In theory, money trickles down.
...But only in theory, obviously.
But seriously--what is the point of "theory" when it rarely, if ever, reflects reality when applied?
In theory, yes. In practice, not necessarily significantly. If the economy is good, businesses may have enough profit and consumers enough spendable income to take the hit. And that additional money paid out is also going back into the economy, so that while some jobs are no longer feasible and must go away, other businesses have a new need for more labor for the additional demand. And in any case, it's temporary; the economy always adjusts to the new level, just not necessarily in the same mix of jobs and businesses.
I tend to agree. Theory gives you a basis for your SWAG, but little more: the world is simply too complicated and too chaotic. For money, I'd argue that it trickles both up and down. We have vastly more loot than people even twenty years ago; disposable income tends to rise. Same with trickling up - if employees don't generate profit, there is no point to them. (Except for the true idiots who feel that jobs exist because people need them.) Whether or not the net effect is up or down depending on many factors, but it's worth remembering that the resource owner always has the option to take his football and go home. If the business climate is such that both sides aren't going to see improvements with rising sales or productivity . . . Well, it ain't gonna be the employee who gets the brass ring.In theory, money trickles down.
...But only in theory, obviously.
But seriously--what is the point of "theory" when it rarely, if ever, reflects reality when applied?
None of this will help lazy bums who are too lazy to get up and go to work.
Good points.It looks like one of the things not being addressed here is that this would help lower income people gain skills to do more productive work.
A big problem with the anti-minimum wage side is that a floor means jobs below that skill level are lost. Jobs where someone could have gotten in at the bottom, learned skills and worked their way up are now taken away. This creates a system where if you make bad choices young you are screwed. If you drop out of HS and you don't have an average level skills, you cannot start at the bottom and work your way up. Minimum wage means that you need to have skills that justify that level of productivity or else you wont get a job legally.
For the vast majority of people, minimum wage is not important. I think its something like just under 5% of all working people make at or below the federal minimum wage. But, for those who want to work, but don't have basic skills they are not likely to find work.
I understand the worry that we would create the incentive to have the government subsidize income like they do for Walmart. The fact of the matter is that we as a country are going to subsidize income directly or indirectly. At least this way we are giving those who want to work and better themselves a path to do so. Right now, we have a system where if you leave the system and try to work, you are taking a big risk if things don't work out. At least with this system we are giving people the ability to get experience and more productivity.
Of course. Anything government does will have bad side effects. Anything ANYONE does will have bad side effects. Including doing nothing. That doesn't make it not worth doing, as long as the good substantially outweighs the bad.I am no economist, but I think it's rough when the typical minimum wage worker is receiving more in total tax benefit than they are from employment. I am not certain raising the minimum wage by law is a solution. Seems like some degree of unemployment and inflation are natural consequences of that.
Eliminate all tax credits across the board, and raise the minimum wage.
The Department of Justice and the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission approved Charter Communications (CHTR)' $78 billion takeover of Time Warner Cable (TWC) Antitrust regulators on Monday cleared a mega-merger that will create the country's second-largest cable company.and its $10.4 billion purchase of Bright House Networks.
Why Income Inequality Isn’t Going Anywhere
Rich elites—even rich liberal elites—don’t believe in redistributing wealth
F. Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway famously disagreed about the American elite. “The very rich are different from you and me,” Fitzgerald wrote. “Yes,” Hemingway shot back, “they have more money.” With inequality in America continuing to rise, we revisited Fitzgerald and Hemingway’s (perhaps apocryphal) dispute, conducting a series of experiments designed to pinpoint the differences between the rich and those of more modest means.
The conventional view of America as a classless society has long sided with Hemingway—the only difference is the money. But our results suggest that, at least when it comes to attitudes toward inequality, Fitzgerald is right: Elite Americans are not just middle-class people with more money.
They display distinctive attitudes on basic moral and political questions concerning economic justice. Simply put, the rich place a much lower value on equality than the rest. What’s more, this lack of concern about inequality among the elite is not a partisan matter. Even when they self-identify as progressive Democrats, elite Americans value equality less highly than their middle-class compatriots.
This finding has profound implications for public policy. Contemporary American politics presents an enduring mystery. Why does the public policy response to nearly five decades of rising economic inequality remain so tepid, even as large majorities of Americans consider inequality excessive, and even under a two-term Democratic president?
Our study, published Thursday in the journal Science, co-authored with colleagues Pamela Jakiela and Shachar Kariv, proposes an answer: Regardless of party, the elite donors whose money dominates politics, and the elite officeholders whose decisions set policy, don’t value economic equality. When the American government abjures egalitarian policies, it is implementing the bipartisan preferences of the American elite.
While not necessarily forcing jobs to leave the country our corporate tax system encourages companies to keep money earned offshore in those off shore countries. Often this means expansion of overseas manufacturing facilities and jobs, increased overseas R&D budgets and positions, or investment in other overseas opportunities instead of bringing the money back to the US to be taxed here and then used for expansion\investment within the US.
Of course the this is also encouraged by shareholders as they like to see 'smart tax strategies'
On site at Apple's famous Irish 'headquarters'
November 1, 2013, 4:05 PM EDT
We made a pilgrimage to southern Ireland to check out Apples mysterious global headquarters amid the horses and cows, heres what we found (before we were shooed away).
Apple offices in Cork, Ireland FORTUNE The biggest technology company on Earth has a sizable portion of its operations here on the outskirts of Cork, a provincial town in southern Ireland, up a hill past a traffic circle marked with a large statue of Jesus Christ on the cross. In other words, this is about as far as one can get from Apples Silicon Valley base of Cupertino, more than five thousand miles away.
And yet Cork population about 120,000 is home to five of Apples global subsidiaries, including Apple Sales International, which manages the companys gargantuan global distribution and sales of iPads, iPhones, computers, and its many other devices. (Also here are Apple Operations Europe, Apple Operations International, Apple Distribution International, and Apple Operations.)
Yet there are no multi-lane highways across the street from its redbrick and glass building. Rather, a pair of horses munches on a rangy patch of grass, near to an empty soccer field, while a few miles away, dairy cows laze on the green fields of Blarney under a stormy sky just as they did decades ago, when Steve Jobs flew into Cork in 1980 to open Apples overseas operation.
From the front, Apple HQ could well be mistaken for a high school, bland and modern, and just three stories high. And foot traffic is thin enough that when Fortune wandered up to the entrance on Tuesday morning, security guards quickly took notice. Was there anyone we could say hello to, we asked? No, the nearest public-relations staffer was in London.
Despite that, the activities inside this modest building have provoked a firestorm in Washington, which has now rippled all the way back to Ireland. In U.S. Senate hearings last May, Apple AAPL -0.31% struggled to explain how it had managed to avoid an estimated $44 billion or so in U.S. taxes, by taking advantage of Irelands 12.5% corporate tax rate, as well as mechanisms that effectively rendered it stateless for tax purposes.
One loophole has allowed Apple and others to shunt billions in profits from Ireland through the Netherlands to the tax-free British Virgin Islands, by setting up a web of subsidiaries perfectly tailored to avoiding taxes, in the famously-named Double Irish with a Dutch sandwich accounting method. Apple insists it contributes about $1 in every $40 in corporate taxes the IRS collects. And while Sen. John McCain (himself a descendent of Irish immigrants from Ulster) admits Apple is a big taxpayer, he pointed out last May that it was also among Americas largest tax avoiders.
Uh. If corporations could, they'd be paying slave-wages (I.E, Taiwan, Thailand, China, etc.). It's thanks to the Government that you can even afford to eat sometimes when you're on minimum wage.
Aren't there loads of people that earn less than $1 a day? Corporations would fuckin' love to pay westerners $1 a day; no skin of their backs, and profits go up.
Evidenced by the whole "if minimum wage goes up, employment goes down" scenario; if paying people enough to actually live and feed their kids gets corporations all antagonistic, the opposite makes them ejaculate profusely.
You pay your employees 15 because they are worth 15. Now hire someone who is only worth 5 but you must pay 15because its the law. It just wouldn't make sense to do that.How many of you bitching about this actually own small businesses?
Not to downplay labor costs, because they are large, but I mean.. Paying people good wages makes them happy. Who wants unhappy employees?
This will not affect me or my business in any significant way, since I already pay all of my employees over $15/hr. I'm all for it, but I admit I don't understand all of the nuances.
The suggestions of working minimum wage and EITC seem well grounded...
High turnover is a killer and it doesn't take much of a wage increase to reduce wage-related churn.How many of you bitching about this actually own small businesses?
Not to downplay labor costs, because they are large, but I mean.. Paying people good wages makes them happy. Who wants unhappy employees?
This will not affect me or my business in any significant way, since I already pay all of my employees over $15/hr. I'm all for it, but I admit I don't understand all of the nuances.
The suggestions of working minimum wage and EITC seem well grounded...
You pay your employees 15 because they are worth 15. Now hire someone who is only worth 5 but you must pay 15because its the law. It just wouldn't make sense to do that.
I don't have any use for someone who is only worth $5.. lol
But I do understand your point. I admit I don't know the best solution, but it is clear something needs to be done.
Not many businesses do. I've learned to pay well but that's also determined by how well my business is doing. I can't pay someone too much if my business isn't making money, even if they are worth that salary.I don't have any use for someone who is only worth $5.. lol
But I do understand your point. I may look at things differently if my workforce wasn't skilled. I admit I don't know the best solution, but it is clear something needs to be done.
I don't have any use for someone who is only worth $5.. lol
But I do understand your point. I may look at things differently if my workforce wasn't skilled. I admit I don't know the best solution, but it is clear something needs to be done.
How many of you bitching about this actually own small businesses?
Not to downplay labor costs, because they are large, but I mean.. Paying people good wages makes them happy. Who wants unhappy employees?
This will not affect me or my business in any significant way, since I already pay all of my employees over $15/hr. I'm all for it, but I admit I don't understand all of the nuances.
The suggestions of working minimum wage and EITC seem well grounded...
That's exactly the problem; those supporting a $15 minimum wage seem to think there is a bottomless demand for minimally skilled workers. Demand from someone other than them of course, they're never the ones who actually do the hiring and paying those people. But everyone knows those unspecified rich people and corporations do have that limitless supply of busywork to be done that could easily be handled by a minimally skilled person, digging holes and filling them in for example. All those potential workers would be doing all those amazing things to create more than $15/hour or economic value IF ONLY they weren't so greedy as to turn away workers from creating that profit for them because they insist on only hiring someone at $1/hour.
Any logic behind that, or just "makes it better"?