If this happens, what will the impact be on workers, businesses, and the economy overall?
$9 minimum wage
|by Anonymous||reply 202||02/23/2013|
Economic studies have shown that a rise in the minimum wage spurs increased business growth. But you Tea Party NAZIs don't give a shit.
|by Anonymous||reply 2||02/13/2013|
So how many of the 22 mil. unemployed will this proposal re-employ?
|by Anonymous||reply 3||02/13/2013|
Saw Obama announce this yesterday. They absolutely should do it. Both of my parents have busted their ass at least 8hrs a day and they are still considered to be at the poverty level. Workers will love it assuming we're talking about white collar shitheads who hire teams of lawyers to jump through tax loopholes while the poor blue collar saps bridge the tax gap. Businesses will hate it because this means less profit/lower wages for people at the top (presumably). I'm assuming more disposable income for such a large subset of the population would be a tremendous positive for the US. We all know that reducing outsourcing would help loads. Much better than that 'trickle down' bullshit the rich so often espouse. Here's hoping Obama actually gets this shit done.
|by Anonymous||reply 4||02/13/2013|
What's the current minimum?
Here in Canada it's (iirc) $10.75
Waitresses and bartenders have it easier here, earning minimum wage AND taking home tips
|by Anonymous||reply 5||02/13/2013|
That's an interesting question though, R5. Do tips count towards the minimum wage? Can an employer pay an employee who earns tips less....say $7 per hour, because they also declare another $3 per hour in tips?
|by Anonymous||reply 6||02/13/2013|
Australia is $15
|by Anonymous||reply 7||02/13/2013|
[R6] I don't think it's actually legal for them to do that though
Alot of employers would make u hand it all over, then they would distribute everything out themselves as a bonus (probs just all into their own pockets tho)
But that's if u actually hand it in, lbr. If u worked at one of those massage parlours by the airport and got huge tips for your great, ahem, happy endings, you could probably support an additional person just off tips alone lmao
|by Anonymous||reply 8||02/13/2013|
The current minimum wage for "tipped" employees is $2.13 per hour.
|by Anonymous||reply 9||02/13/2013|
R9, damn that is shockingly low. I don't think it's like that here. If anyone can show me proof that I'm wrong, I'd actually be glad to read it (I like to be informed, no shade throwing, just like knowing about inequalities throughout the world)
In Canada they recently changed a law saying that employers have to accommodate for child care for their employees. I don't remember the exact quote tho
|by Anonymous||reply 10||02/13/2013|
Anyways, if minimum wage increased, wouldn't it also raise inflation and the cost of living in the US?
I took an economics course in school ( I heard it was easy), so feel free to use economics terms tbh.
|by Anonymous||reply 11||02/13/2013|
R11 You're right. 9 bucks an hour still is not a living wage in most places in the US. It's slave wages. Try living in Boston or San Francisco on a wage like that and get back to me.That being said Wall Street and the economic gurus will react adversely to such a move.To economic bean counters,they'll use the increased minimum wage as an excuse to point to an economic downturn. That little itty bit change in the MW would drive them all crazy.
|by Anonymous||reply 12||02/13/2013|
[quote]Australia's minimum wage is $15.96 per hour or $606.40 per week
|by Anonymous||reply 13||02/13/2013|
9 dollars?!?!? OMG minimum wage in my country is like 20 dollars!
|by Anonymous||reply 14||02/13/2013|
I have folks Canada and Australia. Those countries are firstly much smaller than the United States and would be akin to states like New York State or California in terms of the social welfare state etc so on. Those states BTW are not as well run as Canada or Australia BUT that's a topic for another thread.The US of A is much larger with states like Mississippi and Alabama that are verging on the third world! Unionized construction labor in the US Northeast is a very well paying job. Try doing that same job in the South even in a state like Florida and you are not making as much(that's an understatement) and the benefits are meager if existent at all.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||02/13/2013|
Another thing to consider is that an increase in the minimum wage functions as a secret tax hike--people make more so they pay more, and just as importantly, it tends to bump people into higher tax brackets. Of course it also helps with Social Security and Medicare.
Nothing wrong with that, in might be the easiest (most politically popular) way to increase revenues.
|by Anonymous||reply 17||02/13/2013|
True. But a better way to increase revenue and wipe out the debt would be to legalize marijuana and tax it.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||02/13/2013|
R16 That itty bitty change comment was sarcastic. We need an emoticon or a highlighter to do that here sometimes.....
I understand your argument BUT have you tried living on the minimum wage? It's obscenely low especially in wealthier parts of the country. You might be able to live in Alabama BUT not on the coasts.
Retail costs will increase? What do you want a VAT tax instead? More regressive taxes. A stop to immigration to stem low wage jobs and t lower unemployment rates especially among African Americans which is very high relative to the rest of the population?
|by Anonymous||reply 19||02/13/2013|
In 1996 when I was in high school, minimum wage was $4.75. Assuming 3% annual inflation (a low number, obviously) that'd be $8.33/hr in 2015 (when this $9/hr law is slated to take effect). So it's really not too far off where it should be.
|by Anonymous||reply 20||02/13/2013|
PS. They raise Social Security benefits every year according to the rate of inflation...why don't they do the same every year with the minimum wage?
|by Anonymous||reply 21||02/13/2013|
R18 True. Also legalize escorts and hookers and see how much money could be made from that as well.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||02/13/2013|
R21, I think some states tie their minimum wage to the rate of inflation.
|by Anonymous||reply 24||02/13/2013|
Most unbiased studies show that the impact on employment is minimal.
This reminds me of the Dominos Pizza guy bitching that providing health care to all his employees was going to increase the cost of his $10 pizza by 12 cents. He thought that was dire, but who is going to pass on a pizza over 12 cents?
|by Anonymous||reply 25||02/13/2013|
[quote]Do tips count towards the minimum wage? Can an employer pay an employee who earns tips less....say $7 per hour, because they also declare another $3 per hour in tips?
[quote]The current minimum wage for "tipped" employees is $2.13 per hour.
Only in the US would such an arrangement be considered acceptable.
|by Anonymous||reply 26||02/13/2013|
Honestly, We've had one of the world's highest minimum wages for over a century here in Australia. The last I looked we're doing fine.
Time the rest of the country stopped subsidising Walmart and other cheap-ass employers.
|by Anonymous||reply 27||02/13/2013|
[R1] is busy eating gold plated feces from a platinum plate.
|by Anonymous||reply 28||02/13/2013|
20 is more in line, 9 is still slave wages.
|by Anonymous||reply 29||02/13/2013|
Trouble is, the people that are making 9 dollars an hour now are going to be at minimum wage. They'll want a rise, which is what should be done, and won't.
|by Anonymous||reply 30||02/13/2013|
19 states already raised the minimum wage. What it does, is help raise the standard of living. Every single prediction of disaster has been unproven.
It doesn't destroy the economy. It helps the economy. People spend money. If you were a single parent trying to exist on $14,000 a year, you'd probably understand better.
To even consider it to be OK to pay a full time employee $7.50 an hour with no benefits? Ridiculous. The doomsayers are nuts. They're wrong.
These GOP assholes would reduce this country to second tier status if they could. They want no food stamps, no Medicare, no Social Security, no Medicaid, no abortion, no public education except one that teaches creationism, no gays etc.
What kind of backward assed country are they trying to create. I am tired of this crap. It's time to move forward and leave these cretins in the dust.
70 years ago, these same assholes were opposing the union movement, saying we couldn't afford it. But we did it anyway and created the fucking middle class. I abhor stupidity.
|by Anonymous||reply 31||02/13/2013|
R29, it's 20 here. Then again.. I do live in the most expensive country in the world, and everything here is three times as expensive as in the US.
|by Anonymous||reply 32||02/13/2013|
At my last retail gig before I got a "real" office job, I made $12/hr. Even at a steady 40 hours per week (a situation the company has since done away with to avoid having to provide benefits), that was just about the minimum acceptable salary. I can't imagine having to live on less than that.
|by Anonymous||reply 33||02/13/2013|
Minimum wage should be a lot more than $9. It's criminal that anyone should be paid so little.
|by Anonymous||reply 34||02/13/2013|
Tell me again how America is the greatest country in the world.
