California Raises Minimum Wage to $15/Hr

[DonDadda59]

California Lawmakers, Unions Reach Deal to Lift Minimum Wage to $15 an Hour

https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BN-NG864_0326ca_P_20160326232709.jpg

SACRAMENTO, Calif.

[fiddy]

SACRAMENTO, Calif.—California legislators and labor unions on Saturday reached an agreement aims to raise the state's minimum wage to $15 from $10 an hour, a state senator said, a move that would make for the highest statewide minimum in the nation.

Sen. Mark Leno (D., San Francisco) said the proposal would go before the Legislature as part of his minimum-wage bill that stalled last year.

Mr. Leno didn't confirm specifics of the agreement, but most proposals have the wage increasing about a dollar a year until it reaches $15 an hour.

Read more

* Oregon Just Set a New Minimum-Wage High. Here's Where Your State Stands

* Minimum-Wage Increases Set to Raise E-Commerce Logistics Costs

* Costco to Raise Its Minimum Wage

The Los Angeles Times, which first reported the deal, said the wage would rise to $10.50 in 2017, with subsequent increases to take it to $15 by 2022. Businesses with fewer than 25 employees would have an extra year to comply.

At $10 an hour, California already has one of the highest minimum wages in the nation along with Massachusetts. Only Washington, D.C., at $10.50 an hour is higher. The hike to $15 would make it the highest statewide wage in the nation by far, though raises are in the works in other states.

The deal means the issue won't have to go to the ballot, Mr. Leno said. One union-backed initiative has already qualified for the ballot, and a second, competing measure is also trying to qualify.

Union leaders, however, said they wouldn't immediately dispense with planned ballot measures.

Sean Wherley, a spokesman for SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, confirmed that his group was involved in the negotiations. But he said the group would continue pushing ahead with its initiative on the ballot.

“Ours is on the ballot. We want to be certain of what all this is," Mr. Wherley said.

A spokesman for Gov. Jerry Brown, Evan Westrup, didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

full article

[Im Still Ballin]

Congratulations on the pay raise

[Real Men Wear Green]

I'm not necessarily against this but it's potentially a tough thing to put a minimum wage on a whole state. There are many businesses that were going to fail anyway and I wonder how this law will increase their number. I also wonder if the economy of California is uniform enough that $15 per is the right number for the whole state. And are they enacting any other measures to maybe help out those businesses that can't bare the burden of paying all of their employees that amount? A minimum wage is a noble idea in theory but I wonder how much three economics of it have been worked out or if it's just a number that they came up with just considering the cost of living but not fully examining the cost of paying.

When it comes to helping out the disadvantaged IMO (I certainly don't have all the answers) it's a better idea to supplement through the social safety net than just piling on to all businesses. Some of these businesses aren't going to be able to handle this.

[DonDadda59]

I'm not necessarily against this but it's potentially a tough thing to put a minimum wage on a whole state. There are many businesses that were going to fail anyway and I wonder how this law will increase their number. I also wonder if the economy of California is uniform enough that $15 per is the right number for the whole state. And are they enacting any other measures to maybe help out those businesses that can't bare the burden of paying all of their employees that amount? A minimum wage is a noble idea in theory but I wonder how much three economics of it have been worked out or if it's just a number that they came up with just considering the cost of living but not fully examining the cost of paying.

When it comes to helping out the disadvantaged IMO (I certainly don't have all the answers) it's a better idea to supplement through the social safety net than just piling on to all businesses. Some of these businesses aren't going to be able to handle this.

That's what I wondered about. I'm sure mega corporations like McDonald's or Wall Mart can easily afford to do it, but what about small businesses?

The info coming from Seattle's wage increase is mixed. Don't know what the effects will be statewide. Governor Como in NY is also pushing for a Statewide $15 minimum.

[sammichoffate]

I'm not necessarily against this but it's potentially a tough thing to put a minimum wage on a whole state. There are many businesses that were going to fail anyway and I wonder how this law will increase their number. I also wonder if the economy of California is uniform enough that $15 per is the right number for the whole state. And are they enacting any other measures to maybe help out those businesses that can't bare the burden of paying all of their employees that amount? A minimum wage is a noble idea in theory but I wonder how much three economics of it have been worked out or if it's just a number that they came up with just considering the cost of living but not fully examining the cost of paying.

When it comes to helping out the disadvantaged IMO (I certainly don't have all the answers) it's a better idea to supplement through the social safety net than just piling on to all businesses. Some of these businesses aren't going to be able to handle this.Everyone complains how the social safety net is a failure anyways, might as well account for inflation since the minimum wage hasn't kept up for a while. It'll be a bit messy for a few years though, small businesses will take the brunt of it at first. I wonder if they'll be able to incorporate something into the law to help them out too. Certain economic schools of thought emphasize individual rights/benefits within the economy rather than firms for optimal growth, so it really can be argued either way on how this will end up.

[NumberSix]

Over/under on number of businesses that leave California?

[Im Still Ballin]

How does this affect social tip rate mannerisms ?

[ArbitraryWater]

10 to 15 just like that? :oldlol:

Did they even calculate it or just went for a sweet number?!

[ALBballer]

So it's incremental increases over 7 years. I don't think this is necessarily the best thing but I understand the idea of forcing big businesses to cut into their profits and provide their workers with a "liveable" wage but the small and mid-size companies will be hit the hardest. Like people have mentioned, the fortune 500 companies with profits in the billions won't be effected. They will simply take a small hit, look to automation and/or offshoring jobs. The small and mid-size businesses won't be able to compete and in the very least they will move their company to a neighboring state and not have to deal with the increases.

I wish the government would cut down social welfare programs if they are going to increase the minimum wage or lower tax rates for corporations. California just introduced their version of EITC and between that and other social welfare programs it creates an incentive for low-income workers to work less hours at a higher rate and still keep their benefits.

[Akrazotile]

Thread headline says "California raises minimum wage"

Article says agreement has been reached on a proposed bill to raise minimum wage, part of a measure that already stalled once in the legislature last year.

:confusedshrug:

[Dresta]

Over/under on number of businesses that leave California?
Some, but most will just end up looking like this (when I was recently in London I went to what used to be my local McDonalds and it was filled with machines with only like 2 people working there :lol):

http://static1.squarespace.com/static/5389bff7e4b0a4356c05b3c4/t/5500070de4b08d793d13b288/1426065176272/IMG_9587.jpg

In Florida they still have loads of people getting paid just to pack bags. Who's gonna pay $15 an hour for people to do something the customer does themselves most places in the world?

[tmacattack33]

Thread headline says "California raises minimum wage"

Article says agreement has been reached on a proposed bill to raise minimum wage, part of a measure that already stalled once in the legislature last year.

:confusedshrug:


Word

[bdreason]

Minimum wage is already $15+ in many areas of California. Realistically minimum wage should increase by 2-3% every year to off set inflation.

I understand the concern for smaller mom&pop shops with small margins, but these businesses don't compete on price anyways. They compete with quality and customer service, and should have no problem absorbing wage cost with price increases.

[HitandRun Reggie]

Mexico dancing for joy. At least 10% of California'a workforce are illegals, not to mention all the legal immigrants who have work permits, or permanent residents. That's a lot more cash that's going to be sent back to Mexico and Central America.

[BigNBAfan]

Notice the minorities in the picture

[Akrazotile]

Can someone explain to me why the dollar amount matters in a minimum wage? Prices will adjust accordingly, pay scales will adjust accordingly... The minimum wage in China is 18 RMBY an hour.

Germany only instituted a minimum wage last year for political reasons, before that they didnt even have one and had Europe's healthiest economy.

This doesnt actually make entry level jobs more valuable in the long run. It basically just fudges the numbers in the short run. And devalues the dollar.

The problem is how many people are dumb enough to be made happy by token measures like this.

Politicians stay winning. Idiot left stays :facepalm

[bdreason]

Mexico dancing for joy. At least 10% of California'a workforce are illegals, not to mention all the legal immigrants who have work permits, or permanent residents. That's a lot more cash that's going to be sent back to Mexico and Central America.

If they're being hired illegally they aren't going to make $15 an hour, or what's the point of hiring illegals? If they have a work permit, then they're paying taxes, so why does it matter what they do with their disposable income?

There are definitely issues with illegal immigration, but minimum wage isn't one of them.

[Akrazotile]

If they're being hired illegally they aren't going to make $15 an hour, or what's the point of hiring illegals? If they have a work permit, then they're paying taxes, so why does it matter what they do with their disposable income?

There are definitely issues with illegal immigration, but minimum wage isn't one of them.


Well laws like this only encourage more people to hire cheap illegal labor. In fact, because this measure will devalue the dollar in the long run, it will actually be even more beneficial to pay a guy 5 bucks an hour next year than it was this year. So people who use illegal labor will gain from this measure.

So while it doesn't necessarily increase wages for illegals, it definitely will provide a lot more work in California for them.

[kNIOKAS]

yay! more jobs and business opening up in California! Plus, people able to afford more with the pay raise. Good stuff for California.

[HitandRun Reggie]

If they're being hired illegally they aren't going to make $15 an hour, or what's the point of hiring illegals? If they have a work permit, then they're paying taxes, so why does it matter what they do with their disposable income?

There are definitely issues with illegal immigration, but minimum wage isn't one of them.

Most illegals aren't payed cash, they are are on payroll using false social security #s or fraudulent/expired work visas. E-Verify is not required in California for most jobs, and even that isn't fool proof. Illegals, also have the benefit of being able to switch ss#s so they can collect unemployment while working under another #.

[Akrazotile]

Most illegals aren't payed cash, they are are on payroll using false social security #s or fraudulent/expired work visas. E-Verify is not required in California for most jobs, and even that isn't fool proof. Illegals, also have the benefit of being able to switch ss#s so they can collect unemployment while working under another #.


Good points.

[Akrazotile]

yay! more jobs and business opening up in California! Plus, people able to afford more with the pay raise. Good stuff for California.



:roll:



This guy.

[Im Still Ballin]

If only it were that simple knokias

I thought minimum wage workers made enough with tips and what not

How much does tips ad to the 10 dollar an hour rate

[NumberSix]

yay! more jobs and business opening up in California! Plus, people able to afford more with the pay raise. Good stuff for California.
Lol. I had my suspicions that you were a right winger doing a satirical impression of an idiot left winger but this post made it too obvious bro.

[NumberSix]

Minimum wage is already $15+ in many areas of California. Realistically minimum wage should increase by 2-3% every year to off set inflation.

I understand the concern for smaller mom&pop shops with small margins, but these businesses don't compete on price anyways. They compete with quality and customer service, and should have no problem absorbing wage cost with price increases.
Why should there be any minimum wage at all?

[kNIOKAS]

If only it were that simple knokias

I thought minimum wage workers made enough with tips and what not

How much does tips ad to the 10 dollar an hour rate
It's pretty simple and straightforward. The increase in the buying power of the most numerous population (aka undercompensated poor) will increase the economy, jobs and business gains. Economy 101

[Real Men Wear Green]

Everyone complains how the social safety net is a failure anyways, might as well account for inflation since the minimum wage hasn't kept up for a while. It'll be a bit messy for a few years though, small businesses will take the brunt of it at first. I wonder if they'll be able to incorporate something into the law to help them out too. Certain economic schools of thought emphasize individual rights/benefits within the economy rather than firms for optimal growth, so it really can be argued either way on how this will end up.
Providing aid through programs like subsidized housing and food stamps puts the burden on tax revenue, and ideally (which I know is not reality) taxes are based on what everyone can afford to contribute. Putting this all on business indiscriminately will hurt the smaller and weaker businesses, pushing businesses that were on the edge over the edge. That's more important than whatever PR backlash is attached to welfare.

[falc39]

Some, but most will just end up looking like this (when I was recently in London I went to what used to be my local McDonalds and it was filled with machines with only like 2 people working there :lol):

In Florida they still have loads of people getting paid just to pack bags. Who's gonna pay $15 an hour for people to do something the customer does themselves most places in the world?

Reminds me of this article I just read a week ago.

http://www.businessinsider.com/carls-jr-wants-open-automated-location-2016-3

[QUOTE]"With government driving up the cost of labor, it's driving down the number of jobs," he says. "You're going to see automation not just in airports and grocery stores, but in restaurants."

Puzder has been an outspoken advocate against raising the minimum wage, writing two op-eds for The Wall Street Journal on how a higher minimum wage would lead to reduced employment opportunities.

"This is the problem with Bernie Sanders, and Hillary Clinton, and progressives who push very hard to raise the minimum wage," says Puzder. "Does it really help if Sally makes $3 more an hour if Suzie has no job?"

As a result, he and others in the fast-food business are investing big in automation.

"If you're making labor more expensive, and automation less expensive

[HitandRun Reggie]

It's pretty simple and straightforward. The increase in the buying power of the most numerous population (aka undercompensated poor) will increase the economy, jobs and business gains. Economy 101

$30/hour then. All hail the savior of our economy! :bowdown:

[Real Men Wear Green]

It's pretty simple and straightforward. The increase in the buying power of the most numerous population (aka undercompensated poor) will increase the economy, jobs and business gains. Economy 101
I'm certainly not on the side of the guy you're arguing with but things don't work as straightforward as you're saying here. Poor people do spend more of what they earn but generally they're going to spend that money as frugally as they can. That means shopping at the big chains that sell things cheaply like Wal-Mart, Stop & Shop, etc., not the family-owned convenience store that will struggle to find their $15/hr.

[kNIOKAS]

$30/hour then. All hail the savior of our economy! :bowdown:
That would likely cause more disruption yet be equally effective in the long run. I don't think that's preferable.:no:


I'm certainly not on the side of the guy you're arguing with but things don't work as straightforward as you're saying here. Poor people do spend more of what they earn but generally they're going to spend that money as frugally as they can. That means shopping at the big chains that sell things cheaply like Wal-Mart, Stop & Shop, etc., not the family-owned convenience store that will struggle to find their $15/hr.
Where are they spending their less-than-$15 now?? In family-owned convenience stores?

[Akrazotile]

It's pretty simple and straightforward. The increase in the buying power of the most numerous population (aka undercompensated poor) will increase the economy, jobs and business gains. Economy 101



:roll:

[Im Still Ballin]

Somebody please tell me how much the average minimum wage worker makes on tips?

