|
|
CA Min Wage Increase Signed Into Law
Serveur: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2013-09-30 12:36:08
Valefor.Applebottoms said: »Valefor.Applebottoms said: »Also, anyone that has to deal with the public on a daily basis face to face should get a raise (even if it's small), enough said. Think of how many "People of Walmart" workers at Fast Food and places like that have to deal with day to day.
Like, 50 cents as "Dealing with ***" pay. Has a nice ring to it.
Shouldn't getting an education and working in a field that you like be incentive enough to get out of the "Dealing with ***" situation you are currently in?
That was my driving point in going to college and getting degrees in accounting and business management. So I wouldn't have to deal with the general public as an "Associate" or "Team Partner" or whatever they call peons now.
Oh it is incentive enough, trust me.
And I said it should be for EVERYONE having to deal with the public. From the lowly "peons" to the higher ups that get paid more. It causes stress on all levels. Then you create a slippery slope. If you require (by law or mandate) a wage increase for dealing with a specific issue (in this case, dealing with the public) then you will have more people demanding a wage increase for specific situations (example 1: I have a kid and I demand more income to cover babysitting costs. example 2: I'm active in this non-profit charity and I demand more pay for bringing possible customers into your store. example 3: I'm female and I demand more money to offset the supposed historical wage difference that all women since the beginning of human history, etc.)
I'm a firm believer that you are in charge of the choices you make, and you are also in charge of the choices you didn't make.
[+]
 Ragnarok.Nausi
Serveur: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2013-09-30 12:59:53
.... He said it was "win/win/win", I said "no its not, you have no idea what you're talking about"....
I said it was win / win / win. You said no it isn't. Then you cut straight to sarcasm.
Allow me to explain the wins.
The working poor get more money. This will sit neither in their pockets nor bank accounts but will be instantly spent. CA gets close to 10% of it back as sales tax.
The working poor get more money. This means that subsidies they receive from the state and federal governments are reduced (perhaps leaving them no better off but that's another thread) therefore reducing the outlays of both.
The working poor get more money. This raises their standard of living.
Now, you point out where the loose is.
P. S. Those managers working at or below %10 will get raises. This is a "rising tide that lifts all boats." A fourth win.
Businesses need to pay more for the absolute minimum of work. This will lead to several things, the most pertinent being....
Less minimum wage workers will be hired. You cannot expect to increase overhead for a business and have them just magically find more money to spend. Increase the cost of the worker, and less of them will be hired. It's as simple as that. The net difference on money funneled to the poor may vary very little, and it could be equally possible there be less net money funnel to them as more (my money's on less). Either way, the net amount of money spent would be split among fewer people. This means less minimum wage jobs to go around, and therefore less opportunity to enter the work force.
Having a large percentage of people unable to enter the workforce for an extended period of time is a very bad thing for society. It breeds dependence on the state and extinguishes self reliance.
Also if you're a business and you're looking to grow, it is more difficult to do so (the costs are higher). If you need 2 min wage people to run in the store per day and the min wage is 9/hr it costs you 18/hr to run the store. If you wanted to expand to a level of needing 4 min wage employees to run the store, under the old rate you'd need 36/hr to run it and under the new rate you'd need 40/hr. 18/hr to 36/hr (100% increase) vs 18/hr to 40/hr (122% increase).
Think of it as a 22% tax on that idea of expansion. It's one hell of a disincentive.
Again, when did we adopt the idea that minimum wage was ever suppose to be a "living wage". Working for min wage is suppose to suck.
 Siren.Mosin
Serveur: Siren
Game: FFXI
By Siren.Mosin 2013-09-30 13:02:31
Again, when did we adopt the idea that minimum wage was ever suppose to be a "living wage". Working for min wage is suppose to suck.
this is the point I was making earlier, it didn't gain much traction.
[+]
 Caitsith.Zahrah
Serveur: Caitsith
Game: FFXI
By Caitsith.Zahrah 2013-09-30 13:06:17
Again, when did we adopt the idea that minimum wage was ever suppose to be a "living wage". Working for min wage is suppose to suck.
this is the point I was making earlier, it didn't gain much traction. 
