Drunkard Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 (edited) The whole concept of a federal minimum wage is retarded because of the gross disparity in the value of a dollar across various locations. It's self-evident that an area with a median income of $40 would not support the same minimum wage as an area with a median income in excess of $100k. All the sanctimonious bull **** in the world can't change that simple reality that !@#$s the entire argument. But logic and reason are no match for wet kitty politics. Yeah, let's just scrap the whole concept because there are some areas of the country where it's not relevant. We shouldn't worry about border security either because it doesn't apply to Hawaii or many of the non border states. If all legislation had to apply to all states we wouldn't have most legislation and Congress would get even less done than they do now. Edited March 31, 2017 by Drunkard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 Right. It's better to let the biggest company in the world (Walmart) pay many of its workers so little that the government has to subsidize them with welfare, food stamps, and heating oil subsidies right? $15 an hour may be too high for a minimum wage but it should be set at a high enough level where anyone working 40 hours a week earns enough to not qualify for government assistance. That should make conservatives happy because it means more people pulling the wagon and fewer people getting free rides. Wouldn't you rather have all these fast food workers, janitors, cashiers, and grocery shelf stockers paying into the system instead of taking way more out of it then they pay in? I know the next argument/excuse is that the welfare threshold just ends up getting raised whenever the minimum wage is raised by that's why coming up with a new living wage or whatever you want to call it should be done in conjunction with welfare reform. Walmart should pay their employees what they're worth, not some arbitrary wage imposed upon them by an outside agency. Some should earn more than $15/hour, and some should make significantly less. It is not the responsibility of a business, a government, or society in general to see that people have a livable income. That responsibility lies with the individual. Income assistance should only be available to those that truly need it, and it should be enough to keep a roof over their heads and food on their table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 Walmart should pay their employees what they're worth, not some arbitrary wage imposed upon them by an outside agency. Some should earn more than $15/hour, and some should make significantly less. It is not the responsibility of a business, a government, or society in general to see that people have a livable income. That responsibility lies with the individual. Income assistance should only be available to those that truly need it, and it should be enough to keep a roof over their heads and food on their table. And if the government was so truly concerned about the underclass, it wouldn't have 1,000 lottery games within spitting distance of check cashing places. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 (edited) I know your example was a rectal extraction. You just happened to skew your numbers in a way to make it look like raises wages doesn't help people at the bottom of the economic ladder so I clarified it. If I have said raising the minimum wage $10 would only cause prices to go up $1 you would tell me that wasn't realistic. Raising the minimum wage doesn't help the bottom of the economic ladder at all. My numbers are pretty close according to the historical data, even it was arbitrary. Raising the wages by 10$ nationally will generally reduce the dollar's buying power by 10$. Like I keep saying: SIMPLE MATH. A person making a minimum wage of 10$/hr is still making a minimum wage if you raise the floor to 15$/hr. Also, why do you continously include yourself in your arguments? It's like you are expecting to get ridiculed for presenting feelings instead of facts... Edited March 31, 2017 by unbillievable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 Yeah, let's just scrap the whole concept because there are some areas of the country where it's not relevant. We shouldn't worry about border security either because it doesn't apply to Hawaii or many of the non border states. If all legislation had to apply to all states we wouldn't have most legislation and Congress would get even less done than they do now. That's a pretty flimsy argument. It's not that it isn't "relevant" in certain parts of the country. It's that it is logistically impossible to pick and apply a single figure across the country and get the desired effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 (edited) "$15 an hour may be too high for a minimum wage but it should be set at a high enough level where anyone working 40 hours a week earns enough to not qualify for government assistance. That should make conservatives happy because it means more people pulling the wagon and fewer people getting free rides. Wouldn't you rather have all these fast food workers, janitors, cashiers, and grocery shelf stockers paying into the system instead of taking way more out of it then they pay in?" This is your argument? Why not just lower the poverty line to equal the minimum wage? Since both are arbitrary. It accomplishes the exact same thing you're proposing: people working 40hrs a week won't qualify for public assistance. raising the minimum wage has NEVER reduced the number of people on welfare. The government just raises the qualification line. There is one question that is always asked in these minimum wage debates (and already asked several times in this thread), and no minimum-wage advocate has EVER been able to answer it: "Why not just raise the minimum wage to $1000/hr?" Edited March 31, 2017 by unbillievable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 And if the government was so truly concerned about the underclass, it wouldn't have 1,000 lottery games within spitting distance of check cashing places. Hey, lottery tickets are the poor paying their fair share. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 Hey, lottery tickets are the poor paying their fair share. "Wall Street's just a con game!" - person at gas station buying 20 scratch-offs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 "$15 an hour may be too high for a minimum wage but it should be set at a high enough level where anyone working 40 hours a week earns enough to not qualify for government assistance. That should make conservatives happy because it means more people pulling the wagon and fewer people getting free rides. Wouldn't you rather have all these fast food workers, janitors, cashiers, and grocery shelf stockers paying into the system instead of taking way more out of it then they pay in?" This is your argument? Why not just lower the poverty line to equal the minimum wage? Since both are arbitrary. It accomplishes the exact same thing you're proposing: people working 40hrs a week won't qualify for public assistance. raising the minimum wage has NEVER reduced the number of people on welfare. The government just raises the qualification line. There is one question that is always asked in these minimum wage debates (and already asked several times in this thread), and no minimum-wage advocate has EVER been able to answer it: "Why not just raise the minimum wage to $1000/hr?" Because $1,000/hr would cause massive inflation. That's why you wouldn't do it. A higher minimum wage doesn't automatically mean everything else rises in price accordingly as to make the wage increase redundant. In the short term, it's a good growth stimulator as people are taking home more in paychecks and their spending power is increased. Some business will increase their prices to adjust for the added labor expense, but not nearly enough to nullify the wage increase completely as has been posited here. Long term, the rationale is that raising the minimum wage could potentially see real earnings increase across the board. This would dramatically improve the take-home of millions of people who have seen stagnant wage growth for over four decades now http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/ . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdutton Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 A higher minimum wage doesn't automatically mean everything else rises in price accordingly as to make the wage increase redundant. In the short term, it's a good growth stimulator as people are taking home more in paychecks and their spending power is increased. Some business will increase their prices to adjust for the added labor expense, but not nearly enough to nullify the wage increase completely as has been posited here. Businesses often operate an a razor thin margin in order to stay competitive. What you will get is layoffs, fewer hours for remaining employees and increased prices. And im some cases businesses will just leave or close for good. Federal minimum wage is a small business killer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 Businesses often operate an a razor thin margin in order to stay competitive. What you will get is layoffs, fewer hours for remaining employees and increased prices. And im some cases businesses will just leave or close for good. Federal minimum wage is a small business killer. It's true about some business and their margins. I'm a small business owner myself, and we pay about 10-15% above prevailing wage on average. It's not quite the killer you're making it out to be, in fact I think our worker retention and overall production speaks to the benefits of raising wages. Remember that not ALL business hire at the minimum pay scale. It wouldn't increase the cost of living across the board, only in certain areas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdutton Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 It's true about some business and their margins. I'm a small business owner myself, and we pay about 10-15% above prevailing wage on average. It's not quite the killer you're making it out to be, in fact I think our worker retention and overall production speaks to the benefits of raising wages. Remember that not ALL business hire at the minimum pay scale. It wouldn't increase the cost of living across the board, only in certain areas. It artificially increases the costs. The costs of everything in turn will go up over time. It doesn't work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 It artificially increases the costs. The costs of everything in turn will go up over time. It doesn't work. I agree that it's no silver bullet, but many of 'the costs' we bear today are either inflated or depressed by factors other than their cost of production and I'm assuming would be considered artificial by your definition. The cost of everything going up in time is an inevitability. Raising the hourly minimum is simply a brute force way of ensuring wages increase somewhat concurrently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdutton Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 I agree that it's no silver bullet, but many of 'the costs' we bear today are either inflated or depressed by factors other than their cost of production and I'm assuming would be considered artificial by your definition. The cost of everything going up in time is an inevitability. Raising the hourly minimum is simply a brute force way of ensuring wages increase somewhat concurrently. That is absolutely not true. The price of gas was once $4 per gallon. Now its just above $2. Its all about supply and demand and the cost of producing the product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 That is absolutely not true. The price of gas was once $4 per gallon. Now its just above $2. Its all about supply and demand and the cost of producing the product. Well then. Please tell me you understand the concept of inflation and that it's different from market fluctuations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdutton Posted April 1, 2017 Share Posted April 1, 2017 Well then. Please tell me you understand the concept of inflation and that it's different from market fluctuations. No... I understand inflation. Do you understand the laws of supply and demand and how inducing labor price controls on businesses contribute to inflation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted April 1, 2017 Share Posted April 1, 2017 (edited) That is absolutely not true. The price of gas was once $4 per gallon. Now its just above $2. Its all about supply and demand and the cost of producing the product. There is a separate category for specific products that don't conform to normal economic behaviors of supply and demand. Gasoline is one of them. Others are food, water, electricity, healthcare... These are resources that people will buy regardless of price. It's also a reason why many governments say they should be allowed to take over that industry "for the good of the people"... Edited April 1, 2017 by unbillievable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted April 1, 2017 Share Posted April 1, 2017 There is a separate category for specific products that don't conform to normal economic behaviors of supply and demand. Gasoline is one of them. Others are food, water, electricity, healthcare... These are resources that people will buy regardless of price. It's also a reason why many governments say they should be allowed to take over that industry "for the good of the people"... You're confusing the concept of price elasticity with exemption from the immutable law of supply and demand. All of the items you listed are subject to supply and demand. It's the primary reason the price of gas has seen mass fluctuations over the last decade and change. When governments intervene to obscure or eliminate those forces you end up with soaring costs or shortages. There is no exception to the rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted April 1, 2017 Share Posted April 1, 2017 (edited) You're confusing the concept of price elasticity with exemption from the immutable law of supply and demand. All of the items you listed are subject to supply and demand. It's the primary reason the price of gas has seen mass fluctuations over the last decade and change. When governments intervene to obscure or eliminate those forces you end up with soaring costs or shortages. There is no exception to the rule. Of course, every finite resource is subject to supply and demand; that's why I said it doesn't conform to "normal" behavior. ...and I'll let you try explaining elasticity to these bunch of numbnuts; we have pages and pages of economic theory explaining the idiocy of minimum wage and the exact same liberal rhetoric keeps rotating around. I've tried simplifying it, but then you'll get people like Drunkard who can't grasp that it's supposed to be nursery math. Edited April 1, 2017 by unbillievable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted April 1, 2017 Share Posted April 1, 2017 ...and I'll let you try explaining elasticity to these bunch of numbnuts; we have pages and pages of economic theory explaining the idiocy of minimum wage and the exact same liberal rhetoric keeps rotating around. I've tried simplifying it, but then you'll get people like Drunkard who can't grasp that it's supposed to be nursery math. That's because you're discussing economics and they're discussing politics. They can't address the topic without looking at it through an ideological lens. That's why I like reading the exchanges between GG and TPS - they come from different ideological points of view but can have reasonable and informed discussions on the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts