Originally posted by GT100FV
And how old are you exactly, as you don't seem to have a grasp of economics yourself? Companies don't operate in a vacuum- not only do they have to
look at the costs of business(overhead, salaries, advertising, profitability), but what their competition is doing.
What the competition is doing can only matter so much if our governments properly regulated imports thus ensuring that local workers were not forced
to compete against unfair practices elsewhere. You can not create a consumer class by destroying your own workforce and anyone who tells you that
cheap imports are a good thing for the majority is just lying to you.
Their competition in terms of minimum wage jobs might not even be a company in the same field of endeavor. Your overhead is fairly
fixed(though minimum wage hike mandates raise this).
Labour is certainly the major cost of industry thus it is interesting that massive profit gains are achieved by simply laying off people and putting
the remaining workers in a situation where they know they can be replaced if they insist on higher wages. When global corporations increase their
profit margins ( when they say double their profits ) the only constant seems to the that they were both laying off workers and shifting to countries
where the same skills can be had for less renumeration; they can after all sell the final product to anyone anywhere so they have no loyalty to the
workers that built the company in the first place.
All other factors are based on the profitability, because unless a company can turn a profit, it's not going to be in business long anyhow.
Very much true and few of the major American corporations would have survived the last four decades without the major tax payer bailouts they received
while their corporate managers grew so fabulously rich. When the company is failing badly THEN the corporate bosses start thinking about the workers
and insisting that the government bails them out ' to protect the economy'.
Whenever the cost of business rises, the costs of goods and services rise too.
Define 'the cost of business' as normally that just means the volume of money that the mangers pockets above and beyond what the company can afford.
The only other option is to lay workers off to try to offset this(lowering the tax base).
What about reduced renumeration for the bosses and trade practices that restricts the competition from slave labour elsewhere? Why does workers have
to laid off if that means less consumers in the economy? It makes no sense and it's illogical a reason to lay off people as most other.
All one is doing is decreasing the number of those employed, which isn't helping those at that income bracket.
Minimum wages are not the reason the American economy is losing manufacturing jobs at the rate it currently is.
You can't tax yourself into prosperity, and raising minimum wages is form of tax on businesses.
Minimum wages ensures a living wage thus ensuring that inefficiently spent government social welfare programs do not waste billions of dollars.
Minimum wage creates consumers and in the end without that it really does not matter what your doing assuming such a thing as liberty is to be
protected or respected. Much rather tax business ( American corporations have very light tax burdens) than tax consumers which makes business
Not every business has 50,000 employees with CEOs making $100 million/year.
Not every business does but we should at least properly tax those we do have.
There are far more small businesses out there than big businesses, and they don't have the assets to absorb huge overhead
Then do not tax small businesses but make sure there is a minimum wages?
and simply raising the prices might make them completely uncompetitive in market.
Which market are we talking about? Why should workers in the American shoe manufacturing sector compete with Thai/Indonesian 'wage slave' ( just
enough to ensure they can't stop working or escape the system by starving completely) labour?
The low pay of minimum wage is a disincentive to stay at that tax bracket.
Complete and utter nonsense.
If one has the drive and ambition, they can get the skills for better paying jobs.
So basically 80% of the worlds population ( and i am being generous) lacks drive and ambition?
The only exceptions would be those that are mentally/physically disabled.
5 billion people?
In other cases it's just a lack of motivation.
It's hard to get very motivated when you are given no opportunity's and have to eat once a day to ensure that there is some food for tomorrow...
I suggest you go without food for just a day or two and see how much energy you have to 'motivate' yourself with.
Government meddling with market forces is never a good idea
They are meddling anyways so we can just as well force them to meddle in their respective countries best interest.