In California, there is a proposal to increase the minimum wage of currently 10 dollar to 15 dollar in 2022 in gradual steps.
There are 18 million Californians employed. Apparently about 20% of them make less than 15 dollar, with only 120,000 making 10 dollar or less.
So, we are talking about 3.5 million people who would get a pay raise between 5 and 0.1 dollar an hour. On the assumption that the average pay rise if 2.5 dollar an hour and given the fact only 55% of the people who would be affected are full time workers, it is reasonable to calculate the yearly increased wage as 1200 hours times 2.5 = 3000 bucks per person. 3k times 3.5 million is 10 billion.
This would significantly offset social welfare payments made to lowly paid workers in California which currently depend on food stamp and housing subsidies etc.
As to inflation, California's GDP is 2 trillion dollar, so this increase would only add 0.5% to inflation by 2022, minus the spending not necessary any more for social welfare, so probably just 0.2% to 0.3% inflation.
>>73263828
because people who worked to get to say $19 won't get raises and will go from doing ok to moved back to the poverty line
and because alot of fucking jobs arent meant to how you make a living or what you spend your life doing
>>73263828
'98 norcalifag here, about to get a part time job.
Who the FUCK will hire an inexperienced graduate with only 6-7 weeks of internship experience, for $15 an hour?
$15 shills comprise of illegal shits and idiots that can't into negotiating.
On another note, look at Seattle. $15 hour wage, many stores went robotic, cut down on staff or just shut down entirely.
>>73264028
>because people who worked to get to say $19 won't get raises and will go from doing ok to moved back to the poverty line
How so?
>>73264028
>and because alot of fucking jobs arent meant to how you make a living or what you spend your life doing
How so?
>>73264265
I'm a dog groomer and it averages out to around 22$ an hour. We would have to charge way more
>>73263828
Okay, why not raise it to $20?
>>73264107
>Who the FUCK will hire an inexperienced graduate with only 6-7 weeks of internship experience, for $15 an hour?
Law abiding employers? I have no problems to grant exceptions for internships and young workers or inexperienced ones.
>>73264107
>$15 shills comprise of illegal shits and idiots that can't into negotiating.
Look at my OP pic.
>>73264107
>On another note, look at Seattle. $15 hour wage, many stores went robotic, cut down on staff or just shut down entirely.
Going robotic is good. We need a shitton more robotic push in the Western world. A free society is a society in which most manual labor is replaced with robotics.
>>73264265
The wage hike will force businesses to increase prices to make up for expenses, or just cut down on staff. aka higher cost of living, which is already bad enough in CA.
And jobs he was talking about are for the most part, stepping stones to higher employment, like fast food. You lose those stepping stones once you make the hike because businesses won't see the point in hiring inexperienced/fresh people.
>>73264349
>We would have to charge way more
Why? Because you still make 22 dollar an hour? Or because of the 0.3% inflation increase?
>>73264374
>Okay, why not raise it to $20?
Eventually, it should, let's say by 2035 or 2040.
Why not right now? Because with 15 dollar in 2022, full time employees have a decent standard of living, would you not agree?
>>73264437
>inflation
cost of living will go up
increased min wage will speed up inflation. inflation iis bad mmmkay
>>73264425
>The wage hike will force businesses to increase prices to make up for expenses, or just cut down on staff. aka higher cost of living, which is already bad enough in CA.
You aren't into economics, right? You do know that a 10 billion wage increase across CA (which has a 2 trillion GDP) only results in a 0.2% to 0.5% added inflation AKA higher cost of living?
FUCK CALIFORNIA
LET THE WATER BE SHORT AND THE SUN SHINE IN DROUGHT FOR A MILLION MORE DAYS.
I HOPE CHAIN EARTHQUAKES HAPPEN AND IT BREAKS OFF INTO THE OCEAN AWAY FROM AMERICA
>>73264485
>decent
arbitrary, subjective
>>73263828
wrong. californias gdp is falling. their agricultural out put is declining and the people are spending less and saving more. except for food they are paying more than every one else
>>73264403
>Law abiding employers? I have no problems to grant exceptions for internships and young workers or inexperienced ones.
So you're admitting raising the minimum wage destroys jobs? And you still want to do it? wtf man.
>>73264485
>full time employees
All 3 of them.
Nigger read an econ textbook
$15 shills should volunteer to be the ones to have their jobs laid off when a wage increase happens.
>>73264568
GDP has little to do with it, read a textbook, kraut. Nominal GDP does not reflect the standard of living, which for the most part, is shitty in Cali.
Currently, the minimum wage is $10.
And you're also ignoring the first part of my response, businesses have to compensate for the increased expense.
$5 increase in wages is a lot for your normal fast food franchisee, small business, and mom & pop stores.
The real force behind this is the public sector. Govt employees have wages and pay raises indexed and benchmarked to minimum wage. They also don't have to worry about job security as much. A teacher with tenure will enjoy massively increased salary and pensions and no risk of being laid off or reduced to part time.
15$ minimum wage eliminates the ability of someone to negotiate to perform labor for less than 15$ an hour. This is a powerful tool to workers being removed from them. There used to be more theater ushers, dishwashers, etc... Until their jobs became unprofitable. If business owners cannot profitably justify fast food workers, car washers, cashiers, etc... Being more profitable at new wages than additional automation, their positions will be downsized.
Consider how obamacare got subway to reduce all their workers to part time. What was supposed to force employers to pay more (via benefits) to their employees ended up leaving employees worse off.
For myself, I highly value the ability to offer to work for less if I really want a position or want to make myself more competitive. If that was removed from me, I'd have to always be the best option of all options at my cost to my employer.
Also consider regional economy. Paying farmhands $15 an hour to pick citrus, when other states have wages half of that. California will not be exporting lemons and oranges to the rest of the country, but rather importing much cheaper fruit from Florida, Arizona, and New Mexico.
>>73264599
Hey anon how do you feel about commiefornia??
>>73264566
I know this. Its not the the 15 dollars they earn per say. But the fact that if minimum wage is 15 dollars people earning 15-25 an hour are going to expect better pay then unskilled minimum wage earners..and so on and so on all the way up.
That could be terrible sure.
My perspective on this is such...
How the fuck can the government justify all the trillions of dollar and incredibly inflationary policies to bail out wall st and large financial institutions.
Look at this shit...http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/02/04/business/20090205-bailout-totals-graphic.html?_r=0
Not to mention they have kept interest rates close to 0 for almost a decade now.
Considering the fact they were willing to bend over backwards to protect millionaires and in some cases billionaires...
Is it so fucking terrible to bump minimum wage up so that the bottom end earners who were effected the worse by the economic crisis and the inflation its caused...is it so fucking hard to say heres a few more dollars an hour?
Fuck.
>>73265549
Not that anon, and I live here., so.
>no-fun laws (cuz muh peestol grip n muh ded churren),
>lots of niggers and wetbacks where I am (norcal, bay area)
>Most whites and Asians are based
>qts of every race except niggers
>>73264437
>>73263828
>0.3% inflation increase
You're pulling that number out of your asshole.
