this era from his predecessor -- also ranks high in terms of contributing to the federal debt as a percentage of GDP.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/gop-presidents-have-been-the-worst-contributors-to-the-federal-debt/264193 (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/gop-presidents-have-been-the-worst-contributors-to-the-federal-debt/264193/)

It has been shown through history, and this was a very thorough and extensive study, that our economy always does better under the watch of a democratic President, and this is a proven fact. There is nothing you can do or say to disprove this fact.





Completely irrelevant. First off, Congress is ignored here, secondly what matters is the affirnative role of government being employed. Notwithstanding all the bluster, government spending and what the government has been doing hasnt changed all that much. Their bitter arguments are essentially on the margin.

Republicans grow the government too........

[nathanbforrest45]

Completely irrelevant. First off, Congress is ignored here, secondly what matters is the affirnative role of government being employed. Notwithstanding all the bluster, government spending and what the government has been doing hasnt changed all that much. Their bitter arguments are essentially on the margin.

Republicans grow the government too........


Unfortunately quite true.

When it comes to buying votes by increasing government spending Congress is completely non partisan

[Oboe]

Actually I think that his Graph is very, very telling.

Most likely, not like he thinks.

[zelmo1234]

Of course the left wants everyone to believe that the money is going to come out of the Fat Cat's Pocket, but that is simply not true. If that were the case, it would be the only way that raising the minimum would not hurt the economy.

15 $ an hour is too much, and would crush small business.

so lets get down to why the left wants is so badly? UNIONS, the Unions are only 5 months away from having to pay the luxury tax of about 40% on there healthcare premiums. This will turn the Union workers against the ACA. But most Union contracts set their top pay, based on Minimum wage, so if the minimum wage nearly doubles, Then the increase in cost will more than be offset by the increase in wages.

I don't think that the GOP members will work with Hillary to remove the luxury tax, so even though she is against it. It is the perfect way to get support for repealing the entire ACA

[Oboe]

One of the previous post stated that if there were a "surplus of labor" workers could not go to other companies or demand higher wages. That is in fact true, because of the laws of supply and demand. The question then becomes why is there a surplus of labor. Does the poster believe that companies will not hire necessary personnel in order to keep the overall wage level low? They may in fact need 10 employees but will only hire five so there are 5 extra people looking for work? Does that really make sense to anyone? There is a "surplus of labor" because there is a "deficit of work" requiring that labor. That deficit normally comes from a lack of sales of what ever product the company is engaged in selling, be it widgets or services. Perhaps there is a "surplus of labor" in the saddle making business because there was a change in technology and now what is required is wheelwrights to make automobile wheels. Perhaps there is a "surplus of labor" because of a general decline in the economy and all businesses are showing sharp declines in sales, therefore requiring fewer workers to produce fewer goods.

How exactly would increasing the minimum wage and thereby raising the cost of doing business to an already failing business increase the sales of that business and therefore require the additional workers or increased wages for existing workers?

As has been asked repeatedly without anyone remotely giving an answer, where will those dollars come from?

Never propose facts to liberals.

[MisterVeritis]

I think working class Americans have truly reached a breaking point. They are tired of working for starvation wages. They continue to see the rich getting richer by the minute, while paying less taxes percentage wise. The gap between the rich and the poor in this Country continues to grow by astronomical rates, including child poverty, and this is something we can no longer ignore. We have tried "trickle down economic policies" and they have not worked for the majority of Americans; those policies have failed the 99 percent. No matter how you slice it, cutting taxes for wealthiest Americans, slashing America's safety nets and educational programs just doesn't cut it for America's middle class. It may work for America's elite, but it doesn't work for the majority of America and we know it! No more fooling us!


Thanks for confirming your Marxist perspective.

What do we do when Marxist-Progressive-Liberal policies put us in this position? We have more than 90 million people who are no longer in the workforce. We have massive taxes and more massive regulations that place the very heavy boot of government on the necks of every business.

The gap between rich and poor is not helped when we bring in millions off the dumbest, sickest, poorest, brown and black people from third world countries. We can send them home and the gap will begin to close.

Your pejorative use of "trickle down" is cool. The record in not clear about the impact on supply-side economics. Cutting tax rates for all Americans works every time it is tried. We see sustained growth over long periods of time. Unfortunately, we also see increased government spending.

What do you mean slashing safety nets? One-half of our entire budget goes to welfare. We should end every one of those programs and return to a Constitutionally limited government. Or we should declare that the coup was a complete success and set the Constitution aside.

What is clear is that Keynesian economics is a failure.

We are not the ones fooling you. You are fooling yourself.

[MisterVeritis]

GOP Presidents Have Been the Worst Contributors to
the Federal Debt


The only reason Obama is second to Reagan is because of the debt he inherited from Bush, and the policies that were already in place when he took office, such as TARP, and the Wall Street bank bailouts. The stimulus was expensive, however, it created many jobs.

In terms of total increase in "federal debt to GDP" under U.S. presidents in the post-World War II era, Republican presidents during their terms have contributed far more to the debt load of the nation than Democrats.
Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush all added to the federal debt significantly on a percent of GDP basis. On the Democratic side, President Obama -- who inherited the worst financial crisis in this era from his predecessor -- also ranks high in terms of contributing to the federal debt as a percentage of GDP.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/gop-presidents-have-been-the-worst-contributors-to-the-federal-debt/264193 (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/gop-presidents-have-been-the-worst-contributors-to-the-federal-debt/264193/)

It has been shown through history, and this was a very thorough and extensive study, that our economy always does better under the watch of a democratic President, and this is a proven fact. There is nothing you can do or say to disprove this fact.


Kook alert. A usual suspect. Lying and fraud should be expected.

[Subdermal]

Obama is going to go down as the only POTUS in our history to preside over an economy without a year of at least 3% annualized growth.

The only one. (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-30/barack-obama-will-be-only-president-history-never-have-year-3-gdp-growth)

Tell us about Bush now, lefties. :rolleyes:

[Chris]

Obama is going to go down as the only POTUS in our history to preside over an economy without a year of at least 3% annualized growth.

The only one. (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-30/barack-obama-will-be-only-president-history-never-have-year-3-gdp-growth)

Tell us about Bush now, lefties. :rolleyes:


It's got to be Bush's fault, just got to be.

[kilgram]

It used to be common knowledge that economists can be bought to make any sort of pronouncement one might wish to have. Economists have predicted twenty-five of the last three recessions.

State meddling is seen, rightly, as damage. People find ways to work around it or minimize its effects. Automating entry-level jobs will occur more quickly. And more people will take jobs in the shadow economy.

Marxists are foolish people who fail to take human traits into consideration.
Marxists are wrong in some aspects but saying that they are wrong predicting the nature of humans is wrong. They are the ones that understand better the humans, much better than any free marketer that lives in the absolute ignorance of the social factors and the effects of their decisions in the society.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk

[MisterVeritis]

Marxists are wrong in some aspects but saying that they are wrong predicting the nature of humans is wrong. They are the ones that understand better the humans, much better than any free marketer that lives in the absolute ignorance of the social factors and the effects of their decisions in the society.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk
Marxists do not understand that humans work to benefit themselves. Marxist do understand envy and how to use it to get the willing dupes to help them overthrow governments.

[kilgram]

Marxists do not understand that humans work to benefit themselves. Marxist do understand envy and how to use it to get the willing dupes to help them overthrow governments.
People work to live. However there is people that work to exploit others.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk

[Chris]

Marxists are wrong in some aspects but saying that they are wrong predicting the nature of humans is wrong. They are the ones that understand better the humans, much better than any free marketer that lives in the absolute ignorance of the social factors and the effects of their decisions in the society.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk



How so?

[MisterVeritis]

Marxists do not understand that humans work to benefit themselves. Marxist do understand envy and how to use it to get the willing dupes to help them overthrow governments.

People work to live. However there is people that work to exploit others.

Yes. We call them politicians.

[kilgram]

Marxists do not understand that humans work to benefit themselves. Marxist do understand envy and how to use it to get the willing dupes to help them overthrow governments.

Yes. We call them politicians.
I call them employers, businessmen, too.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk

[Chris]

I call them employers, businessmen, too.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk


Why?

If you and an employer voluntarily agree to a contract for you to work for him how is he exploiting you? He is not forcing you to work, life itself forces that, for you must act or work to feed, clothe and shelter yourself. And he, the employer, is the one with low enough time preference to take the long term risk of profits to pay you with high time preference for immediate profit from your work.

[zelmo1234]

The Question Still must be answered, Where does the money come from for the increased Wages?

[Common]

The problem with minimum wage is that it cant be a federal standard. Its one of those law that MUST be done on a state level. Heres why:

NYC 15.00 and you have to live with your parents.
Fla 15.00 an hour you are overpaid in relation to more professional jobs, like teacher and Police Officer. 15.00 min wage in most of fla is to high.

The cost of living can differ greatly state to state and it must be set in correlation with the other wages.

[Chris]

The Question Still must be answered, Where does the money come from for the increased Wages?


Why it's just sitting there like a warm pie cooling on a windowsill waiting to be carved up and distributed. :rollseyes:

[Chris]

The problem with minimum wage is that it cant be a federal standard. Its one of those law that MUST be done on a state level. Heres why:

NYC 15.00 and you have to live with your parents.
Fla 15.00 an hour you are overpaid in relation to more professional jobs, like teacher and Police Officer. 15.00 min wage in most of fla is to high.

The cost of living can differ greatly state to state and it must be set in correlation with the other wages.


I would extend your localization argument to the individual employer and employee and let them decide what a fair wage should be.

[nathanbforrest45]

Minimum wages are for losers and the unskilled. If the best you can do is make a career at earning minimum wage you are an absolute loser. If you want to remain a burger flipper for the rest of your life but want to be paid ever higher wages for it you are a loser. A vibrant society has no room for losers.

[nathanbforrest45]

The Question Still must be answered, Where does the money come from for the increased Wages?

The consumers pocket. The consumer will get less but pay more.

[Standing Wolf]

We often hear about middle-aged and even older individuals who are trying to support families on minimum wage (or nearly minimum wage) jobs. In many cases, those are people who have lost higher paying positions and simply can't get back into the workforce at any other level, and they have zero savings to tide them over or permit them to retire. A study that just came out revealed the surprisingly large percentage of the American population that lives paycheck to paycheck - including those in the higher income brackets. A greater emphasis on teaching folks to save for their futures, and to do so at an early age, is sorely needed.

A probably even larger percentage of people trying to support a family working for very low wages consists of those who begin having children when they're still in the teens and have no business doing anything of the kind.

[kcvet]

CA has no economy. its beached. dead

http://earthend-newbeginning.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/dead-whale.jpg

[FindersKeepers]

We often hear about middle-aged and even older individuals who are trying to support families on minimum wage (or nearly minimum wage) jobs. In many cases, those are people who have lost higher paying positions and simply can't get back into the workforce at any other level, and they have zero savings to tide them over or permit them to retire. A study that just came out revealed the surprisingly large percentage of the American population that lives paycheck to paycheck - including those in the higher income brackets. A greater emphasis on teaching folks to save for their futures, and to do so at an early age, is sorely needed.

Spot on! We live in a society where people who struggle just to make ends meet are more interested in buying "toys" than in planning for retirement.

Part of that is our slave-to-society idea that we must keep up with the Jones. My kids never got expensive Christmas presents, but we insisted that they learn the season was for giving. We'd "adopt a family" (local program), spend a little time on Christmas Eve with them, and pick out hats, mittens and warm clothing for other needy kids.