I always thought tipping was weird/stupid?

[falc39]

This raise is peanuts here in Silicon Valley. Wont do anything to help slow down the inevitable gentrification process. The problem with housing here is supply and the government regulations limiting that supply (especially in San Francisco).

[Real Men Wear Green]

Where are they spending their less-than-$15 now?? In family-owned convenience stores?
Of course they're still looking for bargains. But if you make the struggling convenience store owner pay more they have to raise their prices to make ends meet. Meanwhile the big corporations keep the same prices while having their big weekly sales on various items to make some prices even lower. Thus the small businesses will often end up selling even less product while having to pay employees more money. So then they have to figure out a way to balance the books. And how do they do that? Pretty much they have to find somewhere else to do business, let go of some of the employees they can't afford, go out of business entirely, or sell their business to someone that can afford to operate it, like the chains that can afford the raise in minimum wage.

We can't just throw random minimum wage numbers out there and shrug off the possible effects saying that the market will compensate. I mean, it will compensate but the form of that compensation isn't necessarily what you're expecting. If you're going to make provisions for the less fortunate the social safety net is the better route.

[Im Still Ballin]

Akrazotile and RMWG in the same thread

SHOWDOWN!

[Real Men Wear Green]

Somebody please tell me how much the average minimum wage worker makes on tips?

I always thought tipping was weird/stupid?
You don't really know anything about how this works. The guy stocking shelves in Target, whether he makes minimum wage or not (not sure), never gets tipped at all. The cup at the counter of the Dunkin Donuts might accumulate $20 in a day (total guess but it's not much) for everyone that worked the day or shift to share. The waitress that brings your dinner meanwhile gets solid tip money but by law often makes less than minimum wage but is highly unlikely to report her full cash tips on her taxes for anyone to know what she's getting. Movers, barbers, and others that get tipped, whether they make minimum wage or not, will often just stick cash in their pockets. You can go by the 15% to try and guess but that is only going to be a guess on what some of these people make.

[HitandRun Reggie]

The US left would probably love to see all small business wiped out and large corporations take over. They can roll with work and environmental regulations much easier than small business, and they wouldn't have to hear SB whine about the hardship these changes bring. Unlike large corporations, small business cannot operate on razor thin profit margins.

Small business is also not an easy target for unions, which is another reason Democrats want to see them go away. But a big minimum wage increase will increase union wages overall and bankrupt many small businesses, so it's a double win for unions, which not so coincidentally enough bought and paid for the politicians to push this law through.

[Im Still Ballin]

Ah I get it. So not all minimum wage jobs are the same. Those hooters waitresses are making bank.

[Akrazotile]

You don't really know anything about how this works. The guy stocking shelves in Target, whether he makes minimum wage or not (not sure), never gets tipped at all. The cup at the counter of the Dunkin Donuts might accumulate $20 in a day (total guess but it's not much) for everyone that worked the day or shift to share. The waitress that brings your dinner meanwhile gets solid tip money but by law often makes less than minimum wage but is highly unlikely to report her full cash tips on her taxes for anyone to know what she's getting. Movers, barbers, and others that get tipped, whether they make minimum wage or not, will often just stick cash in their pockets. You can go by the 15% to try and guess but that is only going to be a guess on what some of these people make.



The irony. :lol


In California it's illegal for employers to count tips toward minimum wage. Employees in the state all make minimum wage, plus whatever tips they accumulate.

[Im Still Ballin]

What so the best minimum wage jobs are ones that are in direct contact with customers for potential tip bonus

[Im Still Ballin]

I never got the whole tip thing. What's the founding father constitutional philosophy on this?

[Real Men Wear Green]

The irony. :lol


In California it's illegal for employers to count tips toward minimum wage. Employees in the state all make minimum wage, plus whatever tips they accumulate.I am discussing the overall subject of minimum wage, not just California. The federal minimum wage for tipped employees is $2.13, well below the norm.

[Uncle Drew]

Congratulations on the pay raise
:oldlol:

[Funktion]

$10 to $15 by 2022 and still has a lot of hurdles to pass. That said California is expensive as shit to live, even in the once affordable Central Valley. In 1998 I rented my first place a 2 bedroom for 900mth. In 2005 it was 1400/mth. Now its over 2100/mth.

[kNIOKAS]

Of course they're still looking for bargains. But if you make the struggling convenience store owner pay more they have to raise their prices to make ends meet. Meanwhile the big corporations keep the same prices while having their big weekly sales on various items to make some prices even lower. Thus the small businesses will often end up selling even less product while having to pay employees more money. So then they have to figure out a way to balance the books. And how do they do that? Pretty much they have to find somewhere else to do business, let go of some of the employees they can't afford, go out of business entirely, or sell their business to someone that can afford to operate it, like the chains that can afford the raise in minimum wage.

We can't just throw random minimum wage numbers out there and shrug off the possible effects saying that the market will compensate. I mean, it will compensate but the form of that compensation isn't necessarily what you're expecting. If you're going to make provisions for the less fortunate the social safety net is the better route.
This is a very faulty thinking, where the policy to back up the regular poor people somewhat gets perceived to be a policy against small business. If anything, small business has to gain from the very poor becoming less poor, because they are getting new customers this way.

The industry is very highly rigged in favour of big corporations. One of the moves to counter this is to make those corporations pay bigger wages, so their workers can get what they're worth, increase their well being and have more options where to spend their money, and how much of it save up.

Shielding the corporations of this step via a hostage in small business is misguided, because there are a number of policies that directly creates the benefits for the big corporations and disadvantages small business. It's hypocritical to keep the lower class of people impoverished because the small business is somehow an asset in itself - it's not, quite the opposite - the small business are meant to keep the middle class sizeable and strong.

What you're suggesting that with the minimum wage increased, the big corporations will see no effect in their profits or prices, yet the minimum workers who will be compensated better would still be inclined in getting the cheapest goods from those very big corporations they are getting it from now. Which makes me ask - how in the hell with this extra money they would still be spending the same money on the same things? Are you insinuating the poor are living on half rations now, and with this extra money they could only up it to full rations from Walmart?

[Im Still Ballin]

$10 to $15 by 2022 and still has a lot of hurdles to pass. That said California is expensive as shit to live, even in the once affordable Central Valley. In 1998 I rented my first place a 2 bedroom for 900mth. In 2005 it was 1400/mth. Now its over 2100/mth.
That dollar ain't what it used to be

[Akrazotile]

This is a very faulty thinking, where the policy to back up the regular poor people somewhat gets perceived to be a policy against small business. If anything, small business has to gain from the very poor becoming less poor, because they are getting new customers this way.

The industry is very highly rigged in favour of big corporations. One of the moves to counter this is to make those corporations pay bigger wages, so their workers can get what they're worth, increase their well being and have more options where to spend their money, and how much of it save up.

Shielding the corporations of this step via a hostage in small business is misguided, because there are a number of policies that directly creates the benefits for the big corporations and disadvantages small business. It's hypocritical to keep the lower class of people impoverished because the small business is somehow an asset in itself - it's not, quite the opposite - the small business are meant to keep the middle class sizeable and strong.

What you're suggesting that with the minimum wage increased, the big corporations will see no effect in their profits or prices, yet the minimum workers who will be compensated better would still be inclined in getting the cheapest goods from those very big corporations they are getting it from now. Which makes me ask - how in the hell with this extra money they would still be spending the same money on the same things? Are you insinuating the poor are living on half rations now, and with this extra money they could only up it to full rations from Walmart?

Ugh. You stupid animal.

Wages will go up across the board because of this. You can't pay a register worker the same as the manager who has much more responsibility. Right now it's managers making $15/hr at McDonalds. Now they're gonna have to make $30 an hour. Otherwise nobody will want the extra responsibility and there will be no managers. It's call supply and demand, dumbshit.

So now when the managers, who may shop at some small businesses here and there currently, have an 'increase' in disposable income, small businesses are simply going to raise their prices so they can make more off that manager's business. And thus the register worker still won't be able to afford it.

THat's how life works you stupid fukk. THe more you earn COMPARATIVELY, the more you can afford COMPARATIVELY. This does not change the social heirarchy. Mangers are still in more demand than button-pushers, and thus they'll earn more, and the market will adjust accordingly.

You are literally a dumb, brainless piece of shit. You are arguing based on a fantasy of how you want the world to be instead of acknowledging how it actually is. You stupid hog.

[Akrazotile]

I swear to God if I hear one more liberal criticize religion for "not being realistic"....


Liberals whole world view is based on not being realistic.


I honestly am beginning to think the Noah's Ark story has a stronger tinge of reality than the average left-wing economic ideology.

[falc39]

It's pretty simple and straightforward. The increase in the buying power of the most numerous population (aka undercompensated poor) will increase the economy, jobs and business gains. Economy 101

It's really not that simple at all...

http://www.investors.com/news/economy/hiring-slowed-where-minimum-wage-surged-in-2015/

[kNIOKAS]

Ugh. You stupid animal.

Wages will go up across the board because of this. You can't pay a register worker the same as the manager who has much more responsibility. Right now it's managers making $15/hr at McDonalds. Now they're gonna have to make $30 an hour. Otherwise nobody will want the extra responsibility and there will be no managers. It's call supply and demand, dumbshit.
:roll:

lets not raise the minimum wage because we'd be out of managers. Imagine if we raised the minimum wage even more - CEOs will die off like dinosaurs! Lets keep our doctors, engineers and presidents, because if we raised the minimum wage all the people would merely work in fast food restaurants.
:applause:


So now when the managers, who may shop at some small businesses here and there currently, have an 'increase' in disposable income, small businesses are simply going to raise their prices so they can make more off that manager's business. And thus the register worker still won't be able to afford it.

So the small business exist solely to be the shopping places for managers, and since we already found out by increasing the minimum wage we're actually getting rid of managers, we'd then be getting rid of small business at the same breath. Good riddance, I'd say.


THat's how life works you stupid fukk. THe more you earn COMPARATIVELY, the more you can afford COMPARATIVELY. This does not change the social heirarchy. Mangers are still in more demand than button-pushers, and thus they'll earn more, and the market will adjust accordingly.

You are literally a dumb, brainless piece of shit. You are arguing based on a fantasy of how you want the world to be instead of acknowledging how it actually is. You stupid hog.

:lol This works well with your first paragraph

[Real Men Wear Green]

This is a very faulty thinking, where the policy to back up the regular poor people somewhat gets perceived to be a policy against small business. If anything, small business has to gain from the very poor becoming less poor, because they are getting new customers this way.The faulty thinking here is the idea that you can be sure where people will be spending money. Someone on a smaller budget is more likely to seek bargains and it is the corporations that are more likely to offer those bargains, not the small business. Here's how big deals often work: Stop and Shop tells Coca-Cola's corporate office, "We'll buy 10 million bottles of your 2 liter if you sell them to us for 30 cents each." Then they put them on their shelves for $1.50 a bottle, $1 on sale weeks. The Mom and Pop store on the other hand calls up the local coke distributor, offers to buy 200 bottles this week, pays $1 a bottle and then puts it on their shelves for $2.50. That's not exactly what they pay of course, I'm not privy to exact figures and negotiations, just outlining how it works: The more you can buy, the less you have to pay per item. And then when you add to what employees have to be paid, who will have an easier time absorbing these added costs: The large conglomerate with billions in the bank or the shop owner that maybe has a few thousand banked in savings and a retirement fund?


The industry is very highly rigged in favour of big corporations. One of the moves to counter this is to make those corporations pay bigger wages, so their workers can get what they're worth, increase their well being and have more options where to spend their money, and how much of it save up. And a higher minimum wage can have the adverse effect of further rigging, as just outlined. I am not completely against raises to the minimum but the number "15" seems a bit arbitrary to me. It may have been based on getting to a living wage, but did anyone take a look at the books of the local convenience store owner to see how well he/she can afford it? This is why I am on the side of strengthening the social safety net, if that is what is called for, instead of just raising the minimum wage without considering who can and can't afford it.


Shielding the corporations of this step via a hostage in small business is misguided, because there are a number of policies that directly creates the benefits for the big corporations and disadvantages small business. It's hypocritical to keep the lower class of people impoverished because the small business is somehow an asset in itself - it's not, quite the opposite - the small business are meant to keep the middle class sizeable and strong.And what is being done for the small business? This paragraph isn't even making sense. It is a fact that a higher minimum wage will add to the budget of a number of small businesses. And what do we do to make up for that? Turning tothe social safety net is the better option.


What you're suggesting that with the minimum wage increased, the big corporations will see no effect in their profits or prices, yet the minimum workers who will be compensated better would still be inclined in getting the cheapest goods from those very big corporations they are getting it from now. Which makes me ask - how in the hell with this extra money they would still be spending the same money on the same things? Are you insinuating the poor are living on half rations now, and with this extra money they could only up it to full rations from Walmart?
There are people out there in America today living off of dog food. You can buy ramen at a rate of 6 packs for a dollar and one or two packs makes a (fairly unhealthy) meal. You may not know this but when it comes to the very poor people make tough choices to survive. Now a single man working 40+ hours at $15/hr is probably living ok in most parts of Cali but I bet a single mother of 3 would be struggling mightily on the same pay even if she lived in a part of Cali that was relatively cheap. In some cases this minimum wage increase might not even be enough, and then we have the issue of the negative effects it may have on their employer. Which is again why I am more for making the social safety net stronger if needed instead of putting this added burden on business regardless of that business's assets.

The tax code is progressive for a reason: Even Republicans recognize that wealthier people should pay more into the system because they can better afford to. A blanket minimum wage increase is not progressive as it does not take a business's ability to pay into account.

[kNIOKAS]

It's really not that simple at all...

http://www.investors.com/news/economy/hiring-slowed-where-minimum-wage-surged-in-2015/
From the article:
[QUOTE]A slowdown in job growth can fly below the radar, at least for those who aren

[NumberSix]

Why do people think that the government should be engineering the market?

[Akrazotile]

:roll:

lets not raise the minimum wage because we'd be out of managers. Imagine if we raised the minimum wage even more - CEOs will die off like dinosaurs! Lets keep our doctors, engineers and presidents, because if we raised the minimum wage all the people would merely work in fast food restaurants.
:applause:


So the small business exist solely to be the shopping places for managers, and since we already found out by increasing the minimum wage we're actually getting rid of managers, we'd then be getting rid of small business at the same breath. Good riddance, I'd say.



