One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
House votes to raise minumum wage to $ 15 an hour
Page <prev 2 of 3 next>
Jul 22, 2019 09:42:06   #
The Critical Critic Loc: Turtle Island
 
Lonewolf wrote:
The real point is if you work 40 hours a week you should be able to have a roof over your head and basic health care!

No, that’s YOUR point. But let me ask you, why do you think that?
Quote:
I don't know were you live but I know many places ware 15 bucks an hour would make you homeless and its not about living with in your means.
If your rent payment is more than your take home pay and that's the problem for far to many people! In NYC a room the size of a decent walk in closet rents for 2,500 or more.

Are people being forced to stay in NYC? Fact is, many are fleeing for the very reason you state. Even those that can afford the rent are leaving. Lots of people just want to say they live in NYC, because it’s viewed as a status symbol... not so much anymore.

Reply
Jul 22, 2019 10:00:46   #
Lonewolf
 
The Critical Critic wrote:
Are people being forced to stay in NYC? Fact is, many are fleeing for the very reason you state. Even those that can afford the rent are leaving. Lots of people just want to say they live in NYC, because it’s viewed as a status symbol... not so much anymore.


Let me ask you this ware do all these people go from all over the country because of this, out in the desert and start a colloney
Why can't America pay its people s Living wage?
Why do we let companies like wall mart exist they make over 50 billion a year and keep their employees hours down to a point that they can receive food stamps .and they have no health insurance. Only a republican could support this company pure unadulterated greed!

Reply
Jul 22, 2019 10:36:11   #
The Critical Critic Loc: Turtle Island
 
Lonewolf wrote:
Let me ask you this ware do all these people go from all over the country because of this, out in the desert and start a colloney
Why can't America pay its people s Living wage?

Because we’re not a socialist/communist country. And the people move to states that are more affordable, commensurate with their skill set. Where homes are more affordable. For example, our friend, WCS lives in NC, where a home with five bedrooms, two and half baths, two car garage, and in ground pool would cost somewhere in the neighborhood of 300-350k, while that same home in NY, MA, HI, or CA would cost millions.
Quote:
Why do we let companies like wall mart exist they make over 50 billion a year and keep their employees hours down to a point that they can receive food stamps .and they have no health insurance. Only a republican could support this company pure unadulterated greed!

I love that phrase “why do we let some companies exist”. Because, America is a free market economy. You can call it “greed” all you like, but at the same time these companies employ tens of thousands of people, and these positions aren’t meant to be careers, they’re intended for the young, and supplemental income for retirees. If you don’t like the business practices of a certain company, don’t work there. Go work at Amazon, where they’ll pay you your $15 an hour. You/we, have freedom to choose...

Reply
 
 
Jul 22, 2019 10:49:40   #
Lonewolf
 
The Critical Critic wrote:
I love that phrase “why do we let some companies exist”. Because, America is a free market economy. You can call it “greed” all you like, but at the same time these companies employ tens of thousands of people, and these positions aren’t meant to be careers, they’re intended for the young, and supplemental income for retirees. If you don’t like the business practices of a certain company, don’t work there. Go work at Amazon, where they’ll pay you your $15 an hour. You/we, have freedom to choose...
I love that phrase “why do we let some companies e... (show quote)


So now your saying the young don't deserve to make a living.
We need a living wage and it needs to be based on the cost of living in that state or city, then no one has to move.
And So overnight cities don't find all there wateress and wall mart and Mc donalds workers living in north Carolina.

I havent made 15 an hour in 50 years .

Reply
Jul 22, 2019 10:54:14   #
Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton
 
HonorNCourage57 wrote:
House votes to raise minimum wage to $15 an hour

A more appropriate headline would read 'House votes to put half of all low-wage workers out of work.'

Reply
Jul 22, 2019 11:15:39   #
The Critical Critic Loc: Turtle Island
 
Lonewolf wrote:
So now your saying the young don't deserve to make a living.

