Author Topic: The Minimum Wage debate  (Read 9300 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Calvin6s

  • Posts: 3404
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #105 on: November 16, 2015, 11:05:03 AM »
Great post.   College is NOT THE SAME as that which comes before it.  To get "free" high school
The more involved the federal government gets with higher education, the more we will be talking about a college voucher program.

Let's run this out.  On the road to government paying for college across the board:  we will hear how government is not running the schools, so you are a conspiracy theorist to suggest government will alter or influence college itself.  The a few years later, there will be a tweet saying "if the colleges want *our* (government) money, then they have to play by *our* (government) rules."  And it will all sound very reasonable.

This is just the way of government (and its mob)
I wish death upon Mitch McConnell and Pat Robertson in comment sections all the time. I'll admit that I'd be thrilled if either one of them died of a stroke tonight.

Offline Calvin6s

  • Posts: 3404
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #106 on: November 16, 2015, 11:11:29 AM »
And if we were truly worried about *education* and not the participation award at the end (the degree), then we would be discussing programmed or self-study courses being provided free of charge online.  This would be significantly cheaper.  The only barrier to the actual education would be the student's will.

Sure, much of this information is out there for free/cheap (but not really).  But how many Amazon stocked books on your industry have you read and thought "there are so many things wrong with this."  Essentially, anybody can become an author.  There should still be a guide that steers you to the proper authors and best order in which to tackle them.  That can become political, but shame on you if you are a professor entrusted with the job of deciding what a student will need to help them in their career and you bring your unnecessary bias into the mix.
I wish death upon Mitch McConnell and Pat Robertson in comment sections all the time. I'll admit that I'd be thrilled if either one of them died of a stroke tonight.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8153
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #107 on: November 16, 2015, 12:05:49 PM »
This belongs in the entitlement thread, I think.  Because what you're talking about actually requires effort, initiative, and self-discipline.  GASP!  I know!  :)

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8153
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #108 on: November 16, 2015, 12:07:14 PM »
Show me an example where this fantasy notion that "we're going to tax the rich!!!" actually works/worked.   Every one of these schemes - and I use that in every sense of the word - has that same lingo: "isn't going to hurt anyone EXCEPT...."   And what makes you qualified to speak and give acceptance for that "exception"?   Why should they roll over and fund this?  The goodness of their hearts?   Whether it's $0.25 cents per transaction or not, it's $100 BILLION DOLLARS.  One of the differences between those that amass great wealth and those that don't is that they keep track of the "$0.50 per $100 transaction".    Railroad companies negotiate fuel prices down to the fractions of a penny, because when you're using BILLIONS of gallons of fuel, it adds up.   

To me, Bernie's plan smacks of not understanding how business works, and more importantly, how BIG economies work.  Someone once mentioned that Bernie's net worth (including a home) was something like $350K, and wondered whether that was relevant or not.  And certainly in this case, the answer is OF COURSE it is relevant.  He doesn't understand how this stuff works. 

Regardless, it WILL trickle down to the participants.   If I have $250, yeah, I'll pay the $1.25, but if I have $1 billion to invest, why would I pay the $500,000 or whatever it is when I can put that billion somewhere else?  And faced with the loss of that investment, the brokers will take responsibility for that tax (waive it) and pass that on in the form of fees to everyone else.  So the $250 person will pay $1.25 in tax, but their load will be $2.00 per transaction instead of $1.00.   The "rich" (ah, whence did that become a dirty word, instead of the dream of millions of Americans?)  WILL NOT BE FOOTING THIS BILL.

No point continuing this argument. I'm too stubborn.

Fine by me, but that just shows the idea isn't as strong as it may seem.  If it was, it would be worth the discussion, and overcome the objections. 

Offline Lucien

  • composer
  • Posts: 4505
  • Gender: Male
    • my music
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #109 on: November 16, 2015, 12:13:43 PM »
Show me an example where this fantasy notion that "we're going to tax the rich!!!" actually works/worked.   Every one of these schemes - and I use that in every sense of the word - has that same lingo: "isn't going to hurt anyone EXCEPT...."   And what makes you qualified to speak and give acceptance for that "exception"?   Why should they roll over and fund this?  The goodness of their hearts?   Whether it's $0.25 cents per transaction or not, it's $100 BILLION DOLLARS.  One of the differences between those that amass great wealth and those that don't is that they keep track of the "$0.50 per $100 transaction".    Railroad companies negotiate fuel prices down to the fractions of a penny, because when you're using BILLIONS of gallons of fuel, it adds up.   

To me, Bernie's plan smacks of not understanding how business works, and more importantly, how BIG economies work.  Someone once mentioned that Bernie's net worth (including a home) was something like $350K, and wondered whether that was relevant or not.  And certainly in this case, the answer is OF COURSE it is relevant.  He doesn't understand how this stuff works. 