A gal I came to know when we volunteered on her Habitat home worked overtime and bought a $300 Barbie car for her three-year-old. She had the idea that her kid wasn't good enough if she didn't have something material. I didn't say a word, but today, that same gal, who still lives in the same home, is still complaining about others who have more money, and yet, she'd rather buy a top-of-the-line smart phone than put some money in savings.

It's just odd.


A probably even larger percentage of people trying to support a family working for very low wages consists of those who begin having children when they're still in the teens and have no business doing anything of the kind.

True, although my husband and I married young and raised kids while we worked and finished degrees. It was rough going at times, but hard work pays off. I can't imagine how much harder it would be for a single parent to attempt the same thing.

[kcvet]

how does this minimum wage work again??

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2015/05-overflow/20150524_mcd.jpg

[MisterVeritis]

Marxists do not understand that humans work to benefit themselves. Marxist do understand envy and how to use it to get the willing dupes to help them overthrow governments.

Yes. We call them politicians.

I call them employers, businessmen, too.

Your comment is something a (Marxist) dupe might say.

[MisterVeritis]

The problem with minimum wage is that it cant be a federal standard. Its one of those law that MUST be done on a state level. Heres why:

NYC 15.00 and you have to live with your parents.
Fla 15.00 an hour you are overpaid in relation to more professional jobs, like teacher and Police Officer. 15.00 min wage in most of fla is to high.

The cost of living can differ greatly state to state and it must be set in correlation with the other wages.
If we were still free no government, anywhere would be involved in setting wages for any private business.

It is un-American.

[Tahuyaman]

My God! If that's true, we should raise it to $30, no?

what makes $15.00 the magic number? If that causes economic growth, a higher minimum wage would create even more. After all, I don't where $15.00 an hour is a living wage for a family of four.

[zelmo1234]

The consumers pocket. The consumer will get less but pay more.

And of course if this is the case, then raising the minimum wage actually would lead to less consumption because anyone making more than minimum wage would be receiving a pay cut due to inflation.

[Ransom]

what makes $15.00 the magic number? If that causes economic growth, a higher minimum wage would create even more. After all, I don't where $15.00 an hour is a living wage for a family of four.

Exactly. I heard the price of beer at the pre-season LA Rams game was $16. Parking being a nightmare, spaces only available for season ticket holders...thus private lots were charging $100.....to park.

Parking $100. Beer $16. ticket $75. Paying $200 before you even take your seat......for a preseason game to watch second and third stringers.......priceful.

[Common]

what makes $15.00 the magic number? If that causes economic growth, a higher minimum wage would create even more. After all, I don't where $15.00 an hour is a living wage for a family of four.

Its not a living wage for a family of 4 but its better than 7.50

[Truth Detector]

Its not a living wage for a family of 4 but its better than 7.50

Arbitrary minimum wage laws have never done anything to raise people's standard of living for many reasons. First and foremost, the claim that people making minimum wages are the bread winners in homes is patently false. Most are second job or first time jobs for high school and some college students. Secondly, the average minimum wage paid in Los Angeles for lower skilled jobs is approximately $18.21. Thirdly, the only thing that arbitrarily raising the costs to employers for low paid unskilled labor does is create opportunities to supplant labor with machines. You will see a LOT of this now in fast food restaurants. Why pay a dish washer $15.00 an hour when buying a machine, even at the higher initial cost, will lower the cost to the employer?

The ONLY purpose of these minimum wage laws is to make Liberals feel all warm and fuzzy inside without having to show any real results or make any effort at solving employment issues, and prop up the wage contracts of the union thugs who support these corrupt and economically clueless Democratic politicians.

http://www.bls.gov/regions/west/news-release/OccupationalEmploymentAndWages_LosAngeles.htm

[debbietoo]

what makes $15.00 the magic number? If that causes economic growth, a higher minimum wage would create even more. After all, I don't where $15.00 an hour is a living wage for a family of four.

It's a minimum wage. That's all. When minimum wage is raised, other salaries also go up, such as office workers, accountants, and other professionals. It's a starting point.

[Truth Detector]

It's a minimum wage. That's all. When minimum wage is raised, other salaries also go up, such as office workers, accountants, and other professionals. It's a starting point.

Wrong; when the minimum wage is raised automation supplants labor and inflation and taxation eats up what is left. The notion that minimum wages raise people out of poverty is one of the biggest lies promoted by a corrupt and dishonest Democratic Party.

How do we know they are lying to you? Because if the minimum wage actually did what they claimed, we wouldn't be taking about a miserly $15 an hour, but rather, $35 or $45 an hour.

You're not smart enough to comprehend the obvious. ;)

[William]

The minimum wage in Australia is $17.70 per hour for permanent employees, with a further 25% and over (depending on the industry) for casual workers. On top of that there are award margins, according to the industry. In addition - all full time employees are entitled to 4 weeks paid annual leave, and are entitled to two weeks paid sick leave per year, which is accumulated over the years, as well as long service leave after 7 years.

None of this has sent Australian businesses broke, and the Australian economy weathered the recent recession better than most other developed countries, including the USA. Australia is ranked 4th in the most recent standard of living index (the IHDI) - after Norway, the Netherlands and Switzerland. The USA is ranked equal 27th with Poland. There's a lovely old saying which goes "The proof of the pudding is in the eating." :grin:

[Subdermal]

It's a minimum wage. That's all. When minimum wage is raised, other salaries also go up, such as office workers, accountants, and other professionals. It's a starting point.

Why not start @ $30/hr?
debbietoo

If you cannot answer that question, why do you believe you know anything about this topic?

[Subdermal]

The minimum wage in Australia is $17.70 per hour for permanent employees, with a further 25% and over (depending on the industry) for casual workers. On top of that there are award margins, according to the industry. In addition - all full time employees are entitled to 4 weeks paid annual leave, and are entitled to two weeks paid sick leave per year, which is accumulated over the years, as well as long service leave after 7 years.

None of this has sent Australian businesses broke, and the Australian economy weathered the recent recession better than most other developed countries, including the USA. Australia is ranked 4th in the most recent standard of living index (the IHDI) - after Norway, the Netherlands and Switzerland. The USA is ranked equal 27th with Poland. There's a lovely old saying which goes "The proof of the pudding is in the eating." :grin:

You're lying with statistics and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt by saying that you're unaware of it.

15860

You'll notice the spreading disparity between the unemployment benefit, and the poverty line?

That's Australia.

All that increasing the MW does is increase the cost of living at pace which exceeds Australia's resources to compensate. The laws of economics are most harsh in countries without their own currency. Both the pound sterling and the US Dollar had autonomy (the ability to control their own inflation - or milk their citizenry, depending upon how you look at it), but the UK gave that up.

And their increases in MW can make you feel good, but all that's happening is an increase in the wealth gap.

[Truth Detector]

The minimum wage in Australia is $17.70 per hour for permanent employees, with a further 25% and over (depending on the industry) for casual workers. On top of that there are award margins, according to the industry. In addition - all full time employees are entitled to 4 weeks paid annual leave, and are entitled to two weeks paid sick leave per year, which is accumulated over the years, as well as long service leave after 7 years.

None of this has sent Australian businesses broke, and the Australian economy weathered the recent recession better than most other developed countries, including the USA. Australia is ranked 4th in the most recent standard of living index (the IHDI) - after Norway, the Netherlands and Switzerland. The USA is ranked equal 27th with Poland. There's a lovely old saying which goes "The proof of the pudding is in the eating." :grin:

A couple of things, your data is wildly exaggerated. But I am amused when Liberals attempt to compare the US economy to large nations with massive natural resources to exploit and low mostly homogenous populations.

But let's look at the data; the USA ranks number one in GDP. Australia, 13th with only 7% of the GDP of the US.
https://knoema.com/nwnfkne/world-gdp-ranking-2015-data-and-charts

Productivity by country ranks the USA second while Australia comes in at 13th.
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Economy/Overall-productivity/PPP

Disposable income; the USA is ranked number one, Australia, sixth.
https://skift.com/2013/05/15/u-s-has-the-highest-disposable-income-as-uk-slips-down-the-list/

Yep; the last thing America needs to be is like Australia, Kanukistan or Europistan. :rofl:

[Chris]

The minimum wage in Australia is $17.70 per hour for permanent employees, with a further 25% and over (depending on the industry) for casual workers. On top of that there are award margins, according to the industry. In addition - all full time employees are entitled to 4 weeks paid annual leave, and are entitled to two weeks paid sick leave per year, which is accumulated over the years, as well as long service leave after 7 years.

None of this has sent Australian businesses broke, and the Australian economy weathered the recent recession better than most other developed countries, including the USA. Australia is ranked 4th in the most recent standard of living index (the IHDI) - after Norway, the Netherlands and Switzerland. The USA is ranked equal 27th with Poland. There's a lovely old saying which goes "The proof of the pudding is in the eating." :grin:


No one suggests businesses will go broke or that there will be massive loss of jobs. The effects are more subtle. There is evidence that the increase in min way in Australia led not to less jobs but fewer hours worked.

[Truth Detector]

No one suggests businesses will go broke or that there will be massive loss of jobs. The effects are more subtle. There is evidence that the increase in min way in Australia led not to less jobs but fewer hours worked.

I missed the Liberal strawman claims; so true.

[nathanbforrest45]

[QUOTE=debbietoo;1686227]It's a minimum wage. That's all. When minimum wage is raised, other salaries also go up, such as office workers, accountants, and other professionals. It's a starting point.[/QUOTE

You have hit the nail squarely on the head. Raising the minimum wage will force all wages to increase. An increase in all wages will lead to a corresponding increase in the cost of goods and\or lower profits for the business and therefore a reduction in the financial means of expansion with the resulting hiring of more employees. Ultimately businesses will either fail with a subsequent loss of work for anyone or the work force will be reduced across the board for all workers with the same outcome, less money for unemployed workers.

Mark Twain in "Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" wrote of this issue over 100 years ago. He described a conversation between the main character and a worker in the Shire he was in. The worker was bragging that he made twice as much as a worker in an adjacent village. It was pointed out to him that yes he did make more but his clothing, food, housing, and general household goods were more than twice as much as the other village. The worker didn't care, all he was concerned about was the fact he made twice as much. The same is true of people like Debbietoo. She doesn't care that a fiat wage will only serve to push cost ever higher with a larger gap between wages and cost just as long as she can claim workers are now making $15.00 an hour (when I first started working in 1960 the minimum wage was 75 cents per hour. Now they are demanding it be 20 times higher but the number of poor has increased, not decreased in the last 56 years)

[Tahuyaman]

Exactly. I heard the price of beer at the pre-season LA Rams game was $16. Parking being a nightmare, spaces only available for season ticket holders...thus private lots were charging $100.....to park.

Parking $100. Beer $16. ticket $75. Paying $200 before you even take your seat......for a preseason game to watch second and third stringers.......priceful.

$75.00 seat in an NFL stadium? Mine are $140.00 each. Preseason or regular season, it doesn't matter.

[Tahuyaman]

Its not a living wage for a family of 4 but its better than 7.50

first of all, people holding down minimum wage jobs are not supporting a familiy. They are usually teenagers getting their first job.

Second, a minimum wage should vary state to state. The one size fits all mentality is inappropriate in this case.

