New wage boost puts squeeze on teenage workers across Arizona

[Iriemon]

That was not my observation at all. Minimum wage - just like any other price floor higher than the market price of a commodity - MUST cause a surplus of supply over demand. And what is another term for a surplus of labor? Unemployment.

I don't deny that increasing the MW has the effect of decreasing demand. But as we saw in the 90s, other factors -- such as " the benefits resulting from the explosion of capitalism and free trade," can create demand which offsets the effect of the minimum wage. Unemployment fell in the 90s, even with an increase in the MW. It is not a MUST in a dynmic environment.

With an unemployment rate of 4.6%, the issue is whether the increase in the MW will have a significant impact on employment, and whether that impact offsets the benefits of providing the lowest paid workers a poverty level of income.

 

[Iriemon]

Yes, I am asserting that it makes it more difficult for a small business to compete with a large benefit.

Let's examine the typical pre-tax expenses for a small business and a large corporation. I'm just making these numbers up off the top of my head, but you get the point.

JOE'S COFFEE SHOP:
Labor 50%
Coffee 25%
Misc 15%
Profit 10%

STARBUCKS:
Labor 20%
Coffee 10%
Promotion 40%
Legal 5%
Misc 15%
Profit 10%


Labor (along with supplies) is THE major expense for a bare-bones operation, whereas it's only a small fraction of a larger company. Therefore, increased labor costs affect the small businesses much more.

Other than theoretical hypotheticals, are you aware of any data that supports your hypothetical, or that an increase in the MW correlates with a decrease in the production of smaller businesses versus larger ones?

In Joe's coffee shop, Joe probably supplies the bulk of the labor himself, the MW isn't going to affect what he earns.

 

[Cold Dirt]

Other than theoretical hypotheticals, are you aware of any data that supports your hypothetical, or that an increase in the MW correlates with a decrease in the production of smaller businesses versus larger ones?

In Joe's coffee shop, Joe probably supplies the bulk of the labor himself, the MW isn't going to affect what he earns.

I own a small business myself.......I employ three drivers and one office staff besides myself......none of my people draw MW......yet, if the govt came in and told me that my labor cost just increased 13%......I would have to get rid of one of my drivers or my older, single income, lady........

BTW, Joe cannot be at the shop all day everyday....nor he wouldn't be able to compete with the likes of Starbucks without some extra help....what happens when Joe gets sick and cannot work? With him being the bulk of the labor as you claim, then he wouldn't have someone trained to perform his daily duties.....thus he would lose his business because without him there would be no one to run the business.........

Also, big companies like Starbucks costs are lower because they buy their coffee and goods in large bulk, where a small business doesn't have the buying power nor the space to warehouse bulk goods. Plus, Joe's cannot get away with charging $5 for a cup of Joe because he doesn't have the national name like SB....thus he cannot get the same profit margins......

 

[Stinger]

Summer jobs were mentioned in the very first post and you're trying to ague that it is out of bounds to discuss it?

But they weren't in the original story, perhaps you should read the articles and what the people in them say instead of declaring there statements other than factual.

My Quote:
Are you calling him a liar?

No

Then we do have evidence of employees being adversely affect by the MW hike and employers having to cut back on needed employees.



Quote:
Well tell the people that lose a job or find opportunities are fewer that those are just minor effects. But glad you note the benifits of tax cuts which creates jobs which puts on pressure to raise wages by market forces and not goverment fiat.

Well tell the people that depend on the MW and can at least earn closer to a subsitance level of earnings why they should make sub-poverty wages.

They should make sub-poverty wages until they can prove to an employer thier labor is worth more. But you are certainly free to open a business and pay people more than their labor is worth. What I would tell them is show up on time, do the work required and more, if you don't have your education get it and then MW is no longer an issue for them.

Tax cuts create jobs? Coulda fooled me.

Your admittance not mine.

Gald you note that the benefits of MW so that working people can earn a subsistance living.

Don't you believe anytime some gets more money it is an advantage and that it is not solely or uniquely limited to people making the MW? Your is a red herring argument.


Quote:
Where did conservatives ever say those people making minimum wage would not make more money if you raised the minimum wage? As long as they keep their jobs that is. Which as the article cited demonstrated is not a given by any means.

Glad you agree.

Glad you agree that it only happens if they keep their job.

So let's return to the original story that is the subject of this thread. Did people lose their jobs? Did that make them better off? Yes or no.