Dear Lord, haven’t you been paying attention? The young have little if any skills or experience when first starting out. Why would I pay anyone more than I think they’re worth?
Quote:
We need a living wage and it needs to be based on the cost of living in that state or city, then no one has to move.

You’re neglecting the flip side of that coin. If they paid what you consider a living wage, and that wage happens to be more than what one is being compensated for in a neighboring state, then people will flock to that state to make more for doing the same job.
Quote:
And So overnight cities don't find all there wateress and wall mart and Mc donalds workers living in north Carolina.

This is borderline absurd, I don’t even know how to address it without insulting you, I try not to do insults, so I’ll leave this one alone.
Quote:
I havent made 15 an hour in 50 years .

Not sure how to interpret this... are you saying, for 50 years you earned less than $15 an hour?
__________________________________

An e-mail exchange this morning with a pro-minimum-wage economics professor who not only wishes to remain anonymous but who asks that I not even quote him directly prompts the following thought about minimum-wage proponents’ belief in miracles.

Workers with a great deal of work experience earn, on average, much higher wages than do workers with no or only very little work experience. http://www.princeton.edu/~moll/LCWG.pdf

Given this reality, suppose that Congress, with the support of President Clump, enacts the following statute: "No one with less than five years of work experience is allowed to be employed for pay."

At the signing ceremony for this diktat, Pres. Clump triumphantly proclaims that:

Contrary to the predictions of naysayers and free-market ideologues, this legislation will cause no one to lose a job. Instead, it will simply give to all workers — even to 16 year olds! — a minimum of five years of work experience. There is nothing that a powerful and determined government with good intentions cannot do!

Immediately, however, everyone reacts with astonishment at the stupidity of Congress and the president. Even editorialists and columnists for the New York Times observe that, as one especially famous columnist observes, “Many workers simply don’t have five years of work experience. They will remain unemployed.”

In response to this surprising opposition from their “Progressive” friends, Congress and Pres. Clump add the following amendment to the above legislation: "Each and every worker in America is hereby decreed to possess at least five years of work experience."

Editorialists and columnists for the New York Times breathe a sigh of relief and declare that this amendment ensures that all is now right with this legislation! It will work only good for American workers!

In contrast, editorialists for more skeptical outlets, such as the Wall Street Journal and the Orange County Register remain flabbergasted that anyone believes in such miracle-working.

If you, dear reader, think the above hypothetical is silly, recognize that minimum-wage legislation is a very similar attempt by government to work a miracle through legislative decree.

In markets in which workers are free to quit and to seek out new jobs, and in which employers — long-established and just starting — are largely free to compete for workers, each worker is worth to employers what that worker is worth. That is, in such markets, each worker’s hourly worth to employers equals the value that he or she adds each hour to his or her employer’s bottom line. A worker whose skills and other attributes enable him to add at most only $7.00 per hour to any employer’s revenues will not be hired at an hourly wage above $7.00 per hour. All such workers will remain unemployed (in the formal sector) today at the current national minimum wage in the U.S. of $7.25 per hour.

Supporters of the minimum wage who insist that it destroys no employment opportunities for any workers believe in the following miracle: when government decrees that each worker shall be paid at least $7.25 per hour, all workers are thereby miraculously infused with the skills and work-experience necessary for each of them to produce for employers at least $7.25 per hour.

The only difference separating minimum-wage legislation from the above hypothetical diktat lies in the wording of the incantations. Minimum-wage statutes and regulations specify the minimum that each worker must be paid, while the above hypothetical diktat specifies the minimum amount of experience (a good proxy for skill) that each worker must possess. Both instances of sorcery pretend to miraculously alter the same reality — namely, the productivity of low-skilled workers.

By: Donald J. Boudreaux

Reply
Jul 22, 2019 11:19:18   #
no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun
 
Lonewolf wrote:
Let me ask you this ware do all these people go from all over the country because of this, out in the desert and start a colloney
Why can't America pay its people s Living wage?
Why do we let companies like wall mart exist they make over 50 billion a year and keep their employees hours down to a point that they can receive food stamps .and they have no health insurance. Only a republican could support this company pure unadulterated greed!


