AngryOldGuy
double secret probation
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2013
- Messages
- 2,917
- Reaction score
- 658
- Location
- Phx,Az
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
do I hear 100
PITY? Where the hell did you get that idea from? If a person is worth $7.25 hr, they are worth $10.00 an hour at least..if not, fire their asses and hire someone that is....The Right to Work states have kept wages down, but everyone deserves a living wage....
Then there are countries like Germany which have zero minimum wage, and have very, very low unemployment.
There certainly are other factors, but when you insert a blanket minimum wage, you're locking out anybody whose value is worth than that level.
Then there are countries like Germany which have zero minimum wage, and have very, very low unemployment.
There certainly are other factors, but when you insert a blanket minimum wage, you're locking out anybody whose value is worth than that level.
Not at all. Clearly their labor is worth at least what they are being paid now, although I think one of them is probably going to end up doing much better for himself in the future. But not, however, if you are successful. Because their labor is not currently worth the additional floor that you wish to put on wages, you are moving the bottom rung of the ladder out of their grasp, and so he will never be able to climb.
That's an amazing piece of math. By the same logic, if they are worth $10, then aren't they worth $12.50 at least? Or is it done by inclusive percentage, and they would be worth 13.33 each? If the lower, if they are worth $12.50 an hour, aren't they worth $15 an hour at least? $17.50? Does the magical "at least" button stop working at some point, or is this the kind of thing that if only we realized its' power we could all be raking in $3
So you are in favor of creating permanent unemployment among our most vulnerable populations? And yet you try to use an emotional description of their plight to others?
Hey, my sister has made some bad decisions in her life, and they left her raising a baby in a tough spot. **** her, fire her ass, am I right? Thanks. :roll:
A nice sentiment that falls apart under investigation, and has painful consequences (mostly for the poor) when put into practice.
ok my final offer $140 a company car and eight weeks paid vacation and all the State and Government holidays offSix weeks!
No in fact with the new healthcare law just going into effect they just lost their jobs and the company brought in a temp agency.If the prevailing wage today was $10.00 an hour, would they not still have the same jobs?
Basic economic theory.I'd say the video is an accurate summary of something.
But it ignores the actual questions involved in the minimum wage debate, which are:
1. What is (or should be) the value of the services?
2. Can employers handle that increase in cost?
It isn't abstract. It's based on basic economic theory.Talking abstractly about what happens when people demand more compensation for services than the people paying benefit from those services does not saying anything about whether raising the minimum wage from X to Y will actually cause the effects it is talking about.
I agree with that.I would say it should be viewed as a cautionary video more than anything else.
How many people have enough discretionary funds to pay off their house, or to sell to gain the finances to buy the home in the first place? The main difficulty in the scenario you propose is that the increases in labor cost to product cost are not consistent or proportional when divided across the population as a whole.I feel like an effective counter-point to this video would be to say, sure, homeowner may not want to pay $1 extra per hour to the person who mows his lawn. But if homeowner owns his home by virtue of, for example, his sale of discretionary (i.e. non-necessary) goods, think about how much more money he could make if every homeowner paid the people who mowed their lawns $1 more per hour. That would be a whole lot of people with more discretionary income to buy his products. The few dollars of extra cost to him could enable him to make hundreds of dollars of extra profit.
Germany has a all union workforce, and much better labor laws than USA.
How about we adopt in USA this "zero min wage" and ALL other German labor laws......LMAO
If the prevailing wage today was $10.00 an hour, would they not still have the same jobs?
Why do you keep insisting that these people cannot do the jobs that they were hired to do? If they can do the job at one rate, they can continue to do their jobs at a higher rate....
Because the video assumes that increasing labor costs mean a matching increase in goods/services cost. Without that matching increase, those who get higher wages from a minimum wage increase do in fact benefit with higher spending power. In point of fact, increases labor costs increase the end product/service cost, but not at a one to one ratio.
This was relevant before minimum wage was put into effect - now that we've started it, we have to keep going. The moment you end that in Corporate America, the moment **** hits the fan. It's just not possible to do away with it - businesses are not that honest and people are not that smart.
--------------By the way, anyone wanting to see what the true effects of manipulating the MW will do simply need to look at the costs of goods in Canada to that of the cost of goods in America? Take any electronics as an example.. Any produce, at the super market.. Are we to believe that a laptop make by HP, manufactured mostly in Asia costs more in Canada than it does in the US, when the dollar is almost on par?
Tim-
----------------------Now, when McDonald's can't hire anyone at the threshold of working for a living of sucking the teat for a living, what do you suppose ole McDonalds will be forced to do?
Tim-
To be honest, I argue the opposite. The best thing the liberals could do for the poor is to eliminate the minimum wage in a declining economy. Right now those evil bastards we call corporate America are riding the pines. Welfare and all of those 121 entitlements actually make working for minimum wage a losing proposition. Eliminating the MW would cause all those people to either go on welfare or take more welfare, and live off it exclusively like so many do. Now, when McDonald's can't hire anyone at the threshold of working for a living of sucking the teat for a living, what do you suppose ole McDonalds will be forced to do?
See, this is why liberals are always wrong headed about achieving their goals. You want higher wages, fine, eliminate the MW, and it will happen relatively quickly. Good way to suck in the republicans along with you, and they wouldn't know what hit them.. A double whammy for you liberal types.
Tim-
-------------------Welfare and all of those 121 entitlements actually make working for minimum wage a losing proposition. Eliminating the MW would cause all those people to either go on welfare or take more welfare, and live off it exclusively like so many do.
Tim-
That's called exponential growth... You should stick to politics, economics isn't your forte...
Tim-