Good evening all. I see you're trying to sustain sound economic thinking in the face of presidential tomfoolery.:2wave:
I'm no expert either, but I understand that the more workers cost the fewer an employer can hire.:idea:
Third-quarter net income at McDonald’s fell 3.5 percent to $1.46 billion, or $1.43 a share, from $1.51 billion, or $1.45 a share, a year earlier. It missed analysts’ average estimate by 4 cents, according to Thomson Reuters. Total sales slipped 0.2 percent to $7.15 billion.
Not the employers that matter to the national economy. McDonald's has to have the number of employees it has in order to function the way it does. If anything businesses would reduce the number of full time employees and hire more part-time employees.
Not the employers that matter to the national economy. McDonald's has to have the number of employees it has in order to function the way it does. If anything businesses would reduce the number of full time employees and hire more part-time employees.
Poor McDonalds.
I'm no expert either, but I understand that the more workers cost the fewer an employer can hire.:idea:
I think it does help them but just like you, I am not morally certain. I'm just a big supporter of those who WORK instead of those who earn their money filling out welfare forms.
I'd be fine with raising it to $9 an hour.
I just don't think it's going to stop there.
It's a difficult uphill battle against terrible odds, but a weary segment continues to bravely fight on.... :thumbs:
The 'problem' is expecting to be able to raise a family of 4 on the minimum wage.
What moron thinks it's a great idea to get married and have 2 kids when they make $300/week?
Totally missed the point there, chief. Somebody has to be making the fries while someone is working the register whether minimum wage is $2 or $20. It may shock you to discover this, but businesses generally treat their payroll the same way they do fixed expenses like mortgages. They don't fret over it as much as people think. I pretty much know on January 1 what my payroll will be for the year will be except for my own.
In Washington, DC your living wage is determined by how much you can convince an unwitting public to send you.
Yes, but it sounds so good in a speech. If Obama truly gave a damn, he would get this economy growing again. That is not, and has never been, his objective. No, life is not great at the bottom of the wage pool, and that pool is shrinking right now. It would be better by far if the pool was growing with a growing economy. Wage pressures would shortly follow.That is the point.
The President uses a subjective like living wage without giving us a definition.
Again I will say that if a living wage will have to be paid to an employee dependant upon what that employee needs to survive, only teenagers will be hired that needs next to nothing.
How will older people ever get a job?
If your employee gets into debt, does he automatically get a raise to cover that debt, because without that raise, he is not making a living wage?
That is the point.
The President uses a subjective like living wage without giving us a definition.
Again I will say that if a living wage will have to be paid to an employee dependant upon what that employee needs to survive, only teenagers will be hired that needs next to nothing.
How will older people ever get a job?
If your employee gets into debt, does he automatically get a raise to cover that debt, because without that raise, he is not making a living wage?
I support the $9 minimum wage but tying it to inflation will just encourage inflation which is good for the politicians but bad for us that save.
if Obama truly gave a damn, he would get this economy growing again. .
These are the kinds of statements that drive me nuts abut conservatives.
Slam him for not getting the economy growing.
Andthen ,when he proposes a government solution, claim it's no the governmen's job to get the economy growing.
YOu can't have it both ways. Does Govt grow the economy? Or does lack of Government grow the economy?
You're confusing two very different things. Obama should be setting policies that are friendly to the market and growth. He hasn't done that. It doesn't involve vast new government programs. It involves removing the impediments, some created by Obama's administration, to a vibrant and growing economy. Obama is philosophically opposed to allowing business to operate profitably unless business addresses his concerns (and the left's) first. That is precisely backwards. We can order the economy to some extent, but we first require growth, and we already know how to do that.These are the kinds of statements that drive me nuts abut conservatives.
Slam him for not getting the economy growing.
Andthen ,when he proposes a government solution, claim it's no the governmen's job to get the economy growing.
YOu can't have it both ways. Does Govt grow the economy? Or does lack of Government grow the economy?
These are the kinds of statements that drive me nuts abut conservatives.
Slam him for not getting the economy growing.
Andthen ,when he proposes a government solution, claim it's no the governmen's job to get the economy growing.
YOu can't have it both ways. Does Govt grow the economy? Or does lack of Government grow the economy?
You're confusing two very different things. Obama should be setting policies that are friendly to the market and growth. .
.....what impediments? examples?It involves removing the impediments, some created by Obama's administration, to a vibrant and growing economy. .
I have to leave, but here's an explanation of sorts. Dodd/Frank. ACA. Tax uncertainty. Tax certainty. EPA. NLRB. Nearly 100 months of unemployment compensation. Sequestration of drilling permits and the removal of leases. No Keystone pipeline. I could go on. Businesses and economies grow with certainty and stability. All of the above have the opposite effect, and there are a lot, lot more either happening now, or contemplated. Furthermore, we know at the current level of federal borrowing interest rates will necessarily rise at some point in the relatively near future after our Fed gets done buying all of our own debt. Inflation will follow. Other than that and a few hundred other things, we're fine. Want to buy some 30 year bonds?...........like?
.....what impediments? examples?
IMO Romney lost the election because he could not come up with any specifics on either of these points. He tried to focus on taxation, but Obama ran the economy on the Bush tax cuts for 4 years. (meaning low taxes)
These are the kinds of statements that drive me nuts abut conservatives.
Slam him for not getting the economy growing.
Andthen ,when he proposes a government solution, claim it's no the governmen's job to get the economy growing.
YOu can't have it both ways. Does Govt grow the economy? Or does lack of Government grow the economy?
I'm sure some republican apologist will answer with a reasoned response, when the day the earth stood still arrives.
thought that was part of the American dream
work hard, save, own your own home
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?