[Tahuyaman]

It's a minimum wage. That's all. When minimum wage is raised, other salaries also go up, such as office workers, accountants, and other professionals. It's a starting point.
And the cost of living rises along with it. The only people hurt are those you are claiming to help.

[William]

You're lying with statistics and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt by saying that you're unaware of it.

15860

You'll notice the spreading disparity between the unemployment benefit, and the poverty line?

That's Australia.

All that increasing the MW does is increase the cost of living at pace which exceeds Australia's resources to compensate. The laws of economics are most harsh in countries without their own currency. Both the pound sterling and the US Dollar had autonomy (the ability to control their own inflation - or milk their citizenry, depending upon how you look at it), but the UK gave that up.

And their increases in MW can make you feel good, but all that's happening is an increase in the wealth gap.

I'm not lying about anything, and you should know better than to make a personal attack like that.
That the minimum wage in Australia is $17.70, That there are award margins above that, and that 4 weeks paid annual leave and two weeks paid sick leave are entitlements to Australian employees, are all matters of record and easily verified. As is the fact that Australia is ranked fourth in the IHDI index and the USA is ranked 27th. The readers here can draw their own conclusions from all that, but it does indicate that a higher minimum wage does not send an economy broke. QED.

[FindersKeepers]

It's a minimum wage. That's all. When minimum wage is raised, other salaries also go up, such as office workers, accountants, and other professionals. It's a starting point.

It's a starting point for inflation.

[debbietoo]

I'm not lying about anything, and you should know better than to make a personal attack like that.
That the minimum wage in Australia is $17.70, That there are award margins above that, and that 4 weeks paid annual leave and two weeks paid sick leave are entitlements to Australian employees, are all matters of record and easily verified. As is the fact that Australia is ranked fourth in the IHDI index and the USA is ranked 27th. The readers here can draw their own conclusions from all that, but it does indicate that a higher minimum wage does not send an economy broke. QED.

Also, I'd like to point out that Australia passed an assault weapon law, essentially banning them. As a result, they no longer have any mass shootings, and fire-arm related homicide and suicide rate has also gone down. Here is the article I found.

Australia's gun laws stopped mass shootings and reduced homicides, study findsSince major gun law reforms were introduced in Australia, mass shootings have not only stopped, but there has also been an accelerating reduction in rates of firearm-related homicide and suicides, a landmark study has found.

Source:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/23/australias-gun-laws-
stopped-mass-shootings-and-reduced-homicides-study-finds (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/23/australias-gun-laws-stopped-mass-shootings-and-reduced-homicides-study-finds)


Gee, why can't America be this smart?

[MisterVeritis]

Also, I'd like to point out that Australia passed an assault weapon law, essentially banning them. As a result, they no longer have any mass shootings, and fire-arm related homicide and suicide rate has also gone down. Here is the article I found.

Australia's gun laws stopped mass shootings and reduced homicides, study finds

Since major gun law reforms were introduced in Australia, mass shootings have not only stopped, but there has also been an accelerating reduction in rates of firearm-related homicide and suicides, a landmark study has found.

Source:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/23/australias-gun-laws-
stopped-mass-shootings-and-reduced-homicides-study-finds (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/23/australias-gun-laws-stopped-mass-shootings-and-reduced-homicides-study-finds)


Gee, why can't America be this smart?

How is crime overall?

[The Xl]

Raising the minimum wage is just going to inflate things and hurt the people who currently make 12-20 dollars or so an hour. But at the same time, with the money supply that continually grows over time, the minimum wage will need bumps here and there, it's a major flaw in our fractional reserve banking system.

[Ransom]

It's a minimum wage. That's all. When minimum wage is raised, other salaries also go up, such as office workers, accountants, and other professionals. It's a starting point.

And is the price of their service or products.

Oops.

[Subdermal]

I'm not lying about anything, and you should know better than to make a personal attack like that.

The term is 'lying with statistics'. It isn't a pejorative, and I additionally granted the possible latitude that it was unintentional.

Don't be so sensitive.



That the minimum wage in Australia is $17.70, That there are award margins above that, and that 4 weeks paid annual leave and two weeks paid sick leave are entitlements to Australian employees, are all matters of record and easily verified. As is the fact that Australia is ranked fourth in the IHDI index and the USA is ranked 27th. The readers here can draw their own conclusions from all that, but it does indicate that a higher minimum wage does not send an economy broke. QED.

You did not address my rebuke even one tiny bit.

[exploited]

Minimum wage is a disastrous idea. It needs to be abolished immediately. Same with employment insurance, welfare, and all other forms of mandatory economic assistance.

Now a guaranteed minimum income? That makes sense, both philosophically and practically.

Philosophically because private property is derived from government, and government therefore has some obligation to support all people under its' care.

Practically because the more people with money, the more consumer spending, the more growth. This is the basic truth of all economics.

[Subdermal]

Also, I'd like to point out that Australia passed an assault weapon law, essentially banning them. As a result, they no longer have any mass shootings, and fire-arm related homicide and suicide rate has also gone down. Here is the article I found.

Australia's gun laws stopped mass shootings and reduced homicides, study finds

Since major gun law reforms were introduced in Australia, mass shootings have not only stopped, but there has also been an accelerating reduction in rates of firearm-related homicide and suicides, a landmark study has found.

Source:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/23/australias-gun-laws-
stopped-mass-shootings-and-reduced-homicides-study-finds (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/23/australias-gun-laws-stopped-mass-shootings-and-reduced-homicides-study-finds)


Gee, why can't America be this smart?

It's funny how anti-gun types shift the definition of 'mass shooting' when there is a gun ban in effect, and completely reverse their definition when there is no gun ban in effect.

Like - for instance - how the hell are these mass shootings missed, or not called mass shootings? (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia)

I also wonder if a gun in the hands of a responsible owner would have prevented the deaths of these 8 children; victims of a mass stabbing. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/11302916/Eight-children-murdered-in-mass-stabbing-in-Australia.html)

Removing the guns from Australian citizens happened just in time. Muslims are now there to attack them. (http://australia muslims beach attaack)

[kcvet]

And is the price of their service or products.

Oops.


oops

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_m3NCr9R8eks/S_XX-rPJhXI/AAAAAAAAAJc/EF13sPZn4PY/s1600/outofbusiness.jpg

[zelmo1234]

Its not a living wage for a family of 4 but its better than 7.50

Not unless you can tell me where the money comes from?

[zelmo1234]

It's a minimum wage. That's all. When minimum wage is raised, other salaries also go up, such as office workers, accountants, and other professionals. It's a starting point.

Why would they make more money? And where does the money come from to give them the higher wages?

[zelmo1234]

Also, I'd like to point out that Australia passed an assault weapon law, essentially banning them. As a result, they no longer have any mass shootings, and fire-arm related homicide and suicide rate has also gone down. Here is the article I found.

Australia's gun laws stopped mass shootings and reduced homicides, study finds

Since major gun law reforms were introduced in Australia, mass shootings have not only stopped, but there has also been an accelerating reduction in rates of firearm-related homicide and suicides, a landmark study has found.

Source:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/23/australias-gun-laws-
stopped-mass-shootings-and-reduced-homicides-study-finds (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/23/australias-gun-laws-stopped-mass-shootings-and-reduced-homicides-study-finds)


Gee, why can't America be this smart?

Because as you can see with the chart, their unemployment rate is rising and will likely go higher as China's economy faces

There Standard of living is lower than the USA

And

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Ar

Violent crime went up. Until the Obama years and the terrorist attacks that they brought about, along with the killing fields in the inner city plantations create by the democrats? It was safe to be in the USA, even with the Gun ban.

So you have to take into account reality.

[William]

The term is 'lying with statistics'. It isn't a pejorative, and I additionally granted the possible latitude that it was unintentional.

Don't be so sensitive.

You did not address my rebuke even one tiny bit.

Stop trying to wriggle out of things. Lying with statistics means intentionally misleading people with statistics - it is lying just like any other kind of lying. To call someone any sort of liar is most certainly a pejorative. I'm not being over-sensitive, but I am sick of seeing people here call each other liars when that person may just be misinformed or mistaken. This is the first time this has happened to me, but I see it all the time here. We should be capable of better discussions than that.

I'm not sure what was in your 'rebuke' that I can address - I pointed out that every fact in my answer was a matter of record, and easily verified - I don't see what more I can do. :huh:

[Newpublius]

I'm not lying about anything, and you should know better than to make a personal attack like that.
That the minimum wage in Australia is $17.70, That there are award margins above that, and that 4 weeks paid annual leave and two weeks paid sick leave are entitlements to Australian employees, are all matters of record and easily verified. As is the fact that Australia is ranked fourth in the IHDI index and the USA is ranked 27th. The readers here can draw their own conclusions from all that, but it does indicate that a higher minimum wage does not send an economy broke. QED.

That's not what people who are opposed to minimum wages suggest will happen. Quite simply, the minimum wage, whatever it is will have a negative impact proportionate with whatever the average wage in that country is. Australia is doing relatively well, its not doing relatively well because of the minimum wage, its doing well in spite of it. The fact of the matter is that the prediction is quite simple, a minimum wage will price out individuals who are incapable of producing labor at the minimum rate. They will remain unemployed. Since people who are incapable of producing valuable labor will tend to be relatively inexperienced, statistically we intuitively hypothesize that labor will be statitiscally more likely to be in the youth segment.

As such, we predict that wherever a minimum wage is imposed, that society will see youth unemployment higher than the general unemployment rate. Is that the case in Australia?

Yes:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/7247044-3x2-700x467.jpg

General rate is 5.7%.

It doesn't mean Australia will go broke. It does mean that government price controls are doing exactly what you would expect them to do. They prevent a market from clearing and cause excess unemployment over and above any other cause of unemployment, even when total employment is increasing and total unemployment is decreasing.

[William]

Newpublius There could be something in your view that the minimum wage in Australia contributes to youth unemployment, but you need to know the figures I gave are for the adult minimum wage. It is on a sliding scale for teenagers, and they still work for crappy wages (but not as crappy as in the USA) for fast food outlets and such. Unemployment has much more to do with the lack of industry than minimum wages.

You also need to know that Australia has a population of roughly 23 million on a land slightly larger than the continental United States. This means that population density is very low in many of the youth unemployment hotspots you showed. The town of Cooladdie in the Queensland outback, for instance, has a population of 4. This is an extreme of course, but many young people live on cattle stations, and in small outback townships so small they have to go to school on the radio and internet. Even the mountain village we live in (about 160 km from the city) has fewer than 900 people - and there is no even light industry within a two hours drive. So there's loads of other reasons for unemployment, including youth unemployment. And my parents choose to live here for the healthy environment, even though it means quite a lot of travelling.

[Newpublius]

The US has a training wage. I dont care what the specific minimum wage is, per se, merely that there is one. The impact will be felt relatively to the average wage. The higher it is, the worse the inpact will be, the larger the wedge will be between general unemployment and youth unemployment. A sliding scale for teens or certain youth, like the 90 day federal training wage mitigates the impact....but it doesnt eliminate it. The wedge will remain.

You can discuss various reasons for unemployment but bottom line labor markets would clear but for government intervention.

Minimum wages applied nationally hurt rural areas worsr actually loke they do Puerto Rico here or rural TN. But even so, if we omit the rural, in a country like Australia you'd still look at an area where the law of large numbers would clearly prevail. And that'd be New South Wales and Sydney and the wedge is there all the same. You can see a smaller wedgenthere too, likely because wages in Sydney are higher than in most areas of Australia, like in places like NYC here.

[zelmo1234]

Here we are and still nobody on the left will be honest.

The only possible way that a minimum wage increase could have a chance in hell of working, is if the money came from the profits of the owners or stockholders.

They would have to keep the same number of employee's and the same hours worked, the Same benefits packages, They could not take money from Research and development, or business Expansion

BUT WE ALL KNOW THAT IS NOT THE WORLD WE LIVE IN DON'T WE.

The Truth of the matter is, Owners and Stock holders are not going to take a pay cut, They are going to take less money, in fact they are not going to decrease the percentage that they are taking out of the business. Because of that all of the other items are going to be reduced.

And the real reason that the left wants to increase it, is so they can feel good. However, the elected democrats have another reason.

And that is why the fat cats on Wall Street are donating to Hillary. These laws kill the little guy and benefit the major corporations. And that puts more voters in their camp and gives them more power.

[Mac-7]

Everyone keeps ignoring the basic problem which is too many low-skill immigrants devaluing the labor pool

if we strictly enforced the immigration laws while at the same time reducing the wipe-every-nose welfare state employers would be forced to offer higher wages.

And welfare bums would be forced to take those jobs

[Common]

Not unless you can tell me where the money comes from?

Tell you where it comes from ? Zelmo it comes from the employers who make and charge more in different areas of the country

To get my lawn cut in fla, along with maintenance of shrubs and weeds on a property triple the size I had up north, is less than HALF of what I paid 11 yrs ago up north. Now take your time and grasp that please.

So if they are charging that much more up north, they should be paying that much more. Wages are in relation to cost of living. ALL employers fees are based on that same cost of living.

I have an online aquaintence for many years, we met playing Quake 15 yrs ago or so. He lives in South Dakota. He rents a manufactured 3 br home. Ive seen pictures its extremely nice. His rent is 325.00 a month. Up north it would 2,000 he works for monsanto and makes 9.50 an hour and has medical benefits and 401k

Monsanto in NJ average pay is 37,000 and 38% higher average than the rest of the nation. Read that here

http://www.indeed.com/salary/q-Monsanto-l-New-Brunswick,-NJ.html

Now that is the case across the board most costs in NY and NJ Conn are far higher than other states.

[debbietoo]

Minimum wage is a disastrous idea. It needs to be abolished immediately. Same with employment insurance, welfare, and all other forms of mandatory economic assistance.

Now a guaranteed minimum income? That makes sense, both philosophically and practically.

Philosophically because private property is derived from government, and government therefore has some obligation to support all people under its' care.

Practically because the more people with money, the more consumer spending, the more growth. This is the basic truth of all economics.

Minimum wage has worked well in Australia. Wages have been stagnant in America since the 1970's and have not adjusted in relation to cost of living. It is one of the main reasons for the growing gap in inequality today.

[Common]

Minimum wage has worked well in Australia. Wages have been stagnant in America since the 1970's and have not adjusted in relation to cost of living. It is one of the main reasons for the growing gap in inequality today.

True but the fault of that lies with both parties.

[Truth Detector]

Minimum wage is a disastrous idea. It needs to be abolished immediately. Same with employment insurance, welfare, and all other forms of mandatory economic assistance.

Now a guaranteed minimum income? That makes sense, both philosophically and practically.

There can be nothing dumber than a Government paid guaranteed minimum income. But then, we have to remember that people who erupt with such emotional nonsense seldom enagage their brains and are operating at an emotional level that lacks a basic understanding of history, human nature and economics.


Philosophically because private property is derived from government, and government therefore has some obligation to support all people under its' care.

This can only be stated if you live in a Marxist like State where the citizens are held in second class regards next to Big Government political hacks. It is obvious that you don't understand US history, the Constitution and why it has made us the most prosperous, free and powerful country in the world. Government works when is derives its power FROM the people and is LIMITED to basic things like defending a nations borders and trading interests.


Practically because the more people with money, the more consumer spending, the more growth. This is the basic truth of all economics.

I am amused by the economically ignorant claims that printing money equates to growth and wealth. It really is a very funny argument that lacks a basic understanding about how the REAL world actually works.

One wishes that such simplistic solutions could actually work and we could just send EVERYONE a basic income check without any concerns about how the Government gets that money and it's impact on the psychology of human beings. But alas, history is littered with the wreckage of such Marxist ideals; one only need to open ones eyes to see it.

Yep, in liberal loony land, we just need to put more money in the pockets of citizens and suddenly, economic growth will blossom in the former desert of capitalism. :rofl:

[Truth Detector]

Stop trying to wriggle out of things. Lying with statistics means intentionally misleading people with statistics - it is lying just like any other kind of lying. To call someone any sort of liar is most certainly a pejorative. I'm not being over-sensitive, but I am sick of seeing people here call each other liars when that person may just be misinformed or mistaken. This is the first time this has happened to me, but I see it all the time here. We should be capable of better discussions than that.

I'm not sure what was in your 'rebuke' that I can address - I pointed out that every fact in my answer was a matter of record, and easily verified - I don't see what more I can do. :huh:

Nothing can be more amusing or amazingly stupid than claiming by taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, criminals will suddenly stop using them to commit crimes.

I am willing to bet that a lot of the statistical data used by the morons on the anti-gun side of the aisle includes suicides.

[Truth Detector]

That's not what people who are opposed to minimum wages suggest will happen. Quite simply, the minimum wage, whatever it is will have a negative impact proportionate with whatever the average wage in that country is. Australia is doing relatively well, its not doing relatively well because of the minimum wage, its doing well in spite of it. The fact of the matter is that the prediction is quite simple, a minimum wage will price out individuals who are incapable of producing labor at the minimum rate. They will remain unemployed. Since people who are incapable of producing valuable labor will tend to be relatively inexperienced, statistically we intuitively hypothesize that labor will be statitiscally more likely to be in the youth segment.

As such, we predict that wherever a minimum wage is imposed, that society will see youth unemployment higher than the general unemployment rate. Is that the case in Australia?

Yes:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/7247044-3x2-700x467.jpg

General rate is 5.7%.

It doesn't mean Australia will go broke. It does mean that government price controls are doing exactly what you would expect them to do. They prevent a market from clearing and cause excess unemployment over and above any other cause of unemployment, even when total employment is increasing and total unemployment is decreasing.

^Spot on; and lets also remember that Australia, much like Canada, Norway, Finland and Sweden, are vast nations with huge natural resources and very small populations.

[Truth Detector]

Minimum wage has worked well in Australia. Wages have been stagnant in America since the 1970's and have not adjusted in relation to cost of living. It is one of the main reasons for the growing gap in inequality today.

:rofl: ^Damned funny BS.

[Truth Detector]

Minimum wage has worked well in Australia. Wages have been stagnant in America since the 1970's and have not adjusted in relation to cost of living. It is one of the main reasons for the growing gap in inequality today.


True but the fault of that lies with both parties.

Inequality is the argument of dolts and dullards. EVERYTHING in the world is not equal; attempts to make it so, like Marxism, have failed miserably and do nothing but impoverish nations.

[zelmo1234]

Tell you where it comes from ? Zelmo it comes from the employers who make and charge more in different areas of the country

To get my lawn cut in fla, along with maintenance of shrubs and weeds on a property triple the size I had up north, is less than HALF of what I paid 11 yrs ago up north. Now take your time and grasp that please.

So if they are charging that much more up north, they should be paying that much more. Wages are in relation to cost of living. ALL employers fees are based on that same cost of living.

I have an online aquaintence for many years, we met playing Quake 15 yrs ago or so. He lives in South Dakota. He rents a manufactured 3 br home. Ive seen pictures its extremely nice. His rent is 325.00 a month. Up north it would 2,000 he works for monsanto and makes 9.50 an hour and has medical benefits and 401k

Monsanto in NJ average pay is 37,000 and 38% higher average than the rest of the nation. Read that here

http://www.indeed.com/salary/q-Monsanto-l-New-Brunswick,-NJ.html

Now that is the case across the board most costs in NY and NJ Conn are far higher than other states.

But the truth still remains.

It is not going to come from the employer.

As I have stated many times, the only 6 people on my staff that a minimum wage at 15 dollars an hour would effect, would be the Kids that I hire to clean at the job sites during the summer. The make 9.00 an hour and I try to hire high school or college kids that are interested in the construction trades, so they can see what happens and learn.

Of course I would just eliminate these positions.

If the minimum wages was raised to 15 dollars an hour, not one of my other employee's would get a raise, so that is 76 people that would have less disposable income because of inflation.

Also my pricing would have to change to cover the cost of that inflation.

I do not know ONE employer, that is saying? Well if they raise the minimum wage, I will just have to make less money. They all are going to make the same or more.

The workers are going to pay the price and because most of us take a % of the revenue as profits, our income will go up to cover the cost of inflation.

Those that thing that is just Greed, should have started a business of their own.

[Common]

But the truth still remains.

It is not going to come from the employer.

As I have stated many times, the only 6 people on my staff that a minimum wage at 15 dollars an hour would effect, would be the Kids that I hire to clean at the job sites during the summer. The make 9.00 an hour and I try to hire high school or college kids that are interested in the construction trades, so they can see what happens and learn.

Of course I would just eliminate these positions.

If the minimum wages was raised to 15 dollars an hour, not one of my other employee's would get a raise, so that is 76 people that would have less disposable income because of inflation.

Also my pricing would have to change to cover the cost of that inflation.

I do not know ONE employer, that is saying? Well if they raise the minimum wage, I will just have to make less money. They all are going to make the same or more.

The workers are going to pay the price and because most of us take a % of the revenue as profits, our income will go up to cover the cost of inflation.

Those that thing that is just Greed, should have started a business of their own.

Doesnt matter zelmo the employer can only pass on what the freight will bear. You want me to work under the assumption that ALL EMPLOYERS will pay fair wages if there was no govt intervention or regulations. That is total complete nonesense. Just take the incredible amount of employers that hire illegal immigrants to pay they less and to not have to pay ss or unemployment ins.

I ve already demonstrated that employers that hire illegals dont pass those savings on to customers. Like in roofing and around here in landscaping they charge the same and what they dont give their employees goes in their pocket

[Truth Detector]

Just take the incredible amount of employers that hire illegal immigrants to pay they less and to not have to pay ss or unemployment ins.

I would like to see this list of employers you have; please.

[zelmo1234]

Doesnt matter zelmo the employer can only pass on what the freight will bear. You want me to work under the assumption that ALL EMPLOYERS will pay fair wages if there was no govt intervention or regulations. That is total complete nonesense. Just take the incredible amount of employers that hire illegal immigrants to pay they less and to not have to pay ss or unemployment ins.

I ve already demonstrated that employers that hire illegals dont pass those savings on to customers. Like in roofing and around here in landscaping they charge the same and what they dont give their employees goes in their pocket

I have called for very strict enforcement of immigration laws, that certainly is a problem, And because I refused to use them I am at a disadvantage.

However, making laws that puts people out of work due to automation, off shoring and downsizing, is not really going to raise anyone's effective income.

So how do you get an employer to dip into his or her own pocket and increase wages?

The answer is Full employment. When I am forced to pay more to keep qualified people on my staff, and I can't raise the price of my home? Then and only then will I increase wages out off my own profits.

Any false increase due to any of the other cuts is spending, just leave the people that advocate for a high minimum wage, we a warm fuzzy feeling, But the people are actually worse off than before they saw the increase in wages.

