273 posts
It's relative if the government steps in and raises min wage. At that point, it is relative, and thats what you want to happen. Their are other ways to deal with the problems we have. Sticking to the topic at hand, again, their are other ways to deal with the problem other than throwing nickles at a thousand dollar problem, so to speak.
I read an article during our discussion at some point about lowes and Home Depot cutting full time employees down to 30 hours a week vs 40 hours. Now, that gets me a little steamed, so does Walmart by the way. Anyway, I'd support new laws stopping that in it's tracks. Again, noting new about it, that's been going on since the 80's as well. For what it's worth, it didn't work for Winn Dixie.
The way to fix the problems, imo, is to simply close the loopholes that allow companies to do what these are doing.
Again, just so we're straight, I do agree that these type things are a problem.
It's not a loophole- companies can hire everyone to work 30 hours if they want. It might be a little harder to find employees but if all you care about is not paying for benefits, it's a good strategy. Companies can also pay $7.25 an hour. It's not illegal to exploit workers. Should it be?
I'll be honest with you, I wouldn't work for $7.25 an hour. I could not justify my time being worth that by any stretch of the imagination. Even if I was just making sandwiches or something... it seems like that's a ludicrous amount to pay. Now, in California, it's $8, 1-15 it will be $9, 1-16 it will be $10. Still low but that's the way minimum wage should be going, up.
charger — Aug 12, 2014It's not a loophole- companies can hire everyone to work 30 hours if they want. It might be a little harder to find employees but if all you care about is not paying for benefits, it's a good strategy. Companies can also pay $7.25 an hour. It's not illegal to exploit workers. Should it be?
I'll be honest with you, I wouldn't work for $7.25 an hour. I could not justify my time being worth that by any stretch of the imagination. Even if I was just making sandwiches or something... it seems like that's a ludicrous amount to pay. Now, in California, it's $8, 1-15 it will be $9, 1-16 it will be $10. Still low but that's the way minimum wage should be going, up.
I think it is a loophole. Or lets say, it is if the current law is set at 30 hours, no benefits. Thats a loophole when it becomes abused by larger companies to increase profits or cut payroll when your making the kind of money Walmart is. That coming from me, may seem a tad odd since I don't want to raise the min wage. Go figure. But fair is fair. Now since Obamacare has come, why wouldn't all employers cut everyone down to 30 hours a week. Hell, I would. Especially if my business depended on it. I don't think it should be illegal, so to speak, I think it should be fixed where companies simply can't do it. And, in the long run, it probably won't work.
My example at Winn Dixie is from the 80's, so times were different. However, this was the general result in doing that. Lasted almost a year.
First, a rumor was started and some full time employees quit and found other jobs. A year after the rumor was started, the new deal became effective. Long story short, the store couldn't run with that few full time employees. You have way less give a damn in a 30 hour employee with no benefits than a full time employee at 40 hours and benefits. 2nd, full time employees simply quit. Probably between 10 and 15 percent of non-management employees. Just a guess. The quality of meats and produce suffered big time. Theft became greater. more slip and fall law suits. Just a bad deal. I don't remember that lasting very long. Probably 6 to 8 months later, everything went back to normal. During the bad time though, people that really cared and did a great job suddenly just didn't give one huge terd about anything at WD.
I can tell you this. The Manager of any Lowes etc that has no full time 40 hour a week employees with benefits is going to have a damn hard time running a store as complex as Lowes. I wouldn't do it at any pay. It's much easier to get quality work out of someone if their are 50 people in line to fill your shoes 24-7. So, the 40 hour a week dude produces as much as he can, plus half the work of another good employee that works 30 hours a week. If a person is part time, it's hard to hold them accountable. Thats the bottom line. You get on someone's ass that works 20 hours a week for popcorn, they quickly tell you to go fuck yourself. So the quality of everything in your business suffers imo. The only part time person I ever hired was high school students. They didn't give a shit, but they worked their ass off, circles around the full time people sometimes. But, you could hold them accountable. The last thing they want to tell mom and dad is their home early because they got fired.
I haven't had the time or desire to follow all of this thread, but let's say you double the minimum wage. Where is the extra money coming from?
Bigger businesses will pass it on to the customer as they always do. Smaller businesses will be affected more and will either cut labor, go out of business or pass the costs on like the big businesses.
In most of these cases, the person who is now making twice as much, is also paying far more for the same things they have to buy anyway. I.e., they're not really any better off, but everyone else who didn't get a $7.50 (or similar) per hour pay raise is now getting screwed.
