[atlaw]

You get the government you deserve by voting in the people you do. Have a nice day!

[flatrat]

Originally Posted by nep321

Between 1946 and 1977 were the best times our nation had ever seen. About 37% of the workforce was part of a union. CEO's earned 20 times what a staff person earned. The top tax rate paid was 70%.

Today is one of the worst times our nation had ever seen. About 7% of the workforce is part of a union. CEO's earn 400 times what a staff person earns. The top tax rate paid is 39.6%.

Conclusion: Lower taxes, lower wages and less union membership does not lead to greater economic growth and good times.

Can we finally file away the "tricklel down" theory along with the Domino Theory and other disproven and obsolete fantasies?

nep321 is correct. I for one am tired of having my tax dollars be used for corporate welfare because big box stores like Walmart dont pay a decent wage, which forces their employees to seek state assistance, whilke they rake in astronomical profits and corporate bonuses.

What is the conservative ideal? Foxconn? Children making sneakers in Malaysia?

[rubygreta]

Originally Posted by nep321

WRONG.

Currently, about 80,000 employees earn the minimum wage in CT. Assuming that 75% of them work full time. That's 80,000 x 75% x $1.40 x 52 x 40 = an additional $174 MILLION available for consumer spending in CT. I'm sure businesses would love to have a piece of that potential revenue pie.

Could you exaggerate more? Most minimum wage workers are high school kids and college kids who might work 20 hours a week in the summer. So for them its $1.40 x 10 weeks x 20 hours. There are also part-time adult workers making minimum wage. And it doesn't account for jobs and hours that are lost because small business can't pay it, or because the big boys like McDonalds automates or does not open new stores.

Let's carve your $174 million assumption in half of $72 million. According to FRED economic data (look it up), total wages in CT are $108 billion (not including off the books wages). So total wages would increase by 0.67%. Less if you could count off the books jobs. Yes, that will really get the CT economy rolling.

[Lalalally]

Originally Posted by nep321

Between 1946 and 1977 were the best times our nation had ever seen. About 37% of the workforce was part of a union. CEO's earned 20 times what a staff person earned. The top tax rate paid was 70%.

Today is one of the worst times our nation had ever seen. About 7% of the workforce is part of a union. CEO's earn 400 times what a staff person earns. The top tax rate paid is 39.6%.

Conclusion: Lower taxes, lower wages and less union membership does not lead to greater economic growth and good times.

You're out of your freaking mind if you include the 70s in "the best of times" category. The 70s were a dismal, godawful time in our history. Period -- and no ifs, ands or buts about that.
Two times in my life am I vividly aware of good times being experienced most: 1980s, beginning around '83 and lasting through around early '88; and then again '95 -'99. I don't know how these periods correlate with your theory, but when I have some extra time I'll be sure to research it. If you're right, and there was in fact an uptick in union membership, and downturn in CEO salaries during those years, I will be the first to publicly congratulate you on this forum and concede defeat.

[HeadedWest]

Originally Posted by 7 Wishes

Uh, what burgers are $12? The most expensive I know of (burger, NOT meal) is about $6-7, and that's in the very expensive NY metro area. Maybe there's a $12 McDonald's burger in Manhattan?

Another thought on the minimum wage increase......there's a 3 year (yes 3 year!) time frame before its implemented, it's not like businesses are being told to adjust to it tomorrow......

A three year window to buy and implement automation.

[nep321]

You all need to watch the documentary Inequality for All. It's available NOW on Netflix. It was produced by Robert Reich. It's a great film that's easy to understand by anyone. It's about 90 minutes long.

Please, watch it. THEN come back to this thread. I'm sick and tired of arguing with people who probably watch nothing but Fox News and listen to Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin and Michael Savage. Enough is enough already.

This whole conservative movement began with Reagan in the 80's and still hasn't died out.

[nep321]

Originally Posted by Lalalally

You're out of your freaking mind if you include the 70s in "the best of times" category. The 70s were a dismal, godawful time in our history. Period -- and no ifs, ands or buts about that.
Two times in my life am I vividly aware of good times being experienced most: 1980s, beginning around '83 and lasting through around early '88; and then again '95 -'99. I don't know how these periods correlate with your theory, but when I have some extra time I'll be sure to research it. If you're right, and there was in fact an uptick in union membership, and downturn in CEO salaries during those years, I will be the first to publicly congratulate you on this forum and concede defeat.

This was when Clinton raised the top tax rate from 35% to 39.6%. He RAISED taxes and the economy GREW. He also RAISED the minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.15, which further contributed to economic growth. That's an even higher percent increase than the $10.10 increase for CT.

Clinton Signs a Bill Raising Minimum Wage by 90 Cents - NYTimes.com

[7 Wishes]

Originally Posted by rubygreta

Could you exaggerate more? Most minimum wage workers are high school kids and college kids who might work 20 hours a week in the summer. So for them its $1.40 x 10 weeks x 20 hours. There are also part-time adult workers making minimum wage. And it doesn't account for jobs and hours that are lost because small business can't pay it, or because the big boys like McDonalds automates or does not open new stores.

Again, no they are NOT, at least not since the 2008 financial meltdown. There are many people struggling to work full-time + on minimum wage, and many of them have skills but are locked out of this "race to the bottom" economy (I hate using that term but can't think of a better way to put it).

