Social Issue: On Economies - The Minimum Wage

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 09:13 PM
link   
wonder how many shirts wal mart sells in a day....ummm.....$1 extra for each shirt....wonder what that would come to, compared to the extra dollar or two increase in the hourly wage of their employees....for some reason, I kind of think that the extra cost of wages wouldn't come close to the extra earning on the dollar increase in the shirt, along with all the other products that some claim would increase in price because of the increase in wages....

and, as far as it giving people the incentive to learn/train to be in another feild of work, this might by true, but if we all acted on that impulse, well, who would be selling your shirts to you??

the arguments are lame at best, those people who are not making at least a livable wage for themselves are depending on resourses that are coming from someone else, in more than a few cases, that someone else is the government's social programs, which, well, spends probably about $5 for every dollar it hands out....of which we all pay for!!!




posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
[Student aid programs are alive and well.

studentaid.ed.gov...


Just a quick question. Are loans considered aid? or just grants?

Because my parents make too much for me to get grants. But I don't see how that's possible, beacue they can't pay for ANY of my school. Even my book money is from loans...(oy, I keep looking forward to the day I have to pay everyhting bakc, yeck).

How is it that the middle class cannot afford college, yet, 'make too much' to get grants. I'll tell you why, because the US Govt. have an agenda to kill the middle class. That's why they don't raise minimum wage. If you don't raise poor people's wage, there's no incentive to raise Middle class wage. And with inflation getting heavier every year, the middle class gets poorer and poorer.

That's what I've noticed anyway.



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 07:38 AM
link   
today's poor will be tomorrow's middle class, they'll get free college!!! while, the middle class does without or is so bogged down with the debt from college they'll be basically in the same position as a minimum wage earner, but hey, at least they'll still be paying taxes!!!



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 07:57 AM
link   
heheh

I'll tell you about the minimum wage rise in Australia.

McDonalds meals rose up 30 cents.

a big hit? nah.

A good raise for the minimum worker? most definately. I'd rather pay an extra 30c to help out that minimum wage worker a heap more than that.


But then again.. I believe McDonalds is making profit and raised their prices more than what it owuld cost to pay for that minimum wage worker.... and using the wage increase as a money grabbing effort too....

[edit on 22-7-2006 by DaRAGE]



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 08:16 AM
link   
The point that is being missed here is that these across the board price increases apply to the minimum wage earner, as well, and they have less padding than others.

So, when someone says I don't mind paying 30 cents more for burgers to help the poor worker, they are forgetting that every business must cover the increase in labor costs by raising the prices.

Minimum wage earners have to pay those increased prices, too, so after they get through paying more for everything they buy from toilet paper to breakfast cereal, their wage increase amounts to less than nothing.

I know. I've been there.

[edit on 2006/7/22 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 08:37 AM
link   
if a person is relying solely on that minimum wage, he more than likely can't afford the pound of hamburg to make his own hamburgers now, plus his rent, lights, healthcare, ect. ect.......mc donalds would be luxury you'd think!!! same would go for the wal mart shirts....think goodwill man, goodwill and the salvation army!!

besides, I think you are missing the point, alot of that raise in products that is being claimed would be more from greed from the companies than actual expense from the increase in the wage. they'd have just another reason to increase their profits...
this is a fact, but it's not really acting in the best interest of society, or themselves really....since we all pay for those cheap hamburgers anyways, through our social service programs.

[edit on 22-7-2006 by dawnstar]



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar....but it's not really acting in the best interest of society, or themselves really....since we all pay for those cheap hamburgers anyways, through our social service programs.


We also pay for increased crime due to the fact that poor people are usually desperate enough to steal from you or from business or to sell dangerous drugs in your neighborhood.
I've been so broke I contemplated those things, but never did, but others are more motivated than me.
So we pay more to keep these people in jail or prison, these people have more health problems. We pay more therefore for insurance, for goods (theft charge) and all kinds of things.

We we pay alright, if not in increased (livable) wages, but in other ways.

Good point dawnstar!



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Rules of Thumb, And Not Laws

1) Retail price must be 10X the cost to make manufactured goods, if the maker is to remain in business.
2) Labor should be 20% to 25% of gross revenues. If under 20% you are probably underpaying workers which means you will have a high turnover, if over 25%, you are probably overcharging your customers which means you are vulnerable to competition.
3) Landlords want to rent property at 1% of value, per month.
4) Casualty insurers ideal loss ratio is 65% of premiums. Under 60% premiums are too much, over 65%, and losses are too much.




