Obama Minimum Wage Proposal Should Be Supported

ALL businesses benefit from a hike in the minimum wage. A few of them (very few relatively) both benefit and suffer from it, simultaneoulsy. So should we punish maybe 90% of all businesses just to benefit the very few 10% who suffer ? (by having to increase wages to large numbers of low wage workers).

And why would raising wages deter businesses from opening in America ? For the overwhelming majority, a minimum wage raise is a GOOD thing, which raises disposable income, and thereby sales and income. It would appear to be a motivation for them to open businesses. I know when I had a business, getting a minimum wage raise was my # 1 wish for my legislators, which would have helped my business immensely.

 

I'm in favor of increases in the minimum wage that outpace inflation (i.e. perhaps $0.25 per hour for the next four years so that after 4 years the wage is $8.25). A massive increase to $9/hour in one fell swoop is an idiotic idea (i.e. status quo for Obama). You have a president that panders to illegal immigrants and you will get what you wish for if you are not careful (i.e. a bunch of people paid under the table not paying any federal or state taxes in addition to not paying payroll taxes). Of course, dunce boy will then try to raise taxes again for the consequences of a dunce in office.

 

But there is no inflation. We're in a recovery. Don't you watch MSNBC?

 

I'm selling it on ebay.

 

If you understand how the price system works, then you would believe the effect is generally low. If one producer has to increase the cost of their goods, all other producers will increase their cost in kind. The price of goods are bid up everyday merely by purchasing them.The thought that bidding them up even further with wage increases is laughable at best.

What a joke. No results were skewed. The items were already weight when I used the CPI-U search index. The weight factor I used was based on the average consumer expenditure report, which is the same report released by the BLS. The report contains basket goods people purchase everyday. And I don't make up these prices. All of the data I get is from the BLS website. Not form google.

Show me where I said that was how I determined the inflation rate. In fact, show me where I even used the term inflation rate. Either way, your mis-characterizations are getting old. What I I was measuring were price increases over time compared to the CPI increase. The point is to show how fast prices are rising faster than the CPI. The rate of inflation is what you determine separately. If your comprehension is just as bad as your economically understanding, then this discussion is pretty much a moot point.

And besides, your source only shows how you find the inflation rate for one item. as I've done it with 20 items. You can at least read what you are trying to show me. Embarrassing.

That's the best possible response I can come up with to counter meaningless rambling.

I didn't ask you anything. That's all in your mind.

Stocks always preform better when interests rates are low. And what are stock prices a reflection of?

What's hard for me? Seeing through your farce arguments? Yeah, Okay.

So you were laughing in response to a comment you made? How very odd.

What the hell are you talking about? The example I used with yields was in reference to your comment here.

You don't seem to understand that low interest rates lowers corporations borrowing cost. It makes it less expensive to do business and this is reflected in corporate earnings. How exactly does a corporate raise revenue? Stocks and Corporate bonds. One of the ways corporations are getting cheap money is through corporate bonds. According to you, cheap money is not a large contribute when it comes to Corporate Profits, but the yields on Corporate Bonds don't reflect that, at all.

You do understand what low yields generally reflect, don't you? Maybe you can google it real quick.

If the goal is to make me as clueless as you, sure. It's fairly good for perpetuating the sounds of a pesudo-intellect.

Cheap money is only found in places who are going along with the United States reckless monetary polacy

I clearly said "majority" and you characteristic my statement. I'll dumb it down for you by putting the discussion in greater context so even you'll understand. The responses are in full context and are verifiable by merely clicking the arrow on the username.

You were clearly caught mis-characterizing my position. It's one thing to have bad comprehension, it's another to continue to attach a position to me which I did not say. That's call a straw man fallacy. Address what I am saying, not what you want me to say. Aside from that, thank you for showing me what I am missed out from on with the American Public School Education System.

Because it's not, as I've shown to you in greater context than you ever could. There isn't a great enough adjective to describe how much of a joke you are.

We don't have any of that in Hong Kong and somehow we've manage to become more prosperous while Americans are stuck in their own self perpetuating lunacy: Doing more of what doesn't work.

Nice photo. Who owns the land in China?

It's business. You either compete by doing what the other, more successful opposition is doing or you get left behind while you customers go other to your competition. Which is fine with me, as I watch all the stupidity from the East. Either way, lowering your standards to third world countries is just a pathetic excuse. Australia, Germany, Korea and Japan can all manufacture. They're not third world countries. They do have many things that the US doesn't have. Well, at least one of those countries do.

No it didn't. That is just a spin friendly way of saying it worked better than people gave it created for. 40 Million people were impoverished in the 60's. Today, 47 million people are impoverished. Yeah, it had an effect alright.

Yeah, it's about the same population as the country I am residing in. So?

