will removing minimum wage accelerate job growth?

[Cogman]

Would it be "American" without one?

Let me guess you would pay your employees 25 cents an hour to compete with China?

Yes, yes it would. Last I checked, my freedoms wouldn't magically disappear because the minimum wage did. Nor does geography magically changes with policy. Remember, we had our freedoms long before we had a minimum wage.

Let me guess, you think that without a minimum wage, everyone would be payed peanuts. How many people do you know earning minimum wage that isn't a high school student?

Removing the miinimum wage won't destroy jobs, people still will say "Hey, I can earn more then $.25 per hour if I work down the street."

 

[dmcowen674]

In an unhealthy society, you have an economy based on impoverished masses.

In a healthy society, you have a strong middle class.

The right, whose core agenda whether the folllowers know it or not is 'impoverish the masses for the benefit of the rich'

Why is it that their followers "don't know it"?

 

[borosp1]

So, making walmart pay more on employees will allow small businesses to compete.. Ahhh, no.

Walmart is competitive because it has a large goods/employee cost ratio. A small business just can't compete with that. Just one employee for the small business already sets them up to have to pay higher prices then what walmart would have to list. For walmart, they could probably hire 1000 employes, right now, and it would have pretty much no effect on their goods price.

No minimum means that the small business owner has to spend less on employees which means that they could potentially sell goods at a lower price, thus making them more competitive to walmart.

Actually I was just saying that people think walmart as a company that creates thousands of jobs. When in reality the jobs they create is equivalant from many studies shown neighboring business cannot compete so they go out of buisness within the vacinity of a walmart which also they lose there labor not all labor is replaced by Walmart.

 

[Cogman]

In an unhealthy society, you have an economy based on impoverished masses. In a healthy society, you have a strong middle class.

You can always 'stimulate unemployment' by lowering compensation. Lower it some more. Lower it some more. All the way down until you reach 100% employment in a system with slavery.

It's not worth lowering. On the other hand, you take a short term hit on employment by increasing compensation. That compensation becomes increased spending and fuels more work and paves the way to the healthy strong middle class. There are built-in ceilings to this, people can't paid more than there is to pay them.

The right, whose core agenda whether the folllowers know it or not is 'impoverish the masses for the benefit of the rich', are always going to exploit a situation like high uneployment (from their policies) to push this.

So long as everyone has the choice of where they are employed, slavery can't exist. Working for free is not slavery.

How does a minimum wage make a strong middle class? The only thing it does is devalue the dollar and increases inflation. Nothing more. We have a finite amount of resources, raising the minimum wage doesn't make more resources appear.

 

[Cogman]

Actually I was just saying that people think walmart as a company that creates thousands of jobs. When in reality the jobs they create is equivalant from many studies shown neighboring business cannot compete so they go out of buisness within the vacinity of a walmart which also they lose there labor not all labor is replaced by Walmart.

I'm not saying that walmart doesn't put small businesses out of business. I'm saying that a high minimum wage only makes it harder for a small business to compete. Walmart is more immune to the effects of the minimum wage then a small business is.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

The right, whose core agenda whether the folllowers know it or not is 'impoverish the masses for the benefit of the rich',

Do you really expect people(besides dave) to take you seriously when you post shit like that?

 

[glenn1]

I think you misunderstood my point. Executives and upper management at most corporations has had there wages and most importantly bonus and other financial reward mechanisms increase exponentially over the past 30 years while the middle class or lower class wage worker relies on wages and cost of living increases which do no match increase in wealth distribution of the upper wage earners on percentage over time.

Trickle down economics works in a theory but not in practice. So paying 7 workers $1/hr is better than paying 1 working $7/hr when all seven cannot survive making $1/hr? But I guess in terms of business there is moral equivalence as the only thing that matters is increasing revenue over time.

Someone who is allowed to pay labor @ $1 hr is equivalent to modern day slave labor. Walmart if allowed would pay all there workers below minumum wage, but because there such a behometh they have there hourly wage a little above minumum wage to appease the public perception of not taking advantage of workers. What people fail to see is a company like walmart for all the jobs they create forces an equal amount of small businesses within the vacinity to go out of business and that lose causes and equal amount of job loss as job creation by Walmart.