Why can't America pay its citizens a living wage? America does not pay anyone anything. People pay people for their services, unlike in socialist and communist countries where the government decides what you are worth or if you should be sent to a work camp because you are not worth feeding. Why do we allow large worldwide corporations like WalMart to exist? Because they provide products and services for millions of people at a price the people are willing to pay. The only other option, the one you apparently prefer, is to have the government own and/or manage all means of production and decide who deserves what for their work. What part of the economy would you fit into? Are you disabled, or old? In the world you apparently prefer you would have a use to the government. SOYLENT GREEN anybody?

Reply
 
 
Jul 22, 2019 11:22:22   #
The Critical Critic Loc: Turtle Island
 
Larry the Legend wrote:
A more appropriate headline would read 'House votes to put half of all low-wage workers out of work.'


Exactly, Larry.

Reply
Jul 22, 2019 11:23:26   #
Lonewolf
 
Larry the Legend wrote:
A more appropriate headline would read 'House votes to put half of all low-wage workers out of work.'


The benefits far out weigh the negatives just think how great the ecomny will be when these people have money in there pocket!
The only thing wrong with this country is Greed any country that would give a tax break to people who make 60 billion dollars a year and let millions of its people live in poverty is disgusting.
That's what the Republicans have always done keep your boot on the working man keep him down till you get a illegal to take his place!

Reply
Jul 22, 2019 11:27:30   #
The Critical Critic Loc: Turtle Island
 
no propaganda please wrote:
Why can't America pay its citizens a living wage? America does not pay anyone anything. People pay people for their services, unlike in socialist and communist countries where the government decides what you are worth or if you should be sent to a work camp because you are not worth feeding. Why do we allow large worldwide corporations like WalMart to exist? Because they provide products and services for millions of people at a price the people are willing to pay. The only other option, the one you apparently prefer, is to have the government own and/or manage all means of production and decide who deserves what for their work. What part of the economy would you fit into? Are you disabled, or old? In the world you apparently prefer you would have a use to the government. SOYLENT GREEN anybody?
Why can't America pay its citizens a living wage? ... (show quote)



Reply
Jul 22, 2019 11:43:52   #
working class stiff Loc: N. Carolina
 
The Critical Critic wrote:
I totally understand. I rushed my post to you as well, for the same reason. I don’t want to go out there, thank goodness for A/C lol

I’m not Native American, but I did choose my location for the latter reason.

Take it slow out there my friend. TTYL.

(Almost forgot, I don’t expect you to read all those links, they’re just supportive of the commentary.)


Phew....I'm relieved I won't be quizzed on your sources. I did try to dive into the major one and found my eyes glazed over once it got technical. I'm glad you use sources like this, though, because I tend to trust them, more than some other sources.

You get no issue from me when positing that any increase in a minimum wage would impact youth employment more than any other group. I actually deal with that on a seasonal basis. As our work slows down we have to pare back labor and the first group that loses hours are those that don't pay rent and don't have families to feed. It's the same decision making process that most employers would use, in hiring also.

So I went searching for the youth unemployment rate by state because states have enacted different minimum wage laws from each other and the federal. Here are the 2016 numbers (for some reason, couldn't find later ones):
https://www.governing.com/gov-data/economy-finance/youth-employment-unemployment-rate-data-by-state.html

Then I went here :
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43792.pdf

to get an idea of who has what minimum wage laws. I used figure 2 and table 1a to get a sense of when these laws were passed and could they have an impact on the youth unemployment rate in 2016. Honestly, it's hard to make any definitive statement from such a cursory look, but the examples I found of the earliest enacted minimum wage increases don't seem to raise youth unemployment beyond what those who maintain the federal minimum.

Here's where you get kudos from me: the way you frame your questions and points necessitates that I look deeper into a subject.

So here's where I'm at now. We do agree that minimum wage hikes hurt the young and inexperienced more than other groups, in general. However, I'm not convinced that different minimum wage levels have a different impact on the group itself. California youths are just as employed as Alabama's. Since the diversion of minimum wage laws amongst the states and federal government happened relatively recently, I suspect we actually don't know the outcomes of these experiments yet.