:lol This works well with your first paragraph



Holy shit. :roll:

There are others on this board as dumb as you are, but I dont think anyone else flaunts it quite so belligerently.

Congrats, g :cheers:

[knickballer]

I want to get behind these minimum wage increases but my brain is telling me that this will only benefit big corporations who'll hire much less and automate most of their jobs. Leading them to receive even bigger profits...

To me it's also a cheap & easy fix by politicians to try and fight the inequality issue and appease the masses. Instead of doing things like forcing multinational corporations to pay their taxes, forcing them to not outsource every job, not giving them tax incentives, etc, they're taking a quick fix. Instead of finding ways to prevent the disappearance of the middle class they just have a quick fix like this that gives people the notion like they really care about you.

[warriorfan]

akrazotile is white trash

[Akrazotile]

I want to get behind these minimum wage increases but my brain is telling me that this will only benefit big corporations who'll hire much less and automate most of their jobs. Leading them to receive even bigger profits...

To me it's also a cheap & easy fix by politicians to try and fight the inequality issue and appease the masses. Instead of doing things like forcing multinational corporations to pay their taxes, forcing them to not outsource every job, not giving them tax incentives, etc, they're taking a quick fix. Instead of finding ways to prevent the disappearance of the middle class they just have a quick fix like this that gives people the notion like they really care about you.


It's simply lipstick on a pig, and the sjw dummies fall for it hook, line, and stinker.

[97 bulls]

All raising the minimum wage will do, is stimulate the economy. What do you think the individuals that get thus raise are gonna do with the extra money????

[TomCat]

All raising the minimum wage will do, is stimulate the economy. What do you think the individuals that get thus raise are gonna do with the extra money????

Do you really think that? If so, you are a liberal

[Hawker]

All raising the minimum wage will do, is stimulate the economy. What do you think the individuals that get thus raise are gonna do with the extra money????

Be as broke as they were prior to the minimum wage and then bitch again about the min wage being too low.

OR

Save their money.

[97 bulls]

Do you really think that? If so, you are a liberal
How does acknowledging what is gonna happen being a liberal? All I'm saying is the doom and gloom you guys are preaching just isn't true

[97 bulls]

Be as broke as they were prior to the minimum wage and then bitch again about the min wage being too low.

OR

Save their money.
Lol. Definitely not save it. Broke? Probably. The more you make, the more you spend. My point is that the money is gonna be spent.

[NumberSix]

Lol. Definitely not save it. Broke? Probably. The more you make, the more you spend. My point is that the money is gonna be spent.
So?

[ArbitraryWater]

So?

:oldlol: thats what I was thinking.. dont get the point

[Kvnzhangyay]

Do you really think that? If so, you are a liberal

Not necessarily true

Even IF raising the minimum wage increased the unemployment, most of the people losing the jobs would be teenagers

Although I still think gov. wage subsidies are the way to go

[97 bulls]

So?
What do you mean so?

[Dresta]

Why do people think economic development and a robust economy is predicated on people spending money on mere consumption? In what world are you people living? Savings and investment have always been the backbone of a thriving economy. Most indebted nation in the world; advice of stupid economists: "spend more money! rack up more debt.! Spend, spend, spend your way to prosperity!!"

It's so counterintuitive that i'm amazed so many people buy it; and it's really cruel, because it caters to and encourages the worst aspects of human nature (materialism, consumer-culture, the need for more and more stuff, which is a condition that is never fulfilled, and always aggravates itself, as people grasp for more and more, never being satisfied with what they have). This style of living has always been a sign of decadence, and preceded the downfall and inner erosion of all great empires. Randolph warned of it in Congress during the great debates regarding the establishment of the Bank:


The proposal to establish this great bank, is but a crutch, and, so far as I understand it, it is a broken one; it will tend instead of remedying the evil to aggravate it. The evil of the times is a spirit engendered in this republic, fatal to republican principles—fatal to republican virtue: a spirit to live by any means but those of honest industry; a spirit of profusion: in other words, the spirit of Catiline himself— alieni avidus, sui profusus —a spirit of expediency, not only in public but in private life: the system of Didler in the farce—living any way and well; wearing an expensive coat, and drinking the finest wines, at any body's expense. This bank, I imagine, sir, is, to a certain extent, a modification of the same system. Connected, as it is to be, with the Government, whenever it goes into operation, a scene will be exhibited on the great theatre of the United States, at which I shudder. If we mean to transmit our institutions unimpaired to posterity; if some, now living, wish to continue to live under the same institutions by which they are now ruled—and with all its evils, real or imaginary, I presume no man will question that we live under the easiest government on the globe—we must put bounds to the spirit which seeks wealth by every path but the plain and regular path of honest industry and honest fame.

Let us not disguise the fact, sir, we think we are living in the better times of the Republic. We deceive ourselves; we are almost in the days of Sylla and Marius: yes, we have almost got down to the time of Jugurtha. It is unpleasant to put one's self in array against a great leading interest in a community, be they a knot of land speculators, paper jobbers, or what not: but, sir, every man you meet in this House or out of it, with some rare exceptions, which only serve to prove the rule, is either a stockholder, president, cashier, clerk, or doorkeeper, runner, engraver, paper-maker, or mechanic, in some way or other, to a bank.

There are very few who dare to speak truth to this mammoth. The banks are so linked together with the business of the world that there are very few men exempt from their influence. The true secret is, the banks are creditors as well as debtors; and, if we were merely debtors to them for the paper in our pockets, they would soon, like Morris & Nicholson, go to jail (figuratively speaking) for having issued more paper than they were able to pay when presented to them. A man has their note for $50.00, perhaps, in his pocket, for which he wants fifty Spanish milled dollars; but they have his note for five thousand in their possession and laugh at his demand. . . .

The stuff uttered on all hands, and absolutely got by rote by the haberdasher's boys behind the counters in the shops, that the paper now in circulation will buy anything you want as well as gold and silver, is answered by saying that you want to buy silver with it. The present mode of banking goes to demoralize society; it is as much swindling to issue notes with intent not to pay as it is burglary to break open a house. If they are unable to pay, the banks are bankrupts; if able to pay, and will not, they are fraudulent bankrupts; but a man might as well go to Constantinople to preach Christianity as to get up here and preach against the banks.

Nobody listened, and we live with the consequences. Consequences that some imbeciles can think are rectifiable by a simple increase of the minimum wage, a "stimulation of demand" :facepalm


Just look at kNIOKAS, talking about "Economics 101" when he doesn't even get supply and demand, the most basic of economic concepts.

[dkmwise]

Any wage increase like this needs to coincide with different type of welfare benefits being cut since people are now making more. But more importantly needs to coincide with strict enforcement of illegal aliens. This is just giving employers even more reason to hire illegal aliens and exploit them by paying only a few dollars an hour.


I'm not against having or even raising a minimum wage, but people need to realize that there will always be a bottom tear to society. If all the wages at the bottom go up but not the middle class, all that is going to do is decrease the buying power of the $ and make people's nice middle class salaries actually feel like they are getting less because now they can buy less.

[dkmwise]

$10 to $15 by 2022 and still has a lot of hurdles to pass.


that's a good thing to point out, I didn't notice in the initial story that it was over the next 6 years. $10-15 jump in one year would be hard to handle, more gradual like that isn't as bad

[97 bulls]

Why do people think economic development and a robust economy is predicated on people spending money on mere consumption? In what world are you people living? Savings and investment have always been the backbone of a thriving economy. Most indebted nation in the world; advice of stupid economists: "spend more money! rack up more debt.! Spend, spend, spend your way to prosperity!!"

It's so counterintuitive that i'm amazed so many people buy it; and it's really cruel, because it caters to and encourages the worst aspects of human nature (materialism, consumer-culture, the need for more and more stuff, which is a condition that is never fulfilled, and always aggravates itself, as people grasp for more and more, never being satisfied with what they have). This style of living has always been a sign of decadence, and preceded the downfall and inner erosion of all great empires. Randolph warned of it in Congress during the great debates regarding the establishment of the Bank:



Nobody listened, and we live with the consequences. Consequences that some imbeciles can think are rectifiable by a simple increase of the minimum wage, a "stimulation of demand" :facepalm


Just look at kNIOKAS, talking about "Economics 101" when he doesn't even get supply and demand, the most basic of economic concepts.
I'm not sure you understand the concept of supply and demand. The argument you are trying to make would lead me to believe there's gonna be some kind of hole if minimum wage increases. Where is the hole?

In your first paragraph, you alluded to the success of an economy being saving and consumption. Why do people save???? It's Because in the event of an emergency, HAVE MONEY TO SPEND!!!!!

[Blue&Orange]

The industry is very highly rigged in favour of big corporations. One of the moves to counter this is to make those corporations pay bigger wages, so their workers can get what they're worth, increase their well being and have more options where to spend their money, and how much of it save up.

Enforce a salary ratio between the lowest and the highest salary. CEO's are getting ludicrous wages, that absolutely don't represent their worth, at the cost of the people that actually make their corporations successful.


Shielding the corporations of this step via a hostage in small business is misguided, because there are a number of policies that directly creates the benefits for the big corporations and disadvantages small business. It's hypocritical to keep the lower class of people impoverished because the small business is somehow an asset in itself - it's not, quite the opposite - the small business are meant to keep the middle class sizeable and strong.

How do you think apple makes 10x more money and pays 10x less taxes compared with a few years ago. They can always pay less in Holland or Ireland. :rolleyes: And US takes it like a bitch.

[Blue&Orange]

Someday someone might be able to explain how not spending it's good for economy. Seriously. :rolleyes:

Normally it's the "oh if we put the money in the bank, companies will use it to grow"... Yeah grow for what, if nobody buying? :hammerhead:


Right, decide to put up with my malfunctioning vacuum for another 5 years is really better for the economy than buying another vacuum cleaner. :banghead:


The problem with small businesses is that the people that fed those small businesses are getting poor and poor, because a half dozen of people are hording all the money, and keep it on off shores and whatnots or spending in something ridiculous overpriced in niche businesses.

[DonDadda59]

All raising the minimum wage will do, is stimulate the economy. What do you think the individuals that get thus raise are gonna do with the extra money????

Stash it away in the Cayman Islands and the Bahamas? :confusedshrug:

If I'm not mistaken, Consumer spending makes up 70% of the GDP. More spending power and consumer confidence is a great thing for the economy. Wages have not kept up with inflation for too long.

[NumberSix]

I'm not sure you understand the concept of supply and demand. The argument you are trying to make would lead me to believe there's gonna be some kind of hole if minimum wage increases. Where is the hole?

In your first paragraph, you alluded to the success of an economy being saving and consumption. Why do people save???? It's Because in the event of an emergency, HAVE MONEY TO SPEND!!!!!
No, not at all. You've got it all wrong. People save money to MAKE money.

I know that in your mind it sounds great to have all the money out in the market changing hands from day to day. That would cause the greatest depression in history.

How the hell would anybody get a loan from a bank? Where do you think that money comes from? That's money that people have saved up. And people who have a lot of money saved up can afford to put their money in long term, high interest plans. With that money secured, banks can loan people money for mortgages, car payments, business loans, etc... Without that money, most people are completely fcuked. Most people don't have enough money laying around to buy those things cash down.

I know you lefties hate "wealth inequality" but without the very wealthy, there's nobody to invest.

[97 bulls]

Stash it away in the Cayman Islands and the Bahamas? :confusedshrug:
Lol. Preach
If I'm not mistaken, Consumer spending makes up 70% of the GDP. More spending power and consumer confidence is a great thing for the economy. Wages have not kept up with inflation for too long.[/QUOTE]
Exactly.

[Blue&Orange]

No, not at all. You've got it all wrong. People save money to MAKE money.

I know that in your mind it sounds great to have all the money out in the market changing hands from day to day. That would cause the greatest depression in history.

How the hell would anybody get a loan from a bank? Where do you think that money comes from? That's money that people have saved up. And people who have a lot of money saved up can afford to put their money in long term, high interest plans. With that money secured, banks can loan people money for mortgages, car payments, business loans, etc... Without that money, most people are completely fcuked. Most people don't have enough money laying around to buy those things cash down.

I know you lefties hate "wealth inequality" but without the very wealthy, there's nobody to invest.
So rich people are putting their money in the bank so that they can make money with poor people getting themselfs on debt to buy things they can't afford. :applause:

Yep, step 1, pay less to Joe, step 2 borrow money to Joe so that you can get a piece of the less you payed. :applause:

Like i said in the post before, really great for the economy, half a dozen people hording all the money :applause:

How about those rich people paying their employees better so that they don't need to borrow?

[Blue&Orange]

Lol. Preach
If I'm not mistaken, Consumer spending makes up 70% of the GDP. More spending power and consumer confidence is a great thing for the economy. Wages have not kept up with inflation for too long.
Exactly.[/QUOTE]
Spending good for economy, saving good for you.

[97 bulls]

No, not at all. You've got it all wrong. People save money to MAKE money.

I know that in your mind it sounds great to have all the money out in the market changing hands from day to day. That would cause the greatest depression in history.

How the hell would anybody get a loan from a bank? Where do you think that money comes from? That's money that people have saved up. And people who have a lot of money saved up can afford to put their money in long term, high interest plans. With that money secured, banks can loan people money for mortgages, car payments, business loans, etc... Without that money, most people are completely fcuked. Most people don't have enough money laying around to buy those things cash down.

I know you lefties hate "wealth inequality" but without the very wealthy, there's nobody to invest.
I'm not referring to the wealthy. How much ROI does the avg saving account get? .3%? Before we can have a discussion, we must understand what we are discussing. The people that get minimum wage are not wealthy.

And what's with this "lefty" nonsense???? As if government backing is a bad thing. You're being a hypocrite. Why is it OK for the government (tax payers) to back these loans? Are you against cutting military spending? That's a form of socialism.

[Akrazotile]

So rich people are putting their money in the bank so that they can make money with poor people getting themselfs on debt to buy things they can't afford. :applause:

Yep, step 1, pay less to Joe, step 2 borrow money to Joe so that you can get a piece of the less you payed. :applause:

Like i said in the post before, really great for the economy, half a dozen people hording all the money :applause:

How about those rich people paying their employees better so that they don't need to borrow?