[Truth Detector]

So how do you get an employer to dip into his or her own pocket and increase wages?

The answer is Full employment.

BINGO!! You get an "A".

[Chris]

I have called for very strict enforcement of immigration laws, that certainly is a problem, And because I refused to use them I am at a disadvantage.

However, making laws that puts people out of work due to automation, off shoring and downsizing, is not really going to raise anyone's effective income.

So how do you get an employer to dip into his or her own pocket and increase wages?

The answer is Full employment. When I am forced to pay more to keep qualified people on my staff, and I can't raise the price of my home? Then and only then will I increase wages out off my own profits.

Any false increase due to any of the other cuts is spending, just leave the people that advocate for a high minimum wage, we a warm fuzzy feeling, But the people are actually worse off than before they saw the increase in wages.


IOW, at or even close to full employment you would have to compete with other employers to keep your workers.

And how achieve higher employment rates but with a prosperous economy, and how that but by getting government the hell out of messing with the economy.

[Truth Detector]

IOW, at or even close to full employment you would have to compete with other employers to keep your workers.

And how achieve higher employment rates but with a prosperous economy, and how that but by getting government the hell out of messing with the economy.

^Spot on; which leads us back to the age old question on this topic: how does one do this?

[nathanbforrest45]

Minimum wage is a disastrous idea. It needs to be abolished immediately. Same with employment insurance, welfare, and all other forms of mandatory economic assistance.

Now a guaranteed minimum income? That makes sense, both philosophically and practically.

Philosophically because private property is derived from government, and government therefore has some obligation to support all people under its' care.

Practically because the more people with money, the more consumer spending, the more growth. This is the basic truth of all economics.


Where does the money come from?

[Subdermal]

Stop trying to wriggle out of things. Lying with statistics means intentionally misleading people with statistics - it is lying just like any other kind of lying.

It's a particular kind of lying. Statistics are used to convey a false narrative. A lot.


To call someone any sort of liar is most certainly a pejorative. I'm not being over-sensitive, but I am sick of seeing people here call each other liars when that person may just be misinformed or mistaken.

...and I granted leeway that you were. That's why I wrote 'lying with statistics', and how it may be unintentional on your part.


This is the first time this has happened to me, but I see it all the time here. We should be capable of better discussions than that.

If you want that, dialing down your habitual smarmy - the essence and intent of which is perfectly captured by your cat - would be a good idea.


I'm not sure what was in your 'rebuke' that I can address - I pointed out that every fact in my answer was a matter of record, and easily verified - I don't see what more I can do. :huh:

Read what I wrote; read how you responded. Tell me how you responded to what I wrote.

[exploited]

Where does the money come from?

In the end, it will all come from taxation. However, I strongly believe in establishing a sovereign wealth fund, and balanced budgets, so that we can move towards making government self-sustainable while reducing or eliminating taxes.

Corporate welfare costs at least $1.5 trillion. Then you have an additional $150 billion from welfare, food stamps, etc. Another $100 billion from state employment insurance programs. Then you have small business grants, tax incentives for new businesses, etc. - call it another $50 billion. Then you have the regulatory cost of these programs - perhaps $25-50 billion. If this money was put into a sovereign wealth fund, invested conservatively by a 100% transparent third party, and allowed to grow, it would be entirely feasible to establish a guaranteed minimum income in the next decade. The issue would be insuring that politicians cannot touch it, control it or use it except for very specific purposes, in a sustainable way - either reducing tax burdens, or paying out a stipend to all citizens equally.

[Subdermal]

@Newpublius (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=685) There could be something in your view that the minimum wage in Australia contributes to youth unemployment, but you need to know the figures I gave are for the adult minimum wage. It is on a sliding scale for teenagers, and they still work for crappy wages (but not as crappy as in the USA) for fast food outlets and such. Unemployment has much more to do with the lack of industry than minimum wages.

You also need to know that Australia has a population of roughly 23 million on a land slightly larger than the continental United States. This means that population density is very low in many of the youth unemployment hotspots you showed. The town of Cooladdie in the Queensland outback, for instance, has a population of 4. This is an extreme of course, but many young people live on cattle stations, and in small outback townships so small they have to go to school on the radio and internet. Even the mountain village we live in (about 160 km from the city) has fewer than 900 people - and there is no even light industry within a two hours drive. So there's loads of other reasons for unemployment, including youth unemployment. And my parents choose to live here for the healthy environment, even though it means quite a lot of travelling.

It sounds like you're alluding to an understanding of how MW wage policy in Australia may have markedly different results than places like the US.

Why didn't you start with that admission?

[Mac-7]

Minimum wage has worked well in Australia. Wages have been stagnant in America since the 1970's and have not adjusted in relation to cost of living. It is one of the main reasons for the growing gap in inequality today.

You have lived in Austrailia?

[Truth Detector]

In the end, it will all come from taxation. However, I strongly believe in establishing a sovereign wealth fund, and balanced budgets, so that we can move towards making government self-sustainable while reducing or eliminating taxes.

Corporate welfare costs at least $1.5 trillion. Then you have an additional $150 billion from welfare, food stamps, etc. Another $100 billion from state employment insurance programs. Then you have small business grants, tax incentives for new businesses, etc. - call it another $50 billion. Then you have the regulatory cost of these programs - perhaps $25-50 billion. If this money was put into a sovereign wealth fund, invested conservatively by a 100% transparent third party, and allowed to grow, it would be entirely feasible to establish a guaranteed minimum income in the next decade. The issue would be insuring that politicians cannot touch it, control it or use it except for very specific purposes, in a sustainable way - either reducing tax burdens, or paying out a stipend to all citizens equally.

:rofl: Hell yeah; we can PRINT the money to pay for it all too!! Another dumb leftist narrative; Corporate welfare.

[Truth Detector]

Just an FYI, I will no longer be responding to your posts, as I don't view our discussions as productive. Good luck in the future.

Oh darn; that's gonna hurt!!! :rofl:

Translation; he doesn't like it when his nonsense gets thrown back in his face.

[Mac-7]

Doesnt matter zelmo the employer can only pass on what the freight will bear.

You want me to work under the assumption that ALL EMPLOYERS will pay fair wages if there was no govt intervention or regulations. That is total complete nonesense. Just take the incredible amount of employers that hire illegal immigrants to pay they less and to not have to pay ss or unemployment ins.

I ve already demonstrated that employers that hire illegals dont pass those savings on to customers. Like in roofing and around here in landscaping they charge the same and what they dont give their employees goes in their pocket

True.

so the employer cuts the staff by whatever it takes.

5%

10%

till he reaches the cost of labor that the "freight" will bear.

Then service is a little slower.

And guess what?

ln most cases the employees who survive the cut have to work a little harder for their higher minimum wage and some of them are pissed about that too.

[Subdermal]

Just an FYI, I will no longer be responding to your posts, as I don't view our discussions as productive. Good luck in the future.

One wonders why you didn't start one post sooner.

Looks like my luck just improved!

:biglaugh:

[MisterVeritis]

Minimum wage has worked well in Australia. Wages have been stagnant in America since the 1970's and have not adjusted in relation to cost of living. It is one of the main reasons for the growing gap in inequality today.
In you opinion, what role is played when we bring in the poorest, dumbest, sickest brown and black people from authoritarian regimes? What impacts have 50 million legal immigrants and 11-20 million illegal aliens had on wages and income inequality (a very leftist concept)?

[MisterVeritis]

There can be nothing dumber than a Government paid guaranteed minimum income. But then, we have to remember that people who erupt with such emotional nonsense seldom enagage their brains and are operating at an emotional level that lacks a basic understanding of history, human nature and economics.

This can only be stated if you live in a Marxist like State where the citizens are held in second class regards next to Big Government political hacks. It is obvious that you don't understand US history, the Constitution and why it has made us the most prosperous, free and powerful country in the world. Government works when is derives its power FROM the people and is LIMITED to basic things like defending a nations borders and trading interests.

I am amused by the economically ignorant claims that printing money equates to growth and wealth. It really is a very funny argument that lacks a basic understanding about how the REAL world actually works.

One wishes that such simplistic solutions could actually work and we could just send EVERYONE a basic income check without any concerns about how the Government gets that money and it's impact on the psychology of human beings. But alas, history is littered with the wreckage of such Marxist ideals; one only need to open ones eyes to see it.

Yep, in liberal loony land, we just need to put more money in the pockets of citizens and suddenly, economic growth will blossom in the former desert of capitalism. :rofl:
Be careful! Exploited is a delicate snowflake. If you are too "truthy" he will shut down (like a heckled Hillary) and stop responding. He will even ask the mods for a safe space.

[MisterVeritis]

Just an FYI, I will no longer be responding to your posts, as I don't view our discussions as productive. Good luck in the future.
The snowflake is sensitive. Mods, may we have a safe space for the snowflake please?

[exploited]

Minimum wage has worked well in Australia. Wages have been stagnant in America since the 1970's and have not adjusted in relation to cost of living. It is one of the main reasons for the growing gap in inequality today.

It has worked alright in Canada as well, although it hasn't stopped the income gap from increasing.

The reason why I prefer the guaranteed minimum income over the minimum wage is that it has less of an impact on the pricing of goods, and it also allows employers a far greater degree of leeway when it comes to compensation. With a guaranteed minimum income, there would be no minimum wage - this means that both employees and employers would be able to better compete, as would small businesses be better able to compete with large businesses.

[Truth Detector]

It has worked alright in Canada as well, although it hasn't stopped the income gap from increasing.

The reason why I prefer the guaranteed minimum income over the minimum wage is that it has less of an impact on the pricing of goods, and it also allows employers a far greater degree of leeway when it comes to compensation. With a guaranteed minimum income, there would be no minimum wage - this means that both employees and employers would be able to better compete, as would small businesses be better able to compete with large businesses.

Problem Numero Uno: The adult population in the US is approximately 234.719 million. If each adult over the age of 18 were to be given the extremely low amount of $10K; the cost would be $2.35 Trillion (or $10,011 per tax paying citizen). That is 2/3rds of the current US Budget.

It is a fantasy that will NEVER occur. Add to that the cost of Universal healthcare; now you are talking over 308 million people at a presumed low cost of say....$10K per year. That is another 3.08 trillion (or $13,122 per tax paying citizen).

Now we are talking $5.43 trillion (or $23,134 per tax paying citizen) before we even start to pay for the cost of Government and Defense. Add to that the current debt which is hovering around $19 trillion, and you have a whopping $24.43 trillion (or $104,081 per citizen) before we add in the cost of Government.

Even the most math challenged leftTard should be able to comprehend the enormity of such Marxist efforts and realize that they always will end in failure and bankruptcy.

But here is the million dollar question; if the Government has to first extract from the tax payers the $10K in order to pay everyone the guaranteed minimum income; what makes math challenged Leftists think that it makes sense to send it back to the people who paid into it and that it would not be much less after all the costs to administrate?

There are so many more things wrong socially; but just the math alone should be enough to convince even the lowest IQ this cannot possibly work.

[exploited]

It's weird because you keep on responding to my posts, despite the fact that I - with this one exception - will literally never respond to any of your posts again. And it isn't because your points here are unreasonable. I think they are decent questions. I just know that answering them is an utter waste of time.

My point here is that you should probably not bother responding to my posts, as whatever you say will be ignored. Obviously you can if you want, I just don't want to waste your time or mine. Good luck in the future.

[nathanbforrest45]

Just an FYI, I will no longer be responding to your posts, as I don't view our discussions as productive. Good luck in the future.