 

[Iriemon]

But they weren't in the original story, perhaps you should read the articles and what the people in them say instead of declaring there statements other than factual.

LOL! You are still objecting to me commenting on summer jobs when that was written in the first post!

If someone writes "Teenagers who in the past that has counted on summer or after school jobs are now finding out what happens when you support liberal ideas of communism" to me, that makes it fair game to comment on summer jobs.

If you disagree, sorry.

My Quote:
Are you calling him a liar?

Then we do have evidence of employees being adversely affect by the MW hike and employers having to cut back on needed employees.

No, what we have is anectodal evidence of a very few employers, from which you are illogically drawing general conclusions. Which is what I said in my first post.

Quote:
Well tell the people that lose a job or find opportunities are fewer that those are just minor effects. But glad you note the benifits of tax cuts which creates jobs which puts on pressure to raise wages by market forces and not goverment fiat.

Well tell the people earning MW who got an increase in income for the first time in 10 years that is just a minor effect.

Where did I "note the benifits of tax cuts which creates jobs"?

They should make sub-poverty wages until they can prove to an employer thier labor is worth more. But you are certainly free to open a business and pay people more than their labor is worth. What I would tell them is show up on time, do the work required and more, if you don't have your education get it and then MW is no longer an issue for them.

The poor deserve to be poor, eh? I disagree, if they are working.

Your admittance not mine.

Denied. I don't know what your referring to, if I "admitted" tax cuts create jobs somewhere I retract it.

Don't you believe anytime some gets more money it is an advantage and that it is not solely or uniquely limited to people making the MW? Your is a red herring argument.

Not to those who aren't making enough to even live at the poverty level. You may equat the need of a guy making 10 million to buy that 230 ft yacht with the need of someone earning the MW to buy basic shelter or health care. I don't.


Quote:
Where did conservatives ever say those people making minimum wage would not make more money if you raised the minimum wage? As long as they keep their jobs that is. Which as the article cited demonstrated is not a given by any means.

So let's return to the original story that is the subject of this thread. Did people lose their jobs? Did that make them better off? Yes or no.

Who knows? The article discusses an employer who says he's letting three go but says he has very high turnover. You cannot deduce from this anecdotal evidence that teen unemployment is rising. The 3 laid off may be able to find a job accross the street. We know the other 22 employees he has making the MW are significantly better off.

 

[LaMidRighter]

I'll put it from my own perspective. I work at a radio station, but also have a private insurance business on the side, my radio job pays me for the hours I work, however my insurance business is commission only. I would love to have someone making calls to set appointments for me and an office assistant to file my paperwork and deal with the maintenance of my current clients needs, however that would require more money than I can budget. If I don't sell I don't make a profit and don't get paid, however I would owe my caller a market wage(usually a telemarketers wage of 9$-11$/hr.) and my assistant would probably require a minimum of 30K$/yr. If I don't sell they get paid, I don't, I also have to pay for my licensing, continuing education, marketing materials, errors and omissions insurance, office space, and miscellaneous expenses. Because I can't afford to hire a caller and assistant, two people who would love to work for me will have to find another line of work, even if I would have two people who would work for a percentage of my commissions or for minimum wage I cannot make that deal becuase:
1) I can't pay an unlicensed individual part of my commissions under law
2) Compliance costs alone to deal with labor laws if part 1 were possible would cost more in dollars and headaches than the two employees would save me.
With these factors combined, I simply can't utilize the labor supply at "market" value.
3) I also can't guarantee that I will have money left over after paying my own bills and don't have a guaranteed sale down the line, that requires a solid budget that could change the next time minimum wage increases.
Even if I would have those two employees currently at minimum wage, I would let them go immediately after the change would be made becuase my budget just changed, not only would I have to pay an extra two something an hour to maintain their employment but contribute half of their FICA taxes as well.(5 hours a day at 5.15/hr * 2 vs. 7.15$/hr * 2 (in addition 12.5 percent* their gross pay))

Guess I'll just have to do it the hard way.

 

[26 X World Champs]

New wage boost puts squeeze on teenage workers across Arizona

See what happens democrats when you cater to the Unions?

Teenagers who in the past that has counted on summer or after school jobs are now finding out what happens when you support liberal ideas of communism......no jobs....no money.....big govt will take care of you....look at the shining example communism has been around the world.....

Democrats hate a free market and capitalism. They will do whatever it takes to destroy it.......

