Would you republicans vote for a $12 minimum wage?

Just math, eh? Lets take a deeper dive on this subject.

This idea that you can't pay a minimum wage and not enjoy a profit is pure bunk. I've owned businesses.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...12-minimum-wage.585770/page-8#post-1072494075

You are looking at the thing from a mercantilistic, transactional lens. A minimum wage is a wage price control, not a product price control, and they are not the same thing. One effects the worker, the other the entrepreneur. Entrepreneurs enjoy no such protection, they are all about risk, and gain. Product prices are not a problem to be solved. If a product X is too much, consumer merely choose product Y, on the shelf. Here, the free market regulates pricing. Workers are not products on shelves, they are human beings, who, at the lower rungs of the economic ladder, much less likely to not have savings to rely on so they can pick and choose employers and thus are far less able to refuse work, or bargain for their labor if there is no union. This is why you cannot look at wages in the mercantilistic, transactional framework. In order to be a more civilized society, we must look at how we treat the lowest rung of the economic latter with more humanitarian considerations. Such considerations aren't needed for persons higher up the ladder.

We, as a civilized society, can do this for lower economic wage earners within the concept of not, overdoing it, as well. No one is suggesting a $50 minimum wage, and I disagree with my progressive brethren, where I now accept that $15 is too high of a baseline, and it should be, as Manchin suggested, $11 ( which is what it was in 1968, when unemployment was 3.8%).

In other words, exploitation arises or is more likely to arise when 'emotion' is stripped away from the human equation insofar as minimum wage policy. The whole purpose of a minimum wage is to prevent exploitation, a humanitarian cause, and, sorry, if you don't allow emotion to remain you are one cold cruel person, to use emotional language. there are times when emotion shouldn't be applied to legislation, and there are times when it is perfectly apt.

More from the quote:


The principles that result in pricing in products cannot be applied to minimum wages. but CAN be applied to managerial salaries, however. For skilled labor, there are union shops, and non union shops, and more affluent persons at this level have more of an ability to pick and choose their employer. Minimum wages are there to protect the less able and more prone to exploitation therefrom.

The entrepreneurs, they risk more, but they can gain more. A worker is about wage stability, not risk, they are risking nothing but their time and labor, and in exchange for that, it is fair to demand a livable wage, in return.
Product price controls result in shortages, but minimum wages increase demand, and results in more, not less, jobs, AS LONG as the wage isn't too much of a burden. So, there is a threshold which, when passed it does negatively affect production, and below which negatively affects society, i.e., it results in employees going on public assistance, resulting in a greater cost to society, lost jobs because of not enough disposable income, etc. So, there is a 'sweet spot' for minimum wage.

https://www.natlawreview.com/article/federal-minimum-wage-unconstitutional

Nearly 70 years ago, the United States Supreme Court unanimously rejected this same Tenth Amendment argument and upheld the constitutionality of the federal minimum wage. In United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100 (1940), the Supreme Court found that, although the Constitution does not expressly give Congress authority to mandate a federal minimum wage, the Tenth Amendment does not deprive Congress of “authority to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end.” Id. at 124. The Court found that based on Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce, Congress could enact reasonable legislation in furtherance of its policy of excluding from interstate commerce any goods produced under substandard labor conditions. Thus, the Court held that the federal minimum wage is not unconstitutional.

 

Competition is why prices go up and down, but for the trend to continue to rise, a fiat currency induced swelling money supply faster than productivity creating a situation where too much money is chasing too few goods is necessary.

 

If a business owner can’t make a profit due to paying minimum wage then that person is a terrible businessman.

 

If you smell it or stepped in it, it came from you, not from me.

And here it is. Not everyone making minimum wage is trying to earn enough to live.

I'll give you two real life examples of people who meeting this criteria. The first is my mother in law. At age 57 she took a minimum wage position as a receptionist to supplement her family income. My father in law had already put in 20 years with the airforce, had his pension, and was at that time employed at just under six figures. She wanted extra income that she could spend without guilt at the casino, and they both wanted to put his surplus toward their retirement. Housing, food, clothing, even entertainment was perfectly covered by his income, but she wanted to contribute to offset her own spending. Should that be illegal?

The second is my eldest son. He had a good sales job and moved out on his own. Due to circumstances of his life, it all fell apart and he moved back home. Currently I'm providing for his cost of living and his education toward a new career path. He works a minimum wage so that he can contribute to offset some of those costs. Should that be illegal?

Neither of them require government assistance, and they are not alone. Should it be illegal to not fit your model?

Right, no one. Except the vote to pass the 1968 increase wasn't unanimous. Weird, considering no one was against it.

You've not established this. Do companies exploit workers by hiring a robot instead of a worker?

I did work for minimum wage, multiple times. The first time I was 12 years old. Coincidentally, that arrangement would have been legally considered a sweat shop since I was under the minimum age at the time (15) and I was working under the table. I worked for that business until I was 18 years old, never for more than minimum wage. During that time I learned how to interact with customers, sales, basic accounting, inventory management & purchasing, employee relations. To this day, if I wanted to run a similar franchise I would have most of the skills necessary to be successful.

The second time I took a second part time job as a cashier in a grocery to quickly earn a down payment for a home. Neither time did I require government assistance.

And studies show that they aren't. What you haven't shown is that a minimum wage prevents employers from exploiting employees.

Henry Ford increased his wages to prevent turn over. Supply and demand. The labor had value and so he paid for that value to keep it from going to someone else.

