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.
The last twenty years of research into the minimum wage has shown it overwhelmingly not cause unemployment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
So you want to reward those with poor decision making (having families while earning bare minimum) a higher wage ?
Min wage is for those with no skills. You don't take a job flipping burgers at min wage and think you can have a family and live the middle class lifestyle.
Who's saying they need to live a middle-class lifestyle? You're attacking strawmen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigchuckie
MW is a bar set for failure. If it was eliminated I bet it would go up. Greedy corps that wont pay for talent, or experience etc will go OOB.
You can't spell-out "out-of-business?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
Min wage is typically paid for unskilled labor. What talent is needed to be a cashier at McDonalds ?
Minimum wage was designed to provide a living wage. Unskilled or skilled, it doesn't matter, the wage-floor is there to prevent employers from exploiting their employees.
Obviously, the last thirty years have failed to provide that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
I was waiting for that. The people's salaries in the back are spread out over thousands of dollars and hour in sales and account for a similarly low increase in cost. My premise stands, considering the volume of sales, a rise in the minimum wage adds very little to the overhead or marginal cost of a firm.
By the way, I've run multi-million dollar businesses successfully.
You hiring?
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphamale
Why?
Why not $1,000 an hour?
Strawman.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
The average McDonalds store employs 40-60 people so that's not one cashier bumped $2.00.
Citation?
Quote:
And that min wage bump of $2.00 gets spread all the way through the supply chain to all min wage workers.
Your math is too simplistic.
How many persons are employed at minimum wage all the way through the supply chain? Is the difference offset by the increased sales. The increased buying power of individuals will increase the sales figures. Are they going from 400hr to 450 an hour, and only paying an additional 26hr for labor?
Run a study and get back to me. Perhaps its your math that is too simplistic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tvdxer
It depends. I think it should be structured like this:
...[clearly too much thought]...
Either that, OR have the government subsidize low-wage employment by making up the difference between minimum wage and $12 / hour for families and $9-10.50 / hour for individuals through an entitlement program/s (food stamps, etc. could count towards this purpose but alone would not suffice), funded by taxing incomes above those levels proportionally.
The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) does this already. The problem with the EITC is that people pay their income taxes by paycheck, so they lose the immediate spending power of increased pay, which mean's they require other subsidies to get by--foodstamps and such. ETIC only kicks in at the end with a lump-sum.
The EITC is like being paid your annual salary all at once. Not very wise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphamale
We can all find study's on the internet that back up our points of view.
They simply cancel each other out.
Common sense and the fact that the lefties complain constantly about it dictates that "minimum wage" doesn't help anyone.
I rail creationists for this line of logic. Common sense, alphamale, is commonly wrong. The only accepted arguments you can make are those that are well sourced. If you aren't willing to find evidence to back up your claims, bow out of the argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by matt1984
What people who earn min wage enjoy a middle class lifestyle? Do you even know what a middle class lifestyle is?
I was wondering the same thing. Nobody is living in a 4000sqft home on 7.25 an hour.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
So where does this money come from then if not increased prices ?
Do companies just settle for less profit ?
Increased sales, reduced margins, lower executive pay, less waste.
You Republicans are always about less waste in the government.
Quote:
From what I see companies are doing whatever they can to cut labor costs to INCREASE profits or maintain their current profits....
Right. Has nothing to do with plumetting demand. No. Companies hire people whenever they have spare cash around, not when demand requires it (or doesn't). Forget Alan Greenspan, you should be in D.C.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
The very simple fact is that the business organization is organized and labor is not organized. This gives the employer the upper-hand in dictating wages. It's precisely why wages have fallen since fewer workers are unionized. The minimum wage is absolutely necessary to protect desperate people.
Let's recap. The GOP's platform for helping the poor and impoverished is:
No minimum wage--so they can be hired for nickels.
Union-busting--so they can't negotiate better wages
No social welfare--so they can't eat regularly
No education assistance--so they can never better themselves
No health-care--so they'll get sick and die.
Soon enough, we'll have to be hiring peace officers by the tens of thousands to keep up with the crime tsunami--that is, if they don't take to the streets too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by matt1984
If you do not take the job and there is no other job available you are not going to have any money for food or rent. People take these jobs because they need a job.
And, as noted, they want to remove even the necessities of life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale
What do you guys expect? They don't respect education or reasoning. Climate change theories are a hoax, homosexuality is still a mental illness - oh - but God exists because they "just know it".
