Economics 101: Raise Minimum Wage and Jobs Decrease

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo


Obligated. In other words, forced. Income re-distribution. Destined for the crapper.

And what's wrong with that? You would mind that Exxon CEO give back millions to the economy? You would mind that the Rothchild family invest some of their trillions in the economy? Are you kidding me?

Today it's the Rothschilds, then they flee the oppression. Tomorrow, its my wallet they want to confiscate. That is the only way that socialism can survive: it is a parasite that needs a host to drain blood from.




posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 01:36 AM
link   
Did everyone forget the fact that, umm ohh I dont know, the cost of living, prices of goods and services, and the fuel to keep the machine running have all gone up in the past ten years without a wage increase. So like, what would you all propose. Oh lets just keep the minimum wage down, although for some reason the price of EVERYTHING continues to rise?

Where is the logic in that?

[edit on 2/13/2007 by DYepes]



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 02:33 AM
link   
Brilliant. People MUST be kept in poverty to ensure a healthy growing economy.........say what!

What complete and utter bullsh*t.

The rich need you to believe the bull lest you actully do something about it. That terrifies them.

Well done the US a model of meaness for the rest of the world to follow.

Oh by the way the UK introduced a minimum wage a few years back and the economy became the fastest growing one in Europe. The number of people in work NB WORKING not percentage unemployed has grown. An unemployed person has to register so that percentage is an entirely arbitrary figure. Even the CBI had to eat humble pie about its dire predictions about what a minimum wage would do to British business.

Not that any of the above will change the mind of anybody but it is very sad nonetheless that people think poverty and excessively obscene wealth living side by side under the same economic umbrella is defendable.


df1

posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by malcr
Brilliant. People MUST be kept in poverty to ensure a healthy growing economy.........say what!

What complete and utter bullsh*t.

The rich need you to believe the bull lest you actully do something about it. That terrifies them.


It seems that many Americans are made to feel stronger by keeping others down. This is a lot like the poor white trash in the civil war that supported the continuation of slavery not because they had slaves, but because it at least insured that they would be ranked socially above the black slaves. So it is with increasing the minimum wage and you are absolutely correct in pointing out that filthy rich just love it.



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 03:16 AM
link   
I'm all for wages keeping up with the price of goods and services in the US but I am also a firm believer in education and training. Minimum wage jobs are good for the typical entry level worker and those jobs are usually very laborious and dirty. Instead of putting the bulk of the burden on small business why not encourage people to continue their educations. It's easy to say. I worked 45-50 hours a week and went to school full time on top of that. I am a SWM by the way...keep this in mind....I was on the Dean's list every quarter on top of all this and yet no grant money was available for me to help pay my way. What's wrong with this picture...I can maintain a full time job and basically maintain an A average carrying the full course load and no one is going to help me out? I worked my ass off every waking moment of my day trying to do things the 'right' way and what kind of help did I get?

This is what is wrong with the system in my opinion...I don't subscribe to give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day...I firmly say teach a man to fish and he'll eat for life...I could go on and on about this but I'll stop here. I think you get the gist of what I'm saying...forgive my lack of eloquence please! LOL!!!

D



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by DYepes
...the cost of living, prices of goods and services, and the fuel to keep the machine running have all gone up in the past ten years without a wage increase...


Wages haven't increased in real terms for one simple reason, the idea of the 'pay-rise' has been replaced by the availability of cheap credit.
Rather than having to justify an increase in salary in any real-terms with an employer, the employee is now able to judge his own economic worth and take credit/loan terms to make up that percieved difference.

The danger is that the price/interest rate of credit has been kept artificially low, and as more people borrow to make up for a shortfall between actual income and percieved self-economic worth, more borrowed money is spent chasing fewer goods which can only lead to one outcome, inflation. At that point, the price of credit and the cost of servicing personal credit-debt begins to increase as interest-rates rise to bring inflation back into equilibrium, and more credit must be borrowed just to cover the rising costs of basic amenities such as food and fuel.

