Question for Minimum Wage supporters

The federal government spends annually about $14,000 per person. Anyone who puts less than that in the pot, is getting preferential treatment. They are getting something for nothing.

Anyone who puts more in, is not.



​

 

You do not live in NYC, do you ?

 

Instead of raising minimum wage, how about Affordable housing ?
Affordable lower cost coop supermarkets ?
NYS has vast farms that can also provide jobs and low cost alternatives rather than cause skyrocketing inflation.

 

bad dumb liberal idea. At least with minimum wage you have to have a job before minimum wage matters. Do you understand that a job is good?

 

actually a family of 2 people making minimum wage and working 60 hours a week is wealthier than 99% of the human beings who have ever lived. This is the beauty of Republican capitalism.

 

Serious people don't cite Pukipedia.

That's patently absurd. Stock Markets cannot cause Recessions or Depressions. Crashing Stock Markets are the symptom of Recessions and Depressions, not the cause.

Stock Markets are not a necessity for a well-run economy.

 

By assuming the Standard of Living and Life-Style.

Cell-phones are a luxury, not a requirement. You just proved my point.

Such diet assumes eating meat 3 meals per day, 7 days per week, when it isn't necessary. You proved my point again.

Cooling a home is not a requirement. You proved my point again.

Obesity and Type II Diabetes skew the data.

And that assumes a car payment, when car payments are optional. You've proved my point again.

Based on the assumption that people are entitled to individual shelter. There's nothing wrong with two families sharing a 3 bedroom rental apartment or house.

You've already proven it to be subjective. For example, the cost of raising children presupposes the use of disposable diapers which inflates the cost, rather than using the lesser expensive washable diapers.

Not relevant, since it totally ignores Contract Law. Another flaw in your argument is that self-employed persons should all be living successfully, but they don't.

You failed to address any of the valid arguments:

If you trust the government to set minimum wages, then why not trust government to set prices and wages for everything as well?

Government meddling in wages leads to gross distortions in Labor Markets.

A living wage would create gross distortions in Housing Markets. The proper course of action for many workers is to relocate to low-cost areas; not enable them to remain in high-cost areas.

Consumers ultimately pay for all wages, so wage increases are eventually negated by higher prices.

Living and minimum wage laws are discriminatory against the least skilled workers, minorities in particular.

Living and minimum wage laws interfere with voluntary labor agreements between workers and employers.

Should the cost of a "living wage" decline, will government allow reduced the wages?

Nothing in your diatribes suggests dismantling the current Welfare System. What keeps the government from lowering the bar and perpetuating the current system? Why would the government even consider giving up that much power and control, even with a "living wage?"

It reduces the competitiveness of the US globally.

 

If you have a 'cause' like lower and lower GDP, then you might have an 'effect' like a sinking stock market...which then can be a 'cause' for less consumer spending and less GDP. So IMO when we might have a cause-effect-cause scenario...a declining stock market at a point in the process can be a 'cause' for further GDP decline. It won't necessarily 'cause' a recession but it can sustain and/or exacerbate a recession...

 

Right, I'm not serious and this is not an Economics Forum.

Next silly personal comment ... ?

This last one was caused by another Wall Street event, called Toxic Waste, foisted by Main St. banksters who concocted it - then Investment Bankers who sold the waste to the world. As of 2008, it was indeed sufficient to trigger a sudden contraction in consumer spending not only in the US but globally.

In 1923, the US drastically reduced upper-income taxation (see here), which started a frenzy of investing on Wall Steet. See DJIA history here:


That frenzy eventually caused the Stock Market to turn and dive. Nine thousand banks failed during the months following the crash of 1929, which certainly did not help matters. Great Recessions/Depressions are both contractions of Demand. Consumers, for whatever the reason, stop buying as much as they did before. Fewer sales means contraction of production, which means further lay-offs. The result was a generalized contraction of Consumer Propensity to Spend.

The contraction feeds upon itself as consumers adopt the mind-set "What if I'm next to go?" In defense, they diminish expenditures. The economy goes into a tailspin.