The horror; the horror.

Snubbed by a nobody.

The horror; the horror.

[Chris]

Problem Numero Uno: The adult population in the US is approximately 234.719 million. If each adult over the age of 18 were to be given the extremely low amount of $10K; the cost would be $2.35 Trillion (or $10,011 per tax paying citizen). That is 2/3rds of the current US Budget.

It is a fantasy that will NEVER occur. Add to that the cost of Universal healthcare; now you are talking over 308 million people at a presumed low cost of say....$10K per year. That is another 3.08 trillion (or $13,122 per tax paying citizen).

Now we are talking $5.43 trillion (or $23,134 per tax paying citizen) before we even start to pay for the cost of Government and Defense. Add to that the current debt which is hovering around $19 trillion, and you have a whopping $24.43 trillion (or $104,081 per citizen) before we add in the cost of Government.

Even the most math challenged leftTard should be able to comprehend the enormity of such Marxist efforts and realize that they always will end in failure and bankruptcy.

But here is the million dollar question; if the Government has to first extract from the tax payers the $10K in order to pay everyone the guaranteed minimum income; what makes math challenged Leftists think that it makes sense to send it back to the people who paid into it and that it would not be much less after all the costs to administrate?

There are so many more things wrong socially; but just the math alone should be enough to convince even the lowest IQ this cannot possibly work.



And yet the Fair Tax Prebate does just that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upeCzEQSXtU

[MisterVeritis]

It's weird because you keep on responding to my posts, despite the fact that I - with this one exception - will literally never respond to any of your posts again. And it isn't because your points here are unreasonable. I think they are decent questions. I just know that answering them is an utter waste of time.

My point here is that you should probably not bother responding to my posts, as whatever you say will be ignored. Obviously you can if you want, I just don't want to waste your time or mine. Good luck in the future.
The snowflake responds. Sorta.

[Subdermal]

It's weird because you keep on responding to my posts, despite the fact that I - with this one exception - will literally never respond to any of your posts again. And it isn't because your points here are unreasonable. I think they are decent questions. I just know that answering them is an utter waste of time.

My point here is that you should probably not bother responding to my posts, as whatever you say will be ignored. Obviously you can if you want, I just don't want to waste your time or mine. Good luck in the future.

Trade in your internet connection for this:


http://raminalai.com/images/cardboard-box.jpg

[nathanbforrest45]

He's an arrogant little twit isn't he?

[exploited]

https://media.giphy.com/media/iBEYU5pAss67m/giphy.gif

[Truth Detector]

Problem Numero Uno: The adult population in the US is approximately 234.719 million. If each adult over the age of 18 were to be given the extremely low amount of $10K; the cost would be $2.35 Trillion (or $10,011 per tax paying citizen). That is 2/3rds of the current US Budget.

It is a fantasy that will NEVER occur. Add to that the cost of Universal healthcare; now you are talking over 308 million people at a presumed low cost of say....$10K per year. That is another 3.08 trillion (or $13,122 per tax paying citizen).

Now we are talking $5.43 trillion (or $23,134 per tax paying citizen) before we even start to pay for the cost of Government and Defense. Add to that the current debt which is hovering around $19 trillion, and you have a whopping $24.43 trillion (or $104,081 per citizen) before we add in the cost of Government.

Even the most math challenged leftTard should be able to comprehend the enormity of such Marxist efforts and realize that they always will end in failure and bankruptcy.

But here is the million dollar question; if the Government has to first extract from the tax payers the $10K in order to pay everyone the guaranteed minimum income; what makes math challenged Leftists think that it makes sense to send it back to the people who paid into it and that it would not be much less after all the costs to administrate?

There are so many more things wrong socially; but just the math alone should be enough to convince even the lowest IQ this cannot possibly work.


And yet the Fair Tax Prebate does just that:

Further proof you haven't got the slightest clue of what you are erupting about. Priceless. :biglaugh:

[zelmo1234]

Tell you where it comes from ? Zelmo it comes from the employers who make and charge more in different areas of the country

To get my lawn cut in fla, along with maintenance of shrubs and weeds on a property triple the size I had up north, is less than HALF of what I paid 11 yrs ago up north. Now take your time and grasp that please.

So if they are charging that much more up north, they should be paying that much more. Wages are in relation to cost of living. ALL employers fees are based on that same cost of living.

I have an online aquaintence for many years, we met playing Quake 15 yrs ago or so. He lives in South Dakota. He rents a manufactured 3 br home. Ive seen pictures its extremely nice. His rent is 325.00 a month. Up north it would 2,000 he works for monsanto and makes 9.50 an hour and has medical benefits and 401k

Monsanto in NJ average pay is 37,000 and 38% higher average than the rest of the nation. Read that here

http://www.indeed.com/salary/q-Monsanto-l-New-Brunswick,-NJ.html

Now that is the case across the board most costs in NY and NJ Conn are far higher than other states.

They are not going to take a pay cut, Share holders are not going to stand for a profit loss.

It is a nice thought, but that is not reality. Employers are Companies, they exist to make profit, not to provide lifestyles for their workers, Employment is a cost of doing business, nothing more.

So if the get it all from increasing prices, the raise did nothing to change a person lifestyle, because they are paying more for everything, and anyone making more than the new minimum is purchasing less because they received a pay cut.

If they get it from cost savings, then Unemployment goes up and they can't grow and provide new jobs, this causes excessive Government spending and the value of the dollar drops, this again causes inflation.

So in reality it is not going to come from the owners and companies. I am not taking a pay cut, and neither are my fellow business owners.

So it is reduced to feel good laws that change nothing.

Much like the Obama Tax Hike and the ACA taxes. I raised my rents 15% to cover that cost. So who paid for that increase? Not me.

[zelmo1234]

Doesnt matter zelmo the employer can only pass on what the freight will bear. You want me to work under the assumption that ALL EMPLOYERS will pay fair wages if there was no govt intervention or regulations. That is total complete nonesense. Just take the incredible amount of employers that hire illegal immigrants to pay they less and to not have to pay ss or unemployment ins.

I ve already demonstrated that employers that hire illegals dont pass those savings on to customers. Like in roofing and around here in landscaping they charge the same and what they dont give their employees goes in their pocket

All employers will pay what they need to pay to get the job done.

When labor is on sale as it is today, The wealthy are paying less for labor, When jobs become available people better themselves.

If the market will not handle the increase in prices, then staff will have to be cut, from the payroll or R&D will have to be cut back. Maybe the employee's that are making more than minimum will have to take a pay cut or pay a larger percentage of their benefits, But it is not coming out of my margins.

I would sooner close up shop than work for less money.

And I am not forcing anyone to stay.

[Ethereal]

Raising minimum wage is good for the economy and good for struggling American families!

I agree. Let's raise it to $1,000,000 an hour. That will be super-duper good for the economy.

[Ethereal]

You don't see the contradiction inherent in that statement?

There is no contradiction.

The more productive the economy is, the more purchasing power a given wage possesses.

[zelmo1234]

In the end, it will all come from taxation. However, I strongly believe in establishing a sovereign wealth fund, and balanced budgets, so that we can move towards making government self-sustainable while reducing or eliminating taxes.

Corporate welfare costs at least $1.5 trillion. Then you have an additional $150 billion from welfare, food stamps, etc. Another $100 billion from state employment insurance programs. Then you have small business grants, tax incentives for new businesses, etc. - call it another $50 billion. Then you have the regulatory cost of these programs - perhaps $25-50 billion. If this money was put into a sovereign wealth fund, invested conservatively by a 100% transparent third party, and allowed to grow, it would be entirely feasible to establish a guaranteed minimum income in the next decade. The issue would be insuring that politicians cannot touch it, control it or use it except for very specific purposes, in a sustainable way - either reducing tax burdens, or paying out a stipend to all citizens equally.

Why would I keep my business headquarters in the USA, we already have the highest corporate tax in the world?

I don't own and run my businesses to pay taxes or support your lifestyle, I do that to make profit!

[Ethereal]

Exactly, and all the opinions of the economists must mean something. Numerous studies have been done and almost all of them agree that raising minimum wage has a minimal effect on unemployment and actually boosts the economy in several ways, as noted in the above article.

That's not even remotely true.


National Bureau of Economic Research: Minimum Wages and Employment: A Review of Evidence from the New Minimum Wage Research (http://www.nber.org/papers/w12663)

We review the burgeoning literature on the employment effects of minimum wages - in the United States and other countries - that was spurred by the new minimum wage research beginning in the early 1990s. Our review indicates that there is a wide range of existing estimates and, accordingly, a lack of consensus about the overall effects on low-wage employment of an increase in the minimum wage. However, the oft-stated assertion that recent research fails to support the traditional view that the minimum wage reduces the employment of low-wage workers is clearly incorrect. A sizable majority of the studies surveyed in this monograph give a relatively consistent (although not always statistically significant) indication of negative employment effects of minimum wages. In addition, among the papers we view as providing the most credible evidence, almost all point to negative employment effects, both for the United States as well as for many other countries. Two other important conclusions emerge from our review. First, we see very few - if any - studies that provide convincing evidence of positive employment effects of minimum wages, especially from those studies that focus on the broader groups (rather than a narrow industry) for which the competitive model predicts disemployment effects. Second, the studies that focus on the least-skilled groups provide relatively overwhelming evidence of stronger disemployment effects for these groups.

And this shouldn't come as any surprise, since the laws of supply and demand dictate that price floors like a minimum wage create surpluses which, in the case of labor, translates into unemployed people:

http://figures.boundless-cdn.com/20078/raw/surplus-from-price-floor.svg

[Ethereal]

Where is the incentive to increase wages if your costs are going down and productivity is up?

If costs are down and productivity is up, that means prices are lower. Lower prices means greater purchasing power.

[Ethereal]

Facts don't matter to these people, and if you ask any of them if they ever lost a Job because of a Minimum Wage Increase, you won't here a peep out of them. :laugh:

Now watch them change the subject :wink:

Talks about "facts", neglects to provide any.

[Ethereal]

Marx's critique of the ideology of the human rights thus departs from the counterrevolutionary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterrevolutionary) critique by Edmund Burke (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke), who dismissed the "rights of Man" in favour of the "rights of the individual": it is not grounded on an opposition to the Enlightenment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment)'suniversalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universality_(philosophy)) and humanist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism) project on behalf of the right of tradition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradition), as in Burke's case, but rather on the claim that the ideology of economism and the ideology of the human rights are the reverse sides of the same coin. However, as Étienne Balibar puts it, "the accent put on those contradictions can not not ring out on the signification of 'human rights', since these therefore appears both as the language in which exploitation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploitation_of_labour) masks itself and as the one in which the exploited class struggle express itself: more than a truth or an illusion, it is therefore a stake".[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist_philosophy#cite_note-4) Das Kapital ironizes on the "pompous catalogue of the human rights" in comparison to the "modestMagna Charta of a day work limited by law":

The creation of a normal working-day is, therefore, the product of a protracted civil war, more or less dissembled, between the capitalist class and the working-class... It must be acknowledged that our labourer comes out of the process of production other than he entered. In the market he stood as owner of the commodity "labour-power" face to face with other owners of commodities, dealer against dealer. The contract by which he sold to the capitalist his labour-power proved, so to say, in black and white that he disposed of himself freely. The bargain concluded, it is discovered that he was no "free agent," that the time for which he is free to sell his labour-power is the time for which he is forced to sell it, that in fact the vampire will not lose its hold on him "so long as there is a muscle, a nerve, a drop of blood to be exploited." For "protection" against "the serpent of their agonies," the labourers must put their heads together, and, as a class, compel the passing of a law, an all-powerful social barrier that shall prevent the very workers from selling, by voluntary contract with capital, themselves and their families into slavery and death. In place of the pompous catalogue of the "inalienable rights of man" comes the modest Magna Charta of a legally limited working-day, which shall make clear "when the time which the worker sells is ended, and when his own begins. Quantum mutatus ab illo![How changed from what he/it was!]"[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist_philosophy#cite_note-5)

I think working class Americans have truly reached a breaking point. They are tired of working for starvation wages. They continue to see the rich getting richer by the minute, while paying less taxes percentage wise. The gap between the rich and the poor in this Country continues to grow by astronomical rates, including child poverty, and this is something we can no longer ignore. We have tried "trickle down economic policies" and they have not worked for the majority of Americans; those policies have failed the 99 percent. No matter how you slice it, cutting taxes for wealthiest Americans, slashing America's safety nets and educational programs just doesn't cut it for America's middle class. It may work for America's elite, but it doesn't work for the majority of America and we know it! No more fooling us!:applause:




Starvation wages?

