• 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!

Bold increases in the minimum wage

ttwtt78640 said:
My point is that keeping parity between those living on fixed retirement incomes, such as Social Security, and those working lower wage jobs is important - especially for their effect on (rental) housing costs. If a mandated 100% MW increase causes prices of most goods/services to go up 33% (a reasonable SWAG) then that screws over those that live on fixed retirement incomes.
Click to expand...

And as pensions have been absorbed as profits now, everybody is going to be counting on social security.

Since wall St wants that money to gamble with, our retirements are going to be musical chairs.

"Did you lose your retirement money in the last harvest? Sorry to hear that. Nice knowing you."
 
Questions I have is why does a teenager living at home need to have a "living wage"? Most of the fast food workers I have seen are just that. For most of them it is most likely a "first job".

What do you do to the worker who has more responsibility that is making more than the current MW but less than $15/hr. Do you just raise them to $15? If you do, are you not devaluating their worth to the business. Would it not be better to raise them the same percentage above the new MW as they currently receive?

imo, minimum wage jobs were never intended to be a "living wage" for anyone, much less someone trying to provide for a family.
 
Bullseye said:
Why is trying to make a profit "greed"? Taking the risks, working long hours, and making sacrifices deserves just compensation.
Click to expand...

Not "trying to make a profit". Expecting to make a certain amount of profit. And expecting wages to stay low enough to allow that, even if those wages won't support those workers and they have to go on the safety net to eat and keep a roof over their heads.

85% of the new wealth created is going straight to those who already own most of the existing wealth.

THAT is the problem.
 
What if...? said:
Imagep once did the math for fast food and found that it really wouldn't raise the price per item much. Like a quarter per burger.

Most of this is propaganda in the service of greed.

It really is.

We are being slowly subjugated by greed.
Click to expand...

Again, the labor cost of making a burger is not the same as the labor cost of a service like lawn mowing. Why would anyone work a harder job (like construction labor or lawn maintenance) if working in an indoor environment paid as much (or more)? Someone now making 2X or 3X the MW should reasonably expect to continue to do so after a mandated MW increase - after all, their job did not suddenly get any easier (or less demanding) simply because every burger flipper or cashier got a 100% pay raise.
 
What if...? said:
Can't they just get $8/an hour more?

We're supposed to be ejaculating over the extra ten bucks a week from the tax cut.

Maybe we don't need so many fast food places that rely on super cheap labor to make the profit they want.

Or they could accept less profit.
Click to expand...

Sure...the owners who invested all the money will take less profit

As soon as you agree to lower your wage...only fair, right?

You might want to actually look at what most owners make from restaurants and fast food type places

And how much they invested to get those returns

But it is only their money, right?

If people only knew how this **** all really worked....
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Again, the labor cost of making a burger is not the same as the labor cost of a service like lawn mowing. Why would anyone work a harder job (like construction labor or lawn maintenance) if working in an indoor environment paid as much (or more)? Someone now making 2X or 3X the MW should reasonably expect to continue to do so after a mandated MW increase - after all, their job did not suddenly get any easier (or less demanding) simply because every burger flipper or cashier got a 100% pay raise.
Click to expand...

I don't think the multiplier is appropriate.

I don't think anybody would buck if they got an eight dollar an hour raise. They wouldn't feel horribly cheated that somebody else got an eight dollar increase because they didn't get a $24 one.

Especially when that money flows into the local economy instead of being exported to wherever the corporate offices are.
 
What if...? said:
Not "trying to make a profit". Expecting to make a certain amount of profit. And expecting wages to stay low enough to allow that, even if those wages won't support those workers and they have to go on the safety net to eat and keep a roof over their heads.

85% of the new wealth created is going straight to those who already own most of the existing wealth.

THAT is the problem.
Click to expand...

The solution is to stop raising the "safety net" which allows employers to pay far less than a "living wage". In order to get (most) "safety net" benefits one only has to work 20 hours per week. It is very easy to make "off the books" income in excess of the federal MW so only a moron would work more "on the books" hours at MW when they could do far better and not have their "safety net" benefits reduced as a result.
 
What if...? said:
How in the hell do people live on that?

