That would be both of you. And generally speaking, you hear one leftist's class envy horseshit, you've heard them all. Its not like too many of you are original thinkers.
That would be both of you. And generally speaking, you hear one leftist's class envy horseshit, you've heard them all. Its not like too many of you are original thinkers.No, that would be me. Get your lefties sorted out dude, you are confused.
You are doing it again. Google Marginal Utility. If I spend 100k on 2 workers, but never rent a building, then what good have I done for my company.
If what you said was true, then the 99.9% of employers are complete idiots, because they would be super ultra rich by now, because they would take all their money, and keep giving it to their employees.
Are you actually saying you should give unlimited investments to employees?
Well, that I don't doubt. At some point though, who will the 'consumers' be (the machines won't buy the stuff). Of course, a rising middle class in China and India might fill in the gap of a sagging US consumer. I suppose it will have to go to some sort of governmental support for the masses.....or simply mass chaos. Time will tell.
Your employees are always worthwhile to invest in. Without them, there is no business.
No, that would be me. Get your lefties sorted out dude, you are confused.
At least you you the world clearly in black and white how little you regard people especially Americans.
Disgusting.
No, that would be me. Get your lefties sorted out dude, you are confused.
So, here is the CBO's estimate if you were to raise the minimum wage.
"Effects of the $10.10 Option on Employment and Income
Once fully implemented in the second half of 2016, the $10.10 option would reduce total employment by about 500,000 workers, or 0.3 percent, CBO projects (see the table below). As with any such estimates, however, the actual losses could be smaller or larger; in CBOs assessment, there is about a two-thirds chance that the effect would be in the range between a very slight reduction in employment and a reduction in employment of 1.0 million workers."
This is a known effect. So well known that its often forgotten.
As for underemployment and job exportation. I'm too lazy to look up those right now, but it follows the logic. That is, labor being more expensive locally, it then becomes cost effective to get the labor externally. If not externally, then underemploy because it absolves you of the tax burden. You see fast food doing this a lot right now.
As for your second contention, I do feel like I was consistent on the effects to the economy. I think something interesting happened there. I listed off the side effects that would be caused by a raise in the minimum wage. Those things being bad, were never given scale. I never said it would have a "Big" effect, but it would have real effects. Those effects are bad, but the implications for the economy are not "Big" depending on how you define big.
The next point you made was probably the best one. The link you gave took all of Apple's profits, and divided them by the total number of works. In no way did it adjust for value driven in by the workers. It also showed that apple on average pays its "store workers" around $12 an hour. Not the CEO's pay or any exec, just the store workers. A minimum wage hike would do nothing, and you added the revenue driven in by people who drive in way more value and then said the store workers should get some of that.
1You sound like you think its possible to have a company that employs workers and is not driven by profits. 2You seem to think that a company should cap its profits and that would be good for the world. 3Ask economists and you will find that your view is vastly in the minority.
That's a feelgood statement with no basis in reality.
/sigh. You asked for proof that raising the minimum wage was a net gain, I've provided links confirming that, and raising the minimum wage has always been a net gain since the 1930's. If you're changing your argument to whether or not it causes a rise in unemployemnt, well economists disagree on that issue. IMO, there will be a slight rise in unemployment, but it is more then made up by the higher wages.
What is your argument? That increasing the minimum wage is insignificant or bad things happen when you increase the minimum wage? That increasing the minimum wage results in a net negative? That increasing the minimum wage results in higher unemployment? You keep on changing the arguments you're making, it's almost as if you've reached a conclusion that suits you, and are rationalizing that conclusion instead of looking at the data.
/sigh So you don't have any links or citations but it feels right? Despite real world studies showing that's not the case?
So an employee is providing a company a profit, the cost of the employee rises, you feel that companies will decide not make a profit and fire that employee because...? Fill in the blank for me.
Let's forget employment for a second and consider almost anything else. Burger Store makes burgers. The price of tomatoes goes up. Do you think Burger Store will stop making burgers? If the price of Lettuce goes up, do you think Burger Store will stop making burgers? If the price of meat goes up? The price of vegetables varies widely during the year and restaurants make do. What is so special about labor that if the price of labor goes up businesses will cut off their nose to spite their face and choose no profit over less profit? Especially since the cost of labor is known and steady, compared to the cost of vegetables which fluctuate monthly and are prone to random unknown price increases due to bad weather, bad crops, etc.
If You think there's no real effect to raising the minimum wage then what's the contention? Let them raise the minimum wage as much as they want, it accomplishes nothing.
Of course, most economists think raising the minimum wage improves the economy, so pardon me if I trust them over you.
You were arguing that there wasn't enough money to give minimum wage earners more money. I showed you there was plenty of money to give everyone a raise. I then explained why a company wouldn't do that on its own(profits), even if it wanted to (putting itself at a disadvantage) but the money is there for a wage increase. Many times in business there are unexpected increases in costs. Companies make do and still continue to make a profit. Where does this idea come from that a small expected increase in cost will devastate companies that face bigger and more random costs changes daily?
And what does this have to do with price of rice in China? This is a bit of a non sequitur but I'll go ahead and humor you.
1. I do agree that it's possible to have a company that employs workers and is not driven purely by profits. Look at Chick-fil-a, who eschews Sunday profits in order to give their employees a day of rest. Look at Apple eschewing profits and investments from people who don't believe in global warming
2. Disagree, A company should try and make as much money as it can, ethically. Whether concentrating solely on wealth is the best thing for the world, that's a different discussion entirely.
3. I've provided links that show the vast majority of real-world economists agree with me, though I'll concede that my opinions are the minority among people who have never read an actual economics book or taken an economics class.
Of course, most economists think raising the minimum wage improves the economy, so pardon me if I trust them over you.
.
It seems like every time minimum wage gets raised, they still end up living the same life style. They keep raising it cause they say it directly "benefits" them...yet where are they at now that it's $7.25 per hour? Struggling as always. Jack it up more and the economy "adjusts" and once again they are still right there in that lifestyle...often a mismanaged one regardless.
Just like when gas prices skyrocketed to gradually reach over $4 per gallon, which we're almost there again. Does it ever stop people from driving with lead feet or smoking their diesels like a madman from stop light to stop light?...nope
There always seems to be a new "normal" regardless of the cost of living and yet people still buy homes, still waste income on frivolous items, go to movies and complain just like the good ol days.
Question is if it's better for the country to have that twenty dollars in investment or in consumption. Our problem is that most of our consumer goods are manufactured off-shore, so a big chunk of that $20 in consumption leaves our economy (trade imbalance). We've also engineered a system in which investment is usually better off in some other nation, so arguably a big chunk of the $20 in owner's pockets also goes off-shore. Although there are some investments - e.g. new or updated homes, education - where probably most stays in our economy at least in the short run.From your "economist"
"More than 16 million low-wage workers, now making as little as $7.25 an hour, would directly benefit from the increase, the report said. Another eight million workers making slightly more than the minimum would probably also get raises, because of the upward ripple effect of an increase. That would add $31 billion to the paychecks of families ranging from poverty level to the middle class, significantly increasing their spending power and raising the nations economic output and overall income."
Unless that $31 Billion appears out of thin air it comes from either the business owners pockets leaving them with less spending power or it comes from consumers in the form of higher prices/inflation canceling out any additional overall income of the nation.
I can understand arguing the morality of a higher minimum wage, but telling me it is somehow better for the economy for me to have $20 less and you to have $20 more? No.
Technically this is government taking control of your money and forcing it to flow where it would not normally flow. While I'm against that in broad principle, I also would not wish to live in an America where government had zero control over one's money. Imagine having no safety equipment because it's cheaper to replace you than protect you, or earning $2/hour flipping burgers because there is a glut of unemployed.In other words, Government is taking your money, and people like werepossum are talking about your money.
Are you screwed? Yes, you're screwed.
-John