Democrat Mayor Vetoes $15 Min Wage Bill

Democrats that actually gets it. I think they do, but can't admit it to their far left wing base. Somehow, they think there is this vast pool of money the corporations are sitting on. In the depths of their evil greediness they refuse to share it with their workers. Where our friends on the left fail to connect the dots is major corporations have a fiduciary duty to their stockholders to make them as much money as possible.

In the words of Larry the Liquidator in the movie "Other People's Money"......

Me. I'm not your best friend. I'm your only friend. I don't make anything? I'm makin' you money. And lest we forget, that's the only reason any of you became stockholders in the first place. You wanna make money! You don't care if they manufacture wire and cable, fried chicken, or grow tangerines! You wanna make money! I'm the only friend you've got. I'm makin' you money.

Take the money. Invest it somewhere else. Maybe, maybe you'll get lucky and it'll be used productively. And if it is, you'll create new jobs and provide a service for the economy and, God forbid, even make a few bucks for yourselves. And if anybody asks, tell 'em ya gave at the plant.​

Our friends on the left just seem to forget the vast majority of Pension Fund incomes are generated by investing in the stock market. If the market goes down so does the Pension funds income.

Stock market tumble could keep pension funds behind

It's refreshing to see a Democrat Mayor and a former Democrat City Council President see the $15 an hour minimum wage for what it will do to their city and the people living there. If anyone wants to make in excess of minimum wage, they need to go to college or a trade school and learn a skill that's in demand and make more money. If those working minimum wage jobs want to make more, discreetly contact ICE if they know their employer is hiring illegals. They are a prime reason wages stay low.

 

Wow, amazing, a smart liberal..

 

Excellent some common sense.

 

An economics major I suspect.

 

A democrat that can do math? That is as rare as a unicorn.

 

Then here is the choice.

1. Make the employer pay a living wage

2. You and I can pay the difference thru our taxes when that person doesn't make enough to live on. Thus we are actually subsidizing the employer.

Its simple really.

 

This is one lefty goal that shouldn't come to fruition, at least not in the current economy. Plus I would question the sanity of increasing it by an amount that isn't far off from double the minimum wages of many places. Plus there is nothing that offsets it, like increased business when in all likelihood, business would decrease from a combination of increased prices and less income to spend by those who've lost their jobs because of the increase.

 

What's simple is the fact that you can't change the way people determine value by changing the tool people use to measure it. 7 dollars, 15 dollars, a million dollars, the number makes no difference because it does not change the amount of value the amount of money represents. You don't make people taller by putting more inches in their ruler.

 

What if the value of the job does not meet this "living wage" whatever that is?

My first jobs didn't pay enough for me to live on my own at least not like I wanted to so I solit living cost with a roommate. I then worked hard fot raises and promotions and soon could live on my own. No one owed me more in a wage than I was worth or the job was worth.

 

Discussions about Min Wage & Living Wage aren't very constructive because they generally end up dismissing the fundamental economic principles that drive both growth & wages. However, in this case, I'm encouraged by this Mayors logically based approach in dealing with the issue.

 

I agree. The problem is that we subsidize the employer either way.

$10 in rural Missouri is a lot more than $10 in NYC. The point I was making is that when the employer doesn't pay a living wage, the taxpayers are forced to make up that difference. So why not have the employer make up the difference ?

 

Liberal created problems.

 

Why is any job not worth a living wage ?

We can debate all day long the value of one job vs another, and in most cases I'm sure we would agree on most of them. But at the end of the day it won't change the fact that we have two choices in the debate. Have the employer pay a living wage, or have the taxpayer subsidize the employer.

 

So you bring nothing to the debate....OK...Thanks.....

 

Why not stop forcing the taxpayer to make up the difference?

I live in a farming town. There are lots of jobs here that Americans won't do. The reason they won't do them is that they would lose their subsidies if they started earning an income. This means the taxpayer isn't making up the difference. The taxpayer is doing it all.

 

To someone that does not understand economics? Probably not.

 

Because you don't get to define value. When a small group of people does attempt to impose value on the market you end up with Venezuela every time.

 

So we should let people starve ?

I'm just pointing out the facts of how the system works today.

I don't think anyone disagrees that there are people who game the system. But IMHO they are the minority. So how do we handle those who aren't gaming the system, who are working, but not making enough to survive ?

In most cases this has nothing to do with the "market". Workers don't create the costs in the market anymore. There are almost no protections for workers anymore, so therefore they have no power. Which is why you see wages actually going down, while prices are going up, or you see prices outpacing wages.

 

OK, ill play....how did "liberals" create the problem ?

 

For one, subsidizing employers mentioned. Second, raising minimum wage is already causing fewer people to be hired in that wage range in Seattle so you will be supporting even more out of work.

 

Because it doesn't return that much in value to the person paying for it. And its not a debate it is an economic fact.

Why dosnt every job in the country pay $150,000 a year? Why don't we just mandate that?

 

The situation is not a dichotomy. It's not either we ensure everyone earns a living wage or let everyone starve. I'm suggesting that your either or solutions to the problem are part of the problem. After all a little starvation is the best motivation for self improvement.

Do I want to see people starving? No of course not, but in the other side of the coin I don't want to see them refusing to work because they would lose what they are already earning for free. Do you see the problem there? You can't force people to value like you do. Not employers, not employees, and not even taxpayers. You can't force an employer to pay a value equal to your value of minimum living. You can't force an employee to produce that value, and you can't force a taxpayer to generate enough value for everyone that disagrees with you.

 

Hey now, that might be going a bit far, don't you think?

He might just be a conservative democrat.

 

Minority of what? And why shouldnt they handle themselves. How does forcing an employer to lose money in their labor help anyone? How does replacing their meanial laboe with a robot help anyone.

 

it's a miracle!