Minimum Wage increase

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
How could it possibly be a bad thing? It's a good thing and long overdue

Failed economics and accounting I take it?

Lets do something to really make us feel good. Lets raise minimum wage to $100 an hour.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
How could it possibly be a bad thing? It's a good thing and long overdue

Failed economics and accounting I take it?

Lets do something to really make us feel good. Lets raise minimum wage to $100 an hour.

And a 30 hr work week. That should require the employment of 25% more people - bring unemployment level down to 0.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
How could it possibly be a bad thing? It's a good thing and long overdue

Failed economics and accounting I take it?

Lets do something to really make us feel good. Lets raise minimum wage to $100 an hour.

And a 30 hr work week. That should require the employment of 25% more people - bring unemployment level down to 0.

A 30 hour work week? Why you evil corporate shill! It should be a 15 hour work week at most. Then everyone will be employed! And $1000 per hour minimum.

Don't you realize that everyone deserves an above average income?

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Vic
A 30 hour work week? Why you evil corporate shill! It should be a 15 hour work week at most. Then everyone will be employed! And $1000 per hour minimum.

Don't you realize that everyone deserves an above average income?

If everybody had an above average income then they would no longer be above average?

 

[ayabe]

All I know is the ignorant people at my Wendy's don't deserve even the $5.15 an hour they are getting.

Hopefully what this will do is allow employers to fire the useless people and attract some better candidates.

 

[compuwiz1]

Originally posted by: ayabe
All I know is the ignorant people at my Wendy's don't deserve even the $5.15 an hour they are getting.

Hopefully what this will do is allow employers to fire the useless people and attract some better candidates.

My Wendy's?

Do you own a franchise?

 

[judasmachine]

If it's just poor people and underage kids who will receive the raise then what's the big deal? They immediately sink ALL their money back into the economy buy frivolous stuff like CDs, and booze.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Well said as usual, Jhhnn.

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Nice spin, JD50. You didn't seem to think about it that way when the repubs gave investors an extra 5% by cutting capital gains taxes- for "doing nothing", as you put it...

They're not giving investors 5%, they're taking 5% less and encouraging investment. Are you against encouraging investment?

I think you can also say the same about a minimum wage increase no?

an increase in minimum wage could be a catalyst for weaning unemployed people off assistance and back to the workforce...

I dunno...just throwing that out there.

I doubt $.75 or whatever the increase is will be enough to get someone who makes more being on social security and doing nothing than working will make them all of the sudden want to work.

But you think that 5% more on the investments will make them invest when they woudn't have.

You have a $1 million pile of money you choose the best stocks you can for. Then you say that you will instead keep it in a box under the bed unless you get 5% more tax cut?

I don't think so. You invest it either way, because either way that's how you get the most for it.

The rhetoric about 'encouraging investment' seems to me mainly a slimy bit of rhetoric to cover up the fact that it's simply extra money for the inveting class of people.

They pay well for those little bits of propaganda. I think the money is better put to paying off our debt, or investing in the country, or helping the poor get educated.

The investing class should get a nice return, on average. Our current policies are radically re-distributionist of the nation's wealth to the top 1%.

Did you know that 95% of small businesses fail in the first year they're started? Knowing that, coupled with ANOTHER tax increase, it just makes it even harder to start a small business. I guess that's what you guys want though, right? You guys hate corporations, and seem to hate small businesses as well. You're for the "little guy."

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Vic
Raising the minimum wage is one of those feel-good-while-doing-nothing kind of agendas.

Then you and your minions shouldn't be so against it.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: judasmachine
If it's just poor people and underage kids who will receive the raise then what's the big deal? They immediately sink ALL their money back into the economy buy frivolous stuff like CDs, and booze.

Because it is economically inefficient. The main argument I hear for a minimum wage raise is that it will help the poor. For the most part that just simply is not true. I've already pointed to a CBO study that shows only 18% of those that would be affected by an increase are actually poor.

Forcing businesses to give their money to underage kids makes no sense. Sure, the dumbarse kids will probably sink the money back into the economy but I'm sure the business that is paying them probably has a better way to spend the money.

You're argument makes about as much sense as the government going into ghettos and throwing money out of a helicopter. Sure, the poor people in the ghettos will probably spend the money but that does not mean it's the best way for the money to be spent. Pure consumption only helps our economy so much.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Vic
Raising the minimum wage is one of those feel-good-while-doing-nothing kind of agendas.

Then you and your minions shouldn't be so against it.

I have minions?





:evil:

:roll:


I am not actually against increasing the minimum wage so much as I am against the false pretentions of those who support these increases so much. I thought I was abundantly clear about that in my earlier post. If you want to help, then help. But kindly don't pretend you're some great savior for the poor while all you're doing is throwing them puny bones. That simply an abhorrent form of self-delusion/intellectual dishonesty.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Vic
Raising the minimum wage is one of those feel-good-while-doing-nothing kind of agendas.

Then you and your minions shouldn't be so against it.

I didn't know Vic was a Warlock.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
How could it possibly be a bad thing? It's a good thing and long overdue

Failed economics and accounting I take it?

