Senate Republicans Kill Minimum Wage Bill

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ludicrous Speed said:
No, they are currently optimized with the appropriate minimum wage workers to maximize their profits. Once you increase their costs it pushes expenses higher and thus the point where profits are maximized has shifted as well. Now in order to maximize profits with these higher expenses per head you need to hire less heads.
Click to expand...

define "appropriate."

And you speak as though a business with 0 minimum wage workers would be unaffected by this. And those who do not make minimum wage would be unaffected.

This is a huge, complex, multi-variable scenario. You can not simplify it down to
dGRUlQQ.png
. The effects vary based on the distribution of pay in the population and in sub-populations (individual industries, companies, departments, etc) as well.

It's not a first-degree, 2-variable system
 
Aquamarine said:
"Oh yeah? Well according to the NON-PARTISAN CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, these are the effects of a raised minimum wage:

9eQJ2wG.jpg


Now tell me that minimum wage increases will actually help the economy. With this much job loss? As if!

Just another loony liberal who doesn't understand basic economics!"

/sarcasm
Click to expand...

A good article on the CBO estimates (which, incidentally, include as a possibility 0 job losses).

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/cepr-blog/cbo-and-the-minimum-wage-pt-2
 
Ludicrous Speed said:
No, they are currently optimized with the appropriate minimum wage workers to maximize their profits. Once you increase their costs it pushes expenses higher and thus the point where profits are maximized has shifted as well. Now in order to maximize profits with these higher expenses per head you need to hire less heads.
Click to expand...

You're ignoring monopsony effects.

Nearly all the empirical data suggest it has an insignificant effect on unemployment (and some indicate it may lead to a rise in employment!)

I don't know how long this meme can persist. There is absolutely no indication that raising the minimum wage here will cut employment.
 
Ludicrous Speed said:
No, they are currently optimized with the appropriate minimum wage workers to maximize their profits. Once you increase their costs it pushes expenses higher and thus the point where profits are maximized has shifted as well. Now in order to maximize profits with these higher expenses per head you need to hire less heads.
Click to expand...

Or they shift to different business models, more labor-intensive less capitol-intensive, pay employees what they current pay on capitol depreciation. This probably requires them to have higher-skilled employees, but they could accomplish that by training employees themselves. Investing in human capitol doesn't make sense when you have a high turnover, but if you were paying people more maybe they'd be less likely to flake on a job that pays less and isn't engaging.

We can tell a story to project any one of a million different outcomes. Simply being able to construct a theory doesn't have that much value.
 
Fenderputty said:
His point was that reducing workforce would hurt profits more than increased labor costs due to a minimum wage increase. Your post did nothing to counter this.
Click to expand...

And like I said, there would be a new profit maximization point (expenses would be higher) so they would possibly accept lower revenue if the net profit was higher. Get it?
 
Borgnine said:
Easy enough to check, what happened the last time minimum wage was increased?
Click to expand...

Everything got more expensive.

As for this bill, it's accurate to say it won't pass because of Republicans. But I don't think it's accurate to say Senate Republicans "killed it." It was stillborn to begin with ... Senate Democrats knew it wouldn't pass, and knew that even if it did it wouldn't pass in the House. It was just for show.
 
Why don't they ever actually make the Republicans do a multi-day filibuster?

Why do they just give up as soon as they can't get the votes?

I suppose in this case (and most) it probably doesn't matter if Republicans control the House anyway.
 
to be honest, im surprised that even big corps don't want the minimum wage increase.

the wealth disparity problem is inching ever closer to a workers revolution. automation will rise at a steep clip as the robotics revolution in IT super cedes the mobile revolution. they should raise the minimum wage if they want to stave off real change.
 
Black Mamba said:
You're ignoring monopsony effects.

Nearly all the empirical data suggest it has an insignificant effect on unemployment (and some indicate it may lead to a rise in employment!)

I don't know how long this meme can persist. There is absolutely no indication that raising the minimum wage here will cut employment.
Click to expand...

