• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Senate says thee NAY! to minimum wage boost.

Status
Not open for further replies.
This entire year has been fucked up.

4 more years of corporate blowjobs and pissing-on-the-poor. This year alone has been atrocious. I will say, there has never been a better time to be wealthy in America. Never.
 
Why get people hopes up? You're just gonna send their job to China. Plus if you pay a million workers 2$ extra, the ceo is out 2 million dollars.
 
Jesus Christ, this country is screwed up.


Realize that, if minimum wage had merely kept up with inflation from 1965 (never mind cost of living), it would have stood at about $11.50/hour now, not $5.25 or whatever the federal level is. Yet despite the fact that our economy has exploded in the decades since then (as measured by GDP), and more wealth has been created than would have been conceivable back then, and corporate profits have far outpaced inflation and expenses, we still refuse to do what is just and raise the freaking wage. Apparently, greater consolidation of wealth seems to be the order of the day, and has been for the past, oh, 20-25 years or so. Unbelievable. It's maddening.


Seriously-- people amaze me. Any "pro-wage stagnation" arguments are eristic at best, evil at worst. One day, people in this country are going to wake up, and, sadly, I don't think it's going to be pretty when they do. The entire nation's been brainwashed-- you have people earning $16K/year spouting laissez-faire, pro-corporatist economic bullshit, apparently oblivious to their own plight. Ridiculous. And insidious.
 
Here's some more fuel for the fire to put a finer point on the issue:

For Immediate Release: December 20, 2004
Contact: Katie Fisher, National Low Income Housing Coalition,
202-662-1530 x222, Katie@nlihc.org

Report finds families struggling to pay rent this holiday season

* National Housing Wage outpaces the median hourly wage in U.S.
* Communities struggle to provide low wage workers opportunities for decent homes


As housing costs continue to increase faster than wages, millions of working families will spend the holidays struggling to pay for their homes, while many others will bring in the New Year without a home at all.

Out of Reach: 2004, a report released today by the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC) finds that the national Housing Wage for 2004 is $15.37, or $31,970 a year, almost three times the federal minimum wage. The housing wage represents the amount a full-time worker must earn to be able to afford the rent for a modest two-bedroom home while paying no more than 30% of income fro housing. Working families, the elderly, and people with disabilities struggle to pay for their homes and are left to make impossible choices among necessities.

Out of Reach calculates the Housing Wage for every state, region and county in the U.S. and reports that in no community, city, county, or state is housing affordable to low wage workers. Other findings include:

* Families with extremely low incomes (those at 30% or below the area's median income) continue to face the most severe affordability problems. There is not a single metropolitan area where an extremely low income family can be assured of finding a modest two bedroom rental home that is affordable.
* Those families with the most barriers to finding and keeping a modest rental home are those earning the minimum wage. According to the 2004 numbers, housing is out of reach in more counties across the country than ever before, even for a working family with two fulltime minimum wage workers. Renter households in over 990 counties, home to almost 79% of all renter households in the nation, must have at least 80 hours a week of work at the local minimum wage to afford a two bedroom apartment at the local fair market rent.

"Out of Reach shows both the depth and breadth of the housing shortage in our country. The gap between what people earn and what their housing costs is stark," said Sheila Crowley, President of the National Low Income Housing Coalition. "For the one third of the nation paying too much for their homes, the consequences of ends that do not meet are all too real."

The report will be released at 1 p.m. Eastern Standard Time during a conference call with press on Monday, December 20. Speakers on the call will include Crowley and Danilo Pelletiere of the National Low Income Housing Coalition. Both speakers will be available for questions during and after the call.

According to Out of Reach: 2004, the least affordable states and their Housing Wages are:

1. California $21.24
2. Massachusetts $20.93
3. New Jersey $20.35
4. Maryland $18.25
5. New York $18.18
6. Connecticut $17.90
7. Hawaii $17.60
8. Alaska $17.07
9. Nevada $16.92
10. New Hampshire $16.79

The least affordable Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) and their Housing Wages are San Francisco, California ($29.60) and Stamford-Norwalk, Connecticut ($27.63).
Click to expand...

And for my peoples: Ohio was in the middle with $12.08.