Lets do something to really make us feel good. Lets raise minimum wage to $100 an hour.

And a 30 hr work week. That should require the employment of 25% more people - bring unemployment level down to 0.

A 30 hour work week? Why you evil corporate shill! It should be a 15 hour work week at most. Then everyone will be employed! And $1000 per hour minimum.

Don't you realize that everyone deserves an above average income?

Hahaha the sad part is the economic genius's on the far left believe that while failing to understand why it is impossible.

 

[Shortass]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
How could it possibly be a bad thing? It's a good thing and long overdue

Failed economics and accounting I take it?

Lets do something to really make us feel good. Lets raise minimum wage to $100 an hour.

And a 30 hr work week. That should require the employment of 25% more people - bring unemployment level down to 0.

A 30 hour work week? Why you evil corporate shill! It should be a 15 hour work week at most. Then everyone will be employed! And $1000 per hour minimum.

Don't you realize that everyone deserves an above average income?

Hahaha the sad part is the economic genius's on the far left believe that while failing to understand why it is impossible.

Link or it didn't happen.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
How could it possibly be a bad thing? It's a good thing and long overdue

Failed economics and accounting I take it?

Lets do something to really make us feel good. Lets raise minimum wage to $100 an hour.

And a 30 hr work week. That should require the employment of 25% more people - bring unemployment level down to 0.

A 30 hour work week? Why you evil corporate shill! It should be a 15 hour work week at most. Then everyone will be employed! And $1000 per hour minimum.

Don't you realize that everyone deserves an above average income?

Hahaha the sad part is the economic genius's on the far left believe that while failing to understand why it is impossible.

Most people believe that 'everyone' deserves more than the average income today. They just disagree about how to make that happen

Of course anyone who thinks minimum wage is the way to accomplish this is as silly as someone who thinks the entirety of minimum wage increases propogate through the whole economy as inflation.

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: JhhnnNo, spidey, you need a huge dose of reality. Very few factory workers make 60-80K per year, more like half that...

Following your reasoning, maybe employers should simply pay less per hour, and split 1 half-assed decent full time job into three really lousy part time jobs, just so there'll be more people employed. Employees could live in cardboard refrigerator box condominiums in the alleys of the investor class... or in illegal settlement shacks on the fringe of the cities, kinda like Brazil...

Bullcrap. Ever work in a factory? The guys on the line make good money, plus they crave the overtime. Hell, I was making 12 bucks an hour 15 years ago working in a factory. A few years before that 9 bucks an hour moving furniture.

I think you're delusional. You will get paid if you work hard.

MOST factory workers make the median wage, which is by my guess 70K. Count overtime and it goes beyond that. It's nothing but class warefare....those that can do. Those that can't whine about the winners.

If you are going to post numbers at least find some link, credible or not.

Heck you might have to start your own site to link those numbers.

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
How could it possibly be a bad thing? It's a good thing and long overdue

Failed economics and accounting I take it?

Lets do something to really make us feel good. Lets raise minimum wage to $100 an hour.

And a 30 hr work week. That should require the employment of 25% more people - bring unemployment level down to 0.

A 30 hour work week? Why you evil corporate shill! It should be a 15 hour work week at most. Then everyone will be employed! And $1000 per hour minimum.

Don't you realize that everyone deserves an above average income?

Hahaha the sad part is the economic genius's on the far left believe that while failing to understand why it is impossible.

As opposed to the right-wingers belief in surpluses as far as the eye can see, and that the answer to every economic problem is more tax cuts for the already wealthy.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: marincounty
As opposed to the right-wingers belief in surpluses as far as the eye can see, and that the answer to every economic problem is more tax cuts for the already wealthy.

Name one bill that was a tax cut for the wealthy. Name one. I dare you.

The rich pay so much in tax it will make your head spin.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: bctbct
If you are going to post numbers at least find some link, credible or not.

Heck you might have to start your own site to link those numbers.

You know what? I'm posting actual experience over what the intarweb says.

This comes from seeing their paychecks, their overtime, their earnings.

So I'll continue to post from my direct experience. People that whine they aren't making enough simply aren't working hard enough.

-edit-
9 bucks an hour to move furniture while I was in college. I averaged 60 hours per week. The year was 1990. You want the money? Then go out and make it.

Heck, I just gave a reference for a guy that is 2 years out of school and he's wondering if 70K per year is what he is worth so close to out of school. P&N needs a SERIOUS dose of reality.

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: marincounty
As opposed to the right-wingers belief in surpluses as far as the eye can see, and that the answer to every economic problem is more tax cuts for the already wealthy.

Name one bill that was a tax cut for the wealthy. Name one. I dare you.

The rich pay so much in tax it will make your head spin.

