Raising the minimum wage is good for the economy.

In other words you can't refute a single assertion I have made. So, like all Marxist Democrats who are unable to defend their positions, you just resort to the Argument by Dismissal fallacy and the Poisoning the Well fallacy.

SIMPLY PATHETIC!

No faux statistics. If they were false you should be able to refute them. The figures are out there on the internet in lots of places. Yet you can't find anything anywhere to refute me. So, once again you resort to the argumenative fallacies of Argument by Dismissal and Poisoning the Well.

SIMPLY PATHETIC!

Except I can back up *my* assertions with facts and figures. You can't. All you have is argumentative fallacies. That is what Marxist Dems *always* have, argumentative fallacies.

The problem is that you *refuse* to accept the consequences of what you say.

Minimum wage increases absolutely hurt the small business which are operating in a competitive environment. Since a significant proportion of the jobs that are created in this country are created by small business, an MW increase hurts the overall economy - whether the Marxist Democrats want to admit this or not!

 

The wacko right are told how to and what to think. Higher wages has nothing to do with driving our economy. Whether the worker gets the dollar or the business gets the dollar they drive the market exactly the same. Same with taxes , nothing is lost by taxes as far as driving the market is concerned it just changes the name of the person who spends it.A dollar in my hand or a dollar in corporate hands or a dollar in tax money, Spends exactly the same. If you want to drive the market the best place is minimum wages because every dollar will be spent immediately. While corporate money can go into mattresses. American corporation now have absolutely nothing to complain about as far as their bottom line is concerned , They are on easy street and have been for many years.While the minimum wage earners have tons to complain about. Generally ugly jobs and no pay. You can have a minimum wage up to age 18 and a different minimum wage for anyone else. The only arguments are from the pigs that want it all and their controlled lackeys that say and do exactly what they are told. There has never been a time in history where so many are working against their best interest. That happens when your mindless.

 

Great. But the reality is that when the minimum wage was established at $1.60/hr in 1968, if it had been tied to inflation it would be over $10/hr today. And I cannot see how that would be unfair.

 

minimum wage increase is a job killer

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timwor...urants-and-thus-restaurant-jobs/#1ae8bf6d3a16

 

Highest stock market in history. biggest corporate profits in history. 10 million jobs created in his 8 years. Every thing this clown writes about how bad Obama was for the economy is true only in the fact of how those profits were distributed. That would be the Reagan disaster, I wonder what they thought would happen when you lowered the top bracket from 70 to 28% . There has never been anything like the tax cut the rich got from The trickle down lie. AS far as the population is concerned their is definitely only one worst president and I'll give you a hint , he was a bad actor. By the way bullshit to your 95 million that don't have jobs. How many are left when you count the people that don't need or want a job. These people are nothing but walking zombies , they don't think and do anything that they aren't told to do. Brain dead is the word.

 

There is only one reason why there is a increase in the poor and that is simply how taxes have changed to transfer the total new wealth of this country to the top.

 

If government raises the minimum wage then employers will have to pay more for workers. This will cause, at the very least, higher prices because most businesses operate on a tight budget. Especially small businesses. They can't afford to take a hit on their net profit. It's like the local utility suddenly deciding to raise your kwh price. You either experience a hit on your net profit or you cut back on spending which causes your vendors to suffer. Raising the minimum wage is a net loss and after a while, the minimum wage will have to be raised again as products and services increase in price and so on.

 

I distinguish between the 45 year old lady who has been cleaning the bathrooms at the courthouse for years, and the 16 year old getting his first job at McDonalds. We need to incentivize people to do dirty jobs, even though they don't require a high school education. I want her to have a higher wage than the kid with no skills. But I actually think that few adults who have years on any job are making minimum wage anyway (they make more).

 

There is no need to speculate. This has been studied by both sides and the results are in.

 

All you have to do is look at the people holding the signs to see the problem.