 

No the don't. they ddn't in 1968 when unemployment was 3.8% and $11 ( adjusting for inflation)

Product price controls lead to shortages, but you can't conflate wage prices controls with product price controls.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...12-minimum-wage.585770/page-8#post-1072494093

You are looking at the thing from a mercantilist, transactional lens. A minimum wage is a wage price control, not a product price control, and they are not the same thing. One effects the worker, the other the entrepreneur. Entrepreneurs enjoy no such protection, they are all about risk, and gain. Product prices are not a problem to be solved. If a product X is too much, consumer merely choose product Y, on the shelf. Here, the free market regulates pricing. Workers are not products on shelves, they are human beings, who, at the lower rungs of the economic ladder, much less likely to not have savings to rely on so they can pick and choose employers and thus are far less able to refuse work, or bargain for their labor if there is no union. This is why you cannot look at wages in the mercantilist, transactional framework. In order to be a more civilized society, we must look at how we treat the lowest rung of the economic latter with more humanitarian considerations. Such considerations aren't needed for persons higher up the ladder.
We, as a civilized society, can do this for lower economic wage earners within the concept of not, overdoing it, as well. No one is suggesting a $50 minimum wage, and I disagree with my progressive brethren, where I now accept that $15 is too high of a baseline, and it should be, as Manchin suggested, $11 ( which is what it was in 1968, when unemployment was 3.8%).

In other words, exploitation arises or is more likely to arise when 'emotion' is stripped away from the human equation insofar as minimum wage policy. The whole purpose of a minimum wage is to prevent exploitation, a humanitarian cause.

The principles that result in pricing in products cannot be applied to minimum wages. but CAN be applied to managerial salaries, however. For skilled labor, there are union shops, and non union shops, and more affluent persons at this level have more of an ability to pick and choose their employer. Minimum wages are there to protect the less able and more prone to exploitation therefrom.

 

Labor can take whatever risk it likes, and charge whatever they want for their labor. They just can't force anyone to buy it, just like I can't force you to buy the neckless for $3.

So they don't hire people. Is it much better to have no job than a job that doesn't pay what you specifically think it should? What about the people that disagree with what you think? They aren't allowed to have jobs?

What's the difference between working for 16 hours to make a neckless that you sell for $2 and getting paid $2 to sell 16 hours of your labor to someone else? I don't see one. Let's say my opportunity cost for labor is $32 an hour. Can I volunteer $30 an hour to a soup kitchen and have them pay me $2 an hour to make up the difference that I don't want to volunteer?

You keep repeating the same thing. It's not proof of your point. People have reasons to work for wages that you don't agree with. Prove them exploited please.

Repeat of the same unfounded premise.

Labor is a product. If I want to sell my labor at low cost why is it illegal to do so?

 

Okay, raise minimum wage to $100/hr then, and try to get a hamburger businesses to sell you a $10 burger. They may break even if they raise the price of your next hamburger to $80 each.

 

Is so weird to me that they can see the fallacy of scale when you make the change big and obvious, but can't see it if it's just a little bit.

 

I'd I wanted to sell you a necklace for $2 would you ask me how long I worked on it so you wouldn't feel like you were exploiting me? Would you be exploiting me if it took 16 hours to make?

 

So if the question is, will I simply cede to your demands, the answer is no.

 

So what? You are assuming that SCOTUS religiously follows the Constitution when in fact they quite often don't. The federal government does a jillion things that they are not Constitutionally authorized to do.

 

That is absolutely correct. Still it is only competition that keeps a business from raising its prices. If the money supply causes some businesses to try to raise their prices, then all the competition will quickly follow suit.

 

~ If what you post is indeed accurate you make a very good point.
However I think the real question is : "Should there be a Federal minimum wage at all ? " I believe the individual states should be responsible for their respective minimum wage. It it more balanced that way.

 

Good to see you’ve stopped making silly arguments...

 

At what point is changing the scale of a ruler to affect the value of the thing being measured no longer silly?

 

I didn't pick enough peaches today to feed my family. Lucky I can put my thumb on the scale and everything will be fine.

 

Worker A makes 5 dollars an hour and picked 100 peaches an hour. This is exploitation for some reason that had yet to be explained. So government mandates 10 dollars an hour. Worker A says, "awesome I'll work half as many days and still make the same amount? Works for me. "

Employer is now paying exactly what he paid before for the employee and received half as many peaches in return. No longer exploitation?

 

Quote: Fact is; we have had the inflation because we kept increasing minimum wage

LOGIC

Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE)

End of Dec 2018; $14.130 Trillion
End of Dec 2019; $14.796 Trillion

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PCE

Question; In 2019, what group of earners largely raised PCE by $666 billion?

a. Minimum wage earners

or,

b. Those earning above minimum wage

 

Anyone?

 

So you are saying that people who earn more buy more "stuff" than people who earn less. Yes, that is logic.

 

Ah nope.

 

I've fully explained why your position is incorrect.

You've added nothing to the conversation but repeat what I rebutted to.

Reread the post you are responding to until you experience an epiphany.

If you don't succeed, try it again until you do.

Until then, don't repeat your erroneous position.

In the mean time, look up the word exploitation.

And no, you know damn well you are going to work for $5 an hour.

 

Nope you work the hours your scheduled for.

 

You are not ceding to demands, I made none

I just asked a damn question.

You answered no.

Fine.

 

In response to a previous quote; ''Fact is; we have had the inflation because we kept increasing minimum wage''

I haven't said anything......I just ask a question.

LOGIC

Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE)

End of Dec 2018; $14.130 Trillion
End of Dec 2019; $14.796 Trillion

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PCE

Question; In 2019, what group of earners largely raised PCE by $666 billion?

a. Minimum wage earners

or,

b. Those earning above minimum wage