How come you're blaming Democrats? Do you even know how the law was passed? It was voted in via a Proposition in November 2006.

As of January 1, 2007, the minimum wage in Arizona is $6.75 per hour. On November 7, 2006, Arizona voters passed Proposition 202.

Source: FindLaw's Common Law: New Arizona Minimum Wage Law for 2007

 

[Stinger]

LOL! You are still objecting to me commenting on summer jobs when that was written in the first post!

:lamoyou're keeping it up.

If someone writes "Teenagers who in the past that has counted on summer or after school jobs are now finding out what happens when you support liberal ideas of communism" to me, that makes it fair game to comment on summer jobs.

Yes when they have to pay the full timers more it makes it more difficult pay for summer help. They are not mutually exclusive.

If you disagree, sorry.

You still disagree that teenagers are effected? That summer jobs even though paid at a lower rate are still effected due to the increase in the cost of the full time help?

No, what we have is anectodal evidence

What we have is first hand evidence.

of a very few employers, from which you are illogically drawing general conclusions. Which is what I said in my first post.

Why do you assume it is not evidence of the general effect?

Well tell the people earning MW who got an increase in income for the first time in 10 years that is just a minor effect.

:rofl how many people do you think have been working for MW for ten years? If they have been then they probably don't deserve a raise.

The poor deserve to be poor, eh? I disagree, if they are working.

If they put themselves there by not taking advantage of a free public education, by not being reliable, dependable, valued employees what exactly do they deserve?

Denied. I don't know what your referring to, if I "admitted" tax cuts create jobs somewhere I retract it.

You admitted it fooled you that tax cuts create jobs.

Not to those who aren't making enough to even live at the poverty level. You may equat the need of a guy making 10 million to buy that 230 ft yacht with the need of someone earning the MW to buy basic shelter or health care. I don't.

Where do you get the idea I would make such a silly comparision, how did you even dream it up? But the fact is ANYTIME someone gets more money it is an advantage to them. But if it is not earned, if the money does not come from their own efforts producing it, then it is a disadvantage to the person who is paying them. So your argument is sophomoric on it's face. Raising the pay of someone just because it is better for them to make more money is economic folly.


My Quote:
Where did conservatives ever say those people making minimum wage would not make more money if you raised the minimum wage? As long as they keep their jobs that is. Which as the article cited demonstrated is not a given by any means.

Who knows?

In this case we know, why pay dumb? But are you going on record as saying NO ONE ever loses their job simply because the MW raises the employers payroll cost without an associated increase in productizing or return? Is that what you learned in your economics courses? That that makes good business sense?

 

[ChristopherHall]

I had heard that the minimum wage increase contained cuts in taxation for small businesses. Is this true?

 

[Stinger]

I had heard that the minimum wage increase contained cuts in taxation for small businesses. Is this true?

That's what the Republicans are trying to get into the bill but the Dems are opposed to it.

 

[Kandahar]

I don't deny that increasing the MW has the effect of decreasing demand. But as we saw in the 90s, other factors -- such as " the benefits resulting from the explosion of capitalism and free trade," can create demand which offsets the effect of the minimum wage.

It offsets the effect, but it doesn't negate it. Unemployment would be even lower if not for the minimum wage. Besides, it's too much to hope that capitalism and free trade will expand as much every decade as they did during the 1990s.

Unemployment fell in the 90s, even with an increase in the MW. It is not a MUST in a dynmic environment.

It could be lower.

With an unemployment rate of 4.6%, the issue is whether the increase in the MW will have a significant impact on employment, and whether that impact offsets the benefits of providing the lowest paid workers a poverty level of income.

If we as a society believe that it's important to provide everyone with a certain standard of living, why not just give them more taxpayer money? Generally speaking, I'm not a fan of that either...but it's certainly better than forcing EMPLOYERS to do it.

 

[ludahai]

I don't hate mom and pop businesses, I'm just saying that if you cannot afford to pay minimum-wage to your workers get the hell out of the business pal.

Besides, you right wingers are lying through your collective teeths. If I am correct, I believe the minimum wage increase does not apply to those mom and pop businesses employing under 5 to 7 employees, something like that!

Look it up!

You provide the link since you are citing it. PLus, many small businesses employ more than five to seven employees. Increases in the minimum either contribute to inflation and/or result in higher unemployment. Simple economic equation.