I really believe that some people have this idea that business just keep stock of useless, minimum wage, employees hired to do nothing. And that, for some reason, they only reason they are kept around is the low pay rate.

Explaining why this is not a real thing shouldn't be hard, but I continue to feel like it's getting more difficult every time an minimum wage thread pops up.
 
-COOLIO- said:
to be honest, im surprised that even big corps don't want the minimum wage increase.

the wealth disparity problem is inching ever closer to a workers revolution. automation will rise at a steep clip as the robotics revolution in IT super cedes the mobile revolution. they should raise the minimum wage if they want to stave off real change.
Click to expand...

I don't see how that effects our next quarterly report Dave
 
-COOLIO- said:
to be honest, im surprised that even big corps don't want the minimum wage increase.

the wealth disparity problem is inching ever closer to a workers revolution. automation will rise at a steep clip as the robotics revolution in IT super cedes the mobile revolution. they should raise the minimum wage if they want to stave off real change.
Click to expand...

You ever read Vonnegut's "Player Piano?"
 
rokkerkory said:
rich get richer... thanks republicans!

redistribution of wealth is true, rich get richer at the cost of everyone else
Click to expand...
The question is... will income inequality come to a head?

Will there ever be anything done about it?

I'm inclined to say that greedy corporations will take and take until there is nothing left, and by that point, the have-nots won't have enough money to do anything about it. Poverty for a majority of the country in inevitable at the current rate.
 
everyday math said:
Nope. Not like it's really different anywhere else. Corruption happens everywhere. It just really bother me. Feels like this country isn't moving forward to help our citizens.
Click to expand...

This country isn't moving forward because large swaths of it still votes republican in every election.
 
Izayoi said:
The question is... will income inequality ever come to a head?

Will there ever be anything done about it?

I'm inclined to say that greedy corporations will take and take until there is nothing left, and by that point, the have-nots won't have enough money to do anything about it. Poverty for a majority of the country in inevitable at the current rate.
Click to expand...

absolutely, there's really no choice with the way things are going, i just hope people don't have to literally starve first.
 
IGSaint said:
This country isn't moving forward because large swaths of it still votes republican in every election.
Click to expand...
And the rest of the idiots think the only election that matters at any level of government is the country's presidential election
 
-COOLIO- said:
to be honest, im surprised that even big corps don't want the minimum wage increase.

the wealth disparity problem is inching ever closer to a workers revolution. automation will rise at a steep clip as the robotics revolution in IT super cedes the mobile revolution. they should raise the minimum wage if they want to stave off real change.
Click to expand...

Once automation starts becoming more of a thing, we'll need to move toward a guaranteed annual income. I don't think minimum wages will help at that point.
 
Bodacious said:
Everything got more expensive.
Click to expand...

Citation needed. The current federal minimum wage was instituted in 2009. During the Great Recession and the fallout years, the US economy actually experienced brief periods of measured deflation.

And even if you were correct, you've controlled for exactly zero variables making this one of those Not Experiments.
 
Couleurs said:
You could do that or you could let corporations keep all that money and dodge taxes and uh
Click to expand...

businesses are short sighted in terms of short term profits within their fiscal year.

they never tihnk about long term benefits of having a wealthier population that would actually spend more because they earn more
 
gutter_trash said:
businesses are short sighted in terms of short term profits within their fiscal year.

they never tihnk about long term benefits of having a wealthier population that would actually spend more because they earn more
Click to expand...

A business is in fact not sighted at all. They never think about anything because they are not entities capable of thought.

When you say "businesses" do you mean executives? Patent portfolios? Owners? Capitol? Employees?
 
Cyan said:
Once automation starts becoming more of a thing, we'll need to move toward a guaranteed annual income. I don't think minimum wages will help at that point.
Click to expand...

I agree and I argued about this with my co-workers the other day. They probably think I'm batshit insane, but once automation and life-extension become more mainstream, one has took to look at the federal minimum wage and realize it's not sustainable in the long run.
 
Good inflation would go through the roof and we'd be like Weimar Republic Germany or Zimbabwe and the job creators would go Galt.