Regardless, it WILL trickle down to the participants.   If I have $250, yeah, I'll pay the $1.25, but if I have $1 billion to invest, why would I pay the $500,000 or whatever it is when I can put that billion somewhere else?  And faced with the loss of that investment, the brokers will take responsibility for that tax (waive it) and pass that on in the form of fees to everyone else.  So the $250 person will pay $1.25 in tax, but their load will be $2.00 per transaction instead of $1.00.   The "rich" (ah, whence did that become a dirty word, instead of the dream of millions of Americans?)  WILL NOT BE FOOTING THIS BILL.

No point continuing this argument. I'm too stubborn.

Fine by me, but that just shows the idea isn't as strong as it may seem.  If it was, it would be worth the discussion, and overcome the objections.

The mob certainly enjoys the idea of a Robin Hood tax in Europe. Scandinavian countries like Finland and Sweden (probably most of Europe, I'll need to look into it) have a progressive income tax (to "tax the wealthy more"), and people love living in those places. I'm also pretty sure the richest people there actually pay their taxes instead of just storing their money away in foreign places (citation needed).

The reason I'm bailing is because I don't feel like arguing with someone where the same talking points are argued by both of us as retorts for each other's same talking points. We go nowhere.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8153
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #110 on: November 16, 2015, 12:44:57 PM »
Show me an example where this fantasy notion that "we're going to tax the rich!!!" actually works/worked.   Every one of these schemes - and I use that in every sense of the word - has that same lingo: "isn't going to hurt anyone EXCEPT...."   And what makes you qualified to speak and give acceptance for that "exception"?   Why should they roll over and fund this?  The goodness of their hearts?   Whether it's $0.25 cents per transaction or not, it's $100 BILLION DOLLARS.  One of the differences between those that amass great wealth and those that don't is that they keep track of the "$0.50 per $100 transaction".    Railroad companies negotiate fuel prices down to the fractions of a penny, because when you're using BILLIONS of gallons of fuel, it adds up.   

To me, Bernie's plan smacks of not understanding how business works, and more importantly, how BIG economies work.  Someone once mentioned that Bernie's net worth (including a home) was something like $350K, and wondered whether that was relevant or not.  And certainly in this case, the answer is OF COURSE it is relevant.  He doesn't understand how this stuff works. 

Regardless, it WILL trickle down to the participants.   If I have $250, yeah, I'll pay the $1.25, but if I have $1 billion to invest, why would I pay the $500,000 or whatever it is when I can put that billion somewhere else?  And faced with the loss of that investment, the brokers will take responsibility for that tax (waive it) and pass that on in the form of fees to everyone else.  So the $250 person will pay $1.25 in tax, but their load will be $2.00 per transaction instead of $1.00.   The "rich" (ah, whence did that become a dirty word, instead of the dream of millions of Americans?)  WILL NOT BE FOOTING THIS BILL.

No point continuing this argument. I'm too stubborn.

Fine by me, but that just shows the idea isn't as strong as it may seem.  If it was, it would be worth the discussion, and overcome the objections.

The mob certainly enjoys the idea of a Robin Hood tax in Europe. Scandinavian countries like Finland and Sweden (probably most of Europe, I'll need to look into it) have a progressive income tax (to "tax the wealthy more"), and people love living in those places. I'm also pretty sure the richest people there actually pay their taxes instead of just storing their money away in foreign places (citation needed).

Ah, yes.  The classic "Scandinavian argument".   First, there are some SIGNIFICANT differences in those countries to the US.  Not least of which is COMBINED, they have the population of Texas.  Most of those coutnries are akin to Massachusetts in size (read:  not very big).   Two, they are EXTREMELY homogeneous.  They don't have anywhere NEAR the levels of immigration (or migration) so the mechanism is very different.

Three, and here's where it gets interesting:  theirs isn't a "Robin Hood" scheme.   There's isn't really that progressive at all.  They get a far higher percentage of revenue from taxes (as compared to GDP) than the US, but the highest tax brackets don't account for most of this difference.  In fact, Norway's highest tax bracket is the same (or thereabouts) as the US.   Most of the Scandinavian countries have a far more "flat" tax scheme than the US.   The US in contrast is far more progressive, since it doesn't get as much from the lower income brackets. 

We also have no VAT tax system, which is another way of spreading the contribution throughout income levels.  We don't do that. 

Further, our CORPORATE tax rates are far higher than the Scandinavian countries, so we're making up difference there. 

So, in short, they do tax (slightly) more, but they get more, and more of the population pays in to that.  Here, the "Robin Hood" tax scheme is exactly that:  asking one very very small group to essentially fund a second, much larger group, without that larger group paying ITS fair share.   

