Minimum Wage/EITC

[Ferocious]

It does seem that a higher minimum wage would only help a consumber driven economy. The people at thie wage level typically save nothing and would spend 100% of any increase right back into the economy. This is the same type of reasoing the Democrats make when championing tax cuts for the middle class instead of the rich....they will put that whole tax cut right back into the economy helping the most people.

Prices typically do not increase with a wage increase....because consumers don't buy products based on how much or how little the employees make.

If Walmart raised wages a dollar tomorrow...the prices would have to remain the same or sales would go down...since consumers would begin to shop elsewhere. If they could raises now without affecting sales...they wouild do it anyways regardless of any wage increase. Costco pays much higher wages than Walmart with much better benefits and yet charges very similarily for its products. The difference is Costco doesn't have multiple multi-billionaires owning major stakes in the company.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Ferocious

It does seem that a higher minimum wage would only help a consumber driven economy. The people at thie wage level typically save nothing and would spend 100% of any increase right back into the economy. This is the same type of reasoing the Democrats make when championing tax cuts for the middle class instead of the rich....they will put that whole tax cut right back into the economy helping the most people.

Prices typically do not increase with a wage increase....because consumers don't buy products based on how much or how little the employees make.

If Walmart raised wages a dollar tomorrow...the prices would have to remain the same or sales would go down...since consumers would begin to shop elsewhere. If they could raises now without affecting sales...they wouild do it anyways regardless of any wage increase. Costco pays much higher wages than Walmart with much better benefits and yet charges very similarily for its products. The difference is Costco doesn't have multiple multi-billionaires owning major stakes in the company.

Or employees get cut if they can not raise the sales costs.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
If there were no minimum wage, then companies would push as low as they can go.

They already try to push it as low as they can go. So why does only ~2% of the work force work for the abosulte lowest they are allowed to go?

Obviously you attempt to claim if there was no min wage, we would all be working for 2 bucks if false.

You are contradicting the statements made.

Admittedly by everyone here, minimum wage affects a small fraction of the US population (some put it at 2%, I view it as closer to 10% that work for or near min. wage).

So, why would you deliberately put words in his mouth about 'we would all be working for 2 bucks'. He never said that, not even close. He said, quite clearly and simply, that companies would push as low as they can go. This is undeniable, and they already do wherever they can, it's simple logic. Legality is only one factor. There are many forces to bear. Minimum wage affects most people very little, but those that it directly affects it affects massively.

This is typical of someone losing an argument. They throw out some ridiculous statement supposedly said by (but never in reality) the opposing side, and then they pounce on the lie with zeal. GG.

Before claiming any kind of victory in your argument lets see what his response is. You have failed to indicate what you think he means outside of driving wages to the lowest. Something you and I admit they already do. My 2 bucks an hour comment was done for effect obviously, not because it was an indication of what he thinks. I do however believe he truely thinks if we got rid of the min wage all of our wages would magically decrease overnight. Something I think is completely false due to market conditions.

Right now minimum wage is the baseline. If mimimum wage was suddenly outlawed, you would see companies like Wal-mart look for ways to reduce what they pay their workers. There would be too much temptation for them to increase profits not to.

They would also use the lower salaries to lower prices. This puts further pressure on small business or lower prices first...putting the competition out of business. Then lower wages.

A company like wal-mart could lower prices first very easily.

Competition is not just sales but workers as well. When you are the only game in town you get to dictate price and wage.

It may not go down to 2 bucks an hour...but it would go down.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
If there were no minimum wage, then companies would push as low as they can go.

They already try to push it as low as they can go. So why does only ~2% of the work force work for the abosulte lowest they are allowed to go?

Obviously you attempt to claim if there was no min wage, we would all be working for 2 bucks if false.

You are contradicting the statements made.

Admittedly by everyone here, minimum wage affects a small fraction of the US population (some put it at 2%, I view it as closer to 10% that work for or near min. wage).

So, why would you deliberately put words in his mouth about 'we would all be working for 2 bucks'. He never said that, not even close. He said, quite clearly and simply, that companies would push as low as they can go. This is undeniable, and they already do wherever they can, it's simple logic. Legality is only one factor. There are many forces to bear. Minimum wage affects most people very little, but those that it directly affects it affects massively.

