Raising the minimum wage to $15 has not worked in California's favor

ludin · Aug 2, 2016

Aunt Spiker said:
I bet you we could be discussing a states sub-standard $6.00 / hr min wage and your responses would still be the same: they're not worth it because I feel these jobs aren't as important as other jobs.

This is a red herring argument. Nothing to do with the topic.

Talk about trying to ply to emotions, your view is based on your opinion of an employment bracket and nothing more - you've decided that anyone who takes any of such a list of 'low worth' jobs are themselves worthless as a result. Being severely underpaid is never the fault of numerous businesses - it's all the individuals fault. :roll:

Actually it is based by markets and facts. So why are you dodging the question? You said that you were and quote "I focused myself ON business (namely entrepreneurship" So what business do you have?
How many people do you employ and do you pay them all 15 an hour regardless of what they do? if not why don't you? So stop dodging.

So other than negating any and all increases in pay - have solutions to the problem facing people now? Other than 'get a better job that pays more' (in an economy where numerous jobs PAY THE SAME pisspoor low wage, I should point out).

There are plenty of high paying jobs out there in fact businesses that are paying good wages can't find qualified workers have the time.

No one should put in 40 + hours a week and be put in the poor house as as reward for all their dedicated hard work.

this is your opinion. Why should a fry cook make the same as a entry level college grad? We would like to know?

If that's how you go about constructing a business plan then maybe business planning is not your cup of tea.

No my business plan is smart enough not to over pay people.

So how many people do you pay 15 an hour to regardless of what they do?

Moderate Right · Aug 2, 2016

Aunt Spiker said:
I bet you we could be discussing a states sub-standard $6.00 / hr min wage and your responses would still be the same: they're not worth it because I feel these jobs aren't as important as other jobs.

Talk about trying to ply to emotions, your view is based on your opinion of an employment bracket and nothing more - you've decided that anyone who takes any of such a list of 'low worth' jobs are themselves worthless as a result. Being severely underpaid is never the fault of numerous businesses - it's all the individuals fault. :roll:

So other than negating any and all increases in pay - have solutions to the problem facing people now? Other than 'get a better job that pays more' (in an economy where numerous jobs PAY THE SAME pisspoor low wage, I should point out).

No one should put in 40 + hours a week and be put in the poor house as as reward for all their dedicated hard work.

If that's how you go about constructing a business plan then maybe business planning is not your cup of tea.

That has been a business plan around the world for about 150,000 years now. It IS the fault of the poor, many of whom have no ambition at all to better their lives, other than to have their hands out. As inflation eats into "earnings" their only ambition is to hold their hands out even further. There have been many, many of the poor who have, all by themselves, crawled up out of their holes and made something out of their lives but you have to want to do it before you can do it. Now, I'm not saying that we should just say screw em (and I'm not even talking about the truly needy such as the disabled) but we need to have a better system of helping them up out of their holes because just giving them money with no expectations in return has not worked, is not working now, and will never work. As I stated somewhere else on this forum, we need to change their mentality and their behavior or we will never get anywhere. Many of the poor are like those who abuse credit cards or gamble. If you just give them more money it will not fix the root problem and they will just charge more or gamble more. We need to fix the root problem instead of just giving them money to keep them on a never ending path of dependency, generation after generation after generation.

ludin · Aug 2, 2016

Moderate Right said:
That has been a business plan around the world for about 150,000 years now. It IS the fault of the poor, many of whom have no ambition at all to better their lives, other than to have their hands out. As inflation eats into "earnings" their only ambition is to hold their hands out even further. There have been many, many of the poor who have, all by themselves, crawled up out of their holes and made something out of their lives but you have to want to do it before you can do it. Now, I'm not saying that we should just say screw em (and I'm not even talking about the truly needy such as the disabled) but we need to have a better system of helping them up out of their holes because just giving them money with no expectations in return has not worked, is not working now, and will never work. As I stated somewhere else on this forum, we need to change their mentality and their behavior or we will never get anywhere. Many of the poor are like those who abuse credit cards or gamble. If you just give them more money it will not fix the root problem and they will just charge more or gamble more. We need to fix the root problem instead of just giving them money to keep them on a never ending path of dependency, generation after generation after generation.

