Why not raise the minimum wage?

[ludin]

The thing you are forgetting is that liberals have redefined full-time. It's not 40 hours anymore. It's 30 hours. That means that $7.25, at 30 hours, is $10,874/yr.

So, what we have here is not really a problem with poverty, but a problem with liberals shoving more people into poverty (all based, of course, on this arbitrary number to define "poverty") just so they can, then, come up with the solution of raising the minimum wage.

Oh, and that guidelines link you gave is a good one...but liberals don't care about guidelines. They make things up as they go along.

that is true the ACA made full time to be 30 hours a week. i think it use to be 37 or 38 hours.

of course there will still be people working 40 hours a week, but as i said and no one could answer before.

say i employee 8 people. say they do lawn care (good example) 8 dollars is about average for lawncare people. depending on the yard they have to finish within 2 hours. large yards charge more therefore can take a bit longer. if they exceed that time i lose money. at the end of the month if they meet their goals they get a bonus.

that is 123k a year for salary. so just to cover payroll (that doesn't include fuel repairs etc ...)

now i have to pay them 10 dollars an hour. my payroll for the year just increased to 153k a year a 30k increase.
now i have to find out where to get that 30k back because i still have to get paid and i still have to maintain some kind of profit for other expenses next year.

sure i can increase the price on my customers. some will take it others won't.
so i am going to lose business that means even less money.

i have to split it between price increases and demanding my guy to work harder or worse i pay them by the job which no one wants to do.

 

[newpublius]

The notion that lowering taxes spurs economic growth and more government revenue is long discredited by examples of when it had been tried. As Warren Buffett said:

What's funny is that Buffet himself knows better because he values companies, as he should, on a 'look through' basis, ie. given that taxes impact cash flows. Buffet is a successful investors and he invests successfully and has done so in spite of the taxes imposed on him. Not that taxes aren't a necessary evil, they are, but ultimately people like Buffet will say these things in one breadth and in the next discuss attractive rates of return. Bottom line taxes impact rate of return, no way around that. If you don't think taxes impact investment decisions, then you don't think rate of return impacts investment, and that's just absurd.

There's a reason why supply curves are upward sloping and demand curves are downward sloping. The problem with economics as a science is that the multitude of variables in play makes it impossible to speak with truly any authority. The impact of any given variable is known of course and economists can tell you how one variable will impact things, ceteris paraibus, all things being equal. Of course all things aren't equal. On top of which its a social science as opposed to something like physics.

Don't get lost in multivariate noise, the tendency for cost variables to impact economic decisions is intuitive and time tested. When things cost more (less), people buy less (more) of them. When the benefit derived from an activity is reduced (increased), expect less (more) of it.

That's reality.

 

[MTAtech]

What's funny is that Buffet himself knows better because he values companies, as he should, on a 'look through' basis, ie. given that taxes impact cash flows. Buffet is a successful investors and he invests successfully and has done so in spite of the taxes imposed on him. Not that taxes aren't a necessary evil, they are, but ultimately people like Buffet will say these things in one breadth and in the next discuss attractive rates of return. Bottom line taxes impact rate of return, no way around that. If you don't think taxes impact investment decisions, then you don't think rate of return impacts investment, and that's just absurd.

There's a reason why supply curves are upward sloping and demand curves are downward sloping. The problem with economics as a science is that the multitude of variables in play makes it impossible to speak with truly any authority. The impact of any given variable is known of course and economists can tell you how one variable will impact things, ceteris paraibus, all things being equal. Of course all things aren't equal. On top of which its a social science as opposed to something like physics.

Don't get lost in multivariate noise, the tendency for cost variables to impact economic decisions is intuitive and time tested. When things cost more (less), people buy less (more) of them. When the benefit derived from an activity is reduced (increased), expect less (more) of it.

That's reality.

The fact remains, unless taxes are confiscatory, paying taxes does not discourage investment nor work for wages.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The fact remains, unless taxes are confiscatory, paying taxes does not discourage investment nor work for wages.

Then explain why our congress critters continue to borrow rather than add taxation to support their increased federal spending. We are constantly told that borrowing, deficit spending as opposed to raising taxation, is "needed" to prevent slowing economic growth yet you seem to assert that no negative impact from added taxation will occur.

 

[MTAtech]

Then explain why our congress critters continue to borrow rather than add taxation to support their increased federal spending. We are constantly told that borrowing, deficit spending as opposed to raising taxation, is "needed" to prevent slowing economic growth yet you seem to assert that no negative impact from added taxation will occur.

I would never try to state that our Members of Congress are the sharpest knives in the draw or always make the best decisions.

Moreover, one has to make a distinction depending upon the type of economy that exists at the time. In a weak liquidity trap economy, borrowing does not raise interest rates nor crowd out private borrowing. Therefore, government borrowing is a efficient means to support government spending. In a "hot" economy, borrowing does crowd out private borrowing and raising taxes is a better way to raise funds -- but also, in a hot economy the demand for social services is lower.