So, what am I missing here? :-?
It's politics, not a solution to a problem. The liberal argument is pretty much what Charger is arguing for, and it sounds good....., as long as you don't consider the consequences of that action. It's kinda like printing money, really. Raise the min wage, creates more tax revenue, "helps the Poor", blah blah blah ;D Long story short, cigs go up 75cents a pack and all beer go up and the big guys win anyway. Then you have recessions that kick that back down a bit, and the cycle starts all over again.
It's just business, right?
Any pitchforks yet? No...
I've never been in a business class that instructed it's business students that if they ever run a business to only profit x amount a year. As long as Walmart is doing it's business legally, if studies and evidence pointed at changing laws to prevent those actions by large business, fine. but studies and research are not gonna say that raising the min wage on every business in America is going to fix the things you dislike about Walmart. Thats pretty much all I have to say about it.
In business class they teach "it's just business, right?" just like in politics class they teach "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely", they teach ya how to accept 'em
CraigBert — Aug 12, 2014I haven't had the time or desire to follow all of this thread, but let's say you double the minimum wage. Where is the extra money coming from?
Bigger businesses will pass it on to the customer as they always do. Smaller businesses will be affected more and will either cut labor, go out of business or pass the costs on like the big businesses.
In most of these cases, the person who is now making twice as much, is also paying far more for the same things they have to buy anyway. I.e., they're not really any better off, but everyone else who didn't get a $7.50 (or similar) per hour pay raise is now getting screwed.
So, what am I missing here? :-?
Business always has to price competitively. If say, WalMart raises the starting salary from $8 to $15, that doesn't mean their goods go up 1.9x in price. Because pricing is not related to wages, pricing follows the rules of supply and demand. WalMart prices everything in the store by saying, at what price can we move a million of these widgets, and make at least a 30% profit? They don't price by saying, "how much do we pay our workers?" And they never will. They are a volume seller, and they make their money buy bying a large amount very cheaply and selling it at a price that makes them money, but also guarantees they will move product. If they raise prices too much to move product, they lose.
They already have the money to pay their workers more. They just don't do it.
As for small retailers, I don't know how that will affect them. I've got no problem with doing the same thing as you do with healthcare--make a lower minimum wage for smaller companies. If you have say 20 employees, maybe your minimum wage is $10. If you have 100, maybe it's $12. People will want to work at the bigger corporations, to make more money, but there will also be people who can't get those jobs, and work at smaller companies. My concern is really with the bigger companies. They employ more people. WalMart is the second largest employer in the nation. They number of people they employ who qualify for federal assistance should be in the low teens in percentage, not 80%.
Wasn't O'bambam pushing $10.10? I thought the $15 came from protesting food workers who were putting it out there as an opening to end up being settled at a lower rate, I don't think that they thought that a doubling of their hourly would happen, or anything else for that matter, right away.
charger — Aug 13, 2014[quote author=CraigBert link=1404776484/150#153 date=1407880836]I haven't had the time or desire to follow all of this thread, but let's say you double the minimum wage. Where is the extra money coming from?
Bigger businesses will pass it on to the customer as they always do. Smaller businesses will be affected more and will either cut labor, go out of business or pass the costs on like the big businesses.
In most of these cases, the person who is now making twice as much, is also paying far more for the same things they have to buy anyway. I.e., they're not really any better off, but everyone else who didn't get a $7.50 (or similar) per hour pay raise is now getting screwed.
So, what am I missing here? :-?
Business always has to price competitively. If say, WalMart raises the starting salary from $8 to $15, that doesn't mean their goods go up 1.9x in price. Because pricing is not related to wages, pricing follows the rules of supply and demand. WalMart prices everything in the store by saying, at what price can we move a million of these widgets, and make at least a 30% profit? They don't price by saying, "how much do we pay our workers?" And they never will. They are a volume seller, and they make their money buy bying a large amount very cheaply and selling it at a price that makes them money, but also guarantees they will move product. If they raise prices too much to move product, they lose.
They already have the money to pay their workers more. They just don't do it.
As for small retailers, I don't know how that will affect them. I've got no problem with doing the same thing as you do with healthcare--make a lower minimum wage for smaller companies. If you have say 20 employees, maybe your minimum wage is $10. If you have 100, maybe it's $12. People will want to work at the bigger corporations, to make more money, but there will also be people who can't get those jobs, and work at smaller companies. My concern is really with the bigger companies. They employ more people. WalMart is the second largest employer in the nation. They number of people they employ who qualify for federal assistance should be in the low teens in percentage, not 80%.
