Well it sounded good. ..
-
I don't understand why minimum wage laws aren't a function of the size and profitability of the company. Just take people working in coffee shops for instance, should a local owned coffee shop have to pay it's employees the same as Starbucks? The flip side, should Starbucks be able to pay it's employees the same as a struggling local shop? There's a balance point we nee to find. Companies like Starbucks and Walmart etc, etc...should reward their employees for helping get to where they're at. These companies names should never come up in minimum wage debates because they don't need to. So I don't think it's unreasonable to say hey assholes, take care of your employees. Has to be within reason of course.
The argument that minimum wage jobs should be "starting points" is ridiculous. Anyone that spends more than 5 fucking minutes educating themselves on our current labor market ought to understand that we're more and more a service economy. And there's only so many higher collar jobs to be had. And those jobs are dwindling as well. It's a function of a well structured society to have a work force that can sustain the bare minimums. Again anybody with a lick of common sense and runs some numbers will quickly agree that "just" living expenses like rent and utilities in even some bad neighborhoods quickly goes through a minimum wage check. And then people cry about not having a robust economy, all those "greedy" people hoarding their cash not spending for the holidays....well......
-
OBF - did you read the thing I posted about there being no correlation between unemployment and minimum wage?
Cleve - the way you achieve that is to make your company a co-op and pay them in dividends rather than a wage. Come to think of it, cal could do the same to avoid that conundrum.
-
Being pragmatic and wanting the economy to grow I look to history at what works to grow an economy. John Kennedy did it with tax cuts across the board. Ronald Reagan did it with tax cuts across the board. The stipulation for me is I would want to see the tax cuts mean job growth here and not see some companies move out of the country just to have even more profit.
Chris I think there are two sides on the minimum wage with valid arguments on both sides.
-
There certainly are, but to just say 'higher minimum wage means more unemployment' is demonstrably wrong.
-
The tax system was a lot different when JFK was around. He was talking about reducing the top tier rate from like 90% to 60%. Not the same situation that Reagan was in.
Reagan basically invented trickle down economics, an idea that David Stockman championed and then became critical of shortly after. I've seen before some of his administration even admitted that everybody knew the tax cuts were bogus but it was a nice kickback to his rich friends.
The lasting effects Reagan had on the economy have been a complete disaster and we still haven't recovered (looking like we never will at this point).
Economic growth under Reagan was strictly due to the economic cycle and Paul Volcker's Federal Reserve. His policies have been a total disaster otherwise.
-
The lasting effects of the Obama presidency will also be great. The national debt will be over 20 trillion by the time he leaves office. We had huge job growth under Reagan while after 7 years of Obama we still await the economic *summer recovery* predicted by Joe Biden. We still have one more summer left though.
-
Farm. Not just giant tomato garden.
And, we don't charge 15 dollars a tomato. Is there something
not right with the london fog drifting into your neighborhood?
It is about the effects of dramatically forcing minimum wage per hr....
on MINIMUM WAGE JOBS, not all jobs. Of course the effect was
negative in THAT graph.
Raising the minimum wage causes the loss of jobs to marginally qualified workers,
like those who are learning disabled, or physically disabled. Higher wages means
employers need higher productivity to sustain profitability - for those companies who
don't have the profitability margin to not worry about it. And, if I hire someone to
work at 7 bucks an hr, I understand I can hire someone I have to train, and isn't
the ideal person for the job in terms of experience or education, or physical or mental
ability. Raise it to 15 bucks, and I can easily hire a college kid with excellent abilities
to the job.
Special ed kids and adults go by the wayside. All too often, they do not have the
ability to be more efficient. You could go with one or two college kids, and replace
several young employees that have marginal skills for one reason or another.
The liberal "pie in the sky" doesn't work. There's this thing in the real world called gravity.
Throw a tomato straight up into the air, and it will come back back at you.
Raise minimum wage rates, and the "gravity" of the situation is, economic/employment repercussions.
http://fortune.com/2015/07/30/1223726-15-hour-minimum-wage-workers-fast-food/
-
The lasting effects of the Obama presidency will also be great. The national debt will be over 20 trillion by the time he leaves office. We had huge job growth under Reagan while after 7 years of Obama we still await the economic *summer recovery* predicted by Joe Biden. We still have one more summer left though.
The lasting effects of the Obama presidency will also be great. The national debt will be over 20 trillion by the time he leaves office. We had huge job growth under Reagan while after 7 years of Obama we still await the economic *summer recovery* predicted by Joe Biden. We still have one more summer left though.
