It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 18
28
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 01:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

www.peri.umass.edu...

3rd paragraph, last sentence




posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 01:42 AM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad
That is not the link you first provided.
I see no source for the 94%, in the petition or the appendix.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 01:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

original link:

www.budget.senate.gov...

third paragraph, last sentence

As for citation on 94% it would fall under the number of workers:


3. Number of affected workers .


Did you check, the Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics to see if the 94% was there as indicated by the appendix?



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 02:02 AM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

third paragraph, last sentence
Yes, I know it says that. You enjoy circular quotes, do you?




Did you check, the Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics to see if the 94% was there as indicated by the appendix?
Yes. Did you? Can you show me where that statistic is presented? I couldn't seem to find it.

edit on 7/29/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 02:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

You may want to report this discrepancy to the senate budget committee ASAP.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 02:18 AM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad




You may want to report this discrepancy to the senate budget committee

Why? Did the statistic come from there?



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 03:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: MystikMushroom

3. Federally mandate that NO prices can be changed. NOTHING can cost more.

We'd see every single business operating on small margins out of business and a massive amount of jobs lost.


Maybe the banks can bail them out



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 12:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: Phage

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 .


Actually, the taxpayer is just paying the interest on the money the U.S. is borrowing to pay for these "entitlements." I do like that you used the word "forced" to describe the situation, though; as in money is stolen from them, under threat of violence.

Are you aware that almost exactly half the population of the U.S. receives some sort of "government" benefit, to the tune of almost $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities?

An idea I haven't seen discussed in this thread is letting the workers keep their money (taxes), so they have more to spend, resulting in the need for more production and service jobs. It's simple supply/demand theory. When the number of jobs exceeds the number of workers, wages rise, in order to attract qualified employees.

We've seen the labor supply/demand theory in practice, in West Texas, every oil-boom cycle. Oilfield services have a shortage of qualified applicants (most often because they can't pass a drug screen), so oilfield wages skyrocket. Employees vacate other jobs, chasing the higher wages, leaving ordinarily lower paying jobs without applicants. So, fast-food restaurants and others have to pay more to retain their employees. Of course, prices of goods and services in those areas increase proportionally, as well.
edit on 30-7-2015 by WTFover because: Atrocious spelling

edit on 30-7-2015 by WTFover because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 12:41 AM
link   
My final word on this thread. Labor, like every other cost associated with commerce, is supply/demand driven. Like I said in the previous comment, when the number of jobs exceeds the number of available workers in a given area, wages increase, in order to hire and retain qualified employees.

Conversely, when the number of workers exceeds the number of jobs (as has been the case for quite some time), wages remain flat or decrease. If you doubt this, just look at any third world country to see the correlation between the number of jobs, the number in the available workforce, and wages.



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 12:45 AM
link   
a reply to: WTFover

So since we don't need people to make goods anymore what's the next step?



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 07:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
I want everyone who works a full time job to be entitled to a decent quality of life.


Even if they are not as qualified, hard working or responsible as other employees?



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 07:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
I want everyone who works a full time job to be entitled to a decent quality of life.


Even if they are not as qualified, hard working or responsible as other employees?


Most definitely! Because anyone who is qualified, hard working and a responsible employee is worth at the least $20 an hour, imo. So obviously anyone just starting out at the same job should at least be getting $15 an hour.



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 07:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
Most definitely! Because anyone who is qualified, hard working and a responsible employee is worth at the least $20 an hour, imo. So obviously anyone just starting out at the same job should at least be getting $15 an hour.


So in your ever escalating, artificial payscale who is harmed most by this?



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 07:48 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The people who currently have control of most the world's wealth would be most harmed by this, imo.

Is it just a coincidence that the US has the hands down most billionaires in the entire world, yet has a minimum wage of only $7.25 and a huge population of working poverty?



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 07:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
The people who currently have control of most the world's wealth would be most harmed by this, imo.


Really? Considering most of the businesses in the United States are small businessess how does that impact the people who have control of the world's wealth (short of moving more to them via small businesses folding to larger ones as oyu outlined earlier and with which you feel comfortable happening)?


Is it just a coincidence that the US has the hands down most billionaires in the entire world, yet has a minimum wage of only $7.25 and a huge population of working poverty?


I would posit that most billionaires are not small business owners.



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 08:05 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus


I would posit that most billionaires are not small business owners.


Maybe so, but most small business owners usually have less than 20 employee's they profit from. Where as most billionaires have hundreds, or even thousands.

You can't honestly tell me that the richest people in society being forced to use more of there wealth to stimulate local economies wouldn't act as a much needed boost to the American economy as a whole, can you?



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 08:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
Maybe so, but most small business owners usually have less than 20 employee's they profit from. Where as most billionaires have hundreds, or even thousands.


'Maybe so'? It is a fact, most small businesses are not owned by billiobaires. So answer my question on who would be impacted most.


You can't honestly tell me that the richest people in society being forced to use more of there wealth to stimulate local economies wouldn't act as a much needed boost to the American economy as a whole, can you?


Raising the minimum wage does not impact 'the richest people in society', it impacts the middle class.



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 08:37 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus



Raising the minimum wage does not impact 'the richest people in society', it impacts the middle class.


Well maybe it wouldn't hurt the richest in society at first, but they'd most definitely be forced to take a hit eventually.

Besides, for argument sake, even if it did only effect the 'upper' middle class in the short term, so what? So a few people can't afford there new boat, or that luxury holiday there being saving up for.

A $15 an hour minimum wage would still eliminate the existence of a working poverty and have a long term positive effect on the economy in the end. Which is a long term positive for both the lower and middle class.



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 08:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
Well maybe it wouldn't hurt the richest in society at first, but they'd most definitely be forced to take a hit eventually.


Another noble class warrior looking to stick it to The Man at the expense of everyone else, how noble.


Besides, for argument sake, even if it did only effect the 'upper' middle class in the short term, so what? So a few people can't afford there new boat, or that luxury holiday there being saving up for.


The more money you have the less this affects you, the lower middle class would be affected more than your fictitious yacht buying/globe trotting upper middle class.


A $15 an hour minimum wage would still eliminate the existence of a working poverty and have a long term positive effect on the economy in the end. Which is a long term positive for both the lower and middle class.


A mimimum wage is a minimum wage and will always be so, no matter how you inlfate it. The more ambitious, hardworking, qualified people will subsequently demand and get more leaving their mimimum wage counterparts with the same low buying pwer they had before the government intervened in the free market.

All you do is create more inflation.



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus




The more money you have the less this affects you, the lower middle class would be affected more than your fictitious yacht buying/globe trotting upper middle class.


lol, I know your talking in jest, but these people aren't so fictitious, there everywhere up in tropical Queensland. With there half million dollar yachts just cruising around the different tropical islands with there blonde hot young bikini wearing trophy wives. Seriously... where do all these dudes get there money from?



A mimimum wage is a minimum wage and will always be so, no matter how you inlfate it.


Ok then, so who would you personally be, a person earning a casual minimum wage in Australia at $20.50AU an hour, which works out to be $596US for a 40 hour week. Or a person earning minimum wage in the US at $7.25US an hour, which works out to be $290US for a 40 hour week?

Like seriously, inflation included, who would you rather be?



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join