Real reason Democrats want to raise minimum wage.

B

BigNBushy

Well-Known Member
Hazydat620 said:
So why do you blame the unions? Alcoholism and gambling are considered addictions and classified as an illness or disease and therefore not a grounds to terminate. You should blame the federal govt. for that. I suppose you would like the power to fire someone in a wheel chair, or cause they are overweight, or maybe cause they have MS. I've got you nailed to a T.
Click to expand...
I blame the unions because if you are drunk on the job at a rail road company, you can easily kill someone.

If you're drunk at work there, you should be fired.

If you got a problem, and self report, then no, you shouldn't be fired.

I think it's absurd that you get 80% of your pay for the months you are gone.

When I was working for my dad's business, I had to hire and fire lots of people.

I don't enjoy firing people. But, it is very hard to find good people. We paid installers more than just about anyone in the area. $200 to install a directv system, takes 90 minutes to 3 hours depending. You can do 3 or 4 a day. I was the GM and our installers made more than me, that's fine, they worked harder.

I've never worked for corporate America much.

I approach everything from a small business view.
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
BigNBushy said:
I'm not saying that those under the new minimum who get raises in pay aren't better off.

They would be.

What I'm saying is that those who make more than the new minimum don't necessarily get a corresponding raise. They usually don't. This is essentially a pay cut for everyone else.

If you are at the cusp of the middle class at 15 an hour and they raised the minimum wage to 12, you just became poor again.
Click to expand...

that is silliness.

if four people in your office get a ten percent raise but you don't, you didn't get a pay decrease. Sounds like a case of envy to me.
 
yktind

yktind

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
No, it will create opportunities. The middle earners and business owners will benefit more than the minimum earners, who stand to benefit greatly themselves.

If you are a merchant, your customers will have more money to spend and you will have to hire more people to keep your shelves stocked.

The only downside is the economic growth. Yes, downside, this will inevitably harm the environment.
Click to expand...
This benefits people that are selling to minimum wage earners only. Since no one else is getting a pay raise.
 
yktind

yktind

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Minimum wage earners drive the economy, a strong economy benefits everyone
Click to expand...
A strong economy does benefit everyone. If you sell b2b does this have any effect? I suppose it still would if the other business sold to minimum wage earners... hrmmm
 
yktind

yktind

Well-Known Member
Sorry, Business to Business.

Also, this is probably a stupid question, well not stupid I am just uninformed, but in what ways do minimum wage earners drive the economic train?
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Aggregate demand. Some of the resident right wingers will say it's a myth because as is daily reestablished, they are dumb.

Aggregate demand is the total demand for goods and services in an economy. Simply put, a good economy is one where people are buying shit, spending money, making currency circulate. It always flows back to the top where it stagnates.

If you were any kind of merchant, you would always choose to sell your product in a market where there is demand. Even foodstamps lead to truck and fuel sales, for the food is grown and transported. At peak efficiency, two dollars in jobs are created for every dollar in foodstamps issued.


The benefits go far beyond the people who need food. The fact is, it will create jobs in every strata. Wall Street will reap huge benefits too. More people will buy more of everything. This is the opposite of recession, which is a direct result of a lack of aggregate demand.
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
demand drives the economy, fulfillment follows demand.

an average middle class person buys one dish washer every five years. A rich person, say, buys one for each of his five houses.

so the rich guy produces five times as much demand. Except the rich guy makes 300 times what the middle class guy makes.

sure, the rich guy buys a yacht and a plane but that never really changes the ratio.

a rich person will not increase demand as much as the that wealth spread out among a number of people would.

a rich person can only consume so much and any wealth he accumulates after his consumption tops out will invariably, one way or another, go toward the fulfillment of demand created by others.
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
they spend pretty much every penny they make and out economy is based on aggregate demand.
Click to expand...
why is this such a difficult concept for those in the right who all seem to claim mastery of economics and superiority over the left when it comes to things fiscal?
 
yktind

yktind

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
they spend pretty much every penny they make and out economy is based on aggregate demand.
Click to expand...
Okay so the theory is to increase the minimum wage for people that live paycheck to paycheck in hopes that they continue to spend their money and live paycheck to paycheck?

I think I got it... how does this help them?
 
yktind

yktind

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
Aggregate demand. Some of the resident right wingers will say it's a myth because as is daily reestablished, they are dumb.

Aggregate demand is the total demand for goods and services in an economy. Simply put, a good economy is one where people are buying shit, spending money, making currency circulate. It always flows back to the top where it stagnates.

If you were any kind of merchant, you would always choose to sell your product in a market where there is demand. Even foodstamps lead to truck and fuel sales, for the food is grown and transported. At peak efficiency, two dollars in jobs are created for every dollar in foodstamps issued.


The benefits go far beyond the people who need food. The fact is, it will create jobs in every strata. Wall Street will reap huge benefits too. More people will buy more of everything. This is the opposite of recession, which is a direct result of a lack of aggregate demand.
Click to expand...
Thank you for this I was just googling, aggregate demand, lol. This seems logical

I have never heard of that statistic before though. "At peak efficiency, two dollars in jobs are created for every dollar in foodstamps issued."

I gotta ask... How often does the GOV run things efficiently?

When I did a tour Houston (Houston we have a problem, Houston) they told us that NASA's return on $1 of tax payer funding was $3 - $8 dollars. If you count the internet, satellites and ton of the technological breakthroughs that have happened because of NASA. Nothing to do with this just one example of efficient use of Taxpayer money by the GOV.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
yktind said:
Thank you for this I was just googling, aggregate demand, lol. This seems logical

I have never heard of that statistic before though. "At peak efficiency, two dollars in jobs are created for every dollar in foodstamps issued."

I gotta ask... How often does the GOV run things efficiently?

When I did a tour Houston (Houston we have a problem, Houston) they told us that NASA's return on $1 of tax payer funding was $3 - $8 dollars. If you count the internet, satellites and ton of the technological breakthroughs that have happened because of NASA. Nothing to do with this just one example of efficient use of Taxpayer money by the GOV.
Click to expand...
Efficiency is never desired. The things that the government can do efficiently are the things that it is designed to do. By this I don't mean that the things it is supposed to do will be done efficiently. I mean, figure out what the government actually does well, these are the things that it is designed to do, everything else is just a show and it is not designed to do the things most people think.

Think about the phrase create jobs. This is the pinnacle of inefficiency. Yet most people probably think that it is a function of gov't, or worse yet that it is even necessary. However, look how efficiently the government cracked down on protests.

I digress, this has little to do with your query. By my statement regarding the peak efficiency of foodstamps, I was referring to a formula wherein if the right amount of money is put into foodstamps the output is up to double. The formula can be graphed as a parabola. The exact numbers are complex and fluctuate but even if more is put into it than the magic number, the output can still exceed the investment. In the case of foodstamps, the investment comes from the same people who benefit from it most.

With wages it is completely different. This thing with wages represents the private corporate interests vs the labor force. The people at the top don't earn income. They make profit from the excess value of labor after wages are paid. Higher wages mean less profit. Labor creates all wealth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top