Democrat Rep on CNN: We don't want Small Businesses

[Slade3200]

I simply said that anybody working full time should get paid enough to stay above the poverty line and off government assistance.

Someone working full time at minimum wage is above the poverty line.

What do you consider the poverty line?

What do you consider the poverty line?

I don't believe in a poverty line....but the Federal government says it's $12,880 for one person.

Does that sound reasonable to you? $12,880 as a poverty line for one persons annual earnings?

As I said, I don't believe in a poverty line....

Haha. Well there is one, so let me know when you make it back to reality and we can discuss

Yes, there is one. I don't see how it's very useful.
The government says it's $12,880.
If you think it's unreasonable, write your congressman.
Let me know what they say.

Oh I’m not personally too concerned with it. I pay my people much more than $15 an hour and hope most other business owners act responsibly and do the same. Those that don’t and take advantage of workers are the ones that will cause the government to step in and regulate it

And there lies the road to tyranny.

How so?

Easy. Gov't Mandates lead to Gov't CONTROL. Need I 'Splain more?

Haha. That’s a dumb point. That would be like me saying deregulation leads to anarchy.

Deregulation leads to FREEDOM.

Which leads to anarchy, right??

No of course not.

Correct. Just showing how ridiculous his description of events was

But mandates do result in more government control, by definition.
Deregulation does not lead to anarchy.

So, you didn't make a point.

Mandates lead to more government control but not tyranny like the poster claimed. Just like dereg leads to more freedom but not anarchy. Get it?

 

[Slade3200]

llegal aliens work for less than minimum wage. Make them legal, force employers to pay them MW and RAISE the MW and the downward pressure on wages go away.

Importing millions of low-skilled illegal aliens, making them legal and hiking the minimum wage is not going to increase the demand for low-skilled native born US citizen workers.

Who determines the value an employee adds?

Math.

OK. Show your work

If you take $10 of input and turn it into an $18 product in 1 hour, you created $8 of value/hour.

The fact is that these immigrants do the work that American workers are too lazy to do, and $15 isn't going to change that. My view is that $15 is too high a wage for the kind of work that they do because that basic wage is a learning wage only.

What kind of work are you talking about? And what are they learning? Can you give a couple examples?

Farmhands, landscaping, clean-up, etc.

You think picking veggies in a field all day is a learning task? Or digging trenches or cleaning bathroom floors?! What exactly are they learning? And if somebody spends 40 hours a week 50 weeks a year doing those jobs do you really think they deserve to make less than $15,000 a year ?! Really think about that

Yes, I think everybody deserves more. It isn't only $15000. It also benefits that need to be added to the mix and then it becomes a matter of affordability.

Ok $15k and benefits. You good with that for full time work? The jobs you listed aren’t learning jobs btw, they are straight up hard labor

Unskilled labor, and yes it can be hard. A job like that pays less than skilled labor jobs. If you are a business owner, you will look at things a little differently when it is your money and you own the overhead. Trust me. It is very difficult for someone who has never had to meet payroll to understand the nature of business.

I’ve ran my own businesses did the past 15 years. I understand the nature of business. I could never stomach utilizing 40 hours a week 50 weeks a year of somebody’s time and only paying them $15k. I don’t care what job they were doing

If an employee wasn't making you money, what would you do?

.

Is it the employees job to make me money?

Unless it’s Socialism then yes.

How much money does a janitor make for a school?

A lot less than a teacher who'd have to do the cleaning if he wasn't there. It's called value added. I thought you own a business, you don't seem to know much about running one.

.

I asked a simple question... how much money does a janitor make for a school?

You didn't say what kind of school.

.

You choose

Since most schools are not profit making businesses it's irrelevant to the conversation. No one is there to make money for the school. Any more deflections?

.

Haha, these aren’t deflections these are examples of low wage jobs that aren’t directly related to making money for a business. You’ve been trying to make the point that an employee is only worth what they can bring in. I’m showing you thats BS. Get it now?

You don't think a farm hand picking veggies, or a janitor cleaning the office, is directly related to the business makring money? Really?

Of course they are...you need farrm hands to help pick or produce the product you take to market.

You need a clean office to bring in customers....