It all adds up to having to run faster just to be able to stand still



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ddh1969
I'm all for wages keeping up with the price of goods and services in the US but I am also a firm believer in education and training. Minimum wage jobs are good for the typical entry level worker and those jobs are usually very laborious and dirty. Instead of putting the bulk of the burden on small business why not encourage people to continue their educations.


Yes for most people, thankfully, a minimum wage job is either a summer job, after school job or a job right after high school that motivates them to go back to school. Unfortunately not everyone has the same skill sets and some people do not have the ability to get a higher education. These people, working fulltime, should have the ability to pay rent on an apartment and buy food for the month.

Also there are far more mimum wage jobs than there are teens and young adults to fill them. Regardless of how many people better themselves, to the extent that they can, we still need people to work at the 7-11's, Starbucks and gas stations. I don't think it's too much to ask that individuals be compensated at a rate that allows them to survive.

I would rather the business that they work at for 40 hours provide them with enough funds to pay thier bills instead of having them qualify for food stamps and the like at the general taxpayer expense.

It seems to me the people that feel most threatened by a minimum wage hikes are the ones who are making $10-20/hr as every increase climbs closer to what they make. I for one would like to see the minimum wage be much closer to an actual "living wage". I know it's evil but I would have no issue with the local Starbucks paying their employees $12/hr.

If a company like In N Out (fast food, burger place like McDonalds) can pay $9.50/hr starting pay then these companies can afford to pay their people a real wage. Most won't do so willingly simply because they don't value their own employees ... they don't care if turnover is high, so long as the bottom line is looking good.



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 03:17 PM
link   
SMBI, the problem with a Starbuck's worker making $12/hr is that the cup of coffee would double in price.
Who do you think would pick up hte slack for the increase labor hours? Oh, and you'd be waiting longer as there would be fewer workers, or the same number of workers working fewer hours.
I work in retail, so I'm not making this up.


Oh, and I have no plans to be buying a fast food burger that costs double what it does now



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Raising minimum wages is only a 'bad idea' for a economy when it's workers compete directly when the cheapest labour in the world. This is thus not a question of economic 'essentials' but once of economic choices as no government on Earth ( to say nothing of the supposed super powers) can or should be forced to expose it's citizens to competition with slave labour or starvation labour.

Those who pretend that wage increases reduces the availability of jobs are either ignorant of economic realities or wilfully misrepresenting reality serving the interest of those who would ideally have us all working in chain-gangs getting no pay and no more food than enables productive( for them and mostly to keep us busy) long term labour.

Stellar



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 05:05 PM
link   
@ StellarX

The US labor market has suffered during the years of higher minimum wage increases. The higher the wage the less an employer is willing to hire in that country. The EU is finding this out the hard way but because of unions and labor legislation, they have become used to having 1/3 of the year off and compensation for being laid for years after the fact.

The lobbyists pushing the min wage legislation are not those representing the common worker or their benevolent democratic representatives, but labor unions. Unionists have labor contracts, their wage is set for years ahead and they have job security. Other workers are judged by the performance. A higher minimum wage means less scabs to take the place of unionists when their demands are not met and they go on strike.

Higher Wages = Less Labor Budget, companies have overhead budgeting...by increasing the rate the money has to come from somewhere, either raising prices or lowering labor compensation in terms of workers employed.

Mod Note: Trim Those Quotes



[edit on 13-2-2007 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Raising minimum wages is only a 'bad idea' for a economy when it's workers compete directly when the cheapest labour in the world. This is thus not a question of economic 'essentials' but once of economic choices as no government on Earth ( to say nothing of the supposed super powers) can or should be forced to expose it's citizens to competition with slave labour or starvation labour.

Those who pretend that wage increases reduces the availability of jobs are either ignorant of economic realities or wilfully misrepresenting reality serving the interest of those who would ideally have us all working in chain-gangs getting no pay and no more food than enables productive( for them and mostly to keep us busy) long term labour.

Stellar

There is an element of the labor market that is not taught or accounted for in the schools: the effects of illegal immigration.