Fucking depressing.
 
For what it's worth, some states are taking the minimum wage issue into their own hands. This was Clinton's doing, and it's providing a way in which some states can make a move on this issue without having to deal with the GOP in Washington and their complete refusal to believe in economics.

This is really some bizzaro economics. It's been proven repeatedly-in the real world at very large numbers-that the minimum wage and demand for minimum wage employees is an inelastic relationship, meaning that if you raise the wage, it doesn't reduce the demand for jobs.

SOCIALISM FOR THE WEALTHY, CAPITALISM FOR THE POOR, gotta love it.
 
Drensch said:
Why get people hopes up? You're just gonna send their job to China. Plus if you pay a million workers 2$ extra, the ceo is out 2 million dollars.
Click to expand...

And as a result, a million workers are that much closer -well, not really, but it's progress- to crossing the poverty line while one CEO takes a $2 mil paycut from his $20 million (just using an extreme example here)
 
They just passed a deal in NY to raise the minimum wage. It's $6 now, in 2006 it goes up to $6.75, and in 2007, it goes up to $7.

Though seeing how rent in NY is going up, up, and up, it really won't do any good. My godmother(84 years old) had to move to Texas because they kept raising her rent and the month she moved, they raised it again. They wanted her to pay $1700 for a three room apartment.

If they keep dicking around, I believe we'll start hearing the phrase "I can't afford to work in <insert state>."
 
The way I see it raising the minimum wage would not do much for a person living under poverty. Where as, guaranteed health insurance, subsidized housing, and easy access to higher education does a whole lot more to people stuck in that vulnerable position. Investing in social programs is the best route to go in order to bridge the gap between the rich and the poor.
 
Depends on the job market really, but if the demand for labor and supply for labor dictate a price below minimum wage you're going to have unemployment. I see it here in this town I live in (college town). There's an ample supply of people who want to work, but minimum wage creates a job shortage. If minimum wage were abolished, employers could afford to hire more people and there would be more jobs... granted they'd be lower paying, but still.
 
Loki said:
The entire nation's been brainwashed-- you have people earning $16K/year spouting laissez-faire, pro-corporatist economic bullshit, apparently oblivious to their own plight. Ridiculous. And insidious.
Click to expand...
BUT THEY HAVE JESUS AND FAMILY VALUES. AND FREEDOM IS ON THE MARCH*.



* Not, of course, that freedom is keeping gas prices from hitting $2.15/gallon.
 
Drozmight said:
If minimum wage were abolished, employers could afford to hire more people and there would be more jobs... granted they'd be lower paying, but still.
Click to expand...
Exactly what good does taking a job for less than you can afford to make do?
 
$6.75 is the minimum wage in CA, and that's what I'm being paid for my thankless McJob... with the hours I'm working, it wouldn't even be enough for an apartment, let alone a home.
 
If everyone was being paid lower wages... costs of goods and services would also go down I'd think. Businesses wouldn't be able to stay in business selling things at a price people can't afford.

If you're going to have it... I think it should be set at the local level, rather than national level because not every town or city is the same.
 
Droz: Count me in as wanting to see those sources.

It's also worth noting that the Santorum amendment was pretty slimey. Nathan Newman explains.

Short version: Grants more companies exception from the minimum wage laws, prevents states from enforcing their own minimum wages for tipped workers, lets companies avoid overtime by cutting hours a week after making someone work 50 hours.
 
Drozmight said:
Businesses wouldn't be able to stay in business selling things at a price people can't afford.
Click to expand...
Well hell, they do now!

I live in PA, where the minimum wage still rests comfortably at the federally-set level: $5.15 per fuckin hour. Hot shit.
 
Mandark said:
Droz: Count me in as wanting to see those sources.

It's also worth noting that the Santorum amendment was pretty slimey. Nathan Newman explains.

Short version: Grants more companies exception from the minimum wage laws, prevents states from enforcing their own minimum wages for tipped workers, lets companies avoid overtime by cutting hours a week after making someone work 50 hours.
Click to expand...


And 39 senators voted yes on the bill. Utterly depressing.
 
