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

[CuteOldGuy]

Why does it matter, CBJ7? You wouldn't be able to pass the entrance exam anyway.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Why does it matter, CBJ7? You wouldn't be able to pass the entrance exam anyway.

my entrance exam was running a biz that posted 7 figures every quarter for 12 years, not pissing and moaning about min wage increases that had absolutely no effect on my bottom line.

[TexTushHog]

I never said I hated capitalist. I am one, thank you very much. I own two businesses with a dozen or so employees. That's why I'm a Democrat. I can't take a bad economy. I've got too much at stake.

As to Obama ruining the economy, you seem to be having memory problems. Bush was the one that ran the economy into the ditch. Unless of course you are referring to Obama 1) proposing too small a stimulus; and 2) wasting too much of the limited stimulus on tax cuts instead of spending. Then I agree that he bears some of the blame, though a miniscule portion compared to Bush.

And yes, even small increases in wages will put a few people out of work. However, the overall income increase can still greatly exceed the lost salary. Suppose you have a closed economy with 100 workers making $100 a week. Wages = $10,000. You increase the min. wage to 110. Even if 5 workers loose their jobs, your overall wages go to $10,450.

In the hypothetical of an minimum wage increase from $7.50 to $10.00, the scenario envisioned in this post, the increase is much larger -- 33% instead of 10%. Frankly, I think you could raise the wage to $10 and you wouldn't even loose 1% minimum wage or near minimum wage of jobs.

But let's just suppose you lost 5%, and inconceivably large percent. Take the same 100 workers (40 hour week). Before you have 100x40x$7.50 = $30,000. New scenario: 95x40x10= $38,000 in wages.

Say you loose 10 jobs. 90x10x40=$36,000.

With a 33% increase from $7.50 to $10.00 an hour, more will be paid in wages until you loose 25% of the minimum wage or near minimum wage jobs!!! That would be 25 out of our 100 people in the example (75x10x40=$30,000)!!!!!

Now do you really believe that one in four minimum wage jobs would be lost??!!!! Not in a million years.

[CuteOldGuy]

It's obvious that you don't care about the people who lost their jobs. And you also proved that the increase is bad for business, because they can't fire enough people to maintain their labor cost.

Just go enjoy your money while your minimum wage file clerks seek shelter under the nearest bridge.

If you will only be compassionate if the government tells you to, you have more problems than can be dealt with here.

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

IAnd you also proved that the increase is bad for business, because they can't fire enough people to maintain their labor cost.

That's why it works!!!!! You finally get it. Congratulations.

Yes, a few folks get put out of work, but we have a social safety net for them. But the vast majority don't, and there is a net increase in social welfare because these folks have more to spend. And spending has a multiplier effect that more than offsets the slightly higher costs of goods and the slightly lower profits for business men. This also has the additional benefit of reducing income inequality, which is good for both economics (as the rich don't spend as much of their wealth, hence fewer multipliers) and for political stability (as more people have a stake in the economy and the political system.

There's hope for you yet.

[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.

[CJ7]

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.

confused econ teacher?

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

If you think that would happen, you are as big an idiot as I think you are. Please take your nonsensical drivel somewhere else. Come back when you've learned something.

knew that would baffle you.(hint) it was a joke jeesh

[IIFFOFRDB]

COG, it's just a distraction. Keep your eye on the ball...fuckem

[acp5762]

COG,
Chill out man. You kinda remind me of Jim Brown in this movie clip, lol.

http://youtu.be/tdB9qsN7UTI

[CuteOldGuy]

Yeah. I've been cranky tonight. If I offended anyone, I am truly grateful.

[acp5762]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Yeah. I've been cranky tonight. If I offended anyone, I am truly grateful.

Thats the spirit, lol.

[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. No, the minimum wage is not designed to live on if you only work a single job or have a single income in a household. 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.

I notice that no one responded to the union adjustment using the minimum wage. I guess there is no defense when you can't talk about $7.50 an hour and instead of have to talk about $35.00 an hour. So let me hear a response. Do you think that unions can get a pay increase for an increase in minimum wage?

[i'va biggen]

biggest trouble with unions today there are no deep thinkers at the upper levels.
1 if you strike for any length of time you will never regain lost wages.
2 if you make concessions for the company to keep it afloat in hard times,you don't deserve a raise or bonus later.(course upper mgmt doesn't either)

[Doove]

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.

And if the minimum wage no longer existed, the wages of those on minimum wage would drop, leading to a successive drop in wages for those currently slightly above minimum wage. Which would all likely lead to more than 3% actually making LESS than what is now the minimum wage.

So what's your point?

No, the minimum wage is not designed to live on if you only work a single job or have a single income in a household.

No, it's not designed to live on. Doesn't mean there aren't people relegated to attempting to do so.