Raising the minimum wage is good for the economy.

Well said… particularly the part I made green. Either business pays a living wage, or the workers are supplemented by the government. Why is the tax payer expected to supplement the profits of business?

 

Only a spoiled brat supports a high minimum wage. The "rich and privileged" always find their way around, but for the "poor and disadvantaged" there is no escape from the horrors of government's economic reforms.

 

Unquestionably? You didn't read the entire article then

 

Read what I said very carefully...

ACCORDING TO THE STUDY JUST COMMISSIONED BY SEATTLE, it has UNQUESTIONABLY hurt the low wage workers in Seattle.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/26/news/seattle-minimum-wage-15/index.html

 

So you think that driving the economy down by forcing businesses to close is better for America?

Remember, it was under the Marxist principles of Obama that America fell into a situation where we have more business failures per month than startups. And that wasn't because of an increase in business failures but because of a decrease in business startups. A situation that hadn't happened since the Great Depression. And this didn't happen until 2015 so it was not a result of the Great Recession.

Higher minimum wages prevents those businesses with a real product but small markets or low price elasticity from even getting started let alone succeed. That artificially limits the number of possible jobs in a market.

Under the Constitution the tax payer is *NOT* expected to supplement the profits of business, they are *NOT* expected to be involved in individual welfare at all! The responsibilities of the federal government are laid out in the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8. Nowhere is individual welfare mentioned.

It has been the intrusion of the federal government that has has totally distorted our economy including expectations of what a lifeline is. Almost everyone on welfare today has a cell phone, an air conditioner, and some mode of transportation! When did it become an expectation of the taxpayer to provide all of this to individuals? We survived the Great Depression without all of this and deaths from starvation during the Great Depression did *not* go up. Why can't we do the same thing today?

Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote a prescient white paper back in 1965 which spoke to the results of the Marxist Democrats subsidizing single mother households. He foretold of the breakup of the nuclear family, the violence of young men with no civilizing force, and the impact on overall poverty. The Marxist Democrats didn't listen to him then and they aren't listening to him today. They saw at the time the opportunity for political gain from an entire class of people dependent on government entitlements and that has considered till today.

 

The unfortunate reality is "WE" don't have the business or manufacturing to support or supply our current population and it will most likely become even worse in the future! America has lost it's competitive edge to economic globalization. Wages suffer simply because Americans make more, spend more and waste more than other competitor countries hands down! Think about it, what we consider a minimum wage in the U.S. other countries risk lives to come here to make Sadly our economic structure revolves around "Supply and DEMAND", it's drives cost up or down in conjunction with availability! Hard to "GET" the price goes up, glutted and the price is set to move inventories.

The same rings true with "LABOR", demand for more product demands more production which in turn demands more labor. When industry and production sufferers from lack of labor they must incentivize to lure and hold labor! Wages and benefits rise as available labor pools dry up, and the labor market tips the advantage! What we have today is the opposite, U.S. production and manufacturing relocating to countries with cheaper labor have "GLUTTED" our labor pools giving what business and production we have left the advantage. The bottom line is we are never going to solve anything by forcing a higher min wage, the complete opposite will result. Companies will simply locate to places where labor cost and cost of living is cheaper, history has already shown this to be true.

 

This all presupposes that labor costs is the only cost area where we can compete for manufacturing.

It isn't. America *should* be able to offset labor costs with lower energy prices because of our grid. We *should* be able offset labor costs with lower shipping costs due to our infrastructure.

The *real* problem is are the tax policies that punish capital investment in America. It truly is just that simple.

 

