Nearly half of DC employers have laid off workers, reduced hours due to min. wage hikes

originally posted by: ugmold
a reply to: mobiusmale
Maybe they can reduce the CEO's pay to under 3 million a year, might help.

I made $10 an hour in the 1970's, time for a raise or just go out of Business.

Did you even bother reading the op?

Cause that asinine comment sure sounds like someone that hadn't.

Not every business in the US has a evil 'ceo'.

As the op says nearly HALF of all business owners.

Which means that is SMALL business owners. The largest employers in the country by the way.

Take money from someone that doesn't even EXIST for SMB ?

I just love 'liberal' logic.

a reply to: neo96

You should be more upset with your conservative politicians. They actually had a bigger stake in destroying competition.

They won't stop illegals through worker verication. Rick Perry himself became rich using Mexican labour.

Nixon and his trade agreements with China,t making off the gold standard to use the cpi, bush grew the deficet and gov almost as bad as FDR. His buddies got corperate welfare as soon as he was elected.

We haven't seen a fiscally conservative Republican in decades. Other than the ones the party Calls lunatics.

So no it's hardly a liberal cause.

Why not offset wage increase with corperate tax relief? Could even do it voluntarily?

How about taxing the very wealthy higher to lower cooperate taxes?

a reply to: luthier

Time to study Fabian Socialism.

a reply to: xuenchen

I did in school years ago.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: imsoconfused

I think we give incentive for a goal through business tax breaks to offset the wage hike. But hey we don't live in a time where politics create solutions.

I also feel certain tax brackets should be taxed more not for benefits for all but to lower corporate taxes and have a better business environment.

They created regulations and taxes to keep only the biggest companies who can absorb the losses in power. It seems obvious to me. It was done by both sides of the aisle.

I think the incentive should be a paycheck.. Everyone knows what they are going to get paid before they take a job, if its not enough get a second income.

What happened to pushing a lawn mower down the street and getting 20 bucks a lawn. My mower broke down a few months ago and my lawn got really high. Not one person knocked on my door and asked if i needed it mowed . I would have paid 30 bucks at least for an hours worth of work.

This generation wants everything handed to them.

a reply to: imsoconfused

That is terrible social philosophy


Who is watching these peoples kids and giving them values if parents are overburdened with labor?

The constitution does actually set out some moral ideas you know.


You ever seen the studies on latch key kids?

If employers were not so attached to their pay rolls they "fought for" we wouldn't have this problem. The addiction to money is real. But it is the knly addiction considered a healthy addiction. Even though addiction to money is worse than addiction to heroine.

Addiction to money has these symptoms:

a heavy heart. When ever your money flow is endangered it puts stress on you. So much that it makes your heart feel ten pounds heavier. It drives the person to find a destructive, or imparitive answer.

Psychosis: they pretend it doesn't exist, driving their company into the ground. Which could actually help reverse this in other companies.

Increase in addiction abuse. If they fear they will not have enough money anymore they will recklessly spend it on things to try and fill that void. Causing them to go deeper into a psychotic instability.

Anger. They will seem more angry around others. You could have been doing some thing wrong for years and they never had a problem with it. But then they fire you one day for doing so. Even though it is such a small offense in everyone's eyes.

There are more symptoms but it usually ends up with them trying to keep their cash flow higher than everyone else. Even though everyone should be paid the same amount. After all everyone is doing a part in the company. It doesnt make sense that someone who sits in a #ing desk makes 3 times more than the person who is cleaning, walking, selling, and mai taining their #ing shops. Honestly this system is #ed up. I laugh at my own managers for trying to offer me a position as management for one reason. I do not want to become rotund.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: imsoconfused

That is terrible social philosophy


Who is watching these peoples kids and giving them values if parents are overburdened with labor?

The constitution does actually set out some moral ideas you know.


You ever seen the studies on latch key kids?

Lol I am a living study on latch key kids. How about you dont have kids until you can afford them with just your one job.