I wonder how many actually read. :(
/comfort
[+]
Serveur: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2013-09-30 13:08:53
If you don't think minimum wage alone is supposed to support the average cost of living then what is?
it's not meant to, nor should it.
no skilled required postions should earn pay that reflects that. they're meant to be stop-gap jobs, student jobs, retired people, ect. if you're going to base your entire life on (more than likely several) no skill positions, you better be ready to work 2 of them. is that fun? no. is that easy? no. whoever said life was going to be? I did that ***for a long time, because I was a jackass & started a family before I had the means to support it. I realized very quickly that I could be replaced in the blink of an eye, & it was time to make a change & at the very least, pick up a trade of some type. it was never fun.
egalitarianism will be the death of this country. nothing free is ever appreciated, & the worst thing you can do for a human being is encourage the attitude of "omg I'll never make it, someone help me quick!" our narcisistic society is enabling all of this to an extent, as the church would generally help with people that genuinely required it, as well as the community in general. in the digital age the community has been completely obliterated for a false sense of self that hinders communal patronage of the poor & those that really need help. so idk if at this point we're all too far gone, & hosed, but the rest of the world has moved more twords this quasi socialist-republics, and it isn't the end of the world over there.
maybe this country is finally just falling in line with the rest of the world.
this has been an almost pointless rant, forgive me, I'll spoiler it. Because it does need to be pointed out again.
Cerberus.Tikal
Serveur: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4945
By Cerberus.Tikal 2013-09-30 13:54:13
Raising minimum wage is a bad idea. Leaving the economy the way it is is a worse idea. Both things are going to happen.
So what's better: a bandage that will relieve some initial stress on the bottom line, but eventually make it worse? Or leaving an already infected wound to fester further? I don't like any of my options.
Serveur: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2013-09-30 14:23:03
Well, I have a long-term solution, but it will be immediate pain for everyone who is unskilled, and also very unpopular.
I'm pretty sure you can guess what it is.
Ragnarok.Nausi
Serveur: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2013-09-30 14:27:02
If you don't think minimum wage alone is supposed to support the average cost of living then what is?
it's not meant to, nor should it.
no skilled required postions should earn pay that reflects that. they're meant to be stop-gap jobs, student jobs, retired people, ect. if you're going to base your entire life on (more than likely several) no skill positions, you better be ready to work 2 of them. is that fun? no. is that easy? no. whoever said life was going to be? I did that ***for a long time, because I was a jackass & started a family before I had the means to support it. I realized very quickly that I could be replaced in the blink of an eye, & it was time to make a change & at the very least, pick up a trade of some type. it was never fun.
egalitarianism will be the death of this country. nothing free is ever appreciated, & the worst thing you can do for a human being is encourage the attitude of "omg I'll never make it, someone help me quick!" our narcisistic society is enabling all of this to an extent, as the church would generally help with people that genuinely required it, as well as the community in general. in the digital age the community has been completely obliterated for a false sense of self that hinders communal patronage of the poor & those that really need help. so idk if at this point we're all too far gone, & hosed, but the rest of the world has moved more twords this quasi socialist-republics, and it isn't the end of the world over there.
maybe this country is finally just falling in line with the rest of the world.
this has been an almost pointless rant, forgive me, I'll spoiler it. Because it does need to be pointed out again.
Apparently Kara thinks that doing the absolute minimum in life should land oneself right into the center of the middle class.
That serves as a heightened example to how entitled some people feel their existence to be.
Cerberus.Tikal
Serveur: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4945
By Cerberus.Tikal 2013-09-30 14:34:52
If you work a full-time job that does not give you a livable wage, something is wrong with the pay structure, sorry. If you don't have a livable wage it means you're either being assisted, on the path to homelessness, or receiving some kind of supplementary aid.
Livable wage != middle class
Livable wage is the bottom line - the lowest possible income. That doesn't make you middle class, it lands you in poverty. Anything less and you'd be homeless. Right now, minimum wage doesn't get you very far in CA.
I don't know what you mean King, no. I've made suggestions like a revised "New Deal," myself.
[+]
VIP
Serveur: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2013-09-30 14:36:41
Apparently Kara thinks that doing the absolute minimum in life should land oneself right into the center of the middle class.
That serves as a heightened example to how entitled some people feel their existence to be.
She didn't say anything close to that. NOBODY here has said anything even remotely close to that.
While this is true, it's a bad sign that the fiscal policies you claim to support are responsible for the economic results you don't like. Don't you mean fiscal policies you support?
I said since the recession. Recession started at the end of the Bush administration, and is still continuing (still yet to see an actual recovery, just this tepid "recovery" which is keeping growth at an absolute minimum).