They are the ones who work at minimum wage jobs. This drives up the price of all manual labor. Why do you think that labor unions endorse raising the minimum wage?



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by df1


It seems that many Americans are made to feel stronger by keeping others down. This is a lot like the poor white trash in the civil war that supported the continuation of slavery not because they had slaves, but because it at least insured that they would be ranked socially above the black slaves. So it is with increasing the minimum wage and you are absolutely correct in pointing out that filthy rich just love it.


Oh, I see the liberal education system is doing its job. It was rich agricultural land owners, the dixiecrats, that wanted to continue slavery. It wasnt some redneck sitting in a trailer flying a confederate flag that wanted to continue slavery. It was the rich democrats who wanted to continue slavery. They continually lie about the history of their party and try to spin it on the "right, religous nut jobs." Well, it was those "religous nutjobs" who were abolitionists in american history.



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by CAConrad0825
@ StellarX

The US labor market has suffered during the years of higher minimum wage increases. The higher the wage the less an employer is willing to hire in that country. The EU is finding this out the hard way but because of unions and labor legislation, they have become used to having 1/3 of the year off and compensation for being laid for years after the fact.

The lobbyists pushing the min wage legislation are not those representing the common worker or their benevolent democratic representatives, but labor unions. Unionists have labor contracts, their wage is set for years ahead and they have job security. Other workers are judged by the performance. A higher minimum wage means less scabs to take the place of unionists when their demands are not met and they go on strike.

[edit on 13-2-2007 by DontTreadOnMe]


I can agree that there have been a lot of jobs lately outsourced to other countries. However I believe very few of those jobs moved overseas paid minimum wage here to begin with. Autoworkers were definitely not building our cars for minimum wage. I doubt all the outsourced tech support that seems to be routed through India now was done at minimum wage. It seems, to me, that most of the outsourced jobs were jobs that actually paid a decent living and the companies realized they could pay pennies on the dollar to have it done in another country. There are certain jobs that simply can not be outsourced. You can't have the local 7-11 worker moved overseas and the gas station attentdant can't be watching from India.

Union members do have a certain degree of job security, but what is wrong with that? Is it all that wrong to expect a little job security for people who have worked at their company for 10, 15, 20 years? It's not as if they can show up to work then sleep and get paid .. they still have to do their job. They are still judged on their performance and it is still very possible to fire someone who is not meeting the minimums of the job. It may take a little more paperwork but still very possible.



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
SMBI, the problem with a Starbuck's worker making $12/hr is that the cup of coffee would double in price.
Who do you think would pick up hte slack for the increase labor hours? Oh, and you'd be waiting longer as there would be fewer workers, or the same number of workers working fewer hours.
I work in retail, so I'm not making this up.


Oh, and I have no plans to be buying a fast food burger that costs double what it does now


The point was that In-N-Out pays a starting wage of $9.50/hr ... yet they are just as cheap as McDonalds. Why is it they can afford to pay all their employees at least $2/hr more but it hasn't seemed to affect the prices?

Businesses like In-N-Out and Costco pay better than their counterparts and they don't seem to be hurting for it. Unfortunately not all companies value their employees and not all employees have a lot of options of where they can be employed and what they can do.

I worked in retail and the store I worked in paid barely above minimum wage for most of it's employees and some were on commission but were lucky to make $35,000/year. The store typically took in at least $50,000 in cash/check transactions ... during busy times it wasn't suprising to have daily deposits in the amount of $120,000 or higher and that was just cash and checks ... most people use credit cards now a days.

While I'm sure a minimum wage raise would hurt the bottom line of these retailers I don't see it putting them out of business. I would worry more about the mom and pop stores but alot of those have very few non-family employees to begin with and wouldn't be affected.



