Thousands Losing Jobs in DC Due to Minimum Wage

[DGS49]

Under the current economy (I won't call it the "O'Bama Economy" because he is not that powerful), the "unemployment rate" has become a relatively meaningless statistic, as it excludes those who are not looking for work or have given up looking for work.

This is particularly true in Washington DC, where there is a massive Black population living on the dole. Not only are they not looking for work, but when their children come of age few of them even try to find gainful employment, and thus are not counted as "unemployed."

A $15 MW virtually guarantees that very few school kids, recent HS grads, or HS dropouts will ever find employment in the private sector.

It is beyond my comprehension how Lefties can fail to see this obvious fact. The very people they purport to want to assist are the ones who are hardest hit by the stupidity of this government mandate.

Un.

Fucking.

Believable.

 

[Rshermr]

[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]
So, DGS49, laboring under lack of ability to reason, says:
Under the current economy (I won't call it the "O'Bama Economy" because he is not that powerful), the "unemployment rate" has become a relatively meaningless statistic, as it excludes those who are not looking for work or have given up looking for work.
So, as a con tool, you are so stupid that you believe that people who no longer are looking for work should be counted as unemployed? Got it.
So we should count those who have medical inability to work and so do not attempt to find work.
And people like me, being retired, and therefor not looking for work, should be counted as unemployed.
And we should count those that do not need to work and do not want to work as unemployed. Got it.
And we should count these people under a democratic president when we have never counted them before, under republican presidents. Got it.

This is particularly true in Washington DC, where there is a massive Black population living on the dole. Not only are they not looking for work, but when their children come of age few of them even try to find gainful employment, and thus are not counted as "unemployed."
We understand. You are prejudiced. You do not like blacks. Or mexicans. Or other non white people.

A $15 MW virtually guarantees that very few school kids, recent HS grads, or HS dropouts will ever find employment in the private sector.
A claim that you have no proof of. But believe because you have been told to believe it, like a good conservative tool.

It is beyond my comprehension how Lefties can fail to see this obvious fact. The very people they purport to want to assist are the ones who are hardest hit by the stupidity of this government mandate.
But you hit it on the head. It is another of the many things beyond your comprehension. Because you are stupid. And you have been provided those con talking points. So you do not have to try to reason. Because reasoning is so hard for you. And being told what to believe is so easy.

Thanks, me stupid con tool, for helping to legitimize all those studies proving most cons are stupid.

 

[martybegan]

How did business survive with everyone that has been making $15/hr or more until now?

If you are to believe the OP business survives only by riding the backs of $7/hr labor. And the other argument that "well business will just replace workers with robots". So why hasn't every person that makes $15/hr or more up until now been replaced by a robot?

As with every change in commodity prices, of which labor is one, there will be a short adjustment period where the price is absorbed by the economy and there will be some layoffs etc. But businesses are not going to stop operating en masse. It will take some time, the price will be absorbed, and life will go on.

Just as it has for every single raise in the minimum wage since it began in 1938. Why weren't people all replaced with machines in 1938? Or 1948? Or '58? What about 2008?

It is a bogus claim. It will go up again in ten years. And ten years after that. And in that 20 years copper will go up many times, as will wood, beef, rubber, orange juice, and every other commodity. Where is all the bitching about the cost of orange juice going up?

Because other commodities, orange juice, and every other commodity is not labor. And companies get the revenue, not the worker. And cons are paid to support the wealthy who make the commodities, but have to pay for the labor. So cons hate minimum wage and raises of the same. Because they support the wealthy, and never the worker.

you keep ignoring the fact that people being paid $15 an hour now are probably adding $15 per hour worth of value to whatever product or service they are making/providing.

The issue is paying someone $15 an hour when they only add $8 an hour or so in value to whatever they are working on is the issue.

 

[Rshermr]

How did business survive with everyone that has been making $15/hr or more until now?

If you are to believe the OP business survives only by riding the backs of $7/hr labor. And the other argument that "well business will just replace workers with robots". So why hasn't every person that makes $15/hr or more up until now been replaced by a robot?

As with every change in commodity prices, of which labor is one, there will be a short adjustment period where the price is absorbed by the economy and there will be some layoffs etc. But businesses are not going to stop operating en masse. It will take some time, the price will be absorbed, and life will go on.

Just as it has for every single raise in the minimum wage since it began in 1938. Why weren't people all replaced with machines in 1938? Or 1948? Or '58? What about 2008?

It is a bogus claim. It will go up again in ten years. And ten years after that. And in that 20 years copper will go up many times, as will wood, beef, rubber, orange juice, and every other commodity. Where is all the bitching about the cost of orange juice going up?

Because other commodities, orange juice, and every other commodity is not labor. And companies get the revenue, not the worker. And cons are paid to support the wealthy who make the commodities, but have to pay for the labor. So cons hate minimum wage and raises of the same. Because they support the wealthy, and never the worker.

you keep ignoring the fact that people being paid $15 an hour now are probably adding $15 per hour worth of value to whatever product or service they are making/providing.

The issue is paying someone $15 an hour when they only add $8 an hour or so in value to whatever they are working on is the issue.

You assume that I ignored a very, very simple issue. Yep, in some cases, it will not work so well. However, if you are paying someone an hourly wage and producing an insufficient number of those items at a cost so low that the cost of labor is a really big issue, then you may have a problem. But you ignore the fact that in most cases labor is just one of many costs that make up the TOTAL cost of that item. And you ignore the fact that in most cases you can raise the price of the item being made, by some amount.
The truth is, we will see what the outcome is. For decades, the min wage has been raising slower than the cost of living. So, that seems to be OK for those who do not like the minimum wage. But in other nations, that is not true, and those nations do not have the problem that you are so worried about. Given time, maybe we will have a problem we have never had before. Where the medium to long term effects of the raise in the mw causes problems.
But what is NOT new is that conservatives always say raising the mw will cause unemployment. They ALWAYS do. But so far, they have always been wrong.
We shall see.

 

[martybegan]

How did business survive with everyone that has been making $15/hr or more until now?

If you are to believe the OP business survives only by riding the backs of $7/hr labor. And the other argument that "well business will just replace workers with robots". So why hasn't every person that makes $15/hr or more up until now been replaced by a robot?

As with every change in commodity prices, of which labor is one, there will be a short adjustment period where the price is absorbed by the economy and there will be some layoffs etc. But businesses are not going to stop operating en masse. It will take some time, the price will be absorbed, and life will go on.

Just as it has for every single raise in the minimum wage since it began in 1938. Why weren't people all replaced with machines in 1938? Or 1948? Or '58? What about 2008?

It is a bogus claim. It will go up again in ten years. And ten years after that. And in that 20 years copper will go up many times, as will wood, beef, rubber, orange juice, and every other commodity. Where is all the bitching about the cost of orange juice going up?

Because other commodities, orange juice, and every other commodity is not labor. And companies get the revenue, not the worker. And cons are paid to support the wealthy who make the commodities, but have to pay for the labor. So cons hate minimum wage and raises of the same. Because they support the wealthy, and never the worker.

you keep ignoring the fact that people being paid $15 an hour now are probably adding $15 per hour worth of value to whatever product or service they are making/providing.

The issue is paying someone $15 an hour when they only add $8 an hour or so in value to whatever they are working on is the issue.

You assume that I ignored a very, very simple issue. Yep, in some cases, it will not work so well. However, if you are paying someone an hourly wage and producing an insufficient number of those items at a cost so low that the cost of labor is a really big issue, then you may have a problem. But you ignore the fact that in most cases labor is just one of many costs that make up the TOTAL cost of that item. And you ignore the fact that in most cases you can raise the price of the item being made, by some amount.
The truth is, we will see what the outcome is. For decades, the min wage has been raising slower than the cost of living. So, that seems to be OK for those who do not like the minimum wage. But in other nations, that is not true, and those nations do not have the problem that you are so worried about. Given time, maybe we will have a problem we have never had before. Where the medium to long term effects of the raise in the mw causes problems.
But what is NOT new is that conservatives always say raising the mw will cause unemployment. They ALWAYS do. But so far, they have always been wrong.
We shall see.

Labor is a rather large cost when it comes to low end products.

And the issue is raising it by such an amount that automation is preferable over raising the cost of the product.

 

[Wyatt earp]

How did business survive with everyone that has been making $15/hr or more until now?

If you are to believe the OP business survives only by riding the backs of $7/hr labor. And the other argument that "well business will just replace workers with robots". So why hasn't every person that makes $15/hr or more up until now been replaced by a robot?

As with every change in commodity prices, of which labor is one, there will be a short adjustment period where the price is absorbed by the economy and there will be some layoffs etc. But businesses are not going to stop operating en masse. It will take some time, the price will be absorbed, and life will go on.

Just as it has for every single raise in the minimum wage since it began in 1938. Why weren't people all replaced with machines in 1938? Or 1948? Or '58? What about 2008?

It is a bogus claim. It will go up again in ten years. And ten years after that. And in that 20 years copper will go up many times, as will wood, beef, rubber, orange juice, and every other commodity. Where is all the bitching about the cost of orange juice going up?

So why hasn't every person that makes $15/hr or more up until now been replaced by a robot?


What are you retarded or just play retarded?

Any job can be replaced today by automation and/or robotics if money was no object.


It boils down to simple economics, does it cost more in automation to replace a $15 dollar an hour worker? Or is it cheaper to have a $15 dollar an hour worker?


God you liberals are so fucking ignorant to basic economics and business it is not even funny.


.

 

[Rshermr]

How did business survive with everyone that has been making $15/hr or more until now?

If you are to believe the OP business survives only by riding the backs of $7/hr labor. And the other argument that "well business will just replace workers with robots". So why hasn't every person that makes $15/hr or more up until now been replaced by a robot?

As with every change in commodity prices, of which labor is one, there will be a short adjustment period where the price is absorbed by the economy and there will be some layoffs etc. But businesses are not going to stop operating en masse. It will take some time, the price will be absorbed, and life will go on.

Just as it has for every single raise in the minimum wage since it began in 1938. Why weren't people all replaced with machines in 1938? Or 1948? Or '58? What about 2008?

It is a bogus claim. It will go up again in ten years. And ten years after that. And in that 20 years copper will go up many times, as will wood, beef, rubber, orange juice, and every other commodity. Where is all the bitching about the cost of orange juice going up?

So why hasn't every person that makes $15/hr or more up until now been replaced by a robot?


What are you retarded or just play retarded?

Any job can be replaced today by automation and/or robotics if money was no object.


It boils down to simple economics, does it cost more in automation to replace a $15 dollar an hour worker? Or is it cheaper to have a $15 dollar an hour worker?


God you liberals are so fucking ignorant to basic economics and business it is not even funny.

Did you realize you just said absolutely nothing? Did you think you made an actual economic argument? Poor stupid bastard.

.

 

[DGS49]

It is not clear whether the child who posts as "Rshermr" is stupid, uninformed, or is merely a troll, making idiotic statements of "fact" and passing out gratuitous insults.

But just for fun...

• The "minimum wage" itself is an economic abomination, as understood by ALL economists, including Paul Krugman, before he became a tool for the Democrats. If a desirous employer and a willing employee are willing to have the employee do certain work at a certain wage, then by what right on God's green earth can any outside party (Big Government) come in and say those two parties are not free to do what they are manifestly interested in doing? It is an economic crime.
• Any time an outside force mandates the price of a commodity that is greater than its economic value, then three things happen, ALWAYS: (1) the consumer of the item uses less of it (reduced hours, headcount), (2) the consumer of the item seeks alternatives (e.g., automation, outsourcing), and (3) a "black market" comes into existence where the commodity is purchased outside the view of the intervening force. It doesn't matter what the commodity is. Cigarettes (tax increases). Basic human labor. Same results.
• Studies that "prove" that increases in MW do not affect employment are ALWAYS centered in high cost of living areas where the ACTUAL minimum wage is already higher than the LEGAL minimum wage, and the increase in the LEGAL MW is, in economic terms, irrelevant. Where I live, the fast food places pay $10-12/hr for high school kids because the economic circumstances make it necessary. So if the local MW were increased to $12/hr it would have no effect on employment.
• If a $15 minimum wage is "good," then why stop there? Why not $20 or $25? Seriously. Anyone promoting a $15 MW should be able to answer this question. But they can't because a "high" minimum wage is horrible economic policy.
• If a higher MW is so important, then why didn't the Democrats try to increase the MW during Barry's first two years in office, when they controlled the WH and both houses of Congress? Didn't even raise the issue. If they had the votes to shove Obamacare down our throats with not a single Republican vote, then why not the minimum wage? Could it be that even they knew that it is stupid and would further depress the economy?

 

[Rshermr]

[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE] It is not clear whether the child who posts as "Rshermr" is stupid, uninformed, or is merely a troll, making idiotic statements of "fact" and passing out gratuitous insults.That would be your opinion, dipshit. And you know how much I respect your opinion.
As we read you post, perhaps we will see who is uninformed and stupid.

But just for fun... Or simply to prove you are stupid:

• The "minimum wage" itself is an economic abomination, as understood by ALL economists, including Paul Krugman, before he became a tool for the Democrats. Hardly. You lie a lot. Most economists believe that the MW is a strong economic tool. If a desirous employer and a willing employee are willing to have the employee do certain work at a certain wage, then by what right on God's green earth can any outside party (Big Government) come in and say those two parties are not free to do what they are manifestly interested in doing? It is an economic crime. Got it. You love the fact that corporations have economic monopoly power, and labor has none. And do not agree with the great majority of the population and economists that MW is a good thing.

Actually, me boy, you are the abomination.

• Any time an outside force mandates the price of a commodity that is greater than its economic value, then three things happen, ALWAYS: (1) the consumer of the item uses less of it (reduced hours, headcount), (2) the consumer of the item seeks alternatives (e.g., automation, outsourcing), and (3) a "black market" comes into existence where the commodity is purchased outside the view of the intervening force. It doesn't matter what the commodity is. Cigarettes (tax increases). Basic human labor. Same results. But you do not consider the fact that in the past, nearly all increases in MW have not created the thing which the Con Talking points that you post say would happen. As any rational person would know. But which as a con tool, you do not want known.
• Studies that "prove" that increases in MW do not affect employment are ALWAYS centered in high cost of living areas where the ACTUAL minimum wage is already higher than the LEGAL minimum wage, and the increase in the LEGAL MW is, in economic terms, irrelevant. Where I live, the fast food places pay $10-12/hr for high school kids because the economic circumstances make it necessary. So if the local MW were increased to $12/hr it would have no effect on employment. What you say is not backed up by experts, but is proposed by bat shit crazy con web sites. Where do you get your information, me bat shit crazy con tool? In case you have not noticed, your agenda is showing big time.
• If a $15 minimum wage is "good," then why stop there? Why not $20 or $25? Seriously. Anyone promoting a $15 MW should be able to answer this question. But they can't because a "high" minimum wage is horrible economic policy. Are you really that stupid. Or are you simply lying? You are repeating the con talking points. Point number 7 under Minimum Wage in the conservative talking points web site. Nice partial, agenda driven source. Dipshit. And to people with half a brain, the answer is simple. Too high a MW will cause unemployment levels too high. So, you see, you are wrong. People proposing a $15 MW have a brain, so they have no problem at all with your really stupid question. It must be painful to be as stupid as you are.
• If a higher MW is so important, then why didn't the Democrats try to increase the MW during Barry's first two years in office, when they controlled the WH and both houses of Congress? Didn't even raise the issue. If they had the votes to shove Obamacare down our throats with not a single Republican vote, then why not the minimum wage? Could it be that even they knew that it is stupid and would further depress the economy? Another incredibly stupid Conservative Talking Point. Apparently you were unaware that Obama cam in to office with the country loosing over 600,000 jobs per month. At the early part of the Great Republican Recession of 2008. Anyone capable of thinking (thus leaving out cons) knew that was not the time to worry about MW. Republicans had wiped out the economy, the ue rate was going to over 10% (third highest in US History, me boy), so other issues were more important.

I do have a couple of questions:
1. Do you have no compunction about lying? You are transparent at it, but prolific.
2. Do you ever post anything BUT con talking points?
3. Does it hurt to be that stupid?