Your horse is the one causing these economic results. Until we get an actual leader in the White House, this will continue...
...oh wait, lets not forget the liberal mantra: A president has no influence on the economy unless it is a Republican president, then they are the devil that ruined us all when a Democrat president *** things over for everyone.
2008's budget was set in 2007, when a republican controlled congress and republican president were in office. Let's also not forget that the 2008 budget included paying for the cost of the previous 4 years of war.
As a hypothetical, let's say that Obama IS responsible for any of the current economic issues (the statistics are readily available), that still has nothing to do with the argument.
Economists have been pretty clear on the causes and effects of different fiscal policies.
And for the record, no, Obama isn't "my horse". I will defend the truth regardless of my personal viewpoint and I don't dispute facts from a partisan bias.
[+]
Serveur: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 10394
By Lakshmi.Sparthosx 2013-09-30 14:41:13
When someone uses a stupid and nonsensical argument like min wage earners wanting to live like middle class Americans they aren't worth the time. What the hell middle class means anymore is up for grabs, the term has become a catchall because we're too cowardly to say that some Americans are poor. Real poor.
Most min wagers simply want hope. Hope they can advance beyond their station and put food on the table, cover rent and survive. When you're in poverty for a long enough time, you're drained of hope and when you're working full time yet still unable to simply subsist life goes to a dark place in a hurry. It's hard to advance when you're worried about food, shelter and safety.
(I'm recalling Maslow's hierarchy of needs.)
But why waste my time. All min wagers are moochers who want to pull down that gov't Kraft Mac 'n Cheese living high on the hog, undercutting hard working Americans who are forced to pay for them because they're lazy sons of ***. Why cant they just learn to work hard and they might stop sucking at life.
Say that to the face of those illegal immigrants and min wage workers the next time you go a restaurant. Tell them they aren't working hard.
[+]
Ragnarok.Nausi
Serveur: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2013-09-30 15:04:39
2008's budget was set in 2007, when a republican controlled congress and republican president were in office. Let's also not forget that the 2008 budget included paying for the cost of the previous 4 years of war.
Serveur: Sylph
Game: FFXI
Posts: 112
By Sylph.Alternanthera 2013-09-30 16:04:08
I live in Silicon Valley. The cost of living is very high due to not enough housing to meet demand. A dreadful 2 bedroom apartment in not the best neighborhood will cost you ~$1500/month. There are times when apartment increases approach 30%. Because they can. Luckily, thanks to Prop 13, property tax is pretty low. But then very little funding for schools etc. CA is 48th in school funding last I checked. Also keep in mind that public transportation is very limited so you need a car, insurance, etc.
The take-away is this: trickle-down economics do not work. however, you give more money to poor and middle-class and it helps the economy because they will actually spend the extra money they get every month. The money spent will show up in extra sales and items need to be manufactured, therefore more places will hire. Inflation? It has been very very low for years, mostly because the Fed has kept the interest rates low and also because buying power is low. Aha! you say, but the buying power for someone earning $10.00 vs $8.00 is not going to trigger massive demand. Really this increase is just helping to offset the weakening buying power of minimum wage. Every year they don't raise it, is actually a decrease in minimum wage. They have never raised minimum wage enough to offset inflation because the raises happen so infrequently. It's a always a decrease in minimum wage - just this time it's less.
Also understand that US executives get paid ludicrous sums in proportion to the workers. We're talking thousands of times more when most of the world is generally at 50 times what the lowest paid worker gets. Because they can and because there's no law stopping them. The same executives would pay workers less and with less benefits if they could. They cannot due to minimum wage law. I'm not saying we should be socialistic but it's a reality that there is a growing disparity. You can't have a nation full of low-wage people and then wonder why the economy is in the crapper. The 1% doesn't drive the economy, it's the average joe/jane.
People tend to think of minimum wage jobs as working at McD's when your 16 and just need some fun money. That hasn't been true for the last couple decades, many many jobs and industries use minimum wage jobs as a way to keep profits up. These jobs are often semi-skilled and how people support themselves and their families. (That warehouse worker? He needs to know how to operate a forklift and other heavy machinery, know the computerized inventory system and be meticulous and dependable so things don't get lost. It's also very physically demanding and for some companies the work happens at 2nd or 3rd shift.)