Sorry, you don't actually know how to debate. You don't discuss what people say, rather just attach positions to them. You hardly use and credible sources and your educational background can pretty much be summed up with a search engine. I am a legend, but it's hardly because I think so I assure you. You on the other hand are pretty laughable, but no different from any of the other jokes present on this forum.

 

It's not about the number of people doing it. It's the fact that I can do it, as well as with any other forms of earnings and benefits I may get from the Government.

Their incomes would generally be pensions, IRAs, VA pensions and Pell Grants. And they're still considered poverty stricken.

That was just a mis-characterization from you. If you apply for it, you have decided to use it, regardless if you are desperate, needy or not.

There are plenty of choices and alternatives. Thanks to these benefits, it's merely an incentive not to try.

Another mis-characterization. I made a link to the minimum wage and unemployment. Unless you are trying to say that unemployment has nothing to do with economic performance.

Can't even bother to read the name of the user who created the thread, eh? Not surprising.

 

Wow, i cant believe you actually don't think price setting is a bad idea... your understanding of economics and the ramifications of decisions regarding such are now highly suspect in my eyes.

Fact is its not the governments job to pick winners or losers, to make sure nobody is poor, etc and so on. Doing so requires lots of government control over the economy and in the end politicians will use that power to benefit themselves and their own long before they use it for what it should be (which is why the big banks get bailouts). Look at the debacle price setting did during the great depression, like when FDR's new deal policies ended with a dry cleaner being put in jail for charging lower than what the government said was allowed.

You are definitely not someone who believes in freedom or liberty. In a world of finite resources some are going to have and some are going to have not, if you really believe in helping the less fortunate do something yourself, real charity. Don't use violence or the threat of violence against others to do it for you and then act all benevolent... because that is a (*)(*)(*)(*)en joke. If all the people who claim they want to help the poor and do so by voting for big government people who say they will help them by bull(*)(*)(*)(*) measures such as raising minimum wage did and gave more to charity themselves we would be far better off. Of course its so much easy to talk like one cares, then actually do anything about it.

 

What is or isn't "government's job" (in a democratic republic such as the USA) is the job of the American people to decide. If we decide that yes, it IS government's job to set prices or price maximum levels, then that's exactly how it should be. Who do you think this should be left to ? A bunch of greed freak business owners whose only responsibility is to themselves, or a few stockholders ? Isn't it bad enough we've already got government telling us to buy things (at expensive rates) that we don't need ? (ex. PIP in Florida et al states)

As for using government regulation to benefit oneself, that govt regulation is exactly done to PREVENT greedy self-serving practices.

And charity ? If the greedy rich did that instead of buying mansions, vacation homes all over the world, private yachts and jets, then we wouldn't have poverty, or any need for a minimum wage. Problem there ? They choose the materialistic lifestyle, and feed their greed with possessions, rather than cover the poverty problem (including low wages), and their fight against raising the minimum wage from its poverty level is sure proof of that. So "do anything about it" you say. Sure, the super rich are free to do plenty about it. Trouble is, they throw a few pennies (relatively speaking) at it, or nothing at all. And they fight restoring taxes on them to NORMAL American rates. Solution ? Democratic republic government (in which we need to return power to the people)

And yes, I believe in freedom and liberty. I just don't believe in the freedom and liberty of muggers to rob people on the street, burglars to burglarize homes, or business owners to rob people with a computer mixed with campaign contributions (legal bribery) to politicians. That's all.

PS - I kind of recall that this started out (in post 125) with me agreeing with what you were saying. So what's with the griping now ?)

 

"Plenty of choices and alternatives" ? Yeah ? Like what ? (note that I get the feeling you don't have much actual experience as a poor person, with those "choices")

 

Did you know that private charity can never actually solve poverty in our republic?

Providing for the general welfare implies full employment of resources in any given market, but especially the market for labor.

 

Nothing can solve poverty in a republic ....

 

I've already addressed this on the other thread protectionist created about the minimum wage. Naturally, I didn't get a real response to the Samoan economy. Just some nonsense about how the Samoans collapsed their own economy because they were too stupid to understand that higher labor cost were good for them.

 

Where I'm from, poor is pretty much the routine. We don't have safety in the third world like you do in your welfare state. We work so we can make life better for ourselves. No free handouts like you have in America.

 

You say that, but it comes across as an appeal to ignorance. Poverty, when due to a simple lack of income that would otherwise be obtained in a more efficient market for labor, can easily be solved with existing laws and existing infrastructure; being poor is something that we can never solve under any form of Capitalism, but through personal initiative.

- - - Updated - - -

We don't have a true welfare-state, but a truer warfare-state.

 

Name a single country at any time in history in which poverty did not exist .

 

That is an appeal to ignorance; especially since we have already sent men to the moon and brought them back; solving simple poverty in our republic doesn't require rocket science.

 

Two questions for you. Did you know that much of that regulation helps protect big companies by making it harder for new competition to enter the market? Who prevents the greedy self serving practices of the government?

