quote:

ORIGINAL: LishonTov

The Minimum Wage concept implies that there is some third party involved, someone who claims his decision is better than the one negotiated by the prospective buyer and seller. Though there are pragmatic reasons to oppose Minimum Wage, they are dangerous to make. By making those arguments one concedes the primary point. I say even IF Minimum Wage is increased or decreased and some socioeconomic benefit is gained, nevertheless it is gained at the expense of reality. Reality dictates prices. Fiat prices ALWAYS result in black-markets, just as water will always find its precise level.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny
My guess is that just about the same percentage don't trust the Democrats either.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub
But you see it has worked wonderfully...at least for those who are intended to profit from it. It amazes me how easy it is to fool people by putting up straw men like gay marriage to cover for greed...And the majority cannot see through the ruse... pitiful.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

I see no support for your position in the link you provided.



Now I will grant you it was never intended to spur the economy either...but that does not mean it will not do exactly that.



Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

So now the lefties and their cheerleading squad are worried about Walmart??? I need a fucking spreadsheet to keep up with these ever-shifting values of the day.

Tell you what. I screwed up on scheduling my time, and I'm going to have to do my Wally World run at the first of the month (thank God we are ok on chewies for the dogs, and I won't have to hit Winco). I'll let you know if I see fewer carts full of chips, soda, and packaged foods being paid for with Golden State Advantage EBT cards after I make the run.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

I see no support for your position in the link you provided.



Now I will grant you it was never intended to spur the economy either...but that does not mean it will not do exactly that.



Butch

Butch, as I said in the link... it's one explanation of income inequality, not some diatribe on the minimum wage. The MW is but one supposed 'cure' imposed by government. But it's a cure for just what? The link is about the actual disease the cure is supposed to help correct. It can't.


How does raising the minimum wage spur the economy? Granted, in the shortest run those benefiting shall have more to spend, but how long till prices rise as employers find that level needed to cover the added costs? Till then, many employers, being savvy enough to do the math, will reduce their workforce. It's fine Jill got the mandated raise, but what of Jack who got laid off? He's now dependent on unemployment. That is but a simplest descriptor.

As an aside, the FED has been fighting deflation (via QE), trying mightily, as were told, to keep wage and prices up (I'm ignoring the profit motive to those who actually benefit). It's not working. How much benefit would the poor and middle class get if prices were to fall? Allowing the dollars they do have to go further (increasing their purchasing power)? That would be a boon to the worker, and NOT to the banks. If prices were to fall, arguendo, ~2% or even 5-10%, how necessary would a wage increase be? Given that consumption is falling, how might one arguably get it to, if not outright rise, stabilize? (easy credit, which has fueled this economic rise we've seen for the past few decades, has ruined the middle class. The poor are being savaged. The banks and 1% are getting rich.)

The point behind the link is that the poor and middle class have seen their purchasing power rise less than wage and price inflation (lowering their standard of living) due to central bank, and even government, interference in the marketplace. Unless one goes to the old Soviet style of total governmental control over the economy, dictating every facet it, assigning wage rates, costs and sell points, etc... well, that didn't work.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

rob you didnt see this?
"The GOP-led push to cut the food stamps benefits to the tune of $5 billion left 47 million Americans reeling during a time of nearly record-level food insecurity."

"the reduction in SNAP [the U.S. government Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program] benefits that went into effect Nov. 1 is greater than we expected,” "

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Maybe Wal-Mart will not need the consumer to use food stamps and our taxes can be used in other more important areas...Heaven forbid maybe to reduce taxes on businesses...Why not try it what do we have to loose...corporate welfare is not working so good today.

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

A little off subject but I see two opposing paths to wealth in the US.

The first is the constant drum beat of marching Republicans and their supporters demanding ever increasing tax relief for business in America. The idea is making business less expensive to owners and investors which will simulate job creation… The so called trickle down economics. Creating jobs will then spur the economy and make up the reduction of tax income.

