Top Economists Are Backing Sen. Bernie Sanders on Establishing a $15 an Hour Minimum Wage

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I want everyone who works a full time job to be entitled to a decent quality of life. Even if it is at the expense of small businesses being capable of competing with big corps.

Seems like a fair trade off to me, if it helps reduce poverty and human misery within society.

What if it was YOUR small business? now the government increased wages so much your shop got shut down
now your in the middle of the road with a hobo sign come on get real.

a reply to: starfoxxx

The argument starts with the false premise that it is at the expense of any given business.

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
a reply to: starfoxxx

The argument starts with the false premise that it is at the expense of any given business.

either their paying the increase or you as the consumer is.

originally posted by: starfoxxx

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I want everyone who works a full time job to be entitled to a decent quality of life. Even if it is at the expense of small businesses being capable of competing with big corps.

Seems like a fair trade off to me, if it helps reduce poverty and human misery within society.

What if it was YOUR small business? now the government increased wages so much your shop got shut down
now your in the middle of the road with a hobo sign come on get real.

I wouldn't start a business in the first place that could only break even by paying employees under $10 a hour. Sounds like a bad business model to me, a whole lot stress for very little return.

a reply to: starfoxxx

If you have evidence enough to support that then you might solve the argument between the economists that is going on.

But I'm betting you don't.

originally posted by: interupt42
Specifically the immigration issue which I use as my political B% litmus test. He appears to be the only one that passed that test including the GOP cesspool of candidates. I just don't understand how anyone can want bigger gov't or oversight while there is rampant abuse in gov't, but that is for another topic.

On the Republican side I think there's a chance that Rand Paul would take them on but Sanders and Warren have been leading the charge on this specific topic for years and it's not even about large or small government but rather that they're willing to be tough on the corporations that have huge financial pull within congress and with regulators and that's what we need right now.

They haven't said they would do it, but fixing CPI would fix a lot of problems because it then lets us address the causes of inflation. I just don't have much confidence in the Republicans doing it because it's sacrilegious to undo anything Reagan did.

a reply to: Aazadan

On the Republican side I think there's a chance that Rand Paul would take them on but Sanders

Unfortunately, I don't see neither the DNC or the GOP backing either one of those candidates. We are going to get the Clinton and possibly Bush part 2 sequel. We know Hollywood loves remakes, I got the feeling so does Washington.

IMO until the blatant special interest in congress are minimized nothing will change in a positive manner for the masses. Nor will any anti corporate candidate will be selected by either the DNC or the GOP within this upcoming election: unless their is a huge huge huge public outcry which I don't see happening. So even if raising the minimum wage would help they will certainly find a way to make sure it doesn't and it will somehow put back money into the mega corporation board of directors pockets.

IMO: the minimum wage, healthcare, energy, immigration , education are just symptoms of the real issue. Personally I think the best way to treat a problem is fixing the problem and not the symptoms.

The problem is that our congress have become robo-signers for the highest bidding lobbyist and the GOP and the DNC are tools used by the same highest bidding lobbyist to ensure 1 out of 2 of their chosen candidates gets picked.

With the party first ideology, we the people and our nation are no longer as important, as the lobbyists money in the current political system of the US of A. Both parties are addicted to big money campaigns, and our laws reflect this addiction to the corporates money.

a reply to: AlaskanDad

Which is exactly why any politician talking about spreading wealth or cracking down on mega corporations will never be allowed to be voted in as president. The next president will be a Bush or Clinton and they'll continue to tow the current status quo.

People should just stop wasting there energy hoping for some savior politician who's going to come in and save the day, because its simply not going to happen. All this talk about non Bush or Clinton president candidates is just smoke and mirrors to make people falsely believe there vote counts.

There for, best thing you can do is just accept the corrupt political system as a reality that will never change, then just put all your energy into trying to gain enough momentum to get your $15 an hour minimum wage.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

then just put all your energy into trying to gain enough momentum to get your $15 an hour minimum wage.

Or even start your own business. There is no requirement that anyone work for someone else.