Education and job skills are the only way to fight it, however like you said they have to want to be able to do it.
there are still good paying jobs in the US.

the median family income is around 53K dollars a year.
you have to have some incentive in order to get them
or get the skills required.

Celebrity · Aug 2, 2016

Moderate Right said:
That has been a business plan around the world for about 150,000 years now. It IS the fault of the poor, many of whom have no ambition at all to better their lives, other than to have their hands out. As inflation eats into "earnings" their only ambition is to hold their hands out even further. There have been many, many of the poor who have, all by themselves, crawled up out of their holes and made something out of their lives but you have to want to do it before you can do it. Now, I'm not saying that we should just say screw em (and I'm not even talking about the truly needy such as the disabled) but we need to have a better system of helping them up out of their holes because just giving them money with no expectations in return has not worked, is not working now, and will never work. As I stated somewhere else on this forum, we need to change their mentality and their behavior or we will never get anywhere. Many of the poor are like those who abuse credit cards or gamble. If you just give them more money it will not fix the root problem and they will just charge more or gamble more. We need to fix the root problem instead of just giving them money to keep them on a never ending path of dependency, generation after generation after generation.

Giving them money with no expectations is the opposite of, drum roll please... exploitation!

Moderate Right · Aug 2, 2016

Celebrity said:
Giving them money with no expectations is the opposite of, drum roll please... exploitation!

You can only be exploited if you want to be exploited or don't want to do anything about fixing your condition so that you can not be "exploited".

Celebrity · Aug 2, 2016

Moderate Right said:
You can only be exploited if you want to be exploited or don't want to do anything about fixing your condition so that you can not be "exploited".

By "not be exploited," of course, you mean exploit as many others as possible. Correct?

Lafayette · Aug 2, 2016

For either the ignorant or the uninitiated to market-economics: Minimum Wage Mythbusters.

Extract:

Myth: Raising the minimum wage will only benefit teens.

Not true: The typical minimum wage worker is not a high school student earning weekend pocket money. In fact, 89 percent of those who would benefit from a federal minimum wage increase to $12/hour are age 20 or older, and 56 percent are women.

Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs.

Not true: In a letter to President Obama and congressional leaders urging a minimum wage increase, more than 600 economists, including 7 Nobel Prize winners wrote, "In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, and providing some help on the jobs front."

Myth: Small business owners can't afford to pay their workers more, and therefore don't support an increase in the minimum wage.

Not true: A July 2015 survey found that 3 out of 5 small business owners with employees support a gradual increase in the minimum wage to $12. The survey reports that small business owners say an increase "would immediately put more money in the pocket of low-wage workers who will then spend the money on things like housing, food, and gas. This boost in demand for goods and services will stimulate the economy and create opportunities."

Myth: Raising the federal tipped minimum wage ($2.13 per hour since 1991) would hurt restaurants.

Not true: In California, employers are required to pay servers the full minimum wage of $9 per hour — before tips. Even with a 2014 increase in the minimum wage, the National Restaurant Association projects California restaurant sales will outpace all but only a handful of states in 2015.

Myth: Raising the federal tipped minimum wage ($2.13 per hour since 1991) would lead to restaurant job losses.

Not true: As of May 2015, employers in San Francisco must pay tipped workers the full minimum wage of $12.25 per hour — before tips. Yet, the San Francisco leisure and hospitality industry, which includes full-service restaurants, has experienced positive job growth this year, including following the most recent minimum wage increase.

Myth: Raising the federal minimum wage won't benefit workers in states where the hourly minimum rate is already higher than the federal minimum.