 

[Iriemon]

You provide the link since you are citing it. PLus, many small businesses employ more than five to seven employees. Increases in the minimum either contribute to inflation and/or result in higher unemployment. Simple economic equation.

What is the simple economic equation that increases the minimum wage increases inflation?

 

[Iriemon]

You still disagree that teenagers are effected? That summer jobs even though paid at a lower rate are still effected due to the increase in the cost of the full time help?

That may be an effect. Is there employment data that suggests this is happening?

Why do you assume it is not evidence of the general effect?

I didn't and don't assume anything. You assumed that the statements of a couple employers demonstrates that teenagers are losing jobs.

:rofl how many people do you think have been working for MW for ten years? If they have been then they probably don't deserve a raise.

Where did I assert that?

If they put themselves there by not taking advantage of a free public education, by not being reliable, dependable, valued employees what exactly do they deserve?

Sub-poverty existance, I guess is your answer.

You admitted it fooled you that tax cuts create jobs.

Huh?

Where do you get the idea I would make such a silly comparision, how did you even dream it up? But the fact is ANYTIME someone gets more money it is an advantage to them. But if it is not earned, if the money does not come from their own efforts producing it, then it is a disadvantage to the person who is paying them. So your argument is sophomoric on it's face. Raising the pay of someone just because it is better for them to make more money is economic folly.

From your statement.

My Quote:
Where did conservatives ever say those people making minimum wage would not make more money if you raised the minimum wage? As long as they keep their jobs that is. Which as the article cited demonstrated is not a given by any means.

Iriemon: Who knows.

In this case we know, why pay dumb? But are you going on record as saying NO ONE ever loses their job simply because the MW raises the employers payroll cost without an associated increase in productizing or return? Is that what you learned in your economics courses? That that makes good business sense?

Do you have to resort to misquoting me to try to make an argument?

From #55.

Your quote: So let's return to the original story that is the subject of this thread. Did people lose their jobs? Did that make them better off? Yes or no.

My quote: Who knows? The article discusses an employer who says he's letting three go but says he has very high turnover. You cannot deduce from this anecdotal evidence that teen unemployment is rising. The 3 laid off may be able to find a job accross the street. We know the other 22 employees he has making the MW are significantly better off.

To make an argument, you clip my statement and then attribute to a different question.

Very clever.

 

[Iriemon]

I had heard that the minimum wage increase contained cuts in taxation for small businesses. Is this true?

For the Republicans, the price of giving the poorest workers a decent wage is more tax cuts for the wealthy and more debt.

The pass the buckers never let up.

 

[Stinger]

Originally Posted by Stinger
You still disagree that teenagers are effected? That summer jobs even though paid at a lower rate are still effected due to the increase in the cost of the full time help?

That may be an effect.

So you don't know. Might it NOT be an effect, that no one would be effect adversely?

I didn't and don't assume anything. You assumed that the statements of a couple employers demonstrates that teenagers are losing jobs.

Did teenagers lose jobs?


Me>> :rofl how many people do you think have been working for MW for ten years? If they have been then they probably don't deserve a raise.

Where did I assert that?

You Quote:
Well tell the people earning MW who got an increase in income for the first time in 10 years that is just a minor effect.

Try again.


Quote:
If they put themselves there by not taking advantage of a free public education, by not being reliable, dependable, valued employees what exactly do they deserve?

Sub-poverty existance, I guess is your answer.

I asked YOU. Try again.

Quote:
You admitted it fooled you that tax cuts create jobs.

Huh?

You said you were fooled by the increase in jobs due to the tax cuts.

So let's return to the original story that is the subject of this thread. Did people lose their jobs? Did that make them better off? Yes or no.

 

[Iriemon]

Originally Posted by Stinger
You still disagree that teenagers are effected? That summer jobs even though paid at a lower rate are still effected due to the increase in the cost of the full time help?

I never said that. Try again (that's so cute!)

So you don't know. Might it NOT be an effect, that no one would be effect adversely?

I never said that. Try again.

Did teenagers lose jobs?

Did the article say someone was actually fired?

Me>> :rofl how many people do you think have been working for MW for ten years? If they have been then they probably don't deserve a raise.

You Quote:
Well tell the people earning MW who got an increase in income for the first time in 10 years that is just a minor effect.

Try again.

LOL! Try what again?

Quote:
If they put themselves there by not taking advantage of a free public education, by not being reliable, dependable, valued employees what exactly do they deserve?