This is typical of someone losing an argument. They throw out some ridiculous statement supposedly said by (but never in reality) the opposing side, and then they pounce on the lie with zeal. GG.

Before claiming any kind of victory in your argument lets see what his response is. You have failed to indicate what you think he means outside of driving wages to the lowest. Something you and I admit they already do. My 2 bucks an hour comment was done for effect obviously, not because it was an indication of what he thinks. I do however believe he truely thinks if we got rid of the min wage all of our wages would magically decrease overnight. Something I think is completely false due to market conditions.

Excellent, this is much more logically presented, and I agree with your perspective on many levels.

I do not think that raising the minimum wage is a magic bullet for the big picture of poverty like some may think.

I do believe however, that raising the minimum wage would have a net positive benefit on those directly affected.

I will list my positive interpretations of the effects here, and this is my opinion and as such is subjective.

Pluses of increasing minimum wage :

*Those supporting themselves/family will be more likely to weather financial crisis (flat tire, ticket, broken radiator, get bad flu for 3 weeks, etc) because they will be slightly more likely to have a tiny amount of savings. This prevents at least some of these individuals from becoming homeless, relying on welfare, or otherwise becoming a non-producing member of society.

*With an increase in minimum wage, they will undoubtedly spend more on consumer goods and services, which is a boost to the economy in proven ways.

*Related to the first point, it will help to keep more people off of welfare. It will also serve as an attraction to get people who currently rely on public assistance to put the effort in to get a job, as with $8/hr you can actually find a budget that won't starve you to death. After taxes, someone working full time on $8/hr brings home about $1,000 a month.

Let's see .. (and these prices are estimated averages, not necessarily indicative of any particular place outside of my knowledge and experience)

Rent cheap apt : $350
1 Month of food (prepared at home or dollar menu items) $100
Electric/Phone/Gas/Etc misc bills $150
Cheap car payments $200
Car insurance $75

Total $875, which is more than minimum wage now can provide. This doesn't include diapers, clothing, home/vehicle maintenance, or any other myriad of possible living expenses. Currently with $5.15/hr, a full time job brings home around $700/mo after taxes, which is nearly impossible to live on by yourself, and truly staggering for someone with a child or other dependents.

In closing, I believe in enforcing fair minimums for our citizens who ARE making the effort to get and keep jobs. This isn't welfare, this is socially responsible standard setting. I think it could be aided by tax breaks for businesses with fewer than 25 employees, so that they could hire more people at these pay scales. As it is, the mega-corps and their lobbyists and lawyers cheat their way out of paying taxes, while the small businesses get sledgehammered because they have no voice.

I own a small business, and I'm a member of the NFIB, but it's still a daunting tangle of taxes to navigate. If I could get a tax credit towards what I'm already going to have to remit, I would be much more likely to hire additional employees. This would be a boost to the local economy, and would also expand my business.

Anyway, that's my take. I realize that there are negatives to virtually anything, but IMHO the benefits outweigh the detractions in this issue.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
If there were no minimum wage, then companies would push as low as they can go.

They already try to push it as low as they can go. So why does only ~2% of the work force work for the abosulte lowest they are allowed to go?

Obviously you attempt to claim if there was no min wage, we would all be working for 2 bucks if false.

You are contradicting the statements made.

Admittedly by everyone here, minimum wage affects a small fraction of the US population (some put it at 2%, I view it as closer to 10% that work for or near min. wage).

So, why would you deliberately put words in his mouth about 'we would all be working for 2 bucks'. He never said that, not even close. He said, quite clearly and simply, that companies would push as low as they can go. This is undeniable, and they already do wherever they can, it's simple logic. Legality is only one factor. There are many forces to bear. Minimum wage affects most people very little, but those that it directly affects it affects massively.

This is typical of someone losing an argument. They throw out some ridiculous statement supposedly said by (but never in reality) the opposing side, and then they pounce on the lie with zeal. GG.

The truth is that there are decent points on both sides of this issue, and it is not such a cut and dry topic.

Gen, don't try to short-circuit rational debate by such petty childish antics, your opinion will have much greater weight without the deliberately false interpretations of what others have to say. Disagree with clear and understandable logic, and then will have something to talk about.

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
If there were no minimum wage, then companies would push as low as they can go.