I don't know what percentage of WalMart's gross currently goes to pay the minimum wage workers, but I'm sure it's not high at all when you consider all of their other expenses they have as well as the profit they make (I'm looking at your 1.9x comment). But, let's say that even 10% currently is used to pay the minimum wage workers plus another 10% for all of the "higher level" employees that used to make more than minimum wage but now make less (so they'll have to get a similar raise). If that's the case, I'd be willing to bet a LOT of money that WalMart would indeed raise the prices on their products enough to cover whatever extra this extra pay costs (even if they don't cut some of the workers as well). So, yes, this could mean as much as a 20% increase in everything they sell. They aren't going lower their profit margins one bit and they won't have to. Why? Because they already dominate smaller businesses on price who will also have to raise their prices and/or cut employees. The competition will still be there as it was before, but ALL prices will now be higher.
The only alternative I seem to be seeing is that the bigger companies will lower their profits to pay their lowest earning workers more. A nice dream perhaps, but one that's never going to happen in reality.
Minimum wage Jack will now have more money to spend, but his cost of living will have gone up probably to match. The real losers are the ones who were making $18 an hour before and are still making $18 an hour now except all of their costs have gone up dramatically.
Minimum wage increases are supposed to happen to keep up with inflation, not to help cause inflation!
You can't get a true profit % without considering all expenses. That includes payroll. It's also the biggest profit killer.
If anyone thinks Walmart will continue to be "Walmart" with their lowest paid employee making close to 30k a year, you may have mental problems that need to be addressed.
"The only alternative I seem to be seeing is that the bigger companies will lower their profits to pay their lowest earning workers more. A nice dream perhaps, but one that's never going to happen in reality. "
This is why the middle class will continue to eat a dick. Concentrating money as power for a few doesn't make a strong vibrant economy.
Raising min wage based on hate for 1 companies business practices doesn't make for a strong economy either.
Do you shop at Home Depot or Lowes?
Hate? You keep saying it but it's not there.
CraigBert — Aug 14, 2014
Minimum wage increases are supposed to happen to keep up with inflation, not to help cause inflation!
Why haven't they then?
Hookbender — Aug 14, 2014Raising min wage based on hate for 1 companies business practices doesn't make for a strong economy either.
Do you shop at Home Depot or Lowes?
Hate? Yeah, I hate that we are subsidizing WalMart trhough welfare. Corporate welfare is even uglier than social welfare. You should hate it too. I find it interesting that you have no interest in taking up that part of the argument, and haven't even addressed it. If the company's profit is based on a completely false scale of pay that's subsidized by the federal government, it's founded on a complete lie. But you have no interest in even addressing that. Why?
charger — Aug 14, 2014[quote author=Hookbender link=1404776484/150#163 date=1408031772]Raising min wage based on hate for 1 companies business practices doesn't make for a strong economy either.
Do you shop at Home Depot or Lowes?
Hate? Yeah, I hate that we are subsidizing WalMart trhough welfare. Corporate welfare is even uglier than social welfare. You should hate it too. I find it interesting that you have no interest in taking up that part of the argument, and haven't even addressed it. If the company's profit is based on a completely false scale of pay that's subsidized by the federal government, it's founded on a complete lie. But you have no interest in even addressing that. Why?
You've said "Walmart sucks", "fuck em" 9meaning walmart), etc. I don't have a problem changing that to "dislike", if it makes you feel better.
If Walmart and other can do that, we need to fix it. What's to discuss. I'm sure we agree on that.
The only way to fix it is by them paying higher wages. It's a circular argument, because if you don't think they need to pay higher wages, then there is no way to fix the fact that they can only employee their workforce by relying on welfare.
charger — Aug 14, 2014The only way to fix it is by them paying higher wages. It's a circular argument, because if you don't think they need to pay higher wages, then there is no way to fix the fact that they can only employee their workforce by relying on welfare.
I'm not sure thats the "only way" to fix it.
charger — Aug 14, 2014Name another way.
First we have to establish that your 80% figure is accurate as far as the amount of people that could qualify for government assistance. Then we need to see how many of them actually seek that assistance. Then review why all don't seek that assistance. You have the burden of proof. I'd like to read the same material your getting your info from.
Another thing is, Do you shop at home depot or Lowes? You failed to answer that for some reason.
What percentage is acceptable to you? If it's not 80%, it's 50%, does that make it better? To me, anything above the low teens means the company may be succeeding as a business, but they are failing as a job provider.
What does where I shop have to do with a $15 minimum wage? I could make the same argument if I shopped at WalMart, right? I don't, but if I did would that mean I couldn't argue against their practices? Just because I shop somewhere that doesn't mean I can't think they should pay their workers more, right?
No, I don't shop at Lowe's, I have shopped at Home Depot, but prefer my local stores for all things hardware.
charger — Aug 15, 2014What percentage is acceptable to you? If it's not 80%, it's 50%, does that make it better? To me, anything above the low teens means the company may be succeeding as a business, but they are failing as a job provider.
What does where I shop have to do with a $15 minimum wage? I could make the same argument if I shopped at WalMart, right? I don't, but if I did would that mean I couldn't argue against their practices? Just because I shop somewhere that doesn't mean I can't think they should pay their workers more, right?
No, I don't shop at Lowe's, I have shopped at Home Depot, but prefer my local stores for all things hardware.
At this point, the discussion can't move forward until your data is confirmed.
You can shop and do whatever you like. I have no control over that, nor do I want it. But if you shop at home depot, you support their business. You know their pay and business practices are basically the same.... the same as Walmart. Yet you want to raise min wage because Walmart sucks and you won't shop at/support their business. They don't pay their employees enough, even though Home Depot does the same thing. They cut their employees back to 30 hrs to avoid having to provide benefits, just like Walmart. Its been a business practice since the 80's, at the least, yet in 2014, you decide Walmart doesn't pay enough.
Did Walmart film you buying anal lube and broadcast it on fox news? ;D ;D
I doubt it, but FOX will blame O'Bammerscare for these practices which started in the 80's or earlier...
Hookbender — Aug 15, 2014[quote author=charger link=1404776484/150#172 date=1408132012]What percentage is acceptable to you? If it's not 80%, it's 50%, does that make it better? To me, anything above the low teens means the company may be succeeding as a business, but they are failing as a job provider.
What does where I shop have to do with a $15 minimum wage? I could make the same argument if I shopped at WalMart, right? I don't, but if I did would that mean I couldn't argue against their practices? Just because I shop somewhere that doesn't mean I can't think they should pay their workers more, right?
No, I don't shop at Lowe's, I have shopped at Home Depot, but prefer my local stores for all things hardware.
At this point, the discussion can't move forward until your data is confirmed.
You can shop and do whatever you like. I have no control over that, nor do I want it. But if you shop at home depot, you support their business. You know their pay and business practices are basically the same.... the same as Walmart. Yet you want to raise min wage because Walmart sucks and you won't shop at/support their business. They don't pay their employees enough, even though Home Depot does the same thing. They cut their employees back to 30 hrs to avoid having to provide benefits, just like Walmart. Its been a business practice since the 80's, at the least, yet in 2014, you decide Walmart doesn't pay enough.
Did Walmart film you buying anal lube and broadcast it on fox news? ;D ;D
Why do you think I decided this in 2014? I've known about WalMart's business practices for years, and I've never thought the minimum wage was enough. Especially when it was what I earned. I believe that employers should pay a living wage. I don't think they will do this willingly. Therefore, I support an increased minimum wage. Do you have a number of workers at WalMart who qualify for federal aid? Is it 10%? For me that would be an acceptable number.
http://www.americansfortaxfairness.org/files/Walmart-on-Tax-Day-Americans-for-Tax-Fairness-1.pdf
I didn't see a percentage.
What I see is a company taking advantage of our system, legally. The data tells me you can't run a lagit big business without tax payer help. Government help and tax breaks. If it cost a million a year to taxpayers, per location, and you take that away and charge it back to Walmart, what does that do to the profits?
And what's this shit about hiring teachers? You aren't dumb enough to believe that if Walmart paid this money in the form of taxes each year it would go to hire teachers, I know better. Thats just bullshit.
This article proves my point. We have a problem with our tax code, and loopholes. We need to find out if these loopholes were to vanish, what would happen to Walmarts profits? Could they stay open? What would it do to other businesses? What would the effects be? If Government had this extra revenue, how can we be assured that the money would be put to good use? (we can't be assured of that, in fact we have evidence that government doesn't use the revenue they receive responsibly.) What would the effects of such a drastic rise in the min wage be on other businesses? ($15 per hour)
Again, I need a % of people working at Walmart that receives government assistance. Where did you get 80%?