Again, Reagan had the economic cycle on his side.
Obama was less fortunate as he took over during a huge recession/financial crisis.
I'm just saying the Reagonomics that is preached by politicians to this day is solely for the benefit of the top tier, it doesn't benefit economic growth.
Now, tax cuts can be beneficial to surge the economy during the "down cycles" Although not by cutting taxes for the incredibly rich top 10% (who will just funnel the extra money into their tax havens), but if you cut it for the everyday people you can see some growth because the extra money they are pocketing they are spending and putting back into the economy.
But you can't just lower taxes forever and be peachy jolly - the time for higher taxes is usually during the up cycles.
-
The lasting effects of the Obama presidency will also be great. The national debt will be over 20 trillion by the time he leaves office. We had huge job growth under Reagan while after 7 years of Obama we still await the economic *summer recovery* predicted by Joe Biden. We still have one more summer left though.
Again, Reagan had the economic cycle on his side.
Obama was less fortunate as he took over during a huge recession/financial crisis.
I'm just saying the Reagonomics that is preached by politicians to this day is solely for the benefit of the top tier, it doesn't benefit economic growth.
Now, tax cuts can be beneficial to surge the economy during the "down cycles" Although not by cutting taxes for the incredibly rich top 10% (who will just funnel the extra money into their tax havens), but if you cut it for the everyday people you can see some growth because the extra money they are pocketing they are spending and putting back into the economy.
But you can't just lower taxes forever and be peachy jolly - the time for higher taxes is usually during the up cycles.
Again, Reagan had the economic cycle on his side.
Obama was less fortunate as he took over during a huge recession/financial crisis.
I'm just saying the Reagonomics that is preached by politicians to this day is solely for the benefit of the top tier, it doesn't benefit economic growth.
Now, tax cuts can be beneficial to surge the economy during the "down cycles" Although not by cutting taxes for the incredibly rich top 10% (who will just funnel the extra money into their tax havens), but if you cut it for the everyday people you can see some growth because the extra money they are pocketing they are spending and putting back into the economy.
But you can't just lower taxes forever and be peachy jolly - the time for higher taxes is usually during the up cycles.
Reagan inherited an economic mess and it can be argued it was even worse than when Obama took office. I can think of a couple of things Reagan left after office such as a strong economy and strong military both of which will be lacking when Obama leaves office.
-
Again, Reagan had the economic cycle on his side.
Obama was less fortunate as he took over during a huge recession/financial crisis.
I'm just saying the Reagonomics that is preached by politicians to this day is solely for the benefit of the top tier, it doesn't benefit economic growth.
Now, tax cuts can be beneficial to surge the economy during the "down cycles" Although not by cutting taxes for the incredibly rich top 10% (who will just funnel the extra money into their tax havens), but if you cut it for the everyday people you can see some growth because the extra money they are pocketing they are spending and putting back into the economy.
But you can't just lower taxes forever and be peachy jolly - the time for higher taxes is usually during the up cycles.
Reagan inherited an economic mess and it can be argued it was even worse than when Obama took office. I can think of a couple of things Reagan left after office such as a strong economy and strong military both of which will be lacking when Obama leaves office.
Reagan inherited an economic mess and it can be argued it was even worse than when Obama took office. I can think of a couple of things Reagan left after office such as a strong economy and strong military both of which will be lacking when Obama leaves office.
I work in finance and I've heard nobody suggest that. In fact, the general consensus is that this is the worst since the great depression.
-
Again, Reagan had the economic cycle on his side.
Obama was less fortunate as he took over during a huge recession/financial crisis.
I'm just saying the Reagonomics that is preached by politicians to this day is solely for the benefit of the top tier, it doesn't benefit economic growth.
Now, tax cuts can be beneficial to surge the economy during the "down cycles" Although not by cutting taxes for the incredibly rich top 10% (who will just funnel the extra money into their tax havens), but if you cut it for the everyday people you can see some growth because the extra money they are pocketing they are spending and putting back into the economy.
But you can't just lower taxes forever and be peachy jolly - the time for higher taxes is usually during the up cycles.
Reagan inherited an economic mess and it can be argued it was even worse than when Obama took office. I can think of a couple of things Reagan left after office such as a strong economy and strong military both of which will be lacking when Obama leaves office.
Reagan inherited an economic mess and it can be argued it was even worse than when Obama took office.
No Reagan inherited an economy that was on the verge of an upswing. That combined with Paul Volcker are the reasons things were going well.
If you remove the noise you can see the economy is cyclical. It generally has up periods and down periods.
