Minimum Wage Increase: They Never Talks About the SALES

[LOki]

You have obviously never tended bar or waited tables.

Even on slower nights you do OK and it is offset by the busy times where you can pull in upwards of 25 an hour.

But you don't ever want to have to work nights weekends or holidays so you have to whine for a MW of 15 an hour

Pay em Minimum Wage plus their tips. That's the right thing to do. But you greedy fat white Republican dudes never do the right thing for American Workers. So i don't expect you to agree.

I worked as a waiter and bar tender and even at the service wage made way more than any of my friends working for MW

You see I am not afraid to work like you and unlike you I like to earn my own way not be given charity

Give em Minimum Wage plus their tips. Paying someone $2.50-$3.00 an hour is unacceptable. Restaurant Owners who pay like that, should be ashamed of themselves. Period, end of story.

Why do you object to simply basing a worker's wage upon what that worker's work is worth?

If I wish to accept wages below the level YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) deem proper, upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) declare it illegal for me to accept such wages? Upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) deny someone else my services? Upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) deny me that employment?

Upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) decide for OTHERS what their work (either offeredor performed) is worth?

That's the point. You fat greedy white Republican dudes don't have morals. That's why there's a Minimum Wage in the first place. No one will count on you wankers to do the right thing.

Why do you object to simply basing a worker's wage upon what that worker's work is worth?

If I wish to accept wages below the level YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) deem proper, upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) declare it illegal for me to accept such wages? Upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) deny someone else my services? Upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) deny me that employment?

Upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) decide for OTHERS what their work (either offeredor performed) is worth?

 

[Andylusion]

I mentioned in the last post, that big chain stores are more able to handle the higher cost of employment, than small mom&pop shops.

Well here is a perfect example of that.

Proof Perfect That The Minimum Wage Costs Jobs - Forbes

Story of a small book store, closing because of the minimum wage law.

Here is the actual post written by the owners.

Borderlands Books Borderlands Books to Close in March

Borderlands, is a small independent book store that specialized in sci-fi fantasy books.

n November, San Francisco voters overwhelmingly passed a measure that will increase the minimum wage within the city to $15 per hour by 2018. Although all of us at Borderlands support the concept of a living wage in principal and we believe that it's possible that the new law will be good for San Francisco -- Borderlands Books as it exists is not a financially viable business if subject to that minimum wage. Consequently we will be closing our doors no later than March 31st. The cafe will continue to operate until at least the end of this year.

The change in minimum wage will mean our payroll will increase roughly 39%. That increase will in turn bring up our total operating expenses by 18%. To make up for that expense, we would need to increase our sales by a minimum of 20%. We do not believe that is a realistic possibility for a bookstore in San Francisco at this time.

The other obvious alternative to increasing sales would be to decrease expenses. The only way to accomplish the amount of savings needed would be to reduce our staff to: the current management (Alan Beatts and Jude Feldman), and one other part-time employee. Alan would need to take over most of Jude's administrative responsibilities and Jude would work the counter five to six days per week. Taking all those steps would allow management to increase their work hours by 50-75% while continuing to make roughly the same modest amount that they make now (by way of example, Alan's salary was $28,000 last year). That's not an option for obvious reasons and for at least one less obvious one -- at the planned minimum wage in 2018, either of them would earn more than their current salary working only 40 hours per week at a much less demanding job that paid minimum wage.
​

This isn't some mega chain book store, like Barns & Noble, or Books-a-Million. This is a small independent shop. The big chains can handle it. The small shops? They are screwed.

What's better..... the customers who used to go to Borderlands, now will go to Barns & Noble.

So the rich get richer.... the poor get poorer.

And this is where those other Minimum Wage reports fail. They would not even talk to Borderlands in SF. They would talk to the major chain outlets.

Well if you eliminate the competition, then you can make more sales, and thus hire more people. So if you only talked to Barnes & Noble, you might find that after the minimum wage went up, and they had more customers because Borderlands closed..... they might have hired another employee... even though the 5 people employed at Borderlands that's now closed, are all unemployed.

The research wouldn't show that.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Excuse me but a good waiter or bartender will be taking a pay cut if the MW goes to 15 an hour.
Why do you want to force people to work for less than they are now?

Says you. It's no fun making $2.50-$3.00 an hour on a slow night. But of course greedy hateful people like you don't give a shit. In my opinion, they should make Minimum Wage plus their tips. If a restaurant or bar can't handle that, than Boo Hoo for them. Time to close up shop.

You have obviously never tended bar or waited tables.

Even on slower nights you do OK and it is offset by the busy times where you can pull in upwards of 25 an hour.

But you don't ever want to have to work nights weekends or holidays so you have to whine for a MW of 15 an hour

Pay em Minimum Wage plus their tips. That's the right thing to do. But you greedy fat white Republican dudes never do the right thing for American Workers. So i don't expect you to agree.

I worked as a waiter and bar tender and even at the service wage made way more than any of my friends working for MW

You see I am not afraid to work like you and unlike you I like to earn my own way not be given charity

Give em Minimum Wage plus their tips. Paying someone $2.50-$3.00 an hour is unacceptable. Restaurant Owners who pay like that, should be ashamed of themselves. Period, end of story.

I'm not tipping anyone making 15 an hour.

How about this

Give the wait staff the choice of working for MW or service wage plus tips

We'll see what they want I'll bet they'll take service wage plus tips because they'll make more.

 

[Andylusion]

Loki - A higher minimum wage attracts new entrants to the workforce half the time these new entrants spik unemployment but half the time unemployment falls. Minimum wage raises percent of workforce employed & lowers government dependance, Inflation & Taxation. Look at Seattle with $15/hr-MW & they have the lowest unemployment rate. You only cherry pick data & post fake theory charts with no data to back them. Some areas have oil booms & other forces supporting jobs in low MW areas that you can cherry pick to support that narrative. I have been on here for years & NOBODY can prove the minimum wage causes unemployment!!!!!!!!!

We have already proved it dozens of times. But let's look at your claim.

Well well.... you are right. Seattle unemployment is in fact lower than the national average of 5.4%, where Seattle is at 3%.

You brilliant. Right.... except.... one problem....

You mindless ape..... they don't have a minimum wage of $15. It's only $11/hr, and it only started April of this year.

Who has the highest minimum wage in the country right now?

City of Oakland Minimum Wage Increase Initiative Measure FF November 2014 - Ballotpedia

Oakland California, whose unemployment reached 16% in 2009, and is higher than the national average TODAY.

Awww.... FAIL.

Here's a thought.... actually know what you are talking about before spewing false crap on the net. WE WILL FIND YOU OUT. We will fact check your BS crap.

 

[Care4all]

Loki - A higher minimum wage attracts new entrants to the workforce half the time these new entrants spik unemployment but half the time unemployment falls. Minimum wage raises percent of workforce employed & lowers government dependance, Inflation & Taxation. Look at Seattle with $15/hr-MW & they have the lowest unemployment rate. You only cherry pick data & post fake theory charts with no data to back them. Some areas have oil booms & other forces supporting jobs in low MW areas that you can cherry pick to support that narrative. I have been on here for years & NOBODY can prove the minimum wage causes unemployment!!!!!!!!!

We have already proved it dozens of times. But let's look at your claim.

View attachment 42478

Well well.... you are right. Seattle unemployment is in fact lower than the national average of 5.4%, where Seattle is at 3%.

You brilliant. Right.... except.... one problem....

You mindless ape..... they don't have a minimum wage of $15. It's only $11/hr, and it only started April of this year.

Who has the highest minimum wage in the country right now?

City of Oakland Minimum Wage Increase Initiative Measure FF November 2014 - Ballotpedia

Oakland California, whose unemployment reached 16% in 2009, and is higher than the national average TODAY.

Awww.... FAIL.

Here's a thought.... actually know what you are talking about before spewing false crap on the net. WE WILL FIND YOU OUT. We will fact check your BS crap.

you are simply wrong on Oakland

Since 2005 the unemployment rate in Oakland, California has ranged from 5.5% in April 2015 to 17.6% in July 2010. The current unemployment rate for Oakland is 5.5% in April 2015.

The National u/e rate for May is 5.5%.... Oakland has recovered MUCH BETTER than the Nation, whose peak U/E rate was 10.0%....or so.

Minimum wage hikes do not cause a rise in U/E overall, period. Less skillful or the rate on the young, may go up, but the u/e rate on other min wage workers, go down, overall, employment increases with a rise in the min. wage according to the stats analyzed for the 13 states that had higher min wages than the fed rate.

 

[Andylusion]

Loki - A higher minimum wage attracts new entrants to the workforce half the time these new entrants spik unemployment but half the time unemployment falls. Minimum wage raises percent of workforce employed & lowers government dependance, Inflation & Taxation. Look at Seattle with $15/hr-MW & they have the lowest unemployment rate. You only cherry pick data & post fake theory charts with no data to back them. Some areas have oil booms & other forces supporting jobs in low MW areas that you can cherry pick to support that narrative. I have been on here for years & NOBODY can prove the minimum wage causes unemployment!!!!!!!!!

We have already proved it dozens of times. But let's look at your claim.

View attachment 42478

Well well.... you are right. Seattle unemployment is in fact lower than the national average of 5.4%, where Seattle is at 3%.

You brilliant. Right.... except.... one problem....

You mindless ape..... they don't have a minimum wage of $15. It's only $11/hr, and it only started April of this year.

Who has the highest minimum wage in the country right now?

City of Oakland Minimum Wage Increase Initiative Measure FF November 2014 - Ballotpedia

Oakland California, whose unemployment reached 16% in 2009, and is higher than the national average TODAY.

Awww.... FAIL.

Here's a thought.... actually know what you are talking about before spewing false crap on the net. WE WILL FIND YOU OUT. We will fact check your BS crap.

you are simply wrong on Oakland

Since 2005 the unemployment rate in Oakland, California has ranged from 5.5% in April 2015 to 17.6% in July 2010. The current unemployment rate for Oakland is 5.5% in April 2015.

The National u/e rate for May is 5.5%....

You are right I was wrong. It was as high as 17.6% in July 2010, not 16% in 2009.

In other words, the numbers were worse than I had thought.

The last number I saw was the current unemployment rate in Oakland was 5.6%. But lets say that's right, and that the numbers are exactly the same.

So much for the "higher minimum wage lowers unemployment" crap.

The Ohio minimum wage is $8.10 Unemployment rate, 5.1%. Need more examples, just ask. I'll give them, just as we have a hundred times before.

 

[Care4all]

Loki - A higher minimum wage attracts new entrants to the workforce half the time these new entrants spik unemployment but half the time unemployment falls. Minimum wage raises percent of workforce employed & lowers government dependance, Inflation & Taxation. Look at Seattle with $15/hr-MW & they have the lowest unemployment rate. You only cherry pick data & post fake theory charts with no data to back them. Some areas have oil booms & other forces supporting jobs in low MW areas that you can cherry pick to support that narrative. I have been on here for years & NOBODY can prove the minimum wage causes unemployment!!!!!!!!!

We have already proved it dozens of times. But let's look at your claim.

View attachment 42478

Well well.... you are right. Seattle unemployment is in fact lower than the national average of 5.4%, where Seattle is at 3%.

You brilliant. Right.... except.... one problem....

You mindless ape..... they don't have a minimum wage of $15. It's only $11/hr, and it only started April of this year.

Who has the highest minimum wage in the country right now?

City of Oakland Minimum Wage Increase Initiative Measure FF November 2014 - Ballotpedia

Oakland California, whose unemployment reached 16% in 2009, and is higher than the national average TODAY.

Awww.... FAIL.

Here's a thought.... actually know what you are talking about before spewing false crap on the net. WE WILL FIND YOU OUT. We will fact check your BS crap.

you are simply wrong on Oakland

Since 2005 the unemployment rate in Oakland, California has ranged from 5.5% in April 2015 to 17.6% in July 2010. The current unemployment rate for Oakland is 5.5% in April 2015.

The National u/e rate for May is 5.5%....

You are right I was wrong. It was as high as 17.6% in July 2010, not 16% in 2009.

In other words, the numbers were worse than I had thought.

The last number I saw was the current unemployment rate in Oakland was 5.6%. But lets say that's right, and that the numbers are exactly the same.

So much for the "higher minimum wage lowers unemployment" crap.

The Ohio minimum wage is $8.10 Unemployment rate, 5.1%. Need more examples, just ask. I'll give them, just as we have a hundred times before.

i updated my post right as you were responding Andy....

but Oakland, due to the housing boom they had, they had much higher unemployment rates than the nation....a much more difficult time than the nation...the peak for the nation's U/E was a 10% rate.....

Oakland going from 17.6% u/e rate down to 5.5% is MUCH BETTER than the nation going from 10% u/e rate peak, down to 5.5%....

They have done BETTER with their employment with higher wages than our Nation with lower wages....

 

[Care4all]

andy, Ohio has A HIGHER MINIMUM WAGE than the federal wage and their U/e rate IS lower THAN the National rate, and once again....their RECOVERY is GREATER than the Nation's was......

Their peak U/E rate was 11% jan 2010 and they had a 5.1% in march, so they TOO have had a BETTER recovery than the nation overall with their min wage higher than the fed rate

 

[LOki]

It's just hilarious how these asshats think their data points--uncorrected for confounding anti-inflation/unemployment policies--and their special case anecdotes, refute the well established economic principles--affirmed and reaffirmed by generations of professional economists--that assert and describe how statutory minimum wage necessarily results in inflation and unemployment.

When confronted with the simple question, premised upon sound economic principles: "Why do you object to simply basing a worker's wage upon what that worker's work is worth?"--they uniformly swerve away from submitting a direct answer.

It's OBVIOUS that their position is informed by something other than sound economic principles.

What they bring to the table is mawkish moral outrage at the existence of poverty. They submit a catalogue of human suffering they ascribe to " fat greedy Republican rich dudes." They declare a moral justification for their position.

Yet their moral authority is questionable. Their moral principles are questionable. I have questioned them thus:

"If I wish to accept wages below the level YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) deem proper, upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) declare it illegal for me to accept such wages? Upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) deny someone else my services? Upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) deny me that employment?

"Upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) decide for OTHERS what their work (either offeredor performed) is worth?"

They have been granted AMPLE OPPORTUNITY to answer. And what have they produced? Silence. An ashamed silence.

They are ashamed because their answer will reveal that they have ZERO interest in the well being of their fellows beyond asserting a totalitarian control over them. The plight of the impoverished is nothing but a tool in their arsenal of rationalizations for determining for others what they should do and think.

 

[Andylusion]

andy, Ohio has A HIGHER MINIMUM WAGE than the federal wage and their U/e rate IS lower THAN the National rate, and once again....their RECOVERY is GREATER than the Nation's was......

Their peak U/E rate was 11% jan 2010 and they had a 5.1% in march, so they TOO have had a BETTER recovery than the nation overall with their min wage higher than the fed rate

I would expect them to have a better recovery, regardless of the minimum wage.

People tend to move to where the jobs are. If people LEAVE Oakland, to find jobs elsewhere.... that would lower the unemployment, even if there are still no low-income jobs.

Most states have a higher minimum wage. No longer a valid point.

Fact is, the minimum wage in Ohio is much lower than that of California, and the unemployment rate is much lower than California.

 

[Dragonlady]

It's just hilarious how these asshats think their data points--uncorrected for confounding anti-inflation/unemployment policies--and their special case anecdotes, refute the well established economic principles--affirmed and reaffirmed by generations of professional economists--that assert and describe how statutory minimum wage necessarily results in inflation and unemployment.

When confronted with the simple question, premised upon sound economic principles: "Why do you object to simply basing a worker's wage upon what that worker's work is worth?"--they uniformly swerve away from submitting a direct answer.

It's OBVIOUS that their position is informed by something other than sound economic principles.

Do you mean like these economists?

Over 600 Economists Sign Letter In Support of 10.10 Minimum Wage Economist Statement on the Federal Minimum Wage Economic Policy Institute

 

[LOki]

It's just hilarious how these asshats think their data points--uncorrected for confounding anti-inflation/unemployment policies--and their special case anecdotes, refute the well established economic principles--affirmed and reaffirmed by generations of professional economists--that assert and describe how statutory minimum wage necessarily results in inflation and unemployment.

When confronted with the simple question, premised upon sound economic principles: "Why do you object to simply basing a worker's wage upon what that worker's work is worth?"--they uniformly swerve away from submitting a direct answer.

It's OBVIOUS that their position is informed by something other than sound economic principles.

Do you mean like these economists?

Over 600 Economists Sign Letter In Support of 10.10 Minimum Wage Economist Statement on the Federal Minimum Wage Economic Policy Institute

No. I'm referring to the 16,000+ economists and all their predecessors who didn't sign that letter.

I couldn't help notice that while you could submit 600 economists who can rationalize a statutory minimum wage, you could not be bothered to submit answers to the questions asked repeatedly:

"Why do you object to simply basing a worker's wage upon what that worker's work is worth?"

"If I wish to accept wages below the level YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) deem proper, upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) declare it illegal for me to accept such wages? Upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) deny someone else my services? Upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) deny me that employment?"

"Upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) decide for OTHERS what their work (either offered or performed) is worth?"

I find it noteworthy that you made an effort to not recognize the moral questions submitted.

Why would you do that, Pumpkin?

 

[Andylusion]

It's just hilarious how these asshats think their data points--uncorrected for confounding anti-inflation/unemployment policies--and their special case anecdotes, refute the well established economic principles--affirmed and reaffirmed by generations of professional economists--that assert and describe how statutory minimum wage necessarily results in inflation and unemployment.

When confronted with the simple question, premised upon sound economic principles: "Why do you object to simply basing a worker's wage upon what that worker's work is worth?"--they uniformly swerve away from submitting a direct answer.

It's OBVIOUS that their position is informed by something other than sound economic principles.

Do you mean like these economists?

Over 600 Economists Sign Letter In Support of 10.10 Minimum Wage Economist Statement on the Federal Minimum Wage Economic Policy Institute

We don't bother with research, data, or information... but how many signed a letter?

More economists believe that raising the minimum wage will have negative effects, than those that believe it would be positive.

See, unlike your letter, we get both sides. Your letter may have been rejected by 20,000 economists, but 600 signed it. Then you think that means something. Here's a poll of hundreds of economists, and the opinion is tilted away from raising the minimum wage.

 

[Care4all]

It's just hilarious how these asshats think their data points--uncorrected for confounding anti-inflation/unemployment policies--and their special case anecdotes, refute the well established economic principles--affirmed and reaffirmed by generations of professional economists--that assert and describe how statutory minimum wage necessarily results in inflation and unemployment.

When confronted with the simple question, premised upon sound economic principles: "Why do you object to simply basing a worker's wage upon what that worker's work is worth?"--they uniformly swerve away from submitting a direct answer.

It's OBVIOUS that their position is informed by something other than sound economic principles.

Do you mean like these economists?

Over 600 Economists Sign Letter In Support of 10.10 Minimum Wage Economist Statement on the Federal Minimum Wage Economic Policy Institute

No. I'm referring to the 16,000+ economists and all their predecessors who didn't sign that letter.

I couldn't help notice that while you could submit 600 economists who can rationalize a statutory minimum wage, you could not be bothered to submit answers to the questions asked repeatedly:

"Why do you object to simply basing a worker's wage upon what that worker's work is worth?"

"If I wish to accept wages below the level YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) deem proper, upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) declare it illegal for me to accept such wages? Upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) deny someone else my services? Upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) deny me that employment?"

"Upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) decide for OTHERS what their work (either offered or performed) is worth?"

I find it noteworthy that you made an effort to not recognize the moral questions submitted.

Why would you do that, Pumpkin?

When you start out in saying "what a worker is worth" for giving an employer full time work for the week....the least that these folks who are the least among us are worth for full time labor, is what it takes for them to minimally get by for self sufficiency....if they want more than that, then they can work a second job.

If an employer can not pay his full time workers, what it takes for them to survive after the full time workers put in a full week of working them, THEN this is the EMPLOYER'S problem. They can raise their prices to cover it if it is needed or ask for welfare from the gvt for themselves.

Basically, one way to stop all of this welfare that we end up giving out to the million plus employees for the employer, so the employer can make a profit...we should be giving this welfare to the Business itself, instead of putting this on to the employee....Pay the employee for what they are worth working a full week's work, which is enough to survive on....every man or woman working full time is at minimum worth a minimal survival for his full week's labor...PERIOD.

If the business that can not afford to pay a full time worker a living wage, then this employer should file for welfare, from the govt, to help his business pay them a minimal living wage.

Switch it around, and make the business file for the government welfare. All the same in the end, except probably a lot less welfare fraud with ebt cards, a lot less govt employees to handle the welfare system, and some dignity for those who labored full time... for an employer.

Then you all on the right, can start calling these businesses, welfare queens if you like....

Loki, there is no "free market" to determine the lowest wages, because the gvt comes in and pays the employees, for the employer, to bring them up to a self sufficient wage....therefore the minimum wage, a living wage, will never rise to what it should be, with these welfare programs....

thus, the "market" does not work, and does not have the pressure that it would to have employers pay their full time employees a minimal living wage.

If you can't understand this, then I don't know what else to say...

 

[LOki]

It's just hilarious how these asshats think their data points--uncorrected for confounding anti-inflation/unemployment policies--and their special case anecdotes, refute the well established economic principles--affirmed and reaffirmed by generations of professional economists--that assert and describe how statutory minimum wage necessarily results in inflation and unemployment.

When confronted with the simple question, premised upon sound economic principles: "Why do you object to simply basing a worker's wage upon what that worker's work is worth?"--they uniformly swerve away from submitting a direct answer.

It's OBVIOUS that their position is informed by something other than sound economic principles.

Do you mean like these economists?

Over 600 Economists Sign Letter In Support of 10.10 Minimum Wage Economist Statement on the Federal Minimum Wage Economic Policy Institute

No. I'm referring to the 16,000+ economists and all their predecessors who didn't sign that letter.

I couldn't help notice that while you could submit 600 economists who can rationalize a statutory minimum wage, you could not be bothered to submit answers to the questions asked repeatedly:

"Why do you object to simply basing a worker's wage upon what that worker's work is worth?"

"If I wish to accept wages below the level YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) deem proper, upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) declare it illegal for me to accept such wages? Upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) deny someone else my services? Upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) deny me that employment?"

"Upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) decide for OTHERS what their work (either offered or performed) is worth?"

I find it noteworthy that you made an effort to not recognize the moral questions submitted.

Why would you do that, Pumpkin?

When you start out in saying "what a worker is worth" for giving an employer full time work for the week....the least that these folks who are the least among us are worth for full time labor, is what it takes for them to minimally get by for self sufficiency....if they want more than that, then they can work a second job.

If an employer can not pay his full time workers, what it takes for them to survive after the full time workers put in a full week of working them, THEN this is the EMPLOYER'S problem. They can raise their prices to cover it if it is needed or ask for welfare from the gvt for themselves.

Basically, one way to stop all of this welfare that we end up giving out to the million plus employees for the employer, so the employer can make a profit...we should be giving this welfare to the Business itself, instead of putting this on to the employee....Pay the employee for what they are worth working a full week's work, which is enough to survive on....every man or woman working full time is at minimum worth a minimal survival for his full week's labor...PERIOD.

If the business that can not afford to pay a full time worker a living wage, then this employer should file for welfare, from the govt, to help his business pay them a minimal living wage.

Switch it around, and make the business file for the government welfare. All the same in the end, except probably a lot less welfare fraud with ebt cards, a lot less govt employees to handle the welfare system, and some dignity for those who labored full time... for an employer.

Then you all on the right, can start calling these businesses, welfare queens if you like....

Loki, there is no "free market" to determine the lowest wages, because the gvt comes in and pays the employees, for the employer, to bring them up to a self sufficient wage....therefore the minimum wage, a living wage, will never rise to what it should be, with these welfare programs....

thus, the "market" does not work, and does not have the pressure that it would to have employers pay their full time employees a minimal living wage.

If you can't understand this, then I don't know what else to say...

Your response is predictable. It was predicted.

"Why do you object to simply basing a worker's wage upon what that worker's work is worth?"

"If I wish to accept wages below the level YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) deem proper, upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) declare it illegal for me to accept such wages? Upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) deny someone else my services? Upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) deny me that employment?"

"Upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) decide for OTHERS what their work (either offered or performed) is worth?"

 

[JoeMoma]

It's just hilarious how these asshats think their data points--uncorrected for confounding anti-inflation/unemployment policies--and their special case anecdotes, refute the well established economic principles--affirmed and reaffirmed by generations of professional economists--that assert and describe how statutory minimum wage necessarily results in inflation and unemployment.

When confronted with the simple question, premised upon sound economic principles: "Why do you object to simply basing a worker's wage upon what that worker's work is worth?"--they uniformly swerve away from submitting a direct answer.

It's OBVIOUS that their position is informed by something other than sound economic principles.

Do you mean like these economists?

Over 600 Economists Sign Letter In Support of 10.10 Minimum Wage Economist Statement on the Federal Minimum Wage Economic Policy Institute

No. I'm referring to the 16,000+ economists and all their predecessors who didn't sign that letter.

I couldn't help notice that while you could submit 600 economists who can rationalize a statutory minimum wage, you could not be bothered to submit answers to the questions asked repeatedly:

"Why do you object to simply basing a worker's wage upon what that worker's work is worth?"

"If I wish to accept wages below the level YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) deem proper, upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) declare it illegal for me to accept such wages? Upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) deny someone else my services? Upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) deny me that employment?"

"Upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) decide for OTHERS what their work (either offered or performed) is worth?"

I find it noteworthy that you made an effort to not recognize the moral questions submitted.

Why would you do that, Pumpkin?

When you start out in saying "what a worker is worth" for giving an employer full time work for the week....the least that these folks who are the least among us are worth for full time labor, is what it takes for them to minimally get by for self sufficiency....if they want more than that, then they can work a second job.

If an employer can not pay his full time workers, what it takes for them to survive after the full time workers put in a full week of working them, THEN this is the EMPLOYER'S problem. They can raise their prices to cover it if it is needed or ask for welfare from the gvt for themselves.

Basically, one way to stop all of this welfare that we end up giving out to the million plus employees for the employer, so the employer can make a profit...we should be giving this welfare to the Business itself, instead of putting this on to the employee....Pay the employee for what they are worth working a full week's work, which is enough to survive on....every man or woman working full time is at minimum worth a minimal survival for his full week's labor...PERIOD.

If the business that can not afford to pay a full time worker a living wage, then this employer should file for welfare, from the govt, to help his business pay them a minimal living wage.

Switch it around, and make the business file for the government welfare. All the same in the end, except probably a lot less welfare fraud with ebt cards, a lot less govt employees to handle the welfare system, and some dignity for those who labored full time... for an employer.

Then you all on the right, can start calling these businesses, welfare queens if you like....

Loki, there is no "free market" to determine the lowest wages, because the gvt comes in and pays the employees, for the employer, to bring them up to a self sufficient wage....therefore the minimum wage, a living wage, will never rise to what it should be, with these welfare programs....

thus, the "market" does not work, and does not have the pressure that it would to have employers pay their full time employees a minimal living wage.

If you can't understand this, then I don't know what else to say...

What is a minimum living wage? Thousands if not millions of people live on the equilavent of a bowl of rice a day while sleeping on a cot in a primitive hut. Anything beyond this is more than a living wage. People earning the current minimum wage live like kings and queens compaired with how people used to live though out the history of humanity and how many people still live in many third world countries today. This description may seem harsh, but what many are calling a minimum living wage is actually a moving target. Perhaps a better phrase to describe it would be a minimum comfortable standard of living which includes many expectations beyond what is truly a minimum living wage -- enough for a bowl of rice, a cot and a hut.

It is not businesses' fault that welfare programs have been set up. It is disingenuous to blame businesses because some of their employees participate in walfare programs that the businesses had no vote in setting up. The wage an employee earns is based on how well he can negotiate that wage with the employer based on the value that the employee can contribute by performing the job, not on supplemental welfare programs that the employee may be able to receive. There will always be a bottom set of wage earners. As long as government bureaucrates set the minimum requirments to qualify for walfare programs, there will be a percentage of low wage earners that will qualify for the programs. As long as the goverment gives away stuff, there will be people that will signup for it whether they can get by without it or not.

The goverment is not paying the employees for the employer. If the people were not employed, they would be getting welfare anyway, and even more of it. Being employed at a low wage is better than not being employed at all. If I hire pay a guy 50 bucks to cut my grass, it's not my fault if he still qualifies for welfare.....he is 50 bucks closer to not qualifying for welfare because of our business arrangement than he would had been otherwise.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's just hilarious how these asshats think their data points--uncorrected for confounding anti-inflation/unemployment policies--and their special case anecdotes, refute the well established economic principles--affirmed and reaffirmed by generations of professional economists--that assert and describe how statutory minimum wage necessarily results in inflation and unemployment.

When confronted with the simple question, premised upon sound economic principles: "Why do you object to simply basing a worker's wage upon what that worker's work is worth?"--they uniformly swerve away from submitting a direct answer.

It's OBVIOUS that their position is informed by something other than sound economic principles.

Do you mean like these economists?

Over 600 Economists Sign Letter In Support of 10.10 Minimum Wage Economist Statement on the Federal Minimum Wage Economic Policy Institute

No. I'm referring to the 16,000+ economists and all their predecessors who didn't sign that letter.

I couldn't help notice that while you could submit 600 economists who can rationalize a statutory minimum wage, you could not be bothered to submit answers to the questions asked repeatedly:

"Why do you object to simply basing a worker's wage upon what that worker's work is worth?"

"If I wish to accept wages below the level YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) deem proper, upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) declare it illegal for me to accept such wages? Upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) deny someone else my services? Upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) deny me that employment?"

"Upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) decide for OTHERS what their work (either offered or performed) is worth?"

I find it noteworthy that you made an effort to not recognize the moral questions submitted.

Why would you do that, Pumpkin?

When you start out in saying "what a worker is worth" for giving an employer full time work for the week....the least that these folks who are the least among us are worth for full time labor, is what it takes for them to minimally get by for self sufficiency....if they want more than that, then they can work a second job.

If an employer can not pay his full time workers, what it takes for them to survive after the full time workers put in a full week of working them, THEN this is the EMPLOYER'S problem. They can raise their prices to cover it if it is needed or ask for welfare from the gvt for themselves.

Basically, one way to stop all of this welfare that we end up giving out to the million plus employees for the employer, so the employer can make a profit...we should be giving this welfare to the Business itself, instead of putting this on to the employee....Pay the employee for what they are worth working a full week's work, which is enough to survive on....every man or woman working full time is at minimum worth a minimal survival for his full week's labor...PERIOD.

If the business that can not afford to pay a full time worker a living wage, then this employer should file for welfare, from the govt, to help his business pay them a minimal living wage.

Switch it around, and make the business file for the government welfare. All the same in the end, except probably a lot less welfare fraud with ebt cards, a lot less govt employees to handle the welfare system, and some dignity for those who labored full time... for an employer.

Then you all on the right, can start calling these businesses, welfare queens if you like....

Loki, there is no "free market" to determine the lowest wages, because the gvt comes in and pays the employees, for the employer, to bring them up to a self sufficient wage....therefore the minimum wage, a living wage, will never rise to what it should be, with these welfare programs....

thus, the "market" does not work, and does not have the pressure that it would to have employers pay their full time employees a minimal living wage.

If you can't understand this, then I don't know what else to say...

the least that these folks who are the least among us are worth for full time labor, is what it takes for them to minimally get by for self sufficiency

Room at the "Y", bus pass and an Obama phone.
Sounds good to me.

 

[Indofred]

1. He said it would cause jobs to be lost. FALSE! Employers function with a number of employees that bring them the most income/profit. They CANNOT reduce staff. Any more or less employees results in SALES and income reduction. Layoffs result in losses, not gains.

Unless you automate.
We've already seen this is many other industries.

 

[Dragonlady]

It's just hilarious how these asshats think their data points--uncorrected for confounding anti-inflation/unemployment policies--and their special case anecdotes, refute the well established economic principles--affirmed and reaffirmed by generations of professional economists--that assert and describe how statutory minimum wage necessarily results in inflation and unemployment.

When confronted with the simple question, premised upon sound economic principles: "Why do you object to simply basing a worker's wage upon what that worker's work is worth?"--they uniformly swerve away from submitting a direct answer.

It's OBVIOUS that their position is informed by something other than sound economic principles.

Do you mean like these economists?

Over 600 Economists Sign Letter In Support of 10.10 Minimum Wage Economist Statement on the Federal Minimum Wage Economic Policy Institute

We don't bother with research, data, or information... but how many signed a letter?

More economists believe that raising the minimum wage will have negative effects, than those that believe it would be positive.

See, unlike your letter, we get both sides. Your letter may have been rejected by 20,000 economists, but 600 signed it. Then you think that means something. Here's a poll of hundreds of economists, and the opinion is tilted away from raising the minimum wage.

That's not what your charts says pumpkin. It says that 34% agree with the assertion, which means that 66 either disagree with it, or are uncertain. 24% are uncertain, which means they don't agree with your premise but lack strong proof.

The question was phrased in such a way to elicit a positive response and only 34% responded positively.

Thank you for proving yourself wrong and saving me the trouble.

 

[dblack]

... there is no "free market" to determine the lowest wages, because the gvt comes in and pays the employees, for the employer, to bring them up to a self sufficient wage....therefore the minimum wage, a living wage, will never rise to what it should be, with these welfare programs....

thus, the "market" does not work, and does not have the pressure that it would to have employers pay their full time employees a minimal living wage.

If you can't understand this, then I don't know what else to say...

Exactly. Interfering in the economy will always have unintended, negative consequences.

But the answer to that problem isn't more interference. We can patch up the problems created by the welfare state with wage controls, but that will just create more problems that you'll no doubt want to solve with more government interference. (which will create even more problems for solving).

If you can't see the futility in this, I don't know what else to say...