• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CBO Says Minimum-Wage Rise May Ease Poverty, Cost Jobs

You've yet again changed your definition of price fixing and now you're talking about something completely different, again...

I haven't changed any definition.
 
Why do you say that service jobs are "unskilled"? I once held down a service job...servicing fire safety equipment. Believe me, in order to do my job effectively, I had to have a certain amount of knowledge about plumbing, pressure, mechanics, interpreting and applying federal, state and local laws. I had to be able to read diagrams and blueprints. I had to be able to operate machinery...some of it computer controlled, some of it manually operated. Plus, I had to understand and use customer service concepts and practices. I was quite "skilled" in that job and I earned much more than minimum wage doing it. When I applied for the work, I beat out 5 other people applying for the same job.

That was the "free market" at work that gave me that job.

Did you go to college for that job? No, you learned on the job how to do it, that is unskilled labor.

Most service jobs are unskilled and pay little, that is the overall point and big picture that is important.
 
LoL, are you coaching me on how to debate?

Well, yes...I am.


You are welcome.

You're basically copying DA60's style of "debate" by trying to test me with endless demands that I "do this" or "show this" to your satisfaction. This is a very old and shallow technique by people who don't have an actual argument and just want to taunt from the sidelines.

When all you do is state your opinion...and when others dispute your opinion and present facts that show your opinion is in error...then it is incumbent upon you to present facts that support your opinion. You haven't done so. I'm not taunting you. I'm only asking you to support your opinions.

If you would like to make an actual argument instead of just complaining, go ahead. What's funny is that what I posted was for a demand from DA60 because he kept demanding links to research. Now you chime in and demand quotes and criticize it as not enough, lmao. Where is your argument? Where is your research? Where is your "proof" of anything?

Whining doesn't become you.

I've demanded nothing from you...except that you back up your opinions.
 
Did you go to college for that job? No, you learned on the job how to do it, that is unskilled labor.

Most service jobs are unskilled and pay little, that is the overall point and big picture that is important.

unskilled labor
noun
1.
work that requires practically no training or experience for its adequate or competent performance.

Unskilled-labor | Define Unskilled-labor at Dictionary.com

Definition of 'Unskilled Labor'

A segment of the work force associated with a low skill level or a limited economic value for the work performed (human capital). Unskilled labor is generally characterized by low education levels and small wages. Work that requires no specific education or experience is often available to workers who fall into the unskilled labor force.

Investopedia explains 'Unskilled Labor'

Unskilled labor provides a significant part of the overall labor market, performing daily production tasks that do not depend on technical abilities or skills. Menial or repetitive tasks are typical unskilled labor positions. Jobs that can be fully learned in less than 30 days often fall into the unskilled labor category.

Unskilled Labor Definition | Investopedia

I think it would help if you didn't make up your own definitions of the terms you use.
 
More money in the working man's pocket means he'll spend more at Wal-Mart. More money going back into the economy means happier businesses.

Employers will not increase their payroll budget to accommodate the new minimum wage, they will cut employees. Therefor, the net added cash to the economy is zero.
 
Employers will not increase their payroll budget to accommodate the new minimum wage, they will cut employees. Therefor, the net added cash to the economy is zero.

Heya JM :2wave: .....I know some people who own small businesses. They have stated that if they raised the minimum wage. They would have to cut workers. They themselves would have to work more hours too. Which they are in the service industry and its not like they have a lot of money when most of it is involved with their dream. Like they said.....their just middleclass struggling like others.
 
Well, yes...I am.



You are welcome.



When all you do is state your opinion...and when others dispute your opinion and present facts that show your opinion is in error...then it is incumbent upon you to present facts that support your opinion. You haven't done so. I'm not taunting you. I'm only asking you to support your opinions.



Whining doesn't become you.

I've demanded nothing from you...except that you back up your opinions.

I'm the ONLY person in this thread that has backed up my statements with research and I've done it several times. Other than the CBO that was originally posted and your irrelevant link from 1946 that I already addressed you guys have demonstrated nothing.

Your posts don't have any connection to reality...
 
Thank you for this little gem.

Ok so I screwed up my definitions, you got me. :2razz:

What I mean by unskilled workers is everything below careers like lawyers, doctors, high level information technology jobs, etc. things you have to go to college for and make a relatively large amount of money doing.

The reason I call everything below that "unskilled" is because the pay has dropped to the point where they are in the same boat. People who have possibly even extensive skills in labor jobs aren't really making much money anymore. Hence the "middle class" is becoming the poverty class and I call this whole shebang "unskilled".

This is part of the two tier society that is emerging in the U.S. There are the top 20%, the haves, and the bottom 80% is sweeping up everyone in a big poverty class of Americans. People who used to be middle class are evaporating into the lower class.
 
I'm the ONLY person in this thread that has backed up my statements with research and I've done it several times. Other than the CBO that was originally posted and your irrelevant link from 1946 that I already addressed you guys have demonstrated nothing.

Your posts don't have any connection to reality...

Your "back up" have been nothing more than a slew of links to pdf's and a couple of articles full of pages of text. You haven't referenced any particular part of any of those pdf's or articles to back up your statements. That means that your "back up" is useless.
 
Your "back up" have been nothing more than a slew of links to pdf's and a couple of articles full of pages of text. You haven't referenced any particular part of any of those pdf's or articles to back up your statements. That means that your "back up" is useless.

You've taken the baton from DA60, as soon as I qualify your demands you will slink off into the shadows or change the subject like you've already done several times.

Why don't YOU make an argument or at least engage in what I've already said?
 
You've taken the baton from DA60, as soon as I qualify your demands you will slink off into the shadows or change the subject like you've already done several times.

Why don't YOU make an argument or at least engage in what I've already said?

Since you haven't done more than make statements and haven't provided anything as a basis for those statements...as asked by myself and others...I don't see how you can know what will happen if you ever do so.

In any case, I already have made an argument that raising the minimum wage is government price fixing and that it is bad economic policy...and provided information to back up my argument. Your response, so far, has been to make statements, with no back up information, and a tendency to make up your own definition of the terms you use in your statements (which I've corrected by providing dictionary definitions).
 
I'm not going to research common knowledge for you. Type into google "U.S. employment by sector" and take a look around. Take a look at what kind of jobs make up the service sector. Look at how much those jobs typically pay.

So with that definition, the largest service sector employers are state & local governments and healthcare/financial professionals? They typically don't pay anywhere near minimum wage.

I fail to see how your graphic aids your argument.
 
Ok so I screwed up my definitions, you got me. :2razz:

What I mean by unskilled workers is everything below careers like lawyers, doctors, high level information technology jobs, etc. things you have to go to college for and make a relatively large amount of money doing.

The reason I call everything below that "unskilled" is because the pay has dropped to the point where they are in the same boat. People who have possibly even extensive skills in labor jobs aren't really making much money anymore. Hence the "middle class" is becoming the poverty class and I call this whole shebang "unskilled".

This is part of the two tier society that is emerging in the U.S. There are the top 20%, the haves, and the bottom 80% is sweeping up everyone in a big poverty class of Americans. People who used to be middle class are evaporating into the lower class.

this is wrong you simply can't make up your own definition to fit your opinion. unskilled labor refers specifically to people or jobs that do not take college degrees to do.
IE you can work there with a high school diploma. the skill of the job does not take special training.

you are not correct the middle class is not becoming the poverty class.
“Disappearing middle class” actually moving up: a fact check on mass media - Fort Collins Republican | Examiner.com

there are many other reports out there that show this.

Some Surprising, Happy News About the Middle Class - US News

Yes, the middle class has been disappearing, but they haven’t fallen into the lower class, they’ve risen into the upper class | AEIdeas

also you cannot compare walmart to costco. walmart has about 3 times the stores and more than double the employee's. they require all items be stocked on shelves and have double or more the skew numbers that costco has.

it is just another dishonest argument by the left to compare walmart to costco but it doesn't stop them from doing it.
if costco tried to do the same as walmart you would see their pay decrease as well.
 
Employers will not increase their payroll budget to accommodate the new minimum wage, they will cut employees. Therefor, the net added cash to the economy is zero.
That might be the initial gut response however the pendulum would ease in and it would be business as usual. Has there been mass layoffs and chaos and in the streets every time that the Fed MW has been increased? I can't recall.
 
If you compare profits between Costco and Wal-Mart you will see the difference lies completely in how much more Costco pays it's workers. Wal-Mart's median wage is like $10 an hour, Costco's is $17.

Wait.. Walmart median wage is $10 / hour and Costco's is $17/hour? Sounds like they do give raises without being forced to by the government. Shrug.
 
Since you haven't done more than make statements and haven't provided anything as a basis for those statements...as asked by myself and others...I don't see how you can know what will happen if you ever do so.