Not true: While 29 states and the District of Columbia currently have a minimum wage higher than the federal minimum, increasing the federal minimum wage will boost the earnings for nearly 38 million low-wage workers nationwide. That includes workers in those states already earning above the current federal minimum. Raising the federal minimum wage is an important part of strengthening the economy. A raise for minimum wage earners puts more money in consumer pockets, which will be spent on goods and services, stimulating economic growth locally and nationally.

Myth: Younger workers don't have to be paid the minimum wage.

Not true: While there are some exceptions, employers are generally required to pay at least the federal minimum wage. Exceptions allowed include a minimum wage of $4.25 per hour for young workers under the age of 20, but only during their first 90 consecutive calendar days of employment with an employer, and as long as their work does not displace other workers. After 90 consecutive days of employment or the employee reaches 20 years of age, whichever comes first, the employee must receive the current federal minimum wage or the state minimum wage, whichever is higher.

Myth: Restaurant servers don't need to be paid the minimum wage since they receive tips.

Not true: An employer can pay a tipped employee as little as $2.13 per hour in direct wages, but only if that amount plus tips equal at least the federal minimum wage and the worker retains all tips and customarily and regularly receives more than $30 a month in tips. Often, an employee's tips combined with the employer's direct wages of at least $2.13 an hour do not equal the federal minimum hourly wage. When that occurs, the employer must make up the difference. Some states have minimum wage laws specific to tipped employees. When an employee is subject to both the federal and state wage laws, he or she is entitled to the provisions of each law which provides the greater benefits.

Etc. etc., etc.

Read the rest, it shows how many myths in the US persist and poison the discussion regarding Minimum Wage.
_____________

Visbek · Aug 2, 2016

Moderate Right said:
There have never ever been minimum wage raises before of this magnitude.

Yeah, not so much. Again:

The increases in federal MW in 1950 were substantial, and did not destroy the economy. MW wages were obviously much higher in real dollars in the late 1960s.

And yet again! The larger increases in MW are only in a handful of areas that already have high costs of living, and are being phased in over several years; few people are seriously pushing $15 as a federal MW (Sanders is the only one afaik). The time span alone is going to mitigate some of the effects of those increases.

Plus, we hear the same complaints for any increase, no matter how large or small. At a certain point, it becomes obvious that it's more of a reflex than a real policy analysis.

Common sense dictates that large increases in the minimum wage, even over time, will result in larger decreases in the loss of jobs.

...unless, as I said, employers don't have a lot of fat that they can cut.

As I asked before: Do you really believe that most jobs with MW or near-MW employees are overstaffed by 5%, or 10%, or 15%?

Do you really think you will get faster service if your favorite restaurant cuts its workforce by 5%?

At a certain point, a business can't cut more staff without impeding its basic ability to serve its customers.

Another benefit, by the way? Increasing MW means we can spend less on safety net programs like food stamps. The EPI estimates that a national $12/hr MW will save us $17 billion a year on safety net programs.

Their research also shows there isn't much reason to worry about MW killing jobs, and that it will stimulate the economy (as MW workers spend practically everything they earn, and that goes right back into the economy).

(The impact of raising the federal minimum wage to $12 by 2020 on workers, businesses, and the economy: Testimony before the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce Member Forum | Economic Policy Institute)

Lafayette · Aug 2, 2016

Visbek said:
Plus, we hear the same complaints for any increase, no matter how large or small. At a certain point, it becomes obvious that it's more of a reflex than a real policy analysis.

Yes, there is one helluva lotta "myth" out there as regards the minimum wage.

From here: Minimum Wage Mythbusters

Myth: Increasing the minimum wage is bad for businesses.

Not true: Academic research has shown that higher wages sharply reduce employee turnover which can reduce employment and training costs.

Myth: Increasing the minimum wage is bad for the economy.

Not true: Since 1938, the federal minimum wage has been increased 22 times. For more than 75 years, real GDP per capita has steadily increased, even when the minimum wage has been raised.

There is no real justification for not raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, especially since the economy has just begun its expansion - very late after the Great Recession.