The second calls for business to pay at current or increased tax rate and to raise the minimum wage thereby giving the general public more money to spend at a business allowing said business to recoup the hit they take in taxes.

The results of the first option have been in for years and years… The money saved in taxes is not reinvested … it has not spurred job creation…it is simply taken as profit increasing the wealth of the top few percent of Americans and lowering the standard of living for the majority.

It is time to try the second option… if given a choice between making the rich richer and the rest of us poorer and trying another option… I am for increasing the minimum wage to a living wage… not just a few pennies and see how it plays put in the economy. If nothing else with this option our economy will either go up or come down together… rich and poor the same. I understand the cost of business will need to be passed on to the consumer but economic competition will keep it to a minimum. Business will survive but with a smaller profit margin per item… But the consumer will be able to by more items.

Maybe Wal-Mart will not need the consumer to use food stamps and our taxes can be used in other more important areas...Heaven forbid maybe to reduce taxes on businesses...Why not try it what do we have to loose...corporate welfare is not working so good today.

Butch

The businesses like walmart and target will survive. The little mom and pop business that are already operating on a small profit margin will not. They as consumers will not be able to buy more items because they will have declaired bankrupcy and be broke. But it will all be good because at that point we can add them to the medicaid roster and that will be more people signed up for healthcare. Good thing there will still be a walmart down the road that they can use their foodstamps at. But your right, business will survive.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Where... it has not been shown to me...by the way tell me when EVER the minimum wage has been a living wage in the past.

Butch

Here's one explanation of income inequality.


The minimum wage was never meant to be a living wage, not as I understand the MW to be. The MW puts an artificial floor for all workers. For example, does a 16 y/o, living at home, working their first job at McDonalds need a living wage?

People constantly focus on the wrong thing(s).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie
For example, does a 16 y/o, living at home, working their first job at McDonalds need a living wage?

No, but somebody working the same job to pay their rent and living expenses does.

So, what's en employer to do?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
2/3 of minimum wage earners are single mothers. Not what's supposed to be a living wage because economy isn't supposed to provide...a 'living wage' if it doesn't want to. Economy need only provide a profit.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: LishonTov

IMHO the debate about what the minimum wage should or should not be is ludicrous. Wages or salaries are just one sort of price. Price is the instant valuation given anything. There is no such thing as the "right price". The value of a thing (in economics obviously, not morals) is whatever the owner and the potential buyer agree on. There is no inherent value in anything. A brick of gold is just a heavy paperweight if no one is interested in buying it.
When we look at wages in these terms, the wage is the price that two parties agrees to accept, the seller (worker) and the buyer (employer).
Does any government have the Right to insert itself in the affairs of responsible adults? No. Though some governments may use the inherent threat of force to effect the marketplace, it is might without right.
If I have a pound of ________, and I want _____ dollars, and you want to pay no more than _________, we either compromise on a number we both benefit from or we do not do business. Period.
In regard to work and wages, if a responsible adult is willing to sell his time and labor for ________ and an employer will pay only _______, either they compromise on a number that both derive some benefit from, or they do not, period.
The Minimum Wage concept implies that there is some third party involved, someone who claims his decision is better than the one negotiated by the prospective buyer and seller. Though there are pragmatic reasons to oppose Minimum Wage, they are dangerous to make. By making those arguments one concedes the primary point. I say even IF Minimum Wage is increased or decreased and some socioeconomic benefit is gained, nevertheless it is gained at the expense of reality. Reality dictates prices. Fiat prices ALWAYS result in black-markets, just as water will always find its precise level.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

I see no support for your position in the link you provided.



Now I will grant you it was never intended to spur the economy either...but that does not mean it will not do exactly that.



Butch

Butch, as I said in the link... it's one explanation of income inequality, not some diatribe on the minimum wage. The MW is but one supposed 'cure' imposed by government. But it's a cure for just what? The link is about the actual disease the cure is supposed to help correct. It can't.