In any case, I already have made an argument that raising the minimum wage is government price fixing and that it is bad economic policy...and provided information to back up my argument. Your response, so far, has been to make statements, with no back up information, and a tendency to make up your own definition of the terms you use in your statements (which I've corrected by providing dictionary definitions).

:doh I've tried to explain to you several times now your mistake and it just bounces right off of you.
 
So with that definition, the largest service sector employers are state & local governments and healthcare/financial professionals? They typically don't pay anywhere near minimum wage.

I fail to see how your graphic aids your argument.

Customer service, service sector, unskilled low paying jobs, are what I'm talking about.
 
It is debatable whether or not increasing minimum wage would negatively effect jobs

Sure. It is also debatable whether or not I put a condition one-weapon to my temple and pull the trigger, whether or not it will shoot me.

However, basic physics, the CBO, the National Bureau of Economic Research, and common-sense all tell us that it will.

and it would stimulate the economy

Again, this is literally mathematically inchoate.

Consider the following example: Business A has a $100 dollars in profit, which the government orders it via a minimum wage increase to give to its workers. The first thing that happens is that $15.30 goes to FICA taxes. Let's say these workers are among those who pay no income tax, and so they decide to maximize the utility of the system and benefit to the business, and they spend all of the remaining $74.70 at Business A. Out of the $74.70 in purchases, a typical 3% will go to State sales taxes, and another 1.5% will go to local sales taxes, meaning that the $74.70 will only be able to purchase $71.34 in goods. That's good, you say - Business A is selling more goods now. However, all those goods have built in costs to Business A - the cost of production (which has probably just gone up) the cost of shipping (which has probably just gone up), the cost of storing, shelving, regulatory compliance, tax, and yes the cost of employing workers in the store. A typical profit margin on the goods that Business A is selling is around 3.2%, meaning that of that $71.34, $2.28 is profit.

So, Hooray. We just turned $100 in profit into $2.28 in profit, and called it a win.

Hmmm. Perhaps as a way to test this method of helping businesses, we could set up an experiment. You mail me checks for $100, and every time you do so I will mail you a check for $2.28, and we will quit when the first person runs out of money.

You completely ignored the point I was making with how Wal-Mart operates and what the end result of that kind of operation is.

:shrug: because it was foolish snobbery? Look, I can it to:

Liberals, of course, are all about the minimum wage. Well-rooted in their Progressive past, they are fully aware that the minimum wage is an excellent tool to keep poor people impoverished, and thus dependent upon the government aid for which they will receive the credit. This use of government aid as a means to encourage impoverishment and discourage productivity and self-reliance is a common factor to other liberal programs, from their punitive treatment of marriage in our tax and safety net laws, to their celebration of "people escaping 'Job Lock'" thanks to Obamacare.

:roll:

Yes it creates a lot of low-wage poverty jobs for the vast majority and funnels all profits to the top, just like conservative economics does. Do you disagree?

I heartily disagree. As a low to low-middle income earner, Wal-Mart has been fantastic for me. It lowers my cost of living, allowing me to put more money either towards my family, or towards long term savings objectives, such as my childrens' education or my own retirement. I am also glad that Wal-Mart gives jobs even to those whose worth in our labor market apparently offends the more delicate sensibilities of those on my left. Wal-Mart's managers are mostly former Associates, and the job skills, both hard and soft, that it gives it's entry-level employees is often critical to them moving onward and upward, either within the company or with a new employer.

Do you think this is a good thing?

I absolutely think that Wal-Mart is a good thing, and so do huge numbers of Americans whom you are claiming to speak on behalf of. You know how I know that? We shop there.

If you compare profits between Costco and Wal-Mart you will see the difference lies completely in how much more Costco pays it's workers. Wal-Mart's median wage is like $10 an hour, Costco's is $17. You really think $10 an hour at best is something to look forward to?]/quote]

:raises eyebrow: you have low goals if median is the best you think you have to look forward to. Even while earning little I was aiming for more than that.

Is this really what America has become? You want veterans with health problems making 10 bucks an hour or worse? They'll be just another welfare case.

As opposed to them making zero dollars an hour?

Perhaps that is a major distinction here - you view wealth as a given, whereas I view it as something that has to be produced. For you, therefore, the most likely alternative for a low-income earner to their low-income job is a high-paying job. For me, the most likely alternative is no job.

If Wal-Mart is your model for success then you had better get used to increasing welfare because it is the only way the average American can survive working there.

:shrug: it's not. The idea that there is a model for success is a technocratic and progressive fallacy built upon the notion that society and it's components run like machines, with individuals roughly being interchangeable. There are lots of models for success. Costco's is one. Wal-Marts' is another. Inasmuch as "success" in our society is determined by how many people decide that they want you to provide a good or service for them, I say bully for both - let the best model win or let both models continue to win. I wish further success to Wal-Mart and Costco, to Captain D's and Outback Steakhouse, to those who provide services for the lower income, for those who provide services for the middle income, and for those who provide services for the upper income. If Costco wants to force people to pay to become members before it is allowed to shop there :shrug: if enough people are willing to do that, then they will be fine. If Wal-Mart wants to not do that, and keep prices and costs low so as to be able to sell to all sectors of society :shrug: then inasmuch as people are willing to shop there, they will be fine. But Costco is not a better model than Wal-Mart any more than Whole Foods is a better model than Piggly Wiggly. It is a particularly unfortunate and nasty little affectation of those who wish to see themselves as superior to the teeming masses to attempt to impose their more expensive tastes on others for their own good.
 
Customer service, service sector, unskilled low paying jobs, are what I'm talking about.

That's not what the government defines as the "Services" sector, which means your graph is bumpkis.
 
this is wrong you simply can't make up your own definition to fit your opinion. unskilled labor refers specifically to people or jobs that do not take college degrees to do.
IE you can work there with a high school diploma. the skill of the job does not take special training.

you are not correct the middle class is not becoming the poverty class.
“Disappearing middle class� actually moving up: a fact check on mass media - Fort Collins Republican | Examiner.com

there are many other reports out there that show this.

Some Surprising, Happy News About the Middle Class - US News

Yes, the middle class has been disappearing, but they haven’t fallen into the lower class, they’ve risen into the upper class | AEIdeas

also you cannot compare walmart to costco. walmart has about 3 times the stores and more than double the employee's. they require all items be stocked on shelves and have double or more the skew numbers that costco has.

it is just another dishonest argument by the left to compare walmart to costco but it doesn't stop them from doing it.
if costco tried to do the same as walmart you would see their pay decrease as well.

I admitted my mistake and then went on to explain my reasoning. For some reason you want to harp on about this but then bizarrely make the same mistake I made and then turn around and try to correct me using my own previous, incorrect terminology. :doh

Quoting election era Republican propaganda against Obama is not very convincing that the middle class is improving. That article is so deceptive and disingenuous it is eye rolling bad... like I said, election era propaganda.

I cannot compare Wal-Mart and Costco because they are not identical? Really? How does that make sense.

Compare all the retail stores and you'll find Wal-Mart pays by far the least and all the others pay significantly more. Wal-Mart's ability to stay union free and pay poverty wages is their greatest achievement.
 
Wait.. Walmart median wage is $10 / hour and Costco's is $17/hour? Sounds like they do give raises without being forced to by the government. Shrug.

You've come full circle and ended back where you started. The point is Wal-Mart is not going to spontaneously pay anything other than poverty wages because they have no reason to. The "free market" is not going to fix this. People getting modest raises of 50 cents a year is hardly proof that the market will take care of these people, lol.
 
That's not what the government defines as the "Services" sector, which means your graph is bumpkis.

Another person clinging to semantics... seriously what is wrong with you guys? I explain very clearly what I'm talking about and you just go for red herrings over and over.

Do you have no argument other than to obsess over terms?
 
I admitted my mistake and then went on to explain my reasoning. For some reason you want to harp on about this but then bizarrely make the same mistake I made and then turn around and try to correct me using my own previous, incorrect terminology. :doh

Quoting election era Republican propaganda against Obama is not very convincing that the middle class is improving. That article is so deceptive and disingenuous it is eye rolling bad... like I said, election era propaganda.

I cannot compare Wal-Mart and Costco because they are not identical? Really? How does that make sense.

Compare all the retail stores and you'll find Wal-Mart pays by far the least and all the others pay significantly more. Wal-Mart's ability to stay union free and pay poverty wages is their greatest achievement.
We can compare Sam's club and Cost-Co right? Sams club's average wage is a slave wage while Costco's wage is a competitive fair living wage.
 
We can compare Sam's club and Cost-Co right? Sams club's average wage is a slave wage while Costco's wage is a competitive fair living wage.

Hi. This is a discussion about economics. This isn't a discussion about "fair".

No company has an obligation to bend to what you personally think is "fair".
 
Back
Top Bottom