As I have said before, "A typical consequence will be that your BigMac costs 20 cents more". But, it could help this country return to its Employment-to-population Ratio of 2008 (four points higher than today), if it boosts consumption that, in turn, requires more employment to meet.

Which is also its likely consequence ...
_______________________________

Moderate Right · Aug 2, 2016

Lafayette said:
Yes, there is one helluva lotta "myth" out there as regards the minimum wage.

From here: Minimum Wage Mythbusters

There is no real justification for not raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, especially since the economy has just begun its expansion - very late after the Great Recession.

As I have said before, "A typical consequence will be that your BigMac costs 20 cents more". But, it could help this country return to its Employment-to-population Ratio of 2008 (four points higher than today), if it boosts consumption that, in turn, requires more employment to meet.

Which is also its likely consequence ...
_______________________________

The myth is that minimum wage should be a living wage.

Glen Contrarian · Aug 2, 2016

ludin said:
Study finds higher minimum wage hurting youth employment - MarketWatch
yet again actual research says otherwise.

Clemens estimates that rising minimum wages reduced employment among 16- to 30-year-olds without a high school degree by 5.6 percentage points from 2006 to 2010.
Put another way, rising minimum wages accounted for almost half of the decline in the share of these workers holding a job during that five-year period.
Here’s some more bad news for millennials in that bracket. Not only are far fewer of them working, but their wages have essentially stagnated. So it’s even harder for them to make ends meet.

Some researchers such as Clemens believe higher minimum wages have been harmful. “The evidence supports the view that this period’s minimum wage increases had significant, negative effects on low-skilled workers’ employment,” he wrote in his latest study.

Did you not see the great big freaking glaring error in your study's conclusions? Look at the bolded part above - is there something that happened to our economy between 2006 and 2010, hm? The study is so damning of 'rising minimum wages' and claims to have allowed for what happened during the Great Recession...and that's bovine excrement. Apparently, the way the study allowed for the GR was by allowing for differences and variances in the housing decline...but the GR was NOT "just about housing" - the effects of the GR were so widespread and endemic throughout every sector of our economy, and no one sector is a proper indicator of the depth and breadth of the whole of the GR.

Nice try, guy, but next time, look at your references with a critical eye. But be careful! Because if you start looking at Right-wing-dogma-supporting information with even HALF as much cynicism as you do the information that supports the Left, you might find yourself becoming a liberal. I say that because that's what happened to me - I began looking at the Right with just as much cynicism as the Left...and figured out how much I'd been lied to by the Right all my life. So be careful - because once you take your blinders off, you never know where your newfound knowledge might take you.

ludin · Aug 2, 2016

Glen Contrarian said:
Did you not see the great big freaking glaring error in your study's conclusions? Look at the bolded part above - is there something that happened to our economy between 2006 and 2010, hm? The study is so damning of 'rising minimum wages' and claims to have allowed for what happened during the Great Recession...and that's bovine excrement. Apparently, the way the study allowed for the GR was by allowing for differences and variances in the housing decline...but the GR was NOT "just about housing" - the effects of the GR were so widespread and endemic throughout every sector of our economy, and no one sector is a proper indicator of the depth and breadth of the whole of the GR.

the only glare that I see is that you ignored what was said and cherry picked it. Try reading the whole thing. I know you won't because it proved you wrong.

Nice try, guy, but next time, look at your references with a critical eye. But be careful! Because if you start looking at Right-wing-dogma-supporting information with even HALF as much cynicism as you do the information that supports the Left, you might find yourself becoming a liberal. I say that because that's what happened to me - I began looking at the Right with just as much cynicism as the Left...and figured out how much I'd been lied to by the Right all my life. So be careful - because once you take your blinders off, you never know where your newfound knowledge might take you.

I did it said you were wrong that is the whole point.
Marketwatch is pretty reputable financial site.

of course it is also in line with the San Fran Federal reserve that said raising the minimum wage didn't help the poor,
because most of it goes to mid to upper middle income families.

