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.

 

Obama to raise the Min. wage... WILL THIS WORK? (video)

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 


You honestly have no idea what you're talking about. Minimum wage used to support a family of 4 with only one parent working and that is exactly what is meant to do... the minimum to live on.

As far as Unions go, again, you seem not to know what you're talking about. No one forces anyone to use Union labor unless you're talking about public unions, an entirely different matter. Unions labor is highly skilled and functions as it's own entity once they have won a bid for a job. The companies choosing to hire Union labor are off the hook for work place safety, hourly wages, overtime, sick days as well as not having to pay anything additional if the job isn't completed by the date agreed on, good luck getting that from a private contractor. They set their wages in house and it is factored in to the cost of the job.

You wouldn't dare tell a business owner what to pay his employees, why tell Unions what they can pay their employees? Are they paid better? Oh yes, and what's wrong with not being a chump for a Boss? Do they make wages competitive? Yup, as it should be. And if you think Obama or any elected official is a friend to Unions you just aren't paying attention to anything but the conveyor belt of memes. Do a little research.

Wake up anti-union people, you have been sold a pile of dog poop that they told you was roses. Unless you're the owner, ceo or a shareholder you have been sold out because you aren't part of the profit margin, you're a profit builder and they don't want you in their little club cuz they don't like to share.




posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 



The minimum wage sounds nice on the surface: workers earning $8 per hour would certainly be better off if they were earning $12 per hour instead. The minimum wage does not force employers to pay a particular wage to every worker; it forces employers to pay a particular wage to every worker they choose to keep. While the minimum wage may be well-intentioned public policy, it often hurts the very workers most in need of help.

Minimum wage should be 21.75, if it kept up with living standards since the 60s


Say goodbye to small businesses if it goes to $12. Even if the proposed $9 per hour takes affect we’ll see a lot of layoffs. It’s just unsustainable. We’ll have slightly better paid workers but LESS OF THEM. Which is worse??

I don’t know about anybody else but I already see a bunch of businesses closing in my area, and Texas has one of the strongest state economies around. Every strip mall I pass has numerous vacancies…much more than usual. The last thing this country needs right now is to go tampering with companies bottom line.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by narwahl

Originally posted by redoubt
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 


Here's what happens...

Raise the minimum wage and businesses raise the cost of products and services to cover their expense. This counts as inflation. So, every time you raise the wage, the cost of living goes up to offset the imbalance.


And again:
Why do businesses have to wait until labor costs increase to increase prices?
If they can get more $ for their stuff right now, why don't they do so to maximize profits?


Nobody responded to your asinine question because it is too obvious.

Hey mcdonalds wants to make a trillion this year, so they figured they woukd raise the price of a big. Mac to $100, duh.....nobody will pay much more than they already are for these goods, and they will lose out on their market share.

The company though is still stuck having to pay out dividends to their share holders, so when the MW goes up, they are forced to raise the prices of their goods to maintain their expected pay out.

It doesnt matter if they are losing out on a little of their business by pricing some out of their range, as long as their share holders get their expected pay out, or very close to it anyways. As soon as they go below a few tenths of a percentage point, heads will roll.

So they cut staff to save money, then they demand less people do more work than the full crew used to. Then after all epse has failed, they raise their prices, losing some business as tthey have over priced their goods or services, but with fewer workers doing more work most of the loses are recovered.

But who wins and who loses here? The investors still get their cut, the business still gets it cut, workers now do more for the same buying power they had before, as the cost increases have cancelled out their raise, and now people who were , making double the poverty level wage, are at the poverty level, because lets be honest. Everyone in the country isnt going to see a pay raise because the lowest wrung got one.

It only creates more super poor, by bringing down those that were prior to the raise making more than the poverty line, to now being neck and neck with those that were already at it before the raise.

Not kne single poor person has ever been brought out of poverty by raising the minimum wage, but a lot of people and jobs that usex to pay pretty well are now at mcdonalds wages . Warehouses, factories, mechanics ( the shop still charges $185 an hour for labor, but tue laborer only gets $20 max, and that is if he has all the schooling, and works for a good shop) though some specialty mechanics make better wages, that is , by and large not even close to tue norm. Construnction of all types, maintenance, industrial installation and repair.....I mean there are trully thousands of examples of industries that used to pay well but dont now, and the only thing that has really changed is minimum wage rising.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Some of you all are acting like trained chimps.
How your masters have bred you well...
You'll actually fight against the possibility of changing the future for the better based upon the "threat" of artificial price hiking.

Monkeys, ladders, novel introductions, and beatings.
Trained animals, some of you.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by inverslyproportional

Originally posted by narwahl

Originally posted by redoubt
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 


Here's what happens...

Raise the minimum wage and businesses raise the cost of products and services to cover their expense. This counts as inflation. So, every time you raise the wage, the cost of living goes up to offset the imbalance.


And again:
Why do businesses have to wait until labor costs increase to increase prices?
If they can get more $ for their stuff right now, why don't they do so to maximize profits?


Nobody responded to your asinine question because it is too obvious.

Hey mcdonalds wants to make a trillion this year, so they figured they woukd raise the price of a big. Mac to $100, duh.....nobody will pay much more than they already are for these goods, and they will lose out on their market share.

The company though is still stuck having to pay out dividends to their share holders, so when the MW goes up, they are forced to raise the prices of their goods to maintain their expected pay out.

It doesnt matter if they are losing out on a little of their business by pricing some out of their range, as long as their share holders get their expected pay out, or very close to it anyways. As soon as they go below a few tenths of a percentage point, heads will roll.

So they cut staff to save money, then they demand less people do more work than the full crew used to. Then after all epse has failed, they raise their prices, losing some business as tthey have over priced their goods or services, but with fewer workers doing more work most of the loses are recovered.


And if they do this Now, before the labor-cost increase they will make more money per unit!
Why are they waiting?



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by sempul
 


There is an actual difference in the proposal this time. This particular proposal is that the min wage be automatically adjusted to the consumer price index. Even then the amount of the proposed minimum is far below where it should be compared to where it would be if it had been done this way when it was first envisioned. If it passes intact, there will probably be a brief economic slowdown and then growth once the economy adjusts. Tying it to the CPI makes it not worthwhile to raise prices. We made the adjustment to this system in my State and it has worked fairly well.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by KeliOnyx
 


Exactly right, I'm worried though that it will just be a small raise in min wage and they won't for go the tie in... that tie in is exactly what we need. If we're going to insist on a Capitalist economy then this one way we can make things a little more reasonable for those of us not in the Elite Class. Checks and balances, like our government. I would very much like to see what the plan is for small business though. Or will Corporations continue to buy their destruction.
edit on 26-2-2013 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-2-2013 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by narwahl
 


I thought I had explained this clearly already, but here goes.

people will not pay anymore than they already are for this crap, if they price it higher they will drive themselves out of business.

Mcdonalds raises costs of food by $1, BK doesnt, where are the customers gonna eat? It is simple supply and demand econ, in America you cant even graduate highschool without passing this class.

Any business has competition, if they raise the price and their competitors dont, they lose.

When minimum wage goes up, it is an across the board raise on all goods and services by the entire economy, as now all gasstation attendants are being paid what their manger was making. Same at mcdonalds, same at the warehoues, same for all the auto places, jiffy lube, mobil 1 etc... same for store employees at kroger walmart jcpennies, kohls, kmart etc... same for every sector but the ones without minimum wage employees, banks, brokerage firms, lawyers etc...

All of these entities are beholden to their greedy assed investors, whom no matter how gorged, or overly stuffed, will still never have enough. Demanding that the people actually making the companies money, the workers, need to make less and do more, even though the investor does nothing for his cut except demand the already poor and hopeless, learn to live off of less, while doing twice the work load.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by inverslyproportional
 


Exactly!
you described 2 scenarios where the business could lower unit costs (Raise prices, cut workforce)
We both actually agree that in some cases those moves would cost the business turnover (Folks going somwhere else to eat, eat at home, or somewhere where the service is better).
If the bottom line gets better despite loosing customers (And if the bottom line that was first dimnished by wage increases now gets there again, that is what happened), why are the greedyass investors not demanding those steps now? Why do you need a wage increase first?
(There is also the fact that min-wage increases actually lower labor costs (lower employee turnover leads to lower hiering costs, employees are better motivated and make less "mistakes") but even without that, the "common wisdom" of wage increase=price increase makes no sense)



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by narwahl
 


A big business, pick anyone you want. Has investors who demand they get their cut everytime without fail or else.