Quote
The reason I'm bailing is because I don't feel like arguing with someone where the same talking points are argued by both of us as retorts for each other's same talking points. We go nowhere.


Well, I'm sorry you feel that way, but just saying something "is" doesn't make it "right".  Bernie's plan is NOT the Scandinavian plan, so to point to them as a "way this could work" isn't really an argument, it's just sharing more opinion. 

Online cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 14608
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #111 on: November 16, 2015, 01:23:41 PM »
So if the discussion is turning into tax, then can the minimum wage debate be solved, not by raising the wage, but by tax reform?  I'd rather see the discussion going in that direction personally as I am against minimum wage.  I think the end result could be more money in the hands of the minimum wage work force (although i do not know how, just saying I would think it's possible).

Offline Calvin6s

  • Posts: 3404
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #112 on: November 16, 2015, 01:52:28 PM »
This will sound like a dick thing to say but....

I'm not sure more money in the hands of the minimum wage work force (via tax reform) will produce great results.  For starters, the fact that you have a minimum wage job suggests you are not great with finance.

Let's say you work at some manufacturing plant that produces good quality *stuff*.  And the lower end of middle class likes your good quality *stuff*, but the higher cost doesn't work into their budget.

I'm thinking lower end middle class is closer to the sweet spot.  They buy that minimum wage quality product instead of that crappy Chinese Wal-Mart product.  We aren't talking about their dream purchases, but their more casual purchases.  Some brake pads or some phone accessory.  Now that "minimum wage" job's sector isn't scraping by any longer.  You get those longer hours or wage increase.

I'm just tossing this out and hardly am standing by it as a plan.
I wish death upon Mitch McConnell and Pat Robertson in comment sections all the time. I'll admit that I'd be thrilled if either one of them died of a stroke tonight.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8153
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #113 on: November 16, 2015, 02:28:24 PM »
So if the discussion is turning into tax, then can the minimum wage debate be solved, not by raising the wage, but by tax reform?  I'd rather see the discussion going in that direction personally as I am against minimum wage.  I think the end result could be more money in the hands of the minimum wage work force (although i do not know how, just saying I would think it's possible).

How much more can you give them?  Most don't pay any income taxes as it is (the 47% number is NOT wrong, even if it is a shade misleading as you get up to the higher incomes in that group).   What "reform" is there when the effective tax rate is already near zero? 

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40221
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #114 on: November 16, 2015, 02:33:00 PM »
So if the discussion is turning into tax, then can the minimum wage debate be solved, not by raising the wage, but by tax reform?  I'd rather see the discussion going in that direction personally as I am against minimum wage.  I think the end result could be more money in the hands of the minimum wage work force (although i do not know how, just saying I would think it's possible).

How much more can you give them?  Most don't pay any income taxes as it is (the 47% number is NOT wrong, even if it is a shade misleading as you get up to the higher incomes in that group).   What "reform" is there when the effective tax rate is already near zero?
Kind of what I was thinking.  Not sure how any tax reform could be done to offset the theoretical benefit of a rise in the minimum wage.

Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Online cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 14608
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #115 on: November 16, 2015, 02:33:21 PM »
So if the discussion is turning into tax, then can the minimum wage debate be solved, not by raising the wage, but by tax reform?  I'd rather see the discussion going in that direction personally as I am against minimum wage.  I think the end result could be more money in the hands of the minimum wage work force (although i do not know how, just saying I would think it's possible).

How much more can you give them?  Most don't pay any income taxes as it is (the 47% number is NOT wrong, even if it is a shade misleading as you get up to the higher incomes in that group).   What "reform" is there when the effective tax rate is already near zero?

I have no idea, it was just a question since the discussion of minimum wage turned into taxes, I was wondering if that was the direction to look instead of raising wages, I am not proposing any solutions as I do not understand the tax codes well enough to do that.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8153
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #116 on: November 16, 2015, 02:57:31 PM »
I think like anything else, there is no "one magic bullet" to solve this, and that is why the minimum wage is such an attractive thing, because it acts like that magic bullet.   

But it doesn't solve the underlying problem(s), and in fact probably exacerbates some of them. 

I think the real question is, how do you make these people for whom minimum wage isn't enough more saleable to those providing the work? 

Offline Calvin6s

  • Posts: 3404
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #117 on: November 16, 2015, 03:45:21 PM »
Here's a little bit of a secret.

Employers don't mind paying more in wages as long as the industry supports it.  In fact, we kinda love it.

If the industry standard for a contract (product or service) is:
$50 labor (service)
$50 goods
20% gross profit margin
Then GPM = ($50+$50) = $100 cost.  Sale price at 20% margin = $125.
$125 (sale) - $100 (cost) =  $25 Gross Profit.  ($25 is 20% of $125)

For reference, the relationship of markup (MU) to GPM is
MU = GPM / (1-GPM).  So 0.2 / (1-0.2) = 0.25 markup or 25% markup for a 20% margin.  People don't realize the difference.