Of course they all play a part in the business. But the question was being asked about value. I asked who determines the value of an employee? The people I was conversing with implied that it was dependent on the revenue they bring in so I cited examples of jobs that don’t bring in revenue. They are an expense and part of the overall operations of the business

The market....what janitors at similar businesses in the same locality are being paid, for farmhands, what similar farm hands in the same locality, at the same type of farm are being paid.

Obviously if they are good at their job, and gain experience the employer will want to reward them to keep them...pay them more, treat them well....move them up to other positions etc.

But even then, there is still a limit. No matter how much 'experience' you gain, and no matter how 'good they are at their job'.... you still can't pay someone more money than they generate in value.

If I hire you to mow lawns for my lawn mowing company, and the customer is only willing to pay me $30 to have the lawn mowed... I can't pay you the employee $30.

Can't do it. I would end up losing money. Doesn't matter how experienced you are. Doesn't matter how good at mowing you are.

If customer doesn't pay me more, then I can't pay you more.

If I did pay you more, then I would be losing money, and why would I do that? If I can't pay you less, then it would be better for me to not hiring you, and not mow the customers lawn, than to mow the lawn, and pay you so much that I lost money.

Would you do that? Would you pay for a mower, to get paid $30, to pay me $30, and end up earning nothing? No you would not. No one would.

I don’t think the pro pile of supply and demand are in debate right now. The debate is about what the minimum bar for entry level pay should be. Everything else y’all are saying about business operations, wages, value and revenue all still applies

What I'm saying is, if you raise the bar for entry level pay..... that does not mean the customer is going to be willing to pay whatever that bar is.

If the customer refuses to pay me more than $30 to have a lawn mowed, then I can't pay you the employee $30.... even if you government decides that the minimum bar should be $30.

The result is, I lay you off, and you earn zero. If I can't employ you profitably, and profitably enough to make it worth my effort... then I won't do it. And you will not be employed.

That's why the real solution is for people with low-value labor, to move to something of higher value, not and force employers to pay high value wages, for low value work. That's a fail. Doesn't work.

Why are you fighting so hard against employers paying higher wages? That’s a good thing especially when wages have a floor of $7.25 an hour. We are better than that

Still should be up to the employer. Nobody has to TAKE the job offered.

Yes that would be the conservative view and a fair argument to make. The other side wants to protect the vulnerable from being taken advantage of so they want to regulate and set fair parameters

 

[d0gbreath]

The problem with the label of "small business" is that there is no bottom. Missy selling her artwork on FB will probably be OK. The fact that my BIL's mower and mine are in the back of my truck, means that we'll have a ton of work when the grass starts growing again; we'll probably be fine in the spring.

It's the sole proprietors that lease space for whatever idea that they may have that go into immediate debt and have too much overhead, because "We own our own business!" They very seldom make it. Throw the covid on them and they're out.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That’s a good thing especially when wages have a floor of $7.25 an hour.

Not good for workers who aren't worth the higher wage.

Make anybody do anything for you for 8 hours a day 5 days a week and they are worth more than $7.25. You don’t seem to place much value on other peoples time. Too bad

Make anybody do anything for you for 8 hours a day 5 days a week and they are worth more than $7.25.

That's not true.

You don’t seem to place much value on other peoples time.

Why do you feel that?

 

[Slade3200]

That’s a good thing especially when wages have a floor of $7.25 an hour.

Not good for workers who aren't worth the higher wage.

Make anybody do anything for you for 8 hours a day 5 days a week and they are worth more than $7.25. You don’t seem to place much value on other peoples time. Too bad

Make anybody do anything for you for 8 hours a day 5 days a week and they are worth more than $7.25.

That's not true.

You don’t seem to place much value on other peoples time.

Why do you feel that?

I feel that because of your response to my first statement.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That’s a good thing especially when wages have a floor of $7.25 an hour.

Not good for workers who aren't worth the higher wage.

Make anybody do anything for you for 8 hours a day 5 days a week and they are worth more than $7.25. You don’t seem to place much value on other peoples time. Too bad

Make anybody do anything for you for 8 hours a day 5 days a week and they are worth more than $7.25.

That's not true.

You don’t seem to place much value on other peoples time.

Why do you feel that?

I feel that because of your response to my first statement.

Some workers are worth a lot more than $7.25 some are worth less.

Neither has anything to do with the imagined feelings you're trying to pin on me.

 

[WEATHER53]

Small business owners are the pinnacle of creative and self determined people. Democrats want edict following government dependents. Part of Covid overreaction is to make this so

 

[Slade3200]

That’s a good thing especially when wages have a floor of $7.25 an hour.

Not good for workers who aren't worth the higher wage.

Make anybody do anything for you for 8 hours a day 5 days a week and they are worth more than $7.25. You don’t seem to place much value on other peoples time. Too bad

Make anybody do anything for you for 8 hours a day 5 days a week and they are worth more than $7.25.

That's not true.

You don’t seem to place much value on other peoples time.

Why do you feel that?

I feel that because of your response to my first statement.

Some workers are worth a lot more than $7.25 some are worth less.

Neither has anything to do with the imagined feelings you're trying to pin on me.

Nothing is imagined. If you think somebody’s time is worth less than $7.25 an hour in this country then you have a lack of respect for other peoples time. That’s just a fact

 

[Kondor3]

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) told CNN in an interview on Sunday that he and presumably other Democrats “don’t want low-wage” small businesses as he advocated for increasing the minimum wage. “We don’t want low-wage businesses,” he said when asked if mom and pop shops should be forced to pay employees more. “I think most successful small businesses can pay a fair wage.”

Democrat Rep. Ro Khanna: ‘We Don’t Want Low-Wage’ Small Businesses That Pay Less Than $15 Minimum Wage | The Daily Wire

www.dailywire.com

No beating around the bush there. The Rich and big-time Corporations only. F these local businesses who don't succeed by economies of scale. No open market of ideas. If you can't pay what I think you should, you should be erased.

The latest daily example of Leftist totalitarianism.

Yep... that's a pretty alarming and foolhardy perspective by one of those freakazoid Kalipornia Democrats, isn't it?

So why don't you clowns get off your a$$e$ and win enough elections out there to sideline such nonsensical visions?

I'll tell you why... because people don't want what you're selling... and those slices they DO want, you aren't savvy enough to sell 'em on.

You have an enormous marketing problem on your hands amongst the voting populace and you haven't got a clue how to fix it, beyond your own base.

It's easy to win with Home Field Advantage (Red states)... but you guys suck at Away Games (Blue states)... and it's not gonna get fixed anytime soon.

Sophomoric scare-tactics aren't going to cut it... juvenile... obvious... vulgar... no imagination... no power behind the bat...

And because you guy suck so bad at optics and messaging outside your own little comfy domain, you've been sent back down to the Minors for a cycle or two.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you think somebody’s time is worth less than $7.25 an hour in this country then you have a lack of respect for other peoples time.

Respect has zero to do with it.
Some people aren't productive enough to deserve a $7.25 wage.

 

[Andylusion]

That’s a good thing especially when wages have a floor of $7.25 an hour.

Not good for workers who aren't worth the higher wage.

Make anybody do anything for you for 8 hours a day 5 days a week and they are worth more than $7.25. You don’t seem to place much value on other peoples time. Too bad

You can't "make" anybody do anything.

This isn't socialism. This is capitalism. If I refuse to work, how are you going to "make me" do work for you?

Second, if their time is worth more.... then they should be able to find a job that pays more for their time.

If you are saying that your time is worth more money than you are earning, then you should be able to prove that, by getting a job that pays more for your time.

If you can't...... then again, by definition, your time isn't worth more.

 

[Andylusion]

llegal aliens work for less than minimum wage. Make them legal, force employers to pay them MW and RAISE the MW and the downward pressure on wages go away.

Importing millions of low-skilled illegal aliens, making them legal and hiking the minimum wage is not going to increase the demand for low-skilled native born US citizen workers.

Who determines the value an employee adds?

Math.

OK. Show your work

If you take $10 of input and turn it into an $18 product in 1 hour, you created $8 of value/hour.

The fact is that these immigrants do the work that American workers are too lazy to do, and $15 isn't going to change that. My view is that $15 is too high a wage for the kind of work that they do because that basic wage is a learning wage only.

What kind of work are you talking about? And what are they learning? Can you give a couple examples?

Farmhands, landscaping, clean-up, etc.

You think picking veggies in a field all day is a learning task? Or digging trenches or cleaning bathroom floors?! What exactly are they learning? And if somebody spends 40 hours a week 50 weeks a year doing those jobs do you really think they deserve to make less than $15,000 a year ?! Really think about that

Yes, I think everybody deserves more. It isn't only $15000. It also benefits that need to be added to the mix and then it becomes a matter of affordability.

Ok $15k and benefits. You good with that for full time work? The jobs you listed aren’t learning jobs btw, they are straight up hard labor

Unskilled labor, and yes it can be hard. A job like that pays less than skilled labor jobs. If you are a business owner, you will look at things a little differently when it is your money and you own the overhead. Trust me. It is very difficult for someone who has never had to meet payroll to understand the nature of business.

I’ve ran my own businesses did the past 15 years. I understand the nature of business. I could never stomach utilizing 40 hours a week 50 weeks a year of somebody’s time and only paying them $15k. I don’t care what job they were doing

If an employee wasn't making you money, what would you do?

.

Is it the employees job to make me money?

Unless it’s Socialism then yes.

How much money does a janitor make for a school?

A lot less than a teacher who'd have to do the cleaning if he wasn't there. It's called value added. I thought you own a business, you don't seem to know much about running one.

.

I asked a simple question... how much money does a janitor make for a school?

You didn't say what kind of school.

.

You choose

Since most schools are not profit making businesses it's irrelevant to the conversation. No one is there to make money for the school. Any more deflections?

.

Haha, these aren’t deflections these are examples of low wage jobs that aren’t directly related to making money for a business. You’ve been trying to make the point that an employee is only worth what they can bring in. I’m showing you thats BS. Get it now?

You don't think a farm hand picking veggies, or a janitor cleaning the office, is directly related to the business makring money? Really?

Of course they are...you need farrm hands to help pick or produce the product you take to market.

You need a clean office to bring in customers....

Of course they all play a part in the business. But the question was being asked about value. I asked who determines the value of an employee? The people I was conversing with implied that it was dependent on the revenue they bring in so I cited examples of jobs that don’t bring in revenue. They are an expense and part of the overall operations of the business

The market....what janitors at similar businesses in the same locality are being paid, for farmhands, what similar farm hands in the same locality, at the same type of farm are being paid.

Obviously if they are good at their job, and gain experience the employer will want to reward them to keep them...pay them more, treat them well....move them up to other positions etc.

But even then, there is still a limit. No matter how much 'experience' you gain, and no matter how 'good they are at their job'.... you still can't pay someone more money than they generate in value.

If I hire you to mow lawns for my lawn mowing company, and the customer is only willing to pay me $30 to have the lawn mowed... I can't pay you the employee $30.

Can't do it. I would end up losing money. Doesn't matter how experienced you are. Doesn't matter how good at mowing you are.

If customer doesn't pay me more, then I can't pay you more.

If I did pay you more, then I would be losing money, and why would I do that? If I can't pay you less, then it would be better for me to not hiring you, and not mow the customers lawn, than to mow the lawn, and pay you so much that I lost money.

Would you do that? Would you pay for a mower, to get paid $30, to pay me $30, and end up earning nothing? No you would not. No one would.

I don’t think the pro pile of supply and demand are in debate right now. The debate is about what the minimum bar for entry level pay should be. Everything else y’all are saying about business operations, wages, value and revenue all still applies

What I'm saying is, if you raise the bar for entry level pay..... that does not mean the customer is going to be willing to pay whatever that bar is.

If the customer refuses to pay me more than $30 to have a lawn mowed, then I can't pay you the employee $30.... even if you government decides that the minimum bar should be $30.

The result is, I lay you off, and you earn zero. If I can't employ you profitably, and profitably enough to make it worth my effort... then I won't do it. And you will not be employed.

That's why the real solution is for people with low-value labor, to move to something of higher value, not and force employers to pay high value wages, for low value work. That's a fail. Doesn't work.

Why are you fighting so hard against employers paying higher wages? That’s a good thing especially when wages have a floor of $7.25 an hour. We are better than that

Well.... I don't know exactly why you are asking that question, when I just spelled out why.

I was working at McDonalds when they raised the minimum wage. They laid off three people. I was there. I saw them do it.

So I know first hand, that increasing the minimum wage didn't result in employers paying higher wages. I resulted in employers laying off employees, who then earned zero.

Which goes back to exactly what I explained in the post before.

If the government mandated that oil changes had a minimum price of $100.... What would happen? Fewer people would buy oil changes. You'd have more people doing oil changes themselves, and some people just not changing the oil in their cars... or going to black market back yard mechanics for oil changes.

If the government mandated that milk was $20 a gallon.... what would happen? Fewer people would buy milk.

So as we have established.... raising the price, and inverse effect on people buying the service or product.

Well.... labor is the same. If you raise the price of labor, it has an inverse effect on people purchasing labor.

How much did they raise the minimum wage when you were at McDs ? How in the world would that result in three employees. I’d love to see the math on that one

How would I know dude? Really? How would I know what the math was. You are acting like I was in the accounting office, filling out ledgers.

What I do know, is what I witnessed personally. When the minimum wage went up, they laid off 3 part time employees and hired one full time employee.

This is logical only in that, the only people at the store that earned minimum wage, were the part time employees. Everyone else was full time, and was already making more than minimum wage. It went from $4.25 to $5.25.

So how did we cope with having 2 less people? Well the rest of us had to pick up the slack.

How does that math work out? Dude I know know, I just witnessed what happened personally. You can take it or leave it.

And we've seen this everywhere.

A 2017 University of Washington study on Seattle minimum wage found that while wages went up, hours worked declined, resulting in less pay for low-wage workers.

Every time they raise the minimum wage, people lose jobs, or in this case lose hours, which is effectively losing part of your job.
But it's same every single time.

Again, if they raise the price of milk to $30/gallon... people would buy less milk wouldn't they? Same is true of buying labor.

 

[Andylusion]

I simply said that anybody working full time should get paid enough to stay above the poverty line and off government assistance.

Someone working full time at minimum wage is above the poverty line.

What do you consider the poverty line?

What do you consider the poverty line?

I don't believe in a poverty line....but the Federal government says it's $12,880 for one person.

Does that sound reasonable to you? $12,880 as a poverty line for one persons annual earnings?

As I said, I don't believe in a poverty line....

Haha. Well there is one, so let me know when you make it back to reality and we can discuss

Yes, there is one. I don't see how it's very useful.
The government says it's $12,880.
If you think it's unreasonable, write your congressman.
Let me know what they say.

Oh I’m not personally too concerned with it. I pay my people much more than $15 an hour and hope most other business owners act responsibly and do the same. Those that don’t and take advantage of workers are the ones that will cause the government to step in and regulate it

And there lies the road to tyranny.

How so?

Easy. Gov't Mandates lead to Gov't CONTROL. Need I 'Splain more?

Haha. That’s a dumb point. That would be like me saying deregulation leads to anarchy.

Deregulation leads to FREEDOM.

Which leads to anarchy, right??

No of course not.

Correct. Just showing how ridiculous his description of events was

But mandates do result in more government control, by definition.
Deregulation does not lead to anarchy.

So, you didn't make a point.

Mandates lead to more government control but not tyranny like the poster claimed. Just like dereg leads to more freedom but not anarchy. Get it?

Of course it is tyranny. A dictation on how you act in society, is still a dictation, even if you don't call it tyranny.

This is such a weird conversation. A mandate is someone in government, dictating how you act in society.

The only difference between a mandate and tyranny is that you don't consider it cruel.

But that's because you are not the one whose livelihood is being wiped out. If you lost your business, because of a minimum wage that you couldn't afford to pay, then it would be tyranny. Because you are not the one losing your business... it magically isn't Tyranny.

Just like the people in Syria who support Assad, do not claim he's a tyrant because it's not their kids blown to bits by barrel bombs, or gassed with chemicals.

Tyranny is when you are doing nothing wrong, but government mandates you act the way they want.
So yes it is.

 

[Slade3200]

If you think somebody’s time is worth less than $7.25 an hour in this country then you have a lack of respect for other peoples time.

Respect has zero to do with it.
Some people aren't productive enough to deserve a $7.25 wage.

The requirement for them to be working validates more than $7.25. Their time validates it. If the business owner can’t structure a business to utilize their workforce and make a profit then that’s on them

 

[Slade3200]

That’s a good thing especially when wages have a floor of $7.25 an hour.

Not good for workers who aren't worth the higher wage.

Make anybody do anything for you for 8 hours a day 5 days a week and they are worth more than $7.25. You don’t seem to place much value on other peoples time. Too bad

You can't "make" anybody do anything.

This isn't socialism. This is capitalism. If I refuse to work, how are you going to "make me" do work for you?

Second, if their time is worth more.... then they should be able to find a job that pays more for their time.

If you are saying that your time is worth more money than you are earning, then you should be able to prove that, by getting a job that pays more for your time.

If you can't...... then again, by definition, your time isn't worth more.

I’m sure some assholes don’t value other peoples time at all and would pay them $1 an hour if they could. I’m sure there are people poor and desperate enough to work under subpar conditions. This is why regulations get made... because assholes take advantage. If our businesses were responsible and respectful then we wouldn’t need to regulate. If businesses paid low wage earners livable wages then there wouldn’t be a problem with the min wage requirement going up

 

[Slade3200]

llegal aliens work for less than minimum wage. Make them legal, force employers to pay them MW and RAISE the MW and the downward pressure on wages go away.

Importing millions of low-skilled illegal aliens, making them legal and hiking the minimum wage is not going to increase the demand for low-skilled native born US citizen workers.

Who determines the value an employee adds?

Math.

OK. Show your work

If you take $10 of input and turn it into an $18 product in 1 hour, you created $8 of value/hour.

The fact is that these immigrants do the work that American workers are too lazy to do, and $15 isn't going to change that. My view is that $15 is too high a wage for the kind of work that they do because that basic wage is a learning wage only.

What kind of work are you talking about? And what are they learning? Can you give a couple examples?

Farmhands, landscaping, clean-up, etc.

You think picking veggies in a field all day is a learning task? Or digging trenches or cleaning bathroom floors?! What exactly are they learning? And if somebody spends 40 hours a week 50 weeks a year doing those jobs do you really think they deserve to make less than $15,000 a year ?! Really think about that

Yes, I think everybody deserves more. It isn't only $15000. It also benefits that need to be added to the mix and then it becomes a matter of affordability.

Ok $15k and benefits. You good with that for full time work? The jobs you listed aren’t learning jobs btw, they are straight up hard labor

Unskilled labor, and yes it can be hard. A job like that pays less than skilled labor jobs. If you are a business owner, you will look at things a little differently when it is your money and you own the overhead. Trust me. It is very difficult for someone who has never had to meet payroll to understand the nature of business.

I’ve ran my own businesses did the past 15 years. I understand the nature of business. I could never stomach utilizing 40 hours a week 50 weeks a year of somebody’s time and only paying them $15k. I don’t care what job they were doing

If an employee wasn't making you money, what would you do?

.

Is it the employees job to make me money?

Unless it’s Socialism then yes.

How much money does a janitor make for a school?

A lot less than a teacher who'd have to do the cleaning if he wasn't there. It's called value added. I thought you own a business, you don't seem to know much about running one.

.

I asked a simple question... how much money does a janitor make for a school?

You didn't say what kind of school.

.

You choose

Since most schools are not profit making businesses it's irrelevant to the conversation. No one is there to make money for the school. Any more deflections?

.

Haha, these aren’t deflections these are examples of low wage jobs that aren’t directly related to making money for a business. You’ve been trying to make the point that an employee is only worth what they can bring in. I’m showing you thats BS. Get it now?

You don't think a farm hand picking veggies, or a janitor cleaning the office, is directly related to the business makring money? Really?

Of course they are...you need farrm hands to help pick or produce the product you take to market.

You need a clean office to bring in customers....

Of course they all play a part in the business. But the question was being asked about value. I asked who determines the value of an employee? The people I was conversing with implied that it was dependent on the revenue they bring in so I cited examples of jobs that don’t bring in revenue. They are an expense and part of the overall operations of the business

The market....what janitors at similar businesses in the same locality are being paid, for farmhands, what similar farm hands in the same locality, at the same type of farm are being paid.

Obviously if they are good at their job, and gain experience the employer will want to reward them to keep them...pay them more, treat them well....move them up to other positions etc.

But even then, there is still a limit. No matter how much 'experience' you gain, and no matter how 'good they are at their job'.... you still can't pay someone more money than they generate in value.

If I hire you to mow lawns for my lawn mowing company, and the customer is only willing to pay me $30 to have the lawn mowed... I can't pay you the employee $30.

Can't do it. I would end up losing money. Doesn't matter how experienced you are. Doesn't matter how good at mowing you are.

If customer doesn't pay me more, then I can't pay you more.

If I did pay you more, then I would be losing money, and why would I do that? If I can't pay you less, then it would be better for me to not hiring you, and not mow the customers lawn, than to mow the lawn, and pay you so much that I lost money.

Would you do that? Would you pay for a mower, to get paid $30, to pay me $30, and end up earning nothing? No you would not. No one would.

I don’t think the pro pile of supply and demand are in debate right now. The debate is about what the minimum bar for entry level pay should be. Everything else y’all are saying about business operations, wages, value and revenue all still applies

What I'm saying is, if you raise the bar for entry level pay..... that does not mean the customer is going to be willing to pay whatever that bar is.

If the customer refuses to pay me more than $30 to have a lawn mowed, then I can't pay you the employee $30.... even if you government decides that the minimum bar should be $30.

The result is, I lay you off, and you earn zero. If I can't employ you profitably, and profitably enough to make it worth my effort... then I won't do it. And you will not be employed.

That's why the real solution is for people with low-value labor, to move to something of higher value, not and force employers to pay high value wages, for low value work. That's a fail. Doesn't work.

Why are you fighting so hard against employers paying higher wages? That’s a good thing especially when wages have a floor of $7.25 an hour. We are better than that

Well.... I don't know exactly why you are asking that question, when I just spelled out why.

I was working at McDonalds when they raised the minimum wage. They laid off three people. I was there. I saw them do it.

So I know first hand, that increasing the minimum wage didn't result in employers paying higher wages. I resulted in employers laying off employees, who then earned zero.

Which goes back to exactly what I explained in the post before.

If the government mandated that oil changes had a minimum price of $100.... What would happen? Fewer people would buy oil changes. You'd have more people doing oil changes themselves, and some people just not changing the oil in their cars... or going to black market back yard mechanics for oil changes.

If the government mandated that milk was $20 a gallon.... what would happen? Fewer people would buy milk.

So as we have established.... raising the price, and inverse effect on people buying the service or product.

Well.... labor is the same. If you raise the price of labor, it has an inverse effect on people purchasing labor.

How much did they raise the minimum wage when you were at McDs ? How in the world would that result in three employees. I’d love to see the math on that one

How would I know dude? Really? How would I know what the math was. You are acting like I was in the accounting office, filling out ledgers.

What I do know, is what I witnessed personally. When the minimum wage went up, they laid off 3 part time employees and hired one full time employee.

This is logical only in that, the only people at the store that earned minimum wage, were the part time employees. Everyone else was full time, and was already making more than minimum wage. It went from $4.25 to $5.25.

So how did we cope with having 2 less people? Well the rest of us had to pick up the slack.

How does that math work out? Dude I know know, I just witnessed what happened personally. You can take it or leave it.

And we've seen this everywhere.

A 2017 University of Washington study on Seattle minimum wage found that while wages went up, hours worked declined, resulting in less pay for low-wage workers.

Every time they raise the minimum wage, people lose jobs, or in this case lose hours, which is effectively losing part of your job.
But it's same every single time.

Again, if they raise the price of milk to $30/gallon... people would buy less milk wouldn't they? Same is true of buying labor.

Ok well there you go, they laid off 3 part time employees and hire one full time employee. I knew there was more to it... and there could be several reason why management decided to do that

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you think somebody’s time is worth less than $7.25 an hour in this country then you have a lack of respect for other peoples time.

Respect has zero to do with it.
Some people aren't productive enough to deserve a $7.25 wage.

The requirement for them to be working validates more than $7.25. Their time validates it. If the business owner can’t structure a business to utilize their workforce and make a profit then that’s on them

The requirement for them to be working validates more than $7.25.

40 hours of minimally productive work doesn't magically become worth more than $7.25.
Validates...LOL!

If the business owner can’t structure a business to utilize their workforce and make a profit then that’s on them

Exactly. Which is why paying a guy barely worth $7.25 twice that will never happen.

 

[Slade3200]

I simply said that anybody working full time should get paid enough to stay above the poverty line and off government assistance.

Someone working full time at minimum wage is above the poverty line.

What do you consider the poverty line?

What do you consider the poverty line?

I don't believe in a poverty line....but the Federal government says it's $12,880 for one person.

Does that sound reasonable to you? $12,880 as a poverty line for one persons annual earnings?

As I said, I don't believe in a poverty line....

Haha. Well there is one, so let me know when you make it back to reality and we can discuss

Yes, there is one. I don't see how it's very useful.
The government says it's $12,880.
If you think it's unreasonable, write your congressman.
Let me know what they say.

Oh I’m not personally too concerned with it. I pay my people much more than $15 an hour and hope most other business owners act responsibly and do the same. Those that don’t and take advantage of workers are the ones that will cause the government to step in and regulate it

And there lies the road to tyranny.

How so?

Easy. Gov't Mandates lead to Gov't CONTROL. Need I 'Splain more?

Haha. That’s a dumb point. That would be like me saying deregulation leads to anarchy.

Deregulation leads to FREEDOM.

Which leads to anarchy, right??

No of course not.

Correct. Just showing how ridiculous his description of events was

But mandates do result in more government control, by definition.
Deregulation does not lead to anarchy.

So, you didn't make a point.

Mandates lead to more government control but not tyranny like the poster claimed. Just like dereg leads to more freedom but not anarchy. Get it?

Of course it is tyranny. A dictation on how you act in society, is still a dictation, even if you don't call it tyranny.

This is such a weird conversation. A mandate is someone in government, dictating how you act in society.

The only difference between a mandate and tyranny is that you don't consider it cruel.

But that's because you are not the one whose livelihood is being wiped out. If you lost your business, because of a minimum wage that you couldn't afford to pay, then it would be tyranny. Because you are not the one losing your business... it magically isn't Tyranny.

Just like the people in Syria who support Assad, do not claim he's a tyrant because it's not their kids blown to bits by barrel bombs, or gassed with chemicals.

Tyranny is when you are doing nothing wrong, but government mandates you act the way they want.
So yes it is.

A functioning government has rules and laws. It’s not tyrannical unless you are being a drama Queen

 

[Slade3200]

If you think somebody’s time is worth less than $7.25 an hour in this country then you have a lack of respect for other peoples time.

Respect has zero to do with it.
Some people aren't productive enough to deserve a $7.25 wage.

The requirement for them to be working validates more than $7.25. Their time validates it. If the business owner can’t structure a business to utilize their workforce and make a profit then that’s on them

The requirement for them to be working validates more than $7.25.

40 hours of minimally productive work doesn't magically become worth more than $7.25.
Validates...LOL!

If the business owner can’t structure a business to utilize their workforce and make a profit then that’s on them

Exactly. Which is why paying a guy barely worth $7.25 twice that will never happen.

Yes it does, should be more than $7.25

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you think somebody’s time is worth less than $7.25 an hour in this country then you have a lack of respect for other peoples time.

Respect has zero to do with it.
Some people aren't productive enough to deserve a $7.25 wage.

The requirement for them to be working validates more than $7.25. Their time validates it. If the business owner can’t structure a business to utilize their workforce and make a profit then that’s on them

The requirement for them to be working validates more than $7.25.

40 hours of minimally productive work doesn't magically become worth more than $7.25.
Validates...LOL!

If the business owner can’t structure a business to utilize their workforce and make a profit then that’s on them

Exactly. Which is why paying a guy barely worth $7.25 twice that will never happen.

Yes it does, should be more than $7.25

Because of your feelings?