Small Business: Get ready to take it up the butt if Kerry is elected

[CPA]

Oh, and expect consumer prices to increase also. Net effect? Zero for these so-called "struggling families".

Text

 

[nageov3t]

fvck small business. let's put up a few more walmarts.

I accept the fact that minimum wage isn't a living wage, but i think it should at least keep up with inflation.

 

[Red Dawn]

Keep ion mind that would have to pass through the Republican COngress and I seriously doubt if they would approve it. Tey'd tend to stand up to Kerry's nonsnese more than they would Bushes nonsense!

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: loki8481
fvck small business. let's put up a few more walmarts.

I accept the fact that minimum wage isn't a living wage, but i think it should at least keep up with inflation.

you want to keep up with inflation, then better yourself and find a better paying job.

Oh, and your statement is the crux of the problem. You increase wages artificially, then business pass on additional costs to consumers, which, guess what? provides us inflation. Then a few more years go by and the Dems want to increase wages again. Hell, why don't we force everyone to be paid $100/hour. Where does it end?

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Keep ion mind that would have to pass through the Republican COngress and I seriously doubt if they would approve it. Tey'd tend to stand up to Kerry's nonsnese more than they would Bushes nonsense!

If that remains true. It's not a given.

 

[Zebo]

Prove increasing minimum wages sparks inflation? I've never seen evidence of it. Meanwhile, boosts in wages, boosts demand, boosts business expansion, boosts the economy etc etc etc...pro labor issues is why democratic administrations always leave office with lower unemployment than when they came in and as a coorlary effect is it benefits all. Even big bad business.

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: loki8481

Oh, and your statement is the crux of the problem. You increase wages artificially, then business pass on additional costs to consumers, which, guess what? provides us inflation.

Doesn't seem to be stopping anyone now--wages are stagnant and yet prices are going through the roof.

Hell, why don't we force everyone to be paid $100/hour. Where does it end?

Hell, why not repeal the minimum wage altogether. Pay the workers next to nothing, beat them with a whip, and keep all the profits.

 

[nageov3t]

it may cut into business owner's profit margins in the short term, but workers who earn more will consume more, which will bring profits back up and also provide a boost to the manufacturing and retail industries.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: cougarls88

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: loki8481

Oh, and your statement is the crux of the problem. You increase wages artificially, then business pass on additional costs to consumers, which, guess what? provides us inflation.

Doesn't seem to be stopping anyone now--wages are stagnant and yet prices are going through the roof.

Hell, why don't we force everyone to be paid $100/hour. Where does it end?

Hell, why not repeal the minimum wage altogether. Pay the workers next to nothing, beat them with a whip, and keep all the profits.

How about we let the market determine what a job is worth.

 

[IndieSnob]

Minimum wage in the State Of Washington has been at $7 since 2000. Alot of smaller buisness's griped about it when it was first introduced (mostly smaller restaraunts and the likes), with a few even predicting it would bring their buisness to a close in a years time. Fast forward another year and their still open with no ill effects in 99% of the cases.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: cougarls88

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: loki8481

Oh, and your statement is the crux of the problem. You increase wages artificially, then business pass on additional costs to consumers, which, guess what? provides us inflation.

Doesn't seem to be stopping anyone now--wages are stagnant and yet prices are going through the roof.

Hell, why don't we force everyone to be paid $100/hour. Where does it end?

Hell, why not repeal the minimum wage altogether. Pay the workers next to nothing, beat them with a whip, and keep all the profits.

How about we let the market determine what a job is worth.

Since the government has choosen to mingle in property rights, contract rights, legal tender, negotiable instruments, corporations, stocks, bonds, patents, etc all legal concepts and some are protective instuments of big business I see no problem providing infrastructure and services that benefit regular people.

Another way of putting it is since the governemnt recognizes and makes it easy for wealthy investors to form large-scale organizations and protects them is in the ?public interest? it also recognizes a burgening middle class, child labor laws and a safty net is in the "public intrest".

 

[Rockhound]

it may cut into business owner's profit margins in the short term, but workers who earn more will consume more, which will bring profits back up and also provide a boost to the manufacturing and retail industries

So, loki, does it not then follow that the more money these people have the more profits to be made by businesses and the bigger the boost to manufacturing and retail??

If so, then the question was asked before and is always asked, why stop at $6.50 or $7.00 or 8 or 9, why not just guarantee someone $20/hr or $50 or even $100??? If its all so good and benefits everybody (businesses and the wage earners alike) why not do it all in one lump sum rather than every 3 or 4 years? Why make everyone "suffer" for those 3 or 4 years?

Answer this fundamental question to this entire issue and then we'll see.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Rockhound

it may cut into business owner's profit margins in the short term, but workers who earn more will consume more, which will bring profits back up and also provide a boost to the manufacturing and retail industries

So, loki, does it not then follow that the more money these people have the more profits to be made by businesses and the bigger the boost to manufacturing and retail??

If so, then the question was asked before and is always asked, why stop at $6.50 or $7.00 or 8 or 9, why not just guarantee someone $20/hr or $50 or even $100??? If its all so good and benefits everybody (businesses and the wage earners alike) why not do it all in one lump sum rather than every 3 or 4 years? Why make everyone "suffer" for those 3 or 4 years?