So let's say the industry accepts labor is now worth $60 and the 20% GPM is still industry acceptable.
$60 labor
$50 goods
($60 + $50) = $110 cost.  Sale price at 20% margin = $137.50.
$137.50 - $110 = $27.50 GP.

The employee made more money and the employer made more money (but the same 20% risk factor).
It is when we hear that labor most go up, but the employer just has to eat it that the employer says "now hold up."
I wish death upon Mitch McConnell and Pat Robertson in comment sections all the time. I'll admit that I'd be thrilled if either one of them died of a stroke tonight.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8153
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #118 on: November 17, 2015, 06:25:53 AM »
But that's part of the argument; you're allowing a certain variable (the total product/project price) to change.  That's not always the case, and even if it is, for a company like Wal-Mart - that is almost TOTALLY price driven; they deal in commodities essentially - that is either not a valid assumption, or results in the same people who MAKE the increased wages paying more for their goods, thus negating the effect.   

The fact that companies like Wal-Mart fight this so hard tells me that the price variable is not as elastic as this example requires, and while they might not eat the total increase, they are eating a portion of it, so you have a case where the cost goes up 20% but the price can only move 5% or 10%, and the difference will mean that the GP of $25 (in your example) doesn't go to $27.50, but perhaps drops to $21 or $20. 

Online cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 14608
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #119 on: November 17, 2015, 06:53:22 AM »
Agreed, at the end of the day in your example, a price change to the consumer from 125 to 137.5 is fairly large and would change consumer habits for the folks who do not get a wage increase and negate the effects of a wage increase for those who get it.

Offline Calvin6s

  • Posts: 3404
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #120 on: November 17, 2015, 07:48:53 AM »
It really depends on the economy and industry.  A place that builds its whole reputation on low prices (not service or quality) will have to hold their prices low.  It is all they have.

But material prices fluctuate quite a bit and the prices go up and down with it.  As long as it is in line with the industry, it is just accepted as manufacturing (as opposed to reselling items produced by somebody else).

Right now, the economy doesn't support it.  But 2002 to 2009, employees were getting raises, material prices were skyrocketing because of China's demand and the gross profit margin was going up right with it.  The employers were happy.  The employees were happy.

And it created a problem because by late 2009, early 2010, employees were still asking for 2005 level wages and it just couldn't be supported any longer.  They had to be the best at their position (productivity increases) just to maintain what they had.  If wages were forced to go up then (which in some ways they were), it would be 100% out of the employer's pocket.

But now what we are talking about with the minimum wage effect, I see everybody simply calculating the cost of labor adding to "that Big Mac".  Well, if that is the case, then it is detrimental.  On the other hand, if the prices rose more or less across the board, it will negate the minimum wage increase.  Worse, it will be an unofficial pay cut for everybody else.
I wish death upon Mitch McConnell and Pat Robertson in comment sections all the time. I'll admit that I'd be thrilled if either one of them died of a stroke tonight.

Offline Calvin6s

  • Posts: 3404
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #121 on: March 28, 2016, 01:48:39 PM »
California deal hikes minimum wage to $15
I hate CA government.  It is idiotic beyond belief.

This is very similar to CA government "leading the way on environmental issues" and the major flaw associated.  While everybody else was enjoying low gas prices, CA surpassed even Hawaii as the state with the highest gas prices.  And not a couple of cents, but about 40% above the national average.  That's devastating to being a competing economy.

Now add competing outside of CA with a $15 minimum wage compared to a Federal Minimum wage of $7.25.  Literally twice as much.  This is the very big cause of the income gap.  It creates a need for off the books employment (illegal immigrant) or the poor.  Those not willing to work under the table essentially become unemployed (the poor).  The few industries that have a workforce that isn't affected by these factors will still be required to purchase goods and services from those that are.  They will either need to pay significantly more if out of state options aren't realistic (services rendered on site) or they will move purchasing of out of state goods.

It is literally taking an area with great natural resources and climate and making it undesirable.
I wish death upon Mitch McConnell and Pat Robertson in comment sections all the time. I'll admit that I'd be thrilled if either one of them died of a stroke tonight.

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 18685
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #122 on: March 28, 2016, 01:56:14 PM »
Did you miss the part where that minimum wage will be achieved slowly over time and will not officially be $15 an hour until 2022? Minimum wage nation wide will not still be $7.25 in 2022. So literally, not twice as much.

Offline Calvin6s

  • Posts: 3404
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #123 on: March 28, 2016, 02:06:16 PM »
It is a 50% increase on the current CA minimum wage over a very short period of time.

You are missing the point that it is massively out of alignment with the nation.  And CA has a history of being massively out of alignment with the rest of the nation for a temporary feel good moment, long term pain.