______
Seattle's Painful Lesson on the Road to a $15 Minimum Wage
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/arti...inful-lesson-on-the-road-to-a-15-minimum-wage
‎June‎ ‎26‎, ‎2017‎ -- In the summer of 2014, the Seattle City Council unanimously passed a bill increasing the city’s minimum wage to $15 an hour ... This is no slur on Card and Krueger, mind … For every 1 percent increase in their hourly wage, low-wage workers saw a 3 percent reduction in the number of hours worked. As a result, they lost about $125 in earnings a month, clawing back the entire gain from the earlier hike and more.

~~~~~~~~~~~~​

McDonald’s Counters The Minimum Wage Hike To $15 By ...
www.inquisitr.com/1594675/mcdonalds-counters-minimum-wage-hike-
... similar to the automatic check-out machines found in some grocery and retail stores such as Walmart. ... but McDonald’s opted for automation instead.

 

I wonder. I think there is a point where whatever rise in wages, the minimum wage there is a point where a company, corporation, even mom and pop will weigh the cost of automation, robotics, technology to offset the added cost. I think we are seeing this with McDonalds at certain locations going to kiosk and computers for customers to order their meals. We seen it in the assembly of cars and trucks, robotics replacing humans as soon as robotics become cheaper than humans.

When one takes into account what a human costs to employ, social security, medicare taxes, health benefits, pensions, whatever applies plus the wage there is a point where technology, robotics, automation becomes the cheaper route. I don't know if that point is 15 dollars an hour, could be more, could be less depending on the business. I've read about companies who refused to hire the 50th full time employee or just hired part time employees who worked less than 30 hours a week to avoid being classified as full time as a result of Obamacare regulations.

My bottom line is I just don't know. But there are a lot more things to think about than what one would think on the surface. I think the phrase of for every action there is a reaction applies. Raising the minimum wage to 15 dollars may not cost any jobs at all and be a boom to the economy, but it may also have the opposite effect. I suppose one never knows until it is tried. Usually the pros and cons of each side of this and other issues aren't as bad as each side predicts. There is always some of both. Just some food for thought.

 

So you're pretending that your own link didn't "raise questions" about the accuracy of that statement

 

So you believe that you have to lie and make insane accusations about Marxist Democrats to promote your anti-wage agenda?

 

I am not pretending anything. I am correctly pointing out that I said ...

ACCORDING TO THE STUDY JUST COMMISSIONED BY SEATTLE, it has UNQUESTIONABLY hurt the low wage workers in Seattle.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/26/news/seattle-minimum-wage-15/index.html

Do you not know the meaning of the expression "according to the study just commissioned by Seattle" ? If I had simply said " unquestionably it has hurt the low wage workers of Seattle" and then provided that link, THEN you would have an argument. If I had said "according to this link, it has unquestionably hurt the low wage workers of Seattle", THEN you would have an argument.

I said neither. I said according to the study just commissioned by Seattle, so you do NOT have even a remote semblance of an argument. This really isn't that difficult.

 

Another reading of the Washington study.
http://dailysignal.com/2017/06/26/s...e-heres-how-its-impacting-low-income-workers/

 

I created a thread on this a few years back. If we were to market the U.S. as *THE* place in the world to set up manufacturing, and back that up with world class tax incentives, at-cost energy, land grants, etc, then businesses would flock here from all over the world to set up shop and suddenly there would be a shortage of labor to fill demand. It can be done.

Imagine a workers utopia... multiple companies competing for a shortage of workers. We would have to ramp up and streamline legal immigration to fill the labor requirements. Walmart, Costco, Target, et al would all be in a bidding war for high school graduates.

 

Well your own link shoots holes in your own claims

'Shrug

 

You cant GENUINELY be that obtuse can you? This HAS to be an act.

My claim was that "ACCORDING TO THE STUDY JUST COMMISSIONED BY SEATTLE, it has UNQUESTIONABLY hurt the low wage workers in Seattle.".....

Tell me......what in that statement is incorrect according to my link ? Was there anything in the study commissioned by Seattle that disputes the notion that low wage workers were hurt? Anything at all ?

 

TROLL!

Nothing bu trolling.

Not once have you posted anything of import to refute anything that anyone has posted.

You can't show where my assertions are wrong so you just claim I am making insane accusations, the argumentative fallacy of Poisoning the Well.

Go away , TROLL. All you do is waste everyone's bandwidth.

 

An eminently sensible solution. Do you think a single Marxist Democrat would agree to this?

 

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-minimum-20170627-story.html

http://fortune.com/2017/06/26/seattle-minimum-wage-policy-study/

Aaaaw, too bad.

 

Back to making up stuff to fit you faulty narrative? Are you aware that Washington has a minimum wage that is the highest of any state and Oregon isn't far behind? When one looks to those states with higher minimum wages, one quickly sees that the dire predictions of conservatives are like everything else that comes from the right, ridiculous.

 

What do you base this on?

 

What a mouthful you put in my mouth! *spits it out*

My point was quite clear. When business doesn't pay a living wage, government subsidies pick up the slack, and in turn the tax payer ends up subsidizing the profits of the business.

 

Workers do not control the cost of housing, food, energy, transportation, yet have to meet those costs to live. If their labor doesn't provide enough to support them, then the government kicks in to supplement what is lacking, and subsequently is subsiding the profits of the very businesses not paying a living wage. When business either cannot or will not employ its citizens in sufficient numbers, then the government can choose to employ those people. We did this before following the Great Depression. We can do it again. We need high speed internet in rural areas, infrastructure improvement with our airports, roads, and bridges, long term care for our elderly, and child care for working parents. We need summer and after school programs for students, meals for shut-ins. The government can hire people to do those things, and provide jobs for those that need them. I'd much rather my tax dollars go to giving someone skills and a living wage than subsidizing the profits of businesses with such a poor business plan they cannot adequately pay their workers.

 

Of course they control the cost of those things. You sell to people within a certain price point because they can meet that price point. You can't just sell a big mac for a million bucks because nobody would buy one.

sigh... seriously, you're too far in commie territory here. You can't sell poor people lamborghinis, so you sell them fords.

If you find any of that confusing, let me know.

 

And when that wage hike puts the business into bankruptcy you think that has no impact on the economy?

Again, it is government interference in the economy that causes the situation you give. That and the life choices made by individuals.

But you seem to ignore that.

You didn't even bother to address the point that the Constitution does *not* give the federal government the responsibility for individual welfare. If you don't want the taxpayer picking up the tab then advocate for getting the federal government out of individual welfare.

But you won't do that, will you?