Executives put their pants on one leg at a time, same as you. How much a CEO gets paid is really irrelevant in a discussion about minimum wage.

Put yourself in the shoes of an "evil executive" for a bit - you're CEO of You, Incorporated. Someone with a limited skill set comes to you and asks for a job. Times are tight and you're not making as much as a few years ago yourself, and really weren't looking to hire someone. But because they're obviously in need, you are willing to consider letting them do some housekeeping work/cut the grass/clean out the garage/etc. You might be willing to pay someone $10 to do such a make-work job for you, but the state insists you pay them $70. Result: you don't hire them, because the job isn't worth $70 to you.

Is the above really any different than what employers might likewise do because of the minimum wage?

 

[Craig234]

So long as everyone has the choice of where they are employed, slavery can't exist. Working for free is not slavery.

How does a minimum wage make a strong middle class? The only thing it does is devalue the dollar and increases inflation. Nothing more. We have a finite amount of resources, raising the minimum wage doesn't make more resources appear.

It wold take a long post to say more to educate you on this, and sorry to say, your reaction doesn't suggest to me you would get it if I did.

But a couple points.

Money isn't real. It's an artificial construct used to get an economy working, and it determines who has more and who has less, but it's not real other than people agreeing to pretend it is.

There is a distribution of wealth. Some 'real', some money,all the same for measuring it. It has higher and lower concentrations of wealth possible.

Increasing the minimum wage gives more to the bottom, redcing the concentration of wealth. It has negligible 'inflationary' effect in any moderate application (or even not so moderate).

It also has, as I said but yoiu did not seem to hear, benefits to the economy as well.

Finite resources? I'll repeat what I've said many times (wish I had a cut and paste):

Wealth is fixed at a moment in time (with different distributopns), and flexible over time (grow fast, grow slow, reeduce, whatever).

Too high a concentration, and too low a concentration, both result in less growth. Increasing the inimum wage when the concentration is too high, as it always is in the US so far, increases growth.

It also has the moral benefit of reducing the concentration of wealth below extremes (now) or excesses.

You pay the poor more. It reduces povery. They spend more, creating more opportunities. They get better education, they have less crime, they buy more houses. The rich get a smaller slice of a bigger pie.

If the rich are idiots, they demand a bigger slice of a smaller pie and exploit the poor more instead.

As for your first pont, tell it to the impoverished masses who worked in slave-like conditions or starved, and had that as their 'free choice' in the late 19th century or in many third-world oligarchies.

But as I said, I doubt you are getting this, so no point in saying more.

 

[Craig234]

Do you really expect people(besides dave) to take you seriously when you post shit like that?

You're allergic to the truth. You think it's a surprise that when you tell people their party has an ulterior motive they don't understand, that they don't just say "oh, ok, I corrected that"? Some learn, you don't.

If you actually look at the history of the Republican party and test it for the motive I stated, you will find it matches very well, while they never say this is the reason - bad politics.

 

[Craig234]

Executives put their pants on one leg at a time, same as you. How much a CEO gets paid is really irrelevant in a discussion about minimum wage.

Put yourself in the shoes of an "evil executive" for a bit - you're CEO of You, Incorporated. Someone with a limited skill set comes to you and asks for a job. Times are tight and you're not making as much as a few years ago yourself, and really weren't looking to hire someone. But because they're obviously in need, you are willing to consider letting them do some housekeeping work/cut the grass/clean out the garage/etc. You might be willing to pay someone $10 to do such a make-work job for you, but the state insists you pay them $70. Result: you don't hire them, because the job isn't worth $70 to you.

Is the above really any different than what employers might likewise do because of the minimum wage?

And if $10 is the new $70, and he'll pay $1? And if $1 is the new $70, and he'll pay a nickel?

Your argument can always be used to justify paying less to the poor. Where do you help the poor?

