Stop the madness, dems want to raise minimum wage to $10

[CuteOldGuy]

Doofie, I appreciate your concern and compassion for those less fortunate. I have two questions for you.

1. How many people are forced to work for minimum wage?

2. What should the minimum wage be?

[Doove]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I TAUGHT Econ 101

Helping your daughter with her homework doesn't count.

[CuteOldGuy]

Seriously, Doofie, what are the answers to the questions? I'd really like to know.

[Snuggles]

Its a false increase.
lets say you raise it to 10...the increase in prices in every product basically wipe away any benefite. The min wage guy has no more buying power afterwards. The ppl who get the shaft are those on fixed incomes and salaries. They have the same income and less buying power. The added inflation offsets the wage hike. Only the foolish, uneducated fall for the min wage arguement.

we have a skill based system...want more $$ get more skills

[JD Barleycorn]

Of course if you artificially raise someone's paycheck then you increase the amount of money for the payroll tax. So government can mandate an employer (usually a small business) pay more wages and then transfers some of that money back to the government coffers. It is a vicious cycle in which the government has all the power.

Can you offer the least little bit of proof that doing away with the minimum wage would cause wages to drop? I didn't think so...

If the minimum wage went away and most people (97%) make more there would be no change there. So how about that last 3%. If a job is only worth 6 dollars an hour and no one is willing to do it then they will have to pay 6.50 an hour to get workers. If that doesn't work then they go to 7 dollars an hour until they get the workers they need. Of course if they can find some high school kids, living at home, who will work for 5 dollars an hour there you go. If you want to make more than mimimum wage then develope a skill which when we're talking about mimimum wage isn't a whole lot. A good burger flipper can make more than minimum wage.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Doofie, I appreciate your concern and compassion for those less fortunate. I have two questions for you.

1. How many people are forced to work for minimum wage?

2. What should the minimum wage be?

Nobody is forced to work for minimum wage. But if the only job offered to someone is a minimum wage job, what would you call it?

As far as what it should be, i think we've had this discussion before. The minimum wage was established decades ago - and the economy didn't fall off a cliff. Expecting it to keep up with inflation seems hardly too much to expect.

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Can you offer the least little bit of proof that doing away with the minimum wage would cause wages to drop? I didn't think so...

Wait....

Of course if they can find some high school kids, living at home, who will work for 5 dollars an hour there you go.

There's your proof.

And beyond that....the only "proof" you've offered of anything is actually nothing more than your being a liar.

You said:

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

The number of people in this country recieving minimum wage is less than 3% and most will recieve a raise above minimum wage after 90 days.

Yet, in the article you linked to:

"As of last year, 5.2 percent of hourly paid workers in the United States, or about 3.8 million people, were compensated at or below the federal minimum wage, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics."

You really do make it hard for me to not call anyone names.

[CuteOldGuy]

Doofie has had his ass handed to him once again. At least TTH tried (and failed) to support his position. Take some time off, and try again sometime. And try to not sound so ignorant.

[JD Barleycorn]

"The number of people in this country recieving minimum wage is less than 3%..."

The article referred to this chart http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2011.htm
which says "In 2011, 73.9 million American workers age 16 and over were paid at hourly rates, representing 59.1 percent of all wage and salary workers.1 Among those paid by the hour, 1.7 million earned exactly the prevailing Federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour." or about 2.3% of the work force recieving EXACTLY the minimum wage. You can kiss my ass at any time and I expect tongue.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You can kiss my ass at any time and I expect tongue.

So i guess the people in the "or below" part of the "...at or below minimum wage" don't count?

[JD Barleycorn]

You're the one who wanted to play techicalities Doove. He who lives by the sword shall...I can't recall the rest.

Seriously you could break down all those recieving (officially) less than mimimum wage and you will find family farm workers (who recieve room and board), wait staff (who get tips), and the odd slacker or two. You should read the report that you brought up.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You should read the report that you brought up.

I didn't bring up any report. I only brought up the article you linked to.

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

So it's a good thing for people to lose their jobs, or be unable to enter the workforce. Now I know why you support Obama.

Depends on how many of them loose their jobs and at what costs. If 1% of the people loose their jobs but the remaining 99% of the folks doubled their salary, it would be a small price to pay. If 99% of the people lost their jobs and the remaining 1% got a raise of $0.01/year, it would be disastrous. Like all good questions, the answer is usually, "It depends."

But in a case like this where job losses would be minimal, and where wage gains would be substantial, yes, I -- and many highly trained economists -- believe that the net welfare gain would substantially out weigh the loss. If you can't even conceptually conceive of how that could possibly happen, I just don't know what to say. Certainly, I can conceive of the opposite effect, where gains by certain people are outweighed by the offsetting net negative welfare effects. Indeed, I would argue that is exactly what has happened with the government driven upward redistribution of wealth.

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

A two income household would make over 30,000 before taxes. Not great but you can live on that if you live close to the bone.

So let me hear a response. Do you think that unions can get a pay increase for an increase in minimum wage?

As to the first issue, many of those households who are making minimum wage are headed by single mothers. There is no second wage earner.

As to the second question, sure, if management agrees to peg salary to minimum wage, unless they declare bankruptcy and void the contract, they will be held to the terms of the contract (just as if the union agreed to peg increases to inflation and inflation is lower than expected). What's wrong with enforcing contracts? Do you believe that people shouldn't have to live up to their agreements?

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by Snuggles

Its a false increase.
lets say you raise it to 10...the increase in prices in every product basically wipe away any benefite.

That's not true. There are multiplier effects for increased spending. There are no multiplier effects for increased prices. Plus, prices will not increase by the entire amount of the wage increase unless demand for the product in question is infinitely inelastic. Some of that increase will come out of the profits of the manufacturer (which will decrease demand, but the income transfers from more wealthy owners to less wealthy workers will mitigate some of that).

[IIFFOFRDB]

TTH can you pm me your real firms name? If I have a problem, I would never want your type to represent me...your type is the friggin problem with this country...Go back to China and make a bunch of money. Then shove it up your ass...