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.
If you are a CNA, you're going to make about the same everywhere. Moving somewhere else won't help much. There's no opportunity for advancement in that job. To move up, you have to get more education.
CNAs making $13 in NY and CNAs making $13 in South Carolina have a much different viewpoint of $13/hr and how far it will stretch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy
Please explain the math involved that will triple or quadruple the price of a burger if the minimum wage increases to $15 an hour.
Triple, no?
Increase significantly, yes.
Now apply this to the whole of the economy. How many people can live with 15-20% increases in their purchase costs?
CNAs making $13 in NY and CNAs making $13 in South Carolina have a much different viewpoint of $13/hr and how far it will stretch. Triple, no? Increase significantly, yes.
Now apply this to the whole of the economy. How many people can live with 15-20% increases in their purchase costs?
CNA's in South Carolina make less than those in New York, so I don't see your point. And as stated many times in various threads about raising the minimum wage, it is not likely to raise prices much at all.
CNA's in South Carolina make less than those in New York, so I don't see your point. And as stated many times in various threads about raising the minimum wage, it is not likely to raise prices much at all.
Have you account for the loss of benefits, quality, quantity and job opportunities?
Please do not pretend we live in a close economy as that's not for an honest discussion. In an open economy like we have, business owners have multiple ways to mitigate cost increase but none of them is good for the poor people whom you claim to help.
All I know is that when I worked in a factory 40 years ago, every single time we got a raise people got laid off. Some were eventually called back, many weren't.
As a teacher for almost 32 years every single time we got a raise (not steps but COLAs) the teacher/student ratio was adjusted and class sizes went up. They also went up when we didn't get a raise.
Have you account for the loss of benefits, quality, quantity and job opportunities? Please do not pretend we live in a close economy as that's not for an honest discussion. In an open economy like we have, business owners have multiple ways to mitigate cost increase but none of them is good for the poor people whom you claim to help.
I am not claiming to help anyone, what I am saying is that raising the minimum wage is something that will not have the horrible impact on the economy that some people claim. And I have no idea what a "close economy" is, but with the advent of mega corporations like Walmart and McDonald's employers have enormous power in keep wages low because they control so much of that segment of the labor market. Otherwise the market would set a more rational labor rate.
I am not claiming to help anyone, what I am saying is that raising the minimum wage is something that will not have the horrible impact on the economy that some people claim. And I have no idea what a "close economy" is, but with the advent of mega corporations like Walmart and McDonald's employers have enormous power in keep wages low because they control so much of that segment of the labor market. Otherwise the market would set a more rational labor rate.
The world is not run by mega corporations like Walmart. The vast majority of workers are employed by small businesses like McDonald's - yes, they are franchised and owned by small business owners individually.
Even Walmart, its profit margin is only 3%. How do you expect them to have money to cover the labor cost increase? Walmart made 15 billion in 2015 net income. With 1.4 million employees, a raise of $3/hour not including benefts would result in $9 billion. That would leave $6 billion for Walmart to do everything else including paying corporate taxes and weather economic downturns.
3% margin is razor thin! Any deviation of cost would put the company in the red.
Why should someone that works have to do that? You can live jumping off a skyscraper without a parachute also......for awhile.
This is a completely invalid metaphor. Going food shopping on $200 is not death. Jumping off of a skyscraper without a parachute is.
Quote:
The problem is not the minimum wage but rather why it has fallen behind.
This is a semantically nonsensical statement.
Quote:
I do not understand why it's O.K. to subsidize Wall Street but not the poorest.
1. It's no one's fault but your own that you don't take the time to understand world economics. "Subsidizing" wall street with short term loans kept the dollar from crashing, perhaps permanently, and everyone losing their money. The nature of the world is that of a currency war. Much of what you see, and don't understand, is that war. Losing that war means descending into third world economic conditions.
2. "Subsidizing" the poor encourages more poor reproduction and thus more poor to subsidize. Greater reproduction among the poor should not be subsidized.
3. Subsidizing the poor drives down the value of middle class jobs and their associated expensive education requirements. No one is going to pay $100k in tuition to become a PT or nurse when they are only making $20 per hour more than minimum wage. You would either have to eliminate tuition for middle class jobs or raise middle class income. Either option is merely making up for the money you give the poor somewhere else, thus reducing the value of the subsidy and devaluing the dollar.
Economics does not work on entitlement to a living wage. Any such entitlement merely drives down the value of the currency, again flattening out the benefit for the poor but also weakening our position in the world against stronger currencies. It's a great way to become Mexico or any other Central/South American country in terms of equivalent development and average lifestyle.
This is a completely invalid metaphor. Going food shopping on $200 is not death. Jumping off of a skyscraper without a parachute is.
My argument wasn't that it can't be done.....my argument is why must it be done? Few want to discuss the entire picture.....
Quote:
This is a semantically nonsensical statement.
Because you say so? No.
Quote:
1. It's no one's fault but your own that you don't take the time to understand world economics. "Subsidizing" wall street with short term loans kept the dollar from crashing, perhaps permanently, and everyone losing their money. The nature of the world is that of a currency war. Much of what you see, and don't understand, is that war. Losing that war means descending into third world economic conditions.
Total, bull****. As I note, trillions for Wall Street and the war producers but a guy working for a living, screw him. Your chicken little arguments are no longer doing what they once did.
Quote:
2. "Subsidizing" the poor encourages more poor reproduction and thus more poor to subsidize. Greater reproduction among the poor should not be subsidized.
Subsiding poor decision on Wall Street doesn't subsidize more poor decisions? (You say I do not pay attention but if you are you know we are still making these poor decisions)
Quote:
3. Subsidizing the poor drives down the value of middle class jobs and their associated expensive education requirements. No one is going to pay $100k in tuition to become a PT or nurse when they are only making $20 per hour more than minimum wage. You would either have to eliminate tuition for middle class jobs or raise middle class income. Either option is merely making up for the money you give the poor somewhere else, thus reducing the value of the subsidy and devaluing the dollar.
No one should have to pay $100,000 to become a nurse. We have to subsidize the education system though don't we? We have to keep the banks rolling in the interest rates well above the rates that Wall Street gets, don't we? Without it, obviously that means we become Haiti, right?
Quote:
Economics does not work on entitlement to a living wage. Any such entitlement merely drives down the value of the currency, again flattening out the benefit for the poor but also weakening our position in the world against stronger currencies. It's a great way to become Mexico or any other Central/South American country in terms of equivalent development and average lifestyle.
Your brand of economics do rely on being entitled to something. Wall Street demands actions that will allow them to maintain their standards of living no matter what that means to the rest of the country.
It was NOT the poor that caused the 08 crash. The poor did not cause the Blankfein's and the Mozilo's to break our laws and it was most certainly not the poor that allowed them to get away with it. (even though in a round about way they did, by refusing to hold those accountable that made those decisions).
Do you think union workers won't or didn't get a raise when the minimum wage is up?
Yes, I do think union workers got a raise when minimum wage went up, that is why I said ALSO.
I am also aware that today only a small percentage of Americans working in union jobs.
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.