People can't even live on a proper wage here. This is a result of a society so obsessed with sucking the dick of corporations, and being placated by the teat of capitalism. At the same time socialism, or anything which supports the idea of a society and citizens caring for one another is rejected and made taboo.
|by Anonymous||reply 35||02/13/2013|
[quote]going to be at minimum wage. They'll want a rise, which is what should be done, and won't.
|by Anonymous||reply 36||02/13/2013|
[quote]But employer groups say that raising the federal minimum wage would cost jobs, and hiking state rates doesn't help reduce poverty.
They say this every time the minimum wage is due to be increased, however their doom and gloom predictions never come true. It is kind of funny how Regressived believe in trickle down economics but only when its wealthy people getting more money.
|by Anonymous||reply 37||02/13/2013|
The Australian minimum wage is USD $16.49 (AUD$15.96) per hour.
It hasn't hurt Australia:
Australia's current unemployment rate = 5.4%. US = 7.9%
Australia topped the OECD's 2012 Better Life Index (overall quality of life) US = 3
According to Credit Suisse's 2012 annual Global Wealth Index, Australia topped the table by a considerable margin in terms of median wealth.
Australia's median wealth of USD $194,000 is highest in the world. US = $38,786
Australia's mean wealth per adult (USD $355,000) is second only to Switzerland's. US = $262,351
The proportion of Australians with personal wealth above USD $100,000 = 8 times the world average and is the highest of any country.
|by Anonymous||reply 38||02/13/2013|
Miss OP, I think it's time for a little shut eye for you.
|by Anonymous||reply 39||02/13/2013|
I notice prices have gone up even when minimum wage has not.
Does that help you understand?
|by Anonymous||reply 40||02/13/2013|
^ Freeper troll @ R41.
|by Anonymous||reply 42||02/13/2013|
You lose all credibility when you suggest that anyone wants to "wreck the economy."
When will you freepers learn?
|by Anonymous||reply 43||02/13/2013|
[quote] the American economy wrecked.
It IS wrecked you fucking TWIT. And it's you capitalist cannibals, who ride around in Jazzies, buying the cheapest, most disposable made-in-China garbage from Wal-Mart while singing "God Bless America" at full voice, who MADE it wrecked. You stupid brainwashed Fox News zombies blame the poor, the suffering and the starving the enemies while making the rich fucks of this world who sell our souls to China the heroes. And you've completely forgotten that YOU are the poor and the suffering and the starving too.
You'll live on your principles until your dead in a gutter, you stupid shithead. Until we're all dead - just so you can live in your glory of this concept of America which is dead, dead, dead.
Fuck you, fuck every single one of you capitalist freaks.
|by Anonymous||reply 44||02/13/2013|
[quote]Another thing to consider is that an increase in the minimum wage functions as a secret tax hike--people make more so they pay more, and just as importantly, it tends to bump people into higher tax brackets.
If you think anyone who's going from $7.50/hr to $9/hr is getting bumped into a higher tax bracket, you really know nothing about being poor.
|by Anonymous||reply 45||02/13/2013|
R46 Too bad the facts dont support what you are trying to sell us here. Then again, facts do have a well known liberal bias.
|by Anonymous||reply 47||02/13/2013|
Yes, abolish minimum wage so that way we can ensure that "the board" can dole out even bigger bonuses to the capitalistic top scum. And be sure that those little underlings pay taxes, because we are rich and deserve to pay none.
|by Anonymous||reply 48||02/13/2013|
So when we cut taxes on the rich so they have more money to spend it's called Trickle Down Economics and the economy prospers.
When we raise wages so the poor have more money to spend it destroys the economy?
I really don't understand Republican math.
|by Anonymous||reply 49||02/13/2013|
Rethuglican math is based on fiction.
|by Anonymous||reply 50||02/13/2013|
What we need is a MAXIMUM wage law and 90% taxation on all income from all sources after the first ten million.
The problem is not that there are too many poor people, it's that there are too many rich people with too much money hoarded amongst them. They can start sharing more with the rest of us peacefully or they can expect to lose all they have violently. That is what it's coming to.
|by Anonymous||reply 51||02/13/2013|
Maybe we just shouldn't spend trillions on pointless wars instead.
|by Anonymous||reply 52||02/13/2013|
Australia has a minimum wage of $16. it also has half the unemployment rate of the US.
|by Anonymous||reply 53||02/13/2013|
Dumb question! All those saying Australia, Canada etc, have higher minimum wages... Don't you have to take into account the rate exchange to see what's the equivalent? Example: how much AUS $15 is to US $$?
|by Anonymous||reply 54||02/13/2013|
15.52 US dollars.
So we should have a minimum of 15.52 to compare.
|by Anonymous||reply 55||02/13/2013|
And what percentage of your pay goes towards rent in Australia? I'm sure it's not much different than here.
|by Anonymous||reply 56||02/13/2013|
Yeah, why is everyone assuming $15 AU and CA are the same as $15 US?
|by Anonymous||reply 57||02/13/2013|
R57 Australia and Canada don't have a city that is so poverty stricken like Detroit OR a state down in the dumps education and economically like Alabama.Also the fact that OZ and Canuckland are much smaller are not up for equal comparisons because the US is 10 tens their size population wise.Now if you want to analogize the US to the EU with each country representing a cluster of states that would be more apt.Germany would be the US Northeast and Alabama would be Greece!
|by Anonymous||reply 59||02/13/2013|
[quote]Are you telling us that more customers show up when employees get a pay hike?
Here's a hint: when people have more disposable income, they tend to spend it.
|by Anonymous||reply 60||02/13/2013|
$9 in 2 fucking years. It should be $10 NOW. No one can live off of that.
|by Anonymous||reply 61||02/13/2013|
High schoolers can. Or a couple both working. I made it on $10/hr when I was in college just fine.
|by Anonymous||reply 63||02/13/2013|
No, r62, its about hoarding money. There is only so much out there, and the ultra rich have managed to hoard and hide billions tax free. This is money that should be in the system, and not out in some offshore account.
Yeah, I have a job, asshat, and I PAY taxes without manipulation, cheating or bending the law by purchasing politicians.
Now do you get it?
|by Anonymous||reply 64||02/13/2013|
[quote] Anyways, if minimum wage increased, wouldn't it also raise inflation and the cost of living in the US?
It's going to increase anyway. It (inflation / cost of living) certainly hasn't decreased in the last 15 yrs.
I don't think it's the best time to do this. In the next year A lot of businesses are going to be hit hard with Obama care. They can't afford to pay their staff $1.75 more an hour
|by Anonymous||reply 65||02/13/2013|
[quote]They can't afford to pay their staff $1.75 more an hour
Sounds like those business are doomed to fail anyway.
|by Anonymous||reply 67||02/13/2013|
employers will just cut hours of the employees. What they need to do is have mandatory work week for employees. Not this one week 20 hours the next week 10.
|by Anonymous||reply 68||02/13/2013|
r68, wants the Federal government to dictate work schedules and time for pee breaks for private businesses, hiring thousands of inspectors to make sure the rules are upheld.
|by Anonymous||reply 69||02/13/2013|
Rent is cheaper in Sydney than say New York.
|by Anonymous||reply 70||02/13/2013|
So, since business owners will suffer a 25% reduction in profits as a result of the increased minimum wage and Obamacare, I assume R67 will be happy to do his part to support the economy by taking a 25% pay cut as well.
|by Anonymous||reply 71||02/13/2013|
Not worth working in the US. Slave wages.
|by Anonymous||reply 72||02/13/2013|
Just to be clear for some of these foreign posters, US minimum wage is now $7.25/hr
It is the suggestion of raising it to $9/hr that makes freepers upset. They wish it to stay the same or be reduced.