As a federalist and arguer for state's rights, I'm sure you can appreciate this turn of events. I highly doubt that the state governments are economically suicidal. I think they are responding to pressures of a social nature. Sometimes it may not be about the bottom line but about dealing with social unrest.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/203247/shares-of-household-income-of-quintiles-in-the-us/

https://www.db.com/newsroom_news/Inequality_Jan2018.pdf

Alrighty then....that's enough for now. Thanks for indulging me. And let me know if you think what I wrote is crazy.

Reply
 
 
Jul 22, 2019 11:51:27   #
The Critical Critic Loc: Turtle Island
 
Lonewolf wrote:
The benefits far out weigh the negatives just think how great the ecomny will be when these people have money in there pocket!

This argument is not only tired, it’s untrue.


There Is No Way the Minimum Wage Can Help the Economy
Another Baffling and Bad Argument for Minimum Wages.

In the current debate about the minimum wage, some argue that higher minimum wages boost the economy overall. If workers receive higher wages, the reasoning goes, then they will have more money to spend, and their increased spending will boost business all around.

In this news video, for example, an activist in the citizen action committee #FightFor15 says (at 1:44), “There’s a simple economic fact: When there is more money in the hands of people, it’s going to help the economy all across the board.”

Similarly, a friend of mine commented on a recent post that “One can suppose the benefit to those who receive the increased wage and the benefit to the economy from their increased spending outweighs the de minimisloss of jobs.”

But higher minimum wages don’t boost the economy.

Let’s leave aside whether the job losses are de minimis, either overall or to the people who suffer them. Leave aside also that increased spending by those who keep their jobs and earn more at the higher wage rate is at least partially offset by the decreased spending of those who lose their jobs (or are never hired in the first place) and earn nothing at the higher wage rate.

Let’s focus just on the increased spending by those who now earn more. Does their increased spending mean more spending overall?

No, it doesn’t.

That extra money has to come from somewhere.

The increased wages their employers now must pay them is money those employers would have spent in some other way, perhaps on building maintenance, on new equipment, on expansion of the business, or on wages for an additional employee.

Even if the employer just retained that money as profit, she would not put it in a mattress; she would invest it somehow, in a bank account, say, or in stock. In that case, the bank would typically lend the money to a borrower who would spend it, or the seller of stock would spend it in some other way. Regardless, the money would get spent. Higher minimum wage requirements do not increase spending overall; they just change who spends it and what it is spent on.

The belief that higher minimum wages increase spending overall is an instance of the error Frederic Bastiat points out in “What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen.” https://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss.html

The error here is to see only the increased spending by the wage-earners who receive higher wages, and not to see the decreased spending by the employers who pay the higher wages. The latter completely offsets the former.

Nevertheless, artificially raising wage rates still causes an overall loss to the economy — even if no workers are laid off — by increasing costs and thus reducing output. Suppose, for example, that when the minimum wage is raised, a particular employer lays off no one and pays her low-skilled employees increased wages with money that she would otherwise have spent on replacing some of her business’s old equipment.

While the total spending in the economy would stay the same, total output would decrease, because her employees would be working with old equipment rather than new, and therefore cannot produce as much. The higher minimum wage would mean fewer goods and services for people to enjoy.

Higher minimum wages don’t boost the economy.

By: Howard Baetjer Jr.

(He is a lecturer in the department of economics at Towson University and a faculty member for seminars of the Institute for Humane Studies. He is the author of Free Our Markets: A Citizens’ Guide to Essential Economics.)

Reply
Jul 22, 2019 12:11:35   #
The Critical Critic Loc: Turtle Island
 
working class stiff wrote:
Phew....I'm relieved I won't be quizzed on your sources. I did try to dive into the major one and found my eyes glazed over once it got technical. I'm glad you use sources like this, though, because I tend to trust them, more than some other sources.