The Republican motto should be "Ignorance Is Bliss".
I do believe it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphamale
And I think that you should read The Constitution. Not only read it, but understand it.
Really, you should read more than just the constitution. If you're solely using the constitution as the only law of this nation, you're missing about two hundred years of precedence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvande55
I disagree with any of the choices. Perhaps $7.25 nationally, but there are wide differences between regions. In Detroit you might be able to get by on minimum wage, while in NYC you'd still be short on the rent. A large number of influential politicians think it should be $0.00 but realize that would never fly, so they just kept it from rising with inflation. The minimum wage is not intended to be livable but to provide a floor. Incidentally, it does not apply to multilevel marketing, so many in that business earn well below the minimum.
The minimum wage is supposed to be livable. FDR specifically stated that we should ensure a minimum standard of living. The FLSA set a standard-hour work-week and a minimum wage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestCobb
The minimum wage should be localized and tied to the cost of living. It should be illegal to employ someone for less than the cost of securing food, shelter, clothing and transportation. Didn't we fight a war to end slavery?
Depends who you ask. A certain sect of this nation believes it was about States' rights, as in the states' rights to allow people to own other people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
Sadly we've turned it into:
... social welfare clause...
Is the welfare of society not included in the general welfare of the nation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by J746NEW
I'd raise the Minimum wage to 13 dollars an hour.
Give people more money and that is more money circulating in the economy to buy stuff.
As it is now, were headed the opposite direction, where due to the cost of living increases, people are having a harder time making ends meet.
Were in a race to the bottom as it is, and to change course, we need to go the other way.
Tying the minimum wage to the CPI or rate of inflation is a great idea. As is, the only people who have gotten wage increases over the past ten years have been--executives. This year alone, the top ten executives in the nation had a 40% increase in pay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJBest
It sounds simple... but then you have 2 people pushing carts at Walmart instead of 4. So you have 2 people that are doing better and 2 people that are doing worse.
Something like 66% of persons making minimum wage are adults (That's just making, not counting those included in the difference between current and new minimum wage). You're talking a tremendous increase in their lives.
And, there is no evidence supporting an unemployment increase from increasing the minimum wage by a small nominal amount. You have four people doing better, on average. Some places might be three, others could be five, considering the increased demand for cart-pushers from the increased spending power of the local community.
Ah. America.
The land where people care more about the cost of their fatty burgers than others in society.
You almost got it right. The land where people look after their own self-interest. You are in charge of your value to society, I am in charge of mine.
The big fallacy in your mindset is in thinking that wages are some form of charity, or have something to do with social objectives. They are not. Wages are the means by which employers remit the market value of each employee's labor to them.
It is not possible to either systematically underpay or overpay employees. In the first case, they won't show up for work; in the second case, the employer will go broke.
The market value of each person's labor is highly susceptible to improvement on a wide variety of factors: attitude, productivity, skills, talents, experience. It is a tragedy that some people are unwilling to either improve their value, or be paid fairly for the market value of their labor.
One's educational pedigree doesn't outweigh the strength of the argument.
No, it isn't. However, if you spend some time reading over it the person I was talking to rejected the reasoning "just because", while the people who accepted it were well reasoned, experienced professionals who did come up with a strong detailed argument why it was constitutional.
Sorry, but in the real world sincerity of convictions is not a substitute for knowledge, experience, and through logical reasoning. In fantasy worlds and Saturday morning cartoons it might be, but people usually grow out of that well before becoming an adult.
I think I'm changing my mind on this issue. The fact is, we live in a global economy. We are competing with China, India, and other low wage countries. I believe we could get a lot of jobs back if we were willing to lower our minimum wage.
No, it wouldn't be fun to make $2/hour, but I believe the economy would adjust for people making low wages. For example: Rents would decrease if tenants couldn't afford to pay them.
I think I'm changing my mind on this issue. The fact is, we live in a global economy. We are competing with China, India, and other low wage countries. I believe we could get a lot of jobs back if we were willing to lower our minimum wage.
No, it wouldn't be fun to make $2/hour, but I believe the economy would adjust for people making low wages. For example: Rents would decrease if tenants couldn't afford to pay them.
So, we should have a race to the bottom and compete on labor prices that are $1 a day in other nations?