The upside to raising minimum wage is that many more families will have buying power, supporting businesses and will need less assistance. Yay, less demand on my tax dollar for food stamps, welfare, and less crime requiring taxes to support police and jails. The last time there was an increase in minimum wage in California, people feared there would be mass inflation and job loss. Didn't happen.
Ford had the right idea about paying people a living wage - because at the end of the day, they have the potential to be customers.
[+]
Lakshmi.Saevel
Serveur: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2228
By Lakshmi.Saevel 2013-09-30 16:22:07
Quote: (That warehouse worker? He needs to know how to operate a forklift and other heavy machinery, know the computerized inventory system and be meticulous and dependable so things don't get lost. It's also very physically demanding and for some companies the work happens at 2nd or 3rd shift.)
Agree with most of what your saying with the exception of this. Heavy machinery operators get paid quite a bit higher then minimum wage. Also the same worker doesn't do all those things, their separated into different fields with officer workers not being the same people driving the fork lift.
On corporate executive pay, that's a touchy subject. Companies should be free to implement whatever pay structure they feel is best for them, trying to force them to cap pay is ludicrous. If a company has a bad pay structure then it's profits take a hit and productivity goes down. CEO's are paid such ridiculous sums because they take on the central leadership position, their decisions determine whether the company is solvent or not. Now I do feel shareholders should be allowed some control over their pay as too many upper executives have gamed the system.
Quote: The upside to raising minimum wage is that many more families will have buying power, supporting businesses and will need less assistance. Yay, less demand on my tax dollar for food stamps, welfare, and less crime requiring taxes to support police and jails. The last time there was an increase in minimum wage in California, people feared there would be mass inflation and job loss. Didn't happen.
There won't be massive inflation, instead you could see a drop in low paying jobs as companies cut positions. You gotta look at the places that employ many low skill jobs. They tend to have thin margins as it is and they'll won't increase their labor budgets by 20%.
By Zerowone 2013-09-30 17:22:58
Phoenix.Amandarius said: »Franklin Delano Roosevelt did a pretty good job of picking up the pieces after Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover made a serious mess of things. Its not always liberal mantra but historical fact.
false
Prove it historical revisionist.
Serveur: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2013-09-30 17:48:56
Phoenix.Amandarius said: »Franklin Delano Roosevelt did a pretty good job of picking up the pieces after Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover made a serious mess of things. Its not always liberal mantra but historical fact.
false
Prove it historical revisionist. I believe he is referring to what you said about Harding, Coolidge, and (for the most part) Hoover.
Roosevelt's only saving grace was WWII. That was what brought us out of the depression. Do not forget about that.
Serveur: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2013-09-30 18:04:54
I don't understand. How does this: Sylph.Alternanthera said: »I live in Silicon Valley. The cost of living is very high due to not enough housing to meet demand. A dreadful 2 bedroom apartment in not the best neighborhood will cost you ~$1500/month. There are times when apartment increases approach 30%. Because they can. Luckily, thanks to Prop 13, property tax is pretty low. But then very little funding for schools etc. CA is 48th in school funding last I checked. Also keep in mind that public transportation is very limited so you need a car, insurance, etc.
Lead to this:
Quote: The take-away is this: trickle-down economics do not work.
You have not said why you think trickle-down economics does not work. You just gave an example of the living conditions of Silicon Valley based on your perception. They are not the same, neither is your point.
Plus:
Quote: however, you give more money to poor and middle-class and it helps the economy because they will actually spend the extra money they get every month. The money spent will show up in extra sales and items need to be manufactured, therefore more places will hire. Inflation? It has been very very low for years, mostly because the Fed has kept the interest rates low and also because buying power is low. Aha! you say, but the buying power for someone earning $10.00 vs $8.00 is not going to trigger massive demand. Really this increase is just helping to offset the weakening buying power of minimum wage. Every year they don't raise it, is actually a decrease in minimum wage. They have never raised minimum wage enough to offset inflation because the raises happen so infrequently. It's a always a decrease in minimum wage - just this time it's less.
This is vastly incorrect. You are assuming that nothing else will change (prices mainly) when the cost of labor goes up. Also, your idea that buying power will increase due to more gross wages, which is also incorrect because of your assumption that prices will continue to stagnate.
