yet the people buying my stuff are in the outer lying area's they are were I am at.
they won't travel to those area's which means I lose my business.
I have what you say makes no sense.
Good news for the fight against income inequality.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/20/u...to-raise-minimum-wage-to-15-an-hour.html?_r=0
The nation’s second-largest city voted on Tuesday to increase its minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2020 from the current $9 an hour, in what is perhaps the most significant victory so far in the national push to raise the minimum wage. The increase — which the Los Angeles City Council passed in a 14-1 vote — comes as workers across the country are rallying for higher wages, and several large companies, including Facebook and Walmart, have moved to raise their lowest wages. Several other cities, including San Francisco, Seattle and Oakland, Calif., have already approved increases, and dozens more are considering doing the same. In 2014, a number of Republican-leaning states like Alaska and South Dakota also raised their state-level minimum wage by referendum. The impact is likely to be particularly strong in Los Angeles, where, according to some estimates, more than 40 percent of the city’s work force earns less than $15 an hour.
You come to this conclusion because raises for the lowest paid workers were rising fast before there was a MW? Employers would raise wages out of the goodness in their hearts? The minimum wage came about when owners arbitrarily CUT wages. To combat deflation, the government instituted the MW.Id bet anything that ABOLISHING the minimum wage would make wages raise faster than artificially raising the minimum wage for political reasons.
Good news for the fight against income inequality.
So why do we "need" a $15 an hour minimum wage? Just a couple of years ago it was normal to work 40+ hours a week. Then came Obamacare and redefined the full time work week as 30 hours. Basically the government told employers to either cut their employees to 30 hours or less or face huge fines in the form of being forced to pay for their health insurance. Not the way most people perceive it, but that is essentially what happened. Again, this from a government that only pretends to care about debt and deficits, they could have simply paid for everyone to be insured, but again that is not the purpose.
So the employers (many of them) complied and cut hours. then people who used to work 40+ hours were working less than 30 but they still had the same bills to pay. Higher bills actually, because health insurance costs went up too. So rather than get a second job, which would be difficult for many because of secondary commute times and scheduling, they turned to the same government that f#$%@d it all up to fix it, and the proposal was to once again lie to the low earners and blame the employers. Because that is how this administration works.
According to the BLS household survey, part-time jobs fell 594,000 in September while full-time workers were up 691,000.
This was one hopeful nugget in an otherwise lackluster jobs report.
Workers are considered to be "part time" if they work under 35 hours a week.
Earlier this summer, when part-time numbers looked like they might be on the rise, some speculated that the shift was due to the employer mandate in the Affordable Care Act.
Under Obamacare, employers will be required to offer health insurance or face penalties (the White House recently announced it will delay enforcement until 2015). Some companies have said they will reduce their full-time staff to below the 50-employee threshold as a result, or simply shave back full-timers' hours.
"If the health law were driving employers to cut employees’ hours, the most vulnerable workers would likely be those working just above the 30-hour cutoff," writes the Wall Street Journal's Ben Casselman. "That means the data would show a decline in those working 30 to 34 hours and an increase in those working less than 30 hours." He explains:
That isn’t what’s happening. The share of part-timers who say they usually work between 30 and 34 hours at their main job has been roughly flat over the past three years, at about 28%. (September data aren’t yet available.) If anything, it’s actually risen in the past year, though the change has been minor. The share working just under 30 hours has indeed risen somewhat, but the share working under 25 hours has fallen—suggesting that employers are giving part-timers more hours, rather than cutting full-timers’ hours back.
Yeah, fifteen bucks an hour. Those people will be catching up with those evil millionaires and billionaires in no time. :roll:
Some people are content with just living comfortably.
LOL of course you do everyone is everything on the internet.
you don't pay 15 bucks an hour either on every position you have.
you pay the market rate for the job the person is doing.
And if you lived in a country that didn't have a significant minimum wage or strong unionization, you'd find out really quickly just how low that market rate suddenly becomes. Why? Because in a country where people need jobs in order to live, people will work for $1 per hour and be glad they've got that...because it's either that, or they turn to a life of crime.
I've seen this, guy - this IS the way it works in almost every single country out there that has neither a minimum wage nor strong unionization.
You really should live overseas in a third-world nation for a while. Get to really know the locals, how they live, how they do business. It's a real eye-opener - and you learn things you never could from television or the internet. What I'm telling you about your "market rate" fantasy is one of those lessons, that relying on on a "market rate" for pay results in poverty far worse than anything we have here in America.
Fifteen bucks an hour ain't living too comfortably in southern California. Besides, what does that have to do with your claim that this is somehow a victory for income inequality?
Perhaps by comfortably, he meant not needing transfer payments (handouts for the lazy!!!!) to cover what serves as the bare minimum of survival in a supposed 1st world country : rent, food, car/bus, electricity, water, cell phone (yes, that is a job requirement nowadays in the food service industry), insurance, and clothing/laundry.