If the are willing to work a full time job, poverty level existance, IMO.

I asked YOU. Try again.

So what do you think a person working full time should receive as his lowest wage, as a dollar figure.

Quote:
You admitted it fooled you that tax cuts create jobs.

You said you were fooled by the increase in jobs due to the tax cuts.

I never did. Try again.

So let's return to the original story that is the subject of this thread. Did people lose their jobs? Did that make them better off? Yes or no.

Already answered. Try again.

 

[RightinNYC]

No, its not because I really do think that.

Oh, fair enough. Your unsources opinion IS actually more valid than statistics, even the statistics you produced. I get it.

Huh?

I'll assume this means you don't know what statistical significance means, and move on.

$10,721 a year.

$10,721 a year.

Either you're being obtuse, or you really can't understand what I'm saying. Read again.

What is the average household income for someone who makes minimum wage? Your answer would be correct only if the only people who earned minimum wage were single earner households. Since the vast majority of minimum wage earners live in households where either a working spouse or parent also lives, its not. The average household income is 50,000.

Um, I think I'll take the word of the US Department of Labor over the Heritage Foundation stink tank, thank you very much.

Again, are you being deliberately obtuse? All the statistics at the first link came from the second link and from the government census. Unless you're calling the Department of Labor a liar.

But your other link from the government more than adequately proves that I am correct and sadly that you are mistaken...again.

See there? It says that half the workers earning min. wage are under age 25. And of that, only 1/4 are age 16 to 19. So guess who the other 3/4 of minimum wage earners under 25 are and then guess the average age of most single mothers?

Your reading comprehension skills leave something to be desired. Read again:

About half of workers earning $5.15 or less were under age 25, and about one-fourth of workers earning at or below the minimum wage were age 16-19.

That's not saying 1/4 of the people under 25, its saying 1/4 of people total.

Thus, that means that of the people making minimum wage, approx 1/4 are age 16-19, approx 1/4 are age 19-24, and approx 1/2 are 25+


Finally, you then use your logic skills to deduce that because 1/4 of min wage workers are between the ages of 19-24, that that must mean that most of them are single mothers? Wow.

Naa na na naaa na. :2razz:

Do you actually not understand the difference between being in poverty and being a min wage worker, or are you just trying to confuse the issue?


Look, I'll explain it again for you, using ONLY the source you posted:

An estimated 14.9 million workers (11% of the workforce) would benefit from an increase in the federal minimum wage to $7.25 by 2008. More than one-quarter (26%) of the workers who would benefit from an increase to $7.25 are parents of children under age 18, including 1,395,000 single parents.

If there are 1,395,000 single parents who would benefit from an increase to $7.25, out of a total of 14,900,000 people who would benefit from an increase to $7.25, then something called division allows us to calculate what that percentage is. And once again, regardless of whether you want it to

9.3% =/= "more than half"

 

[Stinger]

Originally Posted by Stinger
You still disagree that teenagers are effected? That summer jobs even though paid at a lower rate are still effected due to the increase in the cost of the full time help?

I never said that. Try again (that's so cute!)

Then you need to restate what you are saying. When it was posted that this was in fact happening with a first person account you dismissed it.

A couple anecdotes doesn't prove effect. The min wage laws had a lower rate applicable to under 20 workers working 90 days or less (ie summer jobs).

So do you admit that teenagers are effected?

My Quote:
So you don't know. Might it NOT be an effect, that no one would be effect adversely?

I never said that. Try again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iriemon
That may be an effect.

Did the article say someone was actually fired?

I think the owner was clear what the effect will be when the hike kicks in, is your argument now that since it hasn't kicked in there is no effect, or are you still calling him a liar?

LOL! Try what again?

I don't need to, if you misspoke then restate.

You>> You Quote:
Well tell the people earning MW who got an increase in income for the first time in 10 years that is just a minor effect.


Me>> :rofl how many people do you think have been working for MW for ten years? If they have been then they probably don't deserve a raise.

You imply that there are people who have been making the MW for 10 years and have never gotten a raise because they are on the minimum wage.



My Quote:
If they put themselves there by not taking advantage of a free public education, by not being reliable, dependable, valued employees what exactly do they deserve?

If the are willing to work a full time job, poverty level existance, IMO.

Why should uneducated, unreliable, non-productive workers who are capable or work deserve anything at all?

