- Joined
- Oct 21, 2015
- Messages
- 53,813
- Reaction score
- 10,864
- Location
- Kentucky
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
What is so stupid with the minimum wage issue is cost of living is not the same across the US. To live in small farm town Colorado cost way less than living in NYC. I am very comfortable with what I make living where I am at. If I was to move to SF or NYC, I would definitely have a reduced purchasing power.
I bet the people in smaller towns are saying, heck yes, bring on $15/hr for burger flippers. Those in SF or NYC may say that is what they want. I bet if the workers in SF or NYC get 15/hr, it won't take them but a year or two to state that isn't enough.:mrgreen:
If your not happy with the wages and work your doing. Improve yourself and get a better job. I can't see paying someone $15/hr in the area I live who cannot even make correct change.
the ceo of wh made 22.8 million last year so I have no sympathy for him. this push by the right to make our economy like chinas will destroy us.
If the reason for that government action is that wages are unconscionably low, then the policy is justified. (See Big N' Large example above)
Your argument does not negate my conclusion that the impact on unemployment will be negligible - only that the increase in minimum wage may be not incredibly beneficial. The research on this issue also supports the position that the question is murky at best.
I'm sorry, but that is nonsense.Just about all companies can't handle huge minimum wage increases, even if they are phased in. That's a liberal fallacy that all business owners are fat cats.
I'm sorry, but that is nonsense.
McDonald's has a profit margin in the 20% range; people were freaking out when their margins dropped to 13%, not because of higher labor costs, but because customers weren't enthusiastic about the products for a year or two.
Walmart is pretty lean; margins are around 3.8%. Then again, their net income is around $14 billion per year -- and their high turnover (44% of employees quit in their first year) has its own costs. Given that they voluntarily increased wages last year, I'd say they can survive minimum wage increases.
And yet again: When MW is not indexed to inflation, that means employers are actually getting the same labor for anywhere from 1-3% cheaper, depending on the inflation rate that year. If an employer cannot afford to keep wages on pace with inflation, they are definitely doing something wrong.
Meanwhile, the price of oil has cratered in the past ~18 months, falling from $110 to $40. Did every company in the US slash its prices to match the windfall? If so, would it utterly decimate their business if the price of oil went back up to $80? What would they do, if their rent went up by 5%? If sales fell by 5%? Close up shop?
If your business cannot withstand any sort of price shock, then yeah... That's bad business.
This will result in the bigger corporations taking over and knocking the little guys off, exactly the opposite of what the left wants to accomplish.
The same logic still applies.I'm not talking about the larger corporations. I'm talking about SMALL businesses, which make up the majority of all businesses. They can't afford huge minimum wage increases....
No, right-wingers talk about this all the time. It's one of their many talking points that bears little relation to the facts.One thing that never gets talked about is that not everyone needs "living wages".
1) The market does not care what jobs were "meant for." No matter who is doing the job, they ought to be paid a fair wage, and the market does not care in any way, shape or form about equity.Most of these minimum wage jobs were meant for those that don't need "living wages" like high school or college kids.....
Incorrect. 73% work full time.Another thing that doesn't get talked about much is that many people earning minimum wage don't even work full time.
Yet another right-wing claim, discussed several times in this thread alone.What happens when prices go up everywhere due to the minimum wage increase and $15 per hour is no longer a "living wage"?
The market does not care what jobs were "meant for."
No matter who is doing the job, they ought to be paid a fair wage, and the market does not care in any way, shape or form about equity.
Ultimately, low-wage workers are the victims
Yet again! No one is suggesting that MW jump to $15/hour overnight across the nation. Even Bernie Sanders says that getting MW up to $15/hour should take several years.
Makes sense to me. The market doesn't care that someone planned to offer a job to a teen, or that life was simpler in the 50s, or whatever outdated ideas you have about minimum wage jobs.What a meaningless made up sentence.
....unless they aren't, as indicated by the need of our society to subsidize the incomes of those low-wage workers.Aside from where unions are involved, they are paid a fair wage.
Great, more refusal to read more than 5 words, and understand a concept in context.Great, more emotional victim-speak.
So are the proposed increases!All you guys do in your minimum wage hyper-obsession is deny that it affects price or employment. You point to past small increases and say "see? Negative effects are so small!" But so were the increases.
Yes, you definitely proved it by.... making stuff up.The negative effect on employment is logarithmic.
No, it doesn't. It only sets the floor. Think of it as providing a decent wage for the areas with the lowest COLA.A federal wage floor designed to meet some sort preconception of what a wage earner needs defies the reality
of our vastly diverse local and regional
markets, vastly diverse sizes of businesses....
lolA one-size-fits all wage floor ignores this diversity as a mere inconvenient fact that gets in the way of the left wing mission to hike the minimum wage....
Us "zealots" are looking at the facts about who currently works at minimum wage.You zealots work so hard to keep the focus on the contrived pretense that all wage workers are trying to raise families, in expensive cities, and pay household bills, with each single wage.
Makes sense to me. The market doesn't care that someone planned to offer a job to a teen, or that life was simpler in the 50s, or whatever outdated ideas you have about minimum wage jobs.
....unless they aren't, as indicated by the need of our society to subsidize the incomes of those low-wage workers.
We could use other measures as well to determine a fair wage, such as purchasing power, or just keeping up with inflation, or productivity gains. Oh, wait! We do, and still find that $7.25/hour is too low.
Great, more refusal to read more than 5 words, and understand a concept in context.
So are the proposed increases!
Yes, you definitely proved it by.... making stuff up.
If you're going to make a claim like this, let's see some proof.
States and cities can and do set higher MW to suit their regional areas -- with the exception of boneheaded moves like Missouri blocking Kansas City from increasing its minimum wages. That is why cities like Seattle already have a higher MW than, say, Louisiana.
First, regional and industry-specific MWs are not incompatible with things like indexing MW to inflation, or ensuring higher overall MWs.
Second, I don't hear any conservatives advocating that type of system. They are categorically opposed to ANY increases in MW.
Third, I have no doubt that if anyone on the left proposed a system that accounts for region and industry and inflation, conservatives would still bitch and moan about it.
But hey, if you want to propose an Australian-style system for the US? Go for it. Don't let my agreement that it's a good idea stop you.
Us "zealots" are looking at the facts about who currently works at minimum wage.
Again: 73% work full time. Over half are 25 and older...[/B]
There are still many middle-class teens working MW. But they also deserve a fair wage, and "fairness" is never produced by unimpeded markets. It is not the purpose of free markets to establish fairness; its specialty is efficiency. The tradeoff between efficiency and equity in markets is Econ 101.
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?