When you try to make a payroll, then you can tell me how this rapidly expanding wage increase over what amounts to a blink of an eye in the fast moving world of the business world isn't a big deal.  When you have to tell an employee you like that you just can't afford them any more, then you can talk about how this is a nothing burger.

I absolutely did not miss the rapidly increasing minimum wage cycle.  I'm hyper-sensitive to this stuff.

When you can work in an office as a clerk for $15/hr or McDonald's for $15/hr or or work difficult manual labor for $15/hr, all entry level jobs, most will choose the easiest path.

Now you could argue that this will raise the difficult manual labor wage, but it very likely won't.  It will just increase the off the books employment, which virtually guarantees lower quality.  Will people then realize the value of higher quality = higher prices?  Not really.  They will just complain.  The very few that will realize and pay for that value will not help the market, but simply create an overcrowded niche market.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2016, 02:12:15 PM by Calvin6s »
I wish death upon Mitch McConnell and Pat Robertson in comment sections all the time. I'll admit that I'd be thrilled if either one of them died of a stroke tonight.

Offline Calvin6s

  • Posts: 3404
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #124 on: March 28, 2016, 02:24:25 PM »
http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/chart.htm

As far as the $7.25 federal minimum wage, $15 is an increase of 107%.  So that would be like going from $3.50 to $7.25.  How long did it take the government to do that.

1981 - $3.35.  That's 28 years from 1981 to 2009.  You will also notice there hasn't been a raise since 2009. Why?  Because the economy hasn't supported it.  So the idea that the federal minimum wage will follow the CA minimum wage to 2022 and beyond is at odds with history.
I wish death upon Mitch McConnell and Pat Robertson in comment sections all the time. I'll admit that I'd be thrilled if either one of them died of a stroke tonight.

Offline orcus116

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 9268
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #125 on: March 28, 2016, 02:29:51 PM »
Maybe this was already answered but I'm still curious as to where the number of $15 came from. Are there actually numbers to support it or is it all based on a "yeah that sounds good" after someone pulled it out of their ass mindset?

Online cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 14608
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #126 on: March 28, 2016, 02:32:21 PM »
Maybe this was already answered but I'm still curious as to where the number of $15 came from. Are there actually numbers to support it or is it all based on a "yeah that sounds good" after someone pulled it out of their ass mindset?

Im curious about this as well.  My initial thought is I dont like this one bit, so maybe there is some reason to make me think otherwise.

Offline Calvin6s

  • Posts: 3404
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #127 on: March 28, 2016, 02:57:45 PM »
I won't claim to have *the answer* on its origin, but I can make some deductions.

At some point, minimum wage became coupled with livable wage.  That was never meant to be the point of that type of job.  You aren't supposed to be a McDonald's cashier for a career.  Some will say that times have changed and now it isn't a choice for some people.  I'd agree, but you have to ask, how did it become that way.  It became that way because of policies like a $15 minimum wage, coupled with ways to devalue jobs that originally were not minimum wage (H-1B, illegal immigration, etc).  Why would you work a demanding job (physically) if it pays the same as a less demanding job like fast food or retail floor for a large corporation.  Why would you rack up college debt if your job market salaries are being decimated?

So using near-sighted reasoning, it probably was derived in this manner:

$30,000 a year seems like a minimum livable income (pulled out of ass)
$30,000 / 52 weeks / 40 hours a week = $14.42.  Let's round it up.  $15.

But wait.  Prices are either going to go up dramatically, making the $30,000 a year minimum livable wage no longer livable AND/OR prices will not go up by virtue of black market employment expansion.

Because of that black market employment expansion (not by evil corporations but businesses just trying to keep the doors open) it simultaneously puts pressure on holding down higher than minimum wage job salaries.  Perhaps you aren't a minimum wage company, but some positions may be close enough that your small business (under 50, so health insurance is not mandatory), that going from $18/hr (w/ partial or no health coverage) to $15/hr at a large corporation with mandatory insurance is worth the jump.  Yet that same person would be indignant if the $18/hr company offered insurance with a $2/hr pay cut.  It's the principle.  This type of policy favors the move from small business to too big to fail corporations.  Small business is the heart of the middle class.

In the end, we talk about the middle class, but every policy seems to be aimed at propping up the poor or cutting down the rich.  That's not a rising tide policy.  That's a misery loves company policy.

Anybody that thinks a small business employer loves watching wage rise (keeping it down) isn't dealing in reality.  It is soul crushing.
I wish death upon Mitch McConnell and Pat Robertson in comment sections all the time. I'll admit that I'd be thrilled if either one of them died of a stroke tonight.