>>73265904
Didn't that happen in Seattle? But people then chose to work less so that they still get welfare? Making the raise kinda pointless
>>73264731
Hes german, his mind has been rotted from the fumes of the dresden bombing.
>>73265549
I've lived here for my entire life and I agree with his entire post.
>>73264403
>Law abiding employers? I have no problems to grant exceptions for internships and young workers or inexperienced ones.
The major problem with employment right now is a lack of skilled workers.
You have people with joke college degrees working at starbucks. Anyone can flip burgers, why do they need to be paid 15 dollars an hour?
Right now the most under employed group in america is white males under the age of 25. Minimu wage jobs are a stepping stone being filed by people who should have developed a skillset or earned experience, expecting to be paid to wage of a skilled worker. They have closed the gap for unexperinced young people to earn a work history, because they are filling those jobs and staying there.
Low wages should entice you to strive for more, not beg your government to force your employer to pay you more to cook fried chicken.
>>73263828
America's corporate interests have spent decades cucking them into thinking anyone working a minimum wage job is just a lazy slacker looking to leech off the system, and that raising the minimum wage will force employers to fire thousands of people and enable those good for nothing leeches.
They fail to realize that a minimum wage increase would require everyone else's wages to rise in order to keep up, and that the working and middle classes are more likely to spend that extra money and put it back into the economy, stimulating job growth even more as employers have to hire more people to keep up with the increased economic demand.
![hqdefault[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/veJjwMm.jpg "hqdefault[1].jpg")
>>73265804
>My feels the argument
Yes it's terrible to bump the minimum wage up because it doesn't actually help the people it is intended to help. When you impose a minimum wage, you're saying that it's illegal to pay someone less than the minimum wage. So people whose work that is not worth the minimum wage will not be hired. This is especially harmful to low skilled workers who tend to be the most poor and vulnerable in society. Instead of allowing them to work for lower wages and work their way up with job experience and training, we have them priced out of the market and in line for government handouts.
That doesn't even take into account the fact that imposing a minimum wage increases the cost of labor which will result in a lower demand for labor, and price hikes, because businesses will try to offset the losses they face due to a minimum wage hike. These prices aren't just seen in certain industries, they're dispersed throughout the entire economy, if there is a manufacturer I buy from that employs minimum wage workers and the minimum wage is increased, then I'll have to pay more for products I buy from them, and eventually I'll have to raise the prices of my goods and services. Ultimately the minimum wage hike will be paid for by the consumer.
>>73266601
>Instead of allowing them to work for lower wages and work their way up with job experience and training, we have them priced out of the market and in line for government handouts.
The real problem is that we've made it so that the only careers low skilled people without degrees can get is service tier jobs which don't have upward mobility at all because the jobs at the top will be filled by those with degrees, even if you don't need a degree to do the job.
because not all jobs are meant to be jobs that you can live off.
some jobs are intended for college kids looking for some pocket money.
>>73266601
I forgot to mention that also when minimum wages increase the prices of goods and services, this lowers the standard of living of the people not affected by the minimum wage. Let's pretend that I'm not a NEET and have a job paying $20 an hour, and the minimum wage is increased. Now goods and services I pay for will cost more as a result. My standard of living will be successfully lowered.
>>73266541
>what is inflation
You just devalue money, stealing from people who have spent time bullding up savings.
People, and their available skillets have a value in the marketplace, you cannot increase that value artificially. That's not how it works.
The issue really isn't minimum wage. It's businesses have to deal with payroll tax. Liability and regulations. If you reduce those you would have more jobs with a ladder. Right now 90% of Americans work minimum wage. At a big box store you could get a couple bucks more as manager then your done climbing the ladder.
It's easier at this point to just pay a outside company to mechanize your employees the. To grow your workforce.
Keep arguing about minimum wage faggots. It's just a smoke screen for the real issue.
Because people in California are fucking stupid.
>>73266702
The government has fed us the lie that you need a college degree to succeed. Jobs are made artificially inaccessible because of rules, regulations, and unions, not that all unions are bad though.
>>73266780
>marxism ideology and communism is as simple as this image
read more
>>73267031
This. Many jobs certifications make you over qualified. You need a 2 year degree to be a vet tech....which requires you handing the vet things while he works, and cleaning up dog piss...
I am concerned about the use of public assistance among low income workers and how that government funding has been worked into the calculations of employers and employees alike regarding the lifestyle of those employed in these low wage jobs. Although raising the minimum wage past $12 or so would certainly lead to job losses and more automation, that's certainly going to happen in the near future anyway so we might as well do it now. It's shit policy that Wal Mart is being indirectly subsidized by the public tax dollars.
>>73263828
you are a stupid goy. youre assuming the market will stay the same.
it wont.
stop being a stupid goy.
>>73267394
>>73266601
You addressed nothing in terms of my point about the moral hazard of having spent trillions of dollars bailing out wall st and large banks though.
The effect of those actions have made it even more impossible to afford bare necessities for the minimum wage earner.
>>73268261
>The effect of those actions have made it even more impossible to afford bare necessities for the minimum wage earner.
Raising it won't make it any easier.
>>73263828
People will get laid off.
>>73263828
>Why are people against increasing the minimum wage again?
Because some people have bothered studying economics before forming opinions on it and have the mental capability to see the unintended consequences of price controls.
>>73264403
>Law abiding employers?
Law abiding employers can't change the fact that if they have little to no profit they can't keep their business open. They'll either have to cut down the staff and force the remaining ones to be more efficient or they'll have to close. The last alternatives are automatizing the production as much as they can or increasing the prices, which will of course make the new wage buying power decrease to the point where the previous one was.
Worse than that it'll decrease the buying power of everyone because the prices in general will increase, making a person that earned more get closer to the poverty line.
Bottom line is that the government shouldn't be touching certain laws.
>>73266601
You throw this fucking stock explanation of why raising minimum wage is inflationary at me.
I understand what is inflationary about it. I actually work on wall st.
but skirt my other point.
>So people whose work that is not worth the minimum wage will not be hired.
Minimum wage jobs are basically... show up on time and run your menial task type jobs. Most of the training you need for these types of jobs are provided on the job. Like who the fuck is not worth minimum wage? LOL.
You also forget it doesn't pay for a large portion of americans who receive benefits to actually find work. 15 dollars and hour might change their attitude.
>That doesn't even take into account the fact that imposing a minimum wage increases the cost of labor
Labor costs go up yes. Its not written in stone that 100% of that cost will roll off onto the consumer. In comparison explain to me how the cost of the risk wall st took is somehow more palatable? The cost of basically recapitalizing our entire banking system is equal to or less important an issue. Though we will be paying down that debt for generations. Your worried about the $40 dollars collectively that a small business might have to pay its employees? As if thats going to be what turns the lights off and closes the doors.
>>73263828
Because governments should never tamper with market prices.
Raising the minimum wage is just a gentrification tool. Raise minimum wage in a city, drive out the low income jobs, low income people and businesses that cater to them. Now only rich people can move in, mfw comfy.
>>73269364
Nigger no one fucking likes the wall street layoffs here.
That doesn't make raising the minimum wage any less retarded though.
>>73269207
>Because some people have bothered studying economics before forming opinions on it and have the mental capability to see the unintended consequences of price controls.
I'd bet 99 out of 100 wouldn't have anything constructive to say about monetary policy yet still claim to be entitled to respect for their opinions on economics.
>>73269465
>layoffs
I mean bailouts sorry famalam
>>73263828
It will precipitate an increase in all pay which will result in inflation
All of the sudden the guy who is a skilled worker making $15/hr is now on the same level as unskilled workers, he will demand a pay raise and it must be given as he is a cut above the unskilled laborers
And so on it goes up the chain
>>73269238
>or increasing the prices, which will of course make the new wage buying power decrease to the point where the previous one was.
Because the min wage employees are 100% of the cost of all cost of living goods and services.
>>73263828
Ugh why is the left so dumb when it comes to economics?
Setting an effective minimum wage causes unemployment. And it causes it in the group of people that proponents of minimum wage hope to help.
In order to understand how it causes unemployment you need to understand what employment really is. Employment is a worker selling their time, effort and productive value to an employer. Depending on a person's skill their time is worth a certain amount of money per hour to an employer. Namely how much extra value that worker can produce in that time period. If I run a hospital and a doctor working 60 hours a week can see a certain number of patients and that brings in $24,000 in profit to the hospital that doctor's time is worth AT MOST $200 an hour to the hospital.
Now when you create a minimum wage you are effectively creating a price floor for labor. A certain amount must be paid per hour for that labor. Let's say $15 is the minimum wage. If you are the above doctor, it doesn't affect you.
But if you are a low skilled person, whose ability to add value is say limited to say $8 dollars an hour the minimum wage does affect you. It makes you unprofitable to be hired by the company because by paying your $15 an hour you will be in effect losing money for the company. Companies that always lose money tend to go out of business hence companies try to lose money.
An otherwise unemployable person is better off working a job at $8 an hour and then using government programs to bring them up to a certain minimum basic standard of living than they are just being unemployed completely and being an even bigger draw on government resources.
>>73269454
>Raise minimum wage in a city, drive out the low income jobs
?
Minimum wage jobs ARE low income jobs. And in my city NYC those jobs are literally just reserved for minorities.
>Governments should not tamper with market prices
Interest rates, discount windows, acquiring trillions of dollars in bad paper to clean off the books of investment banks.
?
The government most certainly does tamper with market prices...like all the fucking time.
>>73263828
Because causing harm for 96% of the population so that roaches who are already on goverment assistance will get more money, which will be worth less, won't help anything
>>73269748
>Interest rates, discount windows, acquiring trillions of dollars in bad paper to clean off the books of investment banks.
Why do you keep mentioning retarded shit like this?
No-one is disagreeing with you that this is tampering. We disagree with both and most tampering which is detrimental.
We're solely talking about the viability of raising the minimum wage and whether or not it's effective.
Just because the Government is doing retarded shit around corporations that doesn't mean we also want them to do it with the minimum wage.
>>73269674
Read this.
>>73265820
If you're still here. What part of the bay area you in anon?
>>73269674
>Ugh why is the left so dumb when it comes to economics?
Because like everything else in their agenda it's centered around what feels good, not what works
>>73269364
>stock explanation
Better than an emotionally driven argument, no?
>Minimum wage jobs are basically... show up on time and run your menial task type jobs. Most of the training you need for these types of jobs are provided on the job.
Thanks for proving my point. You won't get that on the job training because you won't get fucking hired period. Businesses won't hire people with no experience if they have to pay them artificially higher wages. It's no coincidence that the average age of minimum wage workers has been increasing, because younger people fresh into the job market are less desired now that they have to be paid more. Unskilled workers can't get experience because no one will hire them if they have to pay an unskilled and untrained worker huge wages. We give people shitty public education and then prevent them from getting jobs and keep them in line for government assistance.
>You also forget it doesn't pay for a large portion of americans who receive benefits to actually find work. 15 dollars and hour might change their attitude.
How will creating more unemployment encourage more people to find jobs? As the price for labor increases the quantity demanded for labor will decrease.
>Labor costs go up yes. Its not written in stone that 100% of that cost will roll off onto the consumer. In comparison explain to me how the cost of the risk wall st took is somehow more palatable? The cost of basically recapitalizing our entire banking system is equal to or less important an issue. Though we will be paying down that debt for generations. Your worried about the $40 dollars collectively that a small business might have to pay its employees? As if thats going to be what turns the lights off and closes the doors.
Of course not 100% of the cost will fall onto the consumer. The effects of a minimum wage hike will be dispersed between multiple factors like employment and prices. I don't even agree with the bail out so I don't see why you bring it up.
>>73269663
It's a cascade effect you raise someone wage not only you'll have to increase the prices (or sell more) to keep profiting but that person will also increase the demand of a product. Of course if the offer of said product is unlimited technically it wouldn't make a difference, but we know that's not the case.
>>73269674
Getting only $8 in profit out of an employee is a very risky business model. Most min wage employees are pulling closer to $20 in profit and that ranges up greatly depending on other factors.
If you came in with a business model that only had an $8 an hour profit per employee I'd tell you to fuck off unless you employed 10,000 employees.
>>73269465
Ok then you support not extending any kind of relief to the poorest earners who have seen....
rent
food
the overall cost of living
....rise as a result of the massive spending and money printing that has taken place to help Wall st. Physically printing money. Does not get more inflationary then that. But thats cool. people can make like 380 dollars a 40 hour week, when the cost of rent is like 1500-2000 a month.
But I'm the nigger for bringing this up.
>>73263828
my current wage is almost double the minimum wage.
think about it.
>>73270082
WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT DOG
What is this crazy shit you have going on that if I think X then I MUST think X.
I think there are certainly ways we should and could be helping out the poor. Raising the minimum wage DOES NOT DO THIS. IT LITERALLY CAUSES UNEMPLOYMENT.
If you want to get real investment going on again and high wage policy this is what you would do:
1. Require every company with more than 50 employees to issue new shares of their stock each year equivalent to 20 percent of their profits.
2. These shares would be held in a "labor trust" which would be collectively owned by all wage earners across the economy. The shares would not be sold and in due time most firms would come to have the majority of their stock owned by the trust.
3. After firms become majority worker owned the government could purchase the remaining privately held shares and then turn the enterprises over to the workers of those enterprises to be run democratically.
4. Following the buyout the firm would no longer pay dividends but would pay a capital assets tax instead -- the leasing fee the firms workers pay for use of the firms assets.