How does raising the minimum wage spur the economy? Granted, in the shortest run those benefiting shall have more to spend, but how long till prices rise as employers find that level needed to cover the added costs? Till then, many employers, being savvy enough to do the math, will reduce their workforce. It's fine Jill got the mandated raise, but what of Jack who got laid off? He's now dependent on unemployment. That is but a simplest descriptor.

As an aside, the FED has been fighting deflation (via QE), trying mightily, as were told, to keep wage and prices up (I'm ignoring the profit motive to those who actually benefit). It's not working. How much benefit would the poor and middle class get if prices were to fall? Allowing the dollars they do have to go further (increasing their purchasing power)? That would be a boon to the worker, and NOT to the banks. If prices were to fall, arguendo, ~2% or even 5-10%, how necessary would a wage increase be? Given that consumption is falling, how might one arguably get it to, if not outright rise, stabilize? (easy credit, which has fueled this economic rise we've seen for the past few decades, has ruined the middle class. The poor are being savaged. The banks and 1% are getting rich.)

The point behind the link is that the poor and middle class have seen their purchasing power rise less than wage and price inflation (lowering their standard of living) due to central bank, and even government, interference in the marketplace. Unless one goes to the old Soviet style of total governmental control over the economy, dictating every facet it, assigning wage rates, costs and sell points, etc... well, that didn't work.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Where... it has not been shown to me...by the way tell me when EVER the minimum wage has been a living wage in the past.

Butch

Here's one explanation of income inequality.


The minimum wage was never meant to be a living wage, not as I understand the MW to be. The MW puts an artificial floor for all workers. For example, does a 16 y/o, living at home, working their first job at McDonalds need a living wage?

People constantly focus on the wrong thing(s).

2/3 of minimum wage earners are single mothers. Not what's supposed to be a living wage because economy isn't supposed to provide...a 'living wage' if it doesn't want to. Economy need only provide a profit.

quote:

The minimum wage was never meant to be a living wage, not as I understand the MW to be. The MW puts an artificial floor for all workers. For example, does a 16 y/o, living at home, working their first job at McDonalds need a living wage?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

I see no support for your position in the link you provided.



Now I will grant you it was never intended to spur the economy either...but that does not mean it will not do exactly that.



Butch

Butch, as I said in the link... it's one explanation of income inequality, not some diatribe on the minimum wage. The MW is but one supposed 'cure' imposed by government. But it's a cure for just what? The link is about the actual disease the cure is supposed to help correct. It can't.


How does raising the minimum wage spur the economy? Granted, in the shortest run those benefiting shall have more to spend, but how long till prices rise as employers find that level needed to cover the added costs? Till then, many employers, being savvy enough to do the math, will reduce their workforce. It's fine Jill got the mandated raise, but what of Jack who got laid off? He's now dependent on unemployment. That is but a simplest descriptor.

As an aside, the FED has been fighting deflation (via QE), trying mightily, as were told, to keep wage and prices up (I'm ignoring the profit motive to those who actually benefit). It's not working. How much benefit would the poor and middle class get if prices were to fall? Allowing the dollars they do have to go further (increasing their purchasing power)? That would be a boon to the worker, and NOT to the banks. If prices were to fall, arguendo, ~2% or even 5-10%, how necessary would a wage increase be? Given that consumption is falling, how might one arguably get it to, if not outright rise, stabilize? (easy credit, which has fueled this economic rise we've seen for the past few decades, has ruined the middle class. The poor are being savaged. The banks and 1% are getting rich.)

The point behind the link is that the poor and middle class have seen their purchasing power rise less than wage and price inflation (lowering their standard of living) due to central bank, and even government, interference in the marketplace. Unless one goes to the old Soviet style of total governmental control over the economy, dictating every facet it, assigning wage rates, costs and sell points, etc... well, that didn't work.

It's been said (by someone, can't recall who) that if you took all the money/wealth, etc. on Earth and distributed it equally amongst every human on the planet....in less than 10 years, the rich would be roughly about where they are now (some of the names would change) and the poor would be as poor or poorer.