This dummy, as usual, doesnt get it.

The number doesnt matter. Chinese minimum wage is 18 Chinese dollars an hour.

If the average number of dollars made by an entry level job earner increases (and other paygrades increase proportionally) then the average price of goods that entry level consumers buy will go up as well.

Dinner at Applebees isnt priced at $12 because it is objectively $12 worth of food in a vaccuum. It is priced that way because that's the sweet spot for them where they can have the highest price without deterring their target income-level customer. Which is not those Americans barely scraping by. If income levels rise, prices will rise so that whatever class of people is currently able to buy a given thing today, will also be the ones buying it after inflation.

People working register at McDonalds are not suddenly going to be able to afford an Audi and to drink coconut water and to buy home alarm systems etc. These things, like all things, will simply adjust to being priced for the middle class and upward to buy, whatever that dollar number happens to be. This doesnt change anything about class breakdown. It's literally a scarecrow meant to fool the idiots.


It's not about numbers, it's about proportion. In Lichtenstein, the proportion of white collar jobs to entry-level and labor jobs is much more even, thus more leverage and better pay for labor. When you have hundreds of millions of entry level and labor, buying power at that level is going to be divided up by a much greater number of people. The specific number doesnt matter, whether it's $4 or $50 an hour. It's going to be proportional to the value of the job. That's why Chinese make 18 RMBY an hour. It doesnt mean dick, bc the issue is how many workers they have.

This is a con job to make liberal idiots happy who dont understand (or refuse to believe) the issue is the amount of labor here due to immigration. "hurr, 15's duh magic number!!"


:facepalm

[Dray n Klay]

So what does this do other than increase unemployment and inflation?

[Akrazotile]

So what does this do other than increase unemployment and inflation?


It makes dumb, base, economically ignorant voters happy for a little while until they realize again in a few years that it didnt actually do anything.

But ofc by that time theyll be removed enough from this increase that they wont put 2+2 together to realize the dollar amount isnt the issue, and theyll simply bleet all over again that a new increase is the solution.

Shit would be hilarious if it werent so sad.


Dat system. Idiots on a string.

[97 bulls]

So what does this do other than increase unemployment and inflation?
I honestly don't see why it would hurt the economy if the people getting the raise don't hoard it and actually put it back into the economy. Which is exactly what's gonna happen. There's a yin and yang effect here. Employee gets a raise, he takes the extra money and buys more clothes which means the clothing stores get more money, spends more on restaurants which mean the restaurants make more money, the very people that thus helps are gonna spend more in Walmart and Targets which mean they will make more. Theses business make more money and they will be able to absorb the increase.

[97 bulls]

It makes dumb, base, economically ignorant voters happy for a little while until they realize again in a few years that it didnt actually do anything.

But ofc by that time theyll be removed enough from this increase that they wont put 2+2 together to realize the dollar amount isnt the issue, and theyll simply bleet all over again that a new increase is the solution.

Shit would be hilarious if it werent so sad.


Dat system. Idiots on a string.
I see what you're saying and I agree. It's just a stimulus package. It's means more taxes to the government. But this wouldn't be an issue if the whole "trickle down economic" theory actually worked. The fact is that employers don't pass a portion of the profit increases to the employees. And before you try to say then everyone should run their own business, think about how that effects small business overall. How can they expand? It's like you guys are only seeing one side of the coin here.

[DonDadda59]

I honestly don't see why it would hurt the economy if the people getting the raise don't hoard it and actually put it back into the economy. Which is exactly what's gonna happen. There's a yin and yang effect here. Employee gets a raise, he takes the extra money and buys more clothes which means the clothing stores get more money, spends more on restaurants which mean the restaurants make more money, the very people that thus helps are gonna spend more in Walmart and Targets which mean they will make more. Theses business make more money and they will be able to absorb the increase.

Companies like that wouldn't feel the effects of the minimum wage rising. In fact, Wal-Mart and other companies are already independently raising wages (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/walmart-10-raise_us_56a01acde4b0404eb8f03b26). They had been under pressure from strikes and defections by their workers. They figured out it cost them more to hire/train new employees (they were losing 500K workers annually) than it did for them to just give raises.

[INDENT]Retail workers in the U.S. earned an average of $14.95 an hour in December, up 3.6% from a year earlier, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. With the raises planned for February, average hourly earnings will be $13.38 for Wal-Mart

[Akrazotile]

Companies like that wouldn't feel the effects of the minimum wage rising. In fact, Wal-Mart and other companies are already independently raising wages (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/walmart-10-raise_us_56a01acde4b0404eb8f03b26). They had been under pressure from strikes and defections by their workers. They figured out it cost them more to hire/train new employees (they were losing 500K workers annually) than it did for them to just give raises.


Retail workers in the U.S. earned an average of $14.95 an hour in December, up 3.6% from a year earlier, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. With the raises planned for February, average hourly earnings will be $13.38 for Wal-Mart’s full-time store employees and $10.58 for part-time workers, the company said.

...

Some rivals, including Target Corp., are expected to follow Wal-Mart’s lead, especially in markets where the starting wage is below $10 an hour. “We constantly evaluate our hourly wage rates and adjust based on changing conditions in each market,” a Target spokesman said.


Retail workers wages rose more than the National average (about 2.5%).


Which is how these changes are supposed to be encouraged.

However, this only increases these employees' proportional earnings if there are still people out there making lower wages. Then it will give them higher purchasing power comparatively.

However if all min wage jobs start paying 13.38 per hour then the eventual price adjustments in the market will just put them right back at the same rung of the ladder and they will have to make the same budget decisions and sacrifices they make today.

The whole point is that this stuff is relative, it's not absolute. What are they making COMPARED to other people. That's what will change the class structure. If they start making 15, and all the jobs currently making 15 start making 30, it doesnt ****ing do anything.

This is like the most obvious, simple economic principle. Im awestruck at how many of these belligerent idiots shrieking "15! 15!!!!!" dont seem to understand it.

[dkmwise]

This dummy, as usual, doesnt get it.

The number doesnt matter. Chinese minimum wage is 18 Chinese dollars an hour.

If the average number of dollars made by an entry level job earner increases (and other paygrades increase proportionally) then the average price of goods that entry level consumers buy will go up as well.

Dinner at Applebees isnt priced at $12 because it is objectively $12 worth of food in a vaccuum. It is priced that way because that's the sweet spot for them where they can have the highest price without deterring their target income-level customer. Which is not those Americans barely scraping by. If income levels rise, prices will rise so that whatever class of people is currently able to buy a given thing today, will also be the ones buying it after inflation.

People working register at McDonalds are not suddenly going to be able to afford an Audi and to drink coconut water and to buy home alarm systems etc. These things, like all things, will simply adjust to being priced for the middle class and upward to buy, whatever that dollar number happens to be. This doesnt change anything about class breakdown. It's literally a scarecrow meant to fool the idiots.


It's not about numbers, it's about proportion. In Lichtenstein, the proportion of white collar jobs to entry-level and labor jobs is much more even, thus more leverage and better pay for labor. When you have hundreds of millions of entry level and labor, buying power at that level is going to be divided up by a much greater number of people. The specific number doesnt matter, whether it's $4 or $50 an hour. It's going to be proportional to the value of the job. That's why Chinese make 18 RMBY an hour. It doesnt mean dick, bc the issue is how many workers they have.

This is a con job to make liberal idiots happy who dont understand (or refuse to believe) the issue is the amount of labor here due to immigration. "hurr, 15's duh magic number!!"


:facepalm

This may be the best written response to an issue i've seen on any ISH topic ever

[Kvnzhangyay]

People here act like any economic issue has only one clear-cut answer

When has economics EVER had a perfect clear-cut answer?

[dkmwise]

Which is how these changes are supposed to be encouraged.

However, this only increases these employees' proportional earnings if there are still people out there making lower wages. Then it will give them higher purchasing power comparatively.

However if all min wage jobs start paying 13.38 per hour then the eventual price adjustments in the market will just put them right back at the same rung of the ladder and they will have to make the same budget decisions and sacrifices they make today.

The whole point is that this stuff is relative, it's not absolute. What are they making COMPARED to other people. That's what will change the class structure. If they start making 15, and all the jobs currently making 15 start making 30, it doesnt ****ing do anything.

This is like the most obvious, simple economic principle. Im awestruck at how many of these belligerent idiots shrieking "15! 15!!!!!" dont seem to understand it.

Exactly. There is always going to be a lower class, people just need to wake up and accept that. Next time you go out somewhere just look around at how many people have smartphones, it's almost everyone. I'm sorry but not everyone should be able to avoid a luxury like an expensive smartphone. If people did without some luxuries they would be able to at least get by on less but people now think that smartphones, internet, cable, AC, are all 'basic rights,' when they are luxuries.

[Kvnzhangyay]

Which is how these changes are supposed to be encouraged.

However, this only increases these employees' proportional earnings if there are still people out there making lower wages. Then it will give them higher purchasing power comparatively.

However if all min wage jobs start paying 13.38 per hour then the eventual price adjustments in the market will just put them right back at the same rung of the ladder and they will have to make the same budget decisions and sacrifices they make today.

The whole point is that this stuff is relative, it's not absolute. What are they making COMPARED to other people. That's what will change the class structure. If they start making 15, and all the jobs currently making 15 start making 30, it doesnt ****ing do anything.

This is like the most obvious, simple economic principle. Im awestruck at how many of these belligerent idiots shrieking "15! 15!!!!!" dont seem to understand it.

This would only make sense if everyone made minimum wage, which is not true. Raising the minimum wage wouldn't affect the vast majority of the adult work force

[dkmwise]

This would only make sense if everyone made minimum wage, which is not true. Raising the minimum wage wouldn't affect the vast majority of the adult work force

It won't affect many peoples salary, but in time it will affect their buying power, which will decrease

[Akrazotile]

This would only make sense if everyone made minimum wage, which is not true. Raising the minimum wage wouldn't affect the vast majority of the adult work force


It definitely would.

If a guy flipping burgers is making the same as deucewallaces who spent 14 years getting a bunch of degrees, then people with degrees are going to say "why did i waste all that time and money going above and beyond, if I could have just flipped burgers?"

Youll either have to start paying people commensurately, or nobody will aspire past entry level. The entire reason most people move beyond entry level is for more money.

[Akrazotile]

This may be the best written response to an issue i've seen on any ISH topic ever


Thanks. I also felt I hit the ol' clarity bullseye on this one, which can sometimes elude me. :cheers:


The prob ofc tho is that it's not a matter of people failing to understand - it's their purposeful refusal to do so.

[Akrazotile]

People here act like any economic issue has only one clear-cut answer

When has economics EVER had a perfect clear-cut answer?


It doesnt, but there are long-observed basic principles and repeating patterns that should be acknowledged in order to shape policy, and the "utopia" (the liberal religion's version of Heaven) of the left prohibits them from accepting any ideas that lead to conclusions they dont like.

"If I dont like the answer, it's wrong." That's how the vast majority of humans operate.

[97 bulls]

Thanks. I also felt I hit the ol' clarity bullseye on this one, which can sometimes elude me. :cheers:


The prob ofc tho is that it's not a matter of people failing to understand - it's their purposeful refusal to do so.
No. In theory, I think everyone would agree with you. The problem is it doesn't play out it the real world.

Let me ask a question. If employers actually paid a fair wage, would this be an issue?

[plowking]

Germany only instituted a minimum wage last year for political reasons, before that they didnt even have one and had Europe's healthiest economy.



:oldlol:

This cracked me up. You know why, right?

[Blue&Orange]

This dummy, as usual, doesnt get it.

The number doesnt matter. Chinese minimum wage is 18 Chinese dollars an hour.

If the average number of dollars made by an entry level job earner increases (and other paygrades increase proportionally) then the average price of goods that entry level consumers buy will go up as well.

Dinner at Applebees isnt priced at $12 because it is objectively $12 worth of food in a vaccuum. It is priced that way because that's the sweet spot for them where they can have the highest price without deterring their target income-level customer. Which is not those Americans barely scraping by. If income levels rise, prices will rise so that whatever class of people is currently able to buy a given thing today, will also be the ones buying it after inflation.

People working register at McDonalds are not suddenly going to be able to afford an Audi and to drink coconut water and to buy home alarm systems etc. These things, like all things, will simply adjust to being priced for the middle class and upward to buy, whatever that dollar number happens to be. This doesnt change anything about class breakdown. It's literally a scarecrow meant to fool the idiots.


It's not about numbers, it's about proportion. In Lichtenstein, the proportion of white collar jobs to entry-level and labor jobs is much more even, thus more leverage and better pay for labor. When you have hundreds of millions of entry level and labor, buying power at that level is going to be divided up by a much greater number of people. The specific number doesnt matter, whether it's $4 or $50 an hour. It's going to be proportional to the value of the job. That's why Chinese make 18 RMBY an hour. It doesnt mean dick, bc the issue is how many workers they have.

This is a con job to make liberal idiots happy who dont understand (or refuse to believe) the issue is the amount of labor here due to immigration. "hurr, 15's duh magic number!!"


:facepalm
You make me laugh and feel sorry for you at the same time.

"This dummy, as usual, doesn't get it?"

Dude i shitted on you every ****ing time you direct me word. U have spent weeks following me around like like a butthurt abused puppy. You are pathetic loser that can't even deal with reality. You need psychiatric help.


. China doesn't have minimum wage, provinces may chose to have. Average is 10 CNY which is like 1.5$

. Wtf is a Chinese dollar?

. wft was your point, pointing out china minimum wage? Are you such a retard that think china minimum wage is bigger? lol

Now about the bolded part, three words for you, inflation, purchasing power. Prices go up regardless of salaries you ****ing clueless idiot!



. For example, the Census Bureau reports that the average price of a new home in July 1994 was $144,400. According to the inflation calculator, that price today should be $232,141. The same report places the average sale price for July 2014 at $339,100, however, more than 46% higher than the price when accounting for inflation alone. A gallon of gas in 1994 cost $1.20, making it $1.93 in July 2014, when adjusted for inflation. The actual average price, as of July 2014, is $3.69, nearly twice what it would be if inflation were the only cause for the increase

.The same method can be applied to see if household incomes have similarly increased. The median household income in 1994 was $32,264. The most recent year with full data available is 2013, so adjusting for inflation as of that year gives a median income of $51,868. The Census Bureau reports that the actual median income was $51,939, only slightly higher than the predicted figure.
So the prices have gone up well above inflation, while salaries basically just followed inflation. For 20 years prices have gone well up, despite no wage increase, funny to see dumb bitches whining about wage increases.