Why, you could even start a business yourself, and pay your employees $20 an hour for making you $19. Then, when you go out of business, they can collect unemployment for a year or so.

a reply to: AlaskanDad

Are these the same economists Obama ran out to state how great the ACA would be from a financial standpoint? In fact, is Jonathan Gruber one of the signatories? Hmmmmm... The word "stupid" comes to mind.

a reply to: Phage

Then, when you go out of business, they can collect unemployment for a year or so.

But at least they won't need to be collecting food stamps, just to put food on the table, the whole time they are gainfully employed.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

But at least they won't need to be collecting food stamps, just to put food on the table, the whole time they are gainfully employed.

You know that SNAP benefits are rendered on a sliding scale, right? You know that unemployment and SNAP are not mutually exclusive, right? You know that after that year, it's not just SNAP that is supplied, right?

Any employment is less of a strain on society than unemployment.

You think a kid who drops out of school and lives with his parents should earn a "living wage" because he has a job?

a reply to: Phage

Only 6 percent of the workers who would benefit from this minimum wage increase are teenagers; i.e., 94 percent are adults.

Since I cut this out of context I will supply the full paragraph for you:

If a worker today is employed full time for a full 52-week year at a minimum wage job today, she or he is making $15,080. This is 21 percent below the official poverty line for a family of three. Raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour would deliver much needed living standard improvements to 76 million U.S. workers and their families. The average age for these workers is 36 years old and they have been in the labor force for an average of 17 years. Only 6 percent of the workers who would benefit from this minimum wage increase are teenagers; i.e., 94 percent are adults.

source

a reply to: AlaskanDad

Since I cut this out of context I will supply the full paragraph for you:

Interesting. I can't seem to find a source for that statistic in your source, the one which cites "top economists."

a reply to: Phage

That's kinda how it worked until the last few decades.

You do realize everyone going to school to learn their trade is a recent development and that most of the world throughout history has been built by "uneducated" people right?

a reply to: onequestion
No.
I had a minimum wage job as a post-teenager (more than a "few" decades ago).
Nowhere near enough to support a family. Shared a house with two roommates, with nothing to spare.

a reply to: Phage

Well, the SNAP program still costs tax payers over 74 billion a year, which the government pays to people who are usually working. So its basically like corporate welfare, since the tax payer is forced to make up the difference when employers don't pay there employee's enough to survive .

Unemployment is more of an insurance system, than a government funded welfare system, yeah?

The welfare system (or longterm unemployment payments) is more of a way to keep crime levels down and to prevent the streets from being over run with homeless starving people. Its actually a good investment in keeping everybodies quality of life at an appropriate standard.

Either way, there's no evidence or data whatsoever to show that being obligated to pay employees a higher minimum wage would cause massive unemployment rates, or cause (all) small business owners to become bankrupt.

My dad (for example) has to pay his employees over 16 an hour and has been in business for well over 10 years and is wealthier than he has ever been in his life. There's also plenty out there just like him

I know your just going to jump back and say America's a different country and it wouldn't work there blah, blah, blah... I actually agree, America is a different country. There's far more wealthy people there that could easily take the hit if they were forced to do so.

You think a kid who drops out of school and lives with his parents should earn a "living wage" because he has a job?

Most definitely! Because then he can afford to save up a deposit for his own house and then become a productive member of society.

a reply to: Phage

I think you get the basic drift of where the numbers came from, there is more info on the third group (tipped workers) and such in the pdf link below.

We estimated the figures for the first two groups directly from the 201 4 Current Population Survey (CPS) data produced by the Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics. T his household survey is the standard source of labor market data for studying the U.S. workforce and forms the basis for the official, national unemployment rate. We specifically use the “ outgoing rotation group ” data file that has particularly high quality wage data . The data file we used was prepared by the Center for Econ omic and Policy Research (CEPR). CEPR provides such data files free to the public at their website: www.cepr.net .

www.peri.umass.edu...

a reply to: AlaskanDad

I don't see that 94% figure in the "petition."
Can you point it out?