$9/hr is still near poverty, but I don't know anyone now making $7.25 who would oppose it.
It is only those with an interest in keeping the poor people poor who wish to keep/lower the minimum wage.
|by Anonymous||reply 73||02/13/2013|
R62, the rich are STEALING the wealth of this nation from the rest of us.
They will either learn to SHARE the wealth or they will have to be killed in cold blood one day. It's that simple.
|by Anonymous||reply 74||02/13/2013|
R66, still doesn't get it, and probably never will.
|by Anonymous||reply 75||02/13/2013|
R66's mother was too busy to teach him how to share.
|by Anonymous||reply 76||02/13/2013|
Notice how R77 attcks R74 but not R73.
|by Anonymous||reply 79||02/13/2013|
Uh, yeah @ R79, I can't be bothered to scold everyone. I'll reserve my "attacks" for people who threaten murder.
|by Anonymous||reply 80||02/13/2013|
You can be and are bothered to scold EVERYONE, R80.
Because you get money for it. Do think you aren't recognized as a paid GOP troll?
You get paid for every illogical and unhinged anti-poor, anti-black, anti-gay post you make.
Maybe a quarter a post is the price of your soul.
Good luck when you meet Jesus.
|by Anonymous||reply 81||02/13/2013|
Just a question, How does it work in Germany where there is no minimum wage? Are there other laws that protect workers? There certainly does not seem to be the race to the bottom that we have here.
|by Anonymous||reply 82||02/13/2013|
 In Germany they have industry based wages. So there are minimum wages, but it depends on the job. Which is sort of true in the US too since "tipped workers" have a separate minimum wage than other workers.
|by Anonymous||reply 83||02/13/2013|
A high minimum wage does NOT cause inflation. Australia and Canada all have higher minimum wages and they are doing fine. Some cities within the US already have a minimum wage above $10.00 and the cost of living has not increased substantially.
People in this country are just too dumb to realize that the inflation hysteria is just something big business says to they can continue to underpay US workers.
Keep in mind that adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage in the 1960's in the US was actually higher.
The US minimum wage should be adjusted for inflation and should be set at least $11.00 for 2013.
|by Anonymous||reply 85||02/13/2013|
[quote]how is attendance at those OWS rallies these days?
We may yet see a day when masses of us experience true hunger. Should that come to pass, we are going to see a breakdown in lawful behavior. We live in a fragile and perilous time. We shouldn't be complacent that things are going to remain as they are.
|by Anonymous||reply 86||02/13/2013|
Seems appropriate for this thread.
|by Anonymous||reply 87||02/13/2013|
[quote] It doesn't destroy the economy. It helps the economy. People spend money. If you were a single parent trying to exist on $14,000 a year, you'd probably understand better.
That isn't true. People who have kids have access to a lot of government programs. There isn't much available for single people. A single parent who earns $14,000 a year can get medicaid for themselves and their child. That means free medical. No co-pays and free dental. That single mother is doing better than a lot of single people who earn a lot more but have to pay for health/dental care.
Medicaid does cover single people who earn less than $296 a month and have less than $1,000 in the bank. I had to be hospitalized for a week and it was $26,000. Guess what? I owe every dime. Right now I only work part time (with no medical insurance) and earn about $12,000 a year. I don't have access to government housing, food stamps or medicaid. That single mother who earns $14,000 and qualifies for every type of program is doing a lot better financially than I am. And if you are on these government programs the government will also pay for you to have a free cell phone (a basic phone, but free)
|by Anonymous||reply 88||02/13/2013|
R89,Very few people want to be paid just for breathing. However, the truth is that very few businesses actually earn their profits nowadays. They make them by cutting....and cutting... and cutting. It is like saying that your goal is to lose ten pounds so you cut your arm off. In the short term, yes, you lost ten pounds. But in the long term, you have done more harm than good. And, the fact is that the fat is still there.
Businesses need to earn their profits, not create them through "creative" bookkeeping and other economic slight of hand.
|by Anonymous||reply 90||02/14/2013|
Why not nothing? Would that work for you?
|by Anonymous||reply 92||02/14/2013|
Here is the evidence that raising the minimum wage has no or very little impact on employment. If any Regressives out there have proof that states anything contrary, by all means present it. Just be careful. That would mean you would have to use things like facts and figures and not some imaginary evidence.
|by Anonymous||reply 93||02/14/2013|
Exactly the answer I predicted.
|by Anonymous||reply 95||02/14/2013|
Still waiting for the proof that raising the minimum wage kills jobs.
|by Anonymous||reply 96||02/14/2013|
Suppose the minimum wage costs jobs. Doubtful, but assume it does.
We are told that our economy is the best in the world, and the only one that is possible. There is no alternative.
There are a small number of people who have immense wealth. The Waltons have six family members who have more wealth than 47% of the population.
The estimates of wealth that the rich have locked up and will not invest extend into the trillions of dollars, enough to put every person on earth doing work of value, certainly enough to have full employment here.
There are millions of people who are unemployed and want work, who are employed at jobs below their skill levels at less pay than their skill sets would bring.
There are millions who work two or three low-paying jobs to the detriment of their health and their families well-being so they can keep their houses and put food on the table, nothing more.
For these people there is no money for college education, no music lessons or dance lessons for the children, no family night at the movies, and certainly no vacations. They have no money for anything that would make life a bit easier and brighter.
Further education is the suggested route out, but the poor cannot afford it without mortgaging their futures and often not even then. In any case, educated workers cannot find good work for good pay either.
How can anyone say with a straight face that paying our poorest workers, those who do the hardest work, less than they can live, on will set this economy right?
You say minimum wage is an entry level job? But workers have to move up several steps before they make enough to pay rent and buy food.
We are the richest country in the world. We have more wealth in this country than any other country in history. Is this how the best economy displays its excellence?
How would a neutral observer judge our economy? He would say it was an abject failure.
|by Anonymous||reply 97||02/14/2013|
When I was 14y/o, my first after-school job was at McDonald's in a neighboring city. I was paid 4.75/hr and I usually worked on the weekends. All of us there were just young kids either in high school or in college. No silver-haired employee, except the manager who looked to be in his late 40s. We had fun. It was a temporary job that afforded us things our parents refused to buy. Never cross my mind at the time that these type of "rite-of-passage" employment could be, should be, or would something an adult would do.
When I was 16, I started working at the AMC Theatres. Again, best time of my life. Free movies for myself, family and friends. I was paid $5.50/hr and I thought I hit the jackpot. I was the youngest teen there; majority were college-age kids. 6hrs was the maximum hours I could work. I went to school and then headed for work. Life was good. I worked until I entered college 2 years later and I had $5000 in my savings.
I realize that times have changed and now adults are working at jobs that used to go to high school and college kids. Minimum wage was sufficient for us kids.
Does America want to be the kind of country where adults support themselves and their family in dead-end jobs that pay minimum wage? Should we encourage adults to go back to school and get proper skills and training for jobs of the future?
We're focusing on minimum when we should be focusing on creating jobs and training the workforce to do those jobs.
|by Anonymous||reply 98||02/14/2013|
We need to focus on minimum wage because it hasn't risen with the cost of inflation.
|by Anonymous||reply 99||02/14/2013|
A lot of people with degrees, skills, and training are working shit jobs R98.
In this economy skills and training guarantee nothing
|by Anonymous||reply 100||02/14/2013|
It's the same tired republican clichéd bullshit about hard work. All a crock of shit.
|by Anonymous||reply 102||02/14/2013|
Why wasn't that the case in The 1960's?
|by Anonymous||reply 103||02/14/2013|
r101 teens are already being pushed out of the market. Adults are now employed at jobs that have been done by HS and college kids. Why would an employer hire a teen whose employment hours are more restricted and regulated when they can easily hire an adult at the same price. Minors' work hours are limited, especially during the weekdays.