I can't look at it now, but how many "common sense" arguments against raising the minimum wage were used by republicans for defeating this bill?
 
I feel like a lot of people here know nothing about macroeconomics. There are downfalls to raising the minimum wage, so it's not like it's the perfect solution like people make it to be. But I feel like the reasons why the Republican Party rejected it are one dimensional and probably biased.
 
Veezy said:
I really believe that some people have this idea that business just keep stock of useless, minimum wage, employees hired to do nothing. And that, for some reason, they only reason they are kept around is the low pay rate.

Explaining why this is not a real thing shouldn't be hard, but I continue to feel like it's getting more difficult every time an minimum wage thread pops up.
Click to expand...

You keep saying this and it keeps being wrong. Your entire theory depends on the idea that there are no jobs that businesses would hire for at $1 per hour that they wouldn't hire for at $7.25 per hour. That's a pretty outrageous claim. You don't think a grocer would hire somebody to bag groceries for the customers and carry them to their cars if they only had to pay $3/hr? You don't think an office building would keep a full time coffee staff on hand to take orders during meetings with clients if they only had to pay the staff $3/hr? Both of those happen in my country. These are the type of jobs that you look to eliminate when you are forbidden to pay less than X amount.

The next thing you look to eliminate are low-quality employees. Sally, who has mental or physical disabilities which prevent her from operating at the same level as your other employees, may be worth keeping around at $7.25 per hour. But is she worth keeping around at $10/hr? You just upped her cost by almost 50%. Bob, who is not particularly reliable and has the worst people skills out of all of your personnel because he grew up in the ghetto, may be worth putting up with at $7.25 per hour. How about at $10? Why not cut back Bob's hours or eliminate him entirely and pick up the slack with Steve, who grew up in a great area, was given a car by his parents so he is never late, etc.?

There are arguments for the minimum wage that are at least worth debating, but your argument is based on a premise which sounds good until you actually think about it.
 
Opiate said:
Two things can happen as a consequence of minimum wage increases:

1) Decreased employment. Higher wages means some employers will choose to have fewer employees.

2) Increased inflation. Higher purchasing power means faster velocity of money, which increases inflation.

I am not necessarily saying I agree with the congressman, by the way. I'm just saying that higher minimum wage laws do have negative consequences. No economic choice is without downsides.
Click to expand...

Beyond that, there's the general cost of doing business. Including taxes, regulations, and everything else. It all plays a factor, and it all negatively affects employment.

Heck, this just happened down the street from me. Within walking distance.

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/toyota-611584-torrance-texas.html

2000 California jobs gone. Boom. Thanks Davis. There's a reason Texas is stealing jobs from California (and many other places).
 
SlipperySlope said:
Heck, this just happened down the street from me. Within walking distance.

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/toyota-611584-torrance-texas.html

2000 California jobs gone. Boom. Thanks Davis. There's a reason Texas is stealing jobs from California (and many other places).
Click to expand...

Because we're offering tax breaks, hookers, blow, and handjobs to any business willing to uproot? Not spending a dime on public infrastructure to accommodate all these new Texans, though. No sir. Just more strip centers and parking lots.
 
to be fair.. if your raise the minimum wage companies will cut back hiring, and lay off people too, creating more unemployment and it could potentially hurt the economy. Or none of that happens and everyone has more money to buy shit and the economy gets a boost,who the hell knows
 
How about we actually try to develop real bills that will help the poor now? While it's true that minimum wage doesn't have a great affect on unemployment it also doesn't have a great affect decreasing poverty. Almost 80% of people living on minimum wage are teens anyway so bills such as these will only really affect industries that have teen work forces.

How about we focus more on the bullshit tax deductions, property tax zones, and the broken higher education system if we really want to help the poor.
 
mustafa said:
You keep saying this and it keeps being wrong. Your entire theory depends on the idea that there are no jobs that businesses would hire for at $1 per hour that they wouldn't hire for at $7.25 per hour. That's a pretty outrageous claim. You don't think a grocer would hire somebody to bag groceries for the customers and carry them to their cars if they only had to pay $3/hr? You don't think an office building would keep a full time coffee staff on hand to take orders during meetings with clients if they only had to pay the staff $3/hr? Both of those happen in my country. These are the type of jobs that you look to eliminate when you are forbidden to pay less than X amount.