Or untill then work 2 or dont have kids.

originally posted by: imsoconfused
I guess we should just fire all the non essential employees so the others can get their 15 dollars? Some employers try to just find a job for people because they like them, not because they need them.

If that's what they're doing, the market isn't competitive enough. Either you're operating efficiently or you aren't, and pity jobs aren't efficient.

originally posted by: imsoconfused
I think the incentive should be a paycheck.. Everyone knows what they are going to get paid before they take a job, if its not enough get a second income.

What happened to pushing a lawn mower down the street and getting 20 bucks a lawn. My mower broke down a few months ago and my lawn got really high. Not one person knocked on my door and asked if i needed it mowed . I would have paid 30 bucks at least for an hours worth of work.

This generation wants everything handed to them.

People started doing it themselves, or contracting it out to an adult who wanted the work in a lawnmowing business rather than waiting for some kid to come by.

originally posted by: Edumakated
The problem with low skilled labor is that there is a lot of it available, so it depresses wages. This is one of the reasons that illegal immigration and legal immigration of low skilled persons is bad for Americans at the lower end of the wage scale. It is truly ironic that those who often support increased minimum wage also support open borders and are too ignorant to understand how the two are connected. I have yet to hear a Democrat / Progressive reconcile these two positions which are at odds with their platform.

Since when is it okay for American business owners, those hallowed job creators, to hire Illegals?
Maybe they are anti-American?

I don't believe I'm "too ignorant to understand" the connection. It goes something like this:

Greedy business owners employ illegals, because they can take advantage of them without fear of retaliation. The illegals are happy to have a job making more money than in their home country. This in turn, leads to more people crossing our borders illegally, putting pressure on our entire social system: hospitals, schools, law enforcement, etc, while at the same time, depressing wages for legal Americans.

Sooo, maybe those businesses should stop hiring illegals. Problem solved.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: projectvxn

It's the size of the profits, we are so done with that. So they can put others on the state and federal welfare, done with that.

The size of the profits? What's the context here? What does that have to do with people on welfare?

Coherent arguments would be preferable.

a reply to: imsoconfused

How about you come down to reality. Crap happens. Always has.

Working over 40 hours puts serious strain on your relationships. Which leads to divorce on and on.

Let's not forget their are literally not enough good jobs to give people trained for them. So essentially your talking those who don't have a good job they don't have the right of life, liberty or happiness. Check out the preamble sometime and tell me that any of that exists for children growing up in ghettos with either bad parents or parents never home and always working.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: imsoconfused

How about you come down to reality. Crap happens. Always has.

Working over 40 hours puts serious strain on your relationships. Which leads to divorce on and on.

Let's not forget their are literally not enough good jobs to give people trained for them. So essentially your talking those who don't have a good job they don't have the right of life, liberty or happiness. Check out the preamble sometime and tell me that any of that exists for children growing up in ghettos with either bad parents or parents never home and always working.

Aww your poor relationships lol. Life does not care about your problems. If your to fat STOP EATING, if your broke WORK MORE, its just that simple.

Everyone complains there are not enough jobs out there, when the real problem is you dont think they pay enough so you dont work or you just wine about what it is paying, instead of working two.

Just lazy and our great grandparents and grandparents who worked from sun up to sun down to make this country great would roll over in their graves if they saw how lazy everyone is.

originally posted by: Tsubaki
a reply to: mobiusmale

Demand goes down when prices go up? Maybe in a textbook, but this is the real world, where the cost of houses, hell even renting an apartment keeps going up, year after year. Doesn't look like there's a lack of demand there.

I'm don't particularly feel raising the minimum wage is the answer, but something has to be addressed somewhere.

To be fair, housing is like water, just because the price goes up doesn't mean less people need it. Also housing prices continue to go up because idiots keep voting to have their property tax increased. People in my area just voted a substantial property tax increase just so they could get a $50M dollar high school football stadium, ridiculous. I know for a fact, from conversations I have with neighbors, that some of these people vote yes to tax increases for the sole purpose of "driving the poor people out of town".

