Progressives always talk about mininum wage

[P@triot]

No individual member of a free society owes any other member of that society the means to support themselves or their families. It is the responsibility of every person to provide for their own support and the support of their own families.

I have a somewhat different take on this - and I think it's one that many libertarians share. I actually DO think we have a responsibility to help out those in need. It's simply an extension of our responsibility to look out for family members - in as much as we're all bound as fellow countrymen. But I don't believe such a responsibility can, or should, be the purview of law and government.

Well duh.... Every rational, NORMAL person believes that.

"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all"

- Frédéric Bastiat

 

[P@triot]

you really don't get it. If those companies had gone through bankruptcy, they would have been broken up into smaller more efficient companies, the jobs would still be there but the UAW might not. Those new companies would have had union representation votes and the UAW could not risk being voted out. The auto bailouts were to save the UAW not the workers jobs.

The dems and the unions did a good job of lying about it to the workers and got them to vote for obama.

Now, you know the rest of the story.

The funny part is, the unions don't even need to lie. Libtards are so profoundly ignorant of basic economics, they don't comprehend that artificially propping up FAILED companies creates MORE FAILURE

Part of their profound ignorance is that they believe everything occurs in a vacuum. They are so stupid, they don't even realize that had GM been allowed to fail, all GM customers would NOT have started walking to work. They would have been forced to purchase their next vehicle from better run companies. That higher demand from additional customers would have forced those companies to hire new employees. Those new employees would have been the EXPERIENCED employees from GM. The ultimate end result would have been GM employees working for stronger, better companies with more stability and a much brighter future.

Yes folks, libtards really are this stupid...

well one of the top dems said the other day

that increasing the minimum wage will create more jobs

Yeah, well, Nancy Pelosi also said that "nothing stimulates an economy more than food stamps"

Dumbocrats are ****'n morons....

 

[KissMy]

The entire minimum wage argument is a red herring.

Only 3% of all hourly wage earners make the federal minimum wage or less and many of those are service workers who receive tips.

What percent of workers are on the government dole?

 

[KissMy]

The Republican "Deficits don't matter" when a Republican is president philosophy.

"Reagan proved deficits don't matter."
Dick Cheney

'I don't worry about the deficit. It's big enough to take care of itself.'
Ronald Reagan

Deficits & Wall-streets unregulated sub-prime lending greed is why gas price went above $1 a gallon. It caused 9% annual inflation from 2000 until the 2008 economic crash regardless of what the rigged CPI shows. Oil, Land, Houses, Utilities, Cotton, Corn, Wheat, Soybeans, Silver, Gold & Copper, Food, Water, Electricity, Sewer, Property Taxes, etc all rose more than 8.5% per year over that period.

 

[kaz]

Yes, it is. There was no surplus. They ... wait for it ... lied.

There never was a budget surplus during the Clinton admin. There was a whole bunch of creative accounting though.

Creative accounting the Right has no trouble accepting 100% when GOP presidents use it!!! Bush used the same raiding of the SS Surplus to make his deficits appear smaller until the SS Surplus ran out in FY 2009.

Actually Republican Presidents take a lot of heat from their party over deficits. Rush, Hannity through the party criticized W endlessly. Once again, you don't know what you're talking about.

And your chart absolving Obama of the fiscal deficits is bunk. He signed massive spending in his first year in office, including TARP. Saying that he's off the hook for his own spending is ridiculous. And as your charts show, he's maintained massive deficits as well.

 

[edthecynic]

There never was a budget surplus during the Clinton admin. There was a whole bunch of creative accounting though.

Creative accounting the Right has no trouble accepting 100% when GOP presidents use it!!! Bush used the same raiding of the SS Surplus to make his deficits appear smaller until the SS Surplus ran out in FY 2009.

Actually Republican Presidents take a lot of heat from their party over deficits. Rush, Hannity through the party criticized W endlessly. Once again, you don't know what you're talking about.

And your chart absolving Obama of the fiscal deficits is bunk. He signed massive spending in his first year in office, including TARP. Saying that he's off the hook for his own spending is ridiculous. And as your charts show, he's maintained massive deficits as well.

Your MessiahRushie and HanNITWITty never criticized Bush over his spending, they attacked him over immigration and Harriet Miers.

The chart was to show that Bush deducted the SS Surplus from his borrowing just like Clinton. For example, for FY 2008 the chart and what the Right quotes as the deficit is a little over $400 billion but the GOP National Debt went up $1 trillion. Once the SS Surplus ran out the deficit and money borrowed matched.

 

[thereisnospoon]

So let me guess. You're one of those old, 'I've got mine so **** the rest of you' sociopaths?

Yeah, I've got mine, and I worked very hard for many years to get it. I worked 80 hour weeks and 14 hour days, so don't give me your liberal shit. I also give to my church and several charities in order to help the "less fortunate".

But back to minimum wage. Why not make it $100/hour? Then everyone could live an upper middle class lifestyle. Better yet, lets give every citizen $4K per week whether they work or not, that would be "fair", right?

Your big Mac would cost $150 but everyone would be getting a "living wage" right?

Well, no because the price of everything would go up and your big income would not buy any more than it buys today.

Your entire liberal philosophy is nothing but bullshit.

Apples to apples, your Kids and your Grand Kids are not going to do as well financially as you. This has to do with your failed voting record if you voted Republican. Some legacy your leaving.

If minimum wage from 1970 to today would have kept up with cost of living, minimum wage would be $23.50/hr.

Raising minimum wage to $23.50/hr would increase GDP by $170B/yr.

I've NEVER promoted handouts, but keep in mind that for every dollar of welfare spent on people, $1.50 is returned to the economy. Because unlike corporate welfare, it's spent to contribute to the economy.

As we've discussed on USMB, McDonalds workers in North Dakota make $16.00/hr, but the cost of the Big Mac is the same as anywhere in the US. Employee costs are 100% subsidized.

Prices have gone up, and wages haven't. Something has to be done.

Ok smartass...First off $1.60 in 1970 is equivalent to $9.63 in 2013 dollars. Where you got $23.50 is a mystery. BTE that is according to this http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm....inflation calculator..
You can use this cost of living comparison calculator...Inflation Calculator: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
You'll see the cost of living is higher near the Bakken Oil Sands region than most other places in the Midwest except major metro areas such as Minneapolis or Chicago

 

[Mac1958]

.

To those who don't like it when a company makes "too much money" - whatever that is - here's three direct questions:

1. How much should the government "allow" a business to make? Surely you've thought this through.

2. If the company makes more than that, should they have to give the excess to the employees, as compared to, say, investing it back into the business and/or paying dividends to people whose retirement plans include that company's stock?

3. If the company LOSES money, should the employees have to give some of their pay back?

Not expecting straight answers, I never do, but I sure would appreciate them.

.

 

[kaz]

Your MessiahRushie and HanNITWITty never criticized Bush over his spending, they attacked him over immigration and Harriet Miers.

I don't know what I can tell you ed. I heard them both criticize W constantly for spending. On the other hand, Keith Olbermann told you they never do. Of course as a sheep you believe Keith.

The term RINO is actually used mostly to describe Republicans who spend like Democrats. The Tea Party started as an effort by fiscal conservatives who are sick of spending. They Rush and Hannity both actually made a point of saying that while they supported his war effort, they hated that he never vetoed a spending bill, he proposed the prescription drug for Medicare welfare program, the "transportation" bill which was nothing but pork and so on. They said it all the time, Ed.

But hey, Keith Olbermann told you, so it must be true.

You, ed, are full of it.

 

[OnePercenter]

Yeah, I've got mine, and I worked very hard for many years to get it. I worked 80 hour weeks and 14 hour days, so don't give me your liberal shit. I also give to my church and several charities in order to help the "less fortunate".

But back to minimum wage. Why not make it $100/hour? Then everyone could live an upper middle class lifestyle. Better yet, lets give every citizen $4K per week whether they work or not, that would be "fair", right?

Your big Mac would cost $150 but everyone would be getting a "living wage" right?

Well, no because the price of everything would go up and your big income would not buy any more than it buys today.

Your entire liberal philosophy is nothing but bullshit.

Apples to apples, your Kids and your Grand Kids are not going to do as well financially as you. This has to do with your failed voting record if you voted Republican. Some legacy your leaving.

If minimum wage from 1970 to today would have kept up with cost of living, minimum wage would be $23.50/hr.

Raising minimum wage to $23.50/hr would increase GDP by $170B/yr.

I've NEVER promoted handouts, but keep in mind that for every dollar of welfare spent on people, $1.50 is returned to the economy. Because unlike corporate welfare, it's spent to contribute to the economy.

As we've discussed on USMB, McDonalds workers in North Dakota make $16.00/hr, but the cost of the Big Mac is the same as anywhere in the US. Employee costs are 100% subsidized.

Prices have gone up, and wages haven't. Something has to be done.

Ok smartass...First off $1.60 in 1970 is equivalent to $9.63 in 2013 dollars. Where you got $23.50 is a mystery. BTE that is according to this http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm....inflation calculator..
You can use this cost of living comparison calculator...Inflation Calculator: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
You'll see the cost of living is higher near the Bakken Oil Sands region than most other places in the Midwest except major metro areas such as Minneapolis or Chicago

No mystery since you're using the WORST inflation calculator available. Don't believe me?

Here's 7.8 million reasons why:

https://www.google.com/#q=cpi+is+bad

I use three factors:

1. Food

2. Shelter

3. Transportation

 

[thereisnospoon]

Apples to apples, your Kids and your Grand Kids are not going to do as well financially as you. This has to do with your failed voting record if you voted Republican. Some legacy your leaving.

If minimum wage from 1970 to today would have kept up with cost of living, minimum wage would be $23.50/hr.

Raising minimum wage to $23.50/hr would increase GDP by $170B/yr.

I've NEVER promoted handouts, but keep in mind that for every dollar of welfare spent on people, $1.50 is returned to the economy. Because unlike corporate welfare, it's spent to contribute to the economy.

As we've discussed on USMB, McDonalds workers in North Dakota make $16.00/hr, but the cost of the Big Mac is the same as anywhere in the US. Employee costs are 100% subsidized.

Prices have gone up, and wages haven't. Something has to be done.

Ok smartass...First off $1.60 in 1970 is equivalent to $9.63 in 2013 dollars. Where you got $23.50 is a mystery. BTE that is according to this http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm....inflation calculator..
You can use this cost of living comparison calculator...Inflation Calculator: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
You'll see the cost of living is higher near the Bakken Oil Sands region than most other places in the Midwest except major metro areas such as Minneapolis or Chicago

No mystery since you're using the WORST inflation calculator available. Don't believe me?

Here's 7.8 million reasons why:

https://www.google.com/#q=cpi+is+bad

I use three factors:

1. Food

2. Shelter

3. Transportation

Cut the crap. I used an official inflation calculator that is simply used to determine the value of present currency vs that of the past.
One cannot pick which factors they wish just because those picks support their agenda.
What the hell does 'shelter' and transportation mean?
And please, spare me the opinion pieces for those obscure websites. Anyone can form an idea and use it for propaganda which supports a certain political agenda.

Cost of living my ass. You are bucking for that living wage bullshit.

 

[OnePercenter]

Ok smartass...First off $1.60 in 1970 is equivalent to $9.63 in 2013 dollars. Where you got $23.50 is a mystery. BTE that is according to this http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm....inflation calculator..
You can use this cost of living comparison calculator...Inflation Calculator: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
You'll see the cost of living is higher near the Bakken Oil Sands region than most other places in the Midwest except major metro areas such as Minneapolis or Chicago

No mystery since you're using the WORST inflation calculator available. Don't believe me?

Here's 7.8 million reasons why:

https://www.google.com/#q=cpi+is+bad

I use three factors:

1. Food

2. Shelter

3. Transportation

Cut the crap. I used an official inflation calculator that is simply used to determine the value of present currency vs that of the past.
One cannot pick which factors they wish just because those picks support their agenda.
What the hell does 'shelter' and transportation mean?
And please, spare me the opinion pieces for those obscure websites. Anyone can form an idea and use it for propaganda which supports a certain political agenda.

Cost of living my ass. You are bucking for that living wage bullshit.

No crap dude. CPI does nothing but screw American workers and retirees.

How much was a t-bone steak at the grocery store in 1970? How much today?

A house vs today?

A car vs today?

 

[thereisnospoon]

No mystery since you're using the WORST inflation calculator available. Don't believe me?

Here's 7.8 million reasons why:

https://www.google.com/#q=cpi+is+bad

I use three factors:

1. Food

2. Shelter

3. Transportation

Cut the crap. I used an official inflation calculator that is simply used to determine the value of present currency vs that of the past.
One cannot pick which factors they wish just because those picks support their agenda.
What the hell does 'shelter' and transportation mean?
And please, spare me the opinion pieces for those obscure websites. Anyone can form an idea and use it for propaganda which supports a certain political agenda.

Cost of living my ass. You are bucking for that living wage bullshit.

No crap dude. CPI does nothing but screw American workers and retirees.

How much was a t-bone steak at the grocery store in 1970? How much today?

A house vs today?

A car vs today?

First...define "workers"..
And how can an index 'screw' anyone?
Not everyone can afford a T-Bone steak. Not everyone can afford a car.
The entire premise of your side's argument is that somehow you have this vivid memory of how things were so glorious 40 or 50 years ago. You have convinced yourselves that everyone was just swimming in luxury. And that now the eeeeeevil corporations are keeping everyone down. I believe "screwed" is the term you used.
Let me tell you something....Your memory is lying to you.
Most households had ONE car. One TV. One telephone. We saved our money for a "rainy day" in case the wash machine broke and we had enough in the bank to pay a guy to get it fixed. Most folks idea of a dryer was a clothes line in the back yard or in winter, the basement.
You people think T-bone steaks, and cars are an entitlement. You claim everyone should have the same things as everyone else. You see what others have and you want it. NOW. Instead of doing what it takes to EARN those things, you whine to government and tell them it's not fair. The government tells you there is nothing they can do to get you more money. So you in turn decide government should punish those people because "it's not fair"...
Look, costs rise. The cost of raw materials. The cost of labor to make products. The cost of doing business. The cost of services.
You people keep harping on how 'cheap' things were 40 years ago.
Nonsense.
In 1970, for me anyway. A 12 oz soda was 15 cents. Today if one buys a case of 24 12 oz cans, you can buy that for less than $4. 16 cents per can. A pack of baseball cards was like 10 cents. A ticket for a movie was $2...Min wage was around $1.60 or so. No question some items have increased in price well above the rate of the currency conversion chart. So what. Then you do without those things.
There is no entitlement to a better life. One must work and improve their skill set so that their marketability in the workplace can demand higher wages.
There is no "I have three kids and on what your paying me I can't afford my rent, so give me a raise"....Because my response is, 'look if you want a raise, show me you deserve one though your work. Don't come to me with your head low and complain your income cannot pay for your lifestyle. Come to me with your head held high and convince me you are a valuable asset to my company and tell me that you deserve a raise based on your value and performance.".

THAT is how it works.
Now this issue is going nowhere. The fast food people are not getting $15 per hour. The unions will walk away and live to fight another fight. And this will all be forgotten before Thanksgiving.
DONE.

 

[thereisnospoon]

If you do not make a profit off of every employee, why does that employee continue to work for you?

Still no answers to my direct questions.

Okay. I'm happy to answer yours.

In a business (assuming we're talking about something larger than a Mom & Pop) the value of each person and position ranges. A salesperson deals with rejection and paperwork and competition and many other challenges and is also at the mercy of the value of the product they are selling vs. that of the competition. Yet they bring in the business and are usually compensated near the top of the heap, primarily because people of their skillset are very difficult to find and keep.

A low-end clerk or a janitor or a french fry specialist in the cafeteria is not bringing in business, their responsibilities are fewer and less important; their position -- not them personally, only their position -- is far easier to replace and does not generate revenue. Often, the very exisitence of their position is merely to take easier tasks off the plate of those who DO generate value and revenue. These people are easily replaced because there is a long line people who would be more than willing, based on their own financial needs, to take their position tomorrow, if not this afternoon. It would be stupid for a business owner to pay more than the market rate for this position.

What is the market rate for a position? That's easily determined by observing -- wait for it -- the market.

A janitor does not create revenue but still has to be paid.

Low-end employees don't generate revenue, so they are looked at by a business owner essentially as a fixed cost.

.

Does a janitor generate profit directly? No
But the lack of a janitor will lead to loss of profit

You keep employees because the create wealth for you. The amount of that wealth that you give to those employees is the topic of discussion.

There are literally millions of people who have floor sweeping skills.
And THAT is the issue. Labor is a commodity. And as such is subject to the laws of supply and demand. Add in the education factor and we have the ingredients for the setting of wages.
The more available workers for a certain occupation, the lower the wage for that job.
I just do not see where it is you people get the idea that because a person 'works real hard' at a menial job deserves to be paid the same as a higher or highly skilled person doing something much more complicated.
I don't care how much 'time' someone has 'put in' on their job. It's still the same mindless no skill job it was 15 years ago.

 

[OnePercenter]

Cut the crap. I used an official inflation calculator that is simply used to determine the value of present currency vs that of the past.
One cannot pick which factors they wish just because those picks support their agenda.
What the hell does 'shelter' and transportation mean?
And please, spare me the opinion pieces for those obscure websites. Anyone can form an idea and use it for propaganda which supports a certain political agenda.

Cost of living my ass. You are bucking for that living wage bullshit.

No crap dude. CPI does nothing but screw American workers and retirees.

How much was a t-bone steak at the grocery store in 1970? How much today?

A house vs today?

A car vs today?

First...define "workers"..

American workers, collectively, make all the money for companies that do commerce in the United States of America.

And how can an index 'screw' anyone?

I see you didn't bother to click the link and get educated, so let me help.

1. CPI doesn't factor that 80% of the population lives within 200 miles of water.

2. CPI doesn't factor in fluctuations of rent.

3. CPI doesn't factor in ounces for packaged food have decreased since 1970. For instance, a large box of corn flakes weighs less today than then, so a consumer has to buy more often.

4. CPI doesn't factor in the disproportionate costs of buying a home where the 80% live vs. the 20%.

Not everyone can afford a T-Bone steak.

Which is the problem, everyone should. 1970, 0.26/pound, 2013, $8.00/pound.

Not everyone can afford a car.

Which again is the problem. $4,000.00 in 1970. $25,000.00 in 2013.

The entire premise of your side's argument is that somehow you have this vivid memory of how things were so glorious 40 or 50 years ago. You have convinced yourselves that everyone was just swimming in luxury.

I NEVER wrote that things were 'glorious' in 1970. I have pointed out that buying power of the middle class is far less than in 1970.

And that now the eeeeeevil corporations are keeping everyone down. I believe "screwed" is the term you used.

Most of corporate America IS 'eeeeeevil', and the American worker IS being screwed.

Let me tell you something....Your memory is lying to you.
Most households had ONE car. One TV. One telephone. We saved our money for a "rainy day" in case the wash machine broke and we had enough in the bank to pay a guy to get it fixed. Most folks idea of a dryer was a clothes line in the back yard or in winter, the basement.

Most households could live on a one person income. Mom stayed home.

1970 was per-disposable electronics.

Most had money left over after the bills were paid. 1970 was pre-income/cost disproportionate days.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I think a ceo gift tax would be more effective

Take 20 million dollars and get taxed 40%. This will make them more likely to invest within the corporation and the workers.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I think a ceo gift tax would be more effective

Take 20 million dollars and get taxed 40%. This will make them more likely to invest within the corporation and the workers.

Take 20 million dollars and get taxed 40%.

40% would be a tax cut.

 

[OnePercenter]

I think a ceo gift tax would be more effective

Take 20 million dollars and get taxed 40%. This will make them more likely to invest within the corporation and the workers.

Take 20 million dollars and get taxed 40%.

40% would be a tax cut.

Really? So tell us the effective rate.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I think a ceo gift tax would be more effective

Take 20 million dollars and get taxed 40%. This will make them more likely to invest within the corporation and the workers.

Take 20 million dollars and get taxed 40%.

40% would be a tax cut.

Really? So tell us the effective rate.

Well, the top corporate rate is 35%. Executive pay above $1 million is not deductible.
To earn the $19 million that is, the corporation has to earn $29.23 million.
The top individual rate is 39.6%, on income over $400,000.
Ignore the lower rate below that and the CEO pays $7.92 million.

The corporation earned $30.23 million and paid $10.23 million in taxes.

$10.23 + $7.92 = $18.15 million/ $30.23 million = 60%.

 

[OnePercenter]

Take 20 million dollars and get taxed 40%.

40% would be a tax cut.

Really? So tell us the effective rate.

Well, the top corporate rate is 35%. Executive pay above $1 million is not deductible.
To earn the $19 million that is, the corporation has to earn $29.23 million.
The top individual rate is 39.6%, on income over $400,000.
Ignore the lower rate below that and the CEO pays $7.92 million.

The corporation earned $30.23 million and paid $10.23 million in taxes.

$10.23 + $7.92 = $18.15 million/ $30.23 million = 60%.

Then you have deferred compensation which you can invest in the property you live, family trusts, corporate identity in a non taxed state, etc., etc., etc. Which brings the number less than you pay.