People will not do a good job if you work them too hard for too little. Investors know this, why do you think one guy doesnt run a mcdonalds? It isnt possible. They expect the business they have invested in to have certain standards that have been set, by the market, not morality, to ensure a winning formula.

Investors are not stupid, they will jerk their equity out of a company fast if they think it isnt on the road to success.

Right now at mcdonalds, they already have the bare minimum of staff necessary to ensure their cash cow is happy and returns.

If they set their prices too high, or they dont provide adequate and timely service it is game over for them, as their competitors will not all be dumb enough to expect. 1 guy to do 10 guys work for minimum wage, and do it in a way their customers appreciate.

This should have all been obvious though. Just think abojt it logically, how hard would you work for a dollar? How many dollars woild you spend at a place with crap service, long lines, and crap quality?

This is the way business works, just use your noodle. If mcdonalds had 5 people instead of 10 and their burgers costed 2 timez as much, how long woild they be in business? The answer is not very long at all.

Now apply this logic to any job, I assure you, many people way smarter than any of us have already pushed the limits of efficiency to their limits in every sector of the economy. There isnt much room to fulfill their obligations and cut wages or staff any further. Any less service and people will stop coming, any jigher pricesand people will stop buying, any lower wagez and you wont have a single worker thats worth a damn.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by inverslyproportional
 


You do realize that we agree?
Also: Yes, investors aren't stupid.
That's why they don't say "Increased minimum wage will eat into our profits!" and say "It will increase your prices!" instead...



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by narwahl
 


We dont agree, as I have clearly laid out the reason why higher wages will equal higher prices. The only way to raise wages and not raise prices is for there to be a law requiring business to lower their profit to wage margin. Which will not help anyone, as as soon as they did, investors would dump their stocks, flood the market from every sector, and the economy would implode overnight.

As investors are out to protect their investment, first and foremost, they couldnt give a damn about providing services or goods, or taling care of their employees.

The entire system is designed around and based on limitless human greed and avarice. Once it is limited, the system will destroy itself, as it isnt made to be limited, it is meant to expand human greed, not put li mm its on it.

The entire system needs to be trashed and remade, pay should be based directly on the businesses profits, so the workers are xnot left out of the loop in boom times, and then shafted in the bad times.

This is what has caused all of these problems to begin with.

Every business doesnt make a hundred billion a year profit, every job is not equal, therefore shouldnt have equal pay for everyone without a college degree.

A warehouse worker deserves much more pay than a order taker at mcdonalds. Yet both are right at minimum wage right now. The entire thing is dumb.

Walmart makes hundreds of billions of profits a year, yet they pay minimum wage to almost all employees, who are now on welfare.

In essence, the american tax payer is handing billions a year to walmart, simply because their investors are too greedy to pay them a livable wage.

If a business makes more than a million a year in profits, I dont care how many they employ, or what they do. They should not have a single person working for them on welfare.

Yet it is quite easy to name hundreds of companies in America that are doing this exact thing right now.

I dont think a lot of people have ever thought about all of these factors, the entire situation is very complex, yet it shou ld be easy, as I have yet to see any scenario that was honest in which the rules need to be too complicated for kost to understand.

They only make it so complicated so most cant follow it, thus you dont see them screwing you, and you just assume things are going like they should.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Same old doom and gloom from our conservative posters.
Even though multiple studies have showed absolutely ZERO
gloom over raising the minimum wage.
video.msnbc.msn.com...



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Typically minimum wage earners are high school students and college students. Less than 2% of the minimum wage earners are trying to raise a family on that wage.

So this will just hurt young people who have taken minimum wage jobs until their education is complete.

It's not well thought out at all. Of course if I were making $7.25 per hour, I'd love it.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by sealing
Same old doom and gloom from our conservative posters.
Even though multiple studies have showed absolutely ZERO
gloom over raising the minimum wage.
video.msnbc.msn.com...