What we have is Walmart fucking the government, the government fucking us, and business owners fucking the employees. Whole lot of fucking going on. And the middle class is the whore. Middle class is being raped by all.
This is a very complex problem. I'm not sure what the fix is, but I'm sure the fix isn't raising the min wage to $15 per hour. That just adds to the problem. I would be in favor of bringing back our production to the U.S. Quit making all this shit in other countries and make it here, with our people. If Americans don't want the jobs it would create their are plenty of Mexicans that would love to fill those shoes. I'm not saying this would be the "fix", so to speak, but it wouldn't hurt for sure.
I wouldn't consider hurting every business in America simply because you have a thing against Walmart. I would try to avoid that, "oh shit moment" that would come when you realize businesses can't survive the huge increase in salaries/payroll.
the thing I don't get with your argument is that many other businesses, large and small, are doing the same thing. You support them but focus on bashing Walmart for some reason. Their the largest, so what. If you don't like the principles in which Walmart runs it's business, you shouldn't like it when Guitar Center does the same thing, for example. It's discrimination, almost. Just doesn't make sense to me.
I'm focused on getting a higher minimum wage. $15 seems reasonable to me. The reason I use Walmart as an example is because it's the biggest employer out there. What point would there be to using Guitar Center? They probably have a millionth of the business of Walmart. What I don't understand is why this discussion for you is about whether I like Walmart or not. It's the example used in the article.
Because you've shown dislike for Walmart to the point of refusing to shop their. And you've admitted it. Thats personal. So I'm skeptical about your conclusions and theories.
Why don't you pick on all the other businesses combined cause their doing the same thing. Then you can complain about the huge number of businesses that have the same business practices as Walmart, and are using every tax hole possible to the point of hiring someone for that specific purpose.
Hookbender — Aug 21, 2014Because you've shown dislike for Walmart to the point of refusing to shop their. And you've admitted it. Thats personal. So I'm skeptical about your conclusions and theories.
Why don't you pick on all the other businesses combined cause their doing the same thing. Then you can complain about the huge number of businesses that have the same business practices as Walmart, and are using every tax hole possible to the point of hiring someone for that specific purpose.
Ok. I think every business with more than, say 100 employees should pay a $15 minimum wage, with a sliding scale below that. Walmart can be exempt, because Hookbender thinks they're special. They can go on paying shitty low wages and living off corporate welfare.
I think what's actually going on here is you didn't read the article. You read one or two paragraphs and decided against it on merit. If you'd read further you wouldn't need to hear me poorly rehashing the arguments made in it, which were very sound, IMO.
Original article:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014.html
Standard and Poor's is now saying that the rising inequality gap is a drain on our economic growth:
http://scholarsandrogues.com/2014/08/09/its-not-just-the-poor-the-shrinking-middle-class-and-nick-hanauer-saying-this/
Here's an analysis from Forbes--hardly a left-wing news source:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardlevick/2014/07/23/the-nick-hanauer-debate-trickledown-trickle-dee-and-trickle-dumb/
charger — Aug 21, 2014[quote author=Hookbender link=1404776484/175#179 date=1408583693]Because you've shown dislike for Walmart to the point of refusing to shop their. And you've admitted it. Thats personal. So I'm skeptical about your conclusions and theories.
Why don't you pick on all the other businesses combined cause their doing the same thing. Then you can complain about the huge number of businesses that have the same business practices as Walmart, and are using every tax hole possible to the point of hiring someone for that specific purpose.
Ok. I think every business with more than, say 100 employees should pay a $15 minimum wage, with a sliding scale below that. Walmart can be exempt, because Hookbender thinks they're special. They can go on paying shitty low wages and living off corporate welfare.
So every business with more than 100 employees gets taxed, yes, I said that, unfairly and your giving small business a unfair advantage. And what's to keep businesses from taking advantage of the 100 employee rule? Nothing. You just added to the problem again. Added a loophole. The answer isn't higher wages. IMO.
I haven't done anything but point our facts that show Walmart operating legally. It's not about defending Walmart. The only stance I've taken is that it's unfair, and illogical, to raise min wage because you dislike the way Walmart operates. You should be pissed at government for allowing the tax breaks they get. You should be happy with government for the huge number of people Obamacare will supply healthcare too. Walmart is operating within the laws we currently have. To fix the problem, you need to change the laws. If your going to change the laws, you need to consider the consequences of that action. Every business does it. I would love to be the head of Walmart and have this probelm. So would every business owner in America. Theirs a fine line between punishing a business for success and the moral ground you've stated.
charger — Aug 21, 2014I think what's actually going on here is you didn't read the article. You read one or two paragraphs and decided against it on merit. If you'd read further you wouldn't need to hear me poorly rehashing the arguments made in it, which were very sound, IMO.