Originally Posted by nep321

That's a theory. And a traditional conservative fear reaction to a new non-conservative law. By your logic, we should reduce the minimum wage, so that those 80,000 people get paid even less, and can't afford anything at all. Businesses would then lose revenues because of reduced consumer spending.

And you can't use one person's experience as evidence. That's called anecdotal evidence. With the passage of any new law, there are always winners and losers. But this law is expected to result in more winners than losers.

Of course there will be negative side effects. Just like a prescription drug that seeks to resolve a problem, it will likely result in minor problems along the way, given that the drug is the correct remedy.

The Republicans have NO solutions. Or solutions that we already tried and didn't work. Austerity doesn't work. Cutting taxes doesn't work. But reducing income inequality DOES work. We did it in the 50's and it worked fabulously well. Back then, the top tax rate was 91% (although no one actually paid that), but the 70% rate did come into play.

When income inequality is reduced, the economy starts MOVING again. The money circulates much better between the middle class and the upper class. Public programs are fully funded, and investments in the middle class are properly made.

The 1950's was a time when the U.S. was more socialist than it is today, and man times were good. We had 37% of the nation's workforce being members of a union. CEO's only earned 20 times what a staff person earned. We had excellent public schools and social safety nets. And private enterprise was doing great. Yet today's Republicans are endorsing extreme austerity measures that have never worked anywhere in the world. Greece being the latest example.

I agree with about 90+% of this, but good as the 50s were, I think a 70% tax rate is high enough that it would do what conservatives incorrectly think 39.6% does. If over half of what you make is being taxed, even if it means you're still keeping millions, that's a disincentive to invest and make more money. But of course this doesn't mean we should have a 0% tax rate; we as citizens do have to pay for roads, government services, etc. Again, not to abuse a term I used before, but 35-40% as a top rate is a good "equilibrium".

There is an interesting solution/compromise that has been proposed in some European countries, and surprisingly was invented by conservative economist Milton Friedman. It's called "Basic Income". There's no minimum wage, but it's replaced with a "guaranteed minimum income" via welfare that would be the equivalent of a basic living wage (maybe $400/week?) that you can supplement by working. Switzerland is the first nation that is seriously considering it, I've heard it may be coming up in the Netherlands soon as well.

[nep321]

Originally Posted by 7 Wishes

Again, no they are NOT, at least not since the 2008 financial meltdown. There are many people struggling to work full-time + on minimum wage, and many of them have skills but are locked out of this "race to the bottom" economy (I hate using that term but can't think of a better way to put it).



I agree with about 90+% of this, but good as the 50s were, I think a 70% tax rate is high enough that it would do what conservatives incorrectly think 39.6% does. If over half of what you make is being taxed, even if it means you're still keeping millions, that's a disincentive to invest and make more money. But of course this doesn't mean we should have a 0% tax rate; we as citizens do have to pay for roads, government services, etc. Again, not to abuse a term I used before, but 35-40% as a top rate is a good "equilibrium".

There is an interesting solution/compromise that has been proposed in some European countries, and surprisingly was invented by conservative economist Milton Friedman. It's called "Basic Income". There's no minimum wage, but it's replaced with a "guaranteed minimum income" via welfare that would be the equivalent of a basic living wage (maybe $400/week?) that you can supplement by working. Switzerland is the first nation that is seriously considering it, I've heard it may be coming up in the Netherlands soon as well.

Yes, I've heard of the guaranteed minimum income thing as well. I guess the good thing about it is that we could do away with all of these various programs (SNAP, SSI, Unemployment, etc.) and replace it with that.

[Lalalally]

Originally Posted by nep321

WRONG.

That only happens if the business owner wants to maintain the profit as a certain percentage of revenues (a.k.a. greed, in many cases). What increasing the minimum wage does, is minimize income inequality, so that people at the low end of the spectrum have more money to spend. Seriously....where do you think all the newly earned $10.10 minimum wage income will go? They aren't just going to stash it all away. They're going to SPEND most of it, which only gives businesses more revenues.

There are many scenarios in which small businesses pay HIGHER than the minimum wage already, so the law won't affect them. Therefore, with all the new consumer spending money out there as a result of OTHER businesses being forced to raise wages, those businesses which already have been paying at least $10.10 would enjoy more customers, not less. It can only get better for them

The money has to go somewhere, period. It will get spent. Consumer spending makes up 70% of our economy.

Currently, about 80,000 employees earn the minimum wage in CT. Assuming that 75% of them work full time. That's 80,000 x 75% x $1.40 x 52 x 40 = an additional $174 MILLION available for consumer spending in CT. I'm sure businesses would love to have a piece of that potential revenue pie.

The full-time adult minimum wage workers will still be in poverty though, and he/she will STILL be collecting government assistance, nep . And there will not be an extra $174 million in consumer spending, because those 80,000 poverty stricken people will continue struggling to make ends meet. I'm really sorry to be the bearer of bad news, because your naïveté is sometimes very sweet and endearing -- like in a Hans Christian Anderson sort of way.

Our goal should be to get the masses OUT of minimum wage paying jobs. Why don't we shift gears and try to focus our energies on ways our state can encourage new business/growth? We're really failing at the moment in that regard -- thankfully we're not dead last, but we have been hanging out with the bottom of the bunch for way too long...