When I was at AMC, I couldn't work for more 3hrs on school nights; and 6.5 hours during the weekend. I had to be off before midnight. Sometimes the movies ran past 1am but the managers always rushed me out before then.
In this new economy, teens and young adults employment has greatly suffered.
|by Anonymous||reply 104||02/14/2013|
R101 You are right about older workers. I went to my local movie theater to pick up tickets and the young hetty girl at the counter was fucking around with her crackberry and her young male coworker was talking about picking up chicks in a rude vulgar way! What unbearable and unprofessional bores they are. The senior usher and managers there are so much more professional.
|by Anonymous||reply 105||02/14/2013|
r105 you don't seem to have a problem with a senior citizen working as an usher, but you take issues with two kids acting like kids?
Being an usher is the entry level of movie theater employment. Basically it was a janitorial duties. You clean the theaters and the bathroom. You clean the lobby. That's all you really do, clean. If it's during the day the crowd is slow, then you become the ticket taker. It's a rough job for an old person.
|by Anonymous||reply 107||02/14/2013|
R106 logic...Why should employers pay women equal pay, they could get pregnant.
|by Anonymous||reply 108||02/14/2013|
Equal job equal pay
|by Anonymous||reply 110||02/14/2013|
What has the impact been on our economy...while the rich have been taking everyones share of the profits? The idiots at the top doing very little more, then screwing up companies, making lousy decisions? Our economy has almost been destroyed by the disgusting greed at the top.
And all the Repugs can say..."it will cause inflation!" Fuck those motherfuckers...as if corporate GREED hasn't caused inflation!?
|by Anonymous||reply 111||02/14/2013|
It's "Heads I win, tales you lose."
The rich caused the economy to collapse with their financial games. When they needed our help, it was all, "We are in this together, if we fail, we will all be hurt."
So we made up their losses from our tax money.
When we say we need some help, they say, "No, you don't deserve anything. We are rich because we are smart and work hard. You are poor because you are lazy and dumb. We've got ours, go fuck yourself."
You know why the investors won't help those with the least? There are a lot of reasons, all selfish and ugly, but one of them, a big one, is that they haven't figure out a way to steal money from the poor and put it down as profit for the next quarter. That's all they care about, the bottom line next quarter.
Notice they don't complain if the war machine or the oil companies get help from the government -- when that happens their stock jumps.
If you point out that raising the minimum wage provides an significant bump to the economy, which every honest economist knows, left, right and center, that pisses them off. The government's money should go to them to play with, instead it goes to people they can't fleece. Poor people don't have shit to invest, so fuck them.
That's what privatizing Social Security and all public benefits and services is about -- putting public benefits into a pot so Wall Street can play games with it.
If they could take a poor persons' wages, a widows' mite, or a kid's candy and show a profit the next quarter, they would do it in a heart beat.
If they lose that money when their schemes blow up, money taken from people who cannot afford to lose anything, it is not their problem -- the people they stole from are poor because they are dumb.
|by Anonymous||reply 112||02/14/2013|
R112 speaks the truth. This is what it is truly about.
|by Anonymous||reply 113||02/14/2013|
So if teens are paid less, we are one step away from corporations hireing children and paying them a quarter an hour! All employees should make the same...no SLAVE LABOR...you goddamn fucking assholes...grow a brain.
|by Anonymous||reply 114||02/14/2013|
Ten years ago we were paying our retail workers at least $10/hour and it made a world of difference. They could survive - they weren't so tempted to steal from us, and they were engaged with the customers. We sold the store and they haven't raised wages since then, and it shows.
|by Anonymous||reply 115||02/14/2013|
In-N-Out pays their entry level part time workers $10 or more an hour. Managers make over 100K. Full time workers get benefits.
Yet, their food is still affordable and that's even without using the crap frozen ingredients all the corporate fast food chains use. And the company is thriving and could easily expand into other areas if they were willing to lower their standard for fresh ingredients. So far they won't.
How come In-N-Out hasn't gone out business while using a $10 minimum wage?
|by Anonymous||reply 116||02/14/2013|
In his State of the Union address to Congress President Obama called for a higher minimum wage. The purchasing power of the minimum wage peaked in the late 1960s at $9.22 an hour in 2012 dollars. That is almost two dollars above the current level of $7.25 an hour. Most of the efforts to raise the minimum wage focus on restoring its purchasing power to its late 1960s level, setting a target of around $10 an hour for 2015 or 2016, when inflation will have brought this sum closer to its previous peak in 2012 dollars.
While this increase would lead to a large improvement in living standards for millions of workers who are currently paid at or near the minimum wage, it is worth asking a slightly different question. Suppose the minimum wage had kept in step with productivity growth over the last 44 years. In other words, rather just keeping purchasing power constant at the 1969 level, suppose that our lowest paid workers shared evenly in the economic growth over the intervening years.
This should not seem like a far-fetched idea. In the years from 1947 to 1969 the minimum wage actually did keep pace with productivity growth. (This is probably also true for the decade from when the federal minimum wage was first established in 1937 to 1947, but we don’t have good data on productivity for this period.)
As the graph below shows, the minimum wage generally was increased in step with productivity over these years. This led to 170 percent increase in the real value of the minimum wage over the years from 1948 to 1968. If this pattern of wage increases for those at the bottom was supposed to stifle growth, the economy didn’t get the message. Growth averaged 4.0 percent annually from 1947 to 1969 and the unemployment rate for the year 1969 averaged less than 4.0 percent.
This link between productivity and the minimum wage ended with the 1970s. During that decade the minimum wage roughly kept pace with inflation, meaning that its purchasing power changed little over the course of the decade. The real value of the minimum then fell sharply in the 1980s as we went most of the decade without any increase in the nominal value of the wage, allowing it to be eroded by inflation. Since the early 1990s the real value of the minimum wage has roughly stayed constant, which means that it has further fallen behind productivity growth.
[bold]How was it decided to break the link between productivity growth and the minimum wage? It is not as though we had a major national debate and it was decided that low-wage workers did not deserve to share in the benefits of economic growth. This was a major policy shift that was put in place with little, if any, public debate.
If the minimum wage had kept pace with productivity growth it would be $16.54 in 2012 dollars. It is important to note that this is a very conservative measure of productivity growth. Rather than taking the conventional data published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the non-farm business sector, it uses the broader measure for economy-wide productivity. This lowers average growth by 0.2-0.3 percentage points.
This measure also includes an adjustment for net rather than gross output. It also uses a CPI deflator rather than a GDP deflator, which further lowers the measure of productivity growth. Even with making these adjustments the $16.54 minimum wage would exceed the hourly wage of more than 40 percent of men and more than 50 percent of women . We would have a very different society if all workers were earning a wage above this productivity linked minimum wage.
 If we just used non-farm productivity as the basis for indexing the minimum wage, the most commonly used measure of productivity, the minimum wage would have been $21.75 in 2012.[/bold]
 These adjustments are explained in Baker, 2007. For the years since 2006 we assumed that the difference in the growth rate of non-farm productivity and the growth of this adjusted measure is the same as it was on average for the years 2000-2006.
|by Anonymous||reply 117||02/14/2013|
Well said, r112.
You know, it would be one thing if the minimum wage had kept pace with inflation. But it didn't.
These corporate raiders figured they could make a killing but cutting everyone else's wages to give themselves a raise.
I agree we should have a maximum wage and also that there should be NO automatic stock options nor "borrowing" against "future profits" for these scumbags. The vast majority of these CEO's are in power simply because they sit on various BODs that suck each other's dicks. They can't be voted out because too many of their cocksucker buddies sit on their board and they sit on their buddy's board.
Kill them all. Let their gods sort them out.
|by Anonymous||reply 118||02/14/2013|
The short and sweet is that workers produced more per hour worked for forty years, but have received none of the value of that work. It has all gone to the rich.
