Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We as taxpayers, subsidize those on minimum wage through various government programs; food stamps (EBT), medicaid, housing, etc.
Rather than the taxpayers subsidizing these wage earners, it should be the their employers and the consumers who patronize their businesses. If someone is working, should they need taxpayer assistance? Isn't the whole point of working self reliance?
If you don't see that the window is already broken ( and we as taxpayers pay for it) then you ain't too bright. Why are my taxpayer dollars going to subsidize Wal Mart employees who can't afford to buy food or pay rent? If the Feds weren't subsidizing them then they wouldn't work for Wal Mart.
Last edited by wawaweewa; 10-17-2015 at 10:26 PM..
I think it's evident in Seattle, whose restaurant employment suffered significant job losses within a month of the first tier of the minimum wage hike.
Full disclosure: It may or may not be attributed to the minimum wage hike, but it's hard to ignore an industry that employs a significant percentage of minimum wage labor when they report those kinds of losses following a substantial increase in cost due to the hike.
Comically, many people are now asking to work less.
There's no such thing as 0% unemployment.
Some employees will lose their jobs as a result of the wage hikes because business who's prices are elastic cannot afford to raise prices. Therefore, they either have to cut costs (which usually means labor) or become more efficient or some combination of both.
This only shows that these businesses who laid of workers were marginal business to begin with. They were weak to begin with; simple as that. Not all businesses are good businesses and not all businesses deserve to be in business.
We as taxpayers, subsidize those on minimum wage through various government programs; food stamps (EBT), medicaid, housing, etc.
Rather than the taxpayers subsidizing these wage earners, it should be the their employers and the consumers who patronize their businesses.
If you don't see that the window is already broken ( and we as taxpayers pay for it) then you ain't too bright.
When you raise wages, you are artificially and arbitrarily increasing cost, irrelevant of what we are or are not subsidizing and those cost will be paid, one way or the other and the people who pay those cost will lose, and that is not necessarily the business, it's likely to paid by multiple people, including the people its designed to help. You want to pretend the money that is being spent to subsidize those people will somehow magically transfer to the business that are incurring the new and arbitrary cost. This is not true.
Besides all that, wages in a capitalistic society are not determined by governments. This is the hurdle proponents can never get past. You want to regulate wages, fine, but you will only cause the market to adjust in unintended and unwanted ways to compensate for the inefficient wages. Capitalism is going to do what capitalism does, until it's not capitalism anymore and even then, the market will do what markets do, even in the face of socialist policies.
There's no such thing as 0% unemployment.
Some employees will lose their jobs as a result of the wage hikes because business who's prices are elastic cannot afford to raise prices. Therefore, they either have to cut costs (which usually means labor) or become more efficient or some combination of both.
This only shows that these businesses who laid of workers were marginal business to begin with. They were weak to begin with; simple as that. Not all businesses are good businesses and not all businesses deserve to be in business.
They were marginal because they can't afford to pay above market wages (or wages that are not determined by the market, but rather the government)?
When you raise wages, you are artificially and arbitrarily increasing cost, irrelevant of what we are or are not subsidizing and those cost will be paid, one way or the other and the people who pay those cost will lose, and that is not necessarily the business, it's likely to paid by multiple people, including the people its designed to help. You want to pretend the money that is being spent to subsidize those people will somehow magically transfer to the business that are incurring the new and arbitrary cost.
Besides all that, wages in a capitalistic society are not determined by governments. This is the hurdle proponents can never get past. You want to regulate wages, fine, but you will only cause the market to adjust in unintended and unwanted ways to compensate for the inefficient wages. Capitalism is going to do what capitalism does, until it's not capitalism anymore.
Why are you ignoring the fact that the main reason that Wal Mart can employ people at the wages that it does is because they are getting their wages subsidized by the taxpayers? If their employees weren't getting food stamps, medicaid, etc. do you think they'd still be coming to work? They'd keep their ass at home and collect government bennies all the same. What's the point of working somewhere if your wage can't even cover your basic cost of living? Unless your wages are getting subsidized. That's the trick.