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Economics 101: Hardly

Let’s take an example of a British Company, Debenhams. They employ 19,000 people – if you raised the minimum wage by £1 more per-hour and an average working week is 40hrs, with everyone working 40hrs for 52weeks of the year they’d have to pay: 39,520,000 extra to their employees. A whole 39million and yet they make a profit of: 2,090 million. The simple fact is, if the “Top Brass” stopped taking massive payouts and reduced their wage they could increase the wage of their workers and in turn what? Give their workers a better quality of life without suffering themselves.

When someone makes over 1million pounds a day, loosing 100,000 of it to benefit thousands more is no real loss. Unless of course you're greedy.



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmallMindsBigIdeas

Originally posted by CAConrad0825
@ StellarX

[edit on 13-2-2007 by DontTreadOnMe]


Union members do have a certain degree of job security, but what is wrong with that? Is it all that wrong to expect a little job security for people who have worked at their company for 10, 15, 20 years? It's not as if they can show up to work then sleep and get paid .. they still have to do their job. They are still judged on their performance and it is still very possible to fire someone who is not meeting the minimums of the job. It may take a little more paperwork but still very possible.


Obviously you have not had much experience with unions. The things that you claim unionist cannot do, they do all the time. To fire a unionist risks a full strike, as well as you have to pay them outrageous compensation for the time in which YOU cannot find them a new job. The unionist crowd out the labor force of non unionists and decrease the wages allowed for nonunion workers. Foreign automakers like Honda however have set a trend of high paid non-union labor, and still make great profits.

To say that a required wage helps the economy is bunk. A true free trade of a labor market is the only true way to achieve economic growth.



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Economics 101: Hardly

Let’s take an example of a British Company, Debenhams. They employ 19,000 people – if you raised the minimum wage by £1 more per-hour and an average working week is 40hrs, with everyone working 40hrs for 52weeks of the year they’d have to pay: 39,520,000 extra to their employees. A whole 39million and yet they make a profit of: 2,090 million. The simple fact is, if the “Top Brass” stopped taking massive payouts and reduced their wage they could increase the wage of their workers and in turn what? Give their workers a better quality of life without suffering themselves.

When someone makes over 1million pounds a day, loosing 100,000 of it to benefit thousands more is no real loss. Unless of course you're greedy.


I can answer your argument in one sentence. If your job does not pay you enough to live decently, stop working there.



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 02:12 PM
link   
He's a child, he doesn't know what the hell he is talking about. Lets hope he has a comfy existence so that he is not confronted by reality...he won't be able to handle it.



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by CAConrad0825

Originally posted by Odium
Economics 101: Hardly

Let’s take an example of a British Company, Debenhams. They employ 19,000 people – if you raised the minimum wage by £1 more per-hour and an average working week is 40hrs, with everyone working 40hrs for 52weeks of the year they’d have to pay: 39,520,000 extra to their employees. A whole 39million and yet they make a profit of: 2,090 million. The simple fact is, if the “Top Brass” stopped taking massive payouts and reduced their wage they could increase the wage of their workers and in turn what? Give their workers a better quality of life without suffering themselves.

When someone makes over 1million pounds a day, loosing 100,000 of it to benefit thousands more is no real loss. Unless of course you're greedy.


I can answer your argument in one sentence. If your job does not pay you enough to live decently, stop working there.


What a novel concept! Who'da thought you actually have a choice?!


Its sad that idea doesnt seem to occur to people anymore.


df1

posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
Oh, I see the liberal...

Was it my support of increasing the minimum wage or the big red button that says "Socialist Workers Party" that gave it away?




It wasnt some redneck...

The confederacy/slavery had the popular support of the poor whites, as opposition to the minimum wage has the support of the poor. It is not rational, but it is true. The confederate army consisted of between 600,000 and 1,000,000 members depending on who's estimates are used. There were not enough wealthy southern landowners/slaveholders to form a confederate Army of this size without the support of the poor whites.

The north didn't really give a damn about abolition, they were more concerned that the southern states were intent on building factories that would use slave labor that was not paid a minimum wage. This would have resulted in the northern factories owned by the-powers-that-be of the day being unable to compete, because the northern factory workers still needed to be paid some defacto minimum wage.





new topics
top topics
 
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join