"Living Wage" for Everyone?

[The Rabbi]

You can say tough shit all you like. But if minimum wage were to increase to $15.00 tomorrow, all those workers would be demanding more money. Tough ship?

Okay, so you are an employer. Minimum wage goes to $15.00 per hour, so now your current $15.00 per hour employees are demanding $20.00 per hour. What are your choices?

You can tell your employees that have been with the company the last ten years to take a hike, and then hire new minimum wage employees that know nothing about your company, nothing about your operations, nothing about the positions you need them for. You'll have to train all of these people to do the jobs your experienced employees used to do. This could take years. And after you trained them, they too will be asking for more money.

Or you increase your current employees wages and keep that experience and dedication. It's really a brainless decision. Employers will be forced to keep their current employees and take the financial loss.

I don't understand how you people dismiss the demand side of economics. Any initial cost to business from raising wages would be regained by the boost to business from bigger paychecks.

What bigger paychecks, from the employees? How would business benefit from that?

When Commie Care went into full force, my employer dropped our healthcare coverage. Unfortunately, the geniuses that created this mess never put in a clause where the employer could pay you cash for the benefits he canceled. All he could do is increase your pay rate which my employer did.

He was paying $415.00 a month for my coverage, but, he couldn't give me a separate check for the $415.00. He had to figure what the extra costs were for matching my SS contributions, matching my Medicare contributions, higher unemployment tax, higher workman's compensation tax and so on.

With all the Deductions before what I got taxed on, I ended up with $275.00 of that money and again, I paid tax on that because it was part of my gross.

When your employer gives you a raise, all you see is the raise part. You don't see all the additional expenses he has to payout for all the benefits and costs associated with that raise. Imagine what an employer would have to pay on top of the new $15.00 per hour.

You have to look at this more broadly. I'm saying businesses across the country would benefit from it. More people would be spending more money on the market. Consumer spending accounts for 70% of the nation's economy.

Thats total bullshit. We've had 3 increases in MW and in no case was there increased spendoing
Instead what happens is busineess must either increase prices or reduce workers hours. There is no net gain for workers.

Oh Christ I'm not having this same argument with you just because you aren't mature enough to accept the answer. The rise in prices would not offset the boost to consumer spending. Over time prices would go down. Every time the min wage was raised, there was no significant cost to businesses. Look at history for Christ's sakes. This economy depends on consumer spending and right now it is shit because of low wages. Individual corporations refuse to raise wages because it is just easier for them to keep the ridiculous amount of money they already make. 3 out of 5 small businesses on the other hand support raising the minimum wage.

There was no significant cost to businesses that dont hire min wage workers, true. But for ones who do the results are the same: reduced hours, layoffs, higher prices, closure of business.
Why would prices go down when costs go up? That makes no sense at all.
As usual Billy you spew a bunch of crap you cannot possibly support because you dont know the first thing about this.

 

[OnePercenter]

Let's go for 500 an hour. We all know that businesses just have mountains of cash.

No, $23.50/hr will put the middle class back to solvency.

FYI: Corporate America is sitting >$100T cash, so YES, they can afford it.

But the mom and pop flower shops can't. The ice cream stand owners can't. The hardware store owners can't. The Convenient store owners can't.

Under your plan most businesses would move because they could't afford to stay in the country. No matter what rent, housing prices, or even merchandise costs today in NYC, it would over double with your plans.

I've seen businesses leave our area. They either moved out of state to get away from the unions or out of the country because their competitors were already manufacturing out of the country.

If you and I both had widget factories, but I decided to move my widget factory to Vietnam, you would have no choice but to do the same. That's because I would be able to manufacture ten widgets for the price of your one. Even including shipping costs, I would bury you in sales because my widgets are so much cheaper to make.

Years ago, unions were a good thing for workers at the time. But what most didn't realize is as those workers received more money and benefits, that raised wages of non-union outfits as well. When everybody increases wages, it creates inflation. That's how we priced ourselves out of the world market. It didn't happen overnight and those greedy business owners could have moved anytime they liked.

At some point, we need to learn from our mistakes.

Under your plan most businesses would move because they could't afford to stay in the country. No matter what rent, housing prices, or even merchandise costs today in NYC, it would over double with your plans.

Under my plan all employee costs will be reduced 20% to 30% which will add an additional $5M/yr to my net. ALL prices for goods and services will be reduced to 2009 levels and held for ten years.

I've seen businesses leave our area. They either moved out of state to get away from the unions or out of the country because their competitors were already manufacturing out of the country.

Such as Levi $trau$$ & Company?

If you and I both had widget factories, but I decided to move my widget factory to Vietnam, you would have no choice but to do the same. That's because I would be able to manufacture ten widgets for the price of your one. Even including shipping costs, I would bury you in sales because my widgets are so much cheaper to make.

One of the many benefits of being adequately financed, I can leverage the costs of undercutting you until you file BK, then buy your entire inventory for -90% and return the loss.

Years ago, unions were a good thing for workers at the time. But what most didn't realize is as those workers received more money and benefits, that raised wages of non-union outfits as well. When everybody increases wages, it creates inflation. That's how we priced ourselves out of the world market. It didn't happen overnight and those greedy business owners could have moved anytime they liked.

Yes, the American worker DOES hurt excessive profits.

At some point, we need to learn from our mistakes.

The mistake of middle class voting for Republicans, and their bastard step-children the teabaggers and Libertarians.

You keep posting the same fantasy over and over again, so allow me to pop your bubble:

HTF could you possibly reduce prices to 2009 levels? Don't you think if business owners could do that, they would do so without your suggestion? And how are you going to freeze prices for 10 years? If you can do that, then go ahead and keep our gasoline this price for the next ten years. Business owners are constantly looking for ways to reduce costs. If they could reduce the cost per employee, they would have done it years ago.

Now if we were competitors, it wouldn't matter how well you were financed. Nobody stays in business very long making products they can't sell, especially when I have all the customers and financially doing ten times better than you.

Voting Republican is the same worn out excuse you on the left have for your failed liberal policies such as strong backing of unions and taxation that are the actual culprits when it comes to international job loss in this country. Not one company ever left the country because Republicans were in charge.

But the mom and pop flower shops can't. The ice cream stand owners can't. The hardware store owners can't. The Convenient store owners can't.

Why wouldn't they, their most costly expenses are reduced to 30% of gross. PERMANENTLY.

You keep posting the same fantasy over and over again, so allow me to pop your bubble:

Good luck with that!

