So Elizabeth Warren's gonna help us some more

[mrsleeve]

so are my wages going to go up by about 13 bucks an hour to make up the difference??

I mean FFS I had to start at 8 bucks an hour in the trades and worked my ass off until I was 30 until I broke the 22 dollar an hour barrier............................... Why do the H/S age sandwich artists deserve anything even close to 22 bucks an hour, do they even bring 22 dollars an hour of value to their employers?? Let alone all the various fees and taxes associated with their employment that would have to be accounted for

You like buying cheap food, 22 bucks an hour for all the people that work at the grocery stores, and walmart and the like, will drive the cost everything way the fuck up to cover the new cost of labor, and the poor will be no better off than they are right now, they will still be poor just in a higher tax bracket. Not to mention it will be like instant high inflation on the rest of us that will not get the pay raise to correspond to it.

Stupid argument is fucking really stupid......................

[z31maniac]

so are my wages going to go up by about 13 bucks an hour to make up the difference??

I mean FFS I had to start at 8 bucks an hour in the trades and worked my ass off until I was 30 until I broke the 22 dollar an hour barrier............................... Why do the H/S age sandwich artists deserve anything even close to 22 bucks an hour, do they even bring 22 dollars an hour of value to their employers?? Let alone all the various fees and taxes associated with their employment that would have to be accounted for

You like buying cheap food, 22 bucks an hour for all the people that work at the grocery stores, and walmart and the like, will drive the cost everything way the fuck up to cover the new cost of labor, and the poor will be no better off than they are right now, they will still be poor just in a higher tax bracket. Not to mention it will be like instant high inflation on the rest of us that will not get the pay raise to correspond to it.

Stupid argument is fucking really stupid......................

As usual, you continue to miss the point.

No one said the wage is ACTUALLY going to go that high. And you missed the "Questions" raised by myself and by others.

Have any more quotes you'd like to use while you defend "cheap food" etc.

But is it really "cheap" if we all have to kick in with our taxes to buy it for everyone else?

[Morrison]

The total effects of increasing the minimum wage including the ripple effects short and longterm are difficult I'd imagine for even career economists so unless there is a concensus there (need to study it more) I won't claim to know with absolute certainty the outcome.

Anecdotally, I know that Canada has a variable minium wage depending on province and ranges between 9.50C and 11C. I think this is what most democrats are pushing to get inline with.

I also know that in several european countries they have an age cutoff ranging from 18-22 and folks younger than the cutoff have a 20 to 30 percent discounted minimum wage. That way, in coutries like Belgium, you can pay your teenage waffle artists a discounted rate and still enjoy reasonably priced waffles, anecdotaly speaking of course.

[Wiglaf]

Yeah, that would totally suck if half the population suddenly had money to pay for more than just the bills and some food. We aren't prepared to provide for such a surge of consumer goods! And that spike in the economy combined with reduced welfare would turn the government budget upside down! Crazy talk, don't do it. CEO pay would drop by millions!!
Think of the offshore accounts, how will people in those poor island countries feed themselves??

[jrobie79]

Whats funnier is that these are the same people that claim to be super christians/catholics, yet forget the basic teachings of taking care of the poor and needy.

It's ironic how those that take advantage of a system loophole to hide money and not pay taxes are seen aw smart businessmen. But someone who uses a system to feed themselves and their family are seen as pieces of shit.

Its easier to hate the people using a messed up system than it is to fix the system.

did Jesus advocate for this at the tip of the Roman spear? I think not. As it shouldn't be today...if you force someone to take care of people doesn't that take away from the genuineness and authenticity of it? quite against what Christians believe IMHO. Conservatives and Christians donate PLENTY of money, as is their free will. Coercion is not free will.

[Wiglaf]

did Jesus advocate for this at the tip of the Roman spear? I think not. As it shouldn't be today...if you force someone to take care of people doesn't that take away from the genuineness and authenticity of it? quite against what Christians believe IMHO. Conservatives and Christians donate PLENTY of money, as is their free will. Coercion is not free will.

take away the tax write-off incentive and see how much still gets donated.

