Why do people want a $15.00 minimum wage

OF course it can.

Not at all.

This business owner is bound by the rules of society just like every person is.

LMFAO! "Why do people want a higher wage?"

You guys say the darnedest things to justify your 1% apologist positions.

 

30 years of wage stagnation despite gains in productivity suggest that "doing goid" won't necessarily get you a raise at all

 

That is nonsense. You want to hire some experienced kid over an adult with decades of experience? Its not us old folks that are highly unemployed its the youth.

 

Depends on how you define "taller". If we make foot longer, you'll be shorter in terms of feet. But in terms of height relative to everything else, you'll be just the same.

Any more juvenile questions you want to ask?

 

You should be obligated to apologize to the good hardworking folks who enabled you to have the electricity required to post that comment for your egregious misuse of their life's work, because you've contributed nothing meaningful to any conversation.

 

Even with the mess we have today we are growing jobs in spite of it. The population has always been growing and its only if disaster happens we lose more jobs than we create jobs

Do you have figures on percentage of job growth prior to a raise the MW and after backing up your claims?

- - - Updated - - -

What has raised the cost of living? Raising the MW will do that

- - - Updated - - -

That or fire someone or cut their hours and benefits

- - - Updated - - -

Why not give them 50 an hour so they can live even better? Why stop there ?

- - - Updated - - -

Let me add The minimum wage of $1.60 an hour in 1968 would be $10.90 today when adjusted for inflation

 

I keep thinking he is on our side

Its all relative

- - - Updated - - -

What is a livable wage and does everyone deserve it. How many times do I need ask before i get a reply?

 

Because they have a business to run and a duty to their employees who count on them for a job.

Once more what is a livable wage. Should a crackhead who only shows up 3 times a week be paid the same as the guy who is always on time and works hard?

 

Year - Tot nonfarm jobs - change
1993 90904
1994 93436 +2532
1995 97091 +3655
1996 98853 +1762 <-MW increases from $4.25 to $4.75
1997 101788 +2935 <-MW increases from $4.25 to $5.15
1998 105060 +3272
1999 107642 +2582
2000 110438 +2796

Sources: http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm
http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/chart.htm

No. There is no correlation between MW increases and inflation.

Inflation is a function of the effective money supply.

Not logically if it decreases their profits.

The negatives would outweigh the positives.

 

In other words that depends on what the meaning of is is

 

When the choice for the worker is be unemployed and starve, turn to crime, or to take a minimum wage job which is the only job they are qualified for and can find then I would argue that their choices range from bad to worse.

As for raises, this assumes that the employer is ethical and give good employees meaningful raises, if any at all.

 

And a wage they can live on.

The crackhead won't hold a job.

- - - Updated - - -

Not at all. Why would you say that? You guys come up with the silliest stuff.

 

No it cant. You can simply not hire them

 

There is no such excuse. We have your beloved welfare programs to take care of the needy. 2% of workers make the minimum. The average home with a minimum wage worker takes in 53000 a year. They are not the bread winners of the family and are not supposed to be. You expect to be able to raise a family and have a home by flipping burgers?

- - - Updated - - -

I have never had a job where I didnt get a raise.. Exactly what are we producing more of?

 

I'm on the side of working people, not you, sorry.

A wage someone can basically live on. Why shouldn't all working people get it? So the million/billionaires can by bigger mega-yachts?

- - - Updated - - -

Doesn't rebut my post in the least.

 

Looks like the smallest increases came when the MW was raised as I predicted

Yes and there is none from quantitative easing either I suppose

Nearly half (48.2%) of the 3 million hourly workers who were at or below the federal minimum in 2014 were ages 16 to 24. An additional 22.4% are ages 25 to 34, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics; both shares have stayed more or less constant over the past decade. That 3 million represents about 2.3% of all wage and salary workers

Twenty-nine states, plus the District of Columbia and nearly two dozen cities and counties, have set their own higher minimums. State hourly minimums range from $7.50 in Arkansas, Maine and New Mexico to $9.47 in Washington state, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Together, these states include 61% of the nation’s working-age (16 and over) population, according to our analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data. Among the cities that have enacted even higher local minimums are San Francisco ($15 by 201, Seattle ($15 by 2021), Chicago ($13 by 2019) and San Diego ($11.50 by 2017), according to the

So it only effects a small and mostly young sector of the work force who usually live home with mom and dad and more than half the states already have raised theirs. Again this is a matter for the state not the federal government.

 

That's not surprising. Liberal fetishes often involve forcing people to apologize for things the liberals don't understand

 

A net increase of 3 million jobs in the second of two consecutive years of MW increases. Aside from being one of the strongest increases, it is a far cry from being a "job hiring decrease" as was claimed.

Lost me there.

Nearly half (48.2%) of the 3 million hourly workers who were at or below the federal minimum in 2014 were ages 16 to 24. An additional 22.4% are ages 25 to 34, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics; both shares have stayed more or less constant over the past decade. That 3 million represents about 2.3% of all wage and salary workers.

That means over 50% were 25+.

Just shows how pathetic the federal govt has become.

So what are you (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing about then?

 

I have a problem understanding why we continually attack those at the bottom end of the pay scale, as if they are the reason for our economic problems and their desire for a higher wage, hell they'd be happy with income distribution as it was post WW II to about 1979 - when everything "changed".

The income pie is only so big so distribution becomes a factor. If the top 1% (your so called super managers) take 23% of the pie vs. the 10% they took 35 years ago - someone has to suffer the loss. Are these super managers really worth the bounty they've received? Not only that tax cuts for the top earners have been eased to the point their after tax income grew even larger than gross income on a percentage basis.

Income growth since 1979 for the bottom 20% is roughly 43% pre tax, 62% after tax (thanks to income transfers etc.). The top 1% of wage earners have done far better - over 200% in after tax income growth.

The growth if income inequality over the last 35 years is staggering and dangerous. If Picketty is right, and I think he is, the outlook circa 2030 is not good. Could be another Boston Tea Party on the way and it won't be because "government is to big" it will be because government didn't step in. Government helped create our current situation, they can and should be part of the solution in evening out the field, at least back to the inequality position of 1979, which was tolerable for most.

 

I am the working people

Live on ? How well? Do they get a hut ? You cant give me a figure because it changes from place to place and the wants and needs of the person involved

No they should not. Is there a minimum number of hours you have to work to get his wage? if you only work 10 hours a week as thats all there is available should you get 60 an hours if the guys working 40 get 15?

Yes it does. You dont have to hire anyone or own a business or pay people more than you think their worth. You find a person who is worth that price to you if you want to have a business.

 

Anyone can say anything on the internet.

I'd put it at about 150% of the poverty level.

No they should not what? Get a basic income to live on?

Aside from your desire to increase the share of the nation's income and wealth going to the richest, why not?

Don't follow.

 

Perhaps they believe it's an alternative to food stamps?

 

Those are not inflation adjusted figures.

 

Look at the numbers. One is the lowest and the other the 2nd lowest

It means 70% are under 34 and 2 thirds of them are under 25

 

If you want to make a point, make a point. I'm not going to dignify your smug "jabs" as if they were a substitute for actually thinking about what I'm saying.