The creepy part about this news is that there were two bills up for vote, each proposing to raise the minimum wage, but both contained tacked-on riders that the opposite parties didn't cotton to.

It's almost as if they want these bills to fail. The Congressmen go back to their state, shrug their shoulders and say, "Look, I tried. Blame the other party."
 
I don't have any "numbers" for you guys, just personal experience and econ courses I've taken. You're welcome to look up some numbers if you'd like though. I can guarantee you though that minimum wage can and will create unemployment (again depending on what market you're looking at).
 
Drozmight said:
Depends on the job market really, but if the demand for labor and supply for labor dictate a price below minimum wage you're going to have unemployment. I see it here in this town I live in (college town). There's an ample supply of people who want to work, but minimum wage creates a job shortage. If minimum wage were abolished, employers could afford to hire more people and there would be more jobs... granted they'd be lower paying, but still.
Click to expand...

Do you even hear what you're saying? I wish I had the time to speak to all this...


I thought I had a study of the impact of California's minimum wage increases over the years on employment bookmarked, but I can't seem to find it. It basically concluded that there was no effect on employment rates.


Why, in the 60's and 70's (before the recession), when paid wages constituted a much larger percentage of corporate net profits (i.e., when minimum wage was much higher relative to the value of a dollar, the cost of living, and the general level of corporate profits), was unemployment not rampant? When you answer that, I have other questions to ask you. But allow me to make another statement:


If corporate profits (gross and net) have exploded over the decades (even adjusted for inflation), variable costs have decreased (due to economies of scale), and fixed costs have also decreased (due to corporate welfare and government incentives to lure "big business"- e.g., breaks on property taxes, utilities etc.), then why-- given that the net corporate profit has increased dramatically-- should employees not be entitled to a more adequate minimum wage (or increased wages in general)? Corporations could absorb a minimum wage hike of, say, $4 and their labor costs would still be less of their operating costs as a percentage of income than it was in the 60's and 70's due to their greatly increased profits. So why isn't it done? Say "the interests of the shareholders" and you'll have only part of the answer.


Besides which, I happen to feel that the entire speculative economy needs to be abolished (yes, I know-- I'm evil) because it puts unnecessary and unethical pressures on companies and individuals. I happen to feel that privately owned companies would, on sum, be much healthier for society. There are certainly benefits to having publicly-traded companies, but I feel that their costs-- social, moral, and economic-- far outweigh these. I'm pretty much a "radical" in that sense.


EDIT:


I don't have any "numbers" for you guys, just personal experience and econ courses I've taken. You're welcome to look up some numbers if you'd like though. I can guarantee you though that minimum wage can and will create unemployment (again depending on what market you're looking at).
Click to expand...

This is, again, bullshit. Here's one analysis; there are dozens of others, which I'm sure others who have more time will pull up.

I'm telling you-- the entire nation is being hoodwinked, and vast amounts of wealth are being carted off right under our noses. It's disgusting.
 
How is raising the minimum wage a good thing? Okay, so you increase the salary floor (which means only a portion of the workforce sees the extra money). If you primarily employ minimum wage workers, you have a significant cost increase. Now, in the wake of a cost increase, do you think a business is going to:

a) Wait it out to see if income goes up;
b) Cut jobs (increase unemployment); or
c) Raise prices to compensate (negating the increased income)?

Businesses (especially small ones) who do a) run the risk of going out of business. Some combination of b) and c) would probably happen.

A minimum wage hike would be unfair to small businesses; giants like Wal-Mart do enough volume that a tiny price increase across the board would more than compensate.

Anecdotal evidence: About 6-7 years ago, Oregon raised its minimum wage. I remember that around the same time that the wage increase went into effect, the McDonalds in the Lloyd Center food court raised their prices by about $0.50 across the board.

Nathan
 
Drozmight said:
I don't have any "numbers" for you guys, just personal experience and econ courses I've taken. You're welcome to look up some numbers if you'd like though. I can guarantee you though that minimum wage can and will create unemployment (again depending on what market you're looking at).
Click to expand...
You're strapping yourself into Friedman's Golden Straitjacket, which is what all Cons have been doing happily since the "Reagan Revolution". It was a lie then and it's still a lie now.

Fuck, common decency should dictate that as a society, we require that all citizens that work full time be paid enough to live in our society. Of course, you get called a socialist if you say that, but let me ask you: where is the "moral value" in making someone work full time(if not more) and still not have enough to live off of? Especially while the compensation of the average CEO has grown 500 times over since 1980. But I suppose they "earned" that money through all of their hard work, huh?

This country will be a lot better off when people realize that we do, in fact, life in a class stratified society where the rich rule in fact if not in name. And that we have the power to do something about it. Hey rich greedheads, let me ask you a question: would it be better to make HALF as much as you do now and have happier, better educated and more well-adjusted people comprising a majority of your servile society? Or should you just keep trying to make as much money as possible while pissing on our heads? Before you answer, check out what happened in France in the late 18th century.

You sick fucks are the new aristocracy, and one day America will wake up and realize that. Constructing guillotines ain't that hard either, bubba. Have your fun while it lasts.
 
Droz is participating in Etch-A-Sketchanomics, where you can draw pretty curves and everything has clean direct proporitionalities. The problem here is that *empirical* evidence doesn't jive with this overly simplisitic model.

You should think about getting a job as an ice cream truck driver as a springboard to economic policy matters if you honestly believe that the minimum wage labor market is a perfectly competitive market.

When the mimimum wage was raised in California in 1988, there was completely negligible negative pressure on low-wage employment as a result. Same with New Jersey in 1992, and nationwide when the federal rate was raised in 1990-1991 (and the same in 1996-1997). Some cities (such as Baltimore, I believe ) have living wage ordinances, and there was barely any impact to employment for the affected workers.

Tthe result of an increased minimum wage was that employers got higher productvity, lower recruiting and training costs (less turnover), decreased absenteeism, and improved morale. They were able to absorb much of the cost as a result.

The big fallacy with the minimum wage issue is that people want to trivialize the labor market into the same kind of market in which we buy and sell dead fish. There are serious social factors that shape the labor market, and gross simplification of the market into easy etch-a-sketch curves and Ross Perot charts don't accurately represent the relationship between labor and wages.

Now, there's certainly a point at which raising the minimum wage to would cause problems. Recent history shows that we have plenty of room to raise it now, even to living wage levels-at which point we can think about lowering the tax burden on businesses to compensate, since raising wages would result in government not having to have as many minimum wage workers on so much government aid.

Edit: Right on with the Thomas Friedman remark. Watching people who hug textbook economics as a substitute for empirical data is like imaging David Brooks, Thomas Friedman, and John Fund in a four-way with Rick Santorum's dog (that is, to say, pretty f'n ugly).

Edit II: There is a HUGE moral issue here too, and that can't be ignored. I'm just pointing out the flaw in the constant reasoning I see every freeper make when they talk about minimum/living wage.

Going all around the world and demanding democracy makes me sick when we, as a society, REFUSE to address social and economic justice in America. Sick to the stomach.
 
Raoul Duke said:
You're strapping yourself into Friedman's Golden Straitjacket, which is what all Cons have been doing happily since the "Reagan Revolution". It was a lie then and it's still a lie now.

Fuck, common decency should dictate that as a society, we require that all citizens that work full time be paid enough to live in our society. Of course, you get called a socialist if you say that, but let me ask you: where is the "moral value" in making someone work full time(if not more) and still not have enough to live off of? Especially while the compensation of the average CEO has grown 500 times over since 1980. But I suppose they "earned" that money through all of their hard work, huh?

This country will be a lot better off when people realize that we do, in fact, life in a class stratified society where the rich rule in fact if not in name. And that we have the power to do something about it. Hey rich greedheads, let me ask you a question: would it be better to make HALF as much as you do now and have happier, better educated and more well-adjusted people comprising a majority of your servile society? Or should you just keep trying to make as much money as possible while pissing on our heads? Before you answer, check out what happened in France in the late 18th century.

You sick fucks are the new aristocracy, and one day America will wake up and realize that. Constructing guillotines ain't that hard either, bubba. Have your fun while it lasts.
Click to expand...

Raoul, you have the rare gift of making me feel not-quite so alone. Thanks.
 
gblues, the trade-offs don't cancel out. Further, please answer the same question(s) I put to Drozmight. Why did the cost of goods in the US only increase dramatically after the value of the minimum wage fell relative to inflation and cost of living? I maintain that it's because at that time a warped mentality took hold of American society, particularly in certain influential circles. The government was then bought off and no longer tended to the interests of the people, but rather to the interests of the privileged. It's not going to end well; anyone with a modicum of foresight can see that. Raoul, as prone to hyperbole as he can be at times, is not too far off in this instance.


Again, this is yet another reason why the entire public trading system should be abolished, or at least marginalized. Your two "negative" outcomes ("b" and "c") would largely not exist if companies were ever content with the level of profits they're making. I maintain that in a publicly-traded market, they can never be satisfied no matter how exorbitant their profits due to the pressures placed on them by shareholders. This is why the entire system needs to be revamped imo. I don't care how wacky people think I am for saying that; no system, of business or anything else, should create artificial inducements to unethical and socially irresponsible behavior-- yet we witness these pressures playing themselves out daily to the detriment of society.


Why isn't there an option "d": decrease executive compensation and be happy with a high, yet sensible, level of profit? If you argue using any of the commonly touted economic "maxims", please realize that you're arguing from "within the box", so to speak. The social good should be the overriding concern in most matters-- particularly collective matters with far-reaching ramifications such as business.


Fragamemnon said:
Droz is participating in Etch-A-Sketchanomics, where you can draw pretty curves and everything has clean direct proporitionalities. The problem here is that *empirical* evidence doesn't jive with this overly simplisitic model.

You should think about getting a job as an ice cream truck driver as a springboard to economic policy matters if you honestly believe that the minimum wage labor market is a perfectly competitive market.

When the mimimum wage was raised in California in 1988, there was completely negligible negative pressure on low-wage employment as a result. Same with New Jersey in 1992, and nationwide when the federal rate was raised in 1990-1991 (and the same in 1996-1997). Some cities (such as Baltimore, I believe ) have living wage ordinances, and there was barely any impact to employment for the affected workers.

Tthe result of an increased minimum wage was that employers got higher productvity, lower recruiting and training costs (less turnover), decreased absenteeism, and improved morale. They were able to absorb much of the cost as a result.

The big fallacy with the minimum wage issue is that people want to trivialize the labor market into the same kind of market in which we buy and sell dead fish. There are serious social factors that shape the labor market, and gross simplification of the market into easy etch-a-sketch curves and Ross Perot charts don't accurately represent the relationship between labor and wages.

Now, there's certainly a point at which raising the minimum wage to would cause problems. Recent history shows that we have plenty of room to raise it now, even to living wage levels-at which point we can think about lowering the tax burden on businesses to compensate, since raising wages would result in government not having to have as many minimum wage workers on so much government aid.

Edit: Right on with the Thomas Friedman remark. Watching people who hug textbook economics as a substitute for empirical data is like imaging David Brooks, Thomas Friedman, and John Fund in a four-way with Rick Santorum's dog (that is, to say, pretty f'n ugly).

Edit II: There is a HUGE moral issue here too, and that can't be ignored. I'm just pointing out the flaw in the constant reasoning I see every freeper make when they talk about minimum/living wage.

Going all around the world and demanding democracy makes me sick when we, as a society, REFUSE to address social and economic justice in America. Sick to the stomach.
Click to expand...

<hugs Frag>


Thank you for having more patience (and knowledge, in this case) than I have. :)
 
I used empirical evidence, and I simply used the text book to help explain what I've seen in my own town. I'm merely an economics minor and I'm only twenty-one years old. All I know of economics I've read, not experienced, and I'm far from being as knowledgeable as you guys in the subject. I'll just bow out, let you guys go at it and listen in.

Also, don't get the wrong idea about me. I'm far from conservative. In fact I'm pretty socialist. I'd love for the minimum wage to be livable, so I could just live comfortably in my apartment, smoke a couple bowls a day and work at Subway. I just don't want it at the expense of others.

If it were up to me, CEO's would be making less than public school teachers.

Edit: I did look at that link though Loki, and It seems to me that they're trying to link the state-wide unemployment rate to to the state-wide min. wage. I was merely arguing that the state-wide minimum wage'll have an adverse effect on certain individual job markets, not the entire job market. Also, I'm fairly sure the unemployment rates don't include people who've just given up on the job search (like myself) which'll no doubt contribute to a decrease in unemployment rates.
 
Flynn said:
The creepy part about this news is that there were two bills up for vote, each proposing to raise the minimum wage, but both contained tacked-on riders that the opposite parties didn't cotton to.
Click to expand...
<Kent Brockman> I said it before, and I'll say it again... Democracy simply doesn't work.
 
droz-Don't sweat it. I'm just a elitist and very angry prick that really hates most of what America stands for, and likes colorful metaphor and demagoguery in the classical sense of the term.

Oh, BTW-your evidence isn't empirical, it's anecdotal.

Anecdotal evidence: About 6-7 years ago, Oregon raised its minimum wage. I remember that around the same time that the wage increase went into effect, the McDonalds in the Lloyd Center food court raised their prices by about $0.50 across the board.
Click to expand...

This is the economic equivalent of "if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit". Maybe the mall raised leasing fees? Maybe the chain increased food prices for food court franchises? You're assuming that the increased prices directly reflected labor costs, which is perposterous. If they were, the the minimum wage must have been boosted by $15 or so.

Yes, anecdotal evidence, and you flagged it as such. But it's really weak substantive evidence for C).

As for your remark about small businesses-a large operation with many low-wage employees suffers much less from attrition than smaller businesses do, and attrition is a rampant problem for low-wage paying employers. Comapnies that have many employers can absorb the impact of an attrition through adjusting work schedules and dividing the workload between remaining employees. They have better processes set by corporate strategists in place for training to perform a specific task. Small business often relies on flexible workers who handle multiple roles for the company, and have ad hoc training programs to get people up to speed.

To that end, many small businesses have to pay above minimum wage as a hedge because attrition is a bigger risk to them. So, by having a low minimum wage, they are often placed at a competitive disadvantage anyway. Which is just how WAL-MART and other horrific low-wage companies want it.
 
This was on NPR yesterday morning, and I almost didn't want to get out of bed when I heard it. Congress has approved something like $25,000 worth of pay raises for themselves over 7 of the last 8 years, but they can't vote to raise the income for the bottom wage earners. Em-fucking-barassing. Of course, no one will ever take them to task on this, so whatever. I'm just glad I'm not earning minimum wage. The excuses wouldn't be enough to get me over the abject poverty. :( PEACE.
 
Casual observation? This wasn't just a casual observation and connection. I talked to a few mangers around here and they each said when a position opens they get a lot of applicants and that if it were cost effective, they'd have more positions.
 
Raoul Duke said:
You're strapping yourself into Friedman's Golden Straitjacket, which is what all Cons have been doing happily since the "Reagan Revolution". It was a lie then and it's still a lie now.

Fuck, common decency should dictate that as a society, we require that all citizens that work full time be paid enough to live in our society. Of course, you get called a socialist if you say that, but let me ask you: where is the "moral value" in making someone work full time(if not more) and still not have enough to live off of? Especially while the compensation of the average CEO has grown 500 times over since 1980. But I suppose they "earned" that money through all of their hard work, huh?

This country will be a lot better off when people realize that we do, in fact, life in a class stratified society where the rich rule in fact if not in name. And that we have the power to do something about it. Hey rich greedheads, let me ask you a question: would it be better to make HALF as much as you do now and have happier, better educated and more well-adjusted people comprising a majority of your servile society? Or should you just keep trying to make as much money as possible while pissing on our heads? Before you answer, check out what happened in France in the late 18th century.

You sick fucks are the new aristocracy, and one day America will wake up and realize that. Constructing guillotines ain't that hard either, bubba. Have your fun while it lasts.
Click to expand...
As a resident socialist...or THE resident socialist, you know I agree with you. You don't get an appreciation for this until you work a low-income job. Then you realize that the work you do may not carry a fancy title or paycheck, but it's still tough and still hard work. When I was in college and working at a local restaurant, I got to see the 40-somethings surviving on minimum wage and tips. You can survive on that...working 60+ hours a week, which usually includes weekends, and thus having no time to actually raise the kids that probably kept you out of college and that high-paying job.