Not a necessity, yes, but definitely a fellow-traveler. There's not a major market-economy in the world without one ...

 

Econ 101: bank/stock market runs can start for any number of reasons. They have little to do with recessions or depressions unless the central bank stops them from spreading. Modern central banks stop them from growing and spreading so serious recession and depression are probably a thing of the past.

 

Except the 1929 Stock Market Crash occurred during a time of increasing GDP.

 

Serious people don't cite Pukipedia.

No, the last one was caused by Americans losing their jobs, who then subsequently defaulted on their mortgages. The massive defaults on mortgages is what triggered it. If Americans do not lose their jobs and default on their mortgages, then you're none the wiser.

You're weak on Cause & Effect.

A little history of the Stock Market might help.

#1 The stock market loses 40.9% of its "value" over a period of 959 days. Characterize the state of the economy during that time.

#2 The stock market sets records over a period of 651 days. Characterize the state of the economy during that time.

#3 The stock market loses 45.1% of its value over a period of 694 days. Characterize the economy.

The fact that major market economies have stock markets is irrelevant.

You might want to study the Cause & Effect of the 1st Great Depression of the 19th Century as well as the 2nd Great Depression of the 19th Century.

#1 If you said the economy was performing in any way less than stellar, you failed. GDP growth was averaging an astounding 12.5% per quarter That actually happened September 1939 to April 1942

#2 That was the 3rd and final recession of the Eisenhower Administration, and the final recession of the Great Depression, which ended in 1961. The DJIA doubled in value from 250 to 500+. This is proof -- one of a dozen examples where they stock market soared, while the economy tanked. Another famed occurrence was the 1928 Recession -- which ended June 1929 and the stock market started crashing, with a huge crash in October 1929.


#3 That was January 1973 to December 1974 US GDP grew at rates of 1.03% per quarter to as much as 3.77% per quarter, averaging 2.24% per quarter over those 8 quarters. While the economy wasn't stellar, it was still average or slightly better by any benchmark.

 

To each their own history.

Moving right along ...

 

Government or anyone else has no rights to tell businesses what they should pay their employees. Your are essentially holding a gun to their head and telling them what to do. Employers pay what an employee is worth if the employee wants to make more they need to make themselves more valuable.

 

That's not true in the least!

Many employers, my last in particular, try to get away with paying as little as possible, regardless if experience, or productivity.

I'm a tool & Die guy, in plastics injection molding.

The company I just left, was run by 3 siblings who inherited the business from their father, and none of the 3 had a bit of manufacturing knowledge.

They were great to make promises to people with experience/knowledge in the plastics industry, but through their failings to produce on their end, most of us have left.

They are now reduced to trying to run their failing business with a top-heavy payroll of people in their upper 70's+, who are doing what hey do as, "a,hobby" by and large, accompanied by a flock of relative Retards, in the firm of temporary employees, who have little or no knowledge or understanding of the plastics process, or industry.

i'm not saying that a simpe increase in the MW would solve problem one with this company, or others like it, but, better treatment of the employees at hand, after understanding their real, & potential worth, would serve most manufacturers well.


To hell with Unions by the way. They are nothing but big business, in the clothing of laborers dungarees.

 

I am sure of bad employers and bad employees. I won't tell about the machine shop I once owned so let me tell about Frank Howe's business that he owned.

Frank was the owner of Industrial Electric Manufacturing. His company had about 40 workers i think. Frank made electric distribution systems. The company is now run by others so I am safe talking of Frank.

I did jobs for Frank. I bid the jobs. I was at his business one Saturday installing a sub-machine I had made that fit his needs and was my design. I was getting going in the machine shop business and knew as much about bidding jobs as Hillary knows about being president. Next to nothing. I realize she engaged in pillow talk when she used to live at the White House. My wife and I did the same and no way could she bid jobs nor do the jobs. She was totally clueless when it came to the machine shop.

Frank stops to talk to me. i did not get the job from him, but from his plant supervisor. So when this guy in casual clothing talks to me, at first I figured he was one of the workers.

Frank asks me plenty of questions and says he owns the business.