Original article:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014.html
Standard and Poor's is now saying that the rising inequality gap is a drain on our economic growth:
http://scholarsandrogues.com/2014/08/09/its-not-just-the-poor-the-shrinking-middle-class-and-nick-hanauer-saying-this/
Here's an analysis from Forbes--hardly a left-wing news source:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardlevick/2014/07/23/the-nick-hanauer-debate-trickledown-trickle-dee-and-trickle-dumb/
No, I read the entire article. I think it's biased and doesn't consider business practices. What i mean by that is, every business does it. they aren't bitching about Lowes or Home Depot in the article. Doing the same type criticizing. Where the fair part of the article? Everything Walmart does isn't bad. And, again, it's all legal. If a company is operating legally, why are you mad at the company? they are following the rules.
I'll read these articles tomorrow. I"ll say it one more time, I do agree that their is a problem. I don't agree with your solution. And I don't see 80% of Walmart's employees getting government assistance. You haven't shown me where that figure came from. I'll consider that a mistake on your part. Unlike you to pop off with a made up figure.
OK. I read the articles. They say the same thing you've been saying and my opinion hasn't changed after reading them.
So, rising inequality is a problem, and you don't think we should do anything about it, because businesses operate within the rules. And what Hanauer proposed is that we change the rules, by raising the minimum wage. Then WalMart et al can still operate within the rules, but everybody will make more money. If all you care is that they follow the rules, I don't see what your problem is with that solution.
charger — Aug 28, 2014So, rising inequality is a problem, and you don't think we should do anything about it, because businesses operate within the rules. And what Hanauer proposed is that we change the rules, by raising the minimum wage. Then WalMart et al can still operate within the rules, but everybody will make more money. If all you care is that they follow the rules, I don't see what your problem is with that solution.
I've been giving you my problems with it the entire thread. I never said we shouldn't do anything about it. Raise the min wage, as he suggest is correct, to $30 per hour and see what happens to the unemployment rate. Everyone isn't going to make more money if that were to happen.
BINGEWOOD — Aug 28, 2014What did they say?
You can read.
Hookbender — Aug 28, 2014[quote author=charger link=1404776484/175#186 date=1409253270]So, rising inequality is a problem, and you don't think we should do anything about it, because businesses operate within the rules. And what Hanauer proposed is that we change the rules, by raising the minimum wage. Then WalMart et al can still operate within the rules, but everybody will make more money. If all you care is that they follow the rules, I don't see what your problem is with that solution.
I've been giving you my problems with it the entire thread. I never said we shouldn't do anything about it. Raise the min wage, as he suggest is correct, to $30 per hour and see what happens to the unemployment rate. Everyone isn't going to make more money if that were to happen.
So I guess the question
you pose is, is it better to have a lower unemployment rate, and a lot of those people making low wages (what we call "underemployment," which is what's happening now) or a higher unemployment rate, but those who are employed making better money?
Again, this is not actually what I believe the *choice* is--I think raising the wages of the poor so they can buy more stuff is
not going to create more unemployment in the long term--rather it's going to create
more employment over time, as the number of people who can afford goods increases. That's how capitalism works--if everyone's poor, no one can buy the stuff the rich people are trying to sell, if everyone has disposable income, boom, people are buying non-essential stuff.
Standard and Poor's said it:
Our review of the data, as well as a wealth of research on this matter, leads us to conclude that the current level of income inequality in the U.S. is dampening GDP growth
Standard & Poor's sees extreme income inequality as a drag on long-run economic growth. Weve reduced our 10-year U.S. growth forecast to a 2.5% rate. We expected 2.8% five years ago.
The challenge now is to find a path toward more sustainable growth, an essential part of which, in our view, is
pulling more Americans out of poverty and bolstering the purchasing power of the middle class. A rising tide lifts all boats
Hookbender — Aug 28, 2014[quote author=BINGEWOOD link=1404776484/175#185 date=1409248573]What did they say?
You can read.
charger — Aug 28, 2014[quote author=Hookbender link=1404776484/175#187 date=1409257077][quote author=charger link=1404776484/175#186 date=1409253270]So, rising inequality is a problem, and you don't think we should do anything about it, because businesses operate within the rules. And what Hanauer proposed is that we change the rules, by raising the minimum wage. Then WalMart et al can still operate within the rules, but everybody will make more money. If all you care is that they follow the rules, I don't see what your problem is with that solution.
