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.
Yes, I do think a higher minimum wage is better for the economy.
More $ in the hands of lower income workers increases spending in local businesses.
More $ in the hands of lower income workers results in additional sales tax revenue.
More $ in the hands of lower income workers means that they need less taxpayer assistance.
More $ in the hands of lower income workers results in higher contributions to SS and Medicare.
More $ in the hands of lower income workers means less homelessness.
More $ in the hands of lower income workers lessens use of food pantries and other charitable resources by the working poor.
The conservatives' "trickle down" economics mantra of giving tax breaks, subsidies, and increasing compensation to the wealthy has been totally discredited by the wage stagnation and soaring wealth inequality that's occurred over the last 40 years. Giving all the goodies to the wealthy and crumbs to everybody else has NOT floated any boats but those of the wealthy, and the benefits of an enlarged economic pie have all gone to the rich, not to the middle or lower classes.
Doesn't it more accurately reflect the rise in the cost of living over the past 45 years?
Back when I pumped gas in 1972 the minimum wage was $2. $15 per hour is long overdue.
Trickle down is a sad joke perpetrated on us by the corporate media and Paul Volker.
Here is information on the joke called trickle down: https://johnhively.wordpress.com/201...tarted-it-all/
Doesn't it more accurately reflect the rise in the cost of living over the past 45 years?
Back when I pumped gas in 1972 the minimum wage was $2. $15 per hour is long overdue.
Wage stagnation means that wages in general have not kept pace with inflation, so people are actually getting paid less and less even as their productivity increases. If the minimum wage had kept up with inflation from 1968 until 2015, it would be $10 an hour., not the $7.25 it's been for years. Other wages have been similarly affected. For example, in 1996 the median family income was around $60k. Today it's a little under that, about $58K ... not in inflation-adjusted dollars but in face-value dollars.
Yes, I do think a higher minimum wage is better for the economy.
More $ in the hands of lower income workers increases spending in local businesses.
More $ in the hands of lower income workers results in additional sales tax revenue.
More $ in the hands of lower income workers means that they need less taxpayer assistance.
More $ in the hands of lower income workers results in higher contributions to SS and Medicare.
More $ in the hands of lower income workers means less homelessness.
More $ in the hands of lower income workers lessens use of food pantries and other charitable resources by the working poor.
The conservatives' "trickle down" economics mantra of giving tax breaks, subsidies, and increasing compensation to the wealthy has been totally discredited by the wage stagnation and soaring wealth inequality that's occurred over the last 40 years. Giving all the goodies to the wealthy and crumbs to everybody else has NOT floated any boats but those of the wealthy, and the benefits of an enlarged economic pie have all gone to the rich, not to the middle or lower classes.
1. There is no such economic theory as trickle down.
2. This isn't about the rich it's about having 2 people working for 3 or 3 people working for 3.
Your post is meaningless.
Two employees who have dignity earning a respectable wage means that they will give their all for the company. Low wage workers have no skin in the game. High turnover and theft and sloppy work means I lose money. I have been in the situation before. Better pay means loyal hard working staff who want the company to due well. Its called incentive. I don't have time to hire a new low wage worker once a week as he is quitting and walking out with my merchandise... Lol.. Turnover costs in time money and reputation.
Two employees who have dignity earning a respectable wage means that they will give their all for the company. Low wage workers have no skin in the game. High turnover and theft and sloppy work means I lose money. I have been in the situation before. Better pay means loyal hard working staff who want the company to due well. Its called incentive. I don't have time to hire a new low wage worker once a week as he is quitting and walking out with my merchandise... Lol.. Turnover costs in time money and reputation.
So you didn't need government to tell you what wage to pay them? Why that's crazy talk.
If minimum wage is increased, businesses pass on the extra cost to the consumers, which hurts the poor the most. Ultimately, all you are doing is increasing the cost of living.
But that hasn't happen for low income workers for over a decade!! yet COL of living has gone up by at least 2% annually.. Just how does lower income workers expected to survive ?? Except by getting those handouts that GOPer's constantly suggest they are all Lazy types not interested in anything but FREE Stuff?? Disgusting paint Job of marginalized portion of American society!!
Of course I'm replying to original thread from 3 years ago or so..and Even BO only suggested $10.10..yet some States have chosen to increase minimum Wage incrementally since then...
Why this $15.00/hour 2-3 years later..just maybe because COL has increase so much that nobody can exist on that less than $8.00 an hour full-time wage ever!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatBob96
Never understood why Liberals have such a hard time grasping this simple, almost self explanatory concept.
Apparently they think that it can't be true because they don't want it to be.
Concept??? Trickle down so Everybody benefits?? Really?? So why has those lower folks require Government assistance to exist?? You know those 47%'ers?? Puleeze...COL goes up minimum 2-3% a year..and for a decade No increase in wages for minimum wage folks..Yet after Bush's cut in taxes back in 2001?? Corporate Tax down same time..WHY didn't jobs come back to America..WHy didn't middle class benefit?? hmm ..This was prior to 9/11 and Bush ad a NO Deficit..Came to power with a +++ ...But Tax decreases never benefited anybody but Corporate and the Rich...fast forward to 2009 CRASH...Those Richey Rich/Wall Street/ Investment folks GOT bailed out on the back of taxpayers!!
I'm no Liberal..nor even American..BUT am somebody who sees exactly what those with $$ has bought and paid for Politicians to block or make laws to benefit them..the make risky business decisions ..use those loopholes to write-off losses ( that no layperson ever could!!) then when go BUT!! Get bailed out!! No consciences!! Get fired with Multimillion "Parachutes"!!
1. There is no such economic theory as trickle down.
2.
Of course there is, what are you talking about?
Trickle-down economic theory is similar to supply-side economics. That states that all tax cuts, whether for businesses or workers, spur economic growth. Trickle-down theory is more specific than supply-side theory. It says tax cuts targeted to corporate, capital gains, and savings work better than general tax cuts.
What is the 'Trickle-Down Theory' The trickle-down theory is an economic idea which states that decreasing marginal and capital gains tax rates - especially for corporations, investors and entrepreneurs - can stimulate production in the overall economy. According to trickle-down theory proponents, this stimulus leads to economic growth and wealth creation that benefits everyone, not just those who pay the lower tax rates.
At the center of Reagan’s economic doctrine was the idea that economic gains primarily benefiting the wealthy — investors, businesses, entrepreneurs, and the like — will “trickle-down” to poorer members of society, creating new opportunities for the economically disadvantaged to attain a better standard of living. Prosperity for the rich leads to prosperity for all, the logic goes, so let’s hurry up with those tax cuts already. The legacy of Reaganomics continues to shape modern debates over macroeconomic policy in the United States, from the Bush tax cuts of the mid-2000s to the deficit hawks waging war over the federal budget in Congress.
Three at $15/hr and the executives make $4,999,985 per year instead of $5,000,000.
Why not 15 at $1.00?
The wage isn't as important as the underlying spending power. Why is a dollar today too low when it was a great salary in 1900?
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.