[edit on 7/22/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Toadmund
And like mentioned above, if people now earning minimum wage suddenly had more disposable income, more people would eat at McD's.
Which would in effect, make the extra cost for the meal MOOT, but then again, because McD's is now having more customers, they could easily absorb the extra labour costs, relying on volume sales instead of increased product prices.

As of now, people earning the minimum can pay their bills (barely) and don't spend a lot of time at McDonalds.

The economy needs people that have money, not people who need more money.


You have voted Toadmund for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.

Here in NZ the 1990s proved that keeping wages low (by not raising the min wage ) is voodo econmics inflation went up and people struggled to pay the bills and as a result people invested less money into the econmy.

The proof is in the pudding nz reserve bank governor got a 7% pay rise !
So much for wage increases driving up inflation !
People have been brainwashed into thinking that investing less money and lowering living standards is somehow good for the econmy.

New Zealand is less economical competitive in part because wages were stagnet. Once wages have been stagnet there is no going back to a system that promotes econmic growth.



[edit on 24-7-2006 by xpert11]



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 07:14 AM
link   
A minimum wage is not a printing press. It does not in itself generate wealth or create more money. The government is in charge of printing money. The current theory is governments can add - print - money without adverse economic effects if it adds new money at lower amounts than the real growth in productivity.

A minimum wage is a method of redistributing what you already have. It is a social consideration that has some economic side effects, but not nearly as much as is often attributed to the minimum wage. Opponents to a higher minimum wage usually offer 2 main reasons. 1) It will cause the loss of jobs in those jobs most immediately effected. 2) It will cause inflation thereby nullifying the gain.

These are anecdotal reasons. Analytical reasons do not support either claim. Even empirical evidence ought to call into question those 2 reasons, based on our own experiences with minimum wage increases first in the 1960s, a period of unusually low inflation, and in the 1990s, again, a period of low inflation. Why? I offer it is because the increase in the minimum wage is merely a redistribution of wealth and not a dilution of wealth or an increase in the money supply.



[edit on 7/24/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite

A minimum wage is not a printing press. ....The government is in charge of printing money. The current theory is governments can add - print - money without adverse economic effects ....

Actually some governments don't print their own money, the international banks do, run by greedy families.


...Why? I offer it is because the increase in the minimum wage is merely a redistribution of wealth and not a dilution of wealth or an increase in the money supply.

If those who rail against the minimum wage killing the economy looked at it in the redistribution sence, they would not have to worry.
What if we reduced some wages, because we all know some people make rediculous amounts of money, and raised the minimum, it would take nothing out of the system, some services would actually be cheaper (like lawyers), It would make people more equal, more people would contribute to the economy.
Politicians lack vision and guts, they would not dare capping wages, but they have a problem with raising sub-standard wages to a livable wage.

People work hard, and they should be paid accordingly.

PS, thanks for the WATS up xpert!



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 11:38 AM
link   


posted by Toadmund


donwhite
The increase in the minimum wage is a redistribution of wealth and is neither a dilution of a nation’s wealth nor an increase in the money supply.


What if we reduced some wages, because we all know some people make ridiculous amounts of money, and raised the minimum, it would take nothing out of the system, some services would actually be cheaper (like lawyers), It would make people more equal, more people would contribute to the economy . . Politicians lack vision and guts, they would not dare to cap wages, but they have a problem with raising sub-standard wages to a livable wage. People work hard, and they should be paid accordingly. [Edited by Don W]


Two comments, Mr Toad. In a post above, I estimated raising the minimum wage to $10 would cost $60 billion. In the case of new industries, some people use a factor of 2 or 3 to show the ripple effect new money can have. Like on a pond, the ripples gradually diminish until they have no effect. Using the higher number, 3, the cost of a $3 rise would be $180 billion, again, what is that compared to the $12 T. economy? It would actually be a “shot in the arm” to the economy. Not a shot in the foot as alleged.

Second. To be recognized in our legislative bodies, Federal, state or local, you must have either 1) money or 2) votes. Preferably both. But if you have neither, then you get only the crumbs and darn few of those.

For reasons I’m not fully aware of, many poor people don’t vote. Perhaps they feel they are screwed if they do, screwed if they don’t. Which is true, but if the poor did vote regularly, they would soon get the attention of politicians. Until then, we must leave our fate in the hands of God.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 01:37 PM
link   

"Any raise would be appreciated by those who are in jobs that pay the minimum wage. We’d hear the same argument we hear every time - it will cost jobs! That has never been true.


REPLY: Hi, Don. The majority of people working for minimum wage do so for only a short period of time. Then as they learn new skills (hopefully) they move on and make more money.

It's not just the issue of wages; For a person with close to a minimum wage job, the employer is actually paying about $13.00 per hour when you figure their Social Security, health insurance, unemployment insurance, workers comp. etc.

Any given job is only worth so much. Burger flippers at Mickey-D's can make from $8 to $12 per hour depending on location, which is a lot for flipping a burger. Too much actually, but if the market will bear the price, so be it.

A good example is Home Depot (and others) who have gone towards self-checkout machines. Where there once was a paid employee for each aisle, now there is one employeen for every 4 or 5 aisles. The union forced wages which were above what the job was worth. Then factor in all the additional costs mentioned above, and you see the end result. So now we have one person making more money, with the net result that 4 others lost their jobs.

The machines are not too expensive, and can be paid off relatively quickly; no sick leave or health costs; minimum down time, and also minus all the expenses mentioned above.

[edit on 24-7-2006 by zappafan1]



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 01:40 PM
link   

by Dawnstar: " .......wonder how many shirts wal mart sells in a day.....?"

REPLY: Wal Mart profits only 3 1/2 to 4 cents on each dollar they invest, so you should figure that into your calculations.


"....and, as far as it giving people the incentive to learn/train to be in another feild of work, this might by true, but if we all acted on that impulse, well, who would be selling your shirts to you?


REPLY: Better paid salespersons/assistants?


We also pay for increased crime due to the fact that poor people are usually desperate enough to steal from you or from business or to sell dangerous drugs in your neighborhood.


REPLY: People are poor because they lack the drive to become more educated in any given field/endeavor. People sell drugs because they're lazy, have no sense of self esteem or self worth, and care little for those who care for them. The illegal drug profit margin-to-risk is quite low, which gives an indication of their inteligence in the first place.

One must also remember we PAY people to stay poor. Getting rid of Welfare, WIC, etc, would be a good start.

The best way for companies to provide better wages, and to help the country/economy/people in every aspect, is the "fair Tax".

[edit on 24-7-2006 by zappafan1]



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 03:24 PM
link   
found in my paper........

I guess they've changed the rules for the welfare to work program, more people will be obligated to do at least a little work for their benefit....hurray!!! right???

mothers of babies of under the age of two will have to work(I think it was under the age of two before, I just don't have the paper handy and don't remember the actual age, whatever it was, it's now younger...)...hurray!!!! right???

the average wage these workers are making is between 7.50 and 8.00 an hours....can't remember that either, so I gave a range I know it falls in.......Hurray!!! right????

Summer's here......ya......right!!! no school....of course, little babies under the age of 2 years don't go to school anyways.....but well, their siblings do!!

okay, tell ya what, if the person they are sending to work has two kids, the government is paying them over 3 an hour for each kid that needs childcare. so, she's making somewhere between a buck or two an hour. but.....they are also helping her with clothing, transportation, and other work related expenses....so, well, there goes that buck or two also..

in plain simple words, this is a losing venture!!! it is costing us more to put these women to work than they are earning!! and well, since they aren't turning a profit their benefits aren't really going down any at all. they are just being shifted from aid to dependant children to child care, clothing allowance, ect. ect....and in the end it is more!!

but it pumps more cheap labor into the labor market though, doesn't it??

and ya know, it's amazing, these companies can't afford to pay their employees a decent wage, but they can send headhunters south for recruit a cheaper workforce.

[edit on 24-7-2006 by dawnstar]



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Here's a factor no one has mentioned regarding minimum wage:

Minimum wage jobs are the lowest jobs on the ladder of success.

So when the guy who sweeps the floor makes as much as the guy who flips the burgers, the guy who flips the burgers wants a raise.

And when the guy who flips the burgers makes as much as they guy who tends the register, the guy who tends the register wants a raise.

And when the guy who tends the register makes as much as the guy who manages the store, the guy who manages the store wants a raise.

And when the guy who manages the store makes as much as the guy who manages the region...well, you get my drift.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Oh yes Corporate Welfare, Great Idea!