Raising the minimum wage won't change anything for more than 180 days.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Maybe Wal-Mart will not need the consumer to use food stamps and our taxes can be used in other more important areas...Heaven forbid maybe to reduce taxes on businesses...Why not try it what do we have to loose...corporate welfare is not working so good today.

Butch

Corporate welfare always works...for the corporation. That's the real reason it exists and it is bought and paid for so.....?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

A little off subject but I see two opposing paths to wealth in the US.

The first is the constant drum beat of marching Republicans and their supporters demanding ever increasing tax relief for business in America. The idea is making business less expensive to owners and investors which will simulate job creation… The so called trickle down economics. Creating jobs will then spur the economy and make up the reduction of tax income.

The second calls for business to pay at current or increased tax rate and to raise the minimum wage thereby giving the general public more money to spend at a business allowing said business to recoup the hit they take in taxes.

The results of the first option have been in for years and years… The money saved in taxes is not reinvested … it has not spurred job creation…it is simply taken as profit increasing the wealth of the top few percent of Americans and lowering the standard of living for the majority.

It is time to try the second option… if given a choice between making the rich richer and the rest of us poorer and trying another option… I am for increasing the minimum wage to a living wage… not just a few pennies and see how it plays put in the economy. If nothing else with this option our economy will either go up or come down together… rich and poor the same. I understand the cost of business will need to be passed on to the consumer but economic competition will keep it to a minimum. Business will survive but with a smaller profit margin per item… But the consumer will be able to by more items.

Maybe Wal-Mart will not need the consumer to use food stamps and our taxes can be used in other more important areas...Heaven forbid maybe to reduce taxes on businesses...Why not try it what do we have to loose...corporate welfare is not working so good today.

Butch

The businesses like walmart and target will survive. The little mom and pop business that are already operating on a small profit margin will not. They as consumers will not be able to buy more items because they will have declaired bankrupcy and be broke. But it will all be good because at that point we can add them to the medicaid roster and that will be more people signed up for healthcare. Good thing there will still be a walmart down the road that they can use their foodstamps at. But your right, business will survive.

Small businesses don't survive Walmart.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

A little off subject but I see two opposing paths to wealth in the US.

The first is the constant drum beat of marching Republicans and their supporters demanding ever increasing tax relief for business in America. The idea is making business less expensive to owners and investors which will simulate job creation… The so called trickle down economics. Creating jobs will then spur the economy and make up the reduction of tax income.

The second calls for business to pay at current or increased tax rate and to raise the minimum wage thereby giving the general public more money to spend at a business allowing said business to recoup the hit they take in taxes.

The results of the first option have been in for years and years… The money saved in taxes is not reinvested … it has not spurred job creation…it is simply taken as profit increasing the wealth of the top few percent of Americans and lowering the standard of living for the majority.

It is time to try the second option… if given a choice between making the rich richer and the rest of us poorer and trying another option… I am for increasing the minimum wage to a living wage… not just a few pennies and see how it plays put in the economy. If nothing else with this option our economy will either go up or come down together… rich and poor the same. I understand the cost of business will need to be passed on to the consumer but economic competition will keep it to a minimum. Business will survive but with a smaller profit margin per item… But the consumer will be able to by more items.

Maybe Wal-Mart will not need the consumer to use food stamps and our taxes can be used in other more important areas...Heaven forbid maybe to reduce taxes on businesses...Why not try it what do we have to loose...corporate welfare is not working so good today.

Butch

The businesses like walmart and target will survive. The little mom and pop business that are already operating on a small profit margin will not. They as consumers will not be able to buy more items because they will have declaired bankrupcy and be broke. But it will all be good because at that point we can add them to the medicaid roster and that will be more people signed up for healthcare. Good thing there will still be a walmart down the road that they can use their foodstamps at. But your right, business will survive.

Small businesses don't survive Walmart.

Walmart has been around for over 50 years and they are still around, so yea they do.