This is generally widely accepted:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_cycle
You'll also notice Obama inherited the worst economic recession since the great depression, yet he has reduced the deficit steadily every year since he's taken office (It increased under the "conservative" Bush)
Reagonomics still sucks, it's a big part of the reason G W Bush increased the deficit and debt by such an incredible amount. Cut taxes for the rich and guess what? It doesn't get reinvested into the economy or create jobs, it just reduces revenue. Crazy thought.
-
This Simple Graph Compares Reagan’s and Obama’s ‘Recoveries’
When Ronald Reagan took over from Jimmy Carter in ’81, things were actually worse economically compared to when Obama took over from George W. Bush in ’08.
Consider these three important comparisons of economic indicators, then and now:
– Unemployment was at 10.8% versus 7.7%
– Inflation (Consumer Price Index) was at 13.5% versus 2.7%
– Interest rates (prime rate) was at 21.5% versus 3.25%
In other words, Reagan inherited a bigger mess.
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/04/131256-simple-graph-compares-reagan-obamas-recoveries/
-
And I'm not an Obama supporter, but he's far from the worst president we've ever had - especially in terms of economy and growth. GW Bush is in the running though
-
obamao IS by far the worst president in our history.
He's a divider, is anti-Constitution, anti Christian, anti-2nd amendment,
corrupt to the core, hateful of American family principles, completely
pro-unborn and born child murder, pro-muslim extremist, a vile coward
and a sissy, a racist, marxist and doesn't believe in the American people,
undermining our Constitution and our freedoms, flooding our demographics,
especially in conservative states, with illegal immigrants, knowing that perhaps
30 percent of them are terrorists....and he's an asshole sumbeech.
-
To be fair, a jump from $7.50 to $15 is crazy. The problem is, $15 (or $12, or $18 or whatever) is where it should be now, and the problem is it hasn't been raised for a long time. If there were a law that stated national minimum wage would increase with cost of living year on year, starting from somewhere everyone agreed was acceptable, this wouldn't even be a discussion.
To be fair, a jump from $7.50 to $15 is crazy. The problem is, $15 (or $12, or $18 or whatever) is where it should be now, and the problem is it hasn't been raised for a long time. If there were a law that stated national minimum wage would increase with cost of living year on year, starting from somewhere everyone agreed was acceptable, this wouldn't even be a discussion.
This
we've raised it many times in the past
-
Well then they don't need to throw a fit when they realize that cleaning toilets isn't a lucrative career.
lucrative and livable are two different things
-
Farm. Not just giant tomato garden.
And, we don't charge 15 dollars a tomato. Is there something
not right with the london fog drifting into your neighborhood?
It is about the effects of dramatically forcing minimum wage per hr....
on MINIMUM WAGE JOBS, not all jobs. Of course the effect was
negative in THAT graph.
Raising the minimum wage causes the loss of jobs to marginally qualified workers,
like those who are learning disabled, or physically disabled. Higher wages means
employers need higher productivity to sustain profitability - for those companies who
don't have the profitability margin to not worry about it. And, if I hire someone to
work at 7 bucks an hr, I understand I can hire someone I have to train, and isn't
the ideal person for the job in terms of experience or education, or physical or mental
ability. Raise it to 15 bucks, and I can easily hire a college kid with excellent abilities
to the job.
Special ed kids and adults go by the wayside. All too often, they do not have the
ability to be more efficient. You could go with one or two college kids, and replace
several young employees that have marginal skills for one reason or another.
The liberal "pie in the sky" doesn't work. There's this thing in the real world called gravity.
Throw a tomato straight up into the air, and it will come back back at you.
Raise minimum wage rates, and the "gravity" of the situation is, economic/employment repercussions.
http://fortune.com/2015/07/30/1223726-15-hour-minimum-wage-workers-fast-food/
-
Didn't read what you said, was in response to the idea that higher minimum wage means higher unemployment.
To your point, you would have cal up in arms about such an idea - that you could earn more money just by squirting out kids, how very liberal of you. For me, I don't think it should be tied to how many people you need to support, it should be enough to comfortably support one person when working 40 hours per week.
No problem Chris. I thought you were responding to me.
I would guess, however, that if I owned a shop and needed a little bit of help raising my cost by 50% would be something of a hardship.
WSS
No problem Chris. I thought you were responding to me.
I would guess, however, that if I owned a shop and needed a little bit of help raising my cost by 50% would be something of a hardship.
WSS
You wouldn't be raising your costs 50%. The cost of labor is not the entire cost of the good/service.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login