They already try to push it as low as they can go. So why does only ~2% of the work force work for the abosulte lowest they are allowed to go?

Obviously you attempt to claim if there was no min wage, we would all be working for 2 bucks if false.

You are contradicting the statements made.

Admittedly by everyone here, minimum wage affects a small fraction of the US population (some put it at 2%, I view it as closer to 10% that work for or near min. wage).

So, why would you deliberately put words in his mouth about 'we would all be working for 2 bucks'. He never said that, not even close. He said, quite clearly and simply, that companies would push as low as they can go. This is undeniable, and they already do wherever they can, it's simple logic. Legality is only one factor. There are many forces to bear. Minimum wage affects most people very little, but those that it directly affects it affects massively.

This is typical of someone losing an argument. They throw out some ridiculous statement supposedly said by (but never in reality) the opposing side, and then they pounce on the lie with zeal. GG.

Before claiming any kind of victory in your argument lets see what his response is. You have failed to indicate what you think he means outside of driving wages to the lowest. Something you and I admit they already do. My 2 bucks an hour comment was done for effect obviously, not because it was an indication of what he thinks. I do however believe he truely thinks if we got rid of the min wage all of our wages would magically decrease overnight. Something I think is completely false due to market conditions.

Right now minimum wage is the baseline. If mimimum wage was suddenly outlawed, you would see companies like Wal-mart look for ways to reduce what they pay their workers. There would be too much temptation for them to increase profits not to.

They would also use the lower salaries to lower prices. This puts further pressure on small business or lower prices first...putting the competition out of business. Then lower wages.

A company like wal-mart could lower prices first very easily.

Competition is not just sales but workers as well. When you are the only game in town you get to dictate price and wage.

It may not go down to 2 bucks an hour...but it would go down.

You guys are making me cry :thumbsup:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
If there were no minimum wage, then companies would push as low as they can go.

They already try to push it as low as they can go. So why does only ~2% of the work force work for the abosulte lowest they are allowed to go?

Obviously you attempt to claim if there was no min wage, we would all be working for 2 bucks if false.

You are contradicting the statements made.

Admittedly by everyone here, minimum wage affects a small fraction of the US population (some put it at 2%, I view it as closer to 10% that work for or near min. wage).

So, why would you deliberately put words in his mouth about 'we would all be working for 2 bucks'. He never said that, not even close. He said, quite clearly and simply, that companies would push as low as they can go. This is undeniable, and they already do wherever they can, it's simple logic. Legality is only one factor. There are many forces to bear. Minimum wage affects most people very little, but those that it directly affects it affects massively.

This is typical of someone losing an argument. They throw out some ridiculous statement supposedly said by (but never in reality) the opposing side, and then they pounce on the lie with zeal. GG.

Before claiming any kind of victory in your argument lets see what his response is. You have failed to indicate what you think he means outside of driving wages to the lowest. Something you and I admit they already do. My 2 bucks an hour comment was done for effect obviously, not because it was an indication of what he thinks. I do however believe he truely thinks if we got rid of the min wage all of our wages would magically decrease overnight. Something I think is completely false due to market conditions.

Right now minimum wage is the baseline. If mimimum wage was suddenly outlawed, you would see companies like Wal-mart look for ways to reduce what they pay their workers. There would be too much temptation for them to increase profits not to.

They would also use the lower salaries to lower prices. This puts further pressure on small business or lower prices first...putting the competition out of business. Then lower wages.

A company like wal-mart could lower prices first very easily.

Competition is not just sales but workers as well. When you are the only game in town you get to dictate price and wage.

It may not go down to 2 bucks an hour...but it would go down.

Unfortunately, your argument makes zero economic sense and has zero backing in reality given that Wal-Mart already starts its employees above minimum wage.

What would happen if the minimum wage were eliminated ("outlawed" is the wrong term to use when referring to the removal of a law already in place) is that isolated employers, primarily small businesses in the business-to-business service industry that do not rely on good public reputation in order to generate business, would begin paying their employees less through working them longer hours without paying them overtime, or through deducting their pay for employer-mandated items like uniforms, etc. This is where the minimum wage works. If an employer pays at or near minimum wage, they can't make their employees police the parking lot prior to clocking in, they have to provide their employees with uniforms if required, they have to pay overtime wages if applicable, etc.