DC Employers Have Laid Off Employees Due to Minimum Wage Hike

That was just in DC.

No I am smarter than to become a liberal. I believe in freedom not government rule.
The liberal party has nothing to offer me.

maybe you should take your own advice and take your blinders off.

Moderate Right · Aug 2, 2016

ludin said:
the only glare that I see is that you ignored what was said and cherry picked it. Try reading the whole thing. I know you won't because it proved you wrong.

I did it said you were wrong that is the whole point.
Marketwatch is pretty reputable financial site.

of course it is also in line with the San Fran Federal reserve that said raising the minimum wage didn't help the poor,
because most of it goes to mid to upper middle income families.

DC Employers Have Laid Off Employees Due to Minimum Wage Hike

That was just in DC.

No I am smarter than to become a liberal. I believe in freedom not government rule.
The liberal party has nothing to offer me.

maybe you should take your own advice and take your blinders off.

The funny thing is, if you can call it funny, when these minimum wage hikes fail to help those it was supposed to help, the liberal answer is raising the minimum wage even higher.

Lafayette · Aug 3, 2016

ludin said:
Put another way, rising minimum wages accounted for almost half of the decline in the share of these workers holding a job during that five-year period. Here’s some more bad news for millennials in that bracket. Not only are far fewer of them working, but their wages have essentially stagnated. So it’s even harder for them to make ends meet.

Some researchers such as Clemens believe higher minimum wages have been harmful. “The evidence supports the view that this period’s minimum wage increases had significant, negative effects on low-skilled workers’ employment,” he wrote in his latest study.

Are you the least bit aware of what happened in 2008, or do you live on some planet other than earth?

The Great Recession, a blatant fraud perpetrated by American banksters upon the public, was the worst economic catastrophe since the last one in the 1930s. Except, in that one, some smart reasoning (prompted by John Maynard Keynes) convinced Roosevelt to unleash Stimulus Spending to mitigate its effects.

In fact, it took the massive spending of WW2 to definitively put an end to the Great Depression.

It seems since we have learned nothing in the US from that lesson. The Replicants, once in control of the house after the 2010 mid-term elections, scuppered Obama's election with their refusal of spending based upon a blatant lie. This one: The country needed T-party Austerity Budgeting, which is what it got from the HofR:

What do you see in the above infographic of government expenditure as a percent of GDP? This:
*That Obama in 2009 (with a Dem Congress) passed some serious Stimulus Spending (ARRA, worth $850B) that stopped dead an exploding unemployment rate at 10% (see Unemployment Rate history here), and
*From which the decent to today's 5% took seven long, long years ... because the Replicants wanted no additional spending after 2010! (See Employment-to-population Ratio here.)

'Nuff said ... ?
_____________

Lafayette · Aug 3, 2016

Moderate Right said:
The funny thing is, if you can call it funny, when these minimum wage hikes fail to help those it was supposed to help, the liberal answer is raising the minimum wage even higher.

You've taken everything out of context to arrive at that conclusion.

Shame on you ...

Moderate Right · Aug 3, 2016

Lafayette said:
You've taken everything out of context to arrive at that conclusion.

Shame on you ...

All I have done is stated the truth. Liberal policies fail and when they fail, the liberal solution is always to double down on what did not work before and deny that their policies failed. Liberals come up with emotional ideas that sound good in rhetoric but fail in reality. They never think things through before implementing them. There are many economic examples but the most glaring example is with gun control. The more they talk about it the more gun stores are flooded with people buying guns. So what is their solution to gun control? Talk about it even more and flood the gun stores with people buying guns even more than they were before. It is astronomical how many guns have been sold over the last few years while the libs keep on talking more and more about gun control. There would be a whole lot less guns out there if the liberals would quit talking about gun control. But, they will continue talking about it and gun stores will continue to reap the benefits of stupid liberal policies.

Lafayette · Aug 3, 2016

Moderate Right said:
All I have done is stated the truth. Liberal policies fail and when they fail, the liberal solution is always to double down on what did not work before and deny that their policies failed. Liberals come up with emotional ideas that sound good in rhetoric but fail in reality. They never think things through before implementing them.