Offline orcus116

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 9268
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #128 on: March 28, 2016, 03:50:25 PM »
I think the whole argument falls apart because "livable wage" is different for everyone for a myriad of purely basic reasons (location, upbringing, skills, intuitiveness, family situation, etc) so to put a set number that accounts for an average American is not really accurate at all.

Another thing is this is all dependent on full time, 40 hour jobs. I know there are situations where people work two jobs so maybe the number of hours can work out but if we're talking ONE job of a minimum wage magnitude (fast food, etc) are those employees really working full time? It just sounds like a dream scenario more than anything.

Also on somewhat of a selfish side note and somewhat irrational/emotional thinking, if the value of these jobs doubles what about my job? I'm a civil engineer and if those jobs suddenly double in value due to wages do I see an increase in my value? I know, I know they're not related industries and my industry drives that bus but in terms of how we value skills won't other trades feel the need to get compensated?

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4623
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #129 on: March 28, 2016, 05:05:56 PM »
Don't worry, many unions are all over this topic, because a higher minimum wage bolsters their argument of increasing their wages. 
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline Calvin6s

  • Posts: 3404
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #130 on: March 28, 2016, 05:12:30 PM »
There's some good news.  Non-union workplaces will have take away business from the unions workplace.
I wish death upon Mitch McConnell and Pat Robertson in comment sections all the time. I'll admit that I'd be thrilled if either one of them died of a stroke tonight.

Offline jammindude

  • Posts: 7735
  • Gender: Male
    • The Jammin Dude Show
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #131 on: March 28, 2016, 05:48:06 PM »
As someone who works in the trades (I am union, but I'm not strictly "anti-nonunion"), I would just like to see *MUCH* higher enforcement of "under the table" work.   Seriously...there are some extremely shady guys out there, I would love to see them all strung up by their toes.   There would be more work for everyone.   Non-union would obviously be inundated with small jobs, but that would leave them so overwhelmed that it would have to open up *some* of the bigger jobs for more union shops.   

Regardless, I would say if you strictly enforce non-legal work, it creates much more demand for guys that actually know what they are doing.
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - http://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude

Offline Calvin6s

  • Posts: 3404
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #132 on: March 28, 2016, 06:03:00 PM »
Regardless, I would say if you strictly enforce non-legal work, it creates much more demand for guys that actually know what they are doing.

I'm perfectly fine with some serious enforcement, but you have to consider it's the decades of lack of enforcement that has caused it.  I usually talk to everybody from top to bottom at my jobs.  Being in Southern California, I did not find a single business that didn't have some form of illegal worker.  It has become a reaction, not a goal. 

A few years ago I thought I found one company that was illegal worker free.  It was awhile, so either E-Verify didn't exist or more likely nobody was using it.  Checked Social Security cards, Drivers License and filled out I9s.  Then work came up in a city of Southern California that was famous for strict illegal immigrant enforcement.  How do I know?  I had to leave my desk job and go out in the field because a good portion of the field refused to work in that city.

There's also perfectly legal ways to drive down wages (H-1B).

But strict enforcement has to take into consideration that many companies would love to abide, but simply can't.  A smart move would be to give a 90 day to 1 year warning.  Seriously strict enforcement is coming in 90+ days.  Use this time wisely to essentially create new work forces in the business model.  The HR department would need to be beefed up to stop innocent mistakes.

If the level of enforcement continues to vary wildly, businesses won't know how to conform and stay in business at the same time.
I wish death upon Mitch McConnell and Pat Robertson in comment sections all the time. I'll admit that I'd be thrilled if either one of them died of a stroke tonight.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8153
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #133 on: March 29, 2016, 11:24:43 AM »
I think the whole argument falls apart because "livable wage" is different for everyone for a myriad of purely basic reasons (location, upbringing, skills, intuitiveness, family situation, etc) so to put a set number that accounts for an average American is not really accurate at all.

Another thing is this is all dependent on full time, 40 hour jobs. I know there are situations where people work two jobs so maybe the number of hours can work out but if we're talking ONE job of a minimum wage magnitude (fast food, etc) are those employees really working full time? It just sounds like a dream scenario more than anything.

Also on somewhat of a selfish side note and somewhat irrational/emotional thinking, if the value of these jobs doubles what about my job? I'm a civil engineer and if those jobs suddenly double in value due to wages do I see an increase in my value? I know, I know they're not related industries and my industry drives that bus but in terms of how we value skills won't other trades feel the need to get compensated?

You've just nailed all the problems with this in three short paragraphs.  Bernie Sanders' whole economic argument is based on the idea that there ARE (or should be) no differences.  Well, there are.  It's just reality.   I've lived in Florida, Atlanta, Charlotte, Philly, and Connecticut, and even just in Connecticut, it's very different between Fairfield and West Hartford, and Enfield. 