 

There is a minimum below which the expenditure is mandatory and the price will not be less. A person can't simply not rent, not eat, not pay for electricity, not wear clothes, not pay for transportation to work, not pay for toilet paper, not pay for basic necessities. All of the household expenditures, no matter how much the person tries to minimize the costs, and sometimes trying to minimize the purchase price literally costs more to accomplish (e.g. traveling between stores looking to save a few cents on an item).

In business no enterprise expects to pay less than the cost that another enterprise must pay to provide goods and services. They know that if they build their business plan on their suppliers losing money then both their suppliers and they will go out of business.

And yet they expect their employees to work for less than what it costs them to live and they can only do that because of government welfare assistance that must make up for the difference.

I'm sick and tired of the thousands of enterprises around the country that expect me to provide the necessary income to their employees because they refuse to pay them enough to live on. You may like paying for welfare benefits that are required by hard working Americans when their boss won't pay them a living wage but after 45 years of me being heavily taxed during my working career to provide that welfare I'm tired of these deadbeat business owners. It's time for them to pay to support their employees as opposed to leaving that up to American taxpayers.

By the way, in the past Americans earned more based upon their productivity than they do today and that wasn't just a little bit more, it was a hell of a lot more.

Between 1948-1973 productivity increased by 96.7% and hourly wages rose by 91.3%
Between 1973-2015 productivity increased by 73.4% and hourly wages rose by 11.1%
http://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/

The owners of enterprise have been raking in the money because of the productivity of the American workers and have been throwing the workers bread crumbs in return. American companies can not only afford to pay a living wage (compensation package) but can actually pay a generous wage (compensation package) because the value of their employees' labor is worth far more than they've been paying them for the last 40 years or more.

For most of American history the average man could afford to provide for his stay-at-home wife that took care of the kids. Since the 1970's, as our economy fell under Republican economic policies designed to benefit the enterprise and the owners of enterprise, that is no longer possible.

All of those angry blue collar white Americans that are worried about not being able to earn a living in the future, if they voted for Donald Trump and the Republican Party in 2016, they just voted for the political party responsible for them not being able to earn a living in the future.

 

It's not.

 

Absolutely not. You posted graphs that showed effects of various groups over various time spans.

Nowhere did you demonstrate where an increase in MW (and there have been many) has caused inflation to go up...unemployment to go up...even prices to go up relative to areas where MW didn't inccrease

 

This is a false analysis.

Under a phased implementation over several years, that any significant increases in the minimum wage must use for pragmatic purposes, the percentage of gross revenue used to fund employee compensation can remain unchanged based upon adjustments to the business plan.

So long as the percentage of gross revenue to fund employee compensation remains unchanged the prices of the goods and services do not need to change.

Additionally even if a price increase is used to offset the increased cost in employee compensation the price increase is equal to the effect of the increased expenditure as a percentage of gross revenue.

For example a typical enterprise will allocate 25% of gross revenue to fund employee compensation. A 10% increase in employee compensation only requires a 2.5% price increase to cover the increased expenditure for employee compensation.

An employee earning 10% more is far better off even if there's a 2.5% increase in the costs of goods and services.

The key is that raising prices is the last measure any enterprise will do to offset an increased expenditure, not the first. It's far easier and more beneficial to the enterprise to make changes in the business plan to accommodate in increased expenditure than it is to raise prices. Many business plan changes don't require any additional expenditures and significantly increase business revenue to fund the increased expenditure.

It's always amazing that people keep throwing out the "increase wages requires an equivalent increase in prices" to create the "dog chases tail" argument because it's obvious that they've never run an business.

 

The economy is *NOT* just about spending money. What are you going to spend the money ON? If you don't have anything to spend the money on then what do you buy? That's why economics always teaches supply and demand. You have to allow for both!

Taxes on business are just taxes on the customers since taxes are an expense folded into the pricing equation.

And it's obvious you know nothing of businesses today. Since 2010 Obama has driven the economy into having more annual business failures than business startups. That hasn't happened since the Great Depression.

Someone has *always* had to clean the latrines. It is not a highly skilled or productive job. Nor is it a high paying job.