So what do you think a person working full time should receive as his lowest wage, as a dollar figure.

Depends on their education, training and willingness to work.


So let's return to the original story that is the subject of this thread. Did people lose their jobs? Did that make them better off? Yes or no.

Already answered. Try again.

Which post, try again.

 

[Iriemon]

Originally Posted by Stinger
You still disagree that teenagers are effected? That summer jobs even though paid at a lower rate are still effected due to the increase in the cost of the full time help?

Then you need to restate what you are saying. When it was posted that this was in fact happening with a first person account you dismissed it.

No, you are mischaracterizing me again.

So do you admit that teenagers are effected?

Did the report indicate any were fired?

My Quote:So you don't know. Might it NOT be an effect, that no one would be effect adversely?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iriemon
That may be an effect.

You are mischaracterizing me again. Try again.

I think the owner was clear what the effect will be when the hike kicks in, is your argument now that since it hasn't kicked in there is no effect, or are you still calling him a liar?

Are you saying he said he did fire someone? Are *you* calling him a liar?

I don't need to, if you misspoke then restate.

I was crystal clear.

You>> You Quote:
Well tell the people earning MW who got an increase in income for the first time in 10 years that is just a minor effect.

Me>> :rofl how many people do you think have been working for MW for ten years? If they have been then they probably don't deserve a raise.

You imply that there are people who have been making the MW for 10 years and have never gotten a raise because they are on the minimum wage.

I absolutely did not. You made an unjustied inference and mischaracterized my statement, as usual.

Why should uneducated, unreliable, non-productive workers who are capable or work deserve anything at all?

You're right. Everyone who makes less then $10 an hour should be euthanized because they are just a drag on society.

Depends on their education, training and willingness to work.

Dodge 'em cowboy!

So let's return to the original story that is the subject of this thread. Did people lose their jobs? Did that make them better off? Yes or no.



Which post, try again.

The one you misquoted me on. Try again.

 

[ludahai]

What is the simple economic equation that increases the minimum wage increases inflation?

Simple. You raise the cost of doing business, the business owners are bound to pass that on to the consumers, resulting in higher prices - hence - inflation.

 

[Stinger]

riginally Posted by Stinger
You still disagree that teenagers are effected? That summer jobs even though paid at a lower rate are still effected due to the increase in the cost of the full time help?

No, you are mischaracterizing me again.

How?

Did the report indicate any were fired?

Did you read the article? He clearly indicates he is in the process of laying off workers as the MW law comes into effect. What is your point how does that support your argument that the MW does not effect negatively on employment?


Quote:
My Quote:So you don't know. Might it NOT be an effect, that no one would be effect adversely?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iriemon (New wage boost puts squeeze on teenage workers across Arizona)
That may be an effect.

You are mischaracterizing me again.

How?

Are you saying he said he did fire someone? Are *you* calling him a liar?

Did you read the article? He is in the process of laying off workers as the MW increase comes into effect? Are you calling him a liar?


My Quote:
LOL! Try what again?

I was crystal clear.

OK here is what you said again

" You>> You Quote:
Well tell the people earning MW who got an increase in income for the first time in 10 years that is just a minor effect."

Your statement claims that there are people who have been making MW for 10 years now without a raise. If that is not what you meant then restate it.

I absolutely did not. You made an unjustied inference and mischaracterized my statement, as usual.

Sorry but your sentence says exactly what I stated, if you misspoke then restate it.

Quote:
Why should uneducated, unreliable, non-productive workers who are capable or work deserve anything at all?

You're right. Everyone who makes less then $10 an hour should be euthanized because they are just a drag on society.

Why do they deserve being paid more than their labor is worth?

I asked you before what do you do for a living and have you ever own a business?

Quote:
So what do you think a person working full time should receive as his lowest wage, as a dollar figure.

Quote:
Depends on their education, training and willingness to work.

Dodge 'em cowboy!

No sir, YOU Just dodged the issue as you have throughout your response. Those are key criteria for hiring, those are the criteria which determine how much you will be paid.

 

[Iriemon]

Simple. You raise the cost of doing business, the business owners are bound to pass that on to the consumers, resulting in higher prices - hence - inflation.

But unless there is more money in the economy to pay those higher prices, people either won't pay them or will pay less for products that are not dependent upon the lowest paid workes.

It is the supply of money that determines inflation, not the change in price of a particular input (tho' that may make prices for certain things relatively higher or lower).