Answer this fundamental question to this entire issue and then we'll see.

if you raise the minimum wage to a rediculous amount, then of course it will spark off inflation. but a $2 increase isn't going to cause the world to end or inflation to rise dramatically. and it will provide a boon to those who are trying to live off of minimum wage, Walmart jobs.

just because a person doesn't have a college education doesn't mean that they should have to spend their entire life living paycheck to paycheck. a $2 raise isn't going to put them on easy street, but it will make things a little easier. and if that means I have to pay an extra couple bucks at the register at Target, I'm alright with that.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Increases in minimium wage resulting in corresponding increases in inflation isn't a hard and fast rule. A lot of econmic models predict this should happen, but in as many cases that it does it just as often doesn't. But increasing minimum wage does tend to result in higher unemployment, fewer people working for more money vs. more people working for less money. This is what counteracts the inflation, businesses tend to higher less people instead of raising their prices. Big businesses will simply outsource more. I'm a little torn on this issue, I'm all for the market determining the prices of goods and services, but I'm not sure it always fairly determines the price of labor since costs of living, and thus the wages people are willing to work for, can vary so much. If you abolished the minimum wage altogether it would take a good while for these variances to even out and a lot of people would get shafted before it did.

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: loki8481
fvck small business. let's put up a few more walmarts.

I accept the fact that minimum wage isn't a living wage, but i think it should at least keep up with inflation.

you want to keep up with inflation, then better yourself and find a better paying job.

Oh, and your statement is the crux of the problem. You increase wages artificially, then business pass on additional costs to consumers, which, guess what? provides us inflation. Then a few more years go by and the Dems want to increase wages again. Hell, why don't we force everyone to be paid $100/hour. Where does it end?

Wow, a typical, cynical, "OH NOES THIS IS GOING TO START A SLIPPERY SLOPE OF WAGE RAISES" post. Please. Another $2 or so an hour is not going to destroy small businesses, and $100/hr is way far away from $8 an hour. Come back down to Earth, and clear that gunk out of your eyes.

For many working-class families, finding a better-paying job is getting more and more difficult as education in this country gets worse and worse. Don't forget many are working multiple jobs, sending their kids to daycare, and rarely even spending time with them...that's entirely a different story, but you see where I'm going with this.

 

[Zebo]

If so, then the question was asked before and is always asked, why stop at $6.50 or $7.00 or 8 or 9, why not just guarantee someone $20/hr or $50 or even $100??? If its all so good and benefits everybody (businesses and the wage earners alike) why not do it all in one lump sum rather than every 3 or 4 years? Why make everyone "suffer" for those 3 or 4 years?
----------------------
There is a balanceing act that must go on between government tyranny and privatized tyranny. I think a "living wage" ie modest rent, food, utlities and transportation is a good balance. $20 and hour is not modest unless you live in CA. Probably more like $12.

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: Zebo
If so, then the question was asked before and is always asked, why stop at $6.50 or $7.00 or 8 or 9, why not just guarantee someone $20/hr or $50 or even $100??? If its all so good and benefits everybody (businesses and the wage earners alike) why not do it all in one lump sum rather than every 3 or 4 years? Why make everyone "suffer" for those 3 or 4 years?
----------------------
There is a balanceing act that must go on between government tyranny and privatized tyranny. I think a "living wage" ie modest rent, food, utlities and transportation is a good balance. $20 and hour is not modest unless you live in CA. Probably more like $12.

An often misunderstood issue is the definition of 'living wage.' People aren't asking that these people be able to afford a townhouse six blocks from Fisherman's Wharf in the middle of SF. But what they are asking is that working-class families be able to live happily without needing to make a choice between using this month's paycheck on food or daycare - that these two-parent households need not each work seventy hours a week at three jobs...

I think that's reasonable. Why don't many people?

 

[Rockhound]

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease

Originally posted by: Zebo
If so, then the question was asked before and is always asked, why stop at $6.50 or $7.00 or 8 or 9, why not just guarantee someone $20/hr or $50 or even $100??? If its all so good and benefits everybody (businesses and the wage earners alike) why not do it all in one lump sum rather than every 3 or 4 years? Why make everyone "suffer" for those 3 or 4 years?
----------------------
There is a balanceing act that must go on between government tyranny and privatized tyranny. I think a "living wage" ie modest rent, food, utlities and transportation is a good balance. $20 and hour is not modest unless you live in CA. Probably more like $12.

An often misunderstood issue is the definition of 'living wage.' People aren't asking that these people be able to afford a townhouse six blocks from Fisherman's Wharf in the middle of SF. But what they are asking is that working-class families be able to live happily without needing to make a choice between using this month's paycheck on food or daycare - that these two-parent households need not each work seventy hours a week at three jobs...

I think that's reasonable. Why don't many people?

Ok, so what is a living wage and why haven't the politicians (especially the democrats!!) countered with that exact living wage? Why do they only increase it 30 to 50 cents at time? Someone else came up with $12 above. So why are we at $6.50 (or whatever it is today) and why hasn't good old John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, etc. etc, the big defenders of the increase in minimum wage said that it should be increased to $12.00/hour?? Why why why? They don't even come close to proposing anywhere near $12.00. Or is it their idea that a living wage maybe what it is today? Even recently, Teddy Kennedy has only proposed a $1 increase. Still way below the "magical living wage" of $12.

I think a "living wage" ie modest rent, food, utlities and transportation is a good balance. $20 and hour is not modest unless you live in CA. Probably more like $12.

Not according to MadCow, Zebo. His idea is a choice between food and daycare. Therein lies a problem. One person will say "living wage" means X and another will say it is X+Y. Who's right? Where do you draw the line? Some people would argue that cable tv should be included in that. That is not necessary to "living".