HTF could you possibly reduce prices to 2009 levels? Don't you think if business owners could do that, they would do so without your suggestion? And how are you going to freeze prices for 10 years? If you can do that, then go ahead and keep our gasoline this price for the next ten years. Business owners are constantly looking for ways to reduce costs. If they could reduce the cost per employee, they would have done it years ago.

Businesses owners 'giving back' when there is nothing in the game for them? Sure!

You do understand that the reduced cost of diesel fuel in this country came from a meeting of the minds in Washington. Washington said, 'reduce the prices or else,' and the oil companies said, 'yes sir'.

Now if we were competitors, it wouldn't matter how well you were financed. Nobody stays in business very long making products they can't sell, especially when I have all the customers and financially doing ten times better than you.

If we were competitors, you'd be bankrupt.

Voting Republican is the same worn out excuse you on the left have for your failed liberal policies such as strong backing of unions and taxation that are the actual culprits when it comes to international job loss in this country.

How many Republicans have authored or supported a bill which helped the middle class without giving the rich a larger boost? Don't bother looking, there aren't any.

Not one company ever left the country because Republicans were in charge.

If you were receiving the best blow-job of your life, would you leave?

Reagan: Gutting the HMO Act.

Baby Bush's SEC rubber-stamping mergers and acquisitions based on leverage, not to mention 'Made-Off.'

You didn't coherently answer one question.

Allow me to point out your ignorance in fuel prices, particularly from a truck drivers prospective:

As a commodities investor for nearly ten years, I can tell you don't understand a thing about the market. Prices are not dictated by the oil companies or the US government. Fuel is international and dictated by the investors in the commodities market. Therefore, fuel prices are not set by any commanding entity.

The commodity market is responsive to supply and demand. Thanks to fracking in the US, fuel prices have lowered because there is more supply than demand. In fact we have so much fuel that we are exporting it.

Investors realize this so they are selling their contracts (meaning they are betting the price lowers) and that's what sets our fuel prices. The sell off is still taking place because of our excess of fuel. That does include diesel which is still around one dollar per gallon higher than gasoline. This increase took place during the Bush years when they lowered sulfur levels to 5%.

Your ignorance of market activity is also on display. If I am the king in my market (of whatever product) because I am producing my product much cheaper than you, how in the world can you say you can put me out of business?

Giving back? That's another myth by the left.

If I am paying $2.50 per unit to make my widgets, and that price increases (as it always does) I have to increase the price of my product. In other words, I can't produce widgets at a loss because I'm paying more for material than I can profit from. You can't freeze prices. There is no possible way to do that. Because if you freeze the price of my product, and I'm paying more to make that product, I will be out of business in not time at all. No company can operate at a loss.

You people have this factitious belief that government can control market activities by simply making law against it. It doesn't work that way and never will. This is why liberals should never be in charge of anything financial; because you don't understand it.

The commodity market is responsive to supply and demand.

So it's fixed?

Question: Have we had a glut in oil and gasoline for decades?

 

[OnePercenter]

Irony, where did employees get their money? OH SNAP!

From payment of government contracts to their employers. OH SNAP!

 

[OnePercenter]

That's called the Domino Effect these minimum wage people refuse to acknowledge.


Even if somebody was making adequate money such as $22.00 an hour and plenty happy about it, after such a huge increase in minimum wage, they wouldn't be happy for very long because now they are making as much as a french fry maker. They would demand at least $35.00 per hour to compensate for the huge increase in minimum wage.

i agree....if i had a job that i worked up the ladder to get that put me at 16 an hour and all of a sudden the guy emptying the trash is making 15....i would want more money ...i think billy knows that too but he would never admit it....

I think 15 should be years from now. 2020+. For now, it needs to be raised to 10. That gives the market time to respond if done gradually. You have a point about the garbage man, but to that I say: tough shit. It's worth it. 15 is kept up to date with the current cost of inflation.

You can say tough shit all you like. But if minimum wage were to increase to $15.00 tomorrow, all those workers would be demanding more money. Tough ship?

Okay, so you are an employer. Minimum wage goes to $15.00 per hour, so now your current $15.00 per hour employees are demanding $20.00 per hour. What are your choices?

You can tell your employees that have been with the company the last ten years to take a hike, and then hire new minimum wage employees that know nothing about your company, nothing about your operations, nothing about the positions you need them for. You'll have to train all of these people to do the jobs your experienced employees used to do. This could take years. And after you trained them, they too will be asking for more money.

Or you increase your current employees wages and keep that experience and dedication. It's really a brainless decision. Employers will be forced to keep their current employees and take the financial loss.

I don't understand how you people dismiss the demand side of economics. Any initial cost to business from raising wages would be regained by the boost to business from bigger paychecks.

What bigger paychecks, from the employees? How would business benefit from that?

When Commie Care went into full force, my employer dropped our healthcare coverage. Unfortunately, the geniuses that created this mess never put in a clause where the employer could pay you cash for the benefits he canceled. All he could do is increase your pay rate which my employer did.

He was paying $415.00 a month for my coverage, but, he couldn't give me a separate check for the $415.00. He had to figure what the extra costs were for matching my SS contributions, matching my Medicare contributions, higher unemployment tax, higher workman's compensation tax and so on.

With all the Deductions before what I got taxed on, I ended up with $275.00 of that money and again, I paid tax on that because it was part of my gross.

When your employer gives you a raise, all you see is the raise part. You don't see all the additional expenses he has to payout for all the benefits and costs associated with that raise. Imagine what an employer would have to pay on top of the new $15.00 per hour.

Your employer must have overlooked this:

Q1: My employer offers employees cash to reimburse the purchase of an individual market policy. Does this arrangement comply with the market reforms?

No. If the employer uses an arrangement that provides cash reimbursement for the purchase of an individual market policy, the employer's payment arrangement is part of a plan, fund, or other arrangement established or maintained for the purpose of providing medical care to employees, without regard to whether the employer treats the money as pre-tax or post-tax to the employee. Therefore, the arrangement is group health plan coverage within the meaning of Code section 9832(a), Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) section 733(a) and PHS Act section 2791(a), and is subject to the market reform provisions of the Affordable Care Act applicable to group health plans. Such employer health care arrangements cannot be integrated with individual market policies to satisfy the market reforms and, therefore, will violate PHS Act sections 2711 and 2713, among other provisions, which can trigger penalties such as excise taxes under section 4980D of the Code. Under the Departments' prior published guidance, the cash arrangement fails to comply with the market reforms because the cash payment cannot be integrated with an individual market policy.(6)

Frequently Asked Questions - The Affordable Care Act Implementation Part XXII

 

[Harry Dresden]

You can say tough shit all you like. But if minimum wage were to increase to $15.00 tomorrow, all those workers would be demanding more money. Tough ship?

Okay, so you are an employer. Minimum wage goes to $15.00 per hour, so now your current $15.00 per hour employees are demanding $20.00 per hour. What are your choices?

You can tell your employees that have been with the company the last ten years to take a hike, and then hire new minimum wage employees that know nothing about your company, nothing about your operations, nothing about the positions you need them for. You'll have to train all of these people to do the jobs your experienced employees used to do. This could take years. And after you trained them, they too will be asking for more money.

Or you increase your current employees wages and keep that experience and dedication. It's really a brainless decision. Employers will be forced to keep their current employees and take the financial loss.

I don't understand how you people dismiss the demand side of economics. Any initial cost to business from raising wages would be regained by the boost to business from bigger paychecks.

What bigger paychecks, from the employees? How would business benefit from that?

When Commie Care went into full force, my employer dropped our healthcare coverage. Unfortunately, the geniuses that created this mess never put in a clause where the employer could pay you cash for the benefits he canceled. All he could do is increase your pay rate which my employer did.

He was paying $415.00 a month for my coverage, but, he couldn't give me a separate check for the $415.00. He had to figure what the extra costs were for matching my SS contributions, matching my Medicare contributions, higher unemployment tax, higher workman's compensation tax and so on.

With all the Deductions before what I got taxed on, I ended up with $275.00 of that money and again, I paid tax on that because it was part of my gross.

When your employer gives you a raise, all you see is the raise part. You don't see all the additional expenses he has to payout for all the benefits and costs associated with that raise. Imagine what an employer would have to pay on top of the new $15.00 per hour.

You have to look at this more broadly. I'm saying businesses across the country would benefit from it. More people would be spending more money on the market. Consumer spending accounts for 70% of the nation's economy.

and you have to look at it realistically...everyone who is at 15-20 bucks will want more money and then the people above them will want more and so on and so on...

No you're the one lacking realism. Anyone that would demand more, WOULD NOT GET MORE.

and so the disruption of the working place would begin with resentment and morale problems....i can tell you have never worked anywhere and if you have you were either management or you never were a higher wage worker....get real billy open your fucking eyes...

 

[Billy000]

I don't understand how you people dismiss the demand side of economics. Any initial cost to business from raising wages would be regained by the boost to business from bigger paychecks.

What bigger paychecks, from the employees? How would business benefit from that?

When Commie Care went into full force, my employer dropped our healthcare coverage. Unfortunately, the geniuses that created this mess never put in a clause where the employer could pay you cash for the benefits he canceled. All he could do is increase your pay rate which my employer did.

He was paying $415.00 a month for my coverage, but, he couldn't give me a separate check for the $415.00. He had to figure what the extra costs were for matching my SS contributions, matching my Medicare contributions, higher unemployment tax, higher workman's compensation tax and so on.

With all the Deductions before what I got taxed on, I ended up with $275.00 of that money and again, I paid tax on that because it was part of my gross.

When your employer gives you a raise, all you see is the raise part. You don't see all the additional expenses he has to payout for all the benefits and costs associated with that raise. Imagine what an employer would have to pay on top of the new $15.00 per hour.

You have to look at this more broadly. I'm saying businesses across the country would benefit from it. More people would be spending more money on the market. Consumer spending accounts for 70% of the nation's economy.

and you have to look at it realistically...everyone who is at 15-20 bucks will want more money and then the people above them will want more and so on and so on...

No you're the one lacking realism. Anyone that would demand more, WOULD NOT GET MORE.

and so the disruption of the working place would begin with resentment and morale problems....i can tell you have never worked anywhere and if you have you were either management or you never were a higher wage worker....get real billy open your fucking eyes...

Morale is already at a historic low and yet productivity in this country has been up for decades. Facts matter.

 

[Brain357]

I don't understand how you people dismiss the demand side of economics. Any initial cost to business from raising wages would be regained by the boost to business from bigger paychecks.

What bigger paychecks, from the employees? How would business benefit from that?

When Commie Care went into full force, my employer dropped our healthcare coverage. Unfortunately, the geniuses that created this mess never put in a clause where the employer could pay you cash for the benefits he canceled. All he could do is increase your pay rate which my employer did.

He was paying $415.00 a month for my coverage, but, he couldn't give me a separate check for the $415.00. He had to figure what the extra costs were for matching my SS contributions, matching my Medicare contributions, higher unemployment tax, higher workman's compensation tax and so on.

With all the Deductions before what I got taxed on, I ended up with $275.00 of that money and again, I paid tax on that because it was part of my gross.

When your employer gives you a raise, all you see is the raise part. You don't see all the additional expenses he has to payout for all the benefits and costs associated with that raise. Imagine what an employer would have to pay on top of the new $15.00 per hour.

You have to look at this more broadly. I'm saying businesses across the country would benefit from it. More people would be spending more money on the market. Consumer spending accounts for 70% of the nation's economy.

Thats total bullshit. We've had 3 increases in MW and in no case was there increased spendoing
Instead what happens is busineess must either increase prices or reduce workers hours. There is no net gain for workers.

Oh Christ I'm not having this same argument with you just because you aren't mature enough to accept the answer. The rise in prices would not offset the boost to consumer spending. Over time prices would go down. Every time the min wage was raised, there was no significant cost to businesses. Look at history for Christ's sakes. This economy depends on consumer spending and right now it is shit because of low wages. Individual corporations refuse to raise wages because it is just easier for them to keep the ridiculous amount of money they already make. 3 out of 5 small businesses on the other hand support raising the minimum wage.

There was no significant cost to businesses that dont hire min wage workers, true. But for ones who do the results are the same: reduced hours, layoffs, higher prices, closure of business.
Why would prices go down when costs go up? That makes no sense at all.
As usual Billy you spew a bunch of crap you cannot possibly support because you dont know the first thing about this.

Unemployment has never gone up with a min wage increase.

 

[dblack]

What bigger paychecks, from the employees? How would business benefit from that?

When Commie Care went into full force, my employer dropped our healthcare coverage. Unfortunately, the geniuses that created this mess never put in a clause where the employer could pay you cash for the benefits he canceled. All he could do is increase your pay rate which my employer did.

He was paying $415.00 a month for my coverage, but, he couldn't give me a separate check for the $415.00. He had to figure what the extra costs were for matching my SS contributions, matching my Medicare contributions, higher unemployment tax, higher workman's compensation tax and so on.

With all the Deductions before what I got taxed on, I ended up with $275.00 of that money and again, I paid tax on that because it was part of my gross.

When your employer gives you a raise, all you see is the raise part. You don't see all the additional expenses he has to payout for all the benefits and costs associated with that raise. Imagine what an employer would have to pay on top of the new $15.00 per hour.

You have to look at this more broadly. I'm saying businesses across the country would benefit from it. More people would be spending more money on the market. Consumer spending accounts for 70% of the nation's economy.

Thats total bullshit. We've had 3 increases in MW and in no case was there increased spendoing
Instead what happens is busineess must either increase prices or reduce workers hours. There is no net gain for workers.

Oh Christ I'm not having this same argument with you just because you aren't mature enough to accept the answer. The rise in prices would not offset the boost to consumer spending. Over time prices would go down. Every time the min wage was raised, there was no significant cost to businesses. Look at history for Christ's sakes. This economy depends on consumer spending and right now it is shit because of low wages. Individual corporations refuse to raise wages because it is just easier for them to keep the ridiculous amount of money they already make. 3 out of 5 small businesses on the other hand support raising the minimum wage.

There was no significant cost to businesses that dont hire min wage workers, true. But for ones who do the results are the same: reduced hours, layoffs, higher prices, closure of business.
Why would prices go down when costs go up? That makes no sense at all.
As usual Billy you spew a bunch of crap you cannot possibly support because you dont know the first thing about this.

Unemployment has never gone up with a min wage increase.

But wait a minute, I thought the whole thrust of the argument for increasing minimum wage is that it's actually been going down (in real buy power). What gives?

 

[BluesLegend]

Irony, where did employees get their money? OH SNAP!

From payment of government contracts to their employers. OH SNAP!

I see you failed economics and simple math.

 

[Brain357]

You have to look at this more broadly. I'm saying businesses across the country would benefit from it. More people would be spending more money on the market. Consumer spending accounts for 70% of the nation's economy.

Thats total bullshit. We've had 3 increases in MW and in no case was there increased spendoing
Instead what happens is busineess must either increase prices or reduce workers hours. There is no net gain for workers.

Oh Christ I'm not having this same argument with you just because you aren't mature enough to accept the answer. The rise in prices would not offset the boost to consumer spending. Over time prices would go down. Every time the min wage was raised, there was no significant cost to businesses. Look at history for Christ's sakes. This economy depends on consumer spending and right now it is shit because of low wages. Individual corporations refuse to raise wages because it is just easier for them to keep the ridiculous amount of money they already make. 3 out of 5 small businesses on the other hand support raising the minimum wage.

There was no significant cost to businesses that dont hire min wage workers, true. But for ones who do the results are the same: reduced hours, layoffs, higher prices, closure of business.
Why would prices go down when costs go up? That makes no sense at all.
As usual Billy you spew a bunch of crap you cannot possibly support because you dont know the first thing about this.

Unemployment has never gone up with a min wage increase.

But wait a minute, I thought the whole thrust of the argument for increasing minimum wage is that it's actually been going down (in real buy power). What gives?

What does that have to do with min wage increases not increasing unemployment?

 

[dblack]

Thats total bullshit. We've had 3 increases in MW and in no case was there increased spendoing
Instead what happens is busineess must either increase prices or reduce workers hours. There is no net gain for workers.

Oh Christ I'm not having this same argument with you just because you aren't mature enough to accept the answer. The rise in prices would not offset the boost to consumer spending. Over time prices would go down. Every time the min wage was raised, there was no significant cost to businesses. Look at history for Christ's sakes. This economy depends on consumer spending and right now it is shit because of low wages. Individual corporations refuse to raise wages because it is just easier for them to keep the ridiculous amount of money they already make. 3 out of 5 small businesses on the other hand support raising the minimum wage.

There was no significant cost to businesses that dont hire min wage workers, true. But for ones who do the results are the same: reduced hours, layoffs, higher prices, closure of business.
Why would prices go down when costs go up? That makes no sense at all.
As usual Billy you spew a bunch of crap you cannot possibly support because you dont know the first thing about this.

Unemployment has never gone up with a min wage increase.

But wait a minute, I thought the whole thrust of the argument for increasing minimum wage is that it's actually been going down (in real buy power). What gives?

What does that have to do with min wage increases not increasing unemployment?

It has to do with the fact that actual increases to the minimum wage have been so rare as to be statistically insignificant. There's no real data to draw from.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What bigger paychecks, from the employees? How would business benefit from that?

When Commie Care went into full force, my employer dropped our healthcare coverage. Unfortunately, the geniuses that created this mess never put in a clause where the employer could pay you cash for the benefits he canceled. All he could do is increase your pay rate which my employer did.

He was paying $415.00 a month for my coverage, but, he couldn't give me a separate check for the $415.00. He had to figure what the extra costs were for matching my SS contributions, matching my Medicare contributions, higher unemployment tax, higher workman's compensation tax and so on.

With all the Deductions before what I got taxed on, I ended up with $275.00 of that money and again, I paid tax on that because it was part of my gross.

When your employer gives you a raise, all you see is the raise part. You don't see all the additional expenses he has to payout for all the benefits and costs associated with that raise. Imagine what an employer would have to pay on top of the new $15.00 per hour.

You have to look at this more broadly. I'm saying businesses across the country would benefit from it. More people would be spending more money on the market. Consumer spending accounts for 70% of the nation's economy.

and you have to look at it realistically...everyone who is at 15-20 bucks will want more money and then the people above them will want more and so on and so on...

No you're the one lacking realism. Anyone that would demand more, WOULD NOT GET MORE.

and so the disruption of the working place would begin with resentment and morale problems....i can tell you have never worked anywhere and if you have you were either management or you never were a higher wage worker....get real billy open your fucking eyes...

Morale is already at a historic low and yet productivity in this country has been up for decades. Facts matter.

And you can thank automation for that.

 

[The Rabbi]

Oh Christ I'm not having this same argument with you just because you aren't mature enough to accept the answer. The rise in prices would not offset the boost to consumer spending. Over time prices would go down. Every time the min wage was raised, there was no significant cost to businesses. Look at history for Christ's sakes. This economy depends on consumer spending and right now it is shit because of low wages. Individual corporations refuse to raise wages because it is just easier for them to keep the ridiculous amount of money they already make. 3 out of 5 small businesses on the other hand support raising the minimum wage.

There was no significant cost to businesses that dont hire min wage workers, true. But for ones who do the results are the same: reduced hours, layoffs, higher prices, closure of business.
Why would prices go down when costs go up? That makes no sense at all.
As usual Billy you spew a bunch of crap you cannot possibly support because you dont know the first thing about this.

Unemployment has never gone up with a min wage increase.

But wait a minute, I thought the whole thrust of the argument for increasing minimum wage is that it's actually been going down (in real buy power). What gives?

What does that have to do with min wage increases not increasing unemployment?

It has to do with the fact that actual increases to the minimum wage have been so rare as to be statistically insignificant. There's no real data to draw from.

Wrong.
It was raised in :
1991
1996
1997
2007
2008 and
2009

None of those increases provided the "magic bullet to prosperity" that libs offer for raising it. And the usual excuse given for that will, as with all failed liberal programs, we didnt do it enough.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

i agree....if i had a job that i worked up the ladder to get that put me at 16 an hour and all of a sudden the guy emptying the trash is making 15....i would want more money ...i think billy knows that too but he would never admit it....

I think 15 should be years from now. 2020+. For now, it needs to be raised to 10. That gives the market time to respond if done gradually. You have a point about the garbage man, but to that I say: tough shit. It's worth it. 15 is kept up to date with the current cost of inflation.

You can say tough shit all you like. But if minimum wage were to increase to $15.00 tomorrow, all those workers would be demanding more money. Tough ship?

Okay, so you are an employer. Minimum wage goes to $15.00 per hour, so now your current $15.00 per hour employees are demanding $20.00 per hour. What are your choices?

You can tell your employees that have been with the company the last ten years to take a hike, and then hire new minimum wage employees that know nothing about your company, nothing about your operations, nothing about the positions you need them for. You'll have to train all of these people to do the jobs your experienced employees used to do. This could take years. And after you trained them, they too will be asking for more money.

Or you increase your current employees wages and keep that experience and dedication. It's really a brainless decision. Employers will be forced to keep their current employees and take the financial loss.

I don't understand how you people dismiss the demand side of economics. Any initial cost to business from raising wages would be regained by the boost to business from bigger paychecks.

What bigger paychecks, from the employees? How would business benefit from that?

When Commie Care went into full force, my employer dropped our healthcare coverage. Unfortunately, the geniuses that created this mess never put in a clause where the employer could pay you cash for the benefits he canceled. All he could do is increase your pay rate which my employer did.

He was paying $415.00 a month for my coverage, but, he couldn't give me a separate check for the $415.00. He had to figure what the extra costs were for matching my SS contributions, matching my Medicare contributions, higher unemployment tax, higher workman's compensation tax and so on.

With all the Deductions before what I got taxed on, I ended up with $275.00 of that money and again, I paid tax on that because it was part of my gross.

When your employer gives you a raise, all you see is the raise part. You don't see all the additional expenses he has to payout for all the benefits and costs associated with that raise. Imagine what an employer would have to pay on top of the new $15.00 per hour.

Your employer must have overlooked this:

Q1: My employer offers employees cash to reimburse the purchase of an individual market policy. Does this arrangement comply with the market reforms?

No. If the employer uses an arrangement that provides cash reimbursement for the purchase of an individual market policy, the employer's payment arrangement is part of a plan, fund, or other arrangement established or maintained for the purpose of providing medical care to employees, without regard to whether the employer treats the money as pre-tax or post-tax to the employee. Therefore, the arrangement is group health plan coverage within the meaning of Code section 9832(a), Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) section 733(a) and PHS Act section 2791(a), and is subject to the market reform provisions of the Affordable Care Act applicable to group health plans. Such employer health care arrangements cannot be integrated with individual market policies to satisfy the market reforms and, therefore, will violate PHS Act sections 2711 and 2713, among other provisions, which can trigger penalties such as excise taxes under section 4980D of the Code. Under the Departments' prior published guidance, the cash arrangement fails to comply with the market reforms because the cash payment cannot be integrated with an individual market policy.(6)

Frequently Asked Questions - The Affordable Care Act Implementation Part XXII

That's exactly what I pointed out. You can't just give the cash you used for healthcare to the employee. It's subject to penalties and taxation. That's why the only thing you can do is increase pay rates.

 

[OnePercenter]

Irony, where did employees get their money? OH SNAP!

From payment of government contracts to their employers. OH SNAP!

I see you failed economics and simple math.

So why don't you educamate me! I can't wait to see this!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Let's go for 500 an hour. We all know that businesses just have mountains of cash.

No, $23.50/hr will put the middle class back to solvency.

FYI: Corporate America is sitting >$100T cash, so YES, they can afford it.

But the mom and pop flower shops can't. The ice cream stand owners can't. The hardware store owners can't. The Convenient store owners can't.

Under your plan most businesses would move because they could't afford to stay in the country. No matter what rent, housing prices, or even merchandise costs today in NYC, it would over double with your plans.

I've seen businesses leave our area. They either moved out of state to get away from the unions or out of the country because their competitors were already manufacturing out of the country.

If you and I both had widget factories, but I decided to move my widget factory to Vietnam, you would have no choice but to do the same. That's because I would be able to manufacture ten widgets for the price of your one. Even including shipping costs, I would bury you in sales because my widgets are so much cheaper to make.

Years ago, unions were a good thing for workers at the time. But what most didn't realize is as those workers received more money and benefits, that raised wages of non-union outfits as well. When everybody increases wages, it creates inflation. That's how we priced ourselves out of the world market. It didn't happen overnight and those greedy business owners could have moved anytime they liked.

At some point, we need to learn from our mistakes.

Under your plan most businesses would move because they could't afford to stay in the country. No matter what rent, housing prices, or even merchandise costs today in NYC, it would over double with your plans.

Under my plan all employee costs will be reduced 20% to 30% which will add an additional $5M/yr to my net. ALL prices for goods and services will be reduced to 2009 levels and held for ten years.

I've seen businesses leave our area. They either moved out of state to get away from the unions or out of the country because their competitors were already manufacturing out of the country.

Such as Levi $trau$$ & Company?

If you and I both had widget factories, but I decided to move my widget factory to Vietnam, you would have no choice but to do the same. That's because I would be able to manufacture ten widgets for the price of your one. Even including shipping costs, I would bury you in sales because my widgets are so much cheaper to make.

One of the many benefits of being adequately financed, I can leverage the costs of undercutting you until you file BK, then buy your entire inventory for -90% and return the loss.

Years ago, unions were a good thing for workers at the time. But what most didn't realize is as those workers received more money and benefits, that raised wages of non-union outfits as well. When everybody increases wages, it creates inflation. That's how we priced ourselves out of the world market. It didn't happen overnight and those greedy business owners could have moved anytime they liked.

Yes, the American worker DOES hurt excessive profits.

At some point, we need to learn from our mistakes.

The mistake of middle class voting for Republicans, and their bastard step-children the teabaggers and Libertarians.

You keep posting the same fantasy over and over again, so allow me to pop your bubble:

HTF could you possibly reduce prices to 2009 levels? Don't you think if business owners could do that, they would do so without your suggestion? And how are you going to freeze prices for 10 years? If you can do that, then go ahead and keep our gasoline this price for the next ten years. Business owners are constantly looking for ways to reduce costs. If they could reduce the cost per employee, they would have done it years ago.

Now if we were competitors, it wouldn't matter how well you were financed. Nobody stays in business very long making products they can't sell, especially when I have all the customers and financially doing ten times better than you.

Voting Republican is the same worn out excuse you on the left have for your failed liberal policies such as strong backing of unions and taxation that are the actual culprits when it comes to international job loss in this country. Not one company ever left the country because Republicans were in charge.

But the mom and pop flower shops can't. The ice cream stand owners can't. The hardware store owners can't. The Convenient store owners can't.

Why wouldn't they, their most costly expenses are reduced to 30% of gross. PERMANENTLY.

You keep posting the same fantasy over and over again, so allow me to pop your bubble:

Good luck with that!

HTF could you possibly reduce prices to 2009 levels? Don't you think if business owners could do that, they would do so without your suggestion? And how are you going to freeze prices for 10 years? If you can do that, then go ahead and keep our gasoline this price for the next ten years. Business owners are constantly looking for ways to reduce costs. If they could reduce the cost per employee, they would have done it years ago.

Businesses owners 'giving back' when there is nothing in the game for them? Sure!

You do understand that the reduced cost of diesel fuel in this country came from a meeting of the minds in Washington. Washington said, 'reduce the prices or else,' and the oil companies said, 'yes sir'.

Now if we were competitors, it wouldn't matter how well you were financed. Nobody stays in business very long making products they can't sell, especially when I have all the customers and financially doing ten times better than you.

If we were competitors, you'd be bankrupt.

Voting Republican is the same worn out excuse you on the left have for your failed liberal policies such as strong backing of unions and taxation that are the actual culprits when it comes to international job loss in this country.

How many Republicans have authored or supported a bill which helped the middle class without giving the rich a larger boost? Don't bother looking, there aren't any.

Not one company ever left the country because Republicans were in charge.

If you were receiving the best blow-job of your life, would you leave?

Reagan: Gutting the HMO Act.

Baby Bush's SEC rubber-stamping mergers and acquisitions based on leverage, not to mention 'Made-Off.'

You didn't coherently answer one question.

Allow me to point out your ignorance in fuel prices, particularly from a truck drivers prospective:

As a commodities investor for nearly ten years, I can tell you don't understand a thing about the market. Prices are not dictated by the oil companies or the US government. Fuel is international and dictated by the investors in the commodities market. Therefore, fuel prices are not set by any commanding entity.

The commodity market is responsive to supply and demand. Thanks to fracking in the US, fuel prices have lowered because there is more supply than demand. In fact we have so much fuel that we are exporting it.

Investors realize this so they are selling their contracts (meaning they are betting the price lowers) and that's what sets our fuel prices. The sell off is still taking place because of our excess of fuel. That does include diesel which is still around one dollar per gallon higher than gasoline. This increase took place during the Bush years when they lowered sulfur levels to 5%.

Your ignorance of market activity is also on display. If I am the king in my market (of whatever product) because I am producing my product much cheaper than you, how in the world can you say you can put me out of business?

Giving back? That's another myth by the left.

If I am paying $2.50 per unit to make my widgets, and that price increases (as it always does) I have to increase the price of my product. In other words, I can't produce widgets at a loss because I'm paying more for material than I can profit from. You can't freeze prices. There is no possible way to do that. Because if you freeze the price of my product, and I'm paying more to make that product, I will be out of business in not time at all. No company can operate at a loss.

You people have this factitious belief that government can control market activities by simply making law against it. It doesn't work that way and never will. This is why liberals should never be in charge of anything financial; because you don't understand it.

The commodity market is responsive to supply and demand.

So it's fixed?

Question: Have we had a glut in oil and gasoline for decades?

No, it's not fixed. Think of the commodities market this way:

You have old baseball cards for sale. As a child, you purchased them for about a quarter a pack. Today they are valuable and worth much more.

Instead of deciding on a price yourself, you throw them on E-Bay. On E-Bay, people bid for your cards. The more people bid that the cards are worth something, the higher the price goes.

You have no control over how low or high the price goes. That's up to the people bidding on your cards. Maybe your cards are rare and worth over 100 times what you paid for them. Maybe your cards are being sold all over E-bay and they are worth nothing. It's all supply and demand.

The commodities market works almost exactly like E-bay. The only difference is as a commodities holder, you make money whether the price goes up or down. That's based on if you bought contracts (bet the price will go up) or sold contracts (bet the price will drop).

 

[OnePercenter]

I think 15 should be years from now. 2020+. For now, it needs to be raised to 10. That gives the market time to respond if done gradually. You have a point about the garbage man, but to that I say: tough shit. It's worth it. 15 is kept up to date with the current cost of inflation.

You can say tough shit all you like. But if minimum wage were to increase to $15.00 tomorrow, all those workers would be demanding more money. Tough ship?

Okay, so you are an employer. Minimum wage goes to $15.00 per hour, so now your current $15.00 per hour employees are demanding $20.00 per hour. What are your choices?

You can tell your employees that have been with the company the last ten years to take a hike, and then hire new minimum wage employees that know nothing about your company, nothing about your operations, nothing about the positions you need them for. You'll have to train all of these people to do the jobs your experienced employees used to do. This could take years. And after you trained them, they too will be asking for more money.

Or you increase your current employees wages and keep that experience and dedication. It's really a brainless decision. Employers will be forced to keep their current employees and take the financial loss.

I don't understand how you people dismiss the demand side of economics. Any initial cost to business from raising wages would be regained by the boost to business from bigger paychecks.

What bigger paychecks, from the employees? How would business benefit from that?

When Commie Care went into full force, my employer dropped our healthcare coverage. Unfortunately, the geniuses that created this mess never put in a clause where the employer could pay you cash for the benefits he canceled. All he could do is increase your pay rate which my employer did.

He was paying $415.00 a month for my coverage, but, he couldn't give me a separate check for the $415.00. He had to figure what the extra costs were for matching my SS contributions, matching my Medicare contributions, higher unemployment tax, higher workman's compensation tax and so on.

With all the Deductions before what I got taxed on, I ended up with $275.00 of that money and again, I paid tax on that because it was part of my gross.

When your employer gives you a raise, all you see is the raise part. You don't see all the additional expenses he has to payout for all the benefits and costs associated with that raise. Imagine what an employer would have to pay on top of the new $15.00 per hour.

Your employer must have overlooked this:

Q1: My employer offers employees cash to reimburse the purchase of an individual market policy. Does this arrangement comply with the market reforms?

No. If the employer uses an arrangement that provides cash reimbursement for the purchase of an individual market policy, the employer's payment arrangement is part of a plan, fund, or other arrangement established or maintained for the purpose of providing medical care to employees, without regard to whether the employer treats the money as pre-tax or post-tax to the employee. Therefore, the arrangement is group health plan coverage within the meaning of Code section 9832(a), Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) section 733(a) and PHS Act section 2791(a), and is subject to the market reform provisions of the Affordable Care Act applicable to group health plans. Such employer health care arrangements cannot be integrated with individual market policies to satisfy the market reforms and, therefore, will violate PHS Act sections 2711 and 2713, among other provisions, which can trigger penalties such as excise taxes under section 4980D of the Code. Under the Departments' prior published guidance, the cash arrangement fails to comply with the market reforms because the cash payment cannot be integrated with an individual market policy.(6)

Frequently Asked Questions - The Affordable Care Act Implementation Part XXII

That's exactly what I pointed out. You can't just give the cash you used for healthcare to the employee. It's subject to penalties and taxation. That's why the only thing you can do is increase pay rates.

You stated that your employer canceled your healthcare and gave you monies in lieu of the healthcare.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You can say tough shit all you like. But if minimum wage were to increase to $15.00 tomorrow, all those workers would be demanding more money. Tough ship?

Okay, so you are an employer. Minimum wage goes to $15.00 per hour, so now your current $15.00 per hour employees are demanding $20.00 per hour. What are your choices?

You can tell your employees that have been with the company the last ten years to take a hike, and then hire new minimum wage employees that know nothing about your company, nothing about your operations, nothing about the positions you need them for. You'll have to train all of these people to do the jobs your experienced employees used to do. This could take years. And after you trained them, they too will be asking for more money.

Or you increase your current employees wages and keep that experience and dedication. It's really a brainless decision. Employers will be forced to keep their current employees and take the financial loss.

I don't understand how you people dismiss the demand side of economics. Any initial cost to business from raising wages would be regained by the boost to business from bigger paychecks.

What bigger paychecks, from the employees? How would business benefit from that?

When Commie Care went into full force, my employer dropped our healthcare coverage. Unfortunately, the geniuses that created this mess never put in a clause where the employer could pay you cash for the benefits he canceled. All he could do is increase your pay rate which my employer did.

He was paying $415.00 a month for my coverage, but, he couldn't give me a separate check for the $415.00. He had to figure what the extra costs were for matching my SS contributions, matching my Medicare contributions, higher unemployment tax, higher workman's compensation tax and so on.

With all the Deductions before what I got taxed on, I ended up with $275.00 of that money and again, I paid tax on that because it was part of my gross.

When your employer gives you a raise, all you see is the raise part. You don't see all the additional expenses he has to payout for all the benefits and costs associated with that raise. Imagine what an employer would have to pay on top of the new $15.00 per hour.

You have to look at this more broadly. I'm saying businesses across the country would benefit from it. More people would be spending more money on the market. Consumer spending accounts for 70% of the nation's economy.

Thats total bullshit. We've had 3 increases in MW and in no case was there increased spendoing
Instead what happens is busineess must either increase prices or reduce workers hours. There is no net gain for workers.

Oh Christ I'm not having this same argument with you just because you aren't mature enough to accept the answer. The rise in prices would not offset the boost to consumer spending. Over time prices would go down. Every time the min wage was raised, there was no significant cost to businesses. Look at history for Christ's sakes. This economy depends on consumer spending and right now it is shit because of low wages. Individual corporations refuse to raise wages because it is just easier for them to keep the ridiculous amount of money they already make. 3 out of 5 small businesses on the other hand support raising the minimum wage.

I doubt there is any truth to that. If most small businesses support a higher minimum wage, they would just raise the wages of their employees without government.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

i agree....if i had a job that i worked up the ladder to get that put me at 16 an hour and all of a sudden the guy emptying the trash is making 15....i would want more money ...i think billy knows that too but he would never admit it....

I think 15 should be years from now. 2020+. For now, it needs to be raised to 10. That gives the market time to respond if done gradually. You have a point about the garbage man, but to that I say: tough shit. It's worth it. 15 is kept up to date with the current cost of inflation.

You can say tough shit all you like. But if minimum wage were to increase to $15.00 tomorrow, all those workers would be demanding more money. Tough ship?

Okay, so you are an employer. Minimum wage goes to $15.00 per hour, so now your current $15.00 per hour employees are demanding $20.00 per hour. What are your choices?

You can tell your employees that have been with the company the last ten years to take a hike, and then hire new minimum wage employees that know nothing about your company, nothing about your operations, nothing about the positions you need them for. You'll have to train all of these people to do the jobs your experienced employees used to do. This could take years. And after you trained them, they too will be asking for more money.

Or you increase your current employees wages and keep that experience and dedication. It's really a brainless decision. Employers will be forced to keep their current employees and take the financial loss.

I don't understand how you people dismiss the demand side of economics. Any initial cost to business from raising wages would be regained by the boost to business from bigger paychecks.

What bigger paychecks, from the employees? How would business benefit from that?

When Commie Care went into full force, my employer dropped our healthcare coverage. Unfortunately, the geniuses that created this mess never put in a clause where the employer could pay you cash for the benefits he canceled. All he could do is increase your pay rate which my employer did.

He was paying $415.00 a month for my coverage, but, he couldn't give me a separate check for the $415.00. He had to figure what the extra costs were for matching my SS contributions, matching my Medicare contributions, higher unemployment tax, higher workman's compensation tax and so on.

With all the Deductions before what I got taxed on, I ended up with $275.00 of that money and again, I paid tax on that because it was part of my gross.

When your employer gives you a raise, all you see is the raise part. You don't see all the additional expenses he has to payout for all the benefits and costs associated with that raise. Imagine what an employer would have to pay on top of the new $15.00 per hour.

You have to look at this more broadly. I'm saying businesses across the country would benefit from it. More people would be spending more money on the market. Consumer spending accounts for 70% of the nation's economy.

Depends on what product you're talking about here.

If the minimum wage increased to $15.00 per hour, places like McDonald's would raise the price of their products, but because they sell so many products in a days time, the cost would easily be recouped even if they only raised the price on their items by a few cents.

That doesn't work in the hardware business, the flower shop business, the cake and bakery business because the bakery doesn't sell 400 cakes a day. The hardware store doesn't sell 300 boxes of dry wall screws a day.

 

[OnePercenter]

No, $23.50/hr will put the middle class back to solvency.

FYI: Corporate America is sitting >$100T cash, so YES, they can afford it.

But the mom and pop flower shops can't. The ice cream stand owners can't. The hardware store owners can't. The Convenient store owners can't.

Under your plan most businesses would move because they could't afford to stay in the country. No matter what rent, housing prices, or even merchandise costs today in NYC, it would over double with your plans.

Under my plan all employee costs will be reduced 20% to 30% which will add an additional $5M/yr to my net. ALL prices for goods and services will be reduced to 2009 levels and held for ten years.

I've seen businesses leave our area. They either moved out of state to get away from the unions or out of the country because their competitors were already manufacturing out of the country.

Such as Levi $trau$$ & Company?

If you and I both had widget factories, but I decided to move my widget factory to Vietnam, you would have no choice but to do the same. That's because I would be able to manufacture ten widgets for the price of your one. Even including shipping costs, I would bury you in sales because my widgets are so much cheaper to make.

One of the many benefits of being adequately financed, I can leverage the costs of undercutting you until you file BK, then buy your entire inventory for -90% and return the loss.

Years ago, unions were a good thing for workers at the time. But what most didn't realize is as those workers received more money and benefits, that raised wages of non-union outfits as well. When everybody increases wages, it creates inflation. That's how we priced ourselves out of the world market. It didn't happen overnight and those greedy business owners could have moved anytime they liked.

Yes, the American worker DOES hurt excessive profits.

At some point, we need to learn from our mistakes.

The mistake of middle class voting for Republicans, and their bastard step-children the teabaggers and Libertarians.

You keep posting the same fantasy over and over again, so allow me to pop your bubble:

HTF could you possibly reduce prices to 2009 levels? Don't you think if business owners could do that, they would do so without your suggestion? And how are you going to freeze prices for 10 years? If you can do that, then go ahead and keep our gasoline this price for the next ten years. Business owners are constantly looking for ways to reduce costs. If they could reduce the cost per employee, they would have done it years ago.

Now if we were competitors, it wouldn't matter how well you were financed. Nobody stays in business very long making products they can't sell, especially when I have all the customers and financially doing ten times better than you.

Voting Republican is the same worn out excuse you on the left have for your failed liberal policies such as strong backing of unions and taxation that are the actual culprits when it comes to international job loss in this country. Not one company ever left the country because Republicans were in charge.

But the mom and pop flower shops can't. The ice cream stand owners can't. The hardware store owners can't. The Convenient store owners can't.

Why wouldn't they, their most costly expenses are reduced to 30% of gross. PERMANENTLY.

You keep posting the same fantasy over and over again, so allow me to pop your bubble:

Good luck with that!

HTF could you possibly reduce prices to 2009 levels? Don't you think if business owners could do that, they would do so without your suggestion? And how are you going to freeze prices for 10 years? If you can do that, then go ahead and keep our gasoline this price for the next ten years. Business owners are constantly looking for ways to reduce costs. If they could reduce the cost per employee, they would have done it years ago.

Businesses owners 'giving back' when there is nothing in the game for them? Sure!

You do understand that the reduced cost of diesel fuel in this country came from a meeting of the minds in Washington. Washington said, 'reduce the prices or else,' and the oil companies said, 'yes sir'.

Now if we were competitors, it wouldn't matter how well you were financed. Nobody stays in business very long making products they can't sell, especially when I have all the customers and financially doing ten times better than you.

If we were competitors, you'd be bankrupt.

Voting Republican is the same worn out excuse you on the left have for your failed liberal policies such as strong backing of unions and taxation that are the actual culprits when it comes to international job loss in this country.

How many Republicans have authored or supported a bill which helped the middle class without giving the rich a larger boost? Don't bother looking, there aren't any.

Not one company ever left the country because Republicans were in charge.

If you were receiving the best blow-job of your life, would you leave?

Reagan: Gutting the HMO Act.

Baby Bush's SEC rubber-stamping mergers and acquisitions based on leverage, not to mention 'Made-Off.'

You didn't coherently answer one question.

Allow me to point out your ignorance in fuel prices, particularly from a truck drivers prospective:

As a commodities investor for nearly ten years, I can tell you don't understand a thing about the market. Prices are not dictated by the oil companies or the US government. Fuel is international and dictated by the investors in the commodities market. Therefore, fuel prices are not set by any commanding entity.

The commodity market is responsive to supply and demand. Thanks to fracking in the US, fuel prices have lowered because there is more supply than demand. In fact we have so much fuel that we are exporting it.

Investors realize this so they are selling their contracts (meaning they are betting the price lowers) and that's what sets our fuel prices. The sell off is still taking place because of our excess of fuel. That does include diesel which is still around one dollar per gallon higher than gasoline. This increase took place during the Bush years when they lowered sulfur levels to 5%.

Your ignorance of market activity is also on display. If I am the king in my market (of whatever product) because I am producing my product much cheaper than you, how in the world can you say you can put me out of business?

Giving back? That's another myth by the left.

If I am paying $2.50 per unit to make my widgets, and that price increases (as it always does) I have to increase the price of my product. In other words, I can't produce widgets at a loss because I'm paying more for material than I can profit from. You can't freeze prices. There is no possible way to do that. Because if you freeze the price of my product, and I'm paying more to make that product, I will be out of business in not time at all. No company can operate at a loss.

You people have this factitious belief that government can control market activities by simply making law against it. It doesn't work that way and never will. This is why liberals should never be in charge of anything financial; because you don't understand it.

The commodity market is responsive to supply and demand.

So it's fixed?

Question: Have we had a glut in oil and gasoline for decades?

No, it's not fixed. Think of the commodities market this way:

You have old baseball cards for sale. As a child, you purchased them for about a quarter a pack. Today they are valuable and worth much more.

Instead of deciding on a price yourself, you throw them on E-Bay. On E-Bay, people bid for your cards. The more people bid that the cards are worth something, the higher the price goes.

You have no control over how low or high the price goes. That's up to the people bidding on your cards. Maybe your cards are rare and worth over 100 times what you paid for them. Maybe your cards are being sold all over E-bay and they are worth nothing. It's all supply and demand.

The commodities market works almost exactly like E-bay. The only difference is as a commodities holder, you make money whether the price goes up or down. That's based on if you bought contracts (bet the price will go up) or sold contracts (bet the price will drop).

You make money in commodities betting on what the big guys (and not so big guys that leverage correctly) do. It's nothing more than an avenue to make monies to play in the stock market.