- Joined
- Jan 28, 2012
- Messages
- 16,386
- Reaction score
- 7,793
- Location
- Where I am now
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
More money in the working man's pocket means he'll spend more at Wal-Mart. More money going back into the economy means happier businesses.I swear, these Democrats have a third-grade understanding of economics.
Fewer workers will be asked to do more work. Companies budget for employee overhead, and profit margins are set according to risk. Those numbers will not change.
The only result of this will be higher unemployment. Way to go, nimrods.
More money in the working man's pocket means he'll spend more at Wal-Mart. More money going back into the economy means happier businesses.
I swear, these Democrats have a third-grade understanding of economics.
Fewer workers will be asked to do more work. Companies budget for employee overhead, and profit margins are set according to risk. Those numbers will not change.
The only result of this will be higher unemployment. Way to go, nimrods.
More money in the working man's pocket means he'll spend more at Wal-Mart. More money going back into the economy means happier businesses.
It's about percentages though. If the price level (i.e. the Consumer Price Index) increases by a factor similar to what minimum wage goes up, then there is no net benefit.
More money in the working man's pocket means he'll spend more at Wal-Mart. More money going back into the economy means happier businesses.
This argument has been going on for decades. If the right had their way most would be making a dollar a day. Henry Ford was right on the money.
More money in the working man's pocket means he'll spend more at Wal-Mart. More money going back into the economy means happier businesses.
This argument has been going on for decades. If the right had their way most would be making a dollar a day. Henry Ford was right on the money.
This argument has been going on for decades. If the right had their way most would be making a dollar a day. Henry Ford was right on the money.
He'll spend more at Wal-mart, but take home the same merchandise. Cost goes up, prices go up, too. It's already happening as grocery prices are taking off.
No, actually it means more money in Wal-Mart and their off-shore suppliers pockets.
This argument has been going on for decades. If the right had their way most would be making a dollar a day. Henry Ford was right on the money.
That is how inflation chases its tail.
Seems Pelosi think this was the Case GG.....and then that if they went with what Obama tried last time. That it would be less hurtful.....huh? :lol:
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said in a statement that “no matter how the critics spin this report, the CBO made it absolutely clear: raising the minimum wage would lift almost one million Americans out of poverty.”
A smaller minimum wage hike to $9 per hour—the plan Obama floated last year—would have a less dramatic effect on the economy, CBO projected, with 7.6 million Americans seeing a rise in wages and overall employment declining by 100,000 workers.
Read more: Minimum Wage: Congress Office Says Hike Would Lift Earnings, Cost Jobs | TIME.com Minimum Wage: Congress Office Says Hike Would Lift Earnings, Cost Jobs | TIME.com
Of course, the right wing "free market" mantra. Abolish minimum wage, let the market take over and people will earn what they're worth! That's just a smokescreen for paying people a dollar a day.Nope, you are wrong.
If the right had their way, most would be making whatever they can sell their talents and ability for on the open market.
With all due respect, MMC, I don't give a flaming *whatever* Pelosi thinks. Because Pelosi doesn't think before she opens her yap.
Of course, the right wing "free market" mantra. Abolish minimum wage, let the market take over and people will earn what they're worth! That's just a smokescreen for paying people a dollar a day.
If there isn't a minimum pay then employers will seek labor for as little as they can get it.Are you a proponent of government price fixing?
If so, are you aware of the consequences when the government does that sort of thing?
If there isn't a minimum pay then employers will seek labor for as little as they can get it.
Of course, the right wing "free market" mantra. Abolish minimum wage, let the market take over and people will earn what they're worth! That's just a smokescreen for paying people a dollar a day.
Of course, the right wing "free market" mantra. Abolish minimum wage, let the market take over and people will earn what they're worth! That's just a smokescreen for paying people a dollar a day.
So I'm going to take a gamble here and just be up front about my lack of understanding when it comes to economics and run this by you all:
It seems to me that the questions around wage comes down to the ethics of the company making the decision (at least for larger employers) Meaning it does not seem to be a question of whether or not they can stay in business if they pay their employees more or even how that choice will impact the cost of their product(s) it seems to be a question of whether or not they respect their workers enough to compromise on their profits a little in order to provide a living wage to them. It is possible for WalMart to pay their employees more and not pass that cost on to consumers, they would stay in business and the cost of their goods would not be affected if they made the choice to do it because it was the "right" thing to do. We all know that they will not make that choice. Not in a capitalist system that is driven solely by the largest possible profit for the business owner and no laws directly them to make different choices. Point being I guess, it seems to boil down to maximizing personal profit and prioritizing it over serving the larger good or community with just a little compromise on that profit.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?