Mcdonalds workers won't be buying Audi? No shit sherlock, but they will be buying more stuff they can now afford, hence more money to whom sells them, idiot.

It makes US less competitive? Well no one will be crying about a 50% wage reduction, if prices have a 60% reduction. How about that you stupid fack?


http://s29.postimg.org/wikwmpc3b/7zx_Szl1.png



You are my Wile E. Coyote, you be like "this time i got him" and i end up ****ing you over and over.



This is you

http://s10.postimg.org/do0ie1wqh/d9a51c98a23453614de0d3ab09271eaa.jpg

[Kvnzhangyay]

It doesnt, but there are long-observed basic principles and repeating patterns that should be acknowledged in order to shape policy, and the "utopia" (the liberal religion's version of Heaven) of the left prohibits them from accepting any ideas that lead to conclusions they dont like.

"If I dont like the answer, it's wrong." That's how the vast majority of humans operate.

That's the problem. Economics, when it comes down to it, is often opinionated, with good arguments supporting both sides. For example, literally the most basic economic trade-off learned in econ101 is efficiency vs equality. Minimum wage is literally an argument for such. And yet, the very virtue of being a trade-off means both sides are valid.

In regards to your argument about incentivization, it is possible IN THEORY, but I am not so sure of the practical effects of it (i.e. would a 15 dollar minimum wage really incentivize the workforce to stop going for a job that pays 30+ an hour?). Based off of my experience, no, it wouldn't, but the people I've met (aka interns pretty much) have been a rather overachieving and ambitious bunch. However, it would be interesting if you could dig up some studies that analyzed that historically; I haven't done enough research, nor given enough shits about politics to bother.

(I don't have a vested opinion, because I make well above the minimum wage, and the people I manage are paid well above also. I am at the point in my life/career where these minute gradual changes would have no real tangible effect on me or my well-being)

As for my slightly deviating opinion, I strongly advocate for a wage subsidy.

[Akrazotile]

:oldlol:

This cracked me up. You know why, right?


Are you asking if I know why they instituted the wage or why theyve had Europe's most stable economy?

[Akrazotile]

You make me laugh and feel sorry for you at the same time.

"This dummy, as usual, doesn't get it?"

Dude i shitted on you every ****ing time you direct me word. U have spent weeks following me around like like a butthurt abused puppy. You are pathetic loser that can't even deal with reality. You need psychiatric help.


. China doesn't have minimum wage, provinces may chose to have. Average is 10 CNY which is like 1.5$

. Wtf is a Chinese dollar?

. wft was your point, pointing out china minimum wage? Are you such a retard that think china minimum wage is bigger? lol

Now about the bolded part, three words for you, inflation, purchasing power. Prices go up regardless of salaries you ****ing clueless idiot!


So the prices have gone up well above inflation, while salaries basically just followed inflation. For 20 years prices have gone well up, despite no wage increase, funny to see dumb bitches whining about wage increases.

Mcdonalds workers won't be buying Audi? No shit sherlock, but they will be buying more stuff they can now afford, hence more money to whom sells them, idiot.

It makes US less competitive? Well no one will be crying about a 50% wage reduction, if prices have a 60% reduction. How about that you stupid fack?


http://s29.postimg.org/wikwmpc3b/7zx_Szl1.png



You are my Wile E. Coyote, you be like "this time i got him" and i end up ****ing you over and over.



This is you

http://s10.postimg.org/do0ie1wqh/d9a51c98a23453614de0d3ab09271eaa.jpg


There is as much chance of me reading that as there is of a walmart shelf stocker getting approved for a mortgage at Trump Tower.


Hold deez L's faag.

[AintNoSunshine]

Safe to say this is the happiest day in ISH history?

[L.Kizzle]

For some reason, my eyes saw "California Raisins Movie $15 Million."

[Akrazotile]

For some reason, my eyes saw "California Raisins Movie $15 Million."


That's why we love you, Kizzle.

[masonanddixon]

Should raise it to $30 and tax the shit out of corporations.

[kNIOKAS]

The faulty thinking here is the idea that you can be sure where people will be spending money.
True to a point. With a broad brush, however, the poor people will more likely to a) spend money on necessities, and not luxury/wasteful items b) spend all of the money, instead of keeping some of it in the bank/buying real estate/we

therefore, it's better that money would go to the poor and not to the rich, as long as you want that money to come back to the economy


Someone on a smaller budget is more likely to seek bargains and it is the corporations that are more likely to offer those bargains, not the small business. Here's how big deals often work: Stop and Shop tells Coca-Cola's corporate office, "We'll buy 10 million bottles of your 2 liter if you sell them to us for 30 cents each." Then they put them on their shelves for $1.50 a bottle, $1 on sale weeks. The Mom and Pop store on the other hand calls up the local coke distributor, offers to buy 200 bottles this week, pays $1 a bottle and then puts it on their shelves for $2.50. That's not exactly what they pay of course, I'm not privy to exact figures and negotiations, just outlining how it works: The more you can buy, the less you have to pay per item. And then when you add to what employees have to be paid, who will have an easier time absorbing these added costs: The large conglomerate with billions in the bank or the shop owner that maybe has a few thousand banked in savings and a retirement fund?
Yes, but which brings up the question: why is small business good at all/in the first place? I'd say they are highly considered because of the very reason of money distribution - that small business owners tend to be rich enough to be considered the middle class, yet numerous, in comparison to one big company's director board.

The big middle class is good for the very same reason that it ensures the money is circulating in the economy, and being spent on both necessities and some of the more luxurious items.

So to me it looks like a tradeoff between numerous small businesses and a relatively few big corparations (who make use of economy of scale better, yet money then is not distributed as evenly through the population as with many small businesses).


And a higher minimum wage can have the adverse effect of further rigging, as just outlined. I am not completely against raises to the minimum but the number "15" seems a bit arbitrary to me. It may have been based on getting to a living wage, but did anyone take a look at the books of the local convenience store owner to see how well he/she can afford it? This is why I am on the side of strengthening the social safety net, if that is what is called for, instead of just raising the minimum wage without considering who can and can't afford it.
Again, I don't think it's fair to shield the interests of big companies by holding the small businesses hostage. If we value small businesses (I do), the policies should be crafted to help advance them. I do not think the current policies reflect that we/government do actually value small businesses. The big corporate are receiving tax cuts, other wellfare and have been dominating the small business since forever, because of their powerful lobbies. That needs fixing.

Raising the minimum wage should result in higher buying power of the big number of people, it should put more money back into the economy and push for re-calibration of prices. That's a move that any type of business - big or small - should be happy about it, unless the market is skewed in the first place (which it is). The actual prevalent imbalance between small and big businesses is not the reason to keep the poor's buying power low. The poor and the small businesses not dichotomous/zero-sum players, it's quite the opposite - if we to be fair.


And what is being done for the small business? This paragraph isn't even making sense. It is a fact that a higher minimum wage will add to the budget of a number of small businesses. And what do we do to make up for that? Turning tothe social safety net is the better option.
You can elaborate on the social safety net... It's a broad topic however, I think.



There are people out there in America today living off of dog food. You can buy ramen at a rate of 6 packs for a dollar and one or two packs makes a (fairly unhealthy) meal. You may not know this but when it comes to the very poor people make tough choices to survive. Now a single man working 40+ hours at $15/hr is probably living ok in most parts of Cali but I bet a single mother of 3 would be struggling mightily on the same pay even if she lived in a part of Cali that was relatively cheap. In some cases this minimum wage increase might not even be enough, and then we have the issue of the negative effects it may have on their employer. Which is again why I am more for making the social safety net stronger if needed instead of putting this added burden on business regardless of that business's assets.
Well if you mean you are for properly collecting taxes from the biggest corporations and then with that money providing more social safety to the very poor, it's somewhat ok. Unless the money comes back to the big corporations via something like foodstamps, in case of Wallmart...

So as far as giving free cash to spend and not the binding food stamps minimum wage also makes sense.



The tax code is progressive for a reason: Even Republicans recognize that wealthier people should pay more into the system because they can better afford to. A blanket minimum wage increase is not progressive as it does not take a business's ability to pay into account.
That's right. But wouldn't you agree that it's not good enough reason to not have minimum wage?..

I mean I can't see how the progressive taxation not being executed properly is a legitimate reason for not trying to get the poor more buying power and revitalize the economy?


Here also are some other tangents I'd like to get into, but it's a long post already... anyway

[kNIOKAS]

Why do people think that the government should be engineering the market?
Because if left unchecked, the market would result in monopolies and a wasteland of common resources/Earth.


I want to get behind these minimum wage increases but my brain is telling me that this will only benefit big corporations who'll hire much less and automate most of their jobs. Leading them to receive even bigger profits...
I've seen a graph that was suggesting like 50% (or any random huge percentage of jobs) could be automated just about right now.

It is a true thing that bullshit jobs are increasing because if everything's to be done on the criterion of efficiency, the capitalists would have too little of a workforce to pay wages for, thus no consumers to make profit off.

It's about time we consider what if we did things fair and square, then only 50% (any big random percentage) of Earths population would have jobs and income. Is the answer the universal basic income? Is it something else?

However I don't think artificially making people hang in to the worst paid jobs and barely get by is the answer. The minimum wage would be a move to rebalance workforce supply and demand artificially, but that's because the workforce market has been skewed up also artificially, from before.

To me it's also a cheap & easy fix by politicians to try and fight the inequality issue and appease the masses. Instead of doing things like forcing multinational corporations to pay their taxes, forcing them to not outsource every job, not giving them tax incentives, etc, they're taking a quick fix. Instead of finding ways to prevent the disappearance of the middle class they just have a quick fix like this that gives people the notion like they really care about you.
Yeah I think you're right. It's also a question how much of a real effort could one expect with politicians/government, when they are bought and sold like everything else [by those who actually have money].

[kNIOKAS]

Not necessarily true

Even IF raising the minimum wage increased the unemployment, most of the people losing the jobs would be teenagers

Although I still think gov. wage subsidies are the way to go
Why is that? What kind of subsidies precisely? In what way?


Nobody listened, and we live with the consequences. Consequences that some imbeciles can think are rectifiable by a simple increase of the minimum wage, a "stimulation of demand" :facepalm


Just look at kNIOKAS, talking about "Economics 101" when he doesn't even get supply and demand, the most basic of economic concepts.
Oh come on Dresta, you're still looking for an angle where you can stay on your high horse. Nobody is saying Capitalism isn't a self-destructive system, or that consumerism and infinite growth is in any way feasable in the future, we're merely talking about the policy to advance the well being of a big portion of the people who aren't as well off, under the faulty framework that actually exists now.

You think if you come with a general critique of capitalistic principles it's somewhat deeper than what we talk about in the thread. Get out of here


Also, the labour market is not your average potato market. The increase in supply does not result in the decrease of demand, because the purchasing power of the workers grow. It's really simple, if only you skipped focusing to appear smart and actually used your resources for thinking. Bon courage

[Akrazotile]

Dude you truly sound like a first year college student.

Literally everyone in this thread has more insight on this topic than you do.

Everyone is watching you ramble and just shaking their heads.

You are completely oblivious to what an idiot you are.

[kNIOKAS]

Any wage increase like this needs to coincide with different type of welfare benefits being cut since people are now making more. But more importantly needs to coincide with strict enforcement of illegal aliens. This is just giving employers even more reason to hire illegal aliens and exploit them by paying only a few dollars an hour.


I'm not against having or even raising a minimum wage, but people need to realize that there will always be a bottom tear to society. If all the wages at the bottom go up but not the middle class, all that is going to do is decrease the buying power of the $ and make people's nice middle class salaries actually feel like they are getting less because now they can buy less.
That could hold true,

But one thing we must not assume is that the current minimum wage or whatever arbitrary pay-per-hour number is an actual point of equilibrium. The labour market is depened on thousand of variables, some of the more obvious (like illegal workers, outsourcing opportunities, etc.), some of them not, and I'd rather suggest that for now it's skewed toward the worse end for the workers, and not for the businesses.

The number $15 might just simply raise the tide equally, but what if in fact it doesn't change much? Remember the calculations showing that the biggest shopping malls could pay this bigger wage, which with their profits margins unchanged would only result in a few cents increase on an sold item?

I also think the previous minimum wage increases in the US (in 70ies or 80ies) showed that they actually accurately caught the equilibrium of the supply/demand of work, as the prices/the tide hasn't just risen up proportionally all across the board. This is to be considered...

[UK2K]

If we are going to start paying cashiers $15/hr, I want $40/hr then.

And that mentality will resonate throughout the entire workforce in CA.

[kNIOKAS]

No, not at all. You've got it all wrong. People save money to MAKE money.

I know that in your mind it sounds great to have all the money out in the market changing hands from day to day. That would cause the greatest depression in history.

How the hell would anybody get a loan from a bank? Where do you think that money comes from? That's money that people have saved up. And people who have a lot of money saved up can afford to put their money in long term, high interest plans. With that money secured, banks can loan people money for mortgages, car payments, business loans, etc... Without that money, most people are completely fcuked. Most people don't have enough money laying around to buy those things cash down.

I know you lefties hate "wealth inequality" but without the very wealthy, there's nobody to invest.
No, it's not, you simpleton. The majority of that money is created out of thin air, and the lenders are put on debt. The banks have to actually posses only 10% of the money that they lend, all the rest is unicorn numbers on the screen.

http://positivemoney.org/how-money-works/how-banks-create-money/

Most of the money in our economy is created by banks, in the form of bank deposits – the numbers that appear in your account. Banks create new money whenever they make loans. 97% of the money in the economy today is created by banks, whilst just 3% is created by the government. T

https://pando.com/2014/03/19/banks-just-create-money-out-of-thin-air-the-truth-is-out-there/

This is a source on UK, but I think US shouldn't be far off from that.

