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.
I'm tired of reading arguments about how "Well if we're gonna make it $10/hr, why not just make it $50/hr, eh?". I mean, what nonsense. If people can't understand the concepts of high marginal benefit at the low-end w/ diminishing returns as the MW get higher and higher, then they probably shouldn't be arguing about this at all. Of course it tapers off at some point and very high MW would make no sense - so stop w/ the strawmen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mayorofnyc
If people spending lots of cash will turbocharge the economy...why is a bad thing that low-skilled workers make a minimum of $50 an hour?? $10.00 an hour is great, yet $50.00 an hour is worse?? But then even you admit that the higher the min. wage, the costlier it would be for employers to hire workers making it less attractive to provide entry-level jobs. Yet you think that forcing the min. wage from $7.25 to $10.10 (a 72% increase) will not have that same effect????
1) I don't think you understand what I wrote. Also, you rhetorically ask why if $10 is good then $50 isn't better, despite me commenting on exactly that in my post.
2) 7.25 to 10.10 is a 39% increase, not 72%, FWIW. And no, that will not lead to a 39% increase in inflation, nor a 39% decrease in the number of low-paying jobs.
3) I feel like you responded to me but are really addressing other people in some of your statements.
Consumer spending is the result of a booming economy, not the cause of it. You can have all the disposable income you want, but if businesses aren't producing goods because of high labor costs then you might as well burn that extra cash.
booming economies don't happen when everyone is making slave wages.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,576 posts, read 81,167,557 times
Reputation: 57813
Quote:
Originally Posted by krichton
booming economies don't happen when everyone is making slave wages.
Those making federal minimum wages (or less) are only 4.7% of all hourly workers, according to the Department of Labor. Half of those are under 25 years old. According to the Social Security Administration, the national average annual pay is $44,321, or $23.08/hour. A long way from Slave wages.
According to the Social Security Administration, the national average annual pay is $44,321, or $23.08/hour. A long way from Slave wages.
Why would you use average pay in your calculation? Median pay is more suited for this discussion, and comes in at about 65% of the amount of "average" pay (and that ratio has dropped from 72% 20 years ago)
Quote:
The reason for the difference is that the distribution of workers by wage level is highly skewed.
Someone is suggesting $15. That is RIDICULOUS. A lot of people with significant schooling in technical skills don't make that.
A lot of people who were polled said the existing level is too low and $9.50 is too high. There is consensus that paying so little as to qualify employees for public benefit programs is an out and out handout to employers. But if you can GET a job with zero skills, then the mandatory rate of pay should be relative to what is paid when applicants are screened for experience and skills. Make skills and experience still worth something. I walked into a loading dock job long ago with not a hint of skills. But the employer was fighting a minimum wage case in court, so for the time being, they only looked at my size and my seriousness about work. Helped in the days of the military draft when Uncle Sam could tap a young guy on the shoulder and tell him it is time to put on a uniform.
The market will take care of that. You think because they have to pay their workers more that they think they can charge $8 for a tube of toothpaste now? Cmon. Prices will remain more or less the same as long as there is competition. The more you spend the more money you'll make. I've never heard of a business owner spending less and making more.
It depends on how many competitors or alternative dental care there is. Apparently I can only think of Kimberly Clark, and Colgate Palmolive, assuming they still exist as separate entities.
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.