Did I answer your question?

 

[newpublius]

The fact remains, unless taxes are confiscatory, paying taxes does not discourage investment nor work for wages.

But they do, and to deny that impact is to deny the impact of pricing on decision making. It really is that simple. Taxes can't not do that, they're part of the cost and ALL COSTS MATTER, there's no exception because you like to tax and to allow the government to have that money. That's why its a tax. Taxes are allocative. To the extent you pay taxes, this allows the government to allocate and prevents you from allocating. When you buy a dollar bottle of soda and pay $.07 in sales tax, you don't have the $.07 to spend anymore. Ultimately supply curves are upward sloping, demand curves are downward sloping, if you don't think prices are relevant you need to take an economics course, this is where liberal economics loses coherence.

 

[Mycroft]

I would never try to state that our Members of Congress are the sharpest knives in the draw or always make the best decisions.

Moreover, one has to make a distinction depending upon the type of economy that exists at the time. In a weak liquidity trap economy, borrowing does not raise interest rates nor crowd out private borrowing. Therefore, government borrowing is a efficient means to support government spending. In a "hot" economy, borrowing does crowd out private borrowing and raising taxes is a better way to raise funds -- but also, in a hot economy the demand for social services is lower.

Did I answer your question?

I would support borrowing if it were short-term, temporary and if it were paid back. Unfortunately, the kind of borrowing we have nowadays is none of those.

 

[James D Hill]

The thing you are forgetting is that liberals have redefined full-time. It's not 40 hours anymore. It's 30 hours. That means that $7.25, at 30 hours, is $10,874/yr.

So, what we have here is not really a problem with poverty, but a problem with liberals shoving more people into poverty (all based, of course, on this arbitrary number to define "poverty") just so they can, then, come up with the solution of raising the minimum wage.

Oh, and that guidelines link you gave is a good one...but liberals don't care about guidelines. They make things up as they go along.

It works.

 

[Mycroft]

It works.

Are you kidding, James? "It works"??

Have you seen our country lately, James?

 

[James D Hill]

Are you kidding, James? "It works"??

Have you seen our country lately, James?

The problem is income inequality. Business making record profits while laying off workers. Until that is fixed we are screwed. It is as simple as that.

 

[Mycroft]

The problem is income inequality. Business making record profits while laying off workers. Until that is fixed we are screwed. It is as simple as that.

No, James. The problem is not income inequality. Heck, not even Obama is making much of a big deal about that anymore. You really need to keep up with your liberal talking points, James, because I know you won't be putting any rational thought into anything. Talking points is all you got.

 

[Slyhunter]

No, James. The problem is not income inequality. Heck, not even Obama is making much of a big deal about that anymore. You really need to keep up with your liberal talking points, James, because I know you won't be putting any rational thought into anything. Talking points is all you got.

Actually I see it as the problem. The poor's buying power has not been climbing as fast as the rich's buying power, as a percentage of their own income or original buying power. That needs to stop.

 

[joko104]

Raising the minimum wage ultimately just has an inflationary effect, thus reducing the effective value of people savings, reduce the value of welfare/social security and disability payments, and reducing the spending power of those on fixed incomes.

Raising the minimum wage will raise prices. Raising prices will effectively reduce the value of the dollar causing the harms I cited above. The only benefit is that inflation reduces the value of the national debt. Devalue the dollar 10% and the value of the debt is reduced 10%. And there is a 10% reduction in everyone's savings, everyone's social programs checks, and everyone's fixed income money.

 

[joko104]

The problem is income inequality. Business making record profits while laying off workers. Until that is fixed we are screwed. It is as simple as that.

Raising the minimum wage won't change that. Do you even have a theory how it would?

 

[Mycroft]

Actually I see it as the problem. The poor's buying power has not been climbing as fast as the rich's buying power, as a percentage of their own income or original buying power. That needs to stop.

Raising the minimum wage isn't going to increase anybody's buying power. Increasing everybody's buying power isn't going to increase anybody's wages.

You see, the problem is this notion that the government can pass some laws, enact some regulations and everything will be hunky-dory for everyone. It won't. It's the government's laws and regulations that have gotten us into this mess and more laws and regulations will only make the mess worse.

No, income inequality isn't the problem...government is the problem.

 

[newpublius]

Raising the minimum wage isn't going to increase anybody's buying power. Increasing everybody's buying power isn't going to increase anybody's wages.

You see, the problem is this notion that the government can pass some laws, enact some regulations and everything will be hunky-dory for everyone. It won't. It's the government's laws and regulations that have gotten us into this mess and more laws and regulations will only make the mess worse.

No, income inequality isn't the problem...government is the problem.