I've been giving you my problems with it the entire thread. I never said we shouldn't do anything about it. Raise the min wage, as he suggest is correct, to $30 per hour and see what happens to the unemployment rate. Everyone isn't going to make more money if that were to happen.
So I guess the question
you pose is, is it better to have a lower unemployment rate, and a lot of those people making low wages (what we call "underemployment," which is what's happening now) or a higher unemployment rate, but those who are employed making better money?
Again, this is not actually what I believe the *choice* is--I think raising the wages of the poor so they can buy more stuff is
not going to create more unemployment in the long term--rather it's going to create
more employment over time, as the number of people who can afford goods increases. That's how capitalism works--if everyone's poor, no one can buy the stuff the rich people are trying to sell, if everyone has disposable income, boom, people are buying non-essential stuff.
The problem is, inflation doesn't stop. So, you gonna want to keep raising the min wage with inflation, accordingly. So, goods are gonna go up because it cost more to produce them. Keep up this pattern of action and you get the same problem. Soner or later, the bubble bust, one way or the other.
charger — Aug 28, 2014Standard and Poor's said it:
Our review of the data, as well as a wealth of research on this matter, leads us to conclude that the current level of income inequality in the U.S. is dampening GDP growth
Standard & Poor's sees extreme income inequality as a drag on long-run economic growth. Weve reduced our 10-year U.S. growth forecast to a 2.5% rate. We expected 2.8% five years ago.
The challenge now is to find a path toward more sustainable growth, an essential part of which, in our view, is
pulling more Americans out of poverty and bolstering the purchasing power of the middle class. A rising tide lifts all boats
So you pretty much agree that we should pull more Americans out of poverty, but just don't think there is any way we should actually do anything, besides the usual platitudes of "people need more education."
Thanks for your input.
charger — Sep 02, 2014So you pretty much agree that we should pull more Americans out of poverty, but just don't think there is any way we should actually do anything, besides the usual platitudes of "people need more education."
Thanks for your input.
Apparently your having trouble reading my post. Let me break it down for you, again.
I think something should be done. I disagree with your solution. It's pretty much that simple.
If I don't like your solution, that doesn't mean I don't like any solution. I never suggested that at all in anything I said.
It would really piss me off, as a business owner, to have to pay a cashier that doesn't have even a high school education and can't put together a coherent sentence, $15 an hour. I think getting these people at least on the level of a high school education is a essential part of whatever solution their may be.
I also don't think your wild allegations, or interpretation, of what we're discussing beneficial to the discussion. It waist my time of having to respond to it.
Hookbender — Sep 03, 2014[quote author=charger link=1404776484/175#194 date=1409676734]So you pretty much agree that we should pull more Americans out of poverty, but just don't think there is any way we should actually do anything, besides the usual platitudes of "people need more education."
Thanks for your input.
Apparently your having trouble reading my post. Let me break it down for you, again.
I think something should be done. I disagree with your solution. It's pretty much that simple.
If I don't like your solution, that doesn't mean I don't like any solution. I never suggested that at all in anything I said.
It would really piss me off, as a business owner, to have to pay a cashier that doesn't have even a high school education and can't put together a coherent sentence, $15 an hour. I think getting these people at least on the level of a high school education is a essential part of whatever solution their may be.
I also don't think your wild allegations, or interpretation, of what we're discussing beneficial to the discussion. It waist my time of having to respond to it.
So what do you think is better. Checking your ego and paying people who you don't think deserve it more money? Or slowly watching the market for mid-priced goods and services dissolve as fewer and fewer people can afford to buy anything?
You recognize the problem and haven't stated a solution. Everybody wants more education. That's the first thing off any politician't lips. That's probably the number one promise of every politician ever. And that's all it ever will be. A lip service montage, queue the flags and America the Beautiful. I'm talking real solutions. You want to get people spending more money, and able to afford more stuff? Give them more money. No matter how much education we give people, we still need people working in the bottom level jobs. Even if everyone had a PhD, there would still be more jobs at mass retailers and fast food and gas stations and etc than anywhere else. Those jobs are there and always will be. I am not really concerned with your pride and your mental inability to see people as worth 15$ an hour. I am concerned that everything will fall apart if no one but the rich and upper middle class can buy anything.