You don't want the government to dictate wages to the private sector (which is correct) but you're OK with government subsidizing wages for the same private sector?
You still haven't explained to me why my taxes should go to subsidize the wages of Wal-Marts or McDonald's employee? I don't employ these people. Why should I pay them anything? Where's my subsidy? lol
You can't have it both ways.
Last edited by wawaweewa; 10-17-2015 at 10:40 PM..
They were marginal because they can't afford to pay above market wages (or wages that are not determined by the market, but rather the government)?
Yes, simple as that.
Above average businesses can withstand turbulent business environments. Marginal or average businesses can't.
Just like economic booms create many businesses and then economic busts blow the garbage ones up.The strong ones still survive.
There's no god given right to operate a profitable business.
Why are you ignoring the fact that the main reason that Wal Mart can employ people at the wages that it does is because they are getting their wages subsidized by the taxpayers? If their employees weren't getting food stamps, medicaid, etc. do you think they'd still be coming to work? They'd keep their ass at home and collect government bennies all the same. What's the point of working somewhere if your wage can't even cover your basic cost of living? Unless your wages are getting subsidized. That's the trick.
The Wal-Mart talking point has many flaws, to which I do not want to get into with you, as you seem to be making the same tired arguments every other proponent has made. With that said, if subsidies are are creating inefficiencies in government spending or the marketplace, why are you focusing on wages? End the subsidies and Wal-Mart will have to pay higher wages, according to your reasoning.
Quote:
You don't want the government to dictate wages to the private sector (which is correct) but you're OK with government subsidizing wages for the same private sector?
The premise is flawed. You attempt to correlate subsidies and Wal-Mart labor practices, but it's rooted into another fallacy: correlation does not imply causation
Quote:
You still haven't explained to me why my taxes should go to subsidize the wages of Wal-Marts or McDonald's employee? I don't employ these people. Why should I pay them anything? Where's my subsidy? lol
You can't have it both ways.
The premise is flawed. You attempt to correlate subsidies and Wal-Mart labor practices, but it's rooted into another fallacy: correlation does not imply causation
In case you are not aware, the place where you read this stuff failed to point out how its all based on logical fallacies.
The Wal-Mart talking point has many flaws, to which I do not want to get into with you, as you seem to be making the same tired arguments every other proponent has made. With that said, if subsidies are are creating inefficiencies in government spending or the marketplace, why are you focusing on wages? End the subsidies and Wal-Mart will have to pay higher wages, according to your reasoning.
The premise is flawed. You attempt to correlate subsidies and Wal-Mart labor practices, but it's rooted into another fallacy: correlation does not imply causation
The premise is flawed. You attempt to correlate subsidies and Wal-Mart labor practices, but it's rooted into another fallacy: correlation does not imply causation
In case you are not aware, the place where you read this stuff failed to point out how its all based on logical fallacies.
Why can't you come up with a coherent rebuttal?
btw, I'd love to end these government subsidies but we all know that's not going to happen. About half of all workers who don't pay taxes and the corporations who benefit from these subsidies will fight it tooth and nail.
It's just easier to raise the minimum wage and let the system flush out all these garbage businesses who rely on taxpayer money to pay their employees.
Yes, simple as that.
Above average businesses can withstand turbulent business environments. Marginal or average businesses can't.
Just like economic booms create many businesses and then economic busts blow the garbage ones up.The strong ones still survive.
There's no god given right to operate a profitable business.
So the standard is "above average". Yet, I bet you can't quantify what an above average business is without using an altruistic reasons, i.e. arbitrary, non-market defined reason.
This happens every time when I discuss this with the minimum wage talking heads. You fail to grasp that your question and premises are based on fallacies and instead of acknowledging or addressing that, you revert to yet another fallacy called ad hominem. Instead asking why I can't come up with anything, actually address what I did come up with. The problem is on your end. As I've pointed out, almost everything you've written to me is based on fallacies and you've yet to attempt to show how its not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wawaweewa
It's just easier to raise the minimum wage and let the system flush out all these garbage businesses who rely on taxpayer money to pay their employees.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