Oh yeah. Social programs.

This while corporations and a few individuals are harvesting 85% of all new wealth created.

Can 15% even cover expansion in population at the current minimum wage level?

Or increases in wages as individual skills increase?

This is nothing new. It is the repetition of the pattern of history.

It eventually results in revolution or collapse. Every time.
Click to expand...

Things are going to get rougher in the not too distant future because more and more no to low skill jobs are going to become automated over time. Raising the minimum wage will likely speed up that process but it is inevitable regardless. I personally can’t think of a good solution to the problem.
 
Lafayette said:
From the Economic Policy Institute -
Bold increases in the minimum wage should be evaluated for the benefits of raising low-wage workers’ total earnings

Excerpt:



How many times - when raising wages is mentioned - the Replicants kneejerk with the same excuse. "That's gonna cost jobs!" When, in fact, what they are really afraid of is higher production costs for goods/services and thus lower profit margins.

What they either fail to understand or admit is that finite but deserved wage increases are not a profit-burden but an effective means of enhancing Demand by putting more Disposable Income into the hands of Consumers ...
Click to expand...

Labor has to be able to afford to help the economy, be more efficient!
 
What if...? said:
Not "trying to make a profit". Expecting to make a certain amount of profit. And expecting wages to stay low enough to allow that, even if those wages won't support those workers and they have to go on the safety net to eat and keep a roof over their heads.

85% of the new wealth created is going straight to those who already own most of the existing wealth.

THAT is the problem.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Businesses have to maximize profit to survive downturns, tough competition, and unforeseen problems. As I said businesses are not part of the welfare system, it's not their job to ensure their employees live comfortably or not.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
Things are going to get rougher in the not too distant future because more and more no to low skill jobs are going to become automated over time. Raising the minimum wage will likely speed up that process but it is inevitable regardless. I personally can’t think of a good solution to the problem.
Click to expand...

Minimum income and comprehensive programs to educate and retrain the workforce are probably the only good ways to avoid longer term instability as a consequence of unemployment and underemployment per globalization and mass-automation.

Unfortunately the US being the plutocracy it is will resist this kicking and screaming barring a crisis/paradigm shift as it would mean significantly increasing taxes on the wealthy and powerful which control the federal government and local governments of economic relevance.
 
What if...? said:
I don't think the multiplier is appropriate.

I don't think anybody would buck if they got an eight dollar an hour raise. They wouldn't feel horribly cheated that somebody else got an eight dollar increase because they didn't get a $24 one.

Especially when that money flows into the local economy instead of being exported to wherever the corporate offices are.
Click to expand...

Whether everyone maintains parity (percentage wise) or everyone gets $X/hour more for simply doing the same job makes little difference - prices of all goods/services will increase after a mandated wage increase. I suspect that any advertised cost savings in the "safety net" would be more than offset by COLA adjustments in Social Security and to those that remain on the "safety net".
 
gdgyva said:
Sure...the owners who invested all the money will take less profit

As soon as you agree to lower your wage...only fair, right?

You might want to actually look at what most owners make from restaurants and fast food type places

And how much they invested to get those returns

But it is only their money, right?

If people only knew how this **** all really worked....
Click to expand...

Business has been telling us its a tough world out there so we workers must do more for less, with less.

They left out the "in order to continue to harvest profits at the rate to which we have become accustomed" part.

Corporate profits and private wealth have skyrocketed since the Great Divergence.

What money want money gets.

Its the new American way.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The solution is to stop raising the "safety net" which allows employers to pay far less than a "living wage". In order to get (most) "safety net" benefits one only has to work 20 hours per week. It is very easy to make "off the books" income in excess of the federal MW so only a moron would work more "on the books" hours at MW when they could do far better and not have their "safety net" benefits reduced as a result.
Click to expand...

As far as I know, single people without kids have nothing coming from the feds. Some emergency relief occasionally is it.

And benefits should slide down as income increases.

Its not built that way on purpose.
 
What if...? said:
As far as I know, single people without kids have nothing coming from the feds. Some emergency relief occasionally is it.

And benefits should slide down as income increases.