Exxon makes 12 billion dollars profit in 3 months, so what does Bush do? He gives 9billion dollars of Tax Payer money to Exxon.

Yet the same people hate a black woman for getting 300 dollars a month.

Conservative Logic
9 BILLION Dollars to Billionaires= Good Thing
300 Dollars to Poor Black Woman= Bad Thing



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spades
Exxon makes 12 billion dollars profit in 3 months, so what does Bush do? He gives 9billion dollars of Tax Payer money to Exxon.


Do you have a link to this?

One thing we might consider.

Exxon provides a necessary service and thousands of jobs and even though their profits are high, their profit margins are normal. No one is going to spend billions to find, pump, refine, deliver, and sell gas without the prospect of making a profit for shareholders.

Black women...well, I'm not even going to go there.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Ok, here's links to Oil Companies making more Money Profit then they ever have before.
www.msnbc.msn.com...
www.house.gov...
Unless Congress acts, Taxpayers will lose another $7 billion

www.citizen.org...
Since 2001, energy corporations have showered federal politicians with $115 million in campaign contributions—with three-quarters of that amount going to Republicans. This cash helped secure energy companies and their lobbyists exclusive, private access to lawmakers, starting with Vice-President Dick Cheney’s Energy Task Force, whose report provided the foundation of the energy bill passed by Congress and signed by President Bush on August 8.

This energy bill will do nothing to address America’s energy problems; rather, it will make matters worse. The United States is one of the largest producers of energy—for example, we are the third-largest producer of crude oil in the world—so our problem is not that we don’t produce enough energy, but that our rates of consumption are among the highest of all countries. Our economic competitors in Europe and Asia typically use half the energy per person than we do, which helps explain why the United States alone uses 25% of the world’s energy every day. Reflecting the fact that energy companies helped write the legislation, the energy bill lavishes these lucrative corporations with billions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies, while doing little to curb energy demand.

In addition to providing billions of dollars to already wealthy oil, nuclear and coal companies, the energy bill abandons consumers by repealing the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA), one of the most effective consumer and protection laws governing the power sector. With this law now gone, investment banks, hedge funds, insurance companies and oil companies will now be allowed to own utilities, giving these new corporate owners license to raid the utilities’ guaranteed revenue streams for use in leveraging non-utility acquisitions, opening the door to price-gouging of ratepayers.

www.collectivesigh.blogspot.com...
A gusher of impressive quarterly and annual profits for the oil industry is going to attract a lot of attention on Wall Street and Capitol Hill in the coming week.

ConocoPhillips kicked off the fourth-quarter earnings season for big oil on Wednesday with an impressive $13.5 billion annual profit, up 66 percent from its 2004 performance. The rest of the major integrated oil and gas firms will march out their end-of-year books during the coming week and a half.

And here is Bush giving Tax Money to the same people.
www.net.org...
www.welchforcongress.com...
Last year, House Republicans pushed for a provision in the energy bill that allows oil companies to avoid paying fees to the federal government for the right to drill for oil in publicly owned coastal waters. This break could amount to a giveaway of more than $7 billion over five years to an industry that is seeing record profits (NYT, 3.27.06).

This is details, you know how the 125Billion Profit to Oil Companies is a good thing while we pay more at the pump, so Bush gives them Billions more.
911review.org...
Big Oil companies post record breaking profits. While Americans pay more at the pump, the five largest oil companies reported a record $110 billion in profits in 2005. Exxon Mobil alone raked in $36 billion in profits, the largest annual profit of any American company. And this past week, it became clear that those record profits are continuing in 2006.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Exxon makes 12 billion dollars profit in 3 months...."


REPLY: You conveniently (?) forget that of that amount, over 60% was made overseas. And, the $12 Billion mentioned was BEFORE a 40% tax was imposed.

The major oil companies profit only 8 CENTS for every dollar they invest. Hardly gouging, as has been found in every single independent and government study.

State and federal governments profit three times as much per gallon as the oil companies.... THAT'S gouging. Your local Starbucks profits 23 cents on the dollar; your local bank or credit card profits from 12 to 23 percent on the dollar; THAT'S gouging.

Spades: consider what the oil companies provide the country in employment (refineries; storage depot's, gas stations, and taxes paid on their profits, and it far outweighs anything the goverment gives them in tax breaks.

[edit on 24-7-2006 by zappafan1]





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join