I suggest those who want a raise at their job should take up their beef with their neighbors and city councils, not their employers. Your neighbors and city councils are far more responsible for raising the cost of living than your employer. Also employers have lots of options. I don't pay minimum wage in my Ebay business, I pay based on contract. It puts the responsibility on the employee to pay their own taxes and get their own benefits.

I honestly see that as our future. If you want a job you'll have to sign a contract and pay for your own benefits. No job security because when that contract is up your unemployed unless your boss decides to renew the contract.

a reply to: Olivine

There are laws on the books to stop it, but maybe we should ask why our government does not enforce those laws?

Legalizing the illegals who are here is just another band aid. It will only create a very, very large class of legal unskilled labor and that will rapidly be replaced by a steady stream of more unskilled workers streaming in across the borders our own government refuses to control to be employed by unscrupulous businessmen our government refuses to crack down on by enforcing that set of laws.

It's almost as if it's by design.

But of course, then you have another poor, put upon victim class you can champion to make yourself feel good ... that is assuming you haven't undercut yourself so much that you are part of the poor and downtrodden yourself.

This is why the sane people want immigration law, all of it, from the border to the business provisions, enforced.

a reply to: imsoconfused

They would be a lot more pissed their are no jobs.

And yeah our family stats are atrocious and we are not yhe most productive work force by any means. Thats what happen when you wear people out.

I am fine. I have trained myself several skills. I have my own business my wife makes big money.

I am just not such a selfish person I think everyone is the same as me.

Chances are you haven't taken an economics class in your life and this is all just "armchair theory".

For instance Freidman, Hayek and even mises readily accepted injustice and the need for reparations. Hayek being Austrian school believed a GI was a fair way to deal with injustices that will occur. Mises is extremely concerned with morality and fair wages.

So basically your just spouting off mean stuff out of arrogance. It doesn't reflect the concerns economic theorists have about reality of worker stability and productiveness.

a reply to: ketsuko

It's real simple. Employer verification and steep penalties for people who hire illegals.

No wall necessary

Of coarse everyone knows this they all just exploit the cheap labour. Morality completely fades away when money is concerned. Religious people become greedy. Let's see how many of the seven deadly sins you break when you employ people who you are taking advantage of for their cheap labour....

We have greed, hubristic pride (I deserve it), malicious envy, (I want what they have and u will hire illegals to get there), don't forget gluttony.

a reply to: mobiusmale

Any and all job cuts forming a response to wage hikes, are ideologically driven, not driven by necessity. It has always been this way, because corporate entities like to strong arm populations into accepting sub par pay for their sweat. It doesn't matter a damn whether your labour is skilled, or unskilled. If you work, you should be able to feed, clothe, and clean yourself and your attendants, have somewhere to live, and save money to boot, otherwise there is no point to any of it.

Try and screw the little guy again please, because this tack will not wash in the Information Age.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Any and all job cuts forming a response to wage hikes, are ideologically driven,

Not the case for the vast majority of businesses. Businesses have budgets. If minimum wage tightens that budget then you can expect layoffs.

It has always been this way, because corporate entities like to strong arm populations into accepting sub par pay for their sweat.

Except that when all we consider is what large corporations are capable of, we'll leave small and medium size businesses in the dirt. The only ideological issue I see with this line of thinking is that a profitable business is bad and companies should pay people to the point of detriment.

It doesn't matter a damn whether your labour is skilled, or unskilled. If you work, you should be able to feed, clothe, and clean yourself and your attendants, have somewhere to live, and save money to boot, otherwise there is no point to any of it. Try and screw the little guy again please, because this tack will not wash in the Information Age.

You seem to be lacking a lot of information about how businesses run, how they stay profitable and how it impacts employment.

A job isn't a right. No one is going to pay you 15-20 bucks an hour as a fry cook at McDs. You're not worth that much in that position.