Its not built that way on purpose.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me? What about expanded Medicaid?
 
Bullseye said:
I disagree. Businesses have to maximize profit to survive downturns, tough competition, and unforeseen problems. As I said businesses are not part of the welfare system, it's not their job to ensure their employees live comfortably or not.
Click to expand...

They're playing their game in our country.

History doesn't speak well of societies that prioritize the wants of the few over the needs of the many.

Actually, history demonstrates that unchecked greed and feeding hunger for power always result in revolution or collapse.

Outside of natural disasters/invasion that's ALWAYS the reason.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Are you kidding me? What about expanded Medicaid?
Click to expand...

That's healthcare, so its not the same as "safety net" in common usage.

It doesn't save people from starvation until they're dying of it. Same for exposure.

"Welfare" isn't available for single people without kids. (Maybe food stamps now?)
 
Bullseye said:
...businesses are not part of the welfare system, it's not their job to ensure their employees live comfortably or not.
Click to expand...
What if...? said:
They're playing their game in our country... ...unchecked greed and feeding hunger for power always result in revolution or collapse...
Click to expand...
What if..., is it that you don't want anyone to be allowed to engage in business transactions or is it that you just don't like any of the people who run businesses? If it's that last one then I'm curious about your opinion of the 15 million who are self employed --a third of which are incorporated. How can they be heartless and greedy w/ their employees when they themselves are the employers?

If you say those 15 million don't count would you be willing to consider the next 15 million and so on?
 
expat_panama said:
What if..., is it that you don't want anyone to be allowed to engage in business transactions or is it that you just don't like any of the people who run businesses? If it's that last one then I'm curious about your opinion of the 15 million who are self employed --a third of which are incorporated. How can they be heartless and greedy w/ their employees when they themselves are the employers?

If you say those 15 million don't count would you be willing to consider the next 15 million and so on?
Click to expand...

Incorporation alone doesn't make you a "corporation".

Comparing a contractor to a multinational is a silly comparison.

They only share the most basic elements.

There's a difference between running a business and grabbing everything you can with both hands and **** everybody else.

The latter is addictive behavior which along with feeding the hunger for power has been the reason for every single revolution.

So I'll take the lessons of history over propaganda every time.
 
What if...? said:
Business has been telling us its a tough world out there so we workers must do more for less, with less.

They left out the "in order to continue to harvest profits at the rate to which we have become accustomed" part.

Corporate profits and private wealth have skyrocketed since the Great Divergence.

What money want money gets.

Its the new American way.
Click to expand...

So you and all your down trodden friends can pool all your resources, and show us how it is done

Open your own businesses....pay whatever wages you want....and when we break you in less than two years, maybe then you will understand

After almost 35 years in my career....I am almost done. But I know what works, and profit isn’t a dirty word. It keeps our 700employees getting a paycheck, and we can weather the economic downturns.

So tired of hearing about this crap...skills pay the bills....if people want to make more, they need to contribute more. period.
 
Felis Leo said:
Here is my question: If raising the minimum wage is generally a good idea and provides extraordinarily great societal and economic benefits both to producers, consumers, wage-earners and employers, and there truly are no downsides whatsoever (or those downsides are simply exaggerated) why are we talking about a minimum wage of $15.00 per hour? Depending on the location, that is barely enough for families to live on. Why not raise it to $50.00 per hour? Or $100.00 per hour? Wouldn't that cause an even greater amount of economic growth by putting even more money into the hands of consumers?
Click to expand...

Well, by your reasoning, why not lower it to 3 cents?

The OP refers to standard, knee-jerk reactions... there is another one.^

Thx :)
 
gdgyva said:
So you and all your down trodden friends can pool all your resources, and show us how it is done

Open your own businesses....pay whatever wages you want....and when we break you in less than two years, maybe then you will understand

After almost 35 years in my career....I am almost done. But I know what works, and profit isn’t a dirty word. It keeps our 700employees getting a paycheck, and we can weather the economic downturns.

So tired of hearing about this crap...skills pay the bills....if people want to make more, they need to contribute more. period.
Click to expand...

Not all businesses are the same.

Like all human behaviors they fall on a spectrum.