Okay, how about this one:
http://www.brook.edu/comm/policybriefs/pb101.htm
Last June, President George W. Bush signed the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA). This policy brief provides an assessment of the tax cut. Our findings suggest that EGTRRA will reduce the size of the future economy, raise interest rates, make taxes more regressive, increase tax complexity, and prove fiscally unsustainable. These conclusions question the wisdom and affordability of the tax cut and suggest that Congress reconsider the legislation, especially in light of the economic downturn and terrorist attacks that have occurred since last summer

One way to measure the amount of redistribution is to compare the tax cut households obtain under EGTRRA to their cut if everyone obtained the same percentage increase in after-tax income. Households in the top 1 percent will receive about $25,000 more in tax cuts annually under EGTRRA than under a distributionally neutral tax cut. All of the other groups receive a smaller cut under the legislation than under a distributionally neutral tax change of the same overall magnitude. The top 1 percent will receive 36.7 percent of the tax cut under EGTRRA, far more than its share of federal taxes before EGTRRA (26 percent). The annual tax cut totals more than $45,000 for households in the top 1 percent, a figure that exceeds the sixtieth percentile of the income distribution. Thus, the principal distributional effect of EGTRRA is a tax cut for the top 1 percent of households that is disproportionate relative to every criteria noted in table 1. This tax cut comes immediately after a twenty-year period in which the both the pre- and post-tax income of the top 1 percent grew much faster than for any other group of households.

If the tax rates for the rich are so punitive here, how come they aren't renouncing their citizenship and moving to low tax countries like Guatemala?

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: marincounty
As opposed to the right-wingers belief in surpluses as far as the eye can see, and that the answer to every economic problem is more tax cuts for the already wealthy.

Name one bill that was a tax cut for the wealthy. Name one. I dare you.

The rich pay so much in tax it will make your head spin.

Okay, how about this one:
http://www.brook.edu/comm/policybriefs/pb101.htm
Last June, President George W. Bush signed the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA). This policy brief provides an assessment of the tax cut. Our findings suggest that EGTRRA will reduce the size of the future economy, raise interest rates, make taxes more regressive, increase tax complexity, and prove fiscally unsustainable. These conclusions question the wisdom and affordability of the tax cut and suggest that Congress reconsider the legislation, especially in light of the economic downturn and terrorist attacks that have occurred since last summer

One way to measure the amount of redistribution is to compare the tax cut households obtain under EGTRRA to their cut if everyone obtained the same percentage increase in after-tax income. Households in the top 1 percent will receive about $25,000 more in tax cuts annually under EGTRRA than under a distributionally neutral tax cut. All of the other groups receive a smaller cut under the legislation than under a distributionally neutral tax change of the same overall magnitude. The top 1 percent will receive 36.7 percent of the tax cut under EGTRRA, far more than its share of federal taxes before EGTRRA (26 percent). The annual tax cut totals more than $45,000 for households in the top 1 percent, a figure that exceeds the sixtieth percentile of the income distribution. Thus, the principal distributional effect of EGTRRA is a tax cut for the top 1 percent of households that is disproportionate relative to every criteria noted in table 1. This tax cut comes immediately after a twenty-year period in which the both the pre- and post-tax income of the top 1 percent grew much faster than for any other group of households.

If the tax rates for the rich are so punitive here, how come they aren't renouncing their citizenship and moving to low tax countries like Guatemala?

Hey I remember that, this is when I got $300 tax cut and Bush got $35k.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: marincounty
If the tax rates for the rich are so punitive here, how come they aren't renouncing their citizenship and moving to low tax countries like Guatemala?

Not surprised that that drivel comes from a .edu. Even the wording is to confuse those that are dumb. It reads like the NYT.

 

[Jhhnn]

A little bit of quick math reveals that spidey's $70K figure is entirely bogus...

At $17/hr, slightly higher than median wage, base pay is only $35,360/yr- it'd take over 26 hours per week, every week, of time and a half for that worker to make $70K...

At $20/hr, base pay is $41,600, so making $70K would require over 18 hrs of time and a half per week, every week, for every worker to get it...

The sad truth is that most manufacturing workers only wish they were getting $20/hr- BLS statistics for 2005 indicate that median manufacturing wages for union employees, the most highly paid, averaged only $750/wk, $39K/yr, which includes all the overtime they could stand....

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.t04.htm

 

[Vic]

How much the rich might have received in a tax cut has nothing to do with what they actually pay, nor anything at all to do with a small increase in the minimum wage. Taxes aren't charity, the rich have still gotten richer despite almost 100 years of progressive income taxation. Why? Because being rich is about assets as well as income. Thanks for trolling though, marin...

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
A little bit of quick math reveals that spidey's $70K figure is entirely bogus...

At $17/hr, slightly higher than median wage, base pay is only $35,360/yr- it'd take over 26 hours per week, every week, of time and a half for that worker to make $70K...

At $20/hr, base pay is $41,600, so making $70K would require over 18 hrs of time and a half per week, every week, for every worker to get it...

The sad truth is that most manufacturing workers only wish they were getting $20/hr- BLS statistics for 2005 indicate that median manufacturing wages for union employees, the most highly paid, averaged only $750/wk, $39K/yr, which includes all the overtime they could stand....

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.t04.htm

So why aren't you being true to your claimed agenda and demanding an increase in the minimum wage to $20/hr.?