If the minimum wage had kept pace with the rise in executive pay since 1993, the lowest paid workers would make over $23 per hour.
Then the rich have the balls to claim that we are the ones advocating class warfare. It has been class warfare against us for years, and we have been losing. But it is only called class warfare when we fight back.
As R117 says, this economic decline started about 1970. That happened because both parties broke an unspoken treaty with labor going back to the WWII war effort.
The rich said, "We will let you exist. We will bargain with you. We could crush you, but we won't. For your part, you will not strike during the war. You will not act independently of the major parties, and you will run the Reds out of your unions."
It turned out to be a terrible deal for labor, as the militants had predicted.
When it became clear that the deal was off, all the militant labor leaders had been McCarthied out, and unions didn't have leadership who knew the right tactics -- to stand with each other and not compromise with corporations.
With the unions tamed, the entire middle class began losing ground, and wealth shifted to the rich, the greatest transfer of wealth from one class to another in history.
One other thing. Posters here hate firedoglake. They will flame the source without examining the statistics.
If anyone attacks firedoglake or Red-baits Dean Baker, the author, or any left-poster for that matter, without showing where the statistics are wrong, the flamer is admitting he doesn't know what he is talking about.
|by Anonymous||reply 119||02/14/2013|
Well R78, that person would grab a friend, show the HR person their joint resume and ask that they split the salary.
Seriously, you would be hard pressed to find someone of legal working age, other than perhaps some illegal immigrants or someone else who needs to be paid under the table, who would be willing to be paid less than $7.25 an hour. I was paid more than that for my very simple work-study jobs a few years ago.
|by Anonymous||reply 120||02/15/2013|
Raise salaries. Next stores and manufacturers raise prices. You're right back where you started.
|by Anonymous||reply 121||02/15/2013|
Enslave the working class into no-benefit, low pay jobs. Corporations profit, split money amongst the senior executives. More people on welfare, less money going into the economy. Right back where we started.
|by Anonymous||reply 122||02/15/2013|
Except that it is not true.
The concept that the right, Fox News, and places like the Cato Institute try to sell is that whatever percentage the minimum wage goes up the product will go up the same amount. They never quite say that because they know it isn't true, but they leave that impression.
That's bullshit and every economist will tell you the same thing.
Pricing is a very complex issue subject to a lot of factors, and there is not necessarily any positive correlation at all.
The restaurant industry would be the hardest hit if any industry is hit at all, again see link. A study of a raise in Arkansas of 31% in 2006 caused a raise of a $10 meal to $10.20. Would that make the difference in dining out? No. Would it make a difference to the people who make minimum wage. You bet.
What do poor people do with their money. They spend it. Unlike rich people who buy investment gimmicks, they have no choice. It goes right back into the economy at the local level first.
Also there are contrary issues at work that hold down price increases if labor goes up. If they make more, workers stay at their jobs longer, reducing costs. In addition, a raise in wages helps the overall economy including the restaurant industry. As people make more they eat out more.
Every economist will tell you that the fastest way out of a recession is to pump money into the lowest sector because these people spend all you give them. That's what being poor means: You don't have enough for even the basics, and if you get a raise, you spend it on more basics.
That's why food stamps get renewed every time with even the conservatives supporting the program.
Money put into the bottom tier goes right back into the economy. In the example of food stamps, much of it ends up with Big Agra, but that's later. In the mean time it helps local grocers, hence local truck drives, warehouse workers, farm workers, etc.
The economists that oppose poverty aid grant that helping the poor helps everybody, they have different objections, dependance, inflation, which also don't hold water on inspection, the desire to privatize everything including welfare programs, but they admit that the net effect on the economy right now is positive.
Why do we constantly hear the lie that raising the minimum wage will hurt? Couple reasons. It is dog whistle to the right. It makes as much sense as saying Arab women wearing hajibs will lead to Shia law. It's nonsense but it gets the right riled up and out to vote.
The biggest factor is Walmart, the Krocs (McDonalds), and other jumbo stores and fast food outlets. Those organizations make up the largest employers in the U.S. and obviously have the largest group of low-paid workers.
If the minimum wage goes up, those workers just above minimum wage can expect raises, and those companies have their profits hurt. That is the biggest advantage these companies have on counterparts -- they pay shit.
That's the real lesson Fox News, Heritage, Cato, and all the other lying bastard play up this canard, to help those corporations.
Those few families who control these markets won't lose money if they can help it. You cannot oppose them in politics, on Wall Street, or in the media without incurring their wrath, or the wrath of their lieutenants in investing and on Fox talk shows.
Those bastards have stymied a raise in the minimum wage for decades by buying politicians in both parties, so the owners won't lose a nickle.
There are six Walton family members who have a combined wealth as large as the bottom 47 Percent of the population. Can't take a penny from them, right? Then the world as we know it would end.
Rather than let these owners loose a tiny fraction of an immense fortune they never worked for, rather than let a single analyist on Wall Street lose a fraction of a bonus, rather than let a single politician have to change offices over to K Street where he would make more money and rig the game even worse, they have rigged the struggle for a raise for years.
That's so they can help the rich and fuck those at the bottom.
|by Anonymous||reply 123||02/15/2013|
Cost of living in Australia is extremely high. Food is a lot more expensive than the US, as is most clothing and consumer goods. Rents vary wildly- inner Sydney would be almost equivalent to New York.
The US is a great place for Australians to vacation at the moment. (10 years ago, the Aussie dollar was worth half of what it is today against the US)
|by Anonymous||reply 124||02/15/2013|
A minimum wage of $9.00 is woefully inadequate. No one can live on that.
For the sake of argument, let's grant that raising the minimum wage would cost jobs. That raises the question: What kind of system is it in which the richest country in the history of the world, offers millions of jobs that can not or will not pay a living wage? I think I know the answer.
|by Anonymous||reply 125||02/18/2013|
I agree R125. I am embarrassed at the level of discussion on this issue in Congress. We need to be looking at at least $15 minimum wage, period. Other countries do much more. Of course they have universal healthcare too.
|by Anonymous||reply 126||02/18/2013|
I think many of the larger companies think it's ok to pay very low wages because their employees' wages are boosted by some sort of government aid. Their employees make so little, that (depending on other qualifying factors) they qualify for food stamps, WIC, public health insurance or other programs.
On MSNBC over the weekend, there was an actual small business owner who said that in a way, he was subsidizing the wages of employees of larger corporations.
|by Anonymous||reply 127||02/19/2013|
Why don't we take every bit of productivity growth of the entire nation for the last 30 years and hand it over to less than 1% of the population. (oops sorry we've done that already)
|by Anonymous||reply 129||02/20/2013|
* The majority (66 percent) of low-wage workers are not employed by small businesses, but by large corporations with over 100 employees;
* The 50 largest employers of low-wage workers have largely recovered from the recession and most are in strong financial positions: 92 percent were profitable last year; 78 percent have been profitable for the last three years; 75 percent have higher revenues now than before the recession; 73 percent have higher cash holdings; and 63 percent have higher operating margins (a measure of profitability).
* Top executive compensation AVERAGED $9.4 million last year at these firms, and they have returned $174.8 billion to shareholders in dividends or share buybacks over the past five years.
-- Walmart is the largest employer after the federal government. Average pay for hourly workers is between $8.81 an hour.
According to a House Democratic Study, each WalMart 200-employee store costs the tax payer $400,000 a year in welfare subsidies because the workers don't make enough to live. Internal documents show company policy of keeping wages low by denying promotions and assigned part time work.
The six WalMart heirs, who never worked a day for the fortune they inherited, are worth 115 Billion dollars. That is more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of our population.
That much money would build a high speed rail network, buy a years worth of food stamps, match the 2012 California budget, and pay off the combined shortfalls of all 50 states.
To make what the Walton family possesses, the average WalMart worker would have to work seven million years while spending nothing.
He would have to work 170,000 years to make what the WalMart family get every year in dividends.
In one year he makes as much as the Walton family makes in three minutes, if he gets 40 hours a week, which WalMart will make sure he can't
A Walmart worker earns a stack that would measure three feet tall in one hundred dollar bills each year.
The WalMart heirs get, not earn, a stack of hundred dollar bills two miles high each year.
A WalMart worker has nothing invested, obviously, he cannot afford rent and food.
The WalMart heirs have a fortune that would be 80 miles tall in hundred dollar bills.
If the minimum wage goes up, the WalMart workers' pay goes up. If those people make more money, then the economy gets better. If we don't raise the minimum wage we are subsidizing the WalMart fortune.
|by Anonymous||reply 130||02/20/2013|
Crazy Roland is clearly posting again. He's such a tool.
|by Anonymous||reply 133||02/22/2013|
[quote]The WalMart heirs get, not earn, a stack of hundred dollar bills two miles high each year
Do we really need these childish, Dr. Seuss analogies to illustrate how filthy rich the Walton family is?
I have a stack of pennies that reaches into outer space for all the taxes I've paid to support entitled slackers and scammers.
|by Anonymous||reply 134||02/22/2013|
Roland makes more sense than that.
Here's a conservative, paranoia article. It's mental illness.
|by Anonymous||reply 135||02/22/2013|
What will happen? More jobs will go overseas, especially manufacturing, unless you are willing to pay the delta for your products. (Hint - you aren't)
|by Anonymous||reply 136||02/22/2013|
R131 There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE to support your claim. In fact, there's tons of evidence that says the exact opposite.
Regressives are completely stupid when it comes to facts.
|by Anonymous||reply 137||02/22/2013|
R131, Uh no. In fact there are are several cases where raising the price increased consumer interests and lowering the price killed the brand. Econ 101 used to be how discounting killed the Ingersoll watch company, in spite of the fact that they held the very profitable Mickey Mouse license (this was the 1930s, obviously). It is *supply* and demand. One can increase the price and lower the supply. A good example is the Madame Alexander Doll company. In the early 1960s most doll companies were getting on the discount bandwagon. They were more concerned about keeping the price low or at least stable; so, they cut quality. Madame Alexander kept the quality constant and allowed prices to rise, but pulled out of the general toy market and concentrated on high end department stores and exclusives for FAO Schwarz. According to Ms. Berman, she actually made more profit selling fewer dolls at a higher price.
|by Anonymous||reply 138||02/22/2013|
[quote]What will happen? More jobs will go overseas.
Yes, because everyone wants to travel to Mumbai to get a Big Mac.
|by Anonymous||reply 139||02/22/2013|
The minimum isn't even going to be $9.00 until 2015. By that time employers will have adjusted up and we will still be underpaying people.
|by Anonymous||reply 140||02/22/2013|
"underpaying" is subjective.
I was 16 the last time I worked for minimum wage. I'm 55 now.
at 17 I was making MORE. Why? I learned shit and was worth more than a kid off the street.
|by Anonymous||reply 141||02/22/2013|
....and the minimum wage you were paid was back then was fair, r141, that's the problem now, it's not in line with where it ought to be.
|by Anonymous||reply 142||02/22/2013|
Minimum wage defenders always go silent when asked why not raise the minimum wage to $50/hr or $100/hr.
They know their "doesn't affect unemployment" argument flies right out the window.
Let's try this one then. If there were NO minimum wage, how much would people be willing to work for?
$0? Nope. $1/hr? Doubtful $5/hr? Maybe
The free market would find the correct price. Just like it does for everyone who makes MORE than the minimum wage.
|by Anonymous||reply 143||02/22/2013|
[quote]They know their "doesn't affect unemployment" argument flies right out the window.
Again, it needs to be pointed out that there's tons of evidence to support the claim that raising minimum wage does not effect employment.
If you have evidence to support your claim, lets see it.
|by Anonymous||reply 144||02/22/2013|
Problem theory, r141. Then we turn into a China-like worker situation. We are already heading that direction with the obscene disparity of income. The USA exploits the uneducated into slave like labor as it is. I can't even fathom a society without mandatory minimum wage, its an absurd scenario.
|by Anonymous||reply 145||02/22/2013|
R143 doesn't have any evidence besides irrational feelings. The minimum wage needs to be increased precisely because it has failed to keep up with inflation. When businesses don't pay their workers living wages, that forces the government to subdize the incomes of these workers with taxpayer money. I know Republicans would love nothing more than to model our business practices like China that essentially employs slave labor, but alas, we live in a civilized society. Pesky morals.
|by Anonymous||reply 146||02/22/2013|
Raising the minimum wage to $50.00 is just foolish and it doesn't deserve a response. It is like saying that instead of food stamps we should give the poor caviar. It is exaggeration as a form of derision.
Actually, we do have people working for $0.00. One of the scams in this economy is to say that an employee needs to work for no pay during a "training period" after the training period is over, the employee is let go and another sucker is brought in to work for free.
People who work for minimum wage are desperate for work. Taking advantage of their desperation is just plain wrong.
|by Anonymous||reply 147||02/22/2013|
Most people work for more than the minimum wage. Abolishing it wouldn't affect them.
Most minimum wage workers are teens or immigrants (illegal)
|by Anonymous||reply 148||02/22/2013|
Wrong R148. Minimum wage has always been women and the elderly as well as immigrants and teens. Now there are college educated people stuck in minimum wage jobs out of necessity.
|by Anonymous||reply 149||02/22/2013|
[quote]$0? Nope. $1/hr? Doubtful $5/hr? Maybe
That already happens. Most citizens of the US won't scrub toilets for minimum wage. Illegals will though, and happily. They probably would work for $1 under certain circumstances too. Working for $0 is of course called volunteering or forces labor depending on whether they are willing participants or not. Your point rings false
|by Anonymous||reply 150||02/22/2013|
R148, get over it, your not making any sense. If you haven't been able to grasp the negative effects of allowing employers to pay extreme low wages, then you're not living in reality...or just playing the crowd for reaction.
|by Anonymous||reply 151||02/22/2013|
[quote]Most people work for more than the minimum wage.
Yet, most people support raising the minimum wage.
[quote]In the poll from USA Today/Pew Research Center, 71% of Americans back increasing the minimum wage to $9 an hour from $7.25 currently, with 26% opposed
As usual, the Regressives and Teabaggers are on the wrong side of popular opinion.
[quote]People who identified themselves as agreeing with the tea party opposed the minimum wage measure 64% to 32%
|by Anonymous||reply 152||02/22/2013|
R150, you bring up an interesting point. Without allowing people to ILLEGALLY enter our country, market forces would cause salaries to rise. This is an example of why the "free market" argument does not hold water. The problem is that the employers have decided that this is an $x.xx an hour job and will do anything and everything to keep it at that dollar amount. This is not a free market.
|by Anonymous||reply 153||02/22/2013|
The free market does not find the best price. Why? Because workers and employers do not have equivalent market power.
It's like the fraud of global free trade when all governments set the price of their currency in order to promote their own manufacturing exports.
The simplistic idiots who pass for businessmen in America can't compete on the global stage because they are stupid, even though their workers are the best in the world. Their simplistic idea about the minimum wage is a case in point. What was Henry Ford's big innovation in 1914 that made him one of the richest Americans? He RAISED wages instead of cutting them. It reduced his turnover and raised his quality and made his fortune possible. Most American managers still haven't learned the lessons that Henry Ford - no intellectual he- learned in 1914. Labor is as ASSET, not a COST.
|by Anonymous||reply 154||02/22/2013|
[quote]What was Henry Ford's big innovation in 1914 that made him one of the richest Americans? He RAISED wages instead of cutting them.
This is true. As horrible a person as Ford was, he took great pride in the fact that his workers were the best paid in the country.
|by Anonymous||reply 155||02/22/2013|
r23, the third world won't even work for that pittance anymore.
|by Anonymous||reply 156||02/22/2013|
[quote]As horrible a person as Ford was, he took great pride in the fact that his workers were the best paid in the country.