Like you said, it's common decency which doesn't motivate quite like personal greed. If you offered voters free healthcare, or percent tax cuts, I assume a majority of people would vote for the tax cuts, even if the savings don't make up for the cost of healthcare. It's concept of getting more money that gets people excited, who cares if the value of services offered may far exceed the value of the buck you save? *sigh* Time goes by, but nothing really changes. PEACE.
 
Drozmight said:
I don't have any "numbers" for you guys, just personal experience and econ courses I've taken. You're welcome to look up some numbers if you'd like though. I can guarantee you though that minimum wage can and will create unemployment (again depending on what market you're looking at).
Click to expand...

The adverse effects of minimum wage boosts, or any social policy aimed at redressing economic fascism, are directly attributable to diminished investment by the very parties that said social policy has sought to make accountable to the public. You're arguing from a fallacy, Droz. What you've stated is ACCURATE, yes, but derived from a misconception.

Anyway, why are people here SURPRISED? It is NOT in this government's best interests to support any measure that drives private investment away. We're a society beholden to unchecked capitalism, a fascist economic paradigm that enslaves you through corporate blackmailing.

The only means of wresting from the public this stranglehold on our government that corporate america enjoys is to truly mobilze into an effective force with a voice too loud to ignore.
 
evil solrac v3.0 said:
cant wait for the civil war. wonder which city will be burned down this time?
Click to expand...

You'll be waiting an awfully long time. There are far too many instruments of social sedation employed by the state, received almost obligingly by a quiescent public. From ignorance fed by a disinforming media, to the deliberate inequity of the economic paradigm our country is propped atop, we're a country divided to such degrees that it is almost impossible to galvanize the size of resistance that such a scenario would require. Not that I condone the murder of judges, but what recently happened in Chicago is precisely what much needed social change in this country will compel. A progressive revolution NEEDS an act so divorced from what is expected, that the nation will have no choice but to stare and seriously reflect on its rotten core.

9/11 was one such event, though that act was committed by foreigners. This change NEEDS to be effected by citizens of our state, preferably those representative of the most oppressed classes -- blacks, hispanics, poor whites. Again, while I'm not condoning "terrorism"(as defined by this fascist state -- the assault against reigning elites), there isn't any other means, in my eyes, of forcing the groundswell of radical social change that you desire.
 
Besides, as is oft observed, business and society can't function without a significantly large and acquiescent labor pool WORKING these jobs -- the least they could do is acknowledge that. If everyone was a $60K/yr IT professional or nurse, not a lot would get done, PERIOD.

There HAS to be people to man the stores, prepare the food, check out purchases, track inventory, lift boxes, drive trucks, etc. Just because the barrier to entry is lower than that of, say, a CEO doesn't mean that these folks work any less hard and don't deserve a fair living wage. In fact, I'd venture that these folks are FAR more vital to our society than, say, yet another IT professional or paralegal.
 
Seriously, you guys have no idea the difference it makes. As I've stated many times before I've spent most of my life in Canada, and for the past couple of years have been moving back and forth between Canada and California. One of the first things that I noticed was that the average service worker here is, excuse my political incorrectness, fucking retarded. Why do I have to stand in line at the grocery store for 30 minutes when there's 2 people in front of me? Why do I have to explain EVERY little thing to point out when the person screwed up?

It's totally different in the US when it comes to the service sector. People in Canada are actually competent. Now, I'm not going to say that minimum wage is the only reason for this discrepancy. There are a ton of complex factors that go into this issue: illegal aliens/language divide, underfunded public school system, lack of respect for the intellect, just to name a few. But on top of those you also have a higher minimum wage in Canada.

God I can't wait to go back.
 
rastex said:
Seriously, you guys have no idea the difference it makes. As I've stated many times before I've spent most of my life in Canada, and for the past couple of years have been moving back and forth between Canada and California. One of the first things that I noticed was that the average service worker here is, excuse my political incorrectness, fucking retarded. Why do I have to stand in line at the grocery store for 30 minutes when there's 2 people in front of me? Why do I have to explain EVERY little thing to point out when the person screwed up?

