- Banned
- #141
Hate to tell you this sparky, but NO state in the US has NO minimum wage law. Oh they may not have a state law, but in that case the federal limit applies.
Heres the answer.
- Thread starter OnePercenter
- Start date
Hate to tell you this sparky, but NO state in the US has NO minimum wage law. Oh they may not have a state law, but in that case the federal limit applies.
- Banned
- #142
No in fact you are COMPLETELY wrong in your belief that the government shouldn't dictate a minimum wage.
The reason being is that because in this country we are not going to allow people who are working to starve simply because employers don't want to pay reasonable wages, instead we will supplement those wages with welfare.
The ONLY question is where do we draw the line? Personally I don't think it's right at all that people are getting rich while their employees get MY tax dollars to supplement their low wages, apparently you think that its okay.
Of course federal law applies to all states but there are five states that have no minimum wage law so minimum wage in those states are fixed at the lowest rate in the country.
Louisiana has passed a law prohibiting any state or local government from establishing a minimum wage. Louisiana Rev. Stat. 23:642.
Louisiana - Wage and Hour Laws | Employment Law HandbookEmployment Law Handbook
You will find no state minimum wage laws for Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, an Tennessee.
http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/america.htm
Statistikhengst
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #144
42!
Of course the federal minimum wage applies to all states. The point is that the 5 states without minimum wage laws have the federal minimum wage, the lowest minimum wage in the country, high poverty rates, and a heavy dependence on state and federal welfare dollars. Low minimum wages reduce cost to employers and increase costs to the tax payers. The lower the minimum wage the more dependent families become on welfare, food stamps, and medicaid.
Last edited:
- Banned
- #146
If you look at the unemployment rates in relation to federal minimum wage increases you will see that you are looking at about a 2% higher unemployment rate in the year the raise is implemented and that rebounds the very next year. Meaning there is negligible affect.
Oh sure, jobs are traded. McDonalds will go from needing burger flippers to needing burger flipping machine techs, but the jobs are still there.
Your is just another lame excuse to keep the minimum wage depressed below where it should be.
emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
Dear One Percenter:
For your model, you are better off setting up your own business network
run on bartering, and see the natural cost of maintaining the businesses
and managing the exchanges.
THEN you can ADJUST your structure to match practical reality.
Paul Glover of Ithaca HOURS has seen the difference between what
makes a sustainable local economy last, and why they fail. He says it
takes one full time person PAID to do the managing between the
cooperating member businesses.
So if you are the paid point person, you can set up your own cooperative
and see if it can work on 23.50 per hour. But your job is always going to be different.
These are not going to be equal.
He has seen sustainable systems work at 10.00 per labor hour
with an exception for doctors and lawyers that needed to be paid more credits per hour
due to added licensing and operating costs regulated by government.
You can learn from his system what works and what doesn't,
to add to and refine your own model. Including why people can't be paid all the same.
No one here is going to convince you otherwise.
You'd have to experience it for yourself, like Paul Glover did when setting up
independent currency cooperatives for local communities,
and Ben & Jerry when the executives tried to equalize the pay structure as
much as possible, but found there was a limit. They couldn't even get the
pay rates within the projected range of each other, much less all the same
without the company finances falling apart. You might want to research
other people who have done close to what you are asking, and see what interferes.
For your model, you are better off setting up your own business network
run on bartering, and see the natural cost of maintaining the businesses
and managing the exchanges.
THEN you can ADJUST your structure to match practical reality.
Paul Glover of Ithaca HOURS has seen the difference between what
makes a sustainable local economy last, and why they fail. He says it
takes one full time person PAID to do the managing between the
cooperating member businesses.
So if you are the paid point person, you can set up your own cooperative
and see if it can work on 23.50 per hour. But your job is always going to be different.
These are not going to be equal.
He has seen sustainable systems work at 10.00 per labor hour
with an exception for doctors and lawyers that needed to be paid more credits per hour
due to added licensing and operating costs regulated by government.
You can learn from his system what works and what doesn't,
to add to and refine your own model. Including why people can't be paid all the same.
No one here is going to convince you otherwise.
You'd have to experience it for yourself, like Paul Glover did when setting up
independent currency cooperatives for local communities,
and Ben & Jerry when the executives tried to equalize the pay structure as
much as possible, but found there was a limit. They couldn't even get the
pay rates within the projected range of each other, much less all the same
without the company finances falling apart. You might want to research
other people who have done close to what you are asking, and see what interferes.
It seems pretty drastic and draconian. Why not just a simple 3 or 4 tiered Flat Tax?
You want to up the minimum wage? how about killing the subsidies then for those that are employed. Why not try to address the actual cash value of all that is redistributed by various Government entities that make up for the low minimum wage?
Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,102
- 245
Why not make the minimum wage $100 per hour?
How can it be a flat tax if it has 4 tiers? That sounds like a progressive tax.
Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,102
- 245
The point is that only 20 states have a minimum wage higher than the minimum wage. Of the remaining 32 states 24 have wage laws that are equal to, but not greater than, the federal law. You should read your link, all the information is there.
Last edited:
Shrimpbox
Gold Member
Here here flat tax. Bring it. I don't know why stat( and maybe he has or someone else has) doesn't tell us what a family of four can get that only makes min wage in benes. I have heard in ny it is 70 grand a year, my experience in fla is in the mid thirties and that may be if you don't work at all.
I have to laugh at the new argument that people like Bill Maher make that they are tired of paying for welfare so supposedly other people( mostly repubs of course) can get rich. Does that mean that I have a choice of what wasteful programs I don't want my tax dollars to go to. And it's his party that set all this stuff up in the first place. Let me think, who pays the most in taxes to support the welfare state? Oh yeah that's right the rich guys. A lot of this stuff is like the starvation debate. I don't see anyone starving and I don't see anyone in chains and tattered clothes eating gruel and trying to throw off the yoke of economic domination.
On a brighter note, is it not time to put all our esteemed number crunchers and research personnel to work? Yes I am previously indisposed. I can't remember the name but in technology there is the law of computer power doubling every eighteen months or so. Can the message board seal team not come up with a law defining how welfare benefits expand every election cycle or ten years or whatever at a very predictable rate.?
I can see it now, US Message Boards, Discussion with Repercussion
How about troll races? ( SLAP! shrimpbox get a hold of yourself)
I have to laugh at the new argument that people like Bill Maher make that they are tired of paying for welfare so supposedly other people( mostly repubs of course) can get rich. Does that mean that I have a choice of what wasteful programs I don't want my tax dollars to go to. And it's his party that set all this stuff up in the first place. Let me think, who pays the most in taxes to support the welfare state? Oh yeah that's right the rich guys. A lot of this stuff is like the starvation debate. I don't see anyone starving and I don't see anyone in chains and tattered clothes eating gruel and trying to throw off the yoke of economic domination.
On a brighter note, is it not time to put all our esteemed number crunchers and research personnel to work? Yes I am previously indisposed. I can't remember the name but in technology there is the law of computer power doubling every eighteen months or so. Can the message board seal team not come up with a law defining how welfare benefits expand every election cycle or ten years or whatever at a very predictable rate.?
I can see it now, US Message Boards, Discussion with Repercussion
How about troll races? ( SLAP! shrimpbox get a hold of yourself)
It's called Moore's Law which is not really a law but rather an observation. It should hold up until 2015 or 2020 when transistor counts and densities are to double only every three years.
Shrimpbox
Gold Member
See you guys are on it already. What an incredible thing to think about, is there no limit to how small they can go?
Andylusion
Platinum Member
Who cares? You realize that during the down turn, many of our domestic businesses were kept afloat by off-shore revenue?
Think about it like diversification. Why do people invest in mutual funds, instead of single stocks? Because of diversification. If you have all your money tied up in a single company, and that company crashes, you end up broke. If you invest in a mutual fund that buys stock in hundreds of companies, and one company fails, you don't lose much, because the other 99 companies are not all failing at the exact same time. Thus your investment is safer.
Right? Well as a company, if you have all your investment, 100% of it tied up in one single economy, and that one single economy crashes, then your company goes bankrupt and is gone. Whereas, if you invest in several economies, and one goes bad, the others do well.
GM Asia is making a profit right now, as is GM America, whereas GM Europe is in the red right now.
Do not foolishly assume that if you prevented international investment, that the American economy will never have a recession again.
We will, no matter what policy we put and place, and when that recession happens, you will want foreign investments keeping domestic companies alive.
Back to taxes and Business.
I went back and re-read the plan you described. The way it was written, does not indicate you intended to eliminate taxes on business.
However even so, you don't really mean that even now. I know you don't, because you have said numerous times in other threads that you support the income tax. Well the biggest tax on business..... *IS* the income tax.
The vast majority of businesses in America today (and the world), are all sole proprietorships. What that means is, there is one dude who owns the business. There is no "company money" and "personal money". If I own a lawn car business, every dollar the business earns, is my earnings.
So if I earn $80,000, I have to pay income taxes on my business earnings, because they are *MY* earnings.
Thus.... if you say you want to eliminate business deductions, and business write-offs, and business write downs... such as the deduction for the depreciation of my lawn care business equipment.... You are increasing my taxes, which are taxes on my business. I have less money to keep my business going, less money to grow it, less money to hire people, and so on.
But let's even suggest that possibly you just mean to eliminate corporate taxes.
This still won't do any good. The harm you are doing, will far out weight the minor benefits.
Let's say that I'm CEO of Lawn Corp. We do business mowing lawns. Now let's say that we charge $40 to mow a lawn, and we pay the employee $20 to mow each lawn. That's $20 profit.
Now there are a few tax on business operations, but most taxes are on profits. So let's say that corporate taxes are 50%, and I lose $10 of the $20 in taxes, and profit $10 for every lawn mowed.
Now you come along, and double the cost of labor, but eliminate corporate taxes.
Sounds good. So now the cost of labor is $40. So I charge $40, pay out $40, and end up with $0 profit. But at least my taxes are lower on that profit..... oh wait... there is no profit!
So what happens now is, without profit, I have no retained earnings to repair the lawn mower. When the mower breaks, the job is over, the company is closed, and the employee is now unemployed.
See, you can cut all the taxes in the world, and that won't help if you drive up the cost of labor. Cutting taxes only reduces the loss of earned profits to the government.
But if you push other policies that eliminate those earned profits, all the tax cuts in the world do not make up for that.
So even with your new updated plan, it still won't work. You will still ruin the entire economy, and destroy jobs and doom the US to a 3rd world status.
Andylusion
Platinum Member
First off, the "living wage" is a myth. That's all it is. It's just a subjective made up number, that some just arbitrarily decided. I know this, because you can read the stories of people who earned, and survived, on far less than whatever made up number you come up with.
I know a guy right now, who worked at McDonald's for $4.25, and raised a family of 4 on it, with a wife who didn't work. You can live on very very little.
Now this guy ended up moving up. He got a better job, and then worked his way up from there, and now makes a decent living.
Here's the difference. Minimum wage jobs, are not "jobs to live on" unless you choose to. It's up to *YOU* to get a better job. And there are many many better jobs.
Question is, do you want to be unemployed, earning zero, or unemployed earning something? Because if you drive up the minimum wage, you'll be replaced with a kiosk, just like in France, and then you'll be unemployed earning zero. Is that a "livable wage" in your world? Zero?
And the idea that wages will sink until oblivion is just false. Look at Norway. Norway has ZERO minimum wage. The employees at McDonald's in Norway, earn about $15/hr. Because that's the market there.
Why is the market for that labor higher than the US? Because Norwegians move up. They don't just sit there earning $5/hr for the rest of their lives. They get a degree, and get a job that pays more. Because the supply of low-skilled labor is lower, the price for that labor is higher.
We can do the same thing here. If we have more people getting higher value skills, and the supply of low-skilled labor declined, the market itself would push up wages, without any minimum wage required.
Instead stupid Americans, sit on their butt, with a sign, "I deserve a 'livable wage'" and wait for someone to get them more money, instead of learning something of value that pays more.
Worse, you don't seem to grasp that every time the minimum wage goes up, the cost of living goes up. The minimum wage is a driver of inflation. I was actually working at Wendy's when the minimum age increase hit, back in the 90s. The first thing Wendy's did was lay off three people. The second thing they did, was increase their prices.
Minimum wage kills jobs, and increases prices. Thus every time you increase the minimum wage toward the supposed "livable wage", the "livable wage" suddenly gets higher. Because the costs of living go up with the minimum wage.
In 2009 after the minimum wage hit $7.25, suddenly everyone started complaining about how the cost of food went up, and produce at the stores got more expensive, and so on. Hello! Connection???
And as far as subsidizing the salary of low-wage workers, the solution is to stop subsidizing. That will give low-wage workers the incentives to move on. Get a skill, or education that has more value in the market, and get a job that pays better.
You can't force the value of labor up. A cheap fast food burger is not worth $20, just because you want to raise the minimum wage. That's why McDonald's is replacing employees with Kiosks. We the customer are not paying that much for a cheap burger.
Andylusion
Platinum Member
Kind of irrelevant, given the Federal Minimum wage is still in effect in Mississippi.
Crew Jobs, Employment in Hattiesburg, MS | Indeed.com
So McDonald's is still paying $7.25 to $7.75 starting rate, in MS, where there is no minimum wage.... Seems to indicate that not having a state minimum wage, is meaningless when there is a Federal Minimum wage.
As for wealthy states.... That is also a bit irrelevant.
Take North Dakota right now. Booming economy. 2.3% unemployment rate. Wages are rising without a minimum wage increase, because it's a booming economy.
Crew Jobs, Employment in North Dakota | Indeed.com
Same exact job, same exact minimum wage, yet wages are higher. Why? Because there is greater demand for labor in a booming economy, and the supply of unemployed laborers is lower. The market is pushing up wages.
Now here's the key. Some smart sly politicians could stand up in ND, and push raising the minimum wage to $8/hr. They know they could do this, and gain support from the mindless left, and at the same time do no harm to the economy, because the market has already pushed up low-wage labor beyond $8.
Then you would come on here and say "Look! North Dakota is wealthy, and a higher minimum wage didn't hurt anything!"
But the minimum wage didn't cause the economic boom. Plus, when the boom is over, and every economy has cycles, then when wages are prevented from falling because of the minimum wage, people lose their jobs, and unemployment is high.
Andylusion
Platinum Member
First off, Bush/Wall St, didn't crash the economy alone. The start of the sub-prime mortgage boom, was in 1997, when Freddie pushed banks to make bad loans, and Clinton, sued banks to make bad loans.
But beyond this... I don't understand how people can say stuff like this.
If you drive up labor costs, and drive down prices, economic ruin is the outcome.
In Venezuela, they tried exactly this plan. They increased the cost of labor, and put in place price controls.
Result?
The sign above the empty shelves says "Made with Socialism". (rough translation).
What part of this, is hard to grasp? Price controls always result in shortages. Always have. By the way... notice on that shelf, it's coffee filters.... but no coffee. No coffee..... in Venezuela. Think about that. No coffee in Venezuela.
The number one cost in nearly any business, is labor. There are few exceptions. Like oil markets, where you buy and sell multimillion dollar contracts, and pay the sales rep a $100K a year to do it.
But the biggest cost in making a car, is labor costs. The biggest cost making a cheese burger at Wendy's is labor costs.
So here you are going to more the double labor costs, and at the same time prevent business from passing on that cost to consumers, and the result is, Venezuela. Empty shelves. Over a Million people have fled Venezuela in the past 5 years, and they only have a population of 29 million.
You plan, is a plan to make American into 3rd world country.
Andylusion
Platinum Member
But see, right now if we didn't have a minimum wage, the unemployment rate would be cut in half, or lower.
Minimum wage ALWAYS kills jobs.
You tell me which is better.... working for something, or working for NOTHING? Is an hourly wage of ZERO better?
Because that's what you get with minimum wage.
Andylusion
Platinum Member
Well.... those people are unemployed. It might rebound the next year.... great, what do I do until then?
If you raise the minimum wage to $15/hr, I'm sure I'd be unemployed. Telling me unemployment will rebound next year, isn't going to help me much.
Further, you don't know how that rebound came about. Was the economy already booming? Was the economy already on the rebound?
Then what happens when you kills jobs in an economy not rebounding? Make it worse?
Do you even know for certain that the reason unemployment went down, was because they found jobs in that economy? What if the reason unemployment went back down, is because people found jobs elsewhere and moved? What if they simply left the job market completely?
See, again, the best way to look at unemployment, is from the perspective of other countries where the labor rates have been higher, for longer. Take France. France has had a double digit unemployment for decades. Youth unemployment, has been in the 20% area for decades too.
Is that really the route we want to go? I don't think so.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
President Trump Announces Move of Ed Martin to DOJ Weaponization Investigation Working Group- Started by DonGlock26
- Replies: 4
-
Another reminder, when the police get there, what happens has already happened.
- Started by the watcher
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
Illegal faces deportation after wrong turn in San Diego MSM doesn't mention ended up at the entrance to a Marine base.- Started by Mack The Finger
- Replies: 8