Who is starving in America? Where are these people?

[exploited]

Why would I keep my business headquarters in the USA, we already have the highest corporate tax in the world?

I don't own and run my businesses to pay taxes or support your lifestyle, I do that to make profit!

Corporate tax ought to be zero. It all gets passed on to consumers anyways.

Your reasons for running your business are your own, but nonetheless common. What impact would equitable income distribution have on it, do you think? Is a larger potential market good or bad for you?

[Ethereal]

The minimum wage in Australia is $17.70 per hour for permanent employees, with a further 25% and over (depending on the industry) for casual workers. On top of that there are award margins, according to the industry. In addition - all full time employees are entitled to 4 weeks paid annual leave, and are entitled to two weeks paid sick leave per year, which is accumulated over the years, as well as long service leave after 7 years.

None of this has sent Australian businesses broke, and the Australian economy weathered the recent recession better than most other developed countries, including the USA. Australia is ranked 4th in the most recent standard of living index (the IHDI) - after Norway, the Netherlands and Switzerland. The USA is ranked equal 27th with Poland. There's a lovely old saying which goes "The proof of the pudding is in the eating." :grin:

Australia is ranked higher on the economic freedom index than the USA, so it can withstand an artificially high minimum wage better: http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

But don't fool yourself into thinking the minimum wage in Australia isn't causing unemployment, because that's what the laws of supply and demand necessarily imply.

[William]

Australia is ranked higher on the economic freedom index than the USA, so it can withstand an artificially high minimum wage better: http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

But don't fool yourself into thinking the minimum wage in Australia isn't causing unemployment, because that's what the laws of supply and demand necessarily imply.

Actually it's the Inequality adjusted Human Development Index I quoted, which I understand measures both the standard of living, and the opportunities for people to meet their social and economic potential. We don't do Economics until the fifth form, so I don't really understand anything other than the basic stuff.

But I think we need to understand that things like social services, minimum wages, labour laws, universal health care, age pensions, etc. are concerned with things other than the economics of a society. My dad often quotes US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell-Holmes by saying "I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilization."

As he says, of course individuals and corporations need to operate at a profit - or there is no point to their economic activity - but there are very few people or corporations who are satisfied with a certain level of profit. Very few investors who do not want an increasing level of returns. If $xxx is good $xxx plus must be better.

But a society is not best judged by how many billionaires it produces - it is often better judged by how big is the gap between the richest and the poorest, and how the poorest are treated in that society.

So successful economic activity is only one side of the coin, and government is not just there to provide armed forces, maintain transportation networks and a postal service. It should be there to protect the powerless in society from exploitation by the powerful. And laws which govern economic activity are one of the ways to do that.

[Chris]

IOW, at or even close to full employment you would have to compete with other employers to keep your workers.

And how achieve higher employment rates but with a prosperous economy, and how that but by getting government the hell out of messing with the economy.


^Spot on; which leads us back to the age old question on this topic: how does one do this?

"by getting government the hell out of messing with the economy"

I'm amazed though, one day I post that and you have a conniption, next day I post the same thing and you're delighted.

[Chris]

In the end, it will all come from taxation. However, I strongly believe in establishing a sovereign wealth fund, and balanced budgets, so that we can move towards making government self-sustainable while reducing or eliminating taxes.

Corporate welfare costs at least $1.5 trillion. Then you have an additional $150 billion from welfare, food stamps, etc. Another $100 billion from state employment insurance programs. Then you have small business grants, tax incentives for new businesses, etc. - call it another $50 billion. Then you have the regulatory cost of these programs - perhaps $25-50 billion. If this money was put into a sovereign wealth fund, invested conservatively by a 100% transparent third party, and allowed to grow, it would be entirely feasible to establish a guaranteed minimum income in the next decade. The issue would be insuring that politicians cannot touch it, control it or use it except for very specific purposes, in a sustainable way - either reducing tax burdens, or paying out a stipend to all citizens equally.



So your plan is redistributive. When people voluntarily exchange what they value less for what they value more wealth is generated win-win and the economy grows. But when money is redistributed it becomes a zero-sum game and limited if not reduced by higher transaction costs.

[Truth Detector]

"by getting government the hell out of messing with the economy"

Yes, and how SPECIFICALLY do you propose this can happen?


I'm amazed though, one day I post that and you have a conniption, next day I post the same thing and you're delighted.

There you go again; making stupid stuff up. :biglaugh:

[Crepitus]

There is no contradiction.

The more productive the economy is, the more purchasing power a given wage possesses.
I went back like 3 days and still can't find what you are quoting so whatever I guess.

[Crepitus]

If costs are down and productivity is up, that means prices are lower. Lower prices means greater purchasing power.
Neat!

Wanna answer the question instead of deflecting for a change?

[Chris]

Yes, and how SPECIFICALLY do you propose this can happen?



There you go again; making stupid stuff up. :biglaugh:



Are you incapable of civil discourse?


One way you do not get government out of the economy is by electing authoritarians like Trump or Clinton. As Reagan said, the nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I'm here to help you. Substitute fix everything.

[Mac-7]

Are you incapable of civil discourse?


One way you do not get government out of the economy is by electing authoritarians like Trump or Clinton. As Reagan said, the nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I'm here to help you. Substitute fix everything.

Libertarian/anarchist open border policy hurts American workers by driving down wages

[Newpublius]

Actually it's the Inequality adjusted Human Development Index I quoted, which I understand measures both the standard of living, and the opportunities for people to meet their social and economic potential. We don't do Economics until the fifth form, so I don't really understand anything other than the basic stuff.

But I think we need to understand that things like social services, minimum wages, labour laws, universal health care, age pensions, etc. are concerned with things other than the economics of a society. My dad often quotes US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell-Holmes by saying "I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilization."

As he says, of course individuals and corporations need to operate at a profit - or there is no point to their economic activity - but there are very few people or corporations who are satisfied with a certain level of profit. Very few investors who do not want an increasing level of returns. If $xxx is good $xxx plus must be better.

But a society is not best judged by how many billionaires it produces - it is often better judged by how big is the gap between the richest and the poorest, and how the poorest are treated in that society.

So successful economic activity is only one side of the coin, and government is not just there to provide armed forces, maintain transportation networks and a postal service. It should be there to protect the powerless in society from exploitation by the powerful. And laws which govern economic activity are one of the ways to do that.

This exploitation you speak of suggests that firms have market power to compel employees to accept low wages. If this were the case, in the US at least, you would have to explain why Walmart's voluntary turnover exceeds 30% per year as they find better terms of employment. You also need to explain how the average wage in both Australia and the US is much, much higher than the minimum wage. If what you are saying is tru, the vast majority of employees should be distributed around the minimum wage itself, the employers should ve foisting the lowest legally pernissable wage onto employees. That is not the case.

There IS a remedy for exploitation of course, its the individual saying 'No' or 'I quit' -- happens all the time.

Labor remains a scarce resource that employers must bid for. If they don't bid enough people work elsewhere, they turnover more frequently.....

Bottom line is that minimum wages exacerbate income inequality, they discriminatr against the relatively low skilled and powerless and are even rooted in progrssive eugenics. It ensures that some never get their first job, often then reverting to criminality. From a macro point of view the minimum wage impacts a small percentage of society. Within the class suffering from the greatest impact of the minimum wage, that impact is worse than any recession the general economy has ever experienced in my lifetime. This class is suffering unemployment that, in many cases nears rates experienced generally during the Great Depression.

It is having a negative impact. The minimum wage is doing exactly what we predict it will do, it creates unconscionable amounts of youth unemployment.

[Chris]

Libertarian/anarchist open border policy hurts American workers by driving down wages

You know from discussion with me on that topic I am for absolute closed borders at the discretion of each private property owner. So please don;t misrepresent my stance.

[Mac-7]

You know from discussion with me on that topic I am for absolute closed borders at the discretion of each private property owner. So please don;t misrepresent my stance.

Thats such a load of crap

but if it fooled you when someone said it it probably fools other anarchists too

[Chris]

Thats such a load of crap

but if it fooled you when someone said it it probably fools other anarchists too


Uh, I said it, mac. You don't seem to have an argument against it, just this emotional outburst. It might help if you learned what free-market anarchism was.

[Mac-7]

Uh, I said it, mac.


You don't seem to have an argument against it,

just this emotional outburst. It might help if you learned what free-market anarchism was.

No arguement just a fact.

immigration is controlled by the federal government not individual citizens like you

the the only say over immigration laws you are entitled to is by who you vote for the write those laws.

but you dont vote so you have zilch to say about it.

[Chris]

No arguement just a fact.

immigration is controlled by the federal government not individual citizens like you

the the only say over immigration laws you are entitled to is by who you vote for the write those laws.

but you dont vote so you have zilch to say about it.


Except it is what you said of my stance on immigration that is false. You said I stood for open boards when I do not.

Your reaching for positive law here is just as false and irrelevant.

[Mac-7]

Except it is what you said of my stance on immigration that is false. You said I stood for open boards when I do not.

Your reaching for positive law here is just as false and irrelevant.

You do support open borders where anyone in the world is free to come here whenever they want.

that bs about a landowner sponsor is just a smokescreen since one person could admit millions of foreigners under your goofy idea.

[Chris]

You do support open borders where anyone in the world is free to come here whenever they want.

that bs about a landowner sponsor is just a smokescreen since one person could admit millions of foreigners under your goofy idea.


I do not support open borders. Why must you lie to make something up to argue with?



that bs about a landowner sponsor is just a smokescreen since one person could admit millions of foreigners under your goofy idea.

Not my argument. Nice straw man though. Beat it up, please.

[Mac-7]

I do not support open borders.



Actually you do

but you try to obscure the fact with that phony private landowner bull shit

which makes you the liar

[Chris]

Actually you do

but you try to obscure the fact with that phony private landowner bull shit

which makes you the liar


Right, mac, you know better what I think than i do. How silly. Like I said, go beat your straw man to death.

[William]

This exploitation you speak of suggests that firms have market power to compel employees to accept low wages. If this were the case, in the US at least, you would have to explain why Walmart's voluntary turnover exceeds 30% per year as they find better terms of employment. You also need to explain how the average wage in both Australia and the US is much, much higher than the minimum wage. If what you are saying is tru, the vast majority of employees should be distributed around the minimum wage itself, the employers should ve foisting the lowest legally pernissable wage onto employees. That is not the case.