Hookbender — Aug 28, 2014[quote author=charger link=1404776484/175#189 date=1409259895][quote author=Hookbender link=1404776484/175#187 date=1409257077][quote author=charger link=1404776484/175#186 date=1409253270]So, rising inequality is a problem, and you don't think we should do anything about it, because businesses operate within the rules. And what Hanauer proposed is that we change the rules, by raising the minimum wage. Then WalMart et al can still operate within the rules, but everybody will make more money. If all you care is that they follow the rules, I don't see what your problem is with that solution.
I've been giving you my problems with it the entire thread. I never said we shouldn't do anything about it. Raise the min wage, as he suggest is correct, to $30 per hour and see what happens to the unemployment rate. Everyone isn't going to make more money if that were to happen.
So I guess the question
you pose is, is it better to have a lower unemployment rate, and a lot of those people making low wages (what we call "underemployment," which is what's happening now) or a higher unemployment rate, but those who are employed making better money?
Again, this is not actually what I believe the *choice* is--I think raising the wages of the poor so they can buy more stuff is
not going to create more unemployment in the long term--rather it's going to create
more employment over time, as the number of people who can afford goods increases. That's how capitalism works--if everyone's poor, no one can buy the stuff the rich people are trying to sell, if everyone has disposable income, boom, people are buying non-essential stuff.
The problem is, inflation doesn't stop. So, you gonna want to keep raising the min wage with inflation, accordingly. So, goods are gonna go up because it cost more to produce them. Keep up this pattern of action and you get the same problem. Soner or later, the bubble bust, one way or the other.
The minimum wage is already not keeping up with inflation. That should be a minimum requirement for a minimum wage-- that it doesn't become worth less over time due to inflation. But it already is. That means not only that the workers are making less, their money isn't going as far--it also means that businesses are making artificial profit. Profit that is based on increasing worker pay much slower than the cost they sell things at increases. Either way, the people losing are not business owners. If you;ve noticed corporate earnings or the stock market in the last 5 years, you'd already know that there are a lot of winners out there, and they are not poor people.
Hookbender — Sep 03, 2014
It would really piss me off, as a business owner, to have to pay a cashier that doesn't have even a high school education and can't put together a coherent sentence, $15 an hour. I think getting these people at least on the level of a high school education is a essential part of whatever solution their may be.
I also don't think your wild allegations, or interpretation, of what we're discussing beneficial to the discussion. It waist my time of having to respond to it.
This is either incredibly ironic, or very sad. I didn't even highlight the commas--I understand those are hard. But something about glass houses and black kettles seems relevant.
charger — Sep 03, 2014[quote author=Hookbender link=1404776484/175#195 date=1409714195][quote author=charger link=1404776484/175#194 date=1409676734]So you pretty much agree that we should pull more Americans out of poverty, but just don't think there is any way we should actually do anything, besides the usual platitudes of "people need more education."
Thanks for your input.
Apparently your having trouble reading my post. Let me break it down for you, again.
I think something should be done. I disagree with your solution. It's pretty much that simple.
If I don't like your solution, that doesn't mean I don't like any solution. I never suggested that at all in anything I said.
It would really piss me off, as a business owner, to have to pay a cashier that doesn't have even a high school education and can't put together a coherent sentence, $15 an hour. I think getting these people at least on the level of a high school education is a essential part of whatever solution their may be.
I also don't think your wild allegations, or interpretation, of what we're discussing beneficial to the discussion. It waist my time of having to respond to it.
So what do you think is better. Checking your ego and paying people who you don't think deserve it more money? Or slowly watching the market for mid-priced goods and services dissolve as fewer and fewer people can afford to buy anything?
You recognize the problem and haven't stated a solution. Everybody wants more education. That's the first thing off any politician't lips. That's probably the number one promise of every politician ever. And that's all it ever will be. A lip service montage, queue the flags and America the Beautiful. I'm talking real solutions. You want to get people spending more money, and able to afford more stuff? Give them more money. No matter how much education we give people, we still need people working in the bottom level jobs. Even if everyone had a PhD, there would still be more jobs at mass retailers and fast food and gas stations and etc than anywhere else. Those jobs are there and always will be. I am not really concerned with your pride and your mental inability to see people as worth 15$ an hour. I am concerned that everything will fall apart if no one but the rich and upper middle class can buy anything.
I'd hope like hell I never had that choice to make.
I wasn't aware that I had a responsibility to state a solution. I was merely giving an opinion to your favor of raising the min wage because you don't approve of Walmart's legal business practices. This isn't about people's worth..... and, your concern doesn't justify your solution.