Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Better for economy: hire 3 at $10/hr or 2 at $15/hr
3 at $10/hr 32 53.33%
2 at $15/hr 28 46.67%
Voters: 60. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-28-2016, 08:43 PM
 
Location: Near Falls Lake
4,234 posts, read 3,151,903 times
Reputation: 4664

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by thriftylefty View Post
Makes you wonder how Henry Ford sold more cars by raising wages?

Did you ever look into WHY Ford increased his wages? He had no choice!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-28-2016, 08:54 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
42,783 posts, read 26,093,782 times
Reputation: 33927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough View Post
"The conservatives' "trickle down" economics mantra of giving tax breaks, subsidies, and increasing compensation to the wealthy..."
Ignorance of the left as to what conservative think and do is abundant.
You might want to check out the last time the "conservatives" passed a tax cut and who ACTUALLY benefited the most before making a bigger fool of yourself
lol how about George Bush?

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2016, 09:02 PM
 
4,491 posts, read 2,218,963 times
Reputation: 1992
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retroit View Post
If minimum wage is increased, businesses pass on the extra cost to the consumers, which hurts the poor the most. Ultimately, all you are doing is increasing the cost of living.
But how much more do things costs and does the increases minimum wage (in some areas, nearly doubled) cover that increased cost?

It was an old study done a few years ago when Walmart still only payed minimum wage that showed that Walmart could afford to pay all of their employees at least $10/hour and the average total per customer would increase by less than a dollar. I can't remember the exact amount, and since Walmart has since increased their pay, the exact numbers are irrelevant. But the point is that upping the wages did not make things cost substantially more.

I'm asking an honest question though. Would $15 minimum wage actually increase things enough that those on minimum wage would still need more than $15/hour, thus making the change counter productive?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2016, 09:05 PM
 
Location: Midwest
4,670 posts, read 5,076,230 times
Reputation: 6829
Paying them $10 an hour is just creating the illusion of a healthy economy. Unemployment will lower, but the working poor, which these people would be, are still relying on government assistance and that number won't drop. There is no way to have your cake and eat it too. Companies either need to pay a living wage which would reduce the number of people on government assistance, but hurt profits, or they can continue to be cheap to maximize profits, but at the expense of expensive government assistance programs for their underpaid employees.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2016, 09:11 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
42,783 posts, read 26,093,782 times
Reputation: 33927
Quote:
Originally Posted by mightleavenyc View Post
Minimum wage is currently being debated, but do you think it's good for the economy?
Your premise is wrong, you would not lose 1/3 of the minimum wage jobs if the minimum wage went from $10 to $15

"Cornell University Study Debunks The Myth That Minimum Wage Increases Hurt Job Market For Low-Wage Workers. In the December 2015 edition of the Cornell Hospitality Report, researchers at Cornell University found that over the past 20 years, raising the regular and tipped minimum wage for workers in the restaurant and hospitality industries has "not had large or reliable effects" on the number of people working in those industries. The researchers also found that increased wages could have positive side effects such as reduced employee turnover, and recommended that opponents embrace "reasonable increases in the minimum wage"

CEPR: Increasing The Minimum Wage Has "No Discernable Effect" On Employment.

But the weight of evidence from the extensive professional literature has, for decades, consistently found that no significant effects on employment opportunities result when the minimum wage rises in reasonable
increments. This is because the increases in overall business costs resulting from a minimum wage increase are, for the most part, modest.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2016, 09:11 PM
 
Location: Pacific NW
9,437 posts, read 7,351,413 times
Reputation: 7979
Quote:
Originally Posted by thriftylefty View Post
Makes you wonder how Henry Ford sold more cars by raising wages?
No it doesn't, what Ford paid had absolutely nothing to do with minimum wage. Why don't you ask how Microsoft managed to dominate the industry by not paying programmers minimum wage? Obviously the only reason people in Redmond don't make $1 / hour is because of the minimum wage law, right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2016, 09:14 PM
 
12,997 posts, read 13,616,018 times
Reputation: 11187
You know what would be really great for the economy? 15 jobs at $1 an hour. Think of all the jobs we could create!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2016, 09:48 PM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
9,701 posts, read 5,099,422 times
Reputation: 4270
Quote:
Originally Posted by skepticratic View Post

I'm asking an honest question though. Would $15 minimum wage actually increase things enough that those on minimum wage would still need more than $15/hour, thus making the change counter productive?
No. Prices don't go up just bc people have more money in their pockets.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2016, 11:49 PM
 
14,944 posts, read 8,558,182 times
Reputation: 7361
Quote:
Originally Posted by ContrarianEcon View Post
It goes like this. 2 people with $15 hour will have more extra money to spend than 3 people with $10 hour. That extra spending results in extra economic activity.
Liberals

Are we OK with "grade school fractions"? Can y'all handle that?

The choice between 2 or 3 ..... If you choose 2 @$15, you're relegating 33.3% of the general blue coller workforce to indefinite unemployment. Of course, we cannot let those 33.3% unemployed starve to death, or be homeless, so we'll need to increase the taxes on those 66.6% of the $15/hr lucky ones who have to do 100% of the work to house and feed the 33.3% that sit at home doing nothing. The two $15 workers now must do the work of three, while the increase in taxes reduce their effective incomes, so they are working harder for less than the supposed $15.

Let's be conservative and assume the tax increase is 20% to pay for those poor unemployed 33.3%. So the $15/hr crowd who netted a 30% increase in pay ($15 versus $10) loose $3 of that $5 per hour gain to give the 33.3% a free ride of let's say $6 per hour of welfare benefits (3x2=6). At the end of the day, you wind up with 2 making $12/hr working longer ang harder, and 1 getting $6 for doing nothing. You still have $12 + $12 + $6 = $30 which is the same as 2 x $15 AND 3 x $10.

So we end up with two people doing a little better @ $12/hr, and one doing much worse @ $6/hr. The economy overall gets the same either way, while 2/3 work harder for a little gain, and 1/3 does nothing for way less than $10.

Great plan? Only if you are a liberal who is allergic to basic math, and common sense.

PS this does not take into account the massive numbers of $20/hr overpaid government workers that will collect the taxes from the working 2/3 in order to distribute those monies to the 1/3 unemployed.

Yes indeed, this is why leftist economics have a 100% fail rate throughout history ... It's always those "plans" that sound so good, but always go bad, and the leftists never learn from their own mistakes, nor from the lessons of history.

Now, before one of you brilliant leftists claim that those 33.3% unemployed should be taken care of by the rich, instead of the $15 per hour workers, think about how ridiculous that thought really is. You expect the businesses that lay off the 33.3% in order to afford to pay the $15 to the 66% ( those rich folks) can and will pick up the tab, you're dreaming.

Last edited by GuyNTexas; 04-29-2016 at 12:06 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2016, 12:07 AM
 
33,074 posts, read 12,328,151 times
Reputation: 14755
Quote:
Originally Posted by ContrarianEcon View Post
Nice one. Two outcomes for the other one not hired.


One, doesn't get a job and is homeless.


Two, does get a job somewhere else. If at $10hr then you have $40 in hourly income over three people instead of $30 over three people. You are correct some people should not be allowed to speak or vote.
And what economic theory does your post above illustrate and what component of that theory are you illustrating that would 'make the economy better' under that theory?

I'm all ears.

When I read the 'What? ' post by LE, I immediately knew (economic theory wise) why he started his post with 'What? '.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:23 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top