The next thing you look to eliminate are low-quality employees. Sally, who has mental or physical disabilities which prevent her from operating at the same level as your other employees, may be worth keeping around at $7.25 per hour. But is she worth keeping around at $10/hr? You just upped her cost by almost 50%. Bob, who is not particularly reliable and has the worst people skills out of all of your personnel because he grew up in the ghetto, may be worth putting up with at $7.25 per hour. How about at $10? Why not cut back Bob's hours or eliminate him entirely and pick up the slack with Steve, who grew up in a great area, was given a car by his parents so he is never late, etc.?

There are arguments for the minimum wage that are at least worth debating, but your argument is based on a premise which sounds good until you actually think about it.
Click to expand...
If I run a business? I fire the coffee staff, because that's useless. I have one bagger work between different lanes that also runs registers and also does janitorial work. I fire Bob, Sally, get Steve to full time and hire some other shmuk to work minimum wage because at the end of the day so long as they're not getting paid more than 12 an hour and demand stays constant, I'm making a profit.

Even if you had those low paying jobs, who the hell can pay rent on $1 an hour? What type of life is that? You might as well be homeless.

Most businesses in America, yes most, do not hire superfluous staff. They lay off workers and cut hours as lean as they can possibly get them to maximize profits. That's the reality.

Yes, I will concede that there might be some companies out there that are keeping a small amount of people on staff that are worthless for building profit, but it is not a huge amount. As I've said, the drastic impact to unemployment that is assumed will happen is simply not in touch with reality.
 
mustafa said:
You keep saying this and it keeps being wrong. Your entire theory depends on the idea that there are no jobs that businesses would hire for at $1 per hour that they wouldn't hire for at $7.25 per hour. That's a pretty outrageous claim. You don't think a grocer would hire somebody to bag groceries for the customers and carry them to their cars if they only had to pay $3/hr? You don't think an office building would keep a full time coffee staff on hand to take orders during meetings with clients if they only had to pay the staff $3/hr? Both of those happen in my country. These are the type of jobs that you look to eliminate when you are forbidden to pay less than X amount.

The next thing you look to eliminate are low-quality employees. Sally, who has mental or physical disabilities which prevent her from operating at the same level as your other employees, may be worth keeping around at $7.25 per hour. But is she worth keeping around at $10/hr? You just upped her cost by almost 50%. Bob, who is not particularly reliable and has the worst people skills out of all of your personnel because he grew up in the ghetto, may be worth putting up with at $7.25 per hour. How about at $10? Why not cut back Bob's hours or eliminate him entirely and pick up the slack with Steve, who grew up in a great area, was given a car by his parents so he is never late, etc.?

There are arguments for the minimum wage that are at least worth debating, but your argument is based on a premise which sounds good until you actually think about it.
Click to expand...

So only employ reliable people from the suburbs? So ghetto = worst people skills? Car = reliable?

It's weird how you never mentioned what skills Steve has over compared with Bob when considering him for termination, but only mention that Steve grew up in a great area and has transportation.
 
Coins said:
That's another problem all together. The government shouldn't put the screws to the people.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, the govt that's got the task of helping it's people being in bed with businesses seems like all part of the same problem. To the point that there really isn't anywhere for these people to turn to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Kill Bill: Volume 3 Apparently Appending
26
1K
Brigandier replied
$20 minimum wage for fast food workers in California
6 7 8 9 10
470
30K
Durien replied
  • Locked
  • Poll
What are your thoughts on California's new minimum wage?
Opinion 
2
2K
DKehoe replied
Bill Burr and Billy Corgan Family Reunion Gone Wrong
33
3K
simpatico replied
Ridley Scott interview - sharks in the colosseum, Maximus returning from the afterlife to kill Jesus Christ, asleep at the wheel for Prometheus
45
3K
dem replied
Top Bottom