Second, the minimum wage is NOT going to raise all the other boats. It just cannot.   The system can't support even just the minimum wage part; it can't accept a 20% increase in ALL wages across the board (remember, you corporate haters, most senior executives do NOT receive wages in the sense that an assembly line worker does; yes they get a salary, but almost all their bonuses, benefits, and real income comes in the form of stock and stock grants; it's a tax issue). 

A helpful question when trying to evaluate these types of things is "Is this a zero sum game"?  And once you can discern when it is and when it isn't, you can really get some insight into why some of these plans work and some don't. 

Offline Genowyn

  • That name's pretty cool, and honestly, I'd like to change mine to it.
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5288
  • Gender: Male
  • But Hachikuji, I've told you over and over...
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #134 on: March 29, 2016, 01:04:48 PM »
One place I usually tend to stray from left thinking is on the minimum wage. It sounds nice and looks good and paper and will make people vote for you, but there is no convincing argument that it works the way we want it to. All it results in is the cost of anything involving minimum wage labour goes up, and then the price of everything goes up, and everyone's pretty much back where they started in terms of actual buying power.

Where I differ from most people on the right is that I don't think that's necessarily a good or natural thing. If businesses weren't expected to be in perpetual accelerated growth (ie, not only must you make a profit, you must make a greater profit, and the amount more your profit is must be greater than last year) to be considered successful, it might work out more the way we expect. But McDonald's has to deliver to its shareholders and that trumps all other considerations.

...my name is Araragi.

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 18685
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #135 on: March 29, 2016, 01:12:55 PM »
I'm torn on the minimum wage debate due to the fact that there is so much variance in the cost of living based on your location. It'd be hard enough to find one that works on a state level, let alone the federal one. However, I do believe that something needs to be done in terms of an increase. What that amount is, I can't say, but I think it needs to be at least $10. There is no reason why American taxpayers should be footing the bill for $6.1B worth of government assistance to people employed by Walmart.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8153
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #136 on: March 29, 2016, 02:53:23 PM »
One place I usually tend to stray from left thinking is on the minimum wage. It sounds nice and looks good and paper and will make people vote for you, but there is no convincing argument that it works the way we want it to. All it results in is the cost of anything involving minimum wage labour goes up, and then the price of everything goes up, and everyone's pretty much back where they started in terms of actual buying power.

Or worse, it sends those jobs over seas.

Look, corporations - rather, markets - don't adhere to or respect arbitrary national boundaries.  Nor should they, except in the most egregious of circumstances.  We buy materials from other countries, we sell to other countries; why shouldn't we use their labor?   And we have "Buy America" provisions (where some of the goods that we sell have to be made "in America"); why shouldn't Canada?

I don't think people have ANY clue what would happen to our economy of ALL countries started to enforce these guidelines.  If all countries required of our multinationals what it is proposed that we demand of them... well, kiss your cable and new iPhones buh-bye.

Quote
Where I differ from most people on the right is that I don't think that's necessarily a good or natural thing. If businesses weren't expected to be in perpetual accelerated growth (ie, not only must you make a profit, you must make a greater profit, and the amount more your profit is must be greater than last year) to be considered successful, it might work out more the way we expect. But McDonald's has to deliver to its shareholders and that trumps all other considerations.

But you understand this is the part that most people ignore (and I believe Bernie just doesn't flat understand).   The economy isn't "rigged".   Those stocks are available to anyone.  That "perpetual growth" is the engine that drives the entire economy.  You don't just "take it away" or say "yeah, not anymore".   

Stock prices are above all things, a measure of future earnings.   If those earnings don't at least stay static (let alone go up), then stock prices go DOWN.  This is why recessions happen.  Do you know how many pension plans and institutional investment programs are tied to indexes, which are merely an expression of stock price?

Not telling you what to think, but here's an idea to consider:  instead of lamenting the system, instead of seeking ways to dumb everything down (which is really a spiteful way of looking at things:  "you're too successful, and we're not, so don't have so much success!") we should be looking at ways to get more people involved.   We've spent HOURS - no, DAYS - on this forum talking about how we HAVE to get people involved in the healthcare system. We have to!  We should even PAY for it!!

Why is there no - not one! - program or plan to get people involved in the stock market.   I'd GLADLY pay tax dollars for that, because at least it gets people invested in the system.   The system DOES work, it just takes effort and isn't something that just lands on your lap. 

 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8153
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #137 on: March 29, 2016, 03:17:00 PM »
I'm torn on the minimum wage debate due to the fact that there is so much variance in the cost of living based on your location. It'd be hard enough to find one that works on a state level, let alone the federal one. However, I do believe that something needs to be done in terms of an increase. What that amount is, I can't say, but I think it needs to be at least $10. There is no reason why American taxpayers should be footing the bill for $6.1B worth of government assistance to people employed by Walmart.