[Holland]

Now I don't care to know too much on politics, but even if wages were to raise and the cost on companies somehow minimal, wouldn't they raise the prices anyway?

Companies look at profits and percentages. If it's not increased over the previous years, it isn't good enough. Not to mention prices would inflate anyway because enough people would have extra money lying around.

[Wiglaf]

Now I don't care to know too much on politics, but even if wages were to raise and the cost on companies somehow minimal, wouldn't they raise the prices anyway?

Companies look at profits and percentages. If it's not increased over the previous years, it isn't good enough. Not to mention prices would inflate anyway because enough people would have extra money lying around.

There are companies which operate that way, but really it varies case by case. Some areas the wage increase would affect the bottom line, other areas the price is so jacked with other factors that it would barely make a dent. Anyone with a "real" career job is already making more than min wage to begin with. Paying people a fair share is just the right thing to do, it's unfortunate that we even have to mandate this. And I truly believe that anyone claiming an increase would put them out of business is totally full of shit and cant manage for shit.
If there were more jobs to go around then nobody would work for you if all you offered was min wage!

Would it change the mentality where you have CEO's making 10,000x what the janitor makes? of course not. Our only recourse is more competition from a company who doesn't scrape so much off the top and provides lower prices. A lot of these places shoot themselves in the foot, paying so little that the revolving door costs as much or more than handing out raises. Or they cheap out the whole product and don't pass on the savings.. again this is what competition is for. I can't tell you how to run your company but if I really think I can do it better than I'm welcome to put my money where my mouth is. or however that saying goes.

I don't believe that the money being spread around more instead of concentrated in the hands of a few would cause inflation.. What would actually happen is a trickle-up economic boost. And not to start another nested argument here but those stimulus checks helped out a lot of people. Bills got paid and people hit the stores. Trickle-down? not so much. You can't just snap your fingers and make a jobs crisis go away.
Inflation is actually more a factor of banks "creating" money through the lending process, which of course means more has to be printed. Our entire banking structure is actually built in a way which makes inflation impossible to avoid.

[mrsleeve]

As usual, you continue to miss the point.

No one said the wage is ACTUALLY going to go that high. And you missed the "Questions" raised by myself and by others.

Have any more quotes you'd like to use while you defend "cheap food" etc.

But is it really "cheap" if we all have to kick in with our taxes to buy it for everyone else?

I got the point.

You still fail to realize the minimum wage laws are not and never were intended to be Living Wage laws. I know your smart enough to know that doing something like this will destroy everyone standard of living, and the massive inflation in all goods at all levels not just food goods that would result form something like this will do them NO GOOD as that 22 bucks an hour will still not allow them to buy the wears that their employer is selling. Like I said they would still be as broke as ever just in a higher tax bracket. Thats assuming all these small businesses would even keep the doors open. Which is better for the public trust of the tax dollars, helping and supplementing a little bit or full on welfare and UNEMPLOYMENT indefinitely (you know federal funded endless extensions that would come from this) ???? . While sapping much of your current buying power of your salary to pay those that are still in business. What about all those that are inbetween 8 and 22 now. Many make a decent living on 18-23 bucks an hour, so now you have all these other middle class peeps that would now be subject to the minimum wage and basically demoted to the bottom of the ladder again thus making that many more poor people while dragging the rest of us down with them.

buddy I know you house hold income is close to if not a little better than mine, you really think it would be fair for a 2 person household working 1 40 hour a week 22 an hour minimum wage job to make 70% of your household income and negate nearly everything you have worked for to get to where you are....... and make something for your self.... you really think our bosses would give us all and intimidate 250% hourly raise to make up the difference if something like this were to happen???? I know I wouldn't even with my time off (2 months) I still averaged a 70ish hour work week averaged over the entire year.

Like I said stupid fucking argument is really fucking stupid.

I have been on record for a long Time that the CEO Vs Rank and File compensation is out of line to some degree in many/most cases yet justified in others and you never responded to my questions of you in your thread about this topic.

