Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Headless Thompson Gunner on March 18, 2015, 10:54:12 AM
-
San Fran's recent minimum wage hikes are having the predictable consequence of forcing local restaurants to close. The local foodies are in a tizzy. I think I've seen similar stories from Seattle lately, too, but I misremember.
As usual, Thomas Sowell lays it out like nobody else can. "Ruinous Compassion" indeed.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/03/17/ruinous_compassion_125953.html
It is fascinating to see brilliant people belatedly discover the obvious -- and to see an even larger number of brilliant people never discover the obvious.
A recent story in a San Francisco newspaper says that some restaurants and grocery stores in Oakland's Chinatown have closed after the city's minimum wage was raised. Other small businesses there are not sure they are going to survive, since many depend on a thin profit margin and a high volume of sales.
At an angry meeting between local small business owners and city officials, the local organization that had campaigned for the higher minimum wage was absent. They were probably some place congratulating themselves on having passed a humane "living wage" law. The group most affected was also absent -- inexperienced and unskilled young people, who need a job to get some experience, even more than they need the money.
It's worth reading the whole thing. Sowell even gives a library assignment to his readers. :laugh:
-
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/truth-needle-is-15-wage-dooming-seattle-restaurants-owners-say-no/
The local media interviewed several Seattle restaurant owners, who state that the $ 15/hour minimum wage is not a factor in their closing or relocation of the restaurant. It is important to note that the $ 15/hour minimum has not started yet and will be phased in over several years here in Seattle.
-
http://www.seattlemag.com/article/why-are-so-many-seattle-restaurants-closing-lately
And for Seattle restaurateurs recently, there is also another key consideration. Though none of our local departing/transitioning restaurateurs who announced their plans last month have elaborated on the issue, another major factor affecting restaurant futures in our city is the impending minimum wage hike to $15 per hour. Starting April 1, all businesses must begin to phase in the wage increase: Small employers have seven years to pay all employees at least $15 hourly; large employers (with 500 or more employees) have three.
Since the legislation was announced last summer, The Seattle Times and Eater have reported extensively on restaurant owners’ many concerns about how to compensate for the extra funds that will now be required for labor: They may need to raise menu prices, source poorer ingredients, reduce operating hours, reduce their labor and/or more.
Washington Restaurant Association's Anton puts it this way: “It’s not a political problem; it’s a math problem.”
-
^^^Yes, the Seattle Times article is a rebuttal to the Seattle Magazine article, who never actually talked to the restaurants profiled about the minimum wage issue. The Seattle Times did. The Times article makes this point.
-
It is important to note that the $ 15/hour minimum has not started yet and will be phased in over several years here in Seattle.
Yes, it's difficult to blame something that hasn't happened yet.
-
The hikes in Seattle start in 2 weeks. Minimum wage goes up 16% increase on April 1. Do you honestly think biz owners are not concerned about this yet?
-
OK , you can't blame what hasn't happened yet.
I wonder why people think that making labor more expensive will have a beneficial effect on the operation of private businesses, though.
And if $15 per hour is good, why not $50.00 per hour? [popcorn]
-
OK , you can't blame what hasn't happened yet.
I wonder why people think that making labor more expensive will have a beneficial effect on the operation of private businesses, though.
And if $15 per hour is good, why not $50.00 per hour? [popcorn]
I am not arguing for an increase in minimum wage. I am stating that it is premature to blame it for business closures in Seattle, for obvious reasons.
In general, increasing the cost of doing business will result in some business failures.
-
I am not arguing for an increase in minimum wage. I am stating that it is premature to blame it for business closures in Seattle, for obvious reasons.
In general, increasing the cost of doing business will result in some business failures.
I didn't say you were. In fact, I was agreeing with you ....maybe I didn't express it all that well .. :angel:
-
The hikes in Seattle start in 2 weeks. Minimum wage goes up 16% increase on April 1. Do you honestly think biz owners are not concerned about this yet?
Effective 1 April 2015, the minimum wage in Seattle goes up to $ 11/hour, up from the Washington state minimum wage of $ 9.47/hour. I would certainly hope that a prudent business owner already has plans in place to deal with this increase in operating costs.
http://murray.seattle.gov/minimumwage/#sthash.WpbKVSlW.dpbs shows the length of time it will take to reach $ 15/hour, it varies by the number of employees, if medical benefits are provided, etc.
-
I didn't say you were. In fact, I was agreeing with you ....maybe I didn't express it all that well .. :angel:
OK. Glad that's sorted out.
-
OK , you can't blame what hasn't happened yet.
I wonder why people think that making labor more expensive will have a beneficial effect on the operation of private businesses, though.
And if $15 per hour is good, why not $50.00 per hour? [popcorn]
Yes, actually, you can blame something that hasn't happened yet.
People are capable of anticipating costs, especially ones that are created with the force of law. Obamacare caused many companies to limit the hours of their part time workers before it was implemented (but only just before) because they knew it was coming.
To think humans with the ability to adapt and plan are just unthinking machines surprised by a sudden change in the law going into effect is rather silly.
-
Wages typically represent something like 1/3 of a restaurant's operating expenses. An increase in wages from $9.47 to $11 per hour would mean about a 5% increase in operating costs.
The profit margin for most restaurants is on the order of 3% or 4%.
Hmm...
-
Yes, actually, you can blame something that hasn't happened yet.
People are capable of anticipating costs, especially ones that are created with the force of law. Obamacare caused many companies to limit the hours of their part time workers before it was implemented (but only just before) because they knew it was coming.
To think humans with the ability to adapt and plan are just unthinking machines surprised by a sudden change in the law going into effect is rather silly.
I agree with this statement. If you are barely getting by and making money and know in advance that increased labor costs are going to put you out of business why not cut your losses and get out ahead.
-
Exactly.
I know my company has been limiting head count for the last few years ever since Obamacare passed. There might be other reasons, but increased employment costs are a big one.
-
Yes, actually, you can blame something that hasn't happened yet.
People are capable of anticipating costs, especially ones that are created with the force of law. Obamacare caused many companies to limit the hours of their part time workers before it was implemented (but only just before) because they knew it was coming.
To think humans with the ability to adapt and plan are just unthinking machines surprised by a sudden change in the law going into effect is rather silly.
OK, good point. but I wonder if preparation really works .....there's always some unintended consequence.
There's always some djits who have their heads up their butts.
And as Headless Thompson Gunner said if your profit margin is 3-4% and you have to prepare for a 5% increase .....ouch.
And if you are prepping for that and the economy goes sideways .........
-
Effective 1 April 2015, the minimum wage in Seattle goes up to $ 11/hour, up from the Washington state minimum wage of $ 9.47/hour. I would certainly hope that a prudent business owner already has plans in place to deal with this increase in operating costs.
Like reducing hours or benefits? Or lay-offs? That sort of plan?
-
How does the number of restaurants closed this year compare to prior years? Also, I wonder how many of those business owners interviewed were lying about their plans. You don't tell your competition what you're going to do with your business.
-
How does the number of restaurants closed this year compare to prior years? Also, I wonder how many of those business owners interviewed were lying about their plans. You don't tell your competition what you're going to do with your business.
Yeah, lots of restaurants close down each year anyways. Surviving for more than a few years is unusual for new ones.
You can only cut so much labor to 'save costs' before you start losing business the way Walmart was because people were getting pissed off by the long lines and slow checkouts(among other things).
Generally speaking, losing customers is more expensive than paying your workers more.
-
You can only cut so much labor to 'save costs' before you start losing business the way Walmart was because people were getting pissed off by the long lines and slow checkouts(among other things).
I visited Santiago, Chile, a few years ago. Chile has a decent economy and a standard of living generally on par with the U.S. They have a chain of stores somewhat akin to Super Wal-Marts, called Jumbo. Jumbo is a bit heavier on foods and a bit lighter on clothing and toys, but generally about the same size as most Super Wal-Marts I've seen.
Other than at Christmas, most Wal-Marts I've been in rarely have more than three registers open, regardless of how long the lines are. The automated lanes are always open, of course, yet people are lined up at the manned registers while the automated lanes are empty. You might think the stores would get the message that customers don't like using those things, but they keep trying to force us to use them. (Lowe's and Home Depot are the same, along with my supermarket chain.)
The Jumbo near where I was staying in Santiago had 74 check-out lanes (numbered, to make it easy for me). On any given day, at least 70 of those lanes were manned and open. Chile doesn't have a minimum wage, so they provide 70 jobs where a Super Wal-Mart provides maybe five.
Interesting comparison.
-
The automated lanes are always open, of course, yet people are lined up at the manned registers while the automated lanes are empty. You might think the stores would get the message that customers don't like using those things, but they keep trying to force us to use them. (Lowe's and Home Depot are the same, along with my supermarket chain.)
Halp! I'm being forced to use an automated register!
Around here, people take to the automated lanes pretty well. Folks line up to use them, if they're actually open. They're frequently closed, "forcing" us to all use the manned registers. I wish Target, and some of the other stores around here, would catch up with the times, and finally install some of their own. I wish stores that have them would quit closing them for no apparent reason. I'd be more likely to shop there, knowing I wouldn't have to wait ten minutes just to check out.
-
It just seems to me ridiculous that anyone could demand any level of pay whatsoever - if Wal Mart wants to offer a ball of rice and some newspaper for housing as pay, anyone lame enough not to have other options should be happy to accept (or not, if they'd prefer to starve).
True freedom cannot be achieved until a huge portion of America is desperate for any wage at all, much less some artificial "minimum wage" that buys them food!
Meanwhile, in stalinist paradises around the world I can see the shame in those high wage earners' faces. They pretend like they're happy with minimum wages that pay mortgages and food for whole families, but deep down inside they know it's wrong. Some of them even have the gall to take vacations to America to buy cheap goods and pretend to be appalled at the poverty, when in reality they're jealous of those homeless folks' freedom.
-
Like reducing hours or benefits? Or lay-offs? That sort of plan?
Well, you have two choices: increase revenue or reduce costs. In healthcare, we have gone the reduce costs route. Since personnel is our largest cost, we have reduced headcount or cut benefits. For the last two years, my annual raise plus some has been eaten up by my increased share of healthcare costs, reducing my net income but reducing costs to my employer.
-
I agree with this statement. If you are barely getting by and making money and know in advance that increased labor costs are going to put you out of business why not cut your losses and get out ahead.
This is right. Also, its the argument everyone forgets when they claim price gouging. The proper price for an item of inventory isn't based on what it was purchased for to be placed in inventory, its based on the price to REPLACE that inventory. This is why prices do, and should, go up in advance of an actual event-based supply decrease or demand increased.
Also, the purpose of raising prices is to ensure a balance of supply and demand so that -some- is always available...albeit at increased prices.
The same goes for labor...if the price of labor is going to go up in the future, adjustments in the present need to be made to soften the impact on cash flow and/or capital expenditures.
-
It just seems to me ridiculous that anyone could demand any level of pay whatsoever - if Wal Mart wants to offer a ball of rice and some newspaper for housing as pay, anyone lame enough not to have other options should be happy to accept (or not, if they'd prefer to starve).
True freedom cannot be achieved until a huge portion of America is desperate for any wage at all, much less some artificial "minimum wage" that buys them food!
Meanwhile, in stalinist paradises around the world I can see the shame in those high wage earners' faces. They pretend like they're happy with minimum wages that pay mortgages and food for whole families, but deep down inside they know it's wrong. Some of them even have the gall to take vacations to America to buy cheap goods and pretend to be appalled at the poverty, when in reality they're jealous of those homeless folks' freedom.
You forget that the true minimum wage is always 0.
-
I'm opposed to the min wage in principle.
On the other hand there are multiple other areas that need to be addressed and are more important than opposing the min wage.
Government regulation and taxation. The size and scope of all levels of government. The debasing of the currency via our inflationary money policies.
The minimum wage push is a symptom of a broken system that has too many distortions in the market to properly set price and wages across the board.
Maybe a minimum wage overreach is exactly what the folks in this country need to wake up to the terrible burden government regulation and taxation have put on all of us directly and indirectly. If all small business owners voted for small government, low tax, pro liberty I would have a bit more compassion. The truth is they've helped get us in this situation every bit as much as the welfare queens and national/international corporatists.
Currently I believe we have the government we deserve and my plan is to insulate myself as much as I can from the system and watch as it devours itself.
edited to add: maybe as pro liberty folks we need to flip the narrative and be OK with hoi polloi bleeding the government/corporatist axis dry.
-
Where I work for a family health plan it costs the employee I believe close to $316.12 for a HMO and $402.70 for a POS a month. From what I have heard that is roughly 25% of the actual cost of the plan which means those that take part of the benefit are getting $5000 plus extra a year from the company. I on the other hand am using Tri-care and pay just over $200 a month. Our operations manager has tossed around with no one else behind him to give us the option to get paid a little more if we don't use the company health plan. I lose over $2 an hour of pay based on a 40 hour week by not using the company plan. I would love to have that money in my pocket.
-
It just seems to me ridiculous that anyone could demand any level of pay whatsoever - if Wal Mart wants to offer a ball of rice and some newspaper for housing as pay, anyone lame enough not to have other options should be happy to accept (or not, if they'd prefer to starve).
True freedom cannot be achieved until a huge portion of America is desperate for any wage at all, much less some artificial "minimum wage" that buys them food!
I recommend that you re-read Karl Marx's Das Kapital.
I mean this in a serious, entirely unironic sense: he explains why this 'everyone's wages declining to a bowl of rice' thing does not occur in a capitalist economy that does not have a minimum wage. It's literally in the first (or possibly second) chapter of Das Kapital).
Furthermore, you are largely correct:
You cannot achieve the levels of freedom which I, and others on this board, desire, without abolishing the minimum wage and all trappings of the welfare state.
I am less sanguine about this fact than others on this board, but it remains true:
Either you have the War on Drugs, gun regulations, god-knows-what-levels-of-BS, or you need to mercilessly eradicate the welfare state.
Nothing short of total mercilessness on this issue will suffice.
Literally the wailing of poor welfare moms being chucked out of freshly-privatized public housing needs to be heard throughout the land.
-
My point was about increasing wages putting people out of business - Marx seemed to address that like a regular economist. I'm pretty sure the same chapters explain quite reasonably why higher wages don't lead to mass unemployment or even losses to business. For example, a minimum wage that allows people to afford mortgages might drive home prices. Minimum wages that allow for buying health insurance and food might drive profits for those sectors.
Poor people being tossed into the street to starve or work to live in 20-member homes is not my idea of freedom.
-
The fact is that capitalist business cannot - and in fact is unable to - pay people less than what is perceived as the minimum necessary for survival. In other words, a de-facto 'minimum wage' always exist, and in a free market is always growing in the long-term. This is not, again, some right-wing propaganda, this is Das Kapital.
don't lead to mass unemployment or even losses to business. For example, a minimum wage that allows people to afford mortgages might drive home prices. Minimum wages that allow for buying health insurance and food might drive profits for those sectors.
I cannot imagine you are being serious.
The fact that increasing the minimum wage in one sector has increased profits in another sector does not mean that there have not been losses in the sector in which the increases in wages have occurred.
-
Poor people being tossed into the street to starve or work to live in 20-member homes is not my idea of freedom.
I would say you don't really know what freedom is then. Taking money away from working people to pay deadbeats who are encouraged to not work and encouraged to make poor decisions is not freedom. It is a form of slavery for both groups.
-
OK , you can't blame what hasn't happened yet.
I wonder why people think that making labor more expensive will have a beneficial effect on the operation of private businesses, though.
And if $15 per hour is good, why not $50.00 per hour? [popcorn]
Quoted for truth. Why not $50 per hour?
-
Still trying to figure out why somebody who can't put a cheeseburger together correctly deserves $15/hr "minimum wage"
-
I would say you don't really know what freedom is then. Taking money away from working people to pay deadbeats who are encouraged to not work and encouraged to make poor decisions is not freedom. It is a form of slavery for both groups.
Soooo much this. *expletive deleted*ck the multi-generational welfare wastes of oxygen. They can starve in the streets. These "people" who have never held a job in their lives and never will (and are PROUD of it) are the ones voting for politicians who steal from the productive members of society.
-
Sat with a chef friend tonite talking about this.
If we pay a bad employeee 15 an hour we will be unable to pay the good one 20
And we talked about a friend who wasn't worth even the current minimum wage. Its sad to say that about a guy pushing 30 with a kid hes not paying for
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
Poor people being tossed into the street to starve or work to live in 20-member homes is not my idea of freedom.
The educational system has truly failed you. =(
Those things are certainly an aspect of freedom. Among the other aspects are a general increase in prosperity for all (even the people you think you care about), once people like you get out of their way. Go make money with your fancy lawyer job, and leave the rest of us alone.
-
There is a merciless fact of reality:
If we let the state 'assist' poor people, then the state will inevitably - powered by the very same conservatives that oppose welfare spending, and by the same liberals who claim to love the poor - impose more and more restrictions on the lives of the poor... and of everyone else as well.
Either you accept this, or you must destroy minimum wages and public housing.
-
If we let the state 'assist' poor people, then the state will inevitably - powered by the very same conservatives that oppose welfare spending, and by the same liberals who claim to love the poor - impose more and more restrictions on the lives of the poor... and of everyone else as well.
This is why I occasionally think there's some merit to a reverse income tax/basic income guarantee. Studies have shown that things are better when we don't try to put too many limits on the aid we give people.
So long as we're not willing to let people starve in the street, or more likely shoot them when they get so desperate as to commit crime, we need to have some sort of 'welfare'. By which I mean that I believe that prison should be about reform, and part of that is that we need to have life outside of prison be better than life inside of it. In short, if you're not committing crimes, you should have the same basic benefits we give prisoners - minimal housing, food, medical care, and education. But if they're not in prison or other institution we can generally reduce that down to a simple monetary payment.
Then, once you have that universality in place, you can get rid of minimum wage. While you're at it, get rid of things like housing codes that aren't about safe housing, but 'cheap' housing. Things like minimum size requirements, restrictions on the number of occupants in a home(more is cheaper, of course), etc... Much of the reason why living expenses are so high in the USA is that we demand a fair bit of 'luxury' even at the bottom.
-
My point was about increasing wages putting people out of business - Marx seemed to address that like a regular economist. I'm pretty sure the same chapters explain quite reasonably why higher wages don't lead to mass unemployment or even losses to business. For example, a minimum wage that allows people to afford mortgages might drive home prices. Minimum wages that allow for buying health insurance and food might drive profits for those sectors.
Poor people being tossed into the street to starve or work to live in 20-member homes is not my idea of freedom.
That's a fail. Higher wages and higher prices aren't actually higher wages. That's just inflation. Paychecks may have bigger numbers on them, but nobody is wealthier for it.
And seriously? Paying a mortgage on minimum wage? Gimme a break.
-
This is why I occasionally think there's some merit to a reverse income tax/basic income guarantee. Studies have shown that things are better when we don't try to put too many limits on the aid we give people.
So long as we're not willing to let people starve in the street, or more likely shoot them when they get so desperate as to commit crime, we need to have some sort of 'welfare'. By which I mean that I believe that prison should be about reform, and part of that is that we need to have life outside of prison be better than life inside of it. In short, if you're not committing crimes, you should have the same basic benefits we give prisoners - minimal housing, food, medical care, and education. But if they're not in prison or other institution we can generally reduce that down to a simple monetary payment.
Then, once you have that universality in place, you can get rid of minimum wage. While you're at it, get rid of things like housing codes that aren't about safe housing, but 'cheap' housing. Things like minimum size requirements, restrictions on the number of occupants in a home(more is cheaper, of course), etc... Much of the reason why living expenses are so high in the USA is that we demand a fair bit of 'luxury' even at the bottom.
And just how, exactly, are we supposed to pay for this universal unearned wage you want to give out to everyone?
-
And just how, exactly, are we supposed to pay for this universal unearned wage you want to give out to everyone?
Obama's stash.
-
I am not arguing for an increase in minimum wage. I am stating that it is premature to blame it for business closures in Seattle, for obvious reasons.
Not necessarily. If a business owner knows his cost will go up sharply as of a certain date - say, 3 months in the future - he may decide not to renew his lease for a longer term today. So maybe his business closes or relocates before the new wage scale hits.
When you see a problem coming, you don't normally wait for it to actually hit before you take action to mitigate its effects.
This is why I occasionally think there's some merit to a reverse income tax/basic income guarantee . . . you should have the same basic benefits we give prisoners - minimal housing, food, medical care, and education. But if they're not in prison or other institution we can generally reduce that down to a simple monetary payment.
No.
In fact, <EXPLETIVE> no.
People do NOT have any right to the fruits of someone else's labor.
-
Yup
If i chose to give to someone or some group thats great.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
The fact is that capitalist business cannot - and in fact is unable to - pay people less than what is perceived as the minimum necessary for survival. In other words, a de-facto 'minimum wage' always exist, and in a free market is always growing in the long-term.
This would be true in the U.S., except for a government policy that creates a situation in which every time a group (or class) or workers reaches the tipping point of getting a pay increase -- along come a few million more illegal aliens who are willing to work for a LOT less, because they rent one room to sleep six or ten people, and even at less than minimum wage (but working under the table, so tax-free) they have enough money to send back to wherever they came from.
Why do you think Western Union has a special money transfer form, called "Dinero en Minuto," printed entirely in Spanish and used only for sending money to Mexico?
Speaking of which, in addition to stealing jobs that Americans need, these illegal aliens are also stripping our economy, because instead of spending their earnings here they send the majority of the money back to some banana republic, to stimulate their economy.
-
This would be true in the U.S., except for a government policy that creates a situation in which every time a group (or class) or workers reaches the tipping point of getting a pay increase -- along come a few million more illegal aliens who are willing to work for a LOT less, because they rent one room to sleep six or ten people, and even at less than minimum wage (but working under the table, so tax-free) they have enough money to send back to wherever they came from.
Why do you think Western Union has a special money transfer form, called "Dinero en Minuto," printed entirely in Spanish and used only for sending money to Mexico?
Speaking of which, in addition to stealing jobs that Americans need, these illegal aliens are also stripping our economy, because instead of spending their earnings here they send the majority of the money back to some banana republic, to stimulate their economy.
Statement of obvious fact;
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia0.giphy.com%2Fmedia%2FTWhOmZ783UrwA%2F200_s.gif&hash=622b7d2bf8757bc45ed8d40dd2d9146ab2a835fb)
Which doesn't negate the fact it's true.
-
Middle class wages are stagnate also.
Looking at the real inflation rate ie including fuel, energy and food and combining it with wage stagnation paints an ugly picture.
There are jobs with good benefits that help balance it out but the general consensus is we are still in a prolonged period of middle class wage stagnation.
The market is so deformed right now that upper class and upper "middle class" folks are are the only ones gaining ground over true inflation.
As much as I hate to say it, allowing the minimum wage to be raised by government fiat will force the market to re-adjust the wages of lower middle class folks up. Wages for the lower middle class are very much influenced by the current floor.
The government has so damaged the market with all its taxes, regulations and other assorted distortions that I'm ambivalent about raising the minimum wage. It's no better or worse than all the other shenanigans they perpetrate.
-
1. Where is it written that the government has any authority to require employers to pay a minimum wage?
2. As for the "middle class", it is actually all of the Democrats and some RINO's who have diminished this group of Americans. Tax policy and government regulations have destroyed good paying blue collar jobs.
It pisses me off no end when I hear those 2 thousand dollar suit, paint faced criminals bemoan the "destruction of the middle class" when they themselves are the perpetrators.
-
As much as I hate to say it, allowing the minimum wage to be raised by government fiat will force the market to re-adjust the wages of lower middle class folks up. Wages for the lower middle class are very much influenced by the current floor.
So ... as others have asked, if a little is good, why is a lot not better? $50 an hour? $150 an hour? If that doesn't work, why would $15 an hour have the desired effect?
Either inflation chases the wage increase, or people don't work.
The government has so damaged the market with all its taxes, regulations and other assorted distortions that I'm ambivalent about raising the minimum wage. It's no better or worse than all the other shenanigans they perpetrate.
As bad as existing gun laws are, I don't want more of them. Same deal here.
-
1. Where is it written that the government has any authority to require employers to pay a minimum wage?
Well, you see, wages in one state affect commerce in other states... ;/
-
Middle class wages are stagnate also.
Looking at the real inflation rate ie including fuel, energy and food and combining it with wage stagnation paints an ugly picture.
There are jobs with good benefits that help balance it out but the general consensus is we are still in a prolonged period of middle class wage stagnation.
The market is so deformed right now that upper class and upper "middle class" folks are are the only ones gaining ground over true inflation.
As much as I hate to say it, allowing the minimum wage to be raised by government fiat will force the market to re-adjust the wages of lower middle class folks up. Wages for the lower middle class are very much influenced by the current floor.
The government has so damaged the market with all its taxes, regulations and other assorted distortions that I'm ambivalent about raising the minimum wage. It's no better or worse than all the other shenanigans they perpetrate.
Problem with that is you assume businesses will adjust non-minimum wage workers pay up the same amount minimum wage was bumped. I'd bet good money most workers would be lucky to see half as much.
-
Problem with that is you assume businesses will adjust non-minimum wage workers pay up the same amount minimum wage was bumped. I'd bet good money most workers would be lucky to see half as much.
Unless its a union....which is why, even though their members are extraordinarily unlikely to make the minimum wage, their contract wages can be indexed to it, so this is a huge windfall for them...and why they are the ones pushing it.
-
A lot of companies survey for the prevailing wage in an area in order to set their pay scales, not just union companies.
Believe me, I'm with you guys when it comes to wanting to the system fixed and market forces be the primary determining factor rather than bureaucrats.
I don't see it happening though, who is going to straighten things out? The Republicans?
Meanwhile the middle class on down are seeing their buying power shrink year to year while the government class and the upper class keep up or make ground against real inflation.
So the line in the sand is the poor getting a bigger piece of the pie? The banksters, 6 figure corporate guys and bureaucrats can all suck the system dry but the greedy dirty hoi polloi better be happy they even have a job, lol.
If there is no going back to sanity then lets take it to its logical extreme and let the system collapse from its own absurdity.
-
A lot of companies survey for the prevailing wage in an area in order to set their pay scales, not just union companies.
Believe me, I'm with you guys when it comes to wanting to the system fixed and market forces be the primary determining factor rather than bureaucrats.
I don't see it happening though, who is going to straighten things out? The Republicans?
Meanwhile the middle class on down are seeing their buying power shrink year to year while the government class and the upper class keep up or make ground against real inflation.
So the line in the sand is the poor getting a bigger piece of the pie? The banksters, 6 figure corporate guys and bureaucrats can all suck the system dry but the greedy dirty hoi polloi better be happy they even have a job, lol.
If there is no going back to sanity then lets take it to its logical extreme and let the system collapse from its own absurdity.
Problem is that your analysis is flawed. A higher minim wage is another regulation that favors megalocorp and is another hurdle placed in front of small business. The poor might temporarily get a bigger sluce if the pie (until inflation adjusts it), but that bigger slice of pie comes out of the middle class's increasingly smaller slice if pie, not the large pirtion held by corporatists and banksters.
-
Middle class wages are stagnate also.
Looking at the real inflation rate ie including fuel, energy and food and combining it with wage stagnation paints an ugly picture.
There are jobs with good benefits that help balance it out but the general consensus is we are still in a prolonged period of middle class wage stagnation.
The market is so deformed right now that upper class and upper "middle class" folks are are the only ones gaining ground over true inflation.
As much as I hate to say it, allowing the minimum wage to be raised by government fiat will force the market to re-adjust the wages of lower middle class folks up. Wages for the lower middle class are very much influenced by the current floor.
The government has so damaged the market with all its taxes, regulations and other assorted distortions that I'm ambivalent about raising the minimum wage. It's no better or worse than all the other shenanigans they perpetrate.
The other half of the equation is that the money in the savings accounts of the middle class will be decimated by inflation. Otoh, those who are carrying steep debt loads will benifit.
-
The other half of the equation is that the money in the savings accounts of the middle class will be decimated by inflation. Otoh, those who are carrying steep debt loads will benifit.
Well, then, I wonder who carries the sternest debt load of all? Could it be... I mean really, you don't think they would... Oh dear.
-
Well I've never knowingly voted for anyone who was in favor of raising the minimum wage. Despite my devils >:D advocacy in this thread I realize the economic damage it does.
Yet grass roots Republicans will support folks who do economic damage that is magnitudes worse on a regular basis. For proof of that just look at the power of the RINO's in the party. The grassroots have to be voting for these clowns in order for them to get elected. I know, I was part of the problem myself for decades, voting for the lesser evil.
So I guess we can vote for Republicans who favor market distortions, regulations, anti free market programs as long as the monied power brokers make money from the impact of those policies.
We melt down and decry those who vote for giving the poor, broken and dis-advantaged more than they've worked for while blindly voting for the tools of the banking and bureaucratic class, who are busy robbing the country blind under color of law.
The whole system is broken and I doubt there is any fixing it in any meaningful way.
I'd pull straight D every election out of spite toward the Republican traitor establishment just to hasten the end if it wasn't for the families of so many good people I know. I really don't want to see them have to live in the emerging cultural/economic dystopia any sooner than they have to :'(
-
Voting for the lesser evil? The ratchet only works one way.
The Hegelian Mambo (Progress Toward the Abyss )
Thesis step to the left,
Thesis step to the left,
Grab Antithesis on your right and step to the left,
Twirl around
Synthesize
cha cha cha
And step to the Left…
-anon-
-
Voting for the lesser evil? The ratchet only works one way.
The Hegelian Mambo (Progress Toward the Abyss )
Thesis step to the left,
Thesis step to the left,
Grab Antithesis on your right and step to the left,
Twirl around
Synthesize
cha cha cha
And step to the Left…
-anon-
Yep. Sad but true. That ratchet can only turn one way.... until the ratchet gets broken somehow.
-
C'mon... it's close.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.allmystery.de%2Fi%2Ft670742_NurseRatched.jpg&hash=e43eff445130f615003ccecf5c9c51ce46841cff)