[DukeDelonte13]

if you work 40 hours a week and still qualify for welfare programs...

that's a problem.

That's uncle sam subsidizing the cost of a company's work force.

[Velocirap31]

This is actually a good idea I think. Make the private corporations pay their employees a living wage for once instead of relying on tax payer funded programs to pick up the slack (welfare, food stamps, Obama care, etc.)

Although it bugs me that the middle earners get screwed by this. People will be getting $15/hour to do the most unskilled jobs in existence that were always meant to be done by youths/seniors. Someone with a university education or a skilled trade is going to be getting $16-20/hour which is just not fair. The pay gap should be more substantial. Don't think that middle wages are going up $5 an hour because it isn't happening.

[Blue&Orange]

There is as much chance of me reading that as there is of a walmart shelf stocker getting approved for a mortgage at Trump Tower.


Hold deez L's faag.
You read it phagott, everyone knows you read it, you just didn't know what to say after another ownage, like always. :lol


It's not about numbers, it's about proportion. In Lichtenstein, the proportion of white collar jobs to entry-level and labor jobs is much more even, thus more leverage and better pay for labor. When you have hundreds of millions of entry level and labor, buying power at that level is going to be divided up by a much greater number of people. The specific number doesnt matter, whether it's $4 or $50 an hour. It's going to be proportional to the value of the job. That's why Chinese make 18 RMBY an hour. It doesnt mean dick, bc the issue is how many workers they have.
I just read before with more attentions and this is what i feel:

is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.


IT's hilarious how a dumb clueless idiot you are.

[NumberSix]

No, it's not, you simpleton. The majority of that money is created out of thin air, and the lenders are put on debt. The banks have to actually posses only 10% of the money that they lend, all the rest is unicorn numbers on the screen.
Ah, I see we have a kid who heard about fractional reserves in some Internet conspiracy videos and now thinks he knows the ins and outs of the wealth/currency dynamic.

[kNIOKAS]

Ah, I see we have a kid who heard about fractional reserves in some Internet conspiracy videos and now thinks he knows the ins and outs of the wealth/currency dynamic.
:lol
So you insist on believing the money in the bank is the money that somebody has saved up? Yeah it's simplier that way :hammerhead:

[Blue&Orange]

This is actually a good idea I think. Make the private corporations pay their employees a living wage for once instead of relying on tax payer funded programs to pick up the slack (welfare, food stamps, Obama care, etc.)

Although it bugs me that the middle earners get screwed by this. People will be getting $15/hour to do the most unskilled jobs in existence that were always meant to be done by youths/seniors. Someone with a university education or a skilled trade is going to be getting $16-20/hour which is just not fair. The pay gap should be more substantial. Don't think that middle wages are going up $5 an hour because it isn't happening.
Capitalism. If you work on a business that makes a lot of money, you should be better payed than working on a business that don't make a lot of money.

Of course brainwashed right wing retards, are going to whine about mcdonalds workers getting a raise, because fox news tell them so, when it's pure capitalism, and they actually should be clapping because it's capitalism at their best, off course workers of a 25 billion revenue corporation have to make more than teachers, to see right wing retards whine about this fact, it's hilarious and it shows how dumb they are. It hilarious see redneck losers that don't have money to buy a car, defending teeth and nail that 1% bracket.



Like i said before, wage ratio between highest and lowest salary. If you company is doing well everyone gets paid, if it isn't nobody gets paid. Today a few get always paid, even if they doing a terrible job, and the majority don't get paid, even if doing terrific jobs.

Everyone would have an incentive to work well, money would be better spread to different wage tiers, meaning money better spread in the economy.

Today you majority of people getting poorer and 6 guys getting richer and spending their money on niche markets or shelfing the money on off shores, not really good for economy.

It's hilarious that post from the paramedic, not only he is underpaid, their bosses then send him a email, "hey last year we made 1.3 billion, from which you will get nothing, so keep working hard and saving lifes, while we keep paying you nothing and keep our noses full of cocaine"


wage ratio.

[UK2K]

Capitalism. If you work on a business that makes a lot of money, you should be better payed than working on a business that don't make a lot of money.

Of course brainwashed right wing retards, are going to whine about mcdonalds workers getting a raise, because fox news tell them so, when it's pure capitalism, and they actually should be clapping because it's capitalism at their best, off course workers of a 25 billion revenue corporation have to make more than teachers, to see right wing retards whine about this fact, it's hilarious and it shows how dumb they are. It hilarious see redneck losers that don't have money to buy a car, defending teeth and nail that 1% bracket.



Like i said before, wage ratio between highest and lowest salary. If you company is doing well everyone gets paid, if it isn't nobody gets paid. Today a few get always paid, even if they doing a terrible job, and the majority don't get paid, even if doing terrific jobs.

Everyone would have an incentive to work well, money would be better spread to different wage tiers, meaning money better spread in the economy.

Today you majority of people getting poorer and 6 guys getting richer and spending their money on niche markets or shelfing the money on off shores, not really good for economy.

It's hilarious that post from the paramedic, not only he is underpaid, their bosses then send him a email, "hey last year we made 1.3 billion, from which you will get nothing, so keep working hard and saving lifes, while we keep paying you nothing and keep our noses full of cocaine"


wage ratio.

He is free to start his own paramedic company.

You are either working for someone, or working for yourself. Everyone knows when you work for someone, that someone makes the rules. You don't have to work there if you think its unfair. There are other places that pay more.

[Blue&Orange]

Ah, I see we have a kid who heard about fractional reserves in some Internet conspiracy videos and now thinks he knows the ins and outs of the wealth/currency dynamic.
http://www.nationaldebtclocks.org

So you think there are enough money in the world to pay this?

Do you know what shares, stock market are?

It's really cute the notion that banks only lend the money they have. I think you are confusion banks with loan sharks. I bet even loan sharks sometimes borrow money to lend to someone else.

[ALBballer]

Capitalism. If you work on a business that makes a lot of money, you should be better payed than working on a business that don't make a lot of money.

Of course brainwashed right wing retards, are going to whine about mcdonalds workers getting a raise, because fox news tell them so, when it's pure capitalism, and they actually should be clapping because it's capitalism at their best, off course workers of a 25 billion revenue corporation have to make more than teachers, to see right wing retards whine about this fact, it's hilarious and it shows how dumb they are. It hilarious see redneck losers that don't have money to buy a car, defending teeth and nail that 1% bracket.



Like i said before, wage ratio between highest and lowest salary. If you company is doing well everyone gets paid, if it isn't nobody gets paid. Today a few get always paid, even if they doing a terrible job, and the majority don't get paid, even if doing terrific jobs.

Everyone would have an incentive to work well, money would be better spread to different wage tiers, meaning money better spread in the economy.

Today you majority of people getting poorer and 6 guys getting richer and spending their money on niche markets or shelfing the money on off shores, not really good for economy.

It's hilarious that post from the paramedic, not only he is underpaid, their bosses then send him a email, "hey last year we made 1.3 billion, from which you will get nothing, so keep working hard and saving lifes, while we keep paying you nothing and keep our noses full of cocaine"


wage ratio.

I don't think you understand what capitalism is. Pure capitalism would not involve the government in mandating a minimum wage. That is not to say that pure capitalism is necessary good or pure capitalism even exists in the United States but you probably should learn the definition of terms before engaging in debates.

[Blue&Orange]

I don't think you understand what capitalism is. Pure capitalism would not involve the government in mandating a minimum wage. That is not to say that pure capitalism is necessary good or pure capitalism even exists in the United States but you probably should learn the definition of terms before engaging in debates.
Can you tell me what Mcdonalds raising it's employes because they fought for it, has anything to do with minimum wage?

Maybe you should get a functional brain before engaging in debates? no?

[Blue&Orange]

He is free to start his own paramedic company.

You are either working for someone, or working for yourself. Everyone knows when you work for someone, that someone makes the rules. You don't have to work there if you think its unfair. There are other places that pay more.
Typical formatted response form the idiot who thinks it's 1910. Yes he should makes his own paramedic company whatever that is, and fight his way against a 2 billion corporation :rolleyes:

Yes he should quit doing what he likes doing, so that the cocaine noses that create absolute zero wealth, can't live at his expense.

Know what a edge fund is for example? Are you minimal aware of the world economic trend? Consolidation know what it means? Your piece of the pie stays unappealing? Don't worry it won't last.


When i drive a car i have to wear a seatbelt, but god forbid some sort of regulation that brings some shred of morality to the market.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1382396/Workers-Chinese-Apple-factories-forced-sign-pledges-commit-suicide.html
http://www.wealthwire.com/news/global/778

Ignorant douchebag be like "Well if they don't like it to the point of suicide, they should go somewhere else" :applause:

Meanwhile Apple don't pay taxes because they use the same rationale and hold US hostage, threatening going somewhere else. :rolleyes:


Let me guess,

"Well if you don't like it you can always go live in another planet"

[Velocirap31]

Insulting everyone you argue with isn't a debating skill Blue&Orange. Also, your posts are hard to follow.

[Blue&Orange]

Insulting everyone you argue with isn't a debating skill Blue&Orange. Also, your posts are hard to follow.
Are you sure? People seem to love Trump.

[fiddy]

Yall mfers arguing over pointless/worhless economic theories. A mixed-type system (YES part-socialist) is absolutely imminent.

[DeuceWallaces]

Good day for labor. They've been taking it on the chin since the 60's. Yeah, some businesses will raise prices, others might leave, but the current way is not working for the unskilled labor class which is not going anywhere. Have to try and keep raising the minimum wage until the middle-upper class calls corporations buffs on products and stops buying them. Most these companies have the head room to cover this.

I don't care how unskilled you are, but it seems reasonable to me that if you work 35+ hours a week in the US you should be above the poverty line and have access to adequate health insurance and schools.

[UK2K]

Typical formatted response form the idiot who thinks it's 1910. Yes he should makes his own paramedic company whatever that is, and fight his way against a 2 billion corporation :rolleyes:

The reason why nobody takes you serious is because every other post of yours is full of 'retard' and 'idiot'. Do you talk to people like that in real life? Are you 15?

By the way, Netflix started when Blockbuster was dominating the landscape. Amazon started in 94 when big box stores controlled everything. Facebook? You remember that website?

Here's some more interesting information for you...


AMR was founded in 1992 when several regional ambulance providers consolidated into a single company.

American Medical Response (AMR), who proclaims itself to be the largest private ambulance company in the United States, announced on February 14 that they were going to be purchased by the large private equity firm of Clayton, Dubilier, and Rice (CD&R) for $3.2 billion, or roughly $64 a share. If the purchase and transaction were completed, AMR stock would not be publicly traded on Wall Street through the New York Stock Exchange anymore, but would be wholly owned by a private company.

Holy ****ing shit! Someone started a company in 92, and now 20 years later, they are the largest for-profit EMS service in the country? OMG how did they do that when there were so many other big companies? How?? You told me it can't be done!!

So either you are lying and making excuses, per your usual posts, or AMR didn't really take over the for-profit EMS services like they are claiming.



Yes he should quit doing what he likes doing, so that the cocaine noses that create absolute zero wealth, can't live at his expense.

Let them die. You won't see me shed a tear.


Know what a edge fund is for example? Are you minimal aware of the world economic trend? Consolidation know what it means? Your piece of the pie stays unappealing? Don't worry it won't last.

What does this have to do with starting your own business? 5.2 million people last year were working for a company less than 1 year old. Guess some others took that 'if you don't like working for someone else, work for yourself' advice, eh?



When i drive a car i have to wear a seatbelt, but god forbid some sort of regulation that brings some shred of morality to the market.

Your arguments, as well as all leftists policies, are based on feelings and emotions as opposed to logic. Hard to discuss something with someone who is so heavily invested in their inner Dr. Phil.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1382396/Workers-Chinese-Apple-factories-forced-sign-pledges-commit-suicide.html
http://www.wealthwire.com/news/global/778

Ignorant douchebag be like "Well if they don't like it to the point of suicide, they should go somewhere else" :applause:

Meanwhile Apple don't pay taxes because they use the same rationale and hold US hostage, threatening going somewhere else. :rolleyes:


Let me guess,

"Well if you don't like it you can always go live in another planet"

Are we in ****ing China?

But of course, amazingly, leftists and hippies continue to buy their products, because they don't care. They only care when they can make a political statement out of it. If they can benefit from it.

You want to move your factory to China? Good. Increase tariffs, and let them move their shit to the jungle. Good luck having the Chinese buy your products with their $4/day wages.

[97 bulls]

He is free to start his own paramedic company.

You are either working for someone, or working for yourself. Everyone knows when you work for someone, that someone makes the rules. You don't have to work there if you think its unfair. There are other places that pay more.
And businesses don't NEED to stay in business if they don't want to abide by the laws of the land and pay the minimum wage. It goes both ways. Both sides are complaining that the other is getting over.

[97 bulls]

Yall mfers arguing over pointless/worhless economic theories. A mixed-type system (YES part-socialist) is absolutely imminent.
Imminent??? We already have it. Our Military, our police force, public schools are all socialists programs.

[UK2K]

And businesses don't NEED to stay in business if they don't want to abide by the laws of the land and pay the minimum wage. It goes both ways. Both sides are complaining that the other is getting over.

What does that have to do with starting your own business?

The guy was bitching that some paramedic felt he was underpaid. Ok... go somewhere else that will pay you more. If nowhere else will pay you more, then you are being paid exactly what you are worth.

If you don't like someone else determining what your value is, start your own business.

'But nobody can do that cause its just so unfair'.

Actually, lots of people do that. The ones who understand that if you arent working for yourself, you are working for someone else. Common sense really.

[Norcaliblunt]

I never got the whole tip thing. What's the founding father constitutional philosophy on this?

Tipping is straight up conservative Libertarian voluntarism. The whole tax system and social safety net should be based on a "tipping" charity like practice.

[97 bulls]

What does that have to do with starting your own business?

The guy was bitching that some paramedic felt he was underpaid. Ok... go somewhere else that will pay you more. If nowhere else will pay you more, then you are being paid exactly what you are worth.

If you don't like someone else determining what your value is, start your own business.

'But nobody can do that cause its just so unfair'.