You are espousing Marx's labor theory of value. Basically the amount of sweat and dirt that goes into something determines its value. It's not worked out for any nation that has tried it. Venezuela is just the most current one.

Why is Marxism so damn popular in this country today?

 

Minimum wage increase effects can be easily seen by looking at the employment level of the 16-19 age cohort. This is the age cohort most likely to have unskilled and inexperienced workers whose productivity is not high. Therefore they are many times those in the ranks making minimum wage.


Every time there has been a minimum wage hike the 16-19 year cohort takes it in the teeth. It happened in the 80's, 90's and 00's when minimum wage was increased. So we know that there *is* an impact from hiking the minimum wage. It is more visible in the 16-19 age cohort but the same thing happens in all cohorts.

Businesses actually have three choices when the minimum wage goes up. Raise prices, lay off workers, or go out of business. There just aren't any other choices available. Competition drives costs down and profit margins down. That totally limits how businesses can respond. A low-price restaurant simply can't just change its business plan nor can it raise its prices without an impact on its revenues.

The issue isn't the worker that gets a raise. The issue is the workers that get laid off. The issue is the poor that depend on low-price entities. Workers that get laid off get hurt. The poor that depend on low-price vendors get hurt. The hurt is a lot more widespread than the Marxist Democrats would have you believe.

Every time government injects itself into markets those market get distorted. Price and wage controls have never worked and never will.

Think about it. If $15 is good then shouldn't $100 be better? If not then why not?

 

If you can't see the impact on the 16-19 age cohort from MW increases then you just aren't looking.

I can't help your willful ignorance. Only you can do that!

 

You paying for others is not the choice of the business that hires them. It is the person's choice to not increase their skills enough to earn a living wage.

Much of the productivity increases since the 80's has been based on automation - i.e. doing more with fewer people who actually do less. People who do less aren't entitled to more pay just because of the automation. It's like when the telephone companies put in automated dialing switches and eliminated jobs for millions of operators nationwide. The productivity in the telephone company increased tremendously. But the operators that remained weren't entitled to higher pay because of the automation!

Some of those operators actually moved into technician jobs. They increased their skills and made more money! That's how it is supposed to be done!

The way you increase wages is to create good jobs. Something Obama and the Marxist Democrats haven't been able to do for eight years. Economic growth averaging 1.9% per year simply isn't good enough. Trump and the GOP have a plan to get to 3% or more economic growth. Here's hoping it works out even though the Marxist Democrats will fight it tooth and nail.

 

Most of those profits came from overseas -- where the Marxist Democrat tax and regulation policies forced the corporation to go.

BurgerKing, Citibank, GE, Caterpillar, on and on and on -- go look at their annual reports to see where their revenues are coming from!

You also need to ask all those workers in China that benefited from trickle-down from the companies that invested there just how trickle-down works!

"Don't need or want a job" ROFL!!!

You mean the lazy ones that want someone else to pay their way? Even the zombies go looking for a job when the teat goes dry!

 

So basically once we went more liberal in the late 60's our productivity pay gap went to hell.

 

What is unfair is that the minimum wage is the price for nothing- there is no obligation by the wage law other than the payment of wage; it's not related to value received for the wage, so it's a one-sided rule. Now I have no objection to people making a lot of money. I have an objection to that money not buying anything of value, just inflating the expenses of those who actually produce.

I am aware that this is a difficult parameter to establish and apply- that it has to be in the hands of the employer, and this will always seem adversary to many. But setting a minimum wage without a comparable level of productivity supports the idea of entitlement- that if you are just present, you are worth a certain amount of money regardless of what you do for it. I would like to see people learn to be worth more, so we can generate the money to pay them more. I think we will always have a certain number of jobs that will be minimum wage value. The problem is that people think they should be able to make a career of those jobs where they don't have to learn skills and can just get by- and rely on government to see to it that they have enough to live on. We can train people who want to learn, but you can't force anybody to be positive and enthusiastic about working- they have to do that. There is a saying that says "Love your job, and you will never work a day in your life". The most successful do love what they do. Even if the work is tough, the guy who's thinking right knows that he's caring for his family, supporting himself and building his future by doing it well- and that gives his work purpose, a paycheck beyond the wage that nurtures ambition and productivity.

