$77 minimum wage overwhelmingly positive

[OldJourno]

Why the fuck not? It's all good for everyone, so why mess with $15 an hour when we can give unskilled workers some real walking around money?
And think of your kids! They can buy cars after two months on the job this summer. Cash.


Plus, we all get free unicorns.

 

[Conager]

They never have an answer for this other than the idea that you are being ridiculous, and they are not.

Bit of an aside because the cause of the inflation is largely the shift first from bi-metal with the switch from silver to zinc, and later abandoning gold in favor of straight fiat currency, but during that period, what is misunderstood as inflation is really currency devaluation. During that 1/2 century money eroded 95%. No one complained because the thousand cuts were but nicks, each.

If inflation from all other causes stood still for the next 50 years, minimum wage raises alone would render any money put in the mattress today entirely worthless.

 

[KingOrfeo]

That's not even a strawman, it's just some moldy hay with dung in it.

 

[BotanyBoy]

That's not even a strawman, it's just some moldy hay with dung in it.

Said Robin Hoods biggest fan himself.

 

[Miles]

That's not even a strawman, it's just some moldy hay with dung in it.

Or you can just call it conager.

 

[Hard_Rom]

Unskilled workers includes auto plant employees not just McDonald employees. Many auto part plants of the just in time system have non-union contract labour employees. If a living wage is not offered by the auto industry why so much effort to save it. Can a parts plant pay it's workers 7.5 an hour or whatever minimum wage is?

Globalization will raise the low and bring down the high. All those N.A. treasured manufacturing jobs will be minimum pay akin to working at McDonald's. You'll make twice as much as a Chinese, if that's any consolation.

minimum salary
25000 single
35000 with a dependent

maximum
100000 (they say there is no increase in happiness after 75K) top CEOs
excess of this must be invested in treasury bonds.

you can roll whole welfare net into IRS, probably some savings there
extra money companies earn by not paying CEO stupidly is available for reinvestment or taxation
high income earners invest directly in government bonds, always nice for governments if they can sell bonds

 

[KingOrfeo]

Said Robin Hoods biggest fan himself.

Says the benighted and subhuman-evil Randian.

 

[OldJourno]

I don't understand. If government can mandate a wage of $15 and it's a good thing, why must we stop there?
Why not $100 an hour?

 

[Conager]

Says the benighted and subhuman-evil Randian.

Vette?

 

[Hard_Rom]

I don't understand. If government can mandate a wage of $15 and it's a good thing, why must we stop there?
Why not $100 an hour?

Because 15$ is about a living wage. Below that and you have a hard time making ends meet. Absolute minimum for supporting kids.

 

[Disgustipated]

They never have an answer for this other than the idea that you are being ridiculous, and they are not.

Cool. Who is "they" and what is your answer?

 

[OldJourno]

Because 15$ is about a living wage. Below that and you have a hard time making ends meet. Absolute minimum for supporting kids.

I thought jobs were based on value to the employer, not the employer taking on another dependent.

 

[OldJourno]

Cool. Who is "they" and what is your answer?

The King hisself.

 

[Vetteman]

Vette?

What's up?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Says the benighted and subhuman-evil Randian.

I don't even know who Randian is but if you don't like them they are probably pro liberty and equality.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

They never have an answer for this other than the idea that you are being ridiculous, and they are not.

Bit of an aside because the cause of the inflation is largely the shift first from bi-metal with the switch from silver to zinc, and later abandoning gold in favor of straight fiat currency, but during that period, what is misunderstood as inflation is really currency devaluation. During that 1/2 century money eroded 95%. No one complained because the thousand cuts were but nicks, each.

If inflation from all other causes stood still for the next 50 years, minimum wage raises alone would render any money put in the mattress today entirely worthless.

Is it not funny that the Fed is focused on making sure there is no deflation in prices and their tool to make that happen is the deflation of our currency?



After all, it is easier to pay off old debt with new dollars that are more plentiful and worth less...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I don't even know who Randian is but if you don't like them they are probably pro liberty and equality.

Ayn Rand

Randian

Oftentimes erroneously conflated with Austrian Economics...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Because 15$ is about a living wage. Below that and you have a hard time making ends meet. Absolute minimum for supporting kids.

You cannot mandate a "living" wage.

If you are forced to train new or marginal employees at a "living" wage it only causes three things:

1. Fewer opportunities for new or marginal employees.

2. Reduced future wages for productive employees.

3. Increased consumer costs which manifests itself as future sales lost for the economy.

In the name of benevolence for the entry-level worker (always assuming that that worker is raising a family) you enjoy a good feeling in the moment but in the long-term an economic decline and more entry-level workers who cannot find "living wages" and thusly need more public/private assistance.

 

[Ishmael]

You cannot mandate a "living" wage.

If you are forced to train new or marginal employees at a "living" wage it only causes three things:

1. Fewer opportunities for new or marginal employees.

2. Reduced future wages for productive employees.

3. Increased consumer costs which manifests itself as future sales lost for the economy.

In the name of benevolence for the entry-level worker (always assuming that that worker is raising a family) you enjoy a good feeling in the moment but in the long-term an economic decline and more entry-level workers who cannot find "living wages" and thusly need more public/private assistance.