No hate friend, but this is just triggering desu
>>73270037
>It's a cascade effect you raise someone wage not only you'll have to increase the prices (or sell more) to keep profiting but that person will also increase the demand of a product. Of course if the offer of said product is unlimited technically it wouldn't make a difference, but we know that's not the case.
Sure but it's fractional. I make natural gas and make $55 an hour. Someone earning min wage will consume my natural gas product. When they get a raise of $5 I don't, so my production cost of natural gas is the same and the sales price is same to them. Even if to pay for their raise I have to pay another 5% for the products and services they sell to me. I lose out if we don't account for the potential extra income I could earn from them having more free buying power. Like for example they buy new product that uses my natural gas in it's production which earns my company more income and profit and I get a small profit bonus.
If everyone everywhere earned the exact same amount of money and we didn't have fixed structural financing costs or outside from the economy costs then raising or lowering the wage of people wouldn't matter. But we live in a world with more factors to price than the lowest paid employees wage.
>>73269903
Listen shitposter. Don't tell me what to fucking read. I actually live in NY and work as a trader. I know all the supply side arguments against raising minimum wage I hear it every fucking day at work.
Im making a point about whats fair.
How do you say to these banks... here's trillions of dollars then look at the poorest earners and say no you can't have a few more dollars an hour?
The banks made a choice. Washington made a choice. Now they are going to have to fuckin pay up.
as a SCADA geek and field tech who lives in California I support this measure.
>>73263828
>This would significantly offset social welfare payments made to lowly paid workers in California which currently depend on food stamp and housing subsidies etc.
No. You were doing so well until this point. People change their behaviour. People will work fewer hours for the same money so that they can still qualify for lucrative benefits and welfare programs. This has been seen time and time again in cultures of welfare dependency.
>>73270055
It all depends on what the business and what the other associated costs are. There is almost no business whose sole cost is labor. Almost every business will have a cost for things like renting property, paying for equipment and capital goods, administrative expenses, costs of inventory etc. along with labor. Often times labor may only comprise 20%-30% of the total expenses of running the company.
The profit margins of a company are based off of total cost of the company not just the per unit labor cost. And the profit margins in many company's are pretty thin, especially in industries that rely on low-skilled labor. Think like maybe %5 profit margin. The reason the margins are so low is because industries that use low skilled employees tend to have very limited barriers of entry. For example it isn't too expensive nor too hard to start a lawn service company. Especially if you compare it to say starting a pharmaceutical development company.
But if business has only a 5% profit margin and labor accounts for 20% of their total cost of running the business, if the cost of labor goes up 50% because of an increase in the minimum wage that company now just became unprofitable to run. So the owner will close up shop and fire all his employees.
>>73270446
>How do you say to these banks... here's trillions of dollars then look at the poorest earners and say no you can't have a few more dollars an hour?
I agree that this is retarded. I don't think you should further fuck shit up by taking ANOTHER step in the wrong direction. That's all.
>>73270082
>why are you against y?
reasons provided
>but how do you feel about x?
>X does the same thing as y
What does x have to do with y?
>because x is worse than y
>so if you oppose y, why don't you oppose x?
you asked about y.
Answers were given about y.
Why do you expect us to explain x?
>well if you can't, then you can't argue against y.
Op is a literal faggot with tumblr tier b8.
>>73270446
>Literally just repeating the same catchphrase about the bailout
>Calling someone else a shitposter
Wew lad you had me going
>>73270402
>If you want to get real investment going on again and high wage policy this is what you would do:
>1. Require every company with more than 50 employees to issue new shares of their stock each year equivalent to 20 percent of their profits.
>2. These shares would be held in a "labor trust" which would be collectively owned by all wage earners across the economy. The shares would not be sold and in due time most firms would come to have the majority of their stock owned by the trust.
>3. After firms become majority worker owned the government could purchase the remaining privately held shares and then turn the enterprises over to the workers of those enterprises to be run democratically.
>4. Following the buyout the firm would no longer pay dividends but would pay a capital assets tax instead -- the leasing fee the firms workers pay for use of the firms assets.
I predict lots and lots of 49 employee companies with this model.
>>73263828
What is basic economics?
>wage goes up
>Businesses have to pay workers at that wage
>Businesses products get more expensive to cover cost of wage
???
>Wage stays relatively the same
At the end of the day, the worker getting the wage increase will be able to buy the same amount of things as everything just gets more expensive.
This is a simplistic model, and I do think that there should be some effort to end some of these extremely low wages which just aren't enough to live/save on.
>>73270631
Finally, if want to raise min wage, deplete the labor pool by departing illegals that take jobs from citizens.
Lower labor pool = higher demand for labor = higher wages
>>73270739
>This is a simplistic model, and I do think that there should be some effort to end some of these extremely low wages which just aren't enough to live/save on.
The only way to do that is to make the workers more valuable to employers. This comes down to making them more skilled and productive.
Bernie fags stupidly talk about "Muh free college" but what they really need to look into is better vocational training for many things.
I really wish we in the US would take a closer look at Germany's apprenticeship programs.
>>73270961
This desu senpai
>>73269990
>As the price for labor increases the quantity demanded for labor will decrease.
No. Cost is not the only factor in determining labor supply. If a company has a ton of orders to fill and needs X amount of employees to fill those orders then it will have to hire the proper amount of employees to complete its objective. The cost or the price floor on that labor will have to be absorbed. sure it can be pushed onto consumer but thats not an entirely certain. In reality it would be probably split between the consumer and the company.
>>73270402
>Raising the minimum wage DOES NOT DO THIS. IT LITERALLY CAUSES UNEMPLOYMENT.
A lot of the county minimum wage hikes we've had recently haven't been accompanied by any change in unemployment relative to state/regional trends.
The argument that minimum wage hikes cause unemployment is an extension of our general theory of price floors, but that theory in turn is based on the premise of a perfectly competitive market at equilibrium. Critics of minimum wage hikes just assume this to be true no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary, and if the market isn't at some perfectly competitive equilibrium then an increase in the minimum wage (depending on which particular direction the market is distorted in) may not increase unemployment.
Or tl;dr if employers currently have some anti-competitive advantage in wage negotiations, then we can raise the minimum wage without increasing unemployment.
>>73270402
>If you want to get real investment going on again and high wage policy this is what you would do:
>1. Require every company with more than 50 employees to issue new shares of their stock each year equivalent to 20 percent of their profits.
>2. These shares would be held in a "labor trust" which would be collectively owned by all wage earners across the economy. The shares would not be sold and in due time most firms would come to have the majority of their stock owned by the trust.
>3. After firms become majority worker owned the government could purchase the remaining privately held shares and then turn the enterprises over to the workers of those enterprises to be run democratically.
>4. Following the buyout the firm would no longer pay dividends but would pay a capital assets tax instead -- the leasing fee the firms workers pay for use of the firms assets.
No this is triggering.
>>73270414
You are forgetting that offer is not unlimited and whenever demand increases the stores always increase their prices, even if they still have an offer surplus.