Interesting because I can point to studies that clearly show the negative effects of minimum wage laws and all the unintended consequences they bring.

Negative Effects of Minimum Wage Laws

Minimum Wages

Several decades of studies using aggregate time-series data from a variety of countries have found that minimum wage laws reduce employment.



According to a 1978 article in American Economic Review, 90 percent of the economists surveyed agreed that the minimum wage increases unemployment among low-skilled workers.
This reference is a bit old but economics is economics; unless you plan on changing the whole of the system....

There is even some Supreme Court precedent, in which workers fought minimum wage regulation and won:
That case would be Adkins v. Children’s Hospital.

I leave you on this note:
"Not only does this line of thinking (wage-floors; minimum-wage) run contrary to the most basic economic principles of a free society, but it is also patently illogical. If government could raise the real wages of millions of Americans by merely passing a law announcing that fact, then why stop at $3.35 per hour, or $4.65, or even $107 Isn’t $500 per hour more compassionate than $50?"



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Agreed. It makes no sense how this could actually be a benefit. Anyone thinking it is... doesn't seem to be running it thoroughly through the mind.

I just took a job which is actually two roles in one. My thinking is that if the minimum wage goes up, further consolidation would occur. Jobs would be lost, wages on higher paying jobs would decrease... something would change to keep the bottom line either at the same mark, or higher for the next quarter. That's just basic common sense as far as I'm concerned.

Add to this, someone must be working on doing this job of switching things around to make up for the losses. It's decreased efficiency any which way you look at it.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by nomnom
 


Here is a question to you: Does the Government have the Right to dictate to individuals what they believe to be just compensation for their skills and/or labor? That is what Minimum Wage Laws create. While some will look at it and say it is forcing business to only find employment at a base wage, it clearly violates private contract laws in which two consenting people exchange goods/services/labor for a set amount.

ETA: On another note, someone here already suggested that on top of a wage-floor, the Government should institute a wage-ceiling. Where are these folks getting their economic education from?

If a teenager wants to wash cars for $5.00/hour to gain experience, work-ethic, etc he cannot because his Government has told him he can't. As pointed out already, the large swath of minimum-wage earners are 16-24 single people and they will suffer the most when this gets increased.
edit on 26-2-2013 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by nomnom
 


Here is a question to you: Does the Government have the Right to dictate to individuals what they believe to be just compensation for their skills and/or labor?


No. I think the action just causes harm.


If a teenager wants to wash cars for $5.00/hour to gain experience, work-ethic, etc he cannot because his Government has told him he can't. As pointed out already, the large swath of minimum-wage earners are 16-24 single people and they will suffer the most when this gets increased.


Agreed. It's just a stupid policy. If employers are willing to pay a higher or lower wage legally, they will. If they are forced to change their wage for the same labor because of a law, they will screw with their numbers in another way.

This disincentivises low-skilled pay, legally, and encourages illegal labor. It's just another law which feels good to some laymen, but does harm for the society. This raise is just in time for the cuts to border security, which will bring a large influx of illegals ready to day labor for low wages, illegally.

RELATED:
Homeland Security Cuts
edit on 26-2-2013 by nomnom because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 05:16 PM
link   
One other reason that Unions want the minimum wage increase is because it reduces the risk of competition from untrained employees. Who wants to hire an unskilled worker at the proposed minimum wage, and spend money and time training them, as opposed to already skilled workers?

Any time Obama proposes to do anything, always, always look for an ulterior motive. He never does anything that will not benefit him in some way.

This is simply pay back to the Unions for helping get him elected, under the guise of doing something to "help" others "less fortunate". For people lacking in knowledge or education, it looks great, but for those that see the real truth, it's a scumbag thing to do.

In the end, he will get praise from the uninformed, while getting praised for getting Unions fat raises. Once again, the little guy ends up paying, because who really pays Federal Union workers salaries? That's right, WE do.

In the end, your increase in minimum wage means higher taxes means more pay for Unions, who just reduced your chances of getting a job.

And people praise this.

edit on 26-2-2013 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Wow, I thought the US wanted to stop outsourcing?

Hmm, learn something new everyday.



new topics




 
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join