 

[Craig234]

I'm not saying that walmart doesn't put small businesses out of business. I'm saying that a high minimum wage only makes it harder for a small business to compete. Walmart is more immune to the effects of the minimum wage then a small business is.

Why has Wal-Mart spent alot of money lobbying to prevent increasing the minimum wage that helps them?

 

[Craig234]

Why is it that their followers "don't know it"?

In our country, we have many people with a poor knowlede of economics, and powerful interests who need the votes of the masses to get elected.

To get them, they not only create a massive marketing pitch why what's bad for them is really good for them, since Lewis Powell's instigation in the 70's, right-wing billionares and others have built a propaganda infrastrucute of "think tanks" whose primary purpose is to create marketing pitches to the masses to sell them on policies that help the rich.

Read David Brock's "The Right-wing noise machine" for the specific history of much of this.

It's worked great to get millions of Americans not understanding the real agenda of the Republicans they elect. Indeed, the ideology is so pervasive many of the leaders adopting it don't really understand it.

It's almost analogous to a perpetual war where you get leaders and generals who excel at leading the nation in the war but who know nothing more than the passed down slogams about why it's being fought.

But hey, it keeps them elected and in power, so who really cares? Ending the war might hurt them.

 

[glenn1]

And if $10 is the new $70, and he'll pay $1? And if $1 is the new $70, and he'll pay a nickel?

Your argument can always be used to justify paying less to the poor. Where do you help the poor?

I would help the poor by pouring resources into upgrading their skills rather than paying them an artificially high wage. Ultimately, that's a far better solution than insisting on a one size fits all minimum wage. For example, min wage would not allow me to hire someone at $1 to start while I trained him to do a $10 job with further advancement opportunities to a $70 job. I also agree that government jobs training programs could help, but "apprentice" style jobs with a private employer would be a far better solution IMHO.

 

[Hacp]

It wold take a long post to say more to educate you on this, and sorry to say, your reaction doesn't suggest to me you would get it if I did.

But a couple points.

Money isn't real. It's an artificial construct used to get an economy working, and it determines who has more and who has less, but it's not real other than people agreeing to pretend it is.

There is a distribution of wealth. Some 'real', some money,all the same for measuring it. It has higher and lower concentrations of wealth possible.

Increasing the minimum wage gives more to the bottom, redcing the concentration of wealth. It has negligible 'inflationary' effect in any moderate application (or even not so moderate).

It also has, as I said but yoiu did not seem to hear, benefits to the economy as well.

Finite resources? I'll repeat what I've said many times (wish I had a cut and paste):

Wealth is fixed at a moment in time (with different distributopns), and flexible over time (grow fast, grow slow, reeduce, whatever).

Too high a concentration, and too low a concentration, both result in less growth. Increasing the inimum wage when the concentration is too high, as it always is in the US so far, increases growth.

It also has the moral benefit of reducing the concentration of wealth below extremes (now) or excesses.

You pay the poor more. It reduces povery. They spend more, creating more opportunities. They get better education, they have less crime, they buy more houses. The rich get a smaller slice of a bigger pie.

If the rich are idiots, they demand a bigger slice of a smaller pie and exploit the poor more instead.

As for your first pont, tell it to the impoverished masses who worked in slave-like conditions or starved, and had that as their 'free choice' in the late 19th century or in many third-world oligarchies.

But as I said, I doubt you are getting this, so no point in saying more.

Compared to people living in developing and 3rd world countries, people making minimum wage are living like kings. Too much wealth is already concentrated in the US and globalization is trying to equalize the wealth. Now, we can stand by and see the wealth slowly disapear by keeping our labor costs artificially high, or we can adapt and fight for every job India and China tries to steal from us by lowering operating costs of businesses in the US.

 

[Wardawg1001]

And if $10 is the new $70, and he'll pay $1? And if $1 is the new $70, and he'll pay a nickel?

Your argument can always be used to justify paying less to the poor. Where do you help the poor?

What are you trying to say? If the work isn't worth $70 (or whatever price point you want to use), then it isn't worth $70, and the person will not pay $70 to have it done.

Why has Wal-Mart spent alot of money lobbying to prevent increasing the minimum wage that helps them?

Small businesses are hardly Wal-Mart's main concern. While raising the minimum wage may hurt them less than small businesses (I'm not arguing this is true, I don't honestly know), that doesn't mean Wal-Mart actually benefits from it.

 

[blackangst1]

It wold take a long post to say more to educate you on this, and sorry to say, your reaction doesn't suggest to me you would get it if I did.

You really are an arrogant prick, you know that?

But a couple points.

Money isn't real. It's an artificial construct used to get an economy working, and it determines who has more and who has less, but it's not real other than people agreeing to pretend it is.

What? So, according to you, we are compensated, we buy things, and we are sustained by something artificial? Really? I may be taking this too far, but how would you suggest this work? Go back to a 100% bartering society? I mean, even if we went to a gold standard, gold's value is artificial. It has a value we artificially place on it. The only thing "worth" anything is work and effort. Right?

There is a distribution of wealth. Some 'real', some money,all the same for measuring it. It has higher and lower concentrations of wealth possible.

Not even sure what this means.

Increasing the minimum wage gives more to the bottom, redcing the concentration of wealth. It has negligible 'inflationary' effect in any moderate application (or even not so moderate).

That isnt all it does. It changes the dynamics of an economy. Now, if prices of "things" stayed the same, you would be right. But thats not what happens. Lets say, for example, minimum wage resulted in $50,000/year. Now all of a sudden that is no longer the average in the US any more. It would raise. All of a sudden low income housing that used to be $300/month would now be $1000/month, because the threshold for poverty is now lower. Those of us who understand this call it INFLATION.

It also has, as I said but yoiu did not seem to hear, benefits to the economy as well.

Not entirely. But you are stone blind to the detriments. As you say to us lower poeple, "It would take a long post to say more to educate you on this, and sorry to say, your reaction doesn't suggest to me you would get it if I did"

Finite resources? I'll repeat what I've said many times (wish I had a cut and paste):

Wealth is fixed at a moment in time (with different distributopns), and flexible over time (grow fast, grow slow, reeduce, whatever).

Yes but the squirrley point you leave out is that that moment of time is very, very short. So short in fact it makes your point inaccurate.

But as I said, I doubt you are getting this, so no point in saying more.

Seriously, if you want to have any chance at actually communicating with people who disagree with you, you have to quit with the condescending bullshit. Your arrogance is absolutely amazing.

One other point you fail at mentioning (no surprise) is although we have poor in this country, in the worldwide community we now live in they arent. How much travelling have you done? I've said it before, but our poor easily qualify as middle or in some cases upper class in MANY countries. Including Europe.

But then again, based on your responses, you probably want nothing to do with anyone who disagrees with you. *shrug*

 

[Cogman]

It wold take a long post to say more to educate you on this, and sorry to say, your reaction doesn't suggest to me you would get it if I did.

Nice, I love a good personal insult to start a post off right.

But a couple points.

Money isn't real. It's an artificial construct used to get an economy working, and it determines who has more and who has less, but it's not real other than people agreeing to pretend it is.

I agree with you there. You should realize, that because money isn't real, neither is its value. A dollar today isn't worth a dollar tomorrow.

There is a distribution of wealth. Some 'real', some money,all the same for measuring it. It has higher and lower concentrations of wealth possible.

Increasing the minimum wage gives more to the bottom, redcing the concentration of wealth. It has negligible 'inflationary' effect in any moderate application (or even not so moderate).

Um, no. If I was earning $10/hr, minimum wage gets bumped up to $10/hr, do you think I would work longer at $10 an hour? No, I would go for a raise or a new job. That will trickle all the way back up the ladder.

It also has, as I said but yoiu did not seem to hear, benefits to the economy as well.

It also has pitfalls to the economy, but I'm not going to tell you what they are, rather, I will just allude to them and say that you are completely ignorant and not capable of understanding them. Is that the game we are playing?