Many of the products you use have a limited offer because they come from overseas and their operation isn't as simple as increasing 15% in raw numbers.
At any rate employers of small business don't have such a big profit margin so any change is dangerous to them.
>>73271125
Yeah of course saying it as a general rule. There is places where it does a okay job.
>>73263828
Deporting all spics and not letting in muslim niggers works better.
You shill fags already have another thread too, you spamming kikefucks
>>73266634
>>73263828
It would force companies to automate more quickly, which would remove the boiling frog effect from the equation of "how can we fuck over the underclass and re-create the feudal system via automation", which in turn the rich people hate.
We are about to enjoy the tyranny of megacorps, but a slower burn on automation makes it less obvious.
And the best way to avoid automating too quickly is by having low-wage workers.
>>73270574
>People will work fewer hours for the same money so that they can still qualify for lucrative benefits and welfare programs.
No benefits for those who work part time if they can work full time.
>>73263828
Minimum wage can be index linked to inflation so the profit takers take the hit.
Increasing prices = increased inflation = increased minimum wage (adjusted quarterly)
>>73270634
Im drawing a conclusion as to the long term effects of the decisions made by the government and the fed. They have saddled us with much higher debt and all of those decisions were directly inflationary for the most part.
This is my reason for changing my mind about minimum wage increases.
I don't give a fuck about the if X is Y argument being thrown at this position.
>>73270402
wtf ? that could work in some littel coutry shop but on global companys ,,,
this dont work that way so basicly i became a part-owner even if i was employed today? and there are some small companys that gets millions because they are working with the OWNERs money no owner whould give 20 % of the profits to the employees in that case that 20 % could be about as much as they get from paycheck in a year ...
>>73263828
>>73264265
>>73264403
>>73264437
>>73264485
>>73264568
>>73271460
>>73271125
>Or tl;dr if employers currently have some anti-competitive advantage in wage negotiations, then we can raise the minimum wage without increasing unemployment.
I can see this occurring in real life but only in small marginal cases. Like one where an employer's profit margin goes from say 10% to 8%. The problem with this is minimum wage laws really only effect those who are low skilled. Businesses that employ all or chiefly low-skilled labor tend to already have very small profit margins. And the current political trend in the minimum wage movement is not asking for a small incremental increase in the minimum wage, but a gigantic increase up to $15 an hour.
This likely doesn't just decrease profit margins, but completely obliterates them for the company.
But even if it was still profitable but at a lower rate say 4%, why would a business owner invest their capital in the business and assume the added time, effort, and risk associated with running that business when he could just safely invest it in his stock/bond portfolio and forego the time and effort part and likely earn a much higher rate of return for less risk and effort?
I would guarantee you anon that if the minimum wage was lowered to say $5 an hour, new businesses would be made that didn't exist before and otherwise unemployed people would have work, and start trying to climb the economic ladder.
>>73271434
The problem is who has money to spend if companies automate? The consumer is broken if they can't find a job.
>>73271066
I never mentioned the labor supply.
>>73271616
You're a part owner of a company if you buy 1 share of it. It's not hard to partially own a business.
I don't necessarily think it's a good idea to do what I posted. It's just a way of redistribution of wealth that would probably work out in an environment where people aren't nearly as retarded as they are.
I'm not saying it's a good idea. It's just a better way of redistributing wealth if you want that to happen. Which I don't.
SOMEONE HAS TO BE ON THE BOTTOM!
The second every business realizes people have more money to spend, everything will go up in cost. When that happens, people originally making 15 dollars an hour will be the new poor and demand more money, which will result in employee striking, which results in no productivity, which results in failing business, which results in people losing their jobs. OR the employees get paid more, and now the people making 15 dollars an hour will still be poor because prices will go up.
If anything, lower the cost of rent. Chinese motherfuckers charging 1000 dollars a month for a cracker box apartment in the worst neighborhoods is robbery at its finest. Sure other things will go up in price, but at least they have the option to not pay for them.
>>73271806
Maybe they'll look into establishing basic income if anything like this ever happened.
>>73271827
>I'm not saying it's a good idea. It's just a better way of redistributing wealth if you want that to happen. Which I don't.
oh phew. You had made such sensible posts, then I see this government mandated socialist ownership schlock and I got worried.
I am happy it was just a thought experiment and not a policy recommendation.
>>73271806
The lone company doesn't care for its environment.
When there are no more consumers, this means that no one can buy food anymore.
Meanwhile, megacorp conglomerates can create their own food and shelter and shit.
This means you'll have to become a slave instead of using a wage that can be used to pay any corp.
How do you become a slave?
Well, a member of the megacorp will take you in on a whim. This can range from compassion to need of human guinea pigs to building a stock of people to torture.
Good luck living in the brave new world where all production is automated and in the hands of a select few. Governments won't exist anymore.
>>73271678
So you are saying because there were a few job losses (minimal) in Seattle, that people should be paid only little so that the government has to support them with social welfare?
>>73272070
You really can't read can you.
Like at all. Its a pattern you fuckwit. It will continue, the fact that it has gone down so far and at such a rare gives good reason that the pattern will continue.
>>73272070
>hat people should be paid only little so that the government has to support them with social welfare?
anon what do you think the government does for people who have no job what so ever?
Who do you think draws more on social welfare from the government, the person who is completely unemployed, or the person who makes $250 a week?
>>73271809
>I never mentioned the labor supply.
"the quantity demanded for labor will decrease."
>>73272010
>The lone company doesn't care for its environment.
>When there are no more consumers, this means that no one can buy food anymore.
>Meanwhile, megacorp conglomerates can create their own food and shelter and shit.
With what money? The consumer funds the megacorp. If they erode the capital base of the consumer then they erode their own capital base.
>>73263828
>Why are Jews against increasing the minimum wage again?
FTFY, OP.
>>73272242
That isn't really talking about labor supply or a change in labor supply, just how much labor units a business would want to purchase given the current labor market and profitability of a company.
Now if say, tens of millions of low skilled illegal immigrants were deported that would represent a significant contraction in the labor supply for low-skilled workers and might lead to an increase in the wage paid for those same low skilled workers as they become harder to replace.
>>73263828
because i make just enough money that i could start a small business
the higher the minimum wage goes, the less viable that option becomes
remove 2-8 jobs that could occur in the short run if i try and fail and X careers, should I try and succeed
i am one guy
multiply that by X
>>73271809
To be clearer I should have said demand. I said supply in the contexts of the supply of labor required by the company to meet its obligations.
But since I am generally referring to the demand for labor I should have been clearer.
>>73272188
>Who do you think draws more on social welfare from the government, the person who is completely unemployed, or the person who makes $250 a week?
In total? The working poor drain more money from the public tit by far.
Look at it this way - which are the actual programs that are currently killing America? Yes, social security, Medicare and Medicaid. Are you suggesting that a person who earns 10 bucks an hour can ever pay in enough into this system that he will get out of it?
