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 minimum wage doesn't put people out of work. There is no data to prove that "belief" and that is all it is a belief at this point. Start looking at data on income inequality, economic mobility, and the impact of the minimum wage.
False. Fools like you are going to make fast food robot manufacturers rich.
Artificially inflating the cost of labor DOES have consequences and the poor suffer the most from those.
We have 11-30 million illegals here.
They have no opportunity so they will stay on the welfare rolls.
Which should be fine. They came from a third world country and are not complaining.
But the college graduates have no opportunity.
There is a glut of educated people and a small demand for them.
The innovative figure out how to do it on their own.
In your big cities the mobile food carts have taken hold.
It's the "cool way" to eat lunch now.
People even search some out by name and they have all sorts of foods.
Others have gone into farming and direct sales.
Some have expanded to where restaurants are buying their meat and eggs and produce.
These folks invented their opportunity rather than wait for either government or big business to take pity and hire them.
These min wage jobs should be nothing more than a temporary stepping stone to bigger and better things.
Higher wages at the low end of the scale will result in needing higher wages at the low end of the scale in another few years.
The greatest number of millionaires was created during the Great Depression.
OK - what am I missing? Usually if one fights against inequality, they want equality...
I'd like you to show where anyone suggested everyone should make the same salary. I have never heard anyone suggest that, so I'll have to assume you see it as the only option. Is that the case, or can you think of other measures to narrow the gap?
I don't care how you see, clearly better incomes for workers will probably reduce income inequality. But oh well.
I don't care if you don't think incomes have remained stagnant, plenty of objective data shows that income has remained stagnant for a long time.
Again, this is not about comparing incomes, this about historical comparisons about shares of the income that the bottom 10% of wage earners had versus the top 1% etc and seeing the increasing level of income inequality as hurting that bottom 10% as they get poorer while others get wealthy.
This is not about fairness, there is a fair amount of data that suggests that this level of income inequality hurts economic growth, hurts the overall economy.
There is a fair amount of data that shows that children born into poverty suffer negative consequences on their future earnings which again hurts our economy.
The minimum wage doesn't put people out of work. There is no data to prove that "belief" and that is all it is a belief at this point. Start looking at data on income inequality, economic mobility, and the impact of the minimum wage.
Since Obamanomics has given us a part-time economy, and businesses don't earn larger profits by simply increasing employee pay by $1-$2 dollars an hour, then all employers will do is look at their receipts, and adjust worker hour accordingly, and end up with the same labor costs.
It's like the gal I heard on NPR radio, she worked for $10.50 an hour, 18-20 hours a week at Walmart. she was already earning over the minimum wage, and I asked myself, why 18-20 hours a week. I figure she has a co-worker who is also working 18-20 hours a week.
Something is preventing Walmart from simply hiring one good employee full-time, and It think that would be the laundry list of labor law mandated compensation for full-time employees. But even if her pay was forced to go up by government, Walmart would just cut her hours to compensate. In this case, what good does a $20 hour minimum wage do if her hours are then cut to 9-10 hours a week?
But already, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is predicting those plans, and the whole system of distributing them, will eventually be moot.
Reid said he thinks the country has to “work our way past” insurance-based health care during a Friday night appearance on Vegas PBS’ program “Nevada Week in Review.”
...
When then asked by panelist Steve Sebelius whether he meant ultimately the country would have to have a health care system that abandoned insurance as the means of accessing it, Reid said: “Yes, yes. Absolutely, yes.”
Don't want to turn this into an ObamaCare discussion - just pointing this out.
President Barack Obama prodded Congress to raise wages and secure the social safety net as he issued an overarching appeal Wednesday to correct inequalities that he said make it harder for a child to escape poverty. "That should offend all of us," he declared. "We are a better country than this."
Focusing on the pocketbook issues that Americans consistently rank as a top concern, Obama argued that the dream of upward economic mobility is breaking down and that the growing income gap is a "defining challenge of our time."
According to the article, the Republicans responded...