You're repeating yourself. You were wrong before, you are wrong again.

I am a Bernie Sanders Social Democrat seeking Social Justice who thinks that Liberals, given the means, can remake America into a more fair and just nation.

Instead of the patent rip-off it is today profiting uniquely a very select group of plutocrat families.

The outcome is inevitable, perhaps not today and not even tomorrow. It happened in Europe and will happen as well in the US.

You can rip-off some of the people, some of the time; but not all of the people, all of the time ...
__________________

ludin · Aug 3, 2016

Lafayette said:
Are you the least bit aware of what happened in 2008, or do you live on some planet other than earth?

The Great Recession, a blatant fraud perpetrated by American banksters upon the public, was the worst economic catastrophe since the last one in the 1930s. Except, in that one, some smart reasoning (prompted by John Maynard Keynes) convinced Roosevelt to unleash Stimulus Spending to mitigate its effects.

In fact, it took the massive spending of WW2 to definitively put an end to the Great Depression.

It seems since we have learned nothing in the US from that lesson. The Replicants, once in control of the house after the 2010 mid-term elections, scuppered Obama's election with their refusal of spending based upon a blatant lie. This one: The country needed T-party Austerity Budgeting, which is what it got from the HofR:

What do you see in the above infographic of government expenditure as a percent of GDP? This:
*That Obama in 2009 (with a Dem Congress) passed some serious Stimulus Spending (ARRA, worth $850B) that stopped dead an exploding unemployment rate at 10% (see Unemployment Rate history here), and
*From which the decent to today's 5% took seven long, long years ... because the Replicants wanted no additional spending after 2010! (See Employment-to-population Ratio here.)

'Nuff said ... ?
_____________

Why did you ignore all the other links that support not only that but the fact that businesses are
getting rid of workers, raising prices and lowering hours people work to compensate for the
increased pay and it hasn't even reached 15 yet?

ludin · Aug 3, 2016

Lafayette said:
You're repeating yourself. You were wrong before, you are wrong again.
I am a Bernie Sanders who thinks that given the means, can remake America into a more fair and just nation.

Being fair to one just means unfairness to someone else. so your point is self defeating.
So far I have yet to see one liberal tell me a reason that my success should be taken away from my
family and given to someone else simply because they lack the motivation to do something other than work minimum wage.

I am just a work guy like the next person. Yet people want to take my families lively hood because I have put myself into a position
of success.

Instead of the patent rip-off it is today profiting uniquely a very select group of plutocrat families.

It isn't just a few families it is tens of thousands of people that have made success out of themselves and for their families.
jealousy and evny are not good arguments.

The outcome is inevitable, perhaps not today and not even tomorrow. It happened in Europe and will happen as well in the US.

To the destruction of freedom and success.
Your ideology has already been tried and has been a miserable failure.

It allows for dictatorship and authoritarianism.

Lafayette · Aug 3, 2016

ludin said:
So far I have yet to see one liberal tell me a reason that my success should be taken away from my
family and given to someone else simply because they lack the motivation to do something other than work minimum wage..

You don't seem to understand the fact that YOU are only one cog in a ginormous wheel called a Market-economy. You seem to think that just because YOU are successful at work, that you did so all by yourself. Right?

Wrong. You are just one more individual and apparently you exaggerate your success as an individual. In fact, without a modern market-economy you'd be fishing for your daily meal. Or tending to a small garden.

Think of the BigPicture. A market-economy of 320 million individuals all working to make sure that when YOU go shopping, YOU have an array of products that please YOU. In fact, YOU were also one of those who worked to product those products/services that benefit the collective (aka market-economy).

If we are expected to defend this collective market-economy with our lives, then it is patently obvious that WE can expect government services in compensation. And those services should be sufficient for the poorest amongst us to have a decent life. An indecent life starts at $23K a year, which is the Poverty Threshold in America. Below that income life becomes more and more indecent.