Also how many of those on food aid really need to be?? How many chose to be rather than give up non essentials like cable, smart phones, X boxes, Vices like tobacco booze and weed, and many other things not nearly as essential as food to keeping ones self alive................ Oh yeah the govt will pay for that so I dont have too since I am poor I will use what little money I have on entertainment and shit I dont really need because I can

[sumoashe]

Sleeve, I'm a bit confused as to what your actual point is. Inflation isn't directly correlated to wage increases. As even the top economists can't say definitively that a wage increase means a hike in inflation. You seem to just be pissed at the idea of a wage increase for lower income people. Basically saying that people in these positions are there purely by choice and should be happy to be paid at all. Treating them as second class citizens. You asked if these people bring enough value to warrant the increase. But the same can be asked of your position. You may feel it does, but someone else may not.

I understand your distaste at having to pay for welfare, food stamps, and the like from your tax money. But by not advocating a decent wage your forcing these people onto such programs. Creating the very issues you have, well, issue with.

I don't mean to single you out, but you kinda do it to yourself. Coming into an otherwise decent discussion and trying to be the loudest person in the room. Screaming "I'm right, everyone else is and idiot" is no way to have a discussion, or have people take your views seriously.

[sumoashe]

Back on topic.

Something that could be done without touching the min wage rates:

Alot of big box stores use a legal yet underhanded program of keeping all their employees just under the cutoff for full time status. Walmart is about the worst at it. They do this to keep from having to pay benefits, again forcing people onto government programs. Pretty much anyone not in a management position is in this status. They do this to keep from paying holiday pay as well. For alot of people this forces them to get 2 and 3 jobs just to make ends meet. Yet still forcing them onto government aid to make up for what the jobs don't provide. It's awful hard to better yourself when all your time and money is spent simply trying to survive. Beyond the fact that their scheduling practices make it even harder to even get another job, or go to school to move up.

Take away this pleasant little loop hole for the companies and watch the number of people on government aid drop.

[mrsleeve]

Sleeve, I'm a bit confused as to what your actual point is. Inflation isn't directly correlated to wage increases. As even the top economists can't say definitively that a wage increase means a hike in inflation. You seem to just be pissed at the idea of a wage increase for lower income people. Basically saying that people in these positions are there purely by choice and should be happy to be paid at all. Treating them as second class citizens. You asked if these people bring enough value to warrant the increase. But the same can be asked of your position. You may feel it does, but someone else may not.

I understand your distaste at having to pay for welfare, food stamps, and the like from your tax money. But by not advocating a decent wage your forcing these people onto such programs. Creating the very issues you have, well, issue with.

I don't mean to single you out, but you kinda do it to yourself. Coming into an otherwise decent discussion and trying to be the loudest person in the room. Screaming "I'm right, everyone else is and idiot" is no way to have a discussion, or have people take your views seriously.

1: your right this is not a example of true inflation...............BUT it would have the same basic effects as how many "good jobs" do you know of that pay less than 22 bucks an hour right now. When you are paying skilled trades education required positions the same as a fucking sandwich artist you have just added that many more people to the welfare system, as the cost of all goods and service will sky rocket.

2: Minimum wage laws were not and never were intended to be LIVING WAGE LAWS.

3: Other wise pleasant discussion, Oh you mean one where everyone is in basic agreement that this kinda thing would be a good idea??

4: Minimum wage laws have their own incentive built into to them to make something better out of your self, but I will agree there is issues involved with the convulsion of some big retailers using the entitlement systems to subsidize their work forces and their own bottom line.

I am right and if you half a lick of common sense you would understand that and "Understand my actual point".

I still stand by Stupid fucking argument is stupid.


2:

[z31maniac]

I got the point.