A major corporation that is under constant public scrutiny, like Wal-Mart, is really the least likely to want to run afoul of these issues. OTOH, a small landscaping service, car wash, gas station, packaging outfit, etc. is where most such abuses already take place, and where they would most likely become worse.
Like I already posted, the minimum wage provide a type of fraud protection for the lowest rung of workers. It's not intended to be a living wage.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Vic
A major corporation that is under constant public scrutiny, like Wal-Mart, is really the least likely to want to run afoul of these issues.

Bahahahahahaha Just look at my Walmart thread and try saying that again. :laugh:

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Vic
A major corporation that is under constant public scrutiny, like Wal-Mart, is really the least likely to want to run afoul of these issues.

Bahahahahahaha Just look at my Walmart thread and try saying that again. :laugh:

if we had no labor protection laws we would all be in trouble.

Just look at the US during the Industrial Revolution.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Vic
A major corporation that is under constant public scrutiny, like Wal-Mart, is really the least likely to want to run afoul of these issues.

Bahahahahahaha Just look at my Walmart thread and try saying that again. :laugh:

Wal-Mart gets away with what it does now because what it does is still legal. Yet at that, Wal-Mart is having increasing difficulty opening new stores (one planned for somewhat near my house recently failed in the public hearing process for example), and is fighting stagnating sales caused by poor public image. If, however, Wal-Mart were to start paying its employees $2/hour, not only would it have trouble finding employees, but it would run across considerably more negative public image issues, to a point most likely where it would not be cost effective.
Even a cursory look at the history of retail sales would show you that more than low prices keeps a retailer on top. If they did, Woolworths (now merely Foot Locker) would still be the biggest retail chain in the nation, and K-Mart wouldn't be owned by Sears now.

 

[BoomerD]

Actually Vic...you have that backwards...K-mart now owns Sears, not the other way around...

IMO, WallyWorld could cut wages to $1./hour, and the average American wouldn't care. It seems like all anyone cares about is the price they pay for their stuff. No one gives a sh!t if WallyWorld reverts to slavery, and publicly beats their employees, as long as they can save 2-3 bux on their shopping total. If anyone REALLY cared, you wouldn't see nearly so much "Made in China" stuff everywhere. Talk about a country with poor labor laws...I'm one of the few people who goes out of their way NOT to buy stuff "Made in China"...Yes, there are many areas where I have no option, but in the few where I do, I willingly pay a bit more, just to support American workers first, then workers in FREE countries next. But then again, I tend to be somewhat protectionistic in my ouotlook on many things...including border protection, immigrant control, trade imbalances, etc...Buy overseas when you HAVE to, otherwise, Buy American...

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
........ What I find even worse is the calls for raising the national minimum wage as opposed to just regional increases. I don't see how that makes much sense considering cost of living is different in each part of the country. The call for higher minimum wage is generally done by citizens in urban areas where the cost of living is higher..............

Yes, it is completely ridiculous to have "1" minimum wage when the cost of living varies so greatly between areas.

The government already has COL data (the IRS uses it) so it could easily be implemented.

Fern

 

[ScottMac]

Originally posted by: Ferocious

It does seem that a higher minimum wage would only help a consumber driven economy. The people at thie wage level typically save nothing and would spend 100% of any increase right back into the economy. This is the same type of reasoing the Democrats make when championing tax cuts for the middle class instead of the rich....they will put that whole tax cut right back into the economy helping the most people.

Prices typically do not increase with a wage increase....because consumers don't buy products based on how much or how little the employees make.

If Walmart raised wages a dollar tomorrow...the prices would have to remain the same or sales would go down...since consumers would begin to shop elsewhere. If they could raises now without affecting sales...they wouild do it anyways regardless of any wage increase. Costco pays much higher wages than Walmart with much better benefits and yet charges very similarily for its products. The difference is Costco doesn't have multiple multi-billionaires owning major stakes in the company.

Doesn't Costco (and Sam's Club) charge a "Membership fee" either to the individual or the sponsoring company (or both? ) I don't know, I don't shop there; but if true, that would pay for some of those bennies without tacking the cost into the product sales.

Employment should be supply and demand, IMO.