Also:
Quote: Also understand that US executives get paid ludicrous sums in proportion to the workers. We're talking thousands of times more when most of the world is generally at 50 times what the lowest paid worker gets. Because they can and because there's no law stopping them. The same executives would pay workers less and with less benefits if they could. They cannot due to minimum wage law. I'm not saying we should be socialistic but it's a reality that there is a growing disparity. You can't have a nation full of low-wage people and then wonder why the economy is in the crapper. The 1% doesn't drive the economy, it's the average joe/jane.
This is partially correct. Well, the bolded part is correct, everything else is just opinionated. CEOs are paid at what the companies are willing to pay them. A good CEO, one that increases the value of the company based on his businesses decisions, is paid accordingly, while a bad CEO is usually let go. Success drives success. Your post is just some liberal talking-point that you spewed out (I'm not even going to say where).
Another thing:
Quote: People tend to think of minimum wage jobs as working at McD's when your 16 and just need some fun money. That hasn't been true for the last couple decades, many many jobs and industries use minimum wage jobs as a way to keep profits up. These jobs are often semi-skilled and how people support themselves and their families. (That warehouse worker? He needs to know how to operate a forklift and other heavy machinery, know the computerized inventory system and be meticulous and dependable so things don't get lost. It's also very physically demanding and for some companies the work happens at 2nd or 3rd shift.)
This is also false. Manufacturing jobs are not paid minimum wage, nor is any other skilled labor. You are assuming that most, if not all, businesses keep all lower-leveled employees at minimum wage to save a buck, but in reality, that is untrue. Look at plumbing, construction, moving, public transportation, private transportation, human resources, timber, repair, logistics, oil-rig, etc. Those companies are paying their employees far above minimum wage, because those jobs demand more labor and/or skill than flipping burgers or running a cash register. They are paid what they are worth, and if you work in one of those industries and are not paid higher than minimum wage, then you are being paid what you are worth.
Quote: The upside to raising minimum wage is that many more families will have buying power, supporting businesses and will need less assistance. Yay, less demand on my tax dollar for food stamps, welfare, and less crime requiring taxes to support police and jails. The last time there was an increase in minimum wage in California, people feared there would be mass inflation and job loss. Didn't happen.
Ford had the right idea about paying people a living wage - because at the end of the day, they have the potential to be customers.
Except for the first sentence, you are correct. Raising minimum wage will not accomplish what you are saying though, because we have had decades of creating/raising minimum wage and yet, each time we did, our lives get worse. Why do something when you know it will fail?
Cerberus.Pleebo
Serveur: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9720
By Cerberus.Pleebo 2013-09-30 18:18:53
Raising minimum wage will not accomplish what you are saying though, because we have had decades of creating/raising minimum wage and yet, each time we did, our lives get worse. Why do something when you know it will fail? Completely baseless and unsubstantiated. Prove it.
[+]
By Zerowone 2013-09-30 18:44:12
Phoenix.Amandarius said: »Franklin Delano Roosevelt did a pretty good job of picking up the pieces after Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover made a serious mess of things. Its not always liberal mantra but historical fact.
false
Prove it historical revisionist. I believe he is referring to what you said about Harding, Coolidge, and (for the most part) Hoover.
Roosevelt's only saving grace was WWII. That was what brought us out of the depression. Do not forget about that.
New Deal II Do not forget about that. But lets see the both of you explain away the results of this "Rassmusen Poll" with respect to your opposing point of view of my historically accurate statement. Lets not forget Rasmussen is conservatively biased.
Quote: Rasmussen poll:
According to a Rasmussen poll conducted in 2007, six presidents—George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy—were rated favorably by at least 80% of Americans.
Franklin D. Roosevelt 81%Favorability 12%Unfavorability
Herbert Hoover 48%Favorability 34%Unfavorability
Calvin Coolidge 38%Favorability 31%Unfavorability
Warren G. Harding 29%Favorability 33%Unfavorability
Now why would they have such poor favorability?? That's what you need to prove is wrong and not just claim is false. Remember those 3 preceded Roosevelt in succession. Please do give me a revisionist history lesson. I'm all ears.
Lakshmi.Saevel
Serveur: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2228
By Lakshmi.Saevel 2013-09-30 19:01:44
Quote: You have not said why you think trickle-down economics does not work. You just gave an example of the living conditions of Silicon Valley based on your perception. They are not the same, neither is your point.
