Top economist says raise minimum wage

He could but probably won't.

What you must remember about Immelt is that he's been saying all the right things for a decade - but doing just the opposite.

 

$4-$5 an hour while running 2-3 milling machines. LMAO. I'm just curious, do Chinese workers have any sort of global perspective? Do they realize on a global level how much room they have to bargain with? If I remember right the average globally for a manufacturing worker is about $1600. $3000-$4000 top end in a few European countries. And that is the average, not considering the guy was a machinist. They could ask for quadruple what they are paid at this point and get it with ease. Are they retarded? Or will they get shot with an AK-47? Are companies like GE basically taking advantages of hostage/slaves?

 

Why claim you have a rational argument, if you are unwilling to consider our objective and market based, global reality? Socialism is inherent in States and Statism. Fortunately for us, our Founding Fathers enumerated only sufficient Socialism, to provide for the general welfare and common defense, along with a few debts.

I only agree with you to the extent our own elected representatives are speculating gains from forms of morals based on Iron Age religious principles; as a form of "social engineering" that can only be accomplished via more nationalized and more socialize public policy decisions.

Hoover Dam and the Fed are excellent examples of public sector means of production which promote and provide for the general welfare, and the common defense through those "income transfers" that are on a not for profit basis.

 

Jesus. How on earth can you equate the FED with Hoover Dam? 12 bank houses who get to dictate who succeeds on the market, by determining who gets bailed out with the national currency they control, then switch back to their private enterprises to insider trade with immunity? I love how western leftists equate elitist statism with socialism, while arguing against the "rich" in their next breath. I got globalized capitalists who believe in the equalization of nation-states while they preach individualism. Is there anyone left in this world who is genuine in intent, understanding of their beliefs and consistent?

 

That is for Chinese workers that are not operating multiple machines. The MMO (multiple machine operation) was for American workers that earned between $30-$45/hr.

 

The formula is very simple in our objective, and market based reality; both are revenue centers instead of cost centers like our wars on abstractions.

 

You have been sold a bill of goods, in the form of an ideology with the integrity of silly putty, that amounts to nothing more than economic treason, via academic gobbledygook.

 

I would like to confide in your sincerity, but non sequiturs are usually considered fallacies.

Have you checked the bill of lading on your bill of goods?

 

Read my words, and mind them well. You all have gotten away with murder for so long, you deem yourselves untouchable. Nothing could be farther from the truth. You are not part of the problem, your kind ARE the problem. It will not be me swinging in the breeze when the dust settles. All it will take is for Americans to realize protest is pointless, voting is pointless, and there is but one level left to take things.

 

If these liberals want to raise minimum wages, they should be forced to tell the people that actually earned their raises and such that they are now minimum wage workers.

 

Some facts about who actually earns minimum wage in the United States.

A total of 4.9% hourly workers earned wages at or below the federal minimum wage but there are some interesting facts related to this.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2009.htm

If we summarized this information it reflects that a young, single individual without a high school diploma working part time in the food service industry probably in their first job is the most likely individual to be receiving the federal minimum wage. We can also logically conclude that a large percentage of these young individuals are still living at home and going to school.

Additionally many of those that earn the minimum wage are probably waitresses or bartenders that also receive tips that their actual income is well above the minimum wage and shouldn't even be counted in these statistics.

The portrait some try to paint that adults trying to raise a family on minimum wage is fundamentally false. There can be some but overall they would probably reflect only a small portion of 1% of the hourly work force and they can easily earn more by simply applying themselves to the job they have. Work ethic is so important when it comes to wages that virtually no one that has a good work ethic is ever limited to minimum wage. They always get a raise because employers want to retain them.

 

Still though, bumping it to over 10 is a whole different ball game this time around. I don't know anyone who got a raise when the minimum wage went up last time. It just meant cooks now made $2.50 more an hour than dishwashers, vs $5 more an hour. This bump will put the most unskilled at the same level as those without degrees, but with skills, in the low cost of living areas. It will be interesting to see what happens. Will companies have to give bumps this time? Will they just try and throw perks at those with harder jobs, but still cost less than simply raising their wages? I can tell you from experience, no one is going to cook for 11 while dishwashers get 10.35. Either we will all get raises or it is seriously going to be a fight for the lower stress jobs in the working poor class. I think it would extent into other areas as well. Surely a concrete or construction laborer isn't going to want to work for 10 when a dishwasher gets 10. This level of a minimum wage raise will ripple all through the lower cost of living areas. From K-Mart to construction, plant workers to lower management. I don't think companies will get away without a cost of living boost to all in America this time around. If of course it happened.

 

Not having a rational argument can be considered more of a "problem" in any debate about what a problem may be.

What objection would you have to a market friendly public policy choice that could have the effect of a "rising tide lifting all boats" by simply solving for a natural unemployment rate via our tax monies, instead of waging wars on drugs and other abstractions?

 

Why not solve for a natural unemployment rate and end our War on Poverty and our War on Drugs?

 

Are you willing to end government welfare for deadbeats?

If so then I have no objection to drug addicts taking illegal drugs if they want to.

 

This is absolutely true. Increasing the minimum wage does not increase the wages for those already earning more than the new minimum wage. In fact, if the link I provided is read people will notice that the majority of those listed as being effected are earning less than the federal minimum wage. If they're already earning less then they won't receive any increase in wages regardless of what it's raised to.

Finally, the only way it reduces the number of individual earning minimum wage is because many of those currently earning minimum wage will lose their jobs. There will be one less dishwasher or busboy at Denny's so they can keep their labor costs down.

 

Sounds to me like that guy should be a bottom-economist.

 

It will discourage businesses for hiring.

Which is bad for everyone, business owners to consumers to employees.

Imagine you can't find any job, and you'd gladly work for $6.50, but you can't because the government says so.

 

In my opinion, we are simply wasting our tax monies trying to solve a War on Poverty with means tested welfare.

So, from my perspective, there should not be any deadbeats, simply by actually solving official poverty, instead of simply waging a War on Poverty. What excuse could any civil person have, if they are not in official poverty?

What objection would you have to a market friendly public policy choice that could have the effect of a "rising tide lifting all boats" by simply solving for a natural unemployment rate via our tax monies, instead of waging wars on drugs and other abstractions?

 

Subsidizing the least efficient to not provide labor input to the economy in manner that is as easy to administer as a minimum wage is now; should have the effect of potentially raising some wages rather than lose labor; which is the opposite of what we have now.

 

Here's the thing with what you're implying. All of the "Denny's" type of jobs are already stripped down to bare minimum labor. To the point people who need a job won't come back after to shifts because 2 shifts worth of dishes are piled up from dishwashers getting sent home early to save labor. There simply isn't room left to cut anyone. I could see locations that were barely treading water getting shutdown. But successful locations have no fat left to trim. They're building pyramids with one sickly Ethiopian.

 

What objection can there be to solving for a natural rate of unemployment that induces forms of poverty, instead of simply waging a War on Poverty?