Governments have been trying to legislate value since the Edict on Maximum prices. There's no nexus between need and the value of the labor a person is capable of providing.

 

[Slyhunter]

Raising the minimum wage ultimately just has an inflationary effect, thus reducing the effective value of people savings, reduce the value of welfare/social security and disability payments, and reducing the spending power of those on fixed incomes.

Raising the minimum wage will raise prices. Raising prices will effectively reduce the value of the dollar causing the harms I cited above. The only benefit is that inflation reduces the value of the national debt. Devalue the dollar 10% and the value of the debt is reduced 10%. And there is a 10% reduction in everyone's savings, everyone's social programs checks, and everyone's fixed income money.

You either have to pay all poor people a living wage or you have to subsidize their income with welfare so they can survive. The alternative is to let them die. So what is your solution.

 

[Slyhunter]

Raising the minimum wage isn't going to increase anybody's buying power. Increasing everybody's buying power isn't going to increase anybody's wages.

You see, the problem is this notion that the government can pass some laws, enact some regulations and everything will be hunky-dory for everyone. It won't. It's the government's laws and regulations that have gotten us into this mess and more laws and regulations will only make the mess worse.

No, income inequality isn't the problem...government is the problem.

Raising the minimum wage and not compensating those who make more than the minimum wage with pay raises too increases the buying power of those who need it the most and decreases buying power of those who need it least. Giving everyone a pay raise misses the point of raising the minimum wage. The problem is those on the bottom aren't receiving a living wage and have to take government handouts. you raise their pay to a living wage and you get rid of the government handouts at the same time.

To prevent employers from counter effecting this you link the minimum wage to the cost of living. Everytime the cost of living goes up so does the minimum wage. This will force employers to pay themselves and high earners less in order to be able to afford to pay the bottom rungs more.

The libertarian ideal of making yourself more valuable so that you get paid more than the minimum wage and **** those who are unable to do so leaves too many people in the dirt requiring governmental assistance. Unless we want our people to starve we either have to pay them more via employment or pay them more via handouts either case we still need to pay them more.

 

[Slyhunter]

Governments have been trying to legislate value since the Edict on Maximum prices. There's no nexus between need and the value of the labor a person is capable of providing.

What's messed up is that a watch that will last you decades is cheaper than a meal which lasts you only a day. The price of watches and tv's etc., stuff we don't really need and that last us longer, needs to go up in price so that more people can afford to pay the rent and feed themselves. You do this by raising tariffs on every country that doesn't pay an American living wage. Prices of all imported goods will go up. It will become more cost efficient to manufacture items in the US, paying an American a living wage, then to import from China or Cambodia. We'll grow more of our own food, produce more of our own products. And yes the price of stuff we don't really need will go up drastically to subsidize the cost of those items we do need.

 

[Perotista]

You either have to pay all poor people a living wage or you have to subsidize their income with welfare so they can survive. The alternative is to let them die. So what is your solution.

Let them die? I grew up in an era when the only social program or entitlement was social security. No other government programs I know of were available. Most of those came when LBJ entered office. But around where I lived we have food, clothes and can drives for the poor and out of work. Charities like the Red Cross, Salvation Army, Kiwanis, Jaycees, a ton of church organizations all worked with and for the poor. It was more of a family helping family, neighbor helping neighbor, community helping community. No poor died.

There are many times I wonder if that era wasn't a better era than this one where everyone relies upon government. But I suppose it is all a matter of what one grew up with, community or government, and when on how some look at this.

 

[Slyhunter]

Let them die? I grew up in an era when the only social program or entitlement was social security. No other government programs I know of were available. Most of those came when LBJ entered office. But around where I lived we have food, clothes and can drives for the poor and out of work. Charities like the Red Cross, Salvation Army, Kiwanis, Jaycees, a ton of church organizations all worked with and for the poor. It was more of a family helping family, neighbor helping neighbor, community helping community. No poor died.

There are many times I wonder if that era wasn't a better era than this one where everyone relies upon government. But I suppose it is all a matter of what one grew up with, community or government, and when on how some look at this.

People now days are selfish. They don't help others as much as they used to unless forced. People see a mugging on the streets a lot of times they don't even bother calling 911 but move on and go about their own business. Do we want our country to do that?

Technically our country would be stronger if we got rid of the minimum wage and all government handouts. That includes corporate handouts. The strong will prosper with wild abandonment and no end in sight while the poor will huddle in our ditches and starve to death. But as a country we will be far greater, far stronger, far superior because of that. We'll be a country full of people who only cared about themselves. The successful would have fantastic futures that can only be imagined in science fiction books. All we have to do to do that is let our poor starve.

Do we want to be a strong country full of selfish assholes or do we want to be a compassionate country who takes care of it's own?