And yet, 15% of Americans live below the Poverty Threshold. That's 50 million fellow Americans (who probably think more like me than like you). Fifty million people is one helluva lotta individuals who are living on the edge - and it is typical of such critical situations that ... they explode.

Our taxation system, which is progressive up to $100K per annum, is grossly unfair when taxed at a flat-tax rate of just 30%. In fact Milt Romney, when he declared his taxes running for office in 2012, was shown to be paying only 17% taxes. (Which is not why he was not elected, but should have been the reason.)

Milt is more intelligent than me? Nope. Milt works harder than me? Nope. Milt inherited from his father (ex-head of GM) more than I did from my father. Most certainly!

I am jealous? No. I am progressive by nature, however, and feel that taxation above $100K annually should be taxed very steeply, and even confiscated above a total income of, say, 10 million a year. (With a Inheritance Tax of 95% of each dollar above $500K.)

What will happen? Well, companies will adjust their salary-rates with that limit in mind, and their management labor-costs will decrease marvelously.

A country cannot abide megabuck earners when 50 million fellow Americans are living below the Poverty Threshold. Something is drastically wrong with any country that accepts it, and ours has been indulging in this social-blindness since 1965 - that's a long time.

Nobody needs a megabuck to survive. It's just a badge of honor yelling out to the world, "I made it" (today's version of the Red Badge of Courage).

A fundamental aspect of any market-economy is that all goods/services obtain their rightful price. Even the price of labor, which is set by market-forces. Taxation is something else again. It is necessary when some people earn grossly more than others, humongous amounts that they don't need and can never spend - so they simply create inheritance dynasties.

And said dynasties have no utility/purpose/meaning whatsoever in any society. If you can think of one, do let me know.

But, you already know this sentiment. Because we've both had this conversation many, many times before.

Still trying to stir the much ... ?
____________________________

Lafayette · Aug 3, 2016

ludin said:
Why did you ignore all the other links that support not only that but the fact that businesses are
getting rid of workers, raising prices and lowering hours people work to compensate for the
increased pay and it hasn't even reached 15 yet?

That's a lot of hogwash and, I think, a dash of bitterness. The American economy has an unemployment rate that is now half that of what it was in 2010. So, it is creating jobs. It is not, otoh, creating enough jobs since the Employment to population Ratio is still below its previous high of 67%. But the curve is upward. So, why are you complaining? (Because you love to complain. Right!)

I don't ignore other links. I am an economist and I employ the facts as they are expressed by serious/thorough economists who study our economy. They tend to work for government agencies from where is collected the data they analyze. That's seems very right to me.

If you don't like the facts, don't blame me ...
____________________________________

ludin · Aug 3, 2016

Lafayette said:
You don't seem to understand the fact that YOU are only one cog in a ginormous wheel called a Market-economy. You seem to think that just because YOU are successful at work, that you did so all by yourself. Right?
Wrong. You are just one more individual and apparently you exaggerate your success as an individual. In fact, without a modern market-economy you'd be fishing for your daily meal. Or tending to a small garden.

your right it wasn't all me it was God driven as well.
Yet the decision to go to school, the decision to go back and get my 4 year the decision to move to a different state.

If we are expected to defend this collective market-economy with our lives, then it is patently obvious that WE can expect government services in compensation.

Sorry the you didn't build that rhetoric is just as much nonsense then as it is now.
If you want more than 23k a year (which when I was younger had plenty of jobs that paid that and was fine).
Then you need to do something about it. No one else can do it for you.

And yet, 15% of Americans live below the Poverty Threshold. That's 50 million fellow Americans (who probably think more like me than like you). Fifty million people is one helluva lotta individuals who are living on the edge - and it is typical of such critical situations that ... they explode.

the question is why? pretty simple. They have some sort of addiction, they have 0 education and they have 0 job skills.
that still does not justify taking what I have done and giving it to them or taking my families lively hood away.