He wanted his workers to be able to afford his cars.
|by Anonymous||reply 157||02/22/2013|
Don't know if this has been answered already but in some states it is legal to pay less than the minimum wage if the worker is earning tips.
When I waited tables in Wisconsin (and I waited on Paul Ryan whose tips were shit) I was paid $3 an hour, less than half the min wage at the time.
|by Anonymous||reply 158||02/22/2013|
[quote]ctually, we do have people working for $0.00. One of the scams in this economy is to say that an employee needs to work for no pay during a "training period" after the training period is over, the employee is let go and another sucker is brought in to work for free.
Really, R148? Where? Because that's illegal.
|by Anonymous||reply 159||02/22/2013|
R159 Just because something is illegal doesn't stop a company from doing it. It does happen, usually with teenagers. A Google search shows Subway, the people who cheat on their foot long sandwiches, is a big offender.
|by Anonymous||reply 160||02/22/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 161||02/22/2013|
No kidding, R160. It's illegal to do a lot of things that people do anyway That's why we have a judicial system that includes penalties, fines and incarceration for those who break the law. Why are you bringing law breakers into a discussion about raising the minimum wage?
|by Anonymous||reply 162||02/22/2013|
R140 - here's another hint. Did you see the "especially manufacturing?" Every pedestrian (which means two things) knows you can't outsource counter help at McDonald's. Implying other people are stupid does not make you more intelligent.
|by Anonymous||reply 163||02/22/2013|
[quote]Why are you bringing law breakers into a discussion about raising the minimum wage?
Maybe because you asked where this sort of thing was happening.
|by Anonymous||reply 164||02/22/2013|
R163 makes no sense.
|by Anonymous||reply 165||02/22/2013|
GOP against it. But they sure all for CUTS.
|by Anonymous||reply 166||02/22/2013|
Pick out a reply that you think is crazy that you also think is from Roland and contradict him on facts. Otherwise you are blowing smoke.
From "Fourteen Propaganda Techniques Fox 'News' Uses to Brainwash Americans," number two:
"Character Assassination/Ad Hominem. Fox does not like to waste time debating the idea. Instead, they prefer a quicker route to dispensing with their opponents: go after the person's credibility, motives, intelligence, character, or, if necessary, sanity."
|by Anonymous||reply 167||02/22/2013|
Why? Because the GOP are money whores, bribed by money grubbing corporate vultures, that would LOVE to abolish minimum wages and victimize humanity.
|by Anonymous||reply 168||02/22/2013|
Outsourcing of ordering fast food restaurants is here. The industry is testing the waters before they put their order centers overseas where they won't be bothered by things like minimum wage, see link. Then they can push the other domestic workers harder.
Anyone who thinks only a small portion of workers would be affected is being disingenuous. A minimum wage raise would also help people right above that level by acting as a foundation for their wages.
Most minimum wage workers are employed by large corporations, very profitable companies. Because the labor cost of a minimum wage worker is such a small a part of overall expenses, the companies could easily eat the expense.
Perhaps a ten dollar hamburger would cost 10.02. Who is going to refuse to go out because of two cents?
In any case, putting money into the hands of the poorest part of the population is the best way of making the economy grow quickly because those people spend the money you give them, unlike rich people who hoard it.
|by Anonymous||reply 169||02/22/2013|
[quote] Labor is as ASSET, not a COST.
Good employees are an ASSET
Bad employees are a COST
Bad employees surf DL all day while pretending to work.
|by Anonymous||reply 170||02/22/2013|
Dataloungers are the very best employees.
|by Anonymous||reply 171||02/22/2013|
[quote]putting money into the hands of the poorest part of the population is the best way of making the economy grow quickly because those people spend the money you give them, unlike rich people who hoard it.
And where do you think these rich people hoard their money, r171?
|by Anonymous||reply 172||02/22/2013|
They hoard their money in Shanghai and Mumbai nowadays.
|by Anonymous||reply 173||02/22/2013|
Which is why Shanghai and Mumbai are booming.
The tax collectors never learn...
|by Anonymous||reply 174||02/22/2013|
James Henry, the former chief economist for McKinsey & Company (a top international business consulting firm), produced a report for the Tax Justice Network.
Employing data from the Bank of International Settlements, International Monetary Fund, World Bank and governments around the world, Henry came up with what he describes as the “conservative” figure of $21 trillion as a baseline measure of the financial wealth deposited in offshore bank and investment accounts.
Henry says that private wealth socked away in offshore tax havens by billionaires and millionaires who want to avoid paying their fair share at home represents “a huge black hole in the world economy.”
That's called capital going on strike. They won't do anything with it until they can get another boom. Lacking that, they want our money from pensions, social security, privatization of public services to speculate with.
|by Anonymous||reply 175||02/22/2013|
We have to SUBSIDIZE all the people who earn minimum wage...they all have to get food stamps and Medicaid because they can't live off that small amount of money! Back in the day, a man could support his whole family working as a clerk. Now that job goes to Pat the intern who will happily do that job for no money! We need to increase the minimum wage and do away with internships that have no educational component and that are nothing more than a substitute of cheap/free labor. Instead of hiring Sandra to be the receptionist, the nonprofit will offer an internship to Kayleigh and Jayson, who will happily pick up the phone for free so they can say they had an "internship" whereas all they learned was how to direct calls.
|by Anonymous||reply 176||02/22/2013|
Definitely a plus. We don't need shit jobs anyway. Look at countries with low or no minimum wage.
I like the idea of "modified capitalism" where certain basics are off the table, and we compete in a jungle for the remainder. A higher minimum wage oslves a lot of secondary problems and puts more people in a better position to advance economically. What it doesn't do is allow the wealthy to starve and plunder the poor.
If the minimum wage goes up, jobs that pay near the minimum wage also have those wages go up. We need balance in this economy and this would help it.
For what it's worth, I'm a conservative Republican who thinks medical care should be treated as if it were drinking water, and distributed accordingly.
|by Anonymous||reply 177||02/22/2013|
This is why printing money to buy T-bills is actually a great strategy. If we send the T into negative territory, we "tax" that wealth no matter where it sits. They should be paying us to keep their money safe, not raping us on interest (interest is unearned income, a true cancer on the economy).
On a national level, it's the same thing: let the "job creators" create jobs, and if they don't, we'll print and spend. "Use it or lose it" is the way to go here. Collective wealth is a useless abstraction if it is not shared by the masses. We are not slaves to capitalism; it's a system we chose because it was supposed to serve us. Once it stops serving us we can modify it.
The downside is that we carry the weak, but at least we don't get crushed by the strong. We have to neutralize any advantage they get from greater wealth (the "short stack" problem in poker).
|by Anonymous||reply 178||02/22/2013|
Why not just print money and GIVE it to poor people?
|by Anonymous||reply 179||02/22/2013|
An increase in the minimum wage does not lead to a significant increase in inflation at all.
The minimum wage should be at least $12-14 and should be automatically adjusted every year to a cost of living adjustment.
The reason why in the 1950's and 1960's a man could support his family on just one income is because adjusted for inflation the minimum wage back then was HIGHER.
It is quite sad the right wing and corporations in this country have been able to convince the public that a minimum wage of merely $9.00 would lead to mass layoffs and inflation.
|by Anonymous||reply 180||02/22/2013|
No, I asked where this sort of thing was happening legally, R164? Don't point extreme exceptions that aren't even legal to make your case that something is a new "trend" in the current economy.
You fail. Sorry.
|by Anonymous||reply 181||02/22/2013|
I'm all for subsidizing the poor for health benefits. We need universal healthcare now. There is no good reason we don't have it just like every other 1st world country. If employers weren't saddled with skyrocketing healthcare costs, maybe they wouldn't fight so hard to keep the minimum wage down.