 

[Iriemon]

riginally Posted by Stinger
You still disagree that teenagers are effected? That summer jobs even though paid at a lower rate are still effected due to the increase in the cost of the full time help?

How?

By mischaracterizing my posts.

Did you read the article? He clearly indicates he is in the process of laying off workers as the MW law comes into effect. What is your point how does that support your argument that the MW does not effect negatively on employment?

Thank you for your admission there has been no one fired.


Quote:
My

Quote:So you don't know. Might it NOT be an effect, that no one would be effect adversely?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iriemon (New wage boost puts squeeze on teenage workers across Arizona)
That may be an effect.



How?

By mischaracterizing my statements.

Did you read the article? He is in the process of laying off workers as the MW increase comes into effect? Are you calling him a liar?


My Quote:
LOL! Try what again?

OK here is what you said again

" You>> You Quote:
Well tell the people earning MW who got an increase in income for the first time in 10 years that is just a minor effect."

Your statement claims that there are people who have been making MW for 10 years now without a raise. If that is not what you meant then restate it.

It has been 10 years since the MW wage was raised, mostly because Republicans like keeping labor costs low to maximize their profits.

Sorry but your sentence says exactly what I stated, if you misspoke then restate it.

Nope, you mischaracterized it in a lame attempt to try to make a point.

Quote:
Why should uneducated, unreliable, non-productive workers who are capable or work deserve anything at all?



Why do they deserve being paid more than their labor is worth?

Because they are Americans, and some of us care about the millions you think should live in sub-poverty squalor because they aren't worth enough for their full time labor.

I asked you before what do you do for a living and have you ever own a business?

Irrelevant. But I'd be interested to know what you do for a living.

Quote:
So what do you think a person working full time should receive as his lowest wage, as a dollar figure.

Quote:
Depends on their education, training and willingness to work.

No sir, YOU Just dodged the issue as you have throughout your response. Those are key criteria for hiring, those are the criteria which determine how much you will be paid.

No sir, as is your customs, you have mischaracterized my statments, starting with insuating I was calling people liars, in your weak attempts to make arguments, and dodge questions put to you as is typical.

 

[Iriemon]

riginally Posted by Stinger
You still disagree that teenagers are effected? That summer jobs even though paid at a lower rate are still effected due to the increase in the cost of the full time help?

How?

By mischaracterizing my posts.

Did you read the article? He clearly indicates he is in the process of laying off workers as the MW law comes into effect. What is your point how does that support your argument that the MW does not effect negatively on employment?

Thank you for your admission that according to the article no one has been fired.

Quote:
My Quote:So you don't know. Might it NOT be an effect, that no one would be effect adversely?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iriemon (New wage boost puts squeeze on teenage workers across Arizona)
That may be an effect.

How?

By mischaracterizing my statements.

Did you read the article? He is in the process of laying off workers as the MW increase comes into effect? Are you calling him a liar?


My Quote:
LOL! Try what again?

OK here is what you said again

" You>> You Quote:
Well tell the people earning MW who got an increase in income for the first time in 10 years that is just a minor effect."

Your statement claims that there are people who have been making MW for 10 years now without a raise. If that is not what you meant then restate it.

It has been 10 years since the MW wage was raised, mostly because Republicans like keeping labor costs low to maximize their profits.

Sorry but your sentence says exactly what I stated, if you misspoke then restate it.

Nope, you mischaracterized it in a lame attempt to try to make a point.

Quote:
Why should uneducated, unreliable, non-productive workers who are capable or work deserve anything at all?

Why do they deserve being paid more than their labor is worth?

Because they are Americans, and some of us care about the millions you think should live in sub-poverty squalor because they aren't worth enough for their full time labor in terms of what businesses will pay them.

I asked you before what do you do for a living and have you ever own a business?

Irrelevant. But I'd be interested to know what you do for a living.

Quote:
Iriemon: So what do you think a person working full time should receive as the lowest wage, as a dollar figure.

Quote:
Depends on their education, training and willingness to work.

No sir, YOU Just dodged the issue as you have throughout your response. Those are key criteria for hiring, those are the criteria which determine how much you will be paid.

No sir, as is your custom, YOU have mischaracterized my statments, starting with insuating I was calling people liars, to changing the question you cite my answers to, to your inane contention I admitted tax cuts create jobs, in your weak attempts to make arguments, and then dodge questions put to you.