You get no issue from me when positing that any increase in a minimum wage would impact youth employment more than any other group. I actually deal with that on a seasonal basis. As our work slows down we have to pare back labor and the first group that loses hours are those that don't pay rent and don't have families to feed. It's the same decision making process that most employers would use, in hiring also.

So I went searching for the youth unemployment rate by state because states have enacted different minimum wage laws from each other and the federal. Here are the 2016 numbers (for some reason, couldn't find later ones):
https://www.governing.com/gov-data/economy-finance/youth-employment-unemployment-rate-data-by-state.html

Then I went here :
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43792.pdf

to get an idea of who has what minimum wage laws. I used figure 2 and table 1a to get a sense of when these laws were passed and could they have an impact on the youth unemployment rate in 2016. Honestly, it's hard to make any definitive statement from such a cursory look, but the examples I found of the earliest enacted minimum wage increases don't seem to raise youth unemployment beyond what those who maintain the federal minimum.

Here's where you get kudos from me: the way you frame your questions and points necessitates that I look deeper into a subject.

So here's where I'm at now. We do agree that minimum wage hikes hurt the young and inexperienced more than other groups, in general. However, I'm not convinced that different minimum wage levels have a different impact on the group itself. California youths are just as employed as Alabama's. Since the diversion of minimum wage laws amongst the states and federal government happened relatively recently, I suspect we actually don't know the outcomes of these experiments yet.

As a federalist and arguer for state's rights, I'm sure you can appreciate this turn of events. I highly doubt that the state governments are economically suicidal. I think they are responding to pressures of a social nature. Sometimes it may not be about the bottom line but about dealing with social unrest.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/203247/shares-of-household-income-of-quintiles-in-the-us/

https://www.db.com/newsroom_news/Inequality_Jan2018.pdf

Alrighty then....that's enough for now. Thanks for indulging me. And let me know if you think what I wrote is crazy.
Phew....I'm relieved I won't be quizzed on your so... (show quote)


Crazy!!!!!???? Hell no!

I think we’re pretty much on the same page my friend. Absolutely agree about the positive and negative effects, in most everything I’ve read, they agree that these things take quite a bit of time to accurately gauge. I absolutely love your business practice of letting the young go first, before those with families, it’s precisely the right thing to do, many kudos in return. And what you said about responding to pressures of a social nature is exactly correct, even governor Jerry Brown admitted to that, and that’s saying a lot.

Thank YOU for indulging ME, sir, it’s always a pleasure.

(I just had to go look for Jerry’s quote, lol)

”This is an old idea, from the 19th century, from religious leaders, that work is not just an economic equation, but work is part of living in a moral community. And a worker is worthy of his or her hire. And to be worthy means they can support a family.

So, economically, minimum wages may not make sense. But morally and socially and politically, they make every sense, because it binds the community together and makes sure parents can take care of their kids in a much more satisfactory way.

So this is about economic justice. It's about people. It's about creating a little, tiny balance in a system that every day becomes more unbalanced.”


https://youtu.be/fUmjDv2KBGM


- Governor, Jerry Brown

Reply
Jul 22, 2019 12:20:00   #
The Critical Critic Loc: Turtle Island
 
Lonewolf wrote:
The only thing wrong with this country is Greed any country that would give a tax break to people who make 60 billion dollars a year and let millions of its people live in poverty is disgusting.

Lol, they’ve already paid more in taxes than you would make in a hundred lifetimes, but hey, if you need a ride to the border, let me know. Even the poorest in America are far more wealthy than in any other country...
Quote:
That's what the Republicans have always done keep your boot on the working man keep him down till you get a illegal to take his place!

Pretty sure the African American community would strongly disagree with you these days. After 50-60 years of voting democrat, where’s the proof of “progress”?

Reply
Jul 22, 2019 12:43:31   #
crazylibertarian Loc: Florida by way of New York & Rhode Island
 
HonorNCourage57 wrote:
House votes to raise minimum wage to $15 an hour

Yahoo Finance
Jessica Smith
Jul 21st 2019 11:40PM

The U.S. House of Representatives has passed a bill that would gradually raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour, but the legislation is unlikely to pass the Republican-controlled Senate.