Actually, lots of people do that. The ones who understand that if you arent working for yourself, you are working for someone else. Common sense really.
I agree with you UK. But the law is the law. If you want to open a business in the US, your gonna have to pay the minimum wage. If you don't like it, try selling your goods in a country like India and see how much of a profit you would get? Don't you agree?

[UK2K]

I agree with you UK. But the law is the law. If you want to open a business in CA, your gonna have to pay the minimum wage. If you don't like it, try selling your goods in India and see how much of a profit you would get? Don't you agree?

Yes, absolutely.

I mean if the min wage law is $15/hr, set by the state, then yes, every company who wishes to conduct business in the state of CA must abide by CA's rules.

Many of those businesses will move out of state though. Its already happening.

http://nrn.com/corporate/cke-restaurants-move-headquarters-nashville


Andy Puzder, CEO of CKE, has been threatening to move the Carl’s Jr. headquarters from California for years, saying the business environment in the state is unfriendly. He has also hinted of moving to states like Texas and Tennessee because they have no individual income tax.

According to the Nashville Business Journal, at least six of nine executives on the management team have purchased residential property in the Nashville area, including Puzder, who in 2015 bought a $1.53 million home in Franklin, Tenn., which is about 20 miles south of Nashville.

Good luck to CA. They can't even afford to pay for all their debts WITH those taxes, so good luck to you when the few who still do pay taxes leave too. CA will turn socialist, and everyone will leave, like they have been.

[97 bulls]

Yes, absolutely.

I mean if the min wage law is $15/hr, set by the state, then yes, every company who wishes to conduct business in the state of CA must abide by CA's rules.

Many of those businesses will move out of state though. Its already happening.

http://nrn.com/corporate/cke-restaurants-move-headquarters-nashville



Good luck to CA. They can't even afford to pay for all their debts WITH those taxes, so good luck to you when the few who still do pay taxes leave too. CA will turn socialist, and everyone will leave, like they have been.
Lol. Someone will take their place.

[UK2K]

Lol. Someone will take their place.

Who? Why? Why set up shop in CA and pay ridiculous wages and be forced to abide by hundreds of rules (I know, I handle labor law issues with all our stores) when you can set up in, say, TX or TN and not pay any of those same taxes?

We have over 200* stores in CA... how many of them do you think we will be open by 2020? Very few, because every store that can't absorb a 50% increase in labor costs and still be profitable will be closed and the employees let go.

That's just the way it works.

*Edit: 205 to be exact.

[DeuceWallaces]

Who? Why? Why set up shop in CA and pay ridiculous wages and be forced to abide by hundreds of rules (I know, I handle labor law issues with all our stores) when you can set up in, say, TX or TN and not pay any of those same taxes?

We have over 200* stores in CA... how many of them do you think we will be open by 2020? Very few, because every store that can't absorb a 50% increase in labor costs and still be profitable will be closed and the employees let go.

That's just the way it works.

*Edit: 205 to be exact.

The same reason every business doesn't operate in the deep south where labor has been absolutely crushed: there's a market. They will make less, but California is a huge market that will never dry up.

[HitandRun Reggie]

This is kind of stupid for California. Anyone with a pulse, and that can speak English...well, can easily make over minimum wage in California. Even with businesses leaving like crazy, there is still a huge brain drain in the state, and lack of skilled labor. California doesn't even need a minimum wage, all they have to do is start asking the feds to start deporting illegals and wages will go through the roof.



Lol. Someone will take their place.

Do tell. Who replaced Toyota?

[falc39]

Good day for labor. They've been taking it on the chin since the 60's. Yeah, some businesses will raise prices, others might leave, but the current way is not working for the unskilled labor class which is not going anywhere. Have to try and keep raising the minimum wage until the middle-upper class calls corporations buffs on products and stops buying them. Most these companies have the head room to cover this.

I don't care how unskilled you are, but it seems reasonable to me that if you work 35+ hours a week in the US you should be above the poverty line and have access to adequate health insurance and schools.

I live in the area where the largest gentrification is occuring in California and this will do nothing to help the lowest and most replaceable workers, the "unskilled" ones as you call it. Also, when it comes to labor, supply and demand will always prevail because the more unskilled you are, the more replacable you become. I don't think you have a grasp of how the housing market is over here. The biggest problem is housing/renting costs and the constraint is supply. There is also a large influx of more ambitious and skilled h1b workers that will continue to displace the unskilled. The minimum wage demanders are just putting the nails in their own coffin as they are forcing businesses to quicken the transition to automation.

[Akrazotile]

Good day for labor. They've been taking it on the chin since the 60's. Yeah, some businesses will raise prices, others might leave, but the current way is not working for the unskilled labor class which is not going anywhere. Have to try and keep raising the minimum wage until the middle-upper class calls corporations buffs on products and stops buying them. Most these companies have the head room to cover this.

I don't care how unskilled you are, but it seems reasonable to me that if you work 35+ hours a week in the US you should be above the poverty line and have access to adequate health insurance and schools.


So if I carry rocks back and forth from one pile to another 35+ hours a week, someone owes me 40k per year plus health and education benefits?

It doesn't matter what I'm doing, what the value is, as long as I'm occupied doing anything at all, society owes me some 50k worth of living costs?

You're smart.

[Akrazotile]

I live in the area where the largest gentrification is occuring in California and this will do nothing to help the lowest and most replaceable workers, the "unskilled" ones as you call it. Also, when it comes to labor, supply and demand will always prevail because the more unskilled you are, the more replacable you become. I don't think you have a grasp of how the housing market is over here. The biggest problem is housing/renting costs and the constraint is supply. There is also a large influx of more ambitious and skilled h1b workers that will continue to displace the unskilled. The minimum wage demanders are just putting the nails in their own coffin as they are forcing businesses to quicken the transition to automation.


The idiot doesn't have a grasp on anything. His problem is he's trying too hard to be hip and anti-establishment because that's what's 'cool' in his campus safe space.

He doesn't care what the objective truth and consequent necessary solutions are for America. He puts himself and his own image as an sjw hero before honesty and long-term necessity.

[Godzuki]

i could understand this IF state/federal were lowering payroll taxes to offset the increase in pay for the workers but it basically increases payroll taxes, workers comp, etc. by 50%. the governments make out like bandits with this while the businesses get hit hard having to pay the employee's 50% more and payroll % off of that increase.

their saving grace is that its going to hit gradually so it'll be a subtle hit year by year so it'll be a slow employment death.

its guaranteed to increase unemployment considerably. there is nothing to offset the massive cost of doing business business owners are going to be hit with per employee now while employees and gov are raking it in not realizing they're shooting themselves in the foot. either that or there will just be a lot more under the table paying which is more likely, then probably more law enforcement of that.

bottom line is you'd have to be crazy to start a business that requires many employees. i dont know how restaurants by and large will survive unless they're the packed corporate chains.

politics is always about pandering to the lowest IQ self serving public and in this case its the worker ants. just like how dem's pander to the poor like they're owed the right to be well off like the ones who are workaholics to have their fortunes. and its always painted like they were just handed being rich when in reality someone in their family line busted their ass from nothing to have that wealth.

anyways there isn't even a buffer in any of this to the unemployment rate sky rocketing due to the inabililty of any non booming business to survive, which accounts for most.

[DeuceWallaces]

I live in the area where the largest gentrification is occuring in California and this will do nothing to help the lowest and most replaceable workers, the "unskilled" ones as you call it. Also, when it comes to labor, supply and demand will always prevail because the more unskilled you are, the more replacable you become. I don't think you have a grasp of how the housing market is over here. The biggest problem is housing/renting costs and the constraint is supply. There is also a large influx of more ambitious and skilled h1b workers that will continue to displace the unskilled. The minimum wage demanders are just putting the nails in their own coffin as they are forcing businesses to quicken the transition to automation.

I don't agree with you. Preventing hikes because you predict automation or businesses leaving is nonsense. We already know how well the status quo works; it doesn't. Might as well go back to some pro-labor strategies that were prominent during the 50's. These GOP'ers love to fantasize over post war unskilled labor markets and getting back to blue collar roots, but their party systematically destroyed much of what made that period great for our economy and the unskilled worker. It's pretty clear our economy needs a bit of compression.

Right to Work policies are clearly not the answer.

[Akrazotile]

I don't agree with you. Preventing hikes because you predict automation or businesses leaving is nonsense. We already know how well the status quo works; it doesn't. Might as well go back to some pro-labor strategies that were prominent during the 50's. These GOP'ers love to fantasize over post war unskilled labor markets and getting back to blue collar roots, but their party systematically destroyed much of what made that period great for our economy and the unskilled worker. It's pretty clear our economy needs a bit of compression.

Right to Work policies are clearly not the answer.


The globalization of the workforce is what destroyed that particular period of time you fukking idiot. You can't legislate a strong economy, dumbshit. Either you have advantages or you don't. The advantages back then were that outsourcing was not as technologically practical as it is today, and the proportion of labor and management was much closer. The population has gone from 200 million to 300+ million since 1960 and the majority of the growth has been from unskilled immigrant or low education communities.


Money has to have value. You can't earn things without producing something. You can't just give people money who aren't doing something productive. Otherwise everyone will take easy jobs and where will the money come from? YOu're a f@ggot. Cut your hair, grow some balls, read a book, and stop being a try-hard wannabe poser. The philosophies you and your dumb, awkward, ugly, social reject circle of friends come up with in order to congratulate yourselves does not fool actual intelligent men. Some of us here have logical minds, and we don't try to compensate for our insecurities by playing the sjw robin hood hero. Kill yourself loser.

[Im Still Ballin]

:roll:

[ALBballer]

Can you tell me what Mcdonalds raising it's employes because they fought for it, has anything to do with minimum wage?

Maybe you should get a functional brain before engaging in debates? no?

Sorry but you're writing style is all over the place. But yes, McDonalds' employees demanding McDonalds to raise wages is part of the capitalist system.

In general, I probably lean on the idea of not having a minimum wage because even at $15 the annual salary is around $30k (assuming 40 hours a week and 52 weeks.) $30k still isn't high enough to support a family in most places in the United States. So what is the magical number? $30/hour? Sure $60k a year sounds reasonable but that is assuming all of our current prices remain the same which they won't. So my question is what is precise salary of a minimum wage worker? And if we use a minimum wage, will we limit social welfare spending that are tied to income? An incentive is set for a minimum wage worker to work now even less because if any of their benefits are related to income then there is no incentive to work more hours.

Finally, I understand there is a huge wage gap between the highest earners and the lowest earners but the market determines such income for the most part. Almost any able body can do the work of minimum wage worker. Generally these jobs require low education, low skills and so forth. These jobs 30-40 years ago were no meant to support families and today the story is different for many people. But where is the outcry from the left of illegal immigration used to suppress workers for jobs that once paid lower middle class to middle class salaries to now paying minimum wage?

Also the high executive compensation is partially the fault of government intervention. During the Clinton years the government enacted tax rules that disallowed tax deduction for executive compensation over $1 million dollars unless the compensation was tied to performance. So what did most of these fortune 500 companies do? Well they based compensation towards performance and CEOs were incentivized to make moves that benefited short term gains because what do they care of the long-term benefits of a company when they will only be there for a short period of time. Dodd-Frank was passed a few years ago required public companies to disclose executive compensation but studies have shown that since this requirement was established executive compensation went up even more because executives now had more negotiating power due to the public information of executive compensation (ie. MSFT pays their CEO say $20 million well APPLE CEO wants $25mill.)

[UK2K]

The globalization of the workforce is what destroyed that particular period of time you fukking idiot. You can't legislate a strong economy, dumbshit. Either you have advantages or you don't. The advantages back then were that outsourcing was not as technologically practical as it is today, and the proportion of labor and management was much closer. The population has gone from 200 million to 300+ million since 1960 and the majority of the growth has been from unskilled immigrant or low education communities.


Money has to have value. You can't earn things without producing something. You can't just give people money who aren't doing something productive. Otherwise everyone will take easy jobs and where will the money come from? YOu're a f@ggot. Cut your hair, grow some balls, read a book, and stop being a try-hard wannabe poser. The philosophies you and your dumb, awkward, ugly, social reject circle of friends come up with in order to congratulate yourselves does not fool actual intelligent men. Some of us here have logical minds, and we don't try to compensate for our insecurities by playing the sjw robin hood hero. Kill yourself loser.
The end.

If you have no skills in life to produce anything, your value in the market is $0. Why? Because everyone with no skills can do nothing. Hell, people with skills can do nothing.

The truth hurts, but that's called life.

[falc39]

I don't agree with you. Preventing hikes because you predict automation or businesses leaving is nonsense. We already know how well the status quo works; it doesn't. Might as well go back to some pro-labor strategies that were prominent during the 50's. These GOP'ers love to fantasize over post war unskilled labor markets and getting back to blue collar roots, but their party systematically destroyed much of what made that period great for our economy and the unskilled worker. It's pretty clear our economy needs a bit of compression.

Right to Work policies are clearly not the answer.

You are taking general ideas and trying to apply it to a unique situation. I already mentioned that the housing market is different here. This isn't like the other parts of America where there is plenty of space to build. Once new housing supply can somehow miraculously match the demand then only will you see relief. But that is so far away, partly due to how little space is available and how hard regulations make it to build here. Do some searches on the bay area housing market to get an idea of why this law will do nothing to help those it is trying to help.

[HitandRun Reggie]

It will be interesting to see if the minimum wage hike will bring down workman's comp rates. California has BY FAR the highest rates in the nation. And workman's comp is based on gross payroll. So if rates remain the same, business owners will be hit with a one-two punch after the minimum wage hike. Especially small business which tends to pay higher rates than large corporations.

[BoutPractice]

It's a pretty big increase. Perhaps too big, although it happens incrementally so inflation will eat into it by the time they get to $15.

We'll see where it goes....

There definitely needs to be action on wages to start addressing the cost of living crisis in cities.

I'd also love to see cities and states attempt more drastic action on rents... there's little to lose at this point, so there's a space for experimenting with unorthodox, heretical policies, whether wildly libertarian or wildly communistic. Whatever we're doing now, I'm pretty sure there's something better we haven't thought of yet.