A government mandated minimum wage is, in effect, the government giving itself a raise. No matter what tax structure your particular city/county/state government uses to raise taxes an increase in income for the individual translates into increased revenue for the government.

Prices on damn near everything are going to go up, or there will be less job opportunities. The laws of economics are not held in abeyance just because some legislators believe it so. A business will have to raise prices, or reduce positions available. The small local businessman/woman is caught in the vise. The larger concerns, the Walmart's etc., may actually benefit from such increases in that they can adjust hours and number of employees more readily and the increases help to eliminate local competition. Ideally such competition is reduced to the point that they can raise prices with relative impunity.

What's worse is that the very people that these laws are allegedly helping are getting hurt the worst. First of all the most regressive of all taxes, payroll, are going to take a bigger chunk out of the employees wages. (The unseen hand of government in your wallet.) And as the prices increase so does the proportion of sales taxes if those apply in your city/county/state. (The other hand in your wallet.) But the unskilled are also generally ignorant when it comes to economics. They only sense that they're going to get more money, they don't see the cost of that raise or the fact that those that mandated that raise are gleefully grinning all the way to the bank.

"Giving a politician more money is like giving your teenager the keys to the family car and a bottle of whiskey." P J O'Rourke.

The link below is a Havard Biz school study on the effects of a hike in minimum wage on restaurants in the San Francisco area.

Harvard Study.

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

A government mandated minimum wage is, in effect, the government giving itself a raise. No matter what tax structure your particular city/county/state government uses to raise taxes an increase in income for the individual translates into increased revenue for the government.

Prices on damn near everything are going to go up, or there will be less job opportunities. The laws of economics are not held in abeyance just because some legislators believe it so. A business will have to raise prices, or reduce positions available. The small local businessman/woman is caught in the vise. The larger concerns, the Walmart's etc., may actually benefit from such increases in that they can adjust hours and number of employees more readily and the increases help to eliminate local competition. Ideally such competition is reduced to the point that they can raise prices with relative impunity.

What's worse is that the very people that these laws are allegedly helping are getting hurt the worst. First of all the most regressive of all taxes, payroll, are going to take a bigger chunk out of the employees wages. (The unseen hand of government in your wallet.) And as the prices increase so does the proportion of sales taxes if those apply in your city/county/state. (The other hand in your wallet.) But the unskilled are also generally ignorant when it comes to economics. They only sense that they're going to get more money, they don't see the cost of that raise or the fact that those that mandated that raise are gleefully grinning all the way to the bank.

"Giving a politician more money is like giving your teenager the keys to the family car and a bottle of whiskey." P J O'Rourke.

The link below is a Harvard Biz school study on the effects of a hike in minimum wage on restaurants in the San Francisco area.

Harvard Study.

Ishmael

Brilliant observation. I should have thought of that myself. As with the observation that government power creates crony Capitalism which generates election funding, this forced mandate also has the potential to create new tax revenues for the use of the elected. If you are a monetarist, this is a valid analysis, but if you are an Austrian, you see how this stagnates and even decreases government revenues.

 

[JohnnySavage]

Brilliant observation. I should have thought of that myself. As with the observation that government power creates crony Capitalism which generates election funding, this forced mandate also has the potential to create new tax revenues for the use of the elected. If you are a monetarist, this is a valid analysis, but if you are an Austrian, you see how this stagnates and even decreases government revenues.

It also increases government revenue because the Walmart employees are no longer eligible for food stamps; thus, the government is no longer subsidizing Walmart's labor costs.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

It also increases government revenue because the Walmart employees are no longer eligible for food stamps; thus, the government is no longer subsidizing Walmart's labor costs.

Operating on several fallacies...

When the minimum wage is raised, it does not eliminate poverty, it increases it.

How?

Well, where you used to be able to hire three new entry-level workers, you can now only hire two, or less.

Oh, you can simply raise prices in order to keep up the same amount of help, but than that is, in effect, a tax which depresses sales. Do we not employ "sin taxation" in order to curtail undesirable health-style choices, for example?

 

[water505]

Because 15$ is about a living wage. Below that and you have a hard time making ends meet. Absolute minimum for supporting kids.

What is your definition of a living wage?

 

[JohnnySavage]

Operating on several fallacies...

When the minimum wage is raised, it does not eliminate poverty, it increases it.

How?

Well, where you used to be able to hire three new entry-level workers, you can now only hire two, or less.

Oh, you can simply raise prices in order to keep up the same amount of help, but than that is, in effect, a tax which depresses sales. Do we not employ "sin taxation" in order to curtail undesirable health-style choices, for example?

So you talk down to me, saying I'm operating on several fallacies, then devote the rest of your post on something completely unrelated to what I said.



What fallacy was in my post. Do you not agree that if the minimum wage was increase (or even adjusted for inflation) that the lower-tier Walmart employees would no longer be eligible for food stamps?

Or is the fallacy I'm operating on that if Walmart employees were not receiving food stamps, government revenues would not go up? That's true I suppose; expenditures would go down what is the opposite side of the same coin.

Just guessing here - but the fallacy you probably see is my assertion that the government is subsidizing Walmart's labor costs. But I don't want to put words in your mouth.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

What is your definition of a living wage?

Just as soon as it is $15, it will need to become $20...