I'd feel a lot better about GIVING this (which is what it is) if there was some quid pro quo.   I'm frustrated by some of the unspoken aspects of this sector of the workforce.  The "well, there ARE jobs but they're over THERE, not over HERE", except the person is pointing FROM Cleveland TO Cincinnati. We're worried about geography when it comes to the number, but what about for the jobs themselves?   

I was in South Carolina a couple weeks ago, and my stepdaughter - who is still in high school, and looks at the minimum wage question as something akin to CHRISTMAS MORNING - told her mom "we should move HERE!  I'd have a job in about 8 seconds!".   So we said, "well, there are some good colleges here!"   That ended that discussion right fucking there. 

The point of this is not to rag on teenagers or point the finger at those that are struggling to work.   It is to say we have to look at all the variables for all the issues.  You can't isolate variables in one case and ignore them in another.  We are, literally, playing by two sets of rules for the problem and the solution, and it's untenable.    The problem is not "shipping jobs overseas!", the problem is lack of job mobility.    Got news:  not all of Detroit's jobs moved to China and Mexico.  In fact, very few of Detroit's jobs moved to China and Mexico.   A lot of them are in South Carolina and in Tennessee.   "Minimum wage" ain't solving that problem, now is it?   

Offline Calvin6s

  • Posts: 3404
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #138 on: March 29, 2016, 03:41:08 PM »
The California $15 minimum wage is even worse.  It WILL drive jobs out of California.  Worse, it will be good jobs, leaving more crappy jobs, less good jobs.

This even happens within counties in CA through different means of inequality.  Orange County, Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino counties all meet in the heart of Southern California business.  There's a state base sales tax and a local sales tax that combine to make that locations sales tax total.  And it varies.  Sometimes you will drive (or order) at a slightly greater distance when buying large material orders to immediately save a few percentage points on total cost.

Now imagine an entire state that will have a minimum wage that will essentially twice that of surrounding states.  And CA is already one of the highest minimum wage rates at $10.  When you talk to other business owners, it almost always leads to "thinking about moving the business out of state."  And it happens frequently.  You have a nice beach and relatively nice weather.  Just about everything else is a negative.  Keep piling on to the negative side of the scale and eventually people move away.
I wish death upon Mitch McConnell and Pat Robertson in comment sections all the time. I'll admit that I'd be thrilled if either one of them died of a stroke tonight.

Offline Genowyn

  • That name's pretty cool, and honestly, I'd like to change mine to it.
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5288
  • Gender: Male
  • But Hachikuji, I've told you over and over...
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #139 on: March 29, 2016, 04:22:35 PM »

Quote
Where I differ from most people on the right is that I don't think that's necessarily a good or natural thing. If businesses weren't expected to be in perpetual accelerated growth (ie, not only must you make a profit, you must make a greater profit, and the amount more your profit is must be greater than last year) to be considered successful, it might work out more the way we expect. But McDonald's has to deliver to its shareholders and that trumps all other considerations.

Stock prices are above all things, a measure of future earnings.   If those earnings don't at least stay static (let alone go up), then stock prices go DOWN.  This is why recessions happen.  Do you know how many pension plans and institutional investment programs are tied to indexes, which are merely an expression of stock price?

Not telling you what to think, but here's an idea to consider:  instead of lamenting the system, instead of seeking ways to dumb everything down (which is really a spiteful way of looking at things:  "you're too successful, and we're not, so don't have so much success!") we should be looking at ways to get more people involved.   We've spent HOURS - no, DAYS - on this forum talking about how we HAVE to get people involved in the healthcare system. We have to!  We should even PAY for it!!

Why is there no - not one! - program or plan to get people involved in the stock market.   I'd GLADLY pay tax dollars for that, because at least it gets people invested in the system.   The system DOES work, it just takes effort and isn't something that just lands on your lap. 
 

But how well it works for you largely depends on how much initial capital you have to spend... if you can afford to buy a 20% equity stake in a company that's going to make a much bigger financial difference than buying stocks, especially for a large corporation.

Like... the company I work for has a stock price around $48 last I checked. Dividends were set at about $1.60. Assuming the dividend stays the same (which I know it won't) it's going to take something like seven years to break even. And once I do, how much difference is it really going to make to me? If I go with your recommendation of replacing my cable with stocks, I can buy, what, two or three stocks a month? Say I do that by saving up for a year so we can pretend all these stocks start profiting at the same time, and I'm making an extra $38.4-$57.6 a quarter, or $153.6-$230.4 a year. Sure, not an amount to sneeze at, but it's hardly turning me into Rockefeller, either.

So for the average person, sure, stocks might work as a retirement plan, but they're not going to realistically impact your standard of living while you're working, because after sacrificing TV I'm still not making as much on the stocks as I was spending on TV in a year... or even two months. The investment-centric economy favors those who have money already, not people who want to make money.

...my name is Araragi.