More income for everyone would be great for business; there would be more goods being sold. But, it has to be earned income balanced by productivity- not free money.

 

Again...show us where overall unemployment went up when MW went up relative to areas where MW increases were not in effect. Show us where inflation or even prices increased because of MW increases...or where the overall economy was damaged when MW increased...

You SHOULD be able to do this since MW has been increased many times.

To be honest...16-19 year olds are not an indicator of the health of an economy

 

Critical lefties think payroll is a big business cost, but it just depends on the business. In the service sector it is greater, in manufacturing this is a small fraction, in the primary sector it is insignificant.

The movement for $15 minimum wage is focused on the service sector and particularly in 'hospitality'. Doubling minimum wage in this sector would have a very direct impact on the price of services rendered.

One should consider the profit margin in the service sector is around 3.5%, this means the business is making just 3.5 cents on each dollar. In a 7-eleven it costs more to sell a candy bar than it profits the franchise.

 

I don't know what economic rock you're living under but the economic polices that the United States operated under during the 1950's and 1960's when the American Middle Class was basically created were the economic policies created by the administrations of FDR and Truman. The first assault on those economic policies was the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 when the Republicans in Congress overrode a Truman veto. Taft-Hartley was an attack on the powers of the union.

During the 1950's and the 1960's organized labor was able to negotiate increased compensation based upon increased productivity which is why the increases in both were closely related. Attacks on the power of unions rendered them incapable of maintaining that negotiation power in the 1970's which is why he divergence between productivity and wages began in 1973 under the Nixon Administration. It took a little longerf for Republicans to destroy the power of organized labor for the benefit of the business owners and the enterprise It wasn't until 1981 when President Reagan impose the full force of Taft-Hartley that struck a death blow to the power of organized labor to negotiate compensation based upon productivity.

For those that follow economic history they'll remember that under Ronald Reagan the real income for the bottom 50th percentile declined during the Reagan years of "supply side economics". The real income for the bottom 10th percentile, that could least afford it, had their income decline by over 14%! Reagan;s tax cuts, like today's "Republican" proposals resulted in average income households receiving a paltry 4% tax cut and wealthy households received 20% tax cut.

Republican economic policies have always been about ensuring that the "Rich get Richer and the Poor get Poorer" and they've been controlling the economic policy of the United State since the Nixon era and their policies are doing exactly what they want them to do.

I'm thinking it's about time the policy changes to "The Rich get to remain rich and while working Americans get paid enough to rise up out of poverty and through hard work they're able to work themselves up to the middle class."

I really can't understand those that want to keep hard working poor people poor.

 

That's not how it works.

Wage/salaries are determined by the Supply & Demand of a given Skill-set within a specific Labor Market, not fanciful aquatic ceremonies or wishful thinking.

For every given Skill-set within a specific Labor Market -- and there are 800+ Skill-sets according to your government -- there is a Wage Floor, below which no one will work, and a Wage Ceiling, which is the most a worker can be paid. A minimum wage cannot drive wages/salaries above the Wage Ceiling.

A Wage Ceiling is determined by several factors, including Price Elasticity (of Demand) and Profit Margin. An increase in wages/salaries cannot automatically be offset by an increase in Price. Increasing Prices for goods and services to offset higher wages does not necessarily correspond to an increase in Revenues or an Increase in Profits, in fact, it can result in lower Revenues and lower Profits.

The purpose of Inflation is to protect goods, resources and services from over-consumption or depletion.

Increasing wages is nonsensical, since it leads to the over-consumption or depletion of goods, resources and services, which serves only to drive prices higher until Demand Destruction is reached. Why would you want to create a vicious cycle from which you cannot recover? Why would you want goods and resources to be depleted faster?