The middle class is subsidizing big business by supporting low income earners with trillions each year. The few unemployed and welfare leaches are irrelevant in this context. We are talking about 47% who are NOT paying any federal income tax, who the middle class has to support.
>>73272647
>Now if say, tens of millions of low skilled illegal immigrants were deported that would represent a significant contraction in the labor supply for low-skilled workers and might lead to an increase in the wage paid for those same low skilled workers as they become harder to replace.
I support this.
>>73272708
>remove 2-8 jobs that could occur in the short run if i try and fail and X careers, should I try and succeed
So you are saying you would be a minimum wage employer, the very problem America has at the moment?
Or are you saying that with minimum wage increased, people just don't want to go to restaurants any more or go shopping etc.?
The problem isn't the minimum wage, the problem is free trade with countries which have wages in the less than 1 dollar per hour range.
>>73272725
labor cost doesn't really affect the demand for labor, only the quantity demanded. The demand for labor is affected by the labor unit productivity, which boils down to better skilled workers and technological improvements which make labor more productive.
In your example with the company that has a large number units to fill for an order the company only takes that order for the large number if it is profitable to do so. Artificially increasing the labor cost through minimum wage laws, doesn't mean there is a corresponding increase in the productivity of that labor. With no increase in productivity to offset the increased costs, lots of orders become unprofitable for the company. This will decrease the quantity of labor demanded by that company, meaning fewer people employed.
If you want help people earn a higher wage the best thing to do is to make them more productive, this means better training in useful skills and fostering development of technology that makes workers more productive.
To a lesser extent you should also make it easier to start up businesses, The fewer barriers of entry to starting a business the less likely you will see a company paying it's workers minimum wage and still earning a 20% profit margin.
If it is easy to start a business in that field wages will rise in that field until the profit margin decreases to a lower market rate like around 7% give or take.
>>73265231
>For myself, I highly value the ability to offer to work for less if I really want a position or want to make myself more competitive. If that was removed from me, I'd have to always be the best option of all options at my cost to my employer.
To get the best trade jobs you're at an advantage when you can intern. You get paid shit but learn quicker than school and build experience
>>73263828
Why not attack the problems with the dollar or the job market instead?
Even a 50% increase wont make a difference in expensive places like major cities and it's not enough to help anyone do anything besides rent anywhere else.
Raising the minimum wage is like trying to bandaid a severed artery... It's just not going to be effective. Sure, the cost of goods and services wont go up proportionally in relation to wages, but it's still not ENOUGH to make a difference. Even living in the outskirts of major cities $15 an hour is a joke. I can't even rent an apartment and live on my own and I live near a major city on the west coast. I sure as fuck couldn't do it in California where the cost of living is even higher.
Just wait until the fallout from Portland and Seattle hits, it's going to be ugly for small businesses.
>>73273132
Automation will happen if you raise the minimum wage or not.
>>73269035
Yes it will. Inflation won't automatically arrive the next day rendering the wage hike useless.
And who is to say that the increased price for goods and services will entirely negate the hike?
1) Minimum wage hurts smaller businesses who cannot afford to pay their part time workers that much.
2) As a consequence, they lay off jobs and so the job market gets smaller.
3) Minimum wage shouldn't EVER be considered a living wage. Only people that should be on a minimum wage job are students working part time.
Those are ones I can only think of off the top of my head.
>>73272757
>In total? The working poor drain more money from the public tit by far.
in total yes i would agree, but I was talking about the individual level. When you increase the minimum wage you move more people from employed at low wave levels to the not employed at all category and thus increase the government expenditures per person.
>The middle class is subsidizing big business by supporting low income earners with trillions each year
If you really think this, then you should be campaigning to end those subsidies. End federal and local food assistance programs, rental assistance programs, utility assistance programs. Then the companies would be forced to pay a higher wage to their workers to keep them employed because they would need more earnings to meet their current lifestyle requirements.
Now I suspect you don't want to do that because those programs aren't really subsidizing big businesses, they are merely subsidizing people who don't earn enough on their own to meet what our society deems a minimal standard of living. If you removed the subsidies companies wouldn't pay any more for their employees because their per unit productivity value didn't somehow magically increase by removing those subsidies, just like how if you artificially raise the wage rate, the employees likewise to suddenly become more productive and hence more valuable.
>>73273778
>End federal and local food assistance programs, rental assistance programs, utility assistance programs.
I am not talking about this shit, I am talking about social security, Medicare and Medicaid. These are the real costs of lowly paid workers.
If you end those programs, fine, then there is no need for minimum wage. But if those 2.5 trillion a year programs remain, then you fucking need a high minimum wage.
>>73263828
Because $15 in rural area will probably hurt the economy.
If it was $11 nationally with $15-18 in urban areas with high cost of living like SF, NYC, or LA, it would make sense.
The workers are better off fighting for minimum wage being linked to inflation and/or cost-of-living with automatic increase kicking in every year, but that doesn't roll off the tongue.
>>73273132
I'm a carpenter working for $23/hour CAD.
We have a higher cost of living and $15 USD is $19.13 CAD with exchange rate.
A drug addict working the counter at a gas station in California is going to be making over 80% of my wage which is a skilled labor, physical job.
JUST
>>73273265
>lots of orders become unprofitable for the company.
Less. Less profitable. unprofitable is fatalistic.
Please stop explaining that the cost of labor will shrink the quantity of the demand. This is in some cases true but in other cases not. Slight profit margin reduction won't brake the back of the company. Additionally the extra income that min wage consumers have to spend can help the company offset the raise in the cost of labor. I don't see the hike as pushing tons of companies into the red. I don't see the hike as next day inflationary. I don't see it as pricing low skilled people out of the job market. I see the cost of the hike distributed across the spectrum.
>>73273887
>But if those 2.5 trillion a year programs remain, then you fucking need a high minimum wage
If you are talking about funding these programs with the payroll tax then increasing the minimum wage doesn't help. Increasing the minimum wage will not increase the total payroll in the US subject to the payroll taxes. In fact it will decrease them because it will cause unemployment and remove people who would have paid something into payroll tax.
Plus the expenditures for medicare/medicaid will not decrease with the people no longer on payroll because of the minimum wage increase. And while the expenditures for social security will go down somewhat, their costs will instead be shifted onto the other welfare programs I mentioned earlier.
Minimum wage laws cannot magic us out of our fiscal problems in America. Only by having some combination of a strongly growing economy and cutting spending or atleast reducing the rate of growth of the spending will fix that problem.
>>73273973
is that a meme
>>73273910
>The workers are better off fighting for minimum wage being linked to inflation and/or cost-of-living with automatic increase kicking in every year,
Its not a terrible idea to let it float against a series of indicators. But its complicated. Indicators can be misleading.
But in general figuring out a way to evaluate it based on some metric for the cost of living is a thought.
Someone living in SF or NYC should get a higher min wage. The only way to fairly assess that is to peg it to one or more indicators.
>>73273458
With higher minimum wages it will happen faster.