BTW, Henry Ford never had to worry about a lot of things current business owners do: ever increasing health costs, outrageous taxes and insurance, bogus workers' comp, unemployment and discrimination claims, a lazy, entitled, litigious, drugged out work force...on and on and on.
|by Anonymous||reply 182||02/22/2013|
[quote]If employers weren't saddled with skyrocketing healthcare costs,
They're not. Employers never had to offer healthcare.
It's that pesky supply/demand thing that forced them to offer it to attract talented employees.
|by Anonymous||reply 183||02/22/2013|
R182=idiot. The other business owners of the time all thought like you do. And they were, all of them, wrong.
|by Anonymous||reply 184||02/22/2013|
[quote]We have to SUBSIDIZE all the people who earn minimum wage...
and TOUGH SHIT! it's probably better and cheaper then subsidizing the possibility of them in prison, no, the only other alternative.
|by Anonymous||reply 185||02/22/2013|
R182 Henry Ford not only provided health care for his employees but the hospital system that grew out of his efforts is one of the better ones in the nation.
|by Anonymous||reply 186||02/22/2013|
American businessmen are so stupid, it is a national embarrassment and a much more serious threat to our competitiveness than the wages of shopgirls.
|by Anonymous||reply 187||02/22/2013|
If the minimum wage were raised to a livable wage a lot of two income households would revert back to one income households. That alone would substantially reduce unemployment.
It says a lot that some two income households today can't live as well as average one income households did in the past.
|by Anonymous||reply 188||02/22/2013|
As a society we need to acknowledge and discuss the fact that if you are an adult working for minimum wage for more than a year, then you have more problems than an increase could take care of. Minimum wage jobs are for high school students working at fast food places. If you are getting minimum wage, that indicates the value of your skills is worth no more than a teenager learning not to burn the burgers. If we want to spend more on something, let's pay for occupational training and career counseling.
According to BLS, only 3% of adults over age 25 make at or below minimum wage:
|by Anonymous||reply 189||02/22/2013|
[quote]Dataloungers are the very best employees.
I always imagine the typical DLer being just as productive, conscientious and ambitious as Roseanne Conner when she was "working" at Rodbell's, based on people's comments about employment and employers.
|by Anonymous||reply 190||02/22/2013|
It still doesn't negate the fact that minimum wage needs to move up with inflation.
|by Anonymous||reply 191||02/22/2013|
[quote]it's that pesky supply/demand thing that forced them to offer it to attract talented employees.
That dynamic hasn't existed for a long time. Now there are hundreds of applicants for every job. Employer provided healthcare is a vestige of the past.
|by Anonymous||reply 192||02/22/2013|
Cunts are always going to cunt!
|by Anonymous||reply 193||02/22/2013|
R189, I work part time at a public library in a relatively wealthy city. I have a Masters degree from a major university and I am currently paid less than $9/hour. It has nothing to do with skills and education. It has everything to do with what society values.
|by Anonymous||reply 194||02/23/2013|
r194, how much would you be making if you DIDN'T go to college?
College hasn't taught you how to make good life choices has it?
|by Anonymous||reply 196||02/23/2013|
If you "checked" R195, why don't you post your findings? Link please.
|by Anonymous||reply 197||02/23/2013|
Assume that figure is accurate. How does that work out for specific groups?
Are people in fast food joints making minimum wage search out these jobs because they like frying food? Just maybe they do it because their families are poor? How many are single mothers?
Do people in families with disposable income flip burgers, or do they go to college then internships that lead to better things quicker -- a head start on the kids who work for minimum wage?
Internships take work away from wage earners forcing their wages down, often towards minimum wage.
Low-wage earners, up to $10 an hour have their incomes supported by minimum wage even if their wages are slightly higher. When minimum wage goes up, their wages tend to go up.
How many low wage workers are over 30? -- more than 60%. More than 80% of minimum wage earners are adults. So much for high school kids dumping grease pits to learn a trade.
R182: Maybe some low wage earners have the dream of a community college, but to do that they need money and to get money they can rob, sell drugs, or work in McDonald's. How does that interconnect with your idea that workers are bad because they use drugs?
Also R182, You support single-payer, socialized medicine, good. That is the single way to lower medical costs by one-third and get premiums off employers.
You understand why employee compensation and unemployment benefits got started? Unemployed, broke workers with no hope are a threat to domestic order -- the rich used to know this, see 1917 and the Bonus Army in this country.
Also, if workers get help when they are out of work they don't go on welfare, which is its own expense, and they have something coming in to help them job search. The longer they are out of work the longer it takes to find work, if they ever find work.
Another big reason no-fault compensation got started was to eliminate tort actions against companies. You can bet that the companies did the cost/benefit analysis, it is not really necessary, the answer is obvious:
Corporations realized they would be money ahead if workers injured on the job got compensation from tax payers rather than get judgments against the corporations in court.
Many conservative who want to end compensation want to keep everyone out of suing companies through tort reform, Where will the injured worker go to seek relief then?
By the way, tort actions is the only other way to see who is telling the truth. Leaving that up to a board was better for the corporations than leaving it up to a jury.
If there are only three percent making minimum wage, doesn't that negate the argument that raising the wage will hurt the economy?
The companies who hire most minimum wage people are very profitable.
Don't ask if it is legal, is it fair for profits to come from shit wages so companies can return huge dividends to people who are already rich when you could still do that and pay the people at the bottom more?
If it is the skill level that is holding people back, why is it that highly skilled people by the millions can't find jobs and when they do they work for shit wages? If people with skills are so scarce, why are they not making a fortune?
If they have skills that are out of date, why no free education to retrain them instead of for-profit schools that bleed them dry with long term loans that, wait for this, send profits back to the already rich who own the banks? Is that fair? This puts teachers back to work also.
Why not pay out-of work people wages to go back to school? That helps them and the economy.
It used to be that companies would hire workers and then train them be skilled workers -- they could work on the job, so it didn't hurt the bottom line.
If companies are doing so well, right now, Wall Street is at an all-time high, why are they turning away trainable candidates? It wouldn't be so that they can send extra pennies on their dividends to the rich.
|by Anonymous||reply 198||02/23/2013|
Walmart Worker Admits Stealing Food.
After eight years the 63 year old woman was making $11.40 an hour. If she worked 20 hours a week (WalMart has a policy of holding down wages by limiting hours) then she makes $980 a month. That's if she works five days a week 52 weeks a year. That's before withholding.
Portage apartments start around $475 a month.
Because she was going hungry? You think she was stealing because she couldn't afford to pack a lunch? A raise in minimum wage would bring her wages up a bit, if history is a guide.
She was stealing junk food. Was she supposed to go to produce and make a salad? She was supposed to get a piece of cheese with an apple and some rice? She stole junk food because that was what she could get away with.
How is it that in the richest country that ever was we let one of the richest companies that ever existed pay 11.25 to a senior citizen with experience?
How would you expect this woman to get more experience for a raise or finance more education for a different job? On what planet?
Of course she got fired.
|by Anonymous||reply 199||02/23/2013|
Why do you assume she worked part-time, R199? She could have been a supervisor working full time. Maybe she has a roommate, a spouse, or grown children to share bills with. You have no idea that she's living in poverty. You made that shit up out of thin air.
Also, grandma already makes more than the recommended $9/hr. Didn't stop her fool ass from stealing. She'd still steal even if she was making $50 per hour. Because she's a thief.
[quote]How is it that in the richest country that ever was we let one of the richest companies that ever existed pay 11.25 to a senior citizen with experience?
What experience? What was she doing that a teenager couldn't do? People incorrectly assume "time served" alone has value. It doesn't--not when it comes to low/no skill jobs. If the 17 y/o kid standing next to you doing the same job can do it better, your years of experience are not going to get you an extra $5 per hour.
|by Anonymous||reply 200||02/23/2013|
[quote]College hasn't taught you how to make good life choices has it?
not everyone can be a stupid assbag, R196
|by Anonymous||reply 201||02/23/2013|