Finite resources? I'll repeat what I've said many times (wish I had a cut and paste):

Wealth is fixed at a moment in time (with different distributopns), and flexible over time (grow fast, grow slow, reeduce, whatever).

Resources are finite, that is econ 101. So say what you like, repeat it as many times as you like, but that is a basic fact taught in EVERY econ class across the country.

Too high a concentration, and too low a concentration, both result in less growth. Increasing the inimum wage when the concentration is too high, as it always is in the US so far, increases growth.

Growth in what? growth in wealth?

It also has the moral benefit of reducing the concentration of wealth below extremes (now) or excesses.

Except that if you can't get a job then you are going to live in the poverty end of the extremes. It hurts job growth, every time.

You pay the poor more. It reduces povery. They spend more, creating more opportunities. They get better education, they have less crime, they buy more houses. The rich get a smaller slice of a bigger pie.

Or, less poor can get a job, increasing poverty.

If the rich are idiots, they demand a bigger slice of a smaller pie and exploit the poor more instead.

Why does that make them idiots. They won't personally get a piece of the bigger pie, ever. I agree, eliminating or reducing the lower class is a good thing, but the minimum wage doesn't do that.

As for your first pont, tell it to the impoverished masses who worked in slave-like conditions or starved, and had that as their 'free choice' in the late 19th century or in many third-world oligarchies.

But as I said, I doubt you are getting this, so no point in saying more.

The late 19th century employer could get away with a lot more then current employers can (not even considering the minimum wage) removing the minimum wage wouldn't suddenly give employers the ability severely abuse and mistreat their employees, it would only allow them to hire more employees, giving more wealth to more people.

But whatever, apparently your high and mighty wisdom is beyond the comprehension of us mere mortals. Perhaps one day I will be as smart and all knowing about everything as you are, then with the power of progressive democrats I to can change everything from the amount of poverty to the laws of physics.

 

[blackangst1]

You're allergic to the truth. You think it's a surprise that when you tell people their party has an ulterior motive they don't understand, that they don't just say "oh, ok, I corrected that"? Some learn, you don't.

If you actually look at the history of the Republican party and test it for the motive I stated, you will find it matches very well, while they never say this is the reason - bad politics.

I would love to have a chat about the history of the GOP as long as we include the history of the Dems. Deal?

 

[sandorski]

Oy vey, the Race to the Bottom should be accelerated? The Comfort level, even during these hard Economic times, in the US is the product of a System. That System does not conform to your Ideological bent simply because you Ideological bent does not work. Replacing the current System with hair brained Ideology will only destroy the quality of Life you take for granted.

Not that the System is perfect and can't be Fine Tuned from time to time, but haphazardly scrapping major tenets of it is done at your own peril.

 

[Cogman]

Why has Wal-Mart spent alot of money lobbying to prevent increasing the minimum wage that helps them?

In the short run, a lower minimum wage helps them. Companies look out primarily for their short term futures (as in, 1 year).

What does walmart care if 1 or 2 small businesses suddenly can compete with them when they have the lions share everywhere else? Perhaps, eventually it would put them out of business, but not for a long time.

Just because something is good for walmart, doesn't mean it isn't good for everyone else. Things can be good for both business owners.

 

[Patranus]

The real answer to this questions can be answered by looking at how the minimum wage killed jobs during the great depression.

 

[dmcowen674]

Do you really expect people(besides dave) to take you seriously when you post shit like that?

You know it's the truth that's why you're so rattled.

Awesome watching you America haters squirm this year.

 

[Avvocato Effetti]

The real answer to this questions can be answered by looking at how the minimum wage killed jobs during the great depression.

Here is a general principle, my friends. Control of the market place wages or prices will never benefit the long term.

It is a short term bandaid at best, an economy buster at worst.

 

[Cogman]

You know it's the truth that's why you're so rattled.

Awesome watching you America haters squirm this year.

You must really hate America.

 

[nobodyknows]

I don't see the connection. What is "american" about a minimum wage?

No crap, why do we need such a law? It's totally unamerican to pay someone less then what ti costs to live. We abloshied slavery, did we not?