It's totally different in the US when it comes to the service sector. People in Canada are actually competent. Now, I'm not going to say that minimum wage is the only reason for this discrepancy. There are a ton of complex factors that go into this issue: illegal aliens/language divide, underfunded public school system, lack of respect for the intellect, just to name a few. But on top of those you also have a higher minimum wage in Canada.

God I can't wait to go back.
Click to expand...

Disparaging the average service worker as "fucking retarded" invalidates anything you have to say.
 
I was going to come in with stating that higher minimum wages would create unemployment, but it appears Droz already has and was summarily shot down with "sources, please, and reading from textbooks don't count"--I can cite any econ book I've ever read here as stating this as one of the basest priciples of the Minimum Wage.
 
Matlock said:
I was going to come in with stating that higher minimum wages would create unemployment, but it appears Droz already has and was summarily shot down with "sources, please, and reading from textbooks don't count"--I can cite any econ book I've ever read here as stating this as one of the basest priciples of the Minimum Wage.
Click to expand...

Again, as I pointed out to Droz, you're ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, MATLOCK -- but the reason higher unemployment results has NOTHING to do with the untenability of a raised minimum wage that adjusts for inflation.

I don't care what you regurgitate from your "econ book," you're operating from a misinterpretation of what drives employment down.

As long as there are robots like Droz and Matlock, self-professed experts on economics, there will never be an open forum for the discussion of what ails this country.
 
I'm not calling myself an expert, but then again--neither are you.

'course, I wonder why every econ book I've had to read states raising minimum = raising unemployment? Hrrrm.

It also has to do with the fact that wages AS A WHOLE have not kept up with inflation. Start fucking with the minimum more than necessary, and the relatively elastic situation will rubberband you in the ass.
 
Matlock said:
I'm not calling myself an expert, but then again--neither are you.

'course, I wonder why every econ book I've had to read states raising minimum = raising unemployment? Hrrrm.

It also has to do with the fact that wages AS A WHOLE have not kept up with inflation. Start fucking with the minimum more than necessary, and the relatively elastic situation will rubberband you in the ass.
Click to expand...

Who writes these econ books? Think, Matlock. This system is a labryinthine web of conspiracy. It is not in the state's best interests to inform budding economists of what really drives down employment when policy meant to counteract the ills of capitalism is enacted. Appeasing the poor does not help our economy, as it presently exists -- it engenders its ruin.
 
As a response to the thread, I have to say this is despicable. What's worse is how the population of the United States seems to tolerate this form of government. The richer get richer, and the poorer get poorer, what's new?

The average U.S. citizen would be happier if the country leaned to the left. The only people that would lose out are the richest people in the country, and they would still be better off than most people. I'm sure most people here can agree with this.

It's a $2 wage increase. It's hardly anything, but I do realize the U.S. and much of the world is corporation-driven. It's sad when you realize that nobody seems to mind this while they go work and make the suits even richer. We're all goddamn sheep when you think about it. I respect people who worked from the bottom to get all the way to the top; capitalism is good when it rewards entrepreneurship. However, it's such a flawed system because of the immense income inequality that results from it.

$5.25USD = $6.30CAD. Minimum wage in Ontario (where I live) is $7.45, and we have free healthcare, a good education system, and we've even got paved roads. That doesn't make Canada a social utopia as some idiot conservatives would have you believe; look to Europe for this. Socialism is the way to go. If it happens on this continent, then I'm happy to know it's going to happen here first.

Sorry, had to vent, I don't know if my post is coherent. I'm a lil bit high I suppose.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

$20 minimum wage for fast food workers in California
6 7 8 9 10
470
36K
Durien replied
Ridley Scott says Hollywood is “drowning in mediocrity”
2 3
112
929
Men_in_Boxes replied
Guillermo del Toro says “I’d rather die” than use generative AI
31
612
Trilobit replied
Sam Altman says ChatGPT will soon sext with verified adults
2
77
1K
RCX replied
''Crazy People'' Prophet Ebo Noah says end of the world set for December 25 ,2025 is postponed as followers rush to Ghana Ark
19
285
Artoris replied
Top Bottom