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 like how most of your studies are from the 1950s-1990s. Huh...I wonder if any studies recently came out to disprove 20-50 year old studies of min. wage.
Let alone the fact that common sense would indicate that if a company has a payroll of $1M, and you increase the wages, then obviously you either need to increase costs, or lay off employees. In the growing world economy, its increasingly difficult to increase costs to compete, which only leaves laying off employees..
Why is this so difficult for so many to understand?
Let alone the fact that common sense would indicate that if a company has a payroll of $1M, and you increase the wages, then obviously you either need to increase costs, or lay off employees. In the growing world economy, its increasingly difficult to increase costs to compete, which only leaves laying off employees..
Why is this so difficult for so many to understand?
A quick so why is that many economists have criticized such studies? Why haven't we seen massive unemployment during times of increases?
It's not difficult to understand. It's just you don't want to understand.
Were those the same economists who were laughing in 2007 at the mere thought of a crisis in 2008? These are Keynesian economists and they have always been wrong. If you want to read into some good economics go read into Austrian economics.
You dont think we've seen massive unemployment since the increase has taken effect?
I make payroll, do you?
Congrats your experiences are wholly related to the entirety of the nation and under all circumstances and can be reproduced time and time again. Also hikes that were during the boom years did not, obviously, result in massive unemployment.
Let me reiterate. You had a middle class job prior to being laid off. One that required some training. You owned a house. You had savings. You didn't need to go to check into cash. You had more options than the extreme poor.
10k is WAY more than anything a truly poor person whose only prospects are min. wage jobs could imagine. That is a lot of money relative to their situation.
The differences are HUGE. If you can't understand that 10k as well as all the other advantages you have put you as a middle class person...then you truly haven't been poor.
There's middle class "broke" and then there's oh crap, I my car died and I might lose my apartment and end up homeless broke.
Your argument is without reason. you are talking as if I had that 10K in hand. had I put the house up for sale, it would have been months to sell, unless I took a loss, and made a negative figure. So now, I am behind, requiring money to move, requiring money to pay for security dep, lst month and first month rent, that's ridiculous. Even if i sold, and I MADE the 10K, how much does it cost to pay someone to move you?
Anyone with a modicum of common sense doesn't go to check in to cash, that's a poor argument also.
Had my car died, I would have in the same boat as any other broke non working person.
You keep missing the point I was making, and it's a point that is still valid. I was able to make do with what jobs I could find, and what money I could make. I Had no full time job, just like any other person looking for work, whether I had a house or not. I earned the same as any other person, no matter what their background was, who is making minimum wage, whether I had a house or not. I had to buy food for 3 people, that didn't change, whether I had a house or not.
I was able to scrape a living, making minimum wage, (or less as I couldn't always get 40 hours of work a week). I made what I earned work the most for my family. It doesn't matter if I pay 770 in rent or mortgage,
Your argument is without reason. you are talking as if I had that 10K in hand. had I put the house up for sale, it would have been months to sell, unless I took a loss, and made a negative figure. So now, I am behind, requiring money to move, requiring money to pay for security dep, lst month and first month rent, that's ridiculous. Even if i sold, and I MADE the 10K, how much does it cost to pay someone to move you?
Anyone with a modicum of common sense doesn't go to check in to cash, that's a poor argument also.
Had my car died, I would have in the same boat as any other broke non working person.
You keep missing the point I was making, and it's a point that is still valid. I was able to make do with what jobs I could find, and what money I could make. I Had no full time job, just like any other person looking for work, whether I had a house or not. I earned the same as any other person, no matter what their background was, who is making minimum wage, whether I had a house or not. I had to buy food for 3 people, that didn't change, whether I had a house or not.
I was able to scrape a living, making minimum wage, (or less as I couldn't always get 40 hours of work a week). I made what I earned work the most for my family. It doesn't matter if I pay 770 in rent or mortgage,
I reiterate you COULD have done those things. Poor people CAN'T do those things. If your car died you have more options than most. I promise you that your car is probably better than somebody who has only been making min. wage.
The point is COMPLETELY invalid. You were never poor. Accept it and move on. You had WAY more options. So yes, you worked a min wage job for a period of time...yet you had move wealth than people have worked min wage jobs their entire working career.
I find it odd you don't understand that your circumstance was never comparable to somebody who is truly poor.
My argument is simply you had more options than poor people, thus you can't really state you've been through the same thing. Your argument is despite having all those advantages you've lived well and prospered on min. wage, thus anyone can. Which is without logic? The one that states that you had more wealth and a better prospects or the one that doesn't figure those things into the equation when comparing themselves to the poor.
Let alone the fact that common sense would indicate that if a company has a payroll of $1M, and you increase the wages, then obviously you either need to increase costs, or lay off employees. In the growing world economy, its increasingly difficult to increase costs to compete, which only leaves laying off employees..
Why is this so difficult for so many to understand?
LOL People will not Read the article you linked to. It shows higher unemployment PEOPLE!!!!!
According to an outfit called the Employment Policies Institute, increases to the federal minimum wage during the past three years resulted in more unemployed teens in Texas.
As the pay scale increased by 40 percent during the July 2007-July 2009 time period, employers, the study said, instituted more self-service initiatives — think self-checkout at a grocery store — and let go 6.9 percent of teens aged 16-19.
In all, the study showed, 27,000 fewer Texas teens had jobs at the end of that three-year period than before the minimum rate hike kicked in. In the 32 states impacted by at least one stage of the wage increase, the study shows there were 114,400 fewer teens employed, so Texas accounts for nearly 25 percent of the nationwide job loss.
I find it odd that some people have such a limited comprehension.
Quote:
Originally Posted by calibro1
I reiterate you COULD have done those things. Poor people CAN'T do those things. If your car died you have more options than most. I promise you that your car is probably better than somebody who has only been making min. wage.
The point is COMPLETELY invalid. You were never poor. Accept it and move on. You had WAY more options. So yes, you worked a min wage job for a period of time...yet you had move wealth than people have worked min wage jobs their entire working career.
I find it odd you don't understand that your circumstance was never comparable to somebody who is truly poor.
My argument is simply you had more options than poor people, thus you can't really state you've been through the same thing. Your argument is despite having all those advantages you've lived well and prospered on min. wage, thus anyone can. Which is without logic? The one that states that you had more wealth and a better prospects or the one that doesn't figure those things into the equation when comparing themselves to the poor.
Whether there were other options or not. the fact that I chose to work those minimum wage jobs, and was successful at doing so, at the wages same wages as any other. any difference is moot. it is proof that you are inaccurate. no matter my background.
Whether there were other options or not. the fact that I chose to work those minimum wage jobs, and was successful at doing so, at the wages same wages as any other. any difference is moot. it is proof that you are inaccurate. no matter my background.
Wow. Just wow. The differences are far from moot. Esp. when you state you had a few months of savings. These are things YOU stated not me. I'm simply saying that your analysis is pretty off the mark. Yet you continue to think that having savings as well as other assets that poor people would dream of qualifies your experience. It truly doesn't. It's a little sad that you claim to be an expert on this, when you never really had any experience. You simply haven't. It's fine, just move on and try not to portray yourself as something your not.
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.
comprehension.