[Godzuki]

It will be interesting to see if the minimum wage hike will bring down workman's comp rates. California has BY FAR the highest rates in the nation. And workman's comp is based on gross payroll. So if rates remain the same, business owners will be hit with a one-two punch. Especially small business which tends to pay higher rates than large corporations.


ummm all payroll pay increases which comes directly from the government. thats a quadruple wammy and then some. its not just a 50% increase in what they're paying per employee take home, its much more than that in taxes. in maryland business not only have to pay their income taxes but employee income taxes as well based on their payroll.

people are retarded here. they talk from some politician viewpoint but have no idea how many expenses businesses have to account for to operate already. payroll taxes, insurances like workers comp, liability insurances, etc. all are related to payroll and can easily account for most of the money they're shelling out to do business already. this is not including property taxes, lease of building costs, general operating expenses, etc. etc.

its stupid when people here talk about what people deserve to make when it should be about what what it takes for the most businesses to survive which leads to higher employment rates, and a overall stronger economy. its so ass backwards to look at income gaps then go up to employers to make up for it, instead of business's first and go down to what they are able to give in relation to the most surviving. then figuring out solutions from that.

the retards here should do the math. your averrage restaurant for example is paying each waiter, bus boy, dishwasher, cook, etc. $15 minimum now from $7-10~....how many employees does it take for the restaurant to function vs how many tables full of customers does it take every hour to make up for that?

then add in the buildiing lease, lets say $3k-6k/month, operating expenses like trash, gas/electric, water/sewer, phone/internet, etc. which lets say is $2500/month, and then insurances which can vary considerably but lets say its like $5k/year.

how many customers does it take per hour and how much profit per table does the restaurant need to stay in business? :confusedshrug:

and i know i'm leaving out other expenses here, these are basically on the low end...

[UK2K]

It's a pretty big increase. Perhaps too big, although it happens incrementally so inflation will eat into it by the time they get to $15.

We'll see where it goes....

There definitely needs to be action on wages to start addressing the cost of living crisis in cities.

I'd also love to see cities and states attempt more drastic action on rents... there's little to lose at this point, so there's a space for experimenting with unorthodox, heretical policies, whether wildly libertarian or wildly communistic. Whatever we're doing now, I'm pretty sure there's something better we haven't thought of yet.

What's the cost of living in Detroit?

Supply and demand. Everyone is willing to sacrifice their first born to live in the Bay area. It's been like that, and it will always be like that, and because of that, it will always be expensive to live there.

Unless people decide they don't want to live there, and when that happens, the cost of living will go down.

Supply. And demand.

[UK2K]

ummm all payroll pay increases which comes directly from the government. thats a quadruple wammy and then some. its not just a 50% increase in what they're paying per employee take home, its much more than that in taxes. in maryland business not only have to pay their income taxes but employee income taxes as well based on their payroll.

people are retarded here. they talk from some politician viewpoint but have no idea how many expenses businesses have to account for to operate already. payroll taxes, insurances like workers comp, liability insurances, etc. all are related to payroll and can easily account for most of the money they're shelling out to do business already. this is not including property taxes, lease of building costs, general operating expenses, etc. etc.

its stupid when people here talk about what people deserve to make when it should be about what what it takes for the most businesses to survive which leads to higher employment rates, and a overall stronger economy. its so ass backwards to look at income gaps then go up to employers to make up for it, instead of business's first and go down to what they are able to give in relation to the most surviving. then figuring out solutions from that.

the retards here should do the math. your averrage restaurant for example is paying each waiter, bus boy, dishwasher, cook, etc. $15 minimum now from $7-10~....how many employees does it take for the restaurant to function vs how many tables full of customers does it take every hour to make up for that?

then add in the buildiing lease, lets say $3k-6k/month, operating expenses like trash, gas/electric, water/sewer, phone/internet, etc. which lets say is $1500/month, and then insurances which can vary considerably but lets say its like $5k/year.

how many customers does it take per hour and how much profit per table does the restaurant need to stay in business? :confusedshrug:

Again, we have 205 locations in California. Before its all said and done, we will go through and find every store that can't absorb the higher wages and still remain profitable, and we'll close it.

Because that's how business works.

The same way you go through and find employees who aren't worth what you are paying them, we will go through and find stores that aren't worth keeping open.

[Akrazotile]

It's a pretty big increase. Perhaps too big, although it happens incrementally so inflation will eat into it by the time they get to $15.

We'll see where it goes....

There definitely needs to be action on wages to start addressing the cost of living crisis in cities.

I'd also love to see cities and states attempt more drastic action on rents... there's little to lose at this point, so there's a space for experimenting with unorthodox, heretical policies, whether wildly libertarian or wildly communistic. Whatever we're doing now, I'm pretty sure there's something better we haven't thought of yet.

Maybe there are too many people in cities, maybe the wrong people have produced too many people with the wrong values and poor prospects.

When can we legislate on that? How long do we have to accept people doing whatever they want, regardless of the impact on society, but then claim society owes them whatever they need?

Im serious. What do you think about always asking society to compensate, and never holding individuals accountable? That's the imbalance that leads to these situations.

[BoutPractice]

Of course supply and demand play a major part in determining cost of living.

But you also have tons of other factors that can significantly increase or decrease this cost : policies that fuel housing bubbles, laws and regulations that affect the respective bargaining power of landlords and tenants, hoarding of property for speculation, zoning and other regulations, rent controls, the availability of social housing, etc.

As for "too many people with the wrong values", I don't buy it. I'm not denying it happens to some extent, but mostly what I see in cities is people often working very hard, including in highly skilled occupations, and still struggling to get by.

[DeuceWallaces]

You are taking general ideas and trying to apply it to a unique situation. I already mentioned that the housing market is different here. This isn't like the other parts of America where there is plenty of space to build. Once new housing supply can somehow miraculously match the demand then only will you see relief. But that is so far away, partly due to how little space is available and how hard regulations make it to build here. Do some searches on the bay area housing market to get an idea of why this law will do nothing to help those it is trying to help.

I think it's ignorant to think giving people raises will do nothing to help them.

[97 bulls]

This is kind of stupid for California. Anyone with a pulse, and that can speak English...well, can easily make over minimum wage in California. Even with businesses leaving like crazy, there is still a huge brain drain in the state, and lack of skilled labor. California doesn't even need a minimum wage, all they have to do is start asking the feds to start deporting illegals and wages will go through the roof.




Do tell. Who replaced Toyota?
The other car dealers.

[Godzuki]

Again, we have 205 locations in California. Before its all said and done, we will go through and find every store that can't absorb the higher wages and still remain profitable, and we'll close it.

Because that's how business works.

The same way you go through and find employees who aren't worth what you are paying them, we will go through and find stores that aren't worth keeping open.


so its like obamacare then

enact it then adjust/fix as they go

thing is its so discriminatory against blue collar business's more than white collar its funny people use the white collar corps have to pay more angle to justify it.

not just restaurants, the amount of employees landscapingg business's, cleaning services, etc. etc. carry to function are going to get raped.

even then a lot of these fast food mega corps like McDonalds, BK, etc. are dying already....

[UK2K]

Of course supply and demand play a major part in determining cost of living.

But you also have tons of other factors that can significantly increase or decrease this cost : policies that fuel housing bubbles, laws and regulations that affect the respective bargaining power of landlords and tenants, hoarding of property for speculation, zoning and other regulations, rent controls, the availability of social housing, etc.

As for "too many people with the wrong values", I don't buy it. I'm not denying it happens to some extent, but mostly what I see in cities is people often working very hard, including in highly skilled occupations, and still struggling to get by.

It's funny, if you moved my apartment three miles north into the city limits, my rent would likely be well over $2000/month.

There are certain places that is an issue, like NYC, but for the most part, people pay the higher prices because they WANT to live where the higher priced places are.

Nobody is forcing them to live there.

[97 bulls]

Again, we have 205 locations in California. Before its all said and done, we will go through and find every store that can't absorb the higher wages and still remain profitable, and we'll close it.

Because that's how business works.

The same way you go through and find employees who aren't worth what you are paying them, we will go through and find stores that aren't worth keeping open.
Right. And then you will absorb most of those workers to your other stores, then small business will open up in the community where your company left and take the rest.

Why do you thonk small businesses hate Walmart. They want them to close down.

[BoutPractice]

As you said, it depends on the city.

In cities like New York or London, regular people are starting to get priced out even of peripheral areas people live in out of pure necessity.

They move about as far away as they can from the central economic area while still being able to get to work every morning, and still find it difficult to pay the rent.

[ALBballer]

It's funny, if you moved my apartment three miles north into the city limits, my rent would likely be well over $2000/month.

There are certain places that is an issue, like NYC, but for the most part, people pay the higher prices because they WANT to live where the higher priced places are.

Nobody is forcing them to live there.

UK2K I don't care about your outdated theories about "Supply and Demand." The Bay Area and NYC should be the home of all types of people ranging from income, race, and education backgrounds. Sure San Fran and NYC are some of the most highly desirable places in the United States, and yes the zoning laws set by the liberal loonies are the reason why there isn't more housing in San Fran but minimum wage workers in these areas should not have to commute and should be able to live in the areas they work in. I'm tired of gentrification and tech bros ruining Silicon Valley and Wallstreet Execs ruining Manhattan!

People are entitled to afford a middle class lifestyle and to live in any area they wish. People are entitled to eat out twice a week, entitled to have cellphones with data, internet service, a car, a home, yearly vacations and everything that involves the American dream.

:rant

[ALBballer]

The other car dealers.

Toyota moved their corporate HQ,...the dealers are run by individuals.

Regardless Toyota wasn't the best example since Texas provided Toyota with subsidies to get them to move. How any conservative can be OK with corporate welfare but against welfare for low-income workers is beyond me.

[NumberSix]

I think it's ignorant to think giving people raises will do nothing to help them.
It depends what business it is. If it's something localized like restaurants or construction of course the people working those jobs will benefit from higher wages assuming the staff isn't downsized.

Anything that doesn't have to be localized though, those jobs just can't exist in California. Whether it's dried pasta, t-shirts, onion power, etc... Nobody is going to pay Californians $15 an hour to do these jobs when they can just do it right across the border in Mexico for 75 cents an hour then bring it across the border tax free.

[UK2K]

Right. And then you will absorb most of those workers to your other stores

Why would we move those workers to other stores? If we needed more labor in our other stores, we would have hired them a long time ago.

They'll be let go, because they have no value. That's what we've been saying in this thread the whole time...


, then small business will open up in the community where your company left and take the rest.

What small business? Ones that can't compete by paying $15 an hour to someone to stock shelves? Even if this measure doesn't apply to small businesses, it applies to small businesses, because those small businesses are competing for the same finite amount of labor that Walmart and Target are.


Why do you thonk small businesses hate Walmart. They want them to close down.

I'd want my competitors to close down too. What's your point?

[HitandRun Reggie]

The other car dealers.

Like which ones? The only major car manufacturer left in California is Tesla. And even they have begun moving many operations to Nevada.

[UK2K]

As you said, it depends on the city.

In cities like New York or London, regular people are starting to get priced out even of peripheral areas people live in out of pure necessity.

They move about as far away as they can from the central economic area while still being able to get to work every morning, and still find it difficult to pay the rent.

Welp, I drive an hour to work every day because I didn't want to live downtown. Correction, I didn't want to PAY to live downtown.

Different strokes for different folks. They could have done like me, and drive an hour to work while saving hundreds on rent/mortgage every month.

But some people just HAVE to be in the action, despite not being able to afford it. Tough luck, I don't feel sorry for you.

[Godzuki]

Right. And then you will absorb most of those workers to your other stores, then small business will open up in the community where your company left and take the rest.

Why do you thonk small businesses hate Walmart. They want them to close down.


lol wtf :biggums:

so those other 'successful' stores dont already have workers? so is every business always hiring infinitely?

who is going to start a small business in a small business killing environment? you? you're going to put down $50-100k to start one? where u have to pay your lease, operating expenses, insuranes and liabilities, on top of each employee $15/hour? what business are you going to start that can survive that and is so ez? chipotle chain i guess :sleeping

y'all talk like things just happen automatically :biggums:

[DeuceWallaces]

It depends what business it is. If it's something localized like restaurants or construction of course the people working those jobs will benefit from higher wages assuming the staff isn't downsized.

Anything that doesn't have to be localized though, those jobs just can't exist in California. Whether it's dried pasta, t-shirts, onion power, etc... Nobody is going to pay Californians $15 an hour to do these jobs when they can just do it right across the border in Mexico for 75 cents an hour then bring it across the border tax free.

They might leave, now they can work at the GAP, Arby's, Williams Sonoma, Landscaping company, the Shell Station, etc. and make 15 an hour. There's an endless supply of shit jobs that are hiring.

[ALBballer]

Like which ones? The only major car manufacturer left in California is Tesla. And even they have begun moving many operations to Nevada.

Nevada offered almost close to a billion dollars in tax incentives even though Nevada has no corporate and personal income tax.

So Nevada a state that has no corporate and personal income tax which by itself should be enough to entice companies to move to Nevada still offered close to a billion dollars in tax credits.

Welfare for all for the rich and for the poor. Unless you're in the middle class then you're going to get ****ed to pay for all of this.

[Akrazotile]

Of course supply and demand play a major part in determining cost of living.

But you also have tons of other factors that can significantly increase or decrease this cost : policies that fuel housing bubbles, laws and regulations that affect the respective bargaining power of landlords and tenants, hoarding of property for speculation, zoning and other regulations, rent controls, the availability of social housing, etc.

As for "too many people with the wrong values", I don't buy it. I'm not denying it happens to some extent, but mostly what I see in cities is people often working very hard, including in highly skilled occupations, and still struggling to get by.


Like stalkerforlife? Two kids, welfare, no job.


This happens ALL OVER the country dude. It's rampant. Don't be afraid to call it out.

[UK2K]

UK2K I don't care about your outdated theories about "Supply and Demand." The Bay Area and NYC should be the home of all types of people ranging from income, race, and education backgrounds. Sure San Fran and NYC are some of the most highly desirable places in the United States, and yes the zoning laws set by the liberal loonies are the reason why there isn't more housing in San Fran but minimum wage workers in these areas should not have to commute and should be able to live in the areas they work in. I'm tired of gentrification and tech bros ruining Silicon Valley and Wallstreet Execs ruining Manhattan!

People are entitled to afford a middle class lifestyle and to live in any area they wish. People are entitled to eat out twice a week, entitled to have cellