Minimum Wage Increase to $9 Per Hour

[Squilly]

Originally Posted by Muscle Master

So by mostly everyone's logic.. I should be preaching what everyone else is saying.. "don't like your job, go get a better one"

Even though I'm doing a lot better now, I don't forget where I came from. and for a person who may have to start out just like I did.. I wouldn't want them to be pretty much homeless and go through the things I want through because the minimum wage is not livable!!! that is the whole point of this thread!

The current wage is not livable.. no one is asking for a wage to be able to buy a Macbook Pro in two weeks, people are asking for a decent livable wage so they can live like a decent human being.. and then branch off into another job/career field where the wages are higher

Blame greedy CEO's, inflation, and a bad political system for that. :/

[Muscle Master]

Originally Posted by Squilly

Blame greedy CEO's, inflation, and a bad political system for that. :/

I do.. this is one of the reason the American way of living is crap

[Dmunjal]

Originally Posted by Squilly

Blame greedy CEO's, inflation, and a bad political system for that. :/

Greedy CEOs aren't necessarily the problem. Greedy CEOs that don't provide value and are supported by lobbyists and the government are the problem. Steve Jobs was arguably a greedy CEO but he created a lot of wealth for his employees, partners, and increased productivity for millions of his customers. That's a good thing. Most CEOs whose companies provide a product or service that is desirable so that customers are willing to part with their money to buy it are a good thing for society. However, there are many CEOs who enjoy protection from the government (oil companies, pharma, defense, healthcare, etc.) are in fact a leech on society.

Inflation is caused by the Federal Reserve and their deliberate strategy to debase to the dollar to devalue our outstanding debt (due to decades of deficit spending). A weaker dollar causes prices to rise which raises the cost of living which hurts the poor.

Bad political system? Our founders created a system that has lasted longer than any other country has. The problem is that we haven't maintained their ideals (small government, hard money based on gold/silver, enumerated powers, separation of powers).

You are correct about all of your points but understand the causes that create them.

[Squilly]

Originally Posted by Dmunjal

Greedy CEOs aren't necessarily the problem. Greedy CEOs that don't provide value and are supported by lobbyists and the government are the problem. Steve Jobs was arguably a greedy CEO but he created a lot of wealth for his employees, partners, and increased productivity for millions of his customers. That's a good thing. Most CEOs whose companies provide a product or service that is desirable so that customers are willing to part with their money to buy it are a good thing for society. However, there are many CEOs who enjoy protection from the government (oil companies, pharma, defense, healthcare, etc.) are in fact a leech on society.

Inflation is caused by the Federal Reserve and their deliberate strategy to debase to the dollar to devalue our outstanding debt (due to decades of deficit spending). A weaker dollar causes prices to rise which raises the cost of living which hurts the poor.

Bad political system? Our founders created a system that has lasted longer than any other country has. The problem is that we haven't maintained their ideals (small government, hard money based on gold/silver, enumerated powers, separation of powers).

You are correct about all of your points but understand the causes that create them.

Okay, look at people like Papa Johns CEO....

[Dmunjal]

Originally Posted by Squilly

Okay, look at people like Papa Johns CEO....

Agreed. There are a lot of idiots out there. But despite his politics, he has built a business up by himself and created thousands of jobs. He is responsible for millions of dollars of tax revenue at the state and federal level.

What he needs to do is support his employee base as much as he supports his shareholders.

[lannister80]

Originally Posted by Dmunjal

But despite his politics, he has built a business up by himself and created thousands of jobs.

Uh huh. Who pays for all those roads his delivery drivers drive millions of miles on every day? ALL OF US.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by lannister80

Uh huh. Who pays for all those roads his delivery drivers drive millions of miles on every day? ALL OF US.

Well it's not like he has a choice

[Dmunjal]

Originally Posted by lannister80

Uh huh. Who pays for all those roads his delivery drivers drive millions of miles on every day? ALL OF US.

Don't we all pay for the roads that we have equal access to? We pay based on how much we drive based on the gas taxes. If his drivers drive around a lot more to deliver pizzas, they use more gas, and pay more taxes than someone else might.

Don't get your point.

[webbuzz]

Originally Posted by lannister80

Uh huh. Who pays for all those roads his delivery drivers drive millions of miles on every day? ALL OF US.

Delivery drivers contribute when they purchase gas.

[samiwas]

Originally Posted by Muscle Master

The current wage is not livable.. no one is asking for a wage to be able to buy a Macbook Pro in two weeks, people are asking for a decent livable wage so they can live like a decent human being.. and then branch off into another job/career field where the wages are higher

I think this is the big part of the argument that gets glossed over my many. Someone bitches about their minimum wage job and barely being able to afford a gallon of milk, and some yahoo making six figures barks back "You just want everything handed to you and think you should make big money for your menial job" They seem to think that the person who can barely afford a gallon of milk thinks he deserves a luxury car and a 3000 square foot house for sweeping floors. So far from the truth, yet the gist of it gets constantly repeated.

Originally Posted by Dmunjal

Don't we all pay for the roads that we have equal access to? We pay based on how much we drive based on the gas taxes. If his drivers drive around a lot more to deliver pizzas, they use more gas, and pay more taxes than someone else might.

Don't get your point.

The point might have been that he built up his business using services that were provided, be didn't completely do it by himself. No one in the world does anything like building a business completely by themselves.

There's also your point that the drivers pay for their gas and and thus the taxes. Many pizza delivery companies don't pay for their employee's gas. So Papa John is getting the services which are required to run his business without directly paying for them (using the gas tax/roads argument). I'm sure he drives some, and pays some gas tax, but this is what bugs me about the people who want to eliminate corporate income tax.

[Dmunjal]

Originally Posted by samiwas

The point might have been that he built up his business using services that were provided, be didn't completely do it by himself. No one in the world does anything like building a business completely by themselves.

Of course he didn't do it by himself. This country has a wealth of resources, infrastructure, that allowed him to create that business. The point I'm making is that those resources are NO DIFFERENT than are available to every one else in this country. We all have equal access to them. And when someone does succeed, they pay a proportionately larger share of their income than those who don't. That seems like a fair system to me.

There's also your point that the drivers pay for their gas and and thus the taxes. Many pizza delivery companies don't pay for their employee's gas. So Papa John is getting the services which are required to run his business without directly paying for them (using the gas tax/roads argument). I'm sure he drives some, and pays some gas tax, but this is what bugs me about the people who want to eliminate corporate income tax.

But they are paying for the salary of the drivers. You would have to assume that the salary (and tips) are high enough to pay for the gas that the driver pays out of their pocket or why would the driver take the job?

Your point about the corporate tax is a valid one. But I think you should be focused not on the rate that corporations pay but on the loopholes that the lobbyists have put in to the tax code that allow many large corporations (GE, Apple, Google) to pay little or no corporate tax at all.

This disporportionately hurts small business who don't have the money to lobby for their personal loopholes from Congress. Small business are responsible for the majority of jobs and should be encouraged to hire as much as possible.

[samiwas]

Originally Posted by Dmunjal

Of course he didn't do it by himself. This country has a wealth of resources, infrastructure, that allowed him to create that business. The point I'm making is that those resources are NO DIFFERENT than are available to every one else in this country. We all have equal access to them. And when someone does succeed, they pay a proportionately larger share of their income than those who don't. That seems like a fair system to me.

I guess it depends on your context for "proportionately larger share". Two people go and get 10 gallons of gas for their car. One guy makes $20,000 a year. The other makes $200,000 a year. The guy who makes $20,000 a year paid a higher percentage of his income in gas taxes. It's how you add everything together.

But they are paying for the salary of the drivers. You would have to assume that the salary (and tips) are high enough to pay for the gas that the driver pays out of their pocket or why would the driver take the job?

Yes, of course the driver must make enough to pay for the gas. But is that figured into the salary, or is pizza delivery counted as a "tipped job" where they get the lower rate? In this case, the company is paying nothing towards that tax. The tips are irrelevant as that's not "built into the price" as much other stuff is in the corporate world.

Your point about the corporate tax is a valid one. But I think you should be focused not on the rate that corporations pay but on the loopholes that the lobbyists have put in to the tax code that allow many large corporations (GE, Apple, Google) to pay little or no corporate tax at all.

Agreed. I'd love to see no loopholes at all.

This disporportionately hurts small business who don't have the money to lobby for their personal loopholes from Congress. Small business are responsible for the majority of jobs and should be encouraged to hire as much as possible.

Agreed, but this shouldn't be through loopholes. Not sure if that's what you are suggesting.

[anonymouslurker]

Originally Posted by samiwas

I think this is the big part of the argument that gets glossed over my many. Someone bitches about their minimum wage job and barely being able to afford a gallon of milk, and some yahoo making six figures barks back "You just want everything handed to you and think you should make big money for your menial job" They seem to think that the person who can barely afford a gallon of milk thinks he deserves a luxury car and a 3000 square foot house for sweeping floors. So far from the truth, yet the gist of it gets constantly repeated.

I don't think it's glossed over at all. The issue is that, IMHO, minimum wage is not meant to be a living wage.

Out of all hourly workers making minimum wage, 97% of them are under the age of 25. Minimum wage is meant to be for students, and as entry level jobs. No one is supposed to stay at a minimum wage job forever. By the age of 25, most people have acquired the requisite experience and/or education, and continue on to higher earnings.

Muscle Master was one of the rarer cases where it took more sacrifice than someone who had other family/resources around to help, but it's still VERY much in the minority compared to the rest of minimum wage workers.

Again, IMHO, it's not worth it to raise the minimum wage to a living wage for these specific instances, because the good gained by this small percentage will be far outweighed by the harm it would cause to small business, and artificially inflating prices of pretty much everything.

[samiwas]

Originally Posted by anonymouslurker

I don't think it's glossed over at all. The issue is that, IMHO, minimum wage is not meant to be a living wage.

Out of all hourly workers making minimum wage, 97% of them are under the age of 25. Minimum wage is meant to be for students, and as entry level jobs. No one is supposed to stay at a minimum wage job forever. By the age of 25, most people have acquired the requisite experience and/or education, and continue on to higher earnings.

Muscle Master was one of the rarer cases where it took more sacrifice than someone who had other family/resources around to help, but it's still VERY much in the minority compared to the rest of minimum wage workers.

Again, IMHO, it's not worth it to raise the minimum wage to a living wage for these specific instances, because the good gained by this small percentage will be far outweighed by the harm it would cause to small business, and artificially inflating prices of pretty much everything.

Sure, but when those "higher wages" equal a whopping $10 an hour (38% higher than minimum wage), you're still talking about non-livable wages. At $12 an hour (66% higher than minimum), you're still talking about barely-livable. As much as you might consider these jobs the entry-level or only for students, you have to consider exactly how big the food, retail, and basic cleaning industries are. They employ a significant portion of workers which can't be outsourced, yet they pay very low wages. And there are a LOT of people in these jobs who aren't students because it's what they can get right now.

I do see the point at how raising the minimum could hurt a select few businesses whose jobs aren't meant to be full-time jobs, but how do we fix the issue that the rest of the wages in this country are just simply too low to support much of anything?

You can't pay your workers scraps and then expect them to spend, thus boosting the economy. You can have all of the "prosperity" you want in the upper echelons but your economy, and thus your country as a whole, will still fail.

We can celebrate multi-billion dollar corporate profits all we want (I don't), but those profits don't do anything for the nation as a whole unless those companies DO something with them. Unfortunately, they hold them hostage or send them overseas until they are given preferential treatment (and they call the rest of us whiners).

I think we're broken. And I don't see us getting out of it any time soon. Those making multi-billion dollar profits aren't about to give them up. Without giving them up, the bottom percentage of people won't make much money. Without any money, they won't spend. And without spending, we just go further and further into the hole. Tax cuts to the rich or business won't fix it. So what will?

[Dmunjal]

All this talk of a living wage doesn't make sense to me. If we raise the minimum wage, you'd also expect prices to go up as businesses raise prices to compensate (they are not a charity no matter how much you complain). This would make the new living wage unlivable again forcing raising the wage again. When does the cycle stop?

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by Dmunjal

When does the cycle stop?

When has it ever stopped?

Why would you expect it to?

[Dmunjal]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

When has it ever stopped?

Why would you expect it to?

Are you implying there's some progress to this hamster wheel approach to economics?

[Zombie Acorn]

Originally Posted by Dmunjal

All this talk of a living wage doesn't make sense to me. If we raise the minimum wage, you'd also expect prices to go up as businesses raise prices to compensate (they are not a charity no matter how much you complain). This would make the new living wage unlivable again forcing raising the wage again. When does the cycle stop?

They want the businesses to cut into their profit margins to pay the workers and not gouge customers (who are probably also the same class of workers).

Good luck.

[Dmunjal]

Originally Posted by Zombie Acorn

They want the businesses to cut into their profit margins to pay the workers and not gouge customers (who are probably also the same class of workers).

Good luck.

But profits from corporations go primarily to shareholders. These shareholders are regular people, too. Retirees, pension funds, employees, etc. All you're talking about is moving money from one place to another. That's not progress.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by Dmunjal

Are you implying there's some progress to this hamster wheel approach to economics?

I don't think I implied progress ... whatever you intend for that to mean.

But please present your alternative economy.

One that doesn't grow, where wages and prices remain flat and stable over long periods of time.

Show me where that has worked and explain why that would be a preferable alternative to the slow growth that we have currently.

[Dmunjal]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

I don't think I implied progress ... whatever you intend for that to mean.

What I meant to say that the approach mentioned does not add any net value. It just moves money from one place to another. Society doesn't make any progress with this approach.

But please present your alternative economy.

One that doesn't grow, where wages and prices remain flat and stable over long periods of time.

Show me where that has worked and explain why that would be a preferable alternative to the slow growth that we have currently.

You should come to where I live in Silicon Valley. An economy that has been doing very well for some time. The way it works is that an entrepenuer comes up with an idea that he thinks is profitable because it improves the life of someone. It could be more productivity, more fun, more informational, etc. compared to what is available today.

That entrepeneur gets funding from people who have saved their money (not consumed it) and wants to invest in the venture. Some of these entrepeneurs fail, some succeed. Those who succeed grow their profits and their companies. They then increase hiring, they pay more taxes, benefit the community, and increase wealth for their shareholders. This is a win/win for everyone. I see this working in various places in the US (Hollywood, Agriculture, Oil/Gas, Finance) but there are plenty of areas that are not working.

In aggregate, we need the entire country to work this way. Use our land, labor, capital, and natural resources to create products and services that can be sold locally and globally in a profitable way. This increases our GDP, our trade surplus, and our tax revenue which all can be used to benefit society as a whole.

Supporting demand, which we have been doing since the 70s, primarily supports countries that have we have a trade deficit with (China, Middle East, Germany, Japan) as they keep our dollars and we go further into debt (and lose jobs). The only reason we have been able to get as far as we have without collapsing is that the US dollar is the reserve currency of the world and all other countries support it.

Continuing to support the demand side of things as Keynesians suggest will only force more capital to flee the US and put us into more debt.

[samiwas]

Originally Posted by Dmunjal

Continuing to support the demand side of things as Keynesians suggest will only force more capital to flee the US and put us into more debt.

Can you explain this statement? What I'm reading is "Paying normal people more will force money to flee the US. We need to make sure rich people have more so that hey can fund entrepreneurs."

I'm trying to see how supporting the working class more will cause money to flee the US.

[Squilly]

Originally Posted by samiwas

Can you explain this statement? What I'm reading is "Paying normal people more will force money to flee the US. We need to make sure rich people have more so that hey can fund entrepreneurs."

I'm trying to see how supporting the working class more will cause money to flee the US.

Maybe outsourcing?

[Dmunjal]

Originally Posted by samiwas

Can you explain this statement? What I'm reading is "Paying normal people more will force money to flee the US. We need to make sure rich people have more so that hey can fund entrepreneurs."

I'm trying to see how supporting the working class more will cause money to flee the US.

What I'm saying is that there is no free lunch. If you try to stimulate demand by raising the minimum wage, paying extra unemployment insurance, borrowing or printing money to stimulate the people to consume, etc. it will not improve the economy or create new jobs.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by Dmunjal

In aggregate, we need the entire country to work this way.

We need the entire country to be entrepreneurs or venture capitalists?