Frank tells me my bid was too low. That my job is worth more. And to change the price to him. He says, just treat me fair.

I doubled the price. While that sounds greedy, wait to find out what Frank told me later.

Frank called me to help him as it neared Xmas. He wanted to drive me to San Francisco and try to fix a machine there he had made. Turns out i had to remove parts and bring them to my shop where i fixed his parts.

Driving in his car, he brings up that I doubled the price. I kind of was apprehensive. He told me the machine I charged him $1600 for saved him $7,500 using it the first week. He said he would have happily paid much more. (1968 I think it was)

Then he offered to have me at his home some evening where he would explain a system to price correctly. I took him up on that offer and he had great advice.

I talked to some of his workers and to a man, they loved him like he was their own father. Frank had a very happy work force. And maybe by now you guessed why.

As to my own crew at my shop, i paid them as well as they could earn. Those who worked and produced made the most money.

 

All of this is fantastic. It still doesn't change what I said regarding my last employer.

As a matter of fact, I'l Elaborate further.

On top of the crap they were selling the lower skilled entry level employees, they baited many of us vastly more experienced people with profit sharing percentages, productivity bonuses, advancements, etc.

In my own case, although I am an experienced (20+years) setup/ process technician, with outside certifications, they told me that in order to make their correlative rate to my last position, I'd have to pass the Routsis Scientific DiecSetting Program. This course, is essentially the BKGuru version of industrial certification.

No problem I told them, & instead if going in to the plant on OT, I finished the course at home, in like 5 days. Earned their certs., and was waiting for my big pay increase, which had been promised...

Now, these self proclaimed pious Christians, said that without a signed contract, I wasn't (and about 4 others without the same experience) a candidate for the incentive program.... Although, the program was like 50 steps back, from the certification I already had, that got me the job.

I had in my employ with them, helped them get 6 patents, & developed several process improvements that not only saved, but helped them earned thousands per work orders related to Harley Davidson, Briggs & Stratton, & Aaron's Corp.

I remember the VP 2 years ago, lamenting over losing people after, "All the training" they gave...


Truth be told, due to their treatment of their employees, & their ack of knowledge, they were training people to leave.

EDIT: not to mention, due to their practices, & losing 80k on an IQMS program, they rolled back their vacation policy, froze wages, & froze new hires.

 

Robert, I gotta bow out now. Like I'd said last night Indon't forum well smashed.

I'm getting heated over my last employer again, & my blod pressure's rising.

Catch you later man.

 

I was not aiming to change your story.

I feel about the same thing and this story is all about Democrats.

I have long held a real estate brokers license. Part of the schooling was to do real estate loans. That and i sold a lot of property. Property sales had slowed to a crawl so i decided to leverage into the loan business. Worked great and my license allowed it.

Dodd Frank changed all of that. I had to be treated like a brand new novice and go to take more school. Naturally it was over the Dodd Frank laws.

So, from paying CA a hefty fee each 4 years, that i still must pay, i had another fat fee to pay just to do loans, plus more fees for the company I own.

What did this do for me?

nothing.

What is the cost

They hiked my fees by a factor of 6 just to do loans.

Plus each year I must endure 8 hrs more training by a school I must pay.

What happened to you sounds very very wrong. I don't condone that.

 

Your comment seems to contradict your initial sentence, "That's not true in the least!". An employer has a right to evaluate an employees value to their business, not to say that the employers evaluation is correct but acceptance of the wage offered by the employer remains with the employee. A business who pays too little to attract or maintain competent skilled employees usually succumbs to its competitors, as it should.

 

I agree. Please see my reply to Robert.

I have to say, honestly, & Robert, I said this yesterday, I don't forum well hammered. That rambling comment of mine I admit, generally had more to do with my being loaded, & due to my caring about that former employer's business, & their mistreated employees, than anything else.

Anyway, in addition to being a tool & die guy, I have 2 businesses as well, one, I'm a partner in, & the other, sole proprietor. My resale business here in Wisconsin, my sole proprietorship, I have no employees, well, outside of my wife from time to time.

The business in Colorado, where I'm a partner, is largely handled by my buddy, since he lives there. The handful of employees we have there, are paid well above the MW, for several reasons.

Primarily the market is lucrative, & demand for the products is far greater than supply, & the supply cost are relatively low. It's a newly developing market, in the fact that it's Mainstream, & out of the shadows. In other words, we essentially charge whatever we want, & should pricing see a decline in sales, discounts, promotional offers, or outright price reductions would still allow for a wide profit margine.

We also see the value of keeping our workers not only financially motivated to just work their jobs with us, but motivated to better their own education, which, would likely see them bring innovation, & greater skill to their work with us, to help better the business in general. If they choose to leave at some point, which, due to the average age of our employees, is a given for many, our record with these employees, sees the probability of them suggesting our business as a place for employment for their friends, & others they come in contact with.

Win, win, win, all around.

I'm probably way off topic now, so, I'll continue to try to get my head right, & catch up later.

 

There were boom years in the 20's but there were also signs in 1929 that house sales, steel production and car sales were slowing/falling...wheat prices were falling...and too many Americans invested in stocks, stocks bought with borrowed money, and it didn't take much downturn to cause panic selling.

No matter...my comment was about how the stock market won't cause a recession but can certainly sustain and exacerbate it...

 

An employer MUST PAY whatever is demanded by the labor force!
An employer MUST be competitive in order to keep the doors open.

Logically speaking, a business does not care how much they pay for labor as long as the business model remains viable. It can be $100/hour as long as consumers will continue to demand their very highly priced goods and services. But we know this does not happen because Americans always want more for less!

Lastly, whether a company is good or bad to employees has nothing to do with wages? Each worker must find a place that gives them the most satisfaction...

 

I'm not sure about the employer having to pay anything outside if what the labor force is willing to accept. In this economy, workers are willing to take much less, at least in hard hit areas, than their work is worth.

Labor supply being as high as it is, the supply/demand equation is skewed in the employer's favor.

Of course the employer has to remain competitive to remain open. The situation I describe regarding the labor supply, to available jobs, sees many employers (at least in my area) taking full advantage of this situation, & simply paying direct hires less, or using staffing agencies. Admittedly, the ACA is another large motivating factor in these employers going the Temp. route. They're not responsible for providing the insurance that way.

I agree with the last. I only took the job I'd mentioned, because it was literally a 5 minute walk up the street.
I also enjoy what Ido.

The lies spewed by the employer, their lack of care with regards to their tools, & other equipment, combined with the other negative ways they treat their employees, is why I left.

 

My Brother Jim lasted until he was about 44 then died and he drank only Beer a lot. i mean a lot of beer. Funny how thin he was but he had a booze problem.

I get a feeling your business operation in CO involves smoking something. Still here in CA, the state is fine, but the Feds are the problem. Maybe Obama is slacking on this. i don't keep up on that change to CA law I voted in favor of.

The argument vs minimum wage rages on and on.

People need to get this fact.

Worker has a product. Employer wants to buy that product. As cheap as possible in a lot of cases. The worker has to learn how to more than perform, but how to market himself to the company.

This is not normal for workers to do. They revert to unions thinking those are the real experts.

Back when i had my machine shop in the tail end of the 60s, early 70s, I wanted the company to survive. Sure, I wanted the workers to be fairly paid, but more than that, i had to ensure we all had a job. My job, my duty to the workers was to sell the company. I made sure my company engaged in premium quality control. That sold well to the customers I was able to locate.

Greg was my shop foreman. Greg was so talented it is difficult to make it clear how talented he was. He was a guy that really loved the machine shop business. I gave him his first raise after being with me 4 days. I gave him a rather large raise due to his super skills and speed.

Jim was later hired. Jim came to my office one day wanting a raise. I took timecards out and showed him doing a job that Greg also did for the company. Greg was a working foreman. I showed Jim in time cards that he cost me more on that job than Greg cost me for the same parts. Jim decided I had a good point.

If you treat workers with respect and are honest with them, they like it much more. i told him I was happy to pay him more when he improved more.

The old saying of for things to change, you must first change, works all the time.