The federal minimum wage has been stuck at $7.25 an hour since 2009 — that’s the longest stretch of time without an increase since the minimum wage was established in the 1930s.

“That's not America. We need to make sure that people who work full-time are not in poverty,” said Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA).

Scott introduced the Rase the Wage Act, which would incrementally raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2025. After that, the federal minimum wage would be pegged to median wages.

The Raise the Wage Act would also eventually require employers to offer tipped workers the full minimum wage, and phase out the lower minimum wage for workers who receive tips.

Currently, 29 states and D.C. have minimum wages above the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.

“The people have already spoken on this,” said Scott.

Critics argue a $15 federal minimum wage would lead to job losses and would primarily hurt lower-wage workers the most.

“Good intentions are no excuse for imposing bad policy,” said Rachel Greszler with the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. “The Raise the Wage Act is a misguided attempt to increase incomes. In reality, it will eliminate jobs and decrease incomes for workers with the fewest skills and least experience.”
Higher wages, job losses

A recent Congressional Budget Office report said raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour would boost the wages of 17 million people, but could also cause a median 1.3 million employees to lose their jobs.

“Even if there's a little adverse effect on unemployment, the increase in the minimum wage will overwhelm that problem,” said Scott.

Several companies like Amazon, Target and Costco have raised their minimum wage or have called on Congress to raise federal federal minimum wage. Earlier this year, McDonald’s stopped lobbying against a federal minimum wage increase.

“Many people point out that McDonald's (MCD) may have to pay their workers a little more, but more people can buy hamburgers, and so they'll be all right. Many corporations have come out in favor, or at least they're not opposing the minimum wage because the minimum wage has been shown to stimulate the economy so much that the corporations will do well,” Scott said.
$15 is ‘not workable’

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has said the Raise the Wage Act would lead to millions of job losses and primarily hurt small businesses.

“The Chamber continues to believe that there is a path forward on a legislative package that includes a meaningful, but reasonable increase in the minimum wage. We stand ready to work with Congress on such legislation. However, $15 per hour is not a workable federal minimum wage,” Suzanne Clark, president of the chamber, wrote in a letter to Congress.

Opponents also insist raising the federal wage ignores cost-of-living differences around the country, and would hurt states with lower living costs.

“There's some that just don't want to pay people fair wages,” said Scott.

In order to address some of those concerns, moderate Democratic lawmakers introduced an amendment to the bill that would require the Government Accountability Office to to study the impact on job creation after the first two wage increases.

The Senate is unlikely to take up the Raise the Wage Act as it stands now. Scott told Yahoo Finance he thinks some Republican senators may pressure party leaders to at least negotiate.

“The people have already decided what they want, and if the Republicans in the Senate want to block the minimum wage and tell the people that they should continue working at a wage where they can't even rent a two-bedroom apartment if they worked full-time, let them say that,” he said.

“Maybe not $15, but we can talk,” Scott said. “But you first have to agree that you want an increase.”

Jessica Smith is a reporter for Yahoo Finance based in Washington, D.C. Follow her on Twitter at @JessicaASmith8.

Maxine Waters wants Mark Zuckerberg to testify about Libra before Congress

GOP lawmaker: Innovation should not go to Washington ‘to die’

Sen. Brown: Yes, it's time to break up Facebook

Facebook: We won't offer Libra currency without approval

Read the latest financial and business news from Yahoo Finance

Follow Yahoo Finance on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Flipboard, LinkedIn,YouTube, and reddit.
SmartAsset.com

http://www.aolfinance.com



Tags $ 15 dollars is not enough. Our hard working Folks deserve the Top Wages, They need to Survive!!!!! and not live in Poverty!!!! Now what do Y'all Think?
House votes to raise minimum wage to $15 an hour b... (show quote)




I object to this. Since the liberals all seem to believe that all it takes to increase everyone's salary, why stop at $15. per hour? Let's demand $200. per hour.

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 3 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.