Since people abuse "welfare" (or so I'm told), why not cut out the middle man? A living wage does exactly that.
How can you artificially create a "living wage. " whether the work produced warrants it or not?
really....ten new upstarts for every one that closes?
if that really was the case, the LA basin unemployment rate would be at 2-3% tops
last i saw...it was over 8%
and that doesnt include the huge undocumented population there
Most people don't want part time minimum wage jobs, and L.A. county has 18.55 million people, 3.9 in L.A. proper. 1.4 million out of 18.55 million is pretty damn good given today's job market. Average rents in the basin are $2043. So it takes $11.07 an hour just to make the rent. In San Francisco, the average rents are $3000.00 a month, so that's $17.00 an hour. Now this is just - to - make - the - rent.
So, $15 bucks an hour pretty much hits the nail on the head don't it. Still need two incomes per family - on minimum wage to make it and never mind kids.
Point is, you contrarians really have no idea what you're talking about. As for business! Hey, if you're not selling ice cream in the desert, then that's you're problem.
no new upstarts means new businesses ready to open the doors
business people are leaving california, not coming there
Roy Farmer, 20, went door-to-door in Los Angeles with his bags of home-roasted coffee beans. By the 1930s, Farmer Brothers was selling coffee to restaurants throughout the nation. Today the company employs 1,200 men and women and generates $200 million in annual sales to restaurants, convenience stores, hospitals, hotels and universities.
But after surviving depressions, recessions, earthquakes and wars, Farmer Brothers is leaving California, finally driven out by high taxes and oppressive regulations.
The company says it’s fleeing in search of a place where business is appreciated. Relocating its corporate headquarters and distribution facilities from to a friendlier location, Farmer Brothers expects to save $15 million a year. Company executives are looking at Dallas and Oklahoma City. The relocation will bear real consequences for California. Nearly 350 workers will lose their well-paying jobs in Los Angeles alone.
Farmer Brothers is following Toyota, whose U.S. sales and marketing headquarters was barely a mile from the company’s main office, and has gone to Texas. Raytheon Space and Airborne Systems, eBay, Occidental Petroleum and firearms retailer RifleGear followed. Nissan bailed to Tennessee.
Most companies leaving California, reports the Orange County Register, usually depart to Texas, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Utah or Florida. A study of business tax climates by the Tax Foundation finds that California’s businesses face the third-highest state and local business tax burdens in America. The Tax Foundation ranks Nevada third among the friendliest states for business, followed by Florida (fifth), Utah (ninth) and Texas (10th).
EDITORIAL: Businesses flee California's high taxes and regulations - Washington Times
might want to recheck companies leaving the land of the fruits
Might want to live around here in order to get a grip on what's really going on.
Most people don't want part time minimum wage jobs, and L.A. county has 18.55 million people, 3.9 in L.A. proper. 1.4 million out of 18.55 million is pretty damn good given today's job market. Average rents in the basin are $2043. So it takes $11.07 an hour just to make the rent. In San Francisco, the average rents are $3000.00 a month, so that's $17.00 an hour. Now this is just - to - make - the - rent.
So, $15 bucks an hour pretty much hits the nail on the head don't it. Still need two incomes per family - on minimum wage to make it and never mind kids.
Point is, you contrarians really have no idea what you're talking about. As for business! Hey, if you're not selling ice cream in the desert, then that's you're problem.
Ummm, I just defined how.
Yeah, minimum wage and lack of unionization are the only things keeping people down in third world countries. Despotic governments play no role whatsoever. :roll:
What you described is unsustainable.
You are perpetuating falsehoods. Although conservatives claimed that Obamacare forced more part-time jobs, it isn't true. In fact, there’s no evidence that the ACA is forcing a shift to part-time work, according to the Urban Institute and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation report.
Business Insider: The Myth That Obamacare Is Destroying Full-Time Jobs Just Got Debunked
As for your claim that "they [the government] could have simply paid for everyone to be insured, but again that is not the purpose." It was hard enough getting Obamacare passed conservatives. Single-payer just isn't in the cards.
You come to this conclusion because raises for the lowest paid workers were rising fast before there was a MW? Employers would raise wages out of the goodness in their hearts? The minimum wage came about when owners arbitrarily CUT wages. To combat deflation, the government instituted the MW.
There is no evidence AT ALL that abolishing the minimum wage would make wages raise faster. That's just absurd and fantasy.
Sam's Club = Half the sales of Costco, and fewer products on the shelf. No comparison. It takes for more people to stock 5 times the SKU's than it does at Costco. Consider the difference in the stores, and what's on the shelf.
It really shouldn't be that difficult to understand.
So raising the minimum wage, no matter how much, has no effect on employment?
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?