What would happen to the economy if minimum wages are raised?

[danielpalos]

The immediate effect would be a great clamour to double welfare benefits as the present payouts would be insufficient to cope with the rapid inflation that WILL follow an abrupt, overly large jump in minimum age. Worse, more people would need those benefits as they will be out on their tender little asses from any jobs they might have had.

why? it could pay more to work for fifteen dollars an hour than it would to receive social services at fourteen dollars an hour.

 

[danielpalos]

That uncouples wages from the value of the work performed. It would be more honest for the government to make up the difference between the real wage and the "living wage". If the "living wage" in your area is $15/hour and you earn $7, then you get welfare benefits of $8/hr. Not saying it would be sustainable, but it would be more honest.

not at all; its merely fixing the value at the new equilibrium.

now you know why no one takes the right seriously about economics.

Baloney. There are prices and there are costs. You can move the price all over the place, but you can't arbitrarily move costs. If it's only worth $8/hr to me to have the floor in the back warehouse swept, forcing me to pay $15/hr to have it done doesn't change the value of the work. I simply will have it done rarely or not at all, thus eliminating a job that I would have been willing to pay for at a lower rate. That high school kid looking to make a little money and break into the job market is just out of luck.

yes, costs can be regulated. only the right appeals to ignorance instead of economics.

so ow you want the government to regulate costs as well as wages?

I told you this $15 dollar an hour nonsense with this kid is all a ruse..


He just wants socialism



.

a more efficient economy, that is all.

 

[Wyatt earp]

it is politics, not welfare. and, it is not, artificially high; it is just right wing fantasy, that is all.

wages should compete favorably with the cost of social services.

That uncouples wages from the value of the work performed. It would be more honest for the government to make up the difference between the real wage and the "living wage". If the "living wage" in your area is $15/hour and you earn $7, then you get welfare benefits of $8/hr. Not saying it would be sustainable, but it would be more honest.

not at all; its merely fixing the value at the new equilibrium.

now you know why no one takes the right seriously about economics.

Its trickle up poor and you dont have a clue about economics..thats a fact, you dont know shit about profit margins, you dont have a clue that over 80% of bussiness are small..


Your so fucking dumb on economics that you dont even know how stupid you really are.


.

so what; Henry Ford doubled wages and did not whine about regulations or taxes; only corporate welfare addicts, do that.

Ford was making enough money that he could afford to do that. Most companies do not have that luxury.

You cant regulate morality dumb ass.




.

 

[Skull Pilot]

it is politics, not welfare. and, it is not, artificially high; it is just right wing fantasy, that is all.

wages should compete favorably with the cost of social services.

That uncouples wages from the value of the work performed. It would be more honest for the government to make up the difference between the real wage and the "living wage". If the "living wage" in your area is $15/hour and you earn $7, then you get welfare benefits of $8/hr. Not saying it would be sustainable, but it would be more honest.

Here you go again assuming facts not in evidence. You don't know how many people making less that 15 an hour receive social welfare services.

Try this. If you are so unskilled as to only earn 8 an hour and you need 500 a week to pay your bills then you work a second job so the money you can earn for your skill level is enough to pay your bills. Then you make your labor worth more so you can work less hours and still pay your bills

It is not written anywhere that merely working 40 hours a week will earn you enough to support your lifestyle

any third worlder can do that. have you no "pride of ownership"?

you should be able to quit or decline work; and qualify for unemployment compensation.

Incorrect. That would be welfare, NOT unemployment compensation.

nope; it would be unemployment compensation and equal protection of the law.

like most people who have never owned a business you don't understand how UI works

 

[hadit]

That uncouples wages from the value of the work performed. It would be more honest for the government to make up the difference between the real wage and the "living wage". If the "living wage" in your area is $15/hour and you earn $7, then you get welfare benefits of $8/hr. Not saying it would be sustainable, but it would be more honest.

not at all; its merely fixing the value at the new equilibrium.

now you know why no one takes the right seriously about economics.

Baloney. There are prices and there are costs. You can move the price all over the place, but you can't arbitrarily move costs. If it's only worth $8/hr to me to have the floor in the back warehouse swept, forcing me to pay $15/hr to have it done doesn't change the value of the work. I simply will have it done rarely or not at all, thus eliminating a job that I would have been willing to pay for at a lower rate. That high school kid looking to make a little money and break into the job market is just out of luck.

yes, costs can be regulated. only the right appeals to ignorance instead of economics.

Wrong again. If it costs me $10/unit to manufacture something, government forcing me to set the price at $8/unit doesn't change my cost, it eliminates my company.

Prohibition is worse.

In any Case, fixing Standards is a power delegated to our legislators.

How long do you expect companies to operate at a loss? You once could expect a teenager to meet you at a gas station, get your oil and water checked and gas pumped without having to get out of your car. Not so any more, the natural result of wages being artificially set too high. Within a few years you might see 2 employees wandering around in a McDonalds instead of a dozen, the natural result of wages being artificially set too high.

 

[danielpalos]

social services cost x; why shouldn't a minimum wage cost x+1. you make it seem, like you would rather whine about the cost of social services than try to induce people to want to work.

Again who made it $14 an hour?



.

according to one estimate. does it really matter now? advocacy for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage is already underway.

and it will never happen

it is already happening.

Not at the federal level which is all that really counts.
States stupid enough to do it will see businesses move to other states

it may. in any case, it is happening in some of the States.

only the right thinks it is Only about the the bottom line, instead of location, location, location. the product should merit what the market will bear, regardless.

 

[Wyatt earp]

not at all; its merely fixing the value at the new equilibrium.

now you know why no one takes the right seriously about economics.

Baloney. There are prices and there are costs. You can move the price all over the place, but you can't arbitrarily move costs. If it's only worth $8/hr to me to have the floor in the back warehouse swept, forcing me to pay $15/hr to have it done doesn't change the value of the work. I simply will have it done rarely or not at all, thus eliminating a job that I would have been willing to pay for at a lower rate. That high school kid looking to make a little money and break into the job market is just out of luck.

yes, costs can be regulated. only the right appeals to ignorance instead of economics.

so ow you want the government to regulate costs as well as wages?

I told you this $15 dollar an hour nonsense with this kid is all a ruse..


He just wants socialism



.

a more efficient economy, that is all.

Then move to fucking holland pay 80% in taxes and never be able to buy a house fuck tard.


Get the fuck out of the U.S.A. loser


.

 

[danielpalos]

That uncouples wages from the value of the work performed. It would be more honest for the government to make up the difference between the real wage and the "living wage". If the "living wage" in your area is $15/hour and you earn $7, then you get welfare benefits of $8/hr. Not saying it would be sustainable, but it would be more honest.

Here you go again assuming facts not in evidence. You don't know how many people making less that 15 an hour receive social welfare services.

Try this. If you are so unskilled as to only earn 8 an hour and you need 500 a week to pay your bills then you work a second job so the money you can earn for your skill level is enough to pay your bills. Then you make your labor worth more so you can work less hours and still pay your bills

It is not written anywhere that merely working 40 hours a week will earn you enough to support your lifestyle

any third worlder can do that. have you no "pride of ownership"?

you should be able to quit or decline work; and qualify for unemployment compensation.

Incorrect. That would be welfare, NOT unemployment compensation.

nope; it would be unemployment compensation and equal protection of the law.

like most people who have never owned a business you don't understand how UI works

i know it is being applied wrong, on purpose.

 

[hadit]

it is politics, not welfare. and, it is not, artificially high; it is just right wing fantasy, that is all.

wages should compete favorably with the cost of social services.

That uncouples wages from the value of the work performed. It would be more honest for the government to make up the difference between the real wage and the "living wage". If the "living wage" in your area is $15/hour and you earn $7, then you get welfare benefits of $8/hr. Not saying it would be sustainable, but it would be more honest.

Here you go again assuming facts not in evidence. You don't know how many people making less that 15 an hour receive social welfare services.

Try this. If you are so unskilled as to only earn 8 an hour and you need 500 a week to pay your bills then you work a second job so the money you can earn for your skill level is enough to pay your bills. Then you make your labor worth more so you can work less hours and still pay your bills

It is not written anywhere that merely working 40 hours a week will earn you enough to support your lifestyle

any third worlder can do that. have you no "pride of ownership"?

you should be able to quit or decline work; and qualify for unemployment compensation.

Incorrect. That would be welfare, NOT unemployment compensation.

nope; it would be unemployment compensation and equal protection of the law.

You're redefining the meaning of the terminology. That does not, however, change what unemployment compensation really is, any more than government forcing a certain price point for goods or services changes the cost of producing them.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Again who made it $14 an hour?



.

according to one estimate. does it really matter now? advocacy for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage is already underway.

and it will never happen

it is already happening.

Not at the federal level which is all that really counts.
States stupid enough to do it will see businesses move to other states

it may. in any case, it is happening in some of the States.

only the right thinks it is Only about the the bottom line, instead of location, location, location. the product should merit what the market will bear, regardless.

Get your story straight will you?

An artificial raise in labor prices makes a product less competitive in the market. If people will only pay 10 bucks for something and your artificial labor cost increase makes it impossible to produce that product at a cost that will make 10 dollars profitable then the price will have to be raised to more than 10 dollars and people (the market) will stop buying it

 

[Wyatt earp]

Again who made it $14 an hour?



.

according to one estimate. does it really matter now? advocacy for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage is already underway.

and it will never happen

it is already happening.

Not at the federal level which is all that really counts.
States stupid enough to do it will see businesses move to other states

it may. in any case, it is happening in some of the States.

only the right thinks it is Only about the the bottom line, instead of location, location, location. the product should merit what the market will bear, regardless.

The states can do whst ever it likes...


We know why you want it done Nationaly..


Because states with High MW dont want to lose companys to states with low MW...


Again quit trying to bull shit ...socialist boi

 

[danielpalos]

Baloney. There are prices and there are costs. You can move the price all over the place, but you can't arbitrarily move costs. If it's only worth $8/hr to me to have the floor in the back warehouse swept, forcing me to pay $15/hr to have it done doesn't change the value of the work. I simply will have it done rarely or not at all, thus eliminating a job that I would have been willing to pay for at a lower rate. That high school kid looking to make a little money and break into the job market is just out of luck.

yes, costs can be regulated. only the right appeals to ignorance instead of economics.

so ow you want the government to regulate costs as well as wages?

I told you this $15 dollar an hour nonsense with this kid is all a ruse..


He just wants socialism



.

a more efficient economy, that is all.

Then move to fucking holland pay 80% in taxes and never be able to buy a house fuck tard.


Get the fuck out of the U.S.A. loser


.

we can lower our tax burden by ending our drug war. simple capitalism.

now you know why no one takes the right seriously about economics.

 

[danielpalos]

according to one estimate. does it really matter now? advocacy for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage is already underway.

and it will never happen

it is already happening.

Not at the federal level which is all that really counts.
States stupid enough to do it will see businesses move to other states

it may. in any case, it is happening in some of the States.

only the right thinks it is Only about the the bottom line, instead of location, location, location. the product should merit what the market will bear, regardless.

Get your story straight will you?

An artificial raise in labor prices makes a product less competitive in the market. If people will only pay 10 bucks for something and your artificial labor cost increase makes it impossible to produce that product at a cost that will make 10 dollars profitable then the price will have to be raised to more than 10 dollars and people (the market) will stop buying it

so what; it means some consolidation and restructuring to become more efficient, since they will have more efficient labor to work with.

Henry Ford did not have that problem, why do modern capitalists?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Here you go again assuming facts not in evidence. You don't know how many people making less that 15 an hour receive social welfare services.

Try this. If you are so unskilled as to only earn 8 an hour and you need 500 a week to pay your bills then you work a second job so the money you can earn for your skill level is enough to pay your bills. Then you make your labor worth more so you can work less hours and still pay your bills

It is not written anywhere that merely working 40 hours a week will earn you enough to support your lifestyle

any third worlder can do that. have you no "pride of ownership"?

you should be able to quit or decline work; and qualify for unemployment compensation.

Incorrect. That would be welfare, NOT unemployment compensation.

nope; it would be unemployment compensation and equal protection of the law.

like most people who have never owned a business you don't understand how UI works

i know it is being applied wrong, on purpose.

no you are confusing UI with welfare
Did you know that business pay state and federal UI taxes based on their payroll ? It is already funded by employers and is meant for people who find themselves unemployed against their will. It is not for people who refuse to work, who voluntarily quit or who are fired for cause

 

[Wyatt earp]

and it will never happen

it is already happening.

Not at the federal level which is all that really counts.
States stupid enough to do it will see businesses move to other states

it may. in any case, it is happening in some of the States.

only the right thinks it is Only about the the bottom line, instead of location, location, location. the product should merit what the market will bear, regardless.

Get your story straight will you?

An artificial raise in labor prices makes a product less competitive in the market. If people will only pay 10 bucks for something and your artificial labor cost increase makes it impossible to produce that product at a cost that will make 10 dollars profitable then the price will have to be raised to more than 10 dollars and people (the market) will stop buying it

so what; it means some consolidation and restructuring to become more efficient, since they will have more efficient labor to work with.

Henry Ford did not have that problem, why do modern capitalists?

This so reminds me of you danny boi

 

[Skull Pilot]

and it will never happen

it is already happening.

Not at the federal level which is all that really counts.
States stupid enough to do it will see businesses move to other states

it may. in any case, it is happening in some of the States.

only the right thinks it is Only about the the bottom line, instead of location, location, location. the product should merit what the market will bear, regardless.

Get your story straight will you?

An artificial raise in labor prices makes a product less competitive in the market. If people will only pay 10 bucks for something and your artificial labor cost increase makes it impossible to produce that product at a cost that will make 10 dollars profitable then the price will have to be raised to more than 10 dollars and people (the market) will stop buying it

so what; it means some consolidation and restructuring to become more efficient, since they will have more efficient labor to work with.

Henry Ford did not have that problem, why do modern capitalists?

You do realize that more people get paid 15 an hour than don't or don't you?
Stuffing a burger in a bag or picking up dog shit cannot be compared to manufacturing cars

 

[Wyatt earp]

That uncouples wages from the value of the work performed. It would be more honest for the government to make up the difference between the real wage and the "living wage". If the "living wage" in your area is $15/hour and you earn $7, then you get welfare benefits of $8/hr. Not saying it would be sustainable, but it would be more honest.

not at all; its merely fixing the value at the new equilibrium.

now you know why no one takes the right seriously about economics.

Its trickle up poor and you dont have a clue about economics..thats a fact, you dont know shit about profit margins, you dont have a clue that over 80% of bussiness are small..


Your so fucking dumb on economics that you dont even know how stupid you really are.


.

so what; Henry Ford doubled wages and did not whine about regulations or taxes; only corporate welfare addicts, do that.

Ford was making enough money that he could afford to do that. Most companies do not have that luxury.

You cant regulate morality dumb ass.




.

You know I should rephrase that..


Back in Henry Fords day, people respected each other, had conservative values, knew the men belonged in mens bath rooms and women in womens bath rooms, they said " good day sir" "merry christmas" .. They were god fearing christian men and women

The word gay meant happy..

Whats different today then in Henry Fords day?


Kind of obvious is it not?


Fucking Liberal Atheist scum buckets started to take over...


.


The truth hurts dont it?

.

 

[hadit]

and it will never happen

it is already happening.

Not at the federal level which is all that really counts.
States stupid enough to do it will see businesses move to other states

it may. in any case, it is happening in some of the States.

only the right thinks it is Only about the the bottom line, instead of location, location, location. the product should merit what the market will bear, regardless.

Get your story straight will you?

An artificial raise in labor prices makes a product less competitive in the market. If people will only pay 10 bucks for something and your artificial labor cost increase makes it impossible to produce that product at a cost that will make 10 dollars profitable then the price will have to be raised to more than 10 dollars and people (the market) will stop buying it

so what; it means some consolidation and restructuring to become more efficient, since they will have more efficient labor to work with.

Henry Ford did not have that problem, why do modern capitalists?

Several things:

1. Ford produced a hot new product with high demand. He was making a lot of money and could afford to pay his workers more. I will guarantee that he would not have, though, paid his workers more than what he was making from their work, which is what you are advocating.

2. You can restructure and consolidate to your heart's content and still not be able to lower the cost of producing something beyond a certain point. Now, granted, you could do something like outsource all your work to a third world country where workers are thrilled to work 12 hour days for $3/day, but I thought you guys didn't like that solution.

 

[danielpalos]

any third worlder can do that. have you no "pride of ownership"?

you should be able to quit or decline work; and qualify for unemployment compensation.

Incorrect. That would be welfare, NOT unemployment compensation.

nope; it would be unemployment compensation and equal protection of the law.

like most people who have never owned a business you don't understand how UI works

i know it is being applied wrong, on purpose.

no you are confusing UI with welfare
Did you know that business pay state and federal UI taxes based on their payroll ? It is already funded by employers and is meant for people who find themselves unemployed against their will. It is not for people who refuse to work, who voluntarily quit or who are fired for cause

no, i am not confusing anything. the right merely confuses Mickey Mouse jobs, to actually improving the efficiency of our economy.

 

[danielpalos]

it is already happening.

Not at the federal level which is all that really counts.
States stupid enough to do it will see businesses move to other states

it may. in any case, it is happening in some of the States.

only the right thinks it is Only about the the bottom line, instead of location, location, location. the product should merit what the market will bear, regardless.

Get your story straight will you?

An artificial raise in labor prices makes a product less competitive in the market. If people will only pay 10 bucks for something and your artificial labor cost increase makes it impossible to produce that product at a cost that will make 10 dollars profitable then the price will have to be raised to more than 10 dollars and people (the market) will stop buying it

so what; it means some consolidation and restructuring to become more efficient, since they will have more efficient labor to work with.

Henry Ford did not have that problem, why do modern capitalists?

You do realize that more people get paid 15 an hour than don't or don't you?
Stuffing a burger in a bag or picking up dog shit cannot be compared to manufacturing cars

right; autoworkers wages were not minimum wages.