>>73273458
I agree. I go to CVS or the supper market. Place is empty. One employee directing people to self checkout stations.
All these chains have destroyed the mom and pops. Now they won't even hire the local people. They are literally just neon lit boxes filled with products manufactured in china or mexico that sit in your community and suck money out of it without giving much of anything back.
>>73274149
>unprofitable is fatalistic
I meant unprofitable as in a net loss. If a company sees it's labor cost go up 30% a lot or even all of it's business might become unprofitable and see a net loss. When that occurs businesses close and people lose their jobs.
>Please stop explaining that the cost of labor will shrink the quantity of the demand. This is in some cases true but in other cases not. Slight profit margin reduction won't brake the back of the company.
I agree completely that there are instances where an increase in minimum wage doesn't necessarily mean people get fired on the individual level. The problem for your position is that this is only in instances where the increase in wages isn't that large of a percentage of change. So for example if a company is already paying their employees $14.25 an hour, setting the new minimum to $15 won't kill the company and I imagine it will be absorbed by the company largely with some possible increases in prices of the company's goods to compensate partially.
But it is nonsense to assume this would apply to a company that pays $10 an hour, or $9, or $8. When you have that large of increases in labor cost that is when companies fire lots of people or just go belly up.
I would agree with you that a minimum wage hike probably wouldn't cause too much inflation because it really wouldn't change the actual amount spent by people in the low-skill job market that much just rearrange whether they were spending their earnings or welfare subsidies.
>>73263828
burgerflipper here.
if your only marketable skill is to flip burgers, then you deserve to be poor.
If we have to raise the minimum wage to 15 dollars an hour, then we would have to raise the wage for all of those already making 15.
Unless you are a large company I don't think most employers could handle a $15 wage.
>>73274266
The point is, if people earn more, they do not need Medicaid, they can get their own health insurance.
If people earn more, they can save money themselves, you do not need to increase social security for the poor, even if they didn't pay much in via payroll taxes (which are progressive). Same for Medicare.
Those programs are the elephant in the room. You need to pay for this shit. If 140 million people in America don't make enough to pay anything in taxes, then who is going to support all these massive welfare programs when the payroll tax doesn't pay for them any more?
>>73273910
>automatic increase kicking in every year,
But no to this. If it floats it also goes down sometime too.
I dunno though its risky because then the min wage itself becomes an indicator and effects the indicators its pegged to. People might not be able to stomach all the fluctuations in their weekly paycheck. They won't be able to plan ahead or count on a fixed payout. It could get weird.
It would be neat to try it out maybe on a small scale in a few places and evaluate it.
>>73270961
Yeah I completely agree.
Here in the UK Half the people I know at university are doing bullshit degrees pretty much only because of the no interest loans which translates to 'Free University XD'. None of them have any way/intention of paying it back
They're spending 3 years of their lives gaining pretty much no skills in doing degrees that were made up to accommodate them and getting into debt when they could easily seek training in a particular field and improve their prospects.
minimum wage shouldn't be a set number. it should inflate or deflate with the cost of living kind of like how stocks go up and down.
>>73275000
>The point is, if people earn more, they do not need Medicaid, they can get their own health insurance.
People who make $15 an hour are not purchasing their own health insurance without large amounts of government subsidies. It might have been possible for the young and healthy prior to Obamacare, but not now.
Also still worth pointing out that health insurance is not the same thing as health care. After the $15 an hour person pays $3500 a year in premiums and then has to pay another $3500 in deductibles for their medical treatment how happy are they that they had to pay almost a quarter of their pre-tax income for health expenses? Sounds like someone just became a candidate for more welfare programs to make up the shortfall.
>Those programs are the elephant in the room
I agree completely that these are a budget nightmare waiting to blow up. But as a I said earlier the only way to deal with them is to have increasing tax revenue or curtailing their costs. Curtailing costs is easy either cut spending or slow it's growth.
Increasing tax revenue you can try to increase the marginal tax rate or grow the total payroll subject to the payroll tax. Increasing minimum wage laws will not grow the total payroll in the country subject to payroll taxes. To do that you need a growing economy or workers that are more productive with higher skills or better technology at their disposal.
>>73274863
>But it is nonsense to assume this would apply to a company that pays $10 an hour, or $9, or $8. When you have that large of increases in labor cost that is when companies fire lots of people or just go belly up.
Sure some maybe. Even an increase like this can be absorbed. Most small businesses consist of a cashier a few laborers... Stock boys/cooks/sales associates etc...Anything above this.... management etc... doesn't fall in the min wage cost category. With Min wage increase you are only looking at a portion of the employees of a company. Not all of them.
I just look around and personally see the annihilation of the middle class and too be honest. Its dangerous. Not to sound all blue collar and shit but the middle class provides a balance that we need. With them gone you have extremely rich and extremely poor on opposite sides of an ever expanding gap. That just leads to the french revolution. Its suicide.
> mfw OP gets BTFO so fucking hard he disappears from his bait thread
Have no face
>>73263828
DO it Commiefornia. This will really stimulate the Mexican economy.
>>73274863
>I meant unprofitable as in a net loss. If a company sees it's labor cost go up 30% a lot or even all of it's business might become unprofitable and see a net loss. When that occurs businesses close and people lose their jobs.
and don't get me wrong. Fuck a lot of unions. Im not all about the worker or anything. They often become leaches that bleed companies into bankruptcy.
I just think that in the context of all the money spent on recapitalizing our financial system (and it was substantial) If you say you aren't willing to allow some type of wage increase for the poor that it send a clear fuck you message to the wage slaves...then you get anti-business politicians like bernie...then you get more problems with high unemployment high taxes and economic stagnation...then you get unrest....then you get violence and bad shit.
>>73275797
Happens every time.
>gibs me dat!
>No. This is why it's a bad idea.
>But muh feelings!
>Feelings are irrelevant. Increasing minimum wage hurts the very people who receive it and the skilled folks above them. Here are the reasons.
>*crickets chirp*
>>73275204
But this...
>>73275087
>>73275639
>People who make $15 an hour are not purchasing their own health insurance without large amounts of government subsidies.
Guess how much subsidies the taxpayer has to pay to get people healthcare who earn 10 bucks an hour or 8 bucks...
>>73265820
Don't forget shitty drivers.
Riverside county is filled with idiots who drive like they're senior citizens or fucking tourists.
>>73275753
>Sure some maybe
I would agree that it is all relative to each particular business and industry. And you need to look at the total change in labor cost because of any change in minimum wage laws. But as I mentioned above industries that employ low skilled people tend to already have thin profit margins so there really isn't that much wiggle room for increases in labor costs.
>I just look around and personally see the annihilation of the middle class and too be honest. Its dangerous.
I think there has been a decrease in the middle class, but I don't think higher minimum wages solve that problem. I think government can help on some aspects by funding better training and skill development programs. But the best thing we can get is a cultural change in America that values hard work of all types again. There is far too much of focus in our society on going to college, getting a degree, and then working in some white collar job. Frankly not everyone belongs in college, nor does most people to be honest.
We don't need to keep churning out sociology majors, psychology majors, or any of the grievance studies majors. That time and money is essentially wasted when it doesn't really give them many skills to make them more employable in any particular field. The problem is our culture tells anyone who didn't go college and instead works in a trade or some other profession that they are a failure or worthless and this drives too many people to go to college when they would better off getting work somewhere else.
>>73276358
>Guess how much subsidies the taxpayer has to pay to get people healthcare who earn 10 bucks an hour or 8 bucks...
That is a fair point but then you also have to consider how much the cost for medicare is for people who simply can't get work anywhere because they are frankly not worth $15 an hour.
>>73276089
>I just think that in the context of all the money spent on recapitalizing our financial system (and it was substantial)
I think the bailouts were bad. And it wasn't every bank that needed them, but they were all forced to secrecy essentially so we couldn't really figure out which banks were the ones who fucked up.
I don't agree with Bernie on just about anything, but I do agree that if the banks failing was literally an existential threat to our nation, where it would have been generations of poverty and strife if they had gone under then looking into breaking them up isn't unreasonable.
People in America don't care about the divide between rich and poor as much as you think. Compared to a lot of other countries we're generally ok with our rich being rich, because we figure they earned it.
What people do not like is when there is unfair treatment. And I agree bailing out the rich banks when they fucked up but then not bailing out people who were losing there homes admittedly because they fucked up too, strikes many as unfair.
However my solution would be to not bail out the banks in the first place.
>>73276433
>I think government can help on some aspects by funding better training and skill development programs
Everyone receiving welfare who can physically manage it should be required to engage in some type skill training. Welfare doesnt fix the problem. It just burns money, destroys incentive, and creates dependency.
>There is far too much of focus in our society on going to college, getting a degree, and then working in some white collar job. Frankly not everyone belongs in college, nor does most people to be honest.
Completely agree. 110%. skilled blue collar work gets looked down upon which is absurd because a lot of those jobs pay better then low end white collar office jobs. And blue collar work is often times not as frivolous. The demand is solid...
oh...
>We don't need to keep churning out sociology majors, psychology majors, or any of the grievance studies majors. That time and money is essentially wasted when it doesn't really give them many skills to make them more employable in any particular field. The problem is our culture tells anyone who didn't go college and instead works in a trade or some other profession that they are a failure or worthless and this drives too many people to go to college when they would better off getting work somewhere else.
Basically reading this after I wrote pretty much exactly what you wrote.
>>73263828
>>73263828
I earn $50 and benefits. As a RN, I am skilled,educated labor. Raising the minimum wage to $15/hr undermines the effort that I and others have made to crawl out of poverty.
>>73263828
Because I don't want my rent to go up again!
>>73276823
Not bailing out the banks was an existential threat to our nation. The systematic risk was too great. Wall st tied Washington's hands.
It is common when trading debt, paper, bonds. That someone eventually winds up with the bad paper. Thats been the game on wall st forever. Its like hot potato. Its usually an unsophisticated client who gets the bad paper but in this case it was the government who got it.
>>73264403
Your OP pic is nothing but most likely illegal beaners, german filth.
>>73264485
And prices of EVERYTHING will be hiked up to compensate, making any pay raise irrelevant.
>>73277241
There needed to be some moral hazard for the bankers. They needed to feel pain and more importantly publicly feel the pain of the loss so others learn what they did was stupid. And yes going all in on real estate derivatives that you didn't really understand was stupid. When the fundamentals of borrowers started to change dramatically should have been a warning to all people involved in that market that it was bad news. Kind of like the fundamentals of things like PE ratios of stocks change and you hear talking heads say "Oh well this is the new normal" then your spider senses should be tingling.
At the height of the madness there were NINJA loans. Which were No Income No Job Applications for loans. The scary thing lots of these were approved.
>>73277274
A potential outcome is the cost of the hike will be distributed amongst a variety of cost interactions. Not 100% on the product/consumer and not immediately The hike can be absorbed in multiple areas.
The bigger picture and the whole point of my bailout argument is that if washington says ok to print trillions of dollars for banks and can't summon the political will to raise minimum wage a few dollars then the ramifications could be dire. We could go full retard and have a politician running on a cost of living platform get into the white house and tear our country to shreds with shit tier socialist inspired programs. You gotta bend a little sometimes.
>>73277274
>And prices of EVERYTHING will be hiked up to compensate, making any pay raise irrelevant.
Yeah, sure, because the effective wealth distribution changes, then a 50% wage increase for low wage earners will be compensated entirely by a 0.5% inflation hike. WTF?
>>73277609
But...
Banks did know. Banks have been playing the paper game for ages. Like i said their mark this time around was the government. Thats who got stuck with the hot potato.
They are bigger and better capitalized now then ever. They still trade debt constantly. Who do you think put the bottom in stocks in 2009? Who do you think have been selling it into a sideways market over the past 2 years.
It was all just a massive complex trade. Look at the results today. Explain how it is otherwise. Talking about banks conspiring isn't tin foil hat tier. NOT talking about them conspiring IS.
>>73263828
>I think jobs only exist in order to give people money
The only reason your employer pays you $10 is because you produce $10.50 of value. You both benefie here because he makes $0.50 and you found someone who will give you money. In reality, because each extra hire produces less return than the last one (the reason 100ppl don't work at your local McD's), the critical mass of profitable employment shrinks is you raise minwage.
As an investor or creator of jobs, why would I invest for a return of say 1% in low income jobs when I could put it into higher-income ones with a 4% return? That's why restaurants are investing in automation. An engineer might be producing $33
of value for $30, which is better than say $9 value for $15.
>>73263828
A negative income tax would work so much better, since it wouldn't lead to more unemployment and wouldn't remove incentive to be more productive.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM
Why not just implement a maximum wage?
>>73267322
Woah man, stop like, making sense dude. Smoke some more weed man. Let's get high. Read an economics book and blue pill yourself again. Minimum wage increase is bad man. Gosh don't you know anything?
>>73265231
Tbh with globalism you now have to compete with third worlders abd illegal immigrantts as well. To improve minimum wage, one should first focus on that.
Build wall
Every time the minimum wage goes up so does rent and the cost of food. Inflation is natural but going from 10 to 15 will cause a massive jump that will only end up dragging the middle class down instead of the lower class up.
Here's an idea.... Cut benefits for everyone that isn't disabled. Force people to actually take care of themselves instead of letting them rely on big government for everything. Build work camps for people that are homeless/need to eat. Make them work for money from the government.
Either adapt or starve. Kick all illegals out. Many legal immigrants will go home once they realize no more government gib dats. People won't see McDonald's as an acceptable "career" and will go find a higher paying job.
Tough love mother fuckers. Boom budget problems gone.
You don't feed wild animals because they get dependent and stop doing it themselves. It's the same with humans.
This will also force many women back into traditional family rolls.