There IS a remedy for exploitation of course, its the individual saying 'No' or 'I quit' -- happens all the time.

Labor remains a scarce resource that employers must bid for. If they don't bid enough people work elsewhere, they turnover more frequently.....

Bottom line is that minimum wages exacerbate income inequality, they discriminatr against the relatively low skilled and powerless and are even rooted in progrssive eugenics. It ensures that some never get their first job, often then reverting to criminality. From a macro point of view the minimum wage impacts a small percentage of society. Within the class suffering from the greatest impact of the minimum wage, that impact is worse than any recession the general economy has ever experienced in my lifetime. This class is suffering unemployment that, in many cases nears rates experienced generally during the Great Depression.

It is having a negative impact. The minimum wage is doing exactly what we predict it will do, it creates unconscionable amounts of youth unemployment.

Like I said, we haven't done Economics yet, that is why I am discussing the purpose of social justice - not how the economics work. It makes good sense to have an economically efficient society, but the purpose of things like minimum wage are social, not economic. People who work full time need to be paid a wage they can live on (without government assistance or charity). If something other than a minimum wage can do that - great, let's do that! But maybe we also need to accept that in tough times people and corporations can get by on a little less profit. :smiley:

[Chris]

Like I said, we haven't done Economics yet, that is why I am discussing the purpose of social justice - not how the economics work. It makes good sense to have an economically efficient society, but the purpose of things like minimum wage are social, not economic. People who work full time need to be paid a wage they can live on (without government assistance or charity). If something other than a minimum wage can do that - great, let's do that! But maybe we also need to accept that in tough times people and corporations can get by on a little less profit. :smiley:

The only real importance of economics is insights into the prosperity needed to pay for social justice efforts.

[Newpublius]

Like I said, we haven't done Economics yet, that is why I am discussing the purpose of social justice - not how the economics work. It makes good sense to have an economically efficient society, but the purpose of things like minimum wage are social, not economic. People who work full time need to be paid a wage they can live on (without government assistance or charity). If something other than a minimum wage can do that - great, let's do that! But maybe we also need to accept that in tough times people and corporations can get by on a little less profit. :smiley:

The social effects are negative because of the negative economic. A person is priceless, his labor is not. Labor does not have an arbitrary minimum. If a person needs more, there's welfare which if it is to be provided it is to be provided vy society, the recipient is still morally obligated then to work for whatever he can make to minimize reliance on welfare. When I owned a business I didnt pay octomom more because she had 8 kids, or a sick person more just becaise they were sick, as compared to the single and healthy coworkers. Their indivodual need was just irrelevant to what I was going to pay. At the time that was $25, and even there a man with a wife and child whose wife stopped working STILL qualified for WIC checks in NJ.....sorry, I wasn't going to pay him more.

You dont get paid more just because you need more. It really doesnt work like that. If your needs exceed what Im willing to pay for your labor, im not a buyer at that price.

[MisterVeritis]

Corporate tax ought to be zero. It all gets passed on to consumers anyways.
A zero rate would be a magnet for every business in the world able to relocate to the US.


Your reasons for running your business are your own, but nonetheless common. What impact would equitable income distribution have on it, do you think? Is a larger potential market good or bad for you?
We have an equitable income distribution. If you want more, earn more. Anything else is theft.

[Newpublius]

The wedge between the youth unemployment rate and the general unemployment rate are people making $0. Income inequality is now worse, opportunity for social mobility is worse, tje social welfare burden is worse.....it is what it is. Liberals hearts are in the right place but their emotions overcome their rationality. Minimum wage is thought to mitigate these issues, it doesn't, it makes them WORSE.

[MisterVeritis]

Like I said, we haven't done Economics yet, that is why I am discussing the purpose of social justice - not how the economics work.
What is social justice?

[Mac-7]

What is social justice?

Bleeding heart liberals taking money from productive people and giving it to ne'er-do-well's.

[Truth Detector]

Are you incapable of civil discourse?

Are you capable of having a conversation without crying and condescension? I am sorry sunshine; what part of my post did you find so offending that you cannot respond without crying? Telling me that I am having conniptions is not exactly civil is it hypocrite?


One way you do not get government out of the economy is by electing authoritarians like Trump or Clinton. As Reagan said, the nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I'm here to help you. Substitute fix everything.

There you go again; giving me a bunch of personal opinions but nothing specific. Is it impossible for you to answer any question honestly without tap-dancing and crying?

Let's try this again; what SPECIFIC ways do you think we can implement that would stop the Government from meddling in economics?

[Truth Detector]

This exploitation you speak of suggests that firms have market power to compel employees to accept low wages. If this were the case, in the US at least, you would have to explain why Walmart's voluntary turnover exceeds 30% per year as they find better terms of employment. You also need to explain how the average wage in both Australia and the US is much, much higher than the minimum wage. If what you are saying is tru, the vast majority of employees should be distributed around the minimum wage itself, the employers should ve foisting the lowest legally pernissable wage onto employees. That is not the case.

There IS a remedy for exploitation of course, its the individual saying 'No' or 'I quit' -- happens all the time.

Labor remains a scarce resource that employers must bid for. If they don't bid enough people work elsewhere, they turnover more frequently.....

Bottom line is that minimum wages exacerbate income inequality, they discriminatr against the relatively low skilled and powerless and are even rooted in progrssive eugenics. It ensures that some never get their first job, often then reverting to criminality. From a macro point of view the minimum wage impacts a small percentage of society. Within the class suffering from the greatest impact of the minimum wage, that impact is worse than any recession the general economy has ever experienced in my lifetime. This class is suffering unemployment that, in many cases nears rates experienced generally during the Great Depression.

It is having a negative impact. The minimum wage is doing exactly what we predict it will do, it creates unconscionable amounts of youth unemployment.

^Outstanding; I wish Chris knew how to do this. :biglaugh:

[Truth Detector]

The only real importance of economics is insights into the prosperity needed to pay for social justice efforts.

I am quite sure even the author of this gobbledygook doesn't know what it means. Yep, I think I took that insightful economics course in college. :biglaugh:

[Truth Detector]

Bleeding heart liberals taking money from productive people and giving it to ne'er-do-well's.

Correction; "and giving it to the voters who elect them".

[Chris]

...


There, I removed all the BS.

[Chris]

I am quite sure even the author of this gobbledygook doesn't know what it means. Yep, I think I took that insightful economics course in college. :biglaugh:

What are you whining about?

You think you know economics because you took a course in college?

Let me guess, you're a neoKeynesian who thinks economics can help government centrally plan the economy.

[Chris]

The wedge between the youth unemployment rate and the general unemployment rate are people making $0. Income inequality is now worse, opportunity for social mobility is worse, tje social welfare burden is worse.....it is what it is. Liberals hearts are in the right place but their emotions overcome their rationality. Minimum wage is thought to mitigate these issues, it doesn't, it makes them WORSE.


I think we all pretty much want the same thing(s), the betterment of self and others, but the liberal heart thinks you can design and plan for that and use government to coerce it. Min wage has all sorts of side effects, unintended consequences like those willing to work for less, mainly youth, out of work, those receiving it getting less hours which may cut other benefits, increased effort to automate those jobs. I find it ironic that, for example, McDonald's advocates for minimum wage to drive small sandwich shop competitors out of business all the while it automates those jobs.

[Mac-7]

Correction; "and giving it to the voters who elect them".

One in the same

[Truth Detector]

There, I removed all the BS.

Changing people's posts; that's bad faith Chris. Why do you consistently break the forum rules you are supposed to be moderating?

I think the answer to that is obvious to everyone BUT you. :biglaugh:

[Truth Detector]

What are you whining about?

You think you know economics because you took a course in college?

Let me guess, you're a neoKeynesian who thinks economics can help government centrally plan the economy.

Chris, I am not whining. I am pointing at your idiotic posts and laughing at them. :biglaugh:

[Chris]

Chris, I am not whining. I am pointing at your idiotic posts and laughing at them. :biglaugh:

What are you whining about now. Criminy sakes.

[zelmo1234]

Corporate tax ought to be zero. It all gets passed on to consumers anyways.

Your reasons for running your business are your own, but nonetheless common. What impact would equitable income distribution have on it, do you think? Is a larger potential market good or bad for you?

Well my Taxes would nearly double, and I am a labor intense business. I suspect that I would off shore my corporate headquarters, charge Administration fee's to move nearly all of the profits off shore to a more favorable tax market.

[zelmo1234]

Actually it's the Inequality adjusted Human Development Index I quoted, which I understand measures both the standard of living, and the opportunities for people to meet their social and economic potential. We don't do Economics until the fifth form, so I don't really understand anything other than the basic stuff.

But I think we need to understand that things like social services, minimum wages, labour laws, universal health care, age pensions, etc. are concerned with things other than the economics of a society. My dad often quotes US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell-Holmes by saying "I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilization."

As he says, of course individuals and corporations need to operate at a profit - or there is no point to their economic activity - but there are very few people or corporations who are satisfied with a certain level of profit. Very few investors who do not want an increasing level of returns. If $xxx is good $xxx plus must be better.

But a society is not best judged by how many billionaires it produces - it is often better judged by how big is the gap between the richest and the poorest, and how the poorest are treated in that society.

So successful economic activity is only one side of the coin, and government is not just there to provide armed forces, maintain transportation networks and a postal service. It should be there to protect the powerless in society from exploitation by the powerful. And laws which govern economic activity are one of the ways to do that.

Why should people get paid more than they are worth? If you want to get rich, the only person stopping you from doing so is yourself.

In life Everyone does not get a trophy, and not everyone will work hard enough to be come rich.

There are lots of people that are comfortable with an average wage, and that is Great, and there are those that just want to work hard enough to exist and that is OK too

What is not OK is those folks demanding wages higher than they deserve for completing their task.

[MisterVeritis]

Bleeding heart liberals taking money from productive people and giving it to ne'er-do-well's.
What does William think social justice is?

[zelmo1234]

Like I said, we haven't done Economics yet, that is why I am discussing the purpose of social justice - not how the economics work. It makes good sense to have an economically efficient society, but the purpose of things like minimum wage are social, not economic. People who work full time need to be paid a wage they can live on (without government assistance or charity). If something other than a minimum wage can do that - great, let's do that! But maybe we also need to accept that in tough times people and corporations can get by on a little less profit. :smiley:

Actually anyone that works full time should be paid what the job is worth. Do you want Fries with that? is not a job worth a living wage, because it was never designed to provide it.

Social Justice is Bull Shit.

Why does someone that works 40 hours a week at a job deserve the same spoils as the business owner that works 70 hours a week and has everything he owns invested in the business.

If you aspire to be a burger flipper for the rest of your life, you are not going to get rich. Start your own restaurant, bust your ass for 20 years and you might just be able to get rich flipping burgers.

[Dr. Who]

Changing people's posts; that's bad faith Chris. Why do you consistently break the forum rules you are supposed to be moderating?

I think the answer to that is obvious to everyone BUT you. :biglaugh:
Don't play the mod card. When a mod is posting as a member, his/her status as a mod is not up for discussion as you are getting into rule 9 territory. If you have an issue, like in any other member interaction, use the report function.

[Bethere]

...

There! I cataloged in excruciating detail all of your greatest posts!