That's why my profile says I'm a Libertarian, slightly right more towards center. I took that test at lp.org. When I have a job and am paying my bills on time I'm a heartless bastard who doesn't care about his fellow man. As long as my family is fed and we can afford Disney every now and then I'm happy. But I'm unemployed and my family is living on welfare. I can't prattle the Libertarian bastion when the consequences of that is letting my own family starve to death and become homeless.

It's one thing preaching the strong survive the weak, ****em, that Libertarians espoused when your not one of the weak. I had an awesome job making $24.00 an hour. I've been replaced by the internet. They no longer need me to deliver their interoffice memos and bank proofs which kept the banking industry alive and thus the entire country at one time not so long ago. Now they send everything via the internet. My sister has hepatitis C and psoriasis of the liver needs the government to pay for the operation or she'll die. My mother is retired with osteopathic and can't work in a real job. The three of us together supports two kids. one High school drop out who is a slow learner and can't be educated enough to get a real job (luckily he got a job as a dishwasher and a cook). The other who stupidly thinks he can survive on the income of a musician. My family is the family that will become homeless and starve to death in a Libertarian ideal world. So I've had to change my philosophy to a Compassionate Libertarian. A realistic. A moderate.

 

[polgara]

Let them die? I grew up in an era when the only social program or entitlement was social security. No other government programs I know of were available. Most of those came when LBJ entered office. But around where I lived we have food, clothes and can drives for the poor and out of work. Charities like the Red Cross, Salvation Army, Kiwanis, Jaycees, a ton of church organizations all worked with and for the poor. It was more of a family helping family, neighbor helping neighbor, community helping community. No poor died.

There are many times I wonder if that era wasn't a better era than this one where everyone relies upon government. But I suppose it is all a matter of what one grew up with, community or government, and when on how some look at this.

:agree: Also, during FDR's time, he helped mitigate the effects of the Great Depression by making jobs available for men with his various alphabet programs. He understood that it was very important that men be the providers for their families in order to maintain their self esteem...something that is hard-wired in a man's psyche since the days of the first cavemen. And the people LOVED him for it! The country won, too, because of his far-seeing, in the formation of all the national parks we still enjoy, The Grand Coulee Dam, the miles of new roads; the water and sanitary systems we still use today, and most importantly, the hope
that he gave the people in those dark times that everything would be okay if we all worked together! :thumbs: We can do it again, because human nature has not changed, although the times have!

Good morning, Pero! :2wave:

 

[Mycroft]

Raising the minimum wage and not compensating those who make more than the minimum wage with pay raises too increases the buying power of those who need it the most and decreases buying power of those who need it least. Giving everyone a pay raise misses the point of raising the minimum wage. The problem is those on the bottom aren't receiving a living wage and have to take government handouts. you raise their pay to a living wage and you get rid of the government handouts at the same time.

To prevent employers from counter effecting this you link the minimum wage to the cost of living. Everytime the cost of living goes up so does the minimum wage. This will force employers to pay themselves and high earners less in order to be able to afford to pay the bottom rungs more.

The libertarian ideal of making yourself more valuable so that you get paid more than the minimum wage and **** those who are unable to do so leaves too many people in the dirt requiring governmental assistance. Unless we want our people to starve we either have to pay them more via employment or pay them more via handouts either case we still need to pay them more.

You think you got the solution, eh? We'll just use the government to make sure the poor have a living wage...those we determine to not need a wage increase won't get anything...and we'll get the money we need to pay for it from those whom we determine have too much. Problem solved, right?

Wrong.

The sort of central government planning and control that you envision never works. Oh, you can use force to bend people to the government will...for a while...but the government eventually loses control...the people rebel or just disregard the government. People, after all, want to do things their own way. The problem, though, is that after the dust settles the damage has been done. What we have left is worse than the problems we had in the beginning. This grand desire to use government to save the people will turn out to have ****ed the people.

Leave people alone and, like water, they will find their own level.

 

[Slyhunter]

You think you got the solution, eh? We'll just use the government to make sure the poor have a living wage...those we determine to not need a wage increase won't get anything...and we'll get the money we need to pay for it from those whom we determine have too much. Problem solved, right?

Wrong.

The sort of central government planning and control that you envision never works. Oh, you can use force to bend people to the government will...for a while...but the government eventually loses control...the people rebel or just disregard the government. People, after all, want to do things their own way. The problem, though, is that after the dust settles the damage has been done. What we have left is worse than the problems we had in the beginning. This grand desire to use government to save the people will turn out to have ****ed the people.

Leave people alone and, like water, they will find their own level.

Even if that level is homelessness and starvation which your post completely ignored.

 

[Mycroft]

Even if that level is homelessness and starvation which your post completely ignored.

Life sucks...**** happens...survival of the fittest...charity is a virtue...etc. Facts of life that affect people all over the world.

Government will take care of you. The worst thing you can inflict on people.