Where is it established that "Rents would decrease if tenants couldn't afford to pay them?" The poor would just have to live in worse housing. This is how workers live in China:
Sorry, lowering our wages to 3rd world levels isn't the answer.
So, we should have a race to the bottom and compete on labor prices that are $1 a day in other nations?
Where is it established that "Rents would decrease if tenants couldn't afford to pay them?" The poor would just have to live in worse housing. This is how workers live in China:
Sorry, lowering our wages to 3rd world levels isn't the answer.
Well we're losing it anyway as companies go offshore for cheaper labor.
So we end up with low paying service jobs in food and retail sectors.
And those jobs that are coming back are coming back at lower salaries and less benefits and people are lining up to take them.
As long as people are willing to work for less you have a losing argument.
The last twenty years of research into the minimum wage has shown it overwhelmingly not cause unemployment.
Who's saying they need to live a middle-class lifestyle? You're attacking strawmen.
You can't spell-out "out-of-business?"
Minimum wage was designed to provide a living wage. Unskilled or skilled, it doesn't matter, the wage-floor is there to prevent employers from exploiting their employees.
Obviously, the last thirty years have failed to provide that.
You hiring?
Strawman.
Citation?
How many persons are employed at minimum wage all the way through the supply chain? Is the difference offset by the increased sales. The increased buying power of individuals will increase the sales figures. Are they going from 400hr to 450 an hour, and only paying an additional 26hr for labor?
Run a study and get back to me. Perhaps its your math that is too simplistic.
The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) does this already. The problem with the EITC is that people pay their income taxes by paycheck, so they lose the immediate spending power of increased pay, which mean's they require other subsidies to get by--foodstamps and such. ETIC only kicks in at the end with a lump-sum.
The EITC is like being paid your annual salary all at once. Not very wise.
I rail creationists for this line of logic. Common sense, alphamale, is commonly wrong. The only accepted arguments you can make are those that are well sourced. If you aren't willing to find evidence to back up your claims, bow out of the argument.
I was wondering the same thing. Nobody is living in a 4000sqft home on 7.25 an hour.
Increased sales, reduced margins, lower executive pay, less waste.
You Republicans are always about less waste in the government.
Right. Has nothing to do with plumetting demand. No. Companies hire people whenever they have spare cash around, not when demand requires it (or doesn't). Forget Alan Greenspan, you should be in D.C.
Let's recap. The GOP's platform for helping the poor and impoverished is:
No minimum wage--so they can be hired for nickels.
Union-busting--so they can't negotiate better wages
No social welfare--so they can't eat regularly
No education assistance--so they can never better themselves
No health-care--so they'll get sick and die.
Soon enough, we'll have to be hiring peace officers by the tens of thousands to keep up with the crime tsunami--that is, if they don't take to the streets too.
And, as noted, they want to remove even the necessities of life.
I do believe it is.
Really, you should read more than just the constitution. If you're solely using the constitution as the only law of this nation, you're missing about two hundred years of precedence.
The minimum wage is supposed to be livable. FDR specifically stated that we should ensure a minimum standard of living. The FLSA set a standard-hour work-week and a minimum wage.
Depends who you ask. A certain sect of this nation believes it was about States' rights, as in the states' rights to allow people to own other people.
Is the welfare of society not included in the general welfare of the nation?
Tying the minimum wage to the CPI or rate of inflation is a great idea. As is, the only people who have gotten wage increases over the past ten years have been--executives. This year alone, the top ten executives in the nation had a 40% increase in pay.
Something like 66% of persons making minimum wage are adults (That's just making, not counting those included in the difference between current and new minimum wage). You're talking a tremendous increase in their lives.
And, there is no evidence supporting an unemployment increase from increasing the minimum wage by a small nominal amount. You have four people doing better, on average. Some places might be three, others could be five, considering the increased demand for cart-pushers from the increased spending power of the local community.
Noted.
Evidence that "minimum wage" isn't effective is the fact that it has NEVER made the lefties happy.
So, we should have a race to the bottom and compete on labor prices that are $1 a day in other nations?
Where is it established that "Rents would decrease if tenants couldn't afford to pay them?" The poor would just have to live in worse housing. This is how workers live in China:
Sorry, lowering our wages to 3rd world levels isn't the answer.
Picture A looks a lot like East St. Louis.
Picture B looks a lot like Detroit.
Believe it or not, the people you see in those photos are on their way UP the economic scale and actually have a better quality of life than they used to.
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.