The term "tricke-down" is misleading. It's the assumption that by saving money for the wealthy that they will then invest that money back into the economy and have it *trickle-down* to the middle and lower class. That is true for a manufacturing economy where manufacturing domestic commodities drives the GDP. That is untrue for service and knowledge based economies as reinvesting money does nothing for demand. Economies are demand driven. You can produce billions of widgets but if nobody wants to buy them then your just wasting money. Economies always work best when the primary purchasers (lower / middle class) are given the greatest incentives / ability to purchase. Basically they will spend a larger portion of their disposable income on stuff that drives the domestic economy while the wealth will spend a significantly less portion of their disposable income, that's how they become wealthy after all.
Serveur: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2013-09-30 19:23:48
Raising minimum wage will not accomplish what you are saying though, because we have had decades of creating/raising minimum wage and yet, each time we did, our lives get worse. Why do something when you know it will fail? Completely baseless and unsubstantiated. Prove it. So, you are saying that way of life has been improved due to increasing minimum wage, not the fact that technology has improved during that same period?
You could say that technology increased because of minimum wage increased because more businesses are "evil" and rather would have machines (who make less mistake, and require less down time than a human) do the same work as 3 other people at the same time.
But every time minimum wage increases, so do the price of products, and our dollar shrinks, which leads to unneeded stress because our purchasing power has just decreased, which leads to a more unsatisfying life. But you aren't going to accept that, are you?
You could take this, but it requires you to actually understand it.
Quote: New Deal II Do not forget about that. But lets see the both of you explain away the results of this "Rassmusen Poll" with respect to your opposing point of view of my historically accurate statement. Lets not forget Rasmussen is conservatively biased.
Quote: Rasmussen poll:
According to a Rasmussen poll conducted in 2007, six presidents—George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy—were rated favorably by at least 80% of Americans.
Franklin D. Roosevelt 81%Favorability 12%Unfavorability
Herbert Hoover 48%Favorability 34%Unfavorability
Calvin Coolidge 38%Favorability 31%Unfavorability
Warren G. Harding 29%Favorability 33%Unfavorability
Now why would they have such poor favorability?? That's what you need to prove is wrong and not just claim is false. Remember those 3 preceded Roosevelt in succession. Please do give me a revisionist history lesson. I'm all ears. Quote: "Hi guys, I'm going to use a popularity poll to prove economics!"
Seriously. That is what you are doing.
Serveur: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2013-09-30 19:26:51
The term "tricke-down" is misleading. It's the assumption that by saving money for the wealthy that they will then invest that money back into the economy and have it *trickle-down* to the middle and lower class. That is true for a manufacturing economy where manufacturing domestic commodities drives the GDP. That is untrue for service and knowledge based economies as reinvesting money does nothing for demand. Economies are demand driven. You can produce billions of widgets but if nobody wants to buy them then your just wasting money. Economies always work best when the primary purchasers (lower / middle class) are given the greatest incentives / ability to purchase. Basically they will spend a larger portion of their disposable income on stuff that drives the domestic economy while the wealth will spend a significantly less portion of their disposable income, that's how they become wealthy after all. Well, you have to create real income (purchasing power), not nominal income (monetary power).
How can earning $10 an hour over $8 an hour better if that same hour will still only buy you the exact same meal?
Serveur: Phoenix
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3686
By Phoenix.Amandarius 2013-09-30 19:50:19
Phoenix.Amandarius said: »Franklin Delano Roosevelt did a pretty good job of picking up the pieces after Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover made a serious mess of things. Its not always liberal mantra but historical fact.
false
Prove it historical revisionist. I believe he is referring to what you said about Harding, Coolidge, and (for the most part) Hoover.
Roosevelt's only saving grace was WWII. That was what brought us out of the depression. Do not forget about that.
New Deal II Do not forget about that. But lets see the both of you explain away the results of this "Rassmusen Poll" with respect to your opposing point of view of my historically accurate statement. Lets not forget Rasmussen is conservatively biased.
Quote: Rasmussen poll:
According to a Rasmussen poll conducted in 2007, six presidents—George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy—were rated favorably by at least 80% of Americans.
Franklin D. Roosevelt 81%Favorability 12%Unfavorability
Herbert Hoover 48%Favorability 34%Unfavorability
Calvin Coolidge 38%Favorability 31%Unfavorability
Warren G. Harding 29%Favorability 33%Unfavorability
Now why would they have such poor favorability?? That's what you need to prove is wrong and not just claim is false. Remember those 3 preceded Roosevelt in succession. Please do give me a revisionist history lesson. I'm all ears.
because the average American knows jack squat about those Presidencies let alone current events? And no, when you make an outrageous bs claim it is on you to back it up.
Cerberus.Pleebo
Serveur: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9720
By Cerberus.Pleebo 2013-09-30 19:58:33
Raising minimum wage will not accomplish what you are saying though, because we have had decades of creating/raising minimum wage and yet, each time we did, our lives get worse. Why do something when you know it will fail? Completely baseless and unsubstantiated. Prove it. So, you are saying that way of life has been improved due to increasing minimum wage, not the fact that technology has improved during that same period?
You could say that technology increased because of minimum wage increased because more businesses are "evil" and rather would have machines (who make less mistake, and require less down time than a human) do the same work as 3 other people at the same time.
But every time minimum wage increases, so do the price of products, and our dollar shrinks, which leads to unneeded stress because our purchasing power has just decreased, which leads to a more unsatisfying life. But you aren't going to accept that, are you? Can you stop spewing garbage for just one post?
I did not say any of that ***. You made a hefty claim and backed it up with a *** book review. Like, really, was that serious? "Look it up yourself" is not a response. It just means you didn't bother to read your source either.
You could take this,[/url] but it requires you to actually understand it. It requires someone with immense insecurities about themselves to type something like this in all seriousness.
Serveur: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 5381
By Bahamut.Baconwrap 2013-09-30 21:11:08
California’s Minimum Wage Increase: Expert FAQ
Quote: A $10 minimum wage, raising the California minimum to roughly half the national average hourly wage, is a substantial, but not huge increase. Nonetheless, it will kill off some low-skilled jobs in California; it will increase the number of jobs offered illegally (outside of regulated labor markets, in “sweatshops”, etc.); and, since employee benefits are not covered by the law, employers will cut back even further on the benefits they offer their workers. -University of Texas Professor Daniel S. Hamermesh, Dept. of Economics Quote: A higher minimum wage will price the most low-skilled workers out of the labor market. I expect employment reductions even if no one actually loses his or her job: firms will cut back on hours and offer fewer perquisites (free meals at fast food restaurants, employee discounts, etc). Further, potential gains to workers will fall, as people have to compete harder for artificially harder-to-find job opportunities. -Samford University Brock School of Business Professor Art Carden
I don't think a minimum wage increase will have a positive effect on CA's economy. Illegal immigrant labor is a big backbone for CA's economy. I see them suffering the most with hours cut and more duties placed on already employed workers.
[+]
Serveur: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2013-09-30 21:45:31
Can you stop spewing garbage for just one post?
So, if you don't like what is written, you call it garbage?
Quote: I did not say any of that ***. You made a hefty claim and backed it up with a *** book review. Like, really, was that serious? "Look it up yourself" is not a response. It just means you didn't bother to read your source either.
I gave you the book review because it was a summary of the actual journal, which I can give to you
I'll even go one further:
abstract said: We review the burgeoning literature on the employment effects of minimum wages – in the United States and in other countries – that was spurred by the new minimum wage research beginning in the early 1990s. Our review indicates that there is a wide range of existing estimates and, accordingly, a lack of consensus about the overall effects on low-wage employment of an increase in the minimum wage.
However, the oft-stated assertion that recent research fails to support the conclusion that the minimum wage reduces employment of low-skilled workers is clearly incorrect. A sizable majority of the studies surveyed in this monograph give a relatively consistent (although not always statistically significant) indication of negative employment effects of minimum wages.
In addition, among the papers we view as providing the most credible evidence, almost all point to negative employment effects, both for the United States as well as for many other countries.
Two other important conclusions emerge from our review. First, we see very few – if any – studies that provide convincing evidence of positive employment effects of minimum wages, especially from those studies that focus on the broader groups (rather than a narrow industry) for which the competitive model generally predicts disemployment effects.
Second, the studies that focus on the least-skilled groups that are likely most directly affected by minimum wage increases provide relatively overwhelming evidence of stronger disemployment effects for these groups.
That way, you don't have to be burdened with having to waste energy clicking your mouse to read it (which I highly doubt you would do anyway).
Quote: It requires someone with immense insecurities about themselves to type something like this in all seriousness.
You wanted me to prove it, then you say that I'm insecure when I do.
More like somebody is in denial that what they heard on Oprah isn't all true...
Cerberus.Pleebo
Serveur: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9720
By Cerberus.Pleebo 2013-09-30 22:13:52
It's garbage because you made up a bunch of ***I didn't say or even remotely imply. Seriously, stop doing that. You've quickly become the most aggravating person here to debate with and that's saying something because we actually have a paranoid delusional who pops in here periodically.
There was nothing of substance in the book review nor any reference to a journal article. I will read the proper citation, thank you very much.
You wanted me to prove it, then you say that I'm insecure when I do. It screams insecurity because you can't seem to make a point without pretending it's beyond our comprehension. Yes, we're not all accountants (thankfully!), but most of us here are capable of following a logical argument.
More like somebody is in denial that what they heard on Oprah isn't all true... What the *** is this!?
Serveur: Valefor
Game: FFXI
Posts: 1837
By Valefor.Applebottoms 2013-09-30 23:31:25
Then again, Oprah will be richer than all of us combined, even after she's dead.
Maybe we should start listening to her like the messiah.
[+]
Serveur: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 5381
By Bahamut.Baconwrap 2013-09-30 23:59:13
Quote: California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) on Wednesday signed a bill approving a $2 minimum wage increase to be rolled out over the next three years. Unless another state passes a larger increase, the bump will make California's minimum wage the highest in the country.
The governor joined legislators, business owners and workers at a signing ceremony in Los Angeles on Wednesday morning, with plans to fly to another ceremony in Oakland that afternoon.
“For millions of California’s hardworking minimum wage employees, a few extra dollars a week can make a huge difference to help them provide for their families,” said state Senate President pro tem Darrell Steinberg in a release. "They deserve a modest boost and after six years, an increase in California’s minimum wage is the right thing to do.”
The minimum wage will go up in two separate $1 increments. The first will bump the rate from $8 to $9 in July 2014, and the second increase, to $10, will come in January 2016. According to the Economic Policy Institute, about 3 million Californians are currently working for minimum wage.
Many low-wage workers across the state hailed the news.
Anthony Goytia, who works the overnight shift at a Walmart store in Duarte, currently lives in a garage with his wife and two children, while a third is on the way.
“If I had a higher wage, we would be able to rent an apartment,” he told The Huffington Post. “[Right now] we’re living in poverty. I have to live check to check.”
He detailed the struggles of living off a low wage, especially with a family. “I want to be able to buy my kids shoes if they need them and not wait for our income tax [return] to do it,” he said. “I want to give my wife money for maternity pants and underwear. She needs bras. It’s just ridiculous.”
Goytia said his family cannot afford Walmart’s health insurance plan and must depend on Medi-Cal, the state's Medicare program, instead. They also frequently receive food stamps.
“I really don’t want to depend on food stamps,” he told HuffPost. “I’m a hardworking person; I want to be a proud, working American that’s not on public assistance."
Maria Cristobal works seasonally in a packinghouse or in the lettuce and chile fields near where she lives with her two children in Fresno.
“Two more dollars would impact me a lot,” she told HuffPost. “I would definitely like to have more money for the house, for food, for rent, utilities.”
But she worries that a minimum wage hike might equal a price hike as well.
“When they raise wages, they raise prices of things," she said. "I think companies will cut back on hiring people, and it’s hard to find work sometimes.”
Brown, however, argued the reverse, saying wages in California have stagnated while consumer prices have continued to rise.
“The minimum wage has not kept pace with rising costs,” the governor said in a release. “This legislation is overdue and will help families that are struggling in this harsh economy.”
But by the time the $10 minimum takes effect, it will probably still be outpaced by inflation. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, $10 per hour in 2016 is equivalent to roughly $9.36 in today's dollars.
Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez (D-Los Angeles) also disputed the idea that the minimum wage increase would put a drag on the economy.
“A $10 hour minimum wage boosts earnings by $4,000 a year and will put $2.6 billion dollars back into the hands of workers,” he said. “This is money that will be spent at grocery stores, on school supplies and invested in education, and that ultimately strengthens the recovery and ensures California’s job market continues growing faster than the rest of the nation.”
I know many democrats will disagree with me, but this is supporting "unskilled labor" at best. I understand the concept of helping bring a large chunk of working-class Americans out of the poverty bracket but this doesn't really remedy the problem. It's just a temporary fix for a particular demographic, that ultimately will have severe ramifications on the state economy.
The democrats in CA might have civil rights down, but their views on how to fix the economy is bullsh#t. Earlier this year they decided to invest more money into CA prisons rather than K-12 education...
|
|