Our taxation system, which is progressive up to $100K per annum, is grossly unfair when taxed at a flat-tax rate of just 30%. In fact Milt Romney, when he declared his taxes running for office in 2012, was shown to be paying only 17% taxes.

this old dishonest argument. You seem to not understand the difference between income and long term capital gains. I suggest that you educate yourself a bit more.

Milt is more intelligent than me? Nope. Milt works harder than me? Nope. Milt inherited from his father (ex-head of GM) more than I did from my father. Most certainly!

you have any proof of this or just opinion?

I am jealous? No. I am progressive by nature, however, and feel that taxation above $100K annually should be taxed very steeply, and even confiscated above a total income of, say, 10 million a year. (With a Inheritance Tax of 95% of each dollar above $500K.)

that is called jealousy or envy. It isn't fair that they have more than I think they should have so I want to steal it from them so that I feel better about my self.

What will happen? Well, companies will adjust their salary-rates with that limit in mind, and their management labor-costs will decrease marvelously.

what will happen? total economic collapse and everyone will be worse off.

A country cannot abide megabuck earners when 50 million fellow Americans are living below the Poverty Threshold. Something is drastically wrong with any country that accepts it, and ours has been indulging in this social-blindness since 1965 - that's a long time.

that isn't the fault of the mega buck earners. what they earn has no affect on someone living below the poverty line. This has been explained to you before.

Nobody needs a megabuck to survive. It's just a badge of honor yelling out to the world, "I made it" (today's version of the Red Badge of Courage).

this is your opinion. if you feel so strongly about it then I suggest you start practicing what you preach.
You take YOUR check and divide it among however many people you want so that you don't feel as guilty about
making more than they do.

A fundamental aspect of any market-economy is that all goods/services obtain their rightful price. Even the price of labor, which is set by market-forces. Taxation is something else again. It is necessary when some people earn grossly more than others, humongous amounts that they don't need and can never spend - so they simply create inheritance dynasties.

the price is labor is set by market forces and supply and demand of a position.
that is why the network admin makes 60k+ a year and the help desk guy makes 30k.

And said dynasties have no utility/purpose/meaning whatsoever in any society. If you can think of one, do let me know.

again opinion nothing more. you can do what you want with your stuff when you die. they will do what they want with their stuff when they die.
that is what freedom is all about.

Lord of Planar · Aug 3, 2016

Lafayette said:
And yet, 15% of Americans live below the Poverty Threshold.

Please define "poverty threshold." If you look up what it actually is, it will likely surprise you. I'll bet it isn't what you think it is!

Lafayette · Aug 4, 2016

Lord of Planar said:
Please define "poverty threshold." If you look up what it actually is, it will likely surprise you. I'll bet it isn't what you think it is!

There are indeed several variations of the definition. Here is the one I am using, from the Census Bureau. Wherefrom, this infographic of the percentage of American families incarcerated below the poverty-threshold:

Number_in_Poverty_and_Poverty_Rate_1959_to_2011._United_States..PNG

Any American "comfortable" about the fact that nearly 46 million fellow Americans are living below the Threshold is totally severed from the reality of the American Existence - probably obtained from too much watching of the BoobTube and its fawning of the American Rich.

And when a war rolls around, we sucker their kids into the army to fight-'n-die with the sucker-bait promise that "afterwards" they'll get a government paid postsecondary education free, gratis and for nothing ... ?
__________

Lord of Planar · Aug 4, 2016

Lafayette said:
There are indeed several variations of the definition. Here is the one I am using, from the Census Bureau. Wherefrom, this infographic of the percentage of American families incarcerated below the poverty-threshold:

Any American "comfortable" about the fact that nearly 46 million Americans are living below the Threshold is totally severed from the reality of the American Existence - probably obtained from too much watching of the BoobTube and its fawning of the American Rich.

'Nuff said ... ?
__________

LOL...

Not without understanding the definition.

Raising the minimum wage to $15 has not worked in California's favor

Stuck In The Circle