You understanding of the economy is lacking once again. When rich people buy things like yachts and mansions it must be built by people, designed by people, etc and so on. This creates jobs. Money circulates through an economy from rich to poor as they purchase things. The reason the rich are rich is because most times they use their resources wisely or provide a good or service that the rest of society deems worthy enough to pay them the big bucks for.

The poverty problem will always exist in a system with limited resources because some people don't care about leaving poverty and will spend money just as fast as they get it on frivolous crap. Taking by force from one group to give to another just so that one group doesn't live in poverty will never work.

You agree with price setting, which takes away the ability of a business owner to sell his legal property (his goods) at whatever price he wants
You agree with hiking the minimum wage which forces certain wage contracts onto business who employ low skilled, many time first job people
You agree with forced "charity" of welfare
Not very freedom or liberty loving...

You obviously didn't read my post #123

 

That doesn't make sense.

 

To you maybe. But then if you really wanted an argument you would have questioned my premise. Why do you believe it does not make any sense? Do you not distinguish between a welfare-State and a warfare-State? If not, then how accurate can your assessments be.

 

But it does require some special expertise in how to overcome obsessive, materialist GREED

 

I don't. Only telling you that you are not making sense.

Not distinguishing and not caring are two different things.

 

I'm not materialist, nor am I obsessive. But I am greedy, just like any other person. This is rational.

 

In my opinion, it only takes practice with money and not necessarily learning how to fish or a work ethic since it only and merely takes money to make more money under any form of Capitalism. Perfection in money management should be considered a "holy grail" in any institution of money based markets.

 

Looks like you're another one who's going to tie up quite a bit of my time. The American people are the one's who are supposed to prevent that, by bytching out their elected (or selected) representitives. Just as the Gang of 8 are right now getting their ears knocked off by angry constituents in town hall meeting over their outrageous amnesty proposal, the people should be watching all these things and holding their representitives' feet to the fire.

Your understanding of my understanding is what's really lacking here. You think I'm unaware of your trickle down philosophy, constantly barked out by Rush Limbaugh, et als ? Of course I know that. I also know that it is nonsense that has failed every time it's been tried (like Reagan's tax cuts to 28% which gave us one of the worst GDP and Job growths in the past 60 years). What does work is just the opposite >> PERCOLATE UP ECONOMICS, where money moves from poor up to rich, in sales in the retail stores. When government creates government jobs, this happens, and the increased sales then allow business to hire more people then creating jobs in the private sector.

As I just said, when the poor get money, they spend it, not just on frivolous stuff. They spend it on furniture (which the rich already have), on home appliances (which the rich already have), on cars (which the rich already have), and on many other things. The fact that the poor have such a long list of things they don't have and do need, is what makes them an excellent recipient for money, insofar as what is good for business. It's always good for business when the disposable income level of the community goes up, especially among those most likely to purchase goods (the poor and middle class).
Another reason why it better for money to go to the poor than the rich is because the rich don't spend much. Besides the fact that they already have everything, what they do spend they spend (a very high %) OUTSIDE THE USA (mostly Europe & the Caribbean, which takes money out of the US economy (similar to illegal aliens' remittances$$$$).

Just as requiring thieves to not commit theft is not very freedom or liberty loving to their freedom/liberty to commit theft. What is harmful to the American people SHOULDN'T be free for people to do. Just that simple. Suppose an influx of ultra-rich immigrants arrived in a state, and apartment complexes found themselves able to rent apartments at $50,000/month (about 70 times the current average rate) So if they started renting them at that level, thousands of middle class Americans would not be able to move into an apartment, and would become homeless (houses are even higher). There has to sets of rules to keep society functioning in an orderly way, so that the American people are not harmed by the selfish, self-serving actions of those who see only their balance sheets, and not the good of the society, and harms to it.

What happens to demand for a commodity whose price has gone up by 20% or more, is the demand for that commodity drops. So ? What's your point ?

 

Maybe you are a little too young to know about this, but back in the 60s, we had a cultural revolution in this country (mainland mostly), in which greed and materialism were rejected, in deference to love, peace non-materialism and non-greed. Many of us are still alive, and have not gravitated from this philosophy one inch. Our kids have inherited it, and now our grandkids as well.

Here's a sample >>

1. When I owned a business in California the California minimum wage was $3.35-4.25 an hour. My workers didn't get a wage but they got commissions on sales. I paid them the equivalent of $150/hour (in 1980s dollars) and I didn't even blink over it.

2. If I got $100 Million/year in pay (like Johnny Depp the actor), I would give 99% of it to worthy poor people who really
earn their money and don't get enough (coal miners, firefighters, cops, troops in Afghanistan, etc.) and people unable to work (wounded veterans, etc). I would even still feel some guilt about keeping the remaining $1 Million.

Being greedy is anything but "rational".