Obama's minimum wage comments: the molehill is a mountain

[polgara]

Good evening all. I see you're trying to sustain sound economic thinking in the face of presidential tomfoolery.:2wave:

It's a difficult uphill battle against terrible odds, but a weary segment continues to bravely fight on.... :thumbs:

 

[Fisher]

I'm no expert either, but I understand that the more workers cost the fewer an employer can hire.:idea:

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.

 

[specklebang]

Poor McDonalds.

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.

 

[Jack Hays]

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.

I don't think you have touched the main point of the argument. The more expensive labor is, the less of it there will be. That may be expressed in fewer jobs, more part time/less full time, or some other cost-cutting move. As for McDonald's, there is no uniform paradigm; individual restaurants have considerable latitude to configure their staffs as they deem best, so long as they meet McDonalds' service standard.

 

[joko104]

Minimum wages should be increased to at least $250 per hour. Then almost everyone would be rich and virtually all poverty would be eliminated.

 

[Fisher]

Poor McDonalds.

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.

 

[Perotista]

I'm no expert either, but I understand that the more workers cost the fewer an employer can hire.:idea:

I always assumed everything was based on supply and demand. I had an uncle who owned a paint store. He took everything into consideration before he would tell someone he was about to hire how much he would pay them. He would subtract his share of social security, his share of insurance and a bunch of other things. He would figure out how much all these extras he had to pay for would cost him, then he would subtract them from however how much he could afford to pay the new hire. He might be able to pay the new hire a dollar an hour, but by the time he subtracted everything he had to provide and pay for the new hire, he would only offer him 70 cents. This way nothing was coming out of his pocket. He was quite successful, bless his heart.

 

[Perotista]

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.

Me too. I also am a supporter of what Thomas Jefferson said, "A man should not be taxed by the sweat of his brow." I personally think those who work, who earn wages should be taxed at a much lower rate than those who make their living by playing with money. The old Hamilton vs. Madison argument. But like I say, I am no financial guru.

 

[shrubnose]

I'd be fine with raising it to $9 an hour.
I just don't think it's going to stop there.

Since the GOP controls the House I kind of doubt that it will happen.

Guess we'll just have to wait and see.



Trololo:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1orMXD_Ijbs RIP I love that song.

 

[Jack Hays]

It's a difficult uphill battle against terrible odds, but a weary segment continues to bravely fight on.... :thumbs:

Keep up the good work.:shoot

 

[shrubnose]

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?

Some people don't waste time thinking about it, they just do it. Sad, but true.

I've seen it happen.

 

[specklebang]

Like you, I've been self-employed all my life and I understand what you are saying.

I always paid my employees far more than minimum wage. In 1986, my lowest paid worker was at $12.50. My workers were completely loyal to me and they knocked themselves out doing the best possible job. I could have made much more money by cutting wages. Instead, I made enough money - and so did my staff.

Realistically, my point was that McDonalds could pay $9 an hour. Now, they pay around $8. Another dollar won't kill them. That extra $40 a week will help fill the gas tank if nothing else.

I bet you don't pay your workers minimum wage.

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.

 

[Mason66]

In Washington, DC your living wage is determined by how much you can convince an unwitting public to send you.

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?

 

[humbolt]

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?

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.

 

[ttwtt78640]

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 tha basic problem with the social wefare system and the "living wage" concept. If you increase your living expenses, e.g. have a kid, have higher rent or buy a new car, then even though your work output remains unchanged you "deserve" to get a "pay raise". Separating worker production and market demand from establishing your "wages" skews the entire free market system requiring other adjustments to counter the "side effects". What we have now is welfare benefits exceeding what an entry level job pays, so why work at any "harder" job?

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

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.

For a family of 4 what is the purpose for raising it to $9? It's about $3,000/year assuming you worked a full year at it, ~$57/week before taxes.
How will it materially improve their situation?

 

[KLATTU]

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?

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

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?

Historically business have succeeded in spite of the Government not because of the Government. So to grow the economy means less government. See you can have it both ways, in fact you NEED to have it both ways.

 

[humbolt]

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.

 

[ttwtt78640]

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 certainly can have it both ways. Spending a tax dollar building/maintaining infrastructure is far different than spending that tax dollar keeping someone on UI benefits.

 

[KLATTU]

You're confusing two very different things. Obama should be setting policies that are friendly to the market and growth. .

...........like?

It involves removing the impediments, some created by Obama's administration, to a vibrant and growing economy. .

.....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)

 

[humbolt]

...........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)

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?

 

[Texmex]

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.

 

[KLATTU]

I'm sure some republican apologist will answer with a reasoned response, when the day the earth stood still arrives.

I think they guy above you just did...

 

[tech30528]

thought that was part of the American dream
work hard, save, own your own home

It used to be touted as such. But look what happened a few years ago with the foreclosure boom. A home used to be the single biggest investment a wage earner had. Now many of those investments have tanked with the huge drop in values. Owning a home is no longer the most important investment. I lost a home myself, but that was due to starting a business just before the economy took a **** and I made the decision to let the house go and keep the business going. But for most who lost their homes they had no choice. At least not on the surface. But I've talked to many facing a foreclosure who wouldn't be in that position if it were not for credit card balances, student loans and car payments. Priorities: if you want to own a home don't buy a new car first, buy the house first and then drive what you can afford. It's not a universal solution, it's an example. Often the line between "need" and "want" are blurred. And unfortunately by the time people figure this out it's too late, they are trapped. We've been told for a long time that it is normal and reasonable to go to school on a student loan without considering long term effects, such as paying too much for an education than it is not likely to return a profit. But just like driving skills, most people believe they are the exception. It's self delusion. The final outcome means nothing to the guy selling the loan. He gets his commission up front.

A minimum wage job is not a career, it is a stepping stone. At least it should be. If minimum wage gets pushed to $9 an hour expect your lunch at McDonalds to cost at least as much more by percentage increase (inflation). It doesn't matter what the number is on your check stub if all the goods and services you buy go up by the same percentage, or more.