House Speaker John Boehner blamed Senate Democrats and Obama for the lack of action on jobs-related legislation. He said bills passed by the Republican-controlled House that would help the economy and create jobs have been blocked in the Democratic-controlled Senate. "The Senate and the president continue to stand in the way of the people's priorities," he said on the House floor.
Somebody needs to argue the premise of solving income inequality. The Republican response is OK, I guess - but it doesn't attack the thinking that income inequality is the problem to be solved.
If the president wants equal income for all - have him define what that income is. Equal income could be $20,000 a year for all citizens. That would solve income inequality, right? Everyone assumes he means a nice livable income - let's say $75,000 per year. How do we get there with so many people out of work now? If you don't increase people working - then the only other option is redistribution. That's not right. Should I work to support two or three families - by government force? Should you?
So did Obama have any ideas to tackle the defining challenge of income inequality?
Though he offered no new initiatives, Obama blended a call for Congress to act on pending short-term economic measures with a long vision aimed at correcting a growing level of income inequality in the United States.
Nope. Nothing new here.
The article mentions typical liberal ideas - minimum wages from $7.25 to $10.10 - which will put more people out of work, and will put a larger burden on the employees to do the same amount of work with less people. In the end - it just shifting money around. We are not originating any new money organically.
Income inequality is the wrong problem to attack. We should be focused on making as many productive citizens as possible.
Shameless pandering to his (former?) base. My first question is...is his base eroding currently?
False. Fools like you are going to make fast food robot manufacturers rich.
Artificially inflating the cost of labor DOES have consequences and the poor suffer the most from those.
This is not what the data shows. There simply doesn't exist ANY proof that raising the minimum lowers employment. I shouldn't have written any proof. I mean the preponderance of the evidence suggests no impact or a very small impact.
Again objective look at the information that exists.
Many states in this nation have much higher minimum wages than other neighboring states. Again, some areas which border one another only separated by a state line, feature one area from a state with a higher minimum wage and another from an area with a lower minimum wage and they do not find that the higher minimum wage are losing jobs. This is the data. Not some talking point. Maybe the data is flawed or over looking something that is always possible, but just believing that higher minimum wages has to have consequences doesn't square with reality right now.
But already, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is predicting those plans, and the whole system of distributing them, will eventually be moot.
Reid said he thinks the country has to “work our way past” insurance-based health care during a Friday night appearance on Vegas PBS’ program “Nevada Week in Review.”
...
When then asked by panelist Steve Sebelius whether he meant ultimately the country would have to have a health care system that abandoned insurance as the means of accessing it, Reid said: “Yes, yes. Absolutely, yes.”
Don't want to turn this into an ObamaCare discussion - just pointing this out.
This is what I mean when I say conservatives are drifting further and further away from reality.
The ACA laws mandates many more customers to private insurers, and it is designed to destroy those companies. The individual mandate ONLY exists in an attempt to ensure the survival of private insurers.
This is objective reality, but nah conservatives believe fantasies and conspiracy theories over reality.
This is not what the data shows. There simply doesn't exist ANY proof that raising the minimum lowers employment.
Only if you ignore math, economics, and labor statistics. The poor get screwed. Higher cost of L results in less L, higher output costs, and more investment in automation.
Quote:
Many states in this nation have much higher minimum wages than other neighboring states. Again, some areas which border one another only separated by a state line, feature one area from a state with a higher minimum wage and another from an area with a lower minimum wage and they do not find that the higher minimum wage are losing jobs. This is the data.
Check the Washington-Idaho data minus Wal-Mart......
The ACA laws mandates many more customers to private insurers, and it is designed to destroy those companies. The individual mandate ONLY exists in an attempt to ensure the survival of private insurers.
False. The tax penalty is better choice for most young people. The ACA is flawed legislation. The only thing keeping insurance propped up is a massive govt. bailout.
ACA = worse health care, less people with insurance, and a massive bailout to big insurance.
The Democrats are going to get creamed in 2014 and 2016.
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.