You still fail to realize the minimum wage laws are not and never were intended to be Living Wage laws. I know your smart enough to know that doing something like this will destroy everyone standard of living, and the massive inflation in all goods at all levels not just food goods that would result form something like this will do them NO GOOD as that 22 bucks an hour will still not allow them to buy the wears that their employer is selling. Like I said they would still be as broke as ever just in a higher tax bracket. Thats assuming all these small businesses would even keep the doors open. Which is better for the public trust of the tax dollars, helping and supplementing a little bit or full on welfare and UNEMPLOYMENT indefinitely (you know federal funded endless extensions that would come from this) ???? . While sapping much of your current buying power of your salary to pay those that are still in business. What about all those that are inbetween 8 and 22 now. Many make a decent living on 18-23 bucks an hour, so now you have all these other middle class peeps that would now be subject to the minimum wage and basically demoted to the bottom of the ladder again thus making that many more poor people while dragging the rest of us down with them.

buddy I know you house hold income is close to if not a little better than mine, you really think it would be fair for a 2 person household working 1 40 hour a week 22 an hour minimum wage job to make 70% of your household income and negate nearly everything you have worked for to get to where you are....... and make something for your self.... you really think our bosses would give us all and intimidate 250% hourly raise to make up the difference if something like this were to happen???? I know I wouldn't even with my time off (2 months) I still averaged a 70ish hour work week averaged over the entire year.

Like I said stupid fucking argument is really fucking stupid.

I have been on record for a long Time that the CEO Vs Rank and File compensation is out of line to some degree in many/most cases yet justified in others and you never responded to my questions of you in your thread about this topic.

Also how many of those on food aid really need to be?? How many chose to be rather than give up non essentials like cable, smart phones, X boxes, Vices like tobacco booze and weed, and many other things not nearly as essential as food to keeping ones self alive................ Oh yeah the govt will pay for that so I dont have too since I am poor I will use what little money I have on entertainment and shit I dont really need because I can

Your entire argument seems to revolve around less skilled people making close to what you make.

Again, THAT ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN!

The Vice argument is fairly weak, what happened in Florida when they started drug testing welfare recipients? Wasn't it less than 1% that failed the tests?

You're ignoring the core issue. The incredible inflation of CEO/Executive level wages, while the lower and middle class incomes stagnate. Something like 80% of all new wealth created in the last 30 years has been concentrated in the top 1% of the population. How is that justified?

So explain low tax rates on upper income earners and the "Trickle-down" theory again. This idea that if tax rates are raised that the ultra-wealthy will stop trying to make money is absurd.

Of course, that's not how I believe it should be fixed.

Allow a tax holiday to repatriate all foreign earnings, money in "off shore" accounts, etc and enact the www.fairtax.org , and watch America regain THE DOMINANT position in the world economy in the next decade.

[gwb72tii]

You're ignoring the core issue. The incredible inflation of CEO/Executive level wages, while the lower and middle class incomes stagnate. Something like 80% of all new wealth created in the last 30 years has been concentrated in the top 1% of the population. How is that justified?

So explain low tax rates on upper income earners and the "Trickle-down" theory again. This idea that if tax rates are raised that the ultra-wealthy will stop trying to make money is absurd.

the gov't has been obsessed with leveling the income disparity as long as i can remember, all the way back to LBJ and his war on poverty. and its gotten progressively worse since then. so pray tell why do you believe another government program will work, when minimum wage hikes in the past have not?

the "rich" absolutely do change their behavior to shelter income. for example, when reagan cut long term capital gains tax rates, the argument was it was a windfall for the rich. what it turned out to be is a windfall for tax collections as lower tax rates gave incentive to unlock investments held captive by higher rates. lower rates resulted in increased tax collections.

[herbivor]

Conservative perspective: lower taxes for everyone by cutting only welfare type spending, to let people spend more, encourage productivity, economy grows, more revenue is generated.

Liberal perspective: lower taxes for poor, raise the wage of the poor, raise taxes and remove loopholes for rich, do not cut spending on welfare programs that have an overall economic outcome benefit, economy grows, more revenue is generated.

There are times when one view may make more since than another view, and times when something in between works. To hold one ideology for every situation, is not really the best solution in every situation. There are times when raising taxes hurts the economy, and times when it helps. There are times when increasing spending on government programs helps the economy and times it hurts. This is not the time to hack away at spending on education and R&D, nor is it the time to lower taxes across the board (or raise taxes across the board.) Our current situation requires a balanced approach of spending cuts and slight tax increases on the wealthy, something that the majority of Americans want and agree on. Unfortunately, the lack of compromise on both sides has created a stalemate on nearly all critical decisions, so nothing gets done.