But if what you're saying is true, how do you explain the great divergence?

If all the propaganda was true, corporate and personal wealth levels/profits would have followed the same trajectory while the rest of us stalled.

But that's not what happened. Wealth and profits went up at a rate roughly equal to the total of everybody else's increases they no longer got.

They simply chose to keep it for themselves.

Which is their right. But doesn't make it right.
 
Thx said:
Well, by your reasoning, why not lower it to 3 cents?

The OP refers to standard, knee-jerk reactions... there is another one.^

Thx :)
Click to expand...

Do you mean lowering to three cents where a worker cannot be paid more than 3 cents (i.e., a price ceiling)? Or do you mean that the very least you can pay a worker is three cents, but an employer can opt to pay them more (i.e., a price floor?)? Generally, I am against price controls one way or the other, both price floors and price ceilings.

If the former, I am against for much the same reason I am against raising it artificially. If there is a price ceiling put on wages, there will be a shortage of labor, since it would literally cost more for workers to go to work than what they would receive in take home pay. Productivity thereafter would grind to a near-complete halt, and we would soon thereafter revert to a barter economy in which we traded literal goods and services.

If you mean lowering the minimum wage to 3 cents an hour, I might get on board with that, but I would say at that point it would simply be better to eliminate the minimum wage entirely and let employers and employees individually negotiate for their pay. Alternatively, if businesses collude to keep wage prices artificially low, poorly-paid workers can collectively bargain (such as by unionizing) to effectively demand their wages be raised and their working conditions be improved. AS long as there is consent between parties, I am perfectly content.
 
What if...? said:
Not all businesses are the same.

Like all human behaviors they fall on a spectrum.

But if what you're saying is true, how do you explain the great divergence?

If all the propaganda was true, corporate and personal wealth levels/profits would have followed the same trajectory while the rest of us stalled.

But that's not what happened. Wealth and profits went up at a rate roughly equal to the total of everybody else's increases they no longer got.

They simply chose to keep it for themselves.

Which is their right. But doesn't make it right.
Click to expand...

Take a look at the returns in two categories since 1980...since that is where most of the charts really go out of whack

Equities since 1980,and real estate since 1980

It is hard to get a part of that wealth return when you never save a nickel...when you don’t own a home

We have as I said earlier, approx 700employees....

Care to take a guess on how many take advantage of our 6% match on the 401k?

I have posted about it before...the numbers are sick....when you spend every nickel that comes in, and never save, it is impossible to garner wealth

So yeah...the rich have become richer....and some like me, who started with nothing, now have a nice 7figure 401k balance

You can lead a horse to water...you can’t make him drink....I can give employees opportunities, I can’t make them use them
 
Felis Leo said:
Do you mean lowering to three cents where a worker cannot be paid more than 3 cents (i.e., a price ceiling)? Or do you mean that the very least you can pay a worker is three cents, but an employer can opt to pay them more (i.e., a price floor?)? Generally, I am against price controls one way or the other, both price floors and price ceilings.

If the former, I am against for much the same reason I am against raising it artificially. If there is a price ceiling put on wages, there will be a shortage of labor, since it would literally cost more for workers to go to work than what they would receive in take home pay. Productivity thereafter would grind to a near-complete halt, and we would soon thereafter revert to a barter economy in which we traded literal goods and services.

If you mean lowering the minimum wage to 3 cents an hour, I might get on board with that, but I would say at that point it would simply be better to eliminate the minimum wage entirely and let employers and employees individually negotiate for their pay. Alternatively, if businesses collude to keep wage prices artificially low, poorly-paid workers can collectively bargain (such as by unionizing) to effectively demand their wages be raised and their working conditions be improved. AS long as there is consent between parties, I am perfectly content.
Click to expand...

Take the minimum wage, set it initially to a reasonable rate and tie a COLA to it like we do with Social Security, let the economy decide.

It's maybe not a perfect scheme, but sometimes laws have to be made for the good of the country as a whole, and third-world wages are going to result in a third-world country.

We tend to do things in a knee-jerk, "catch up for years of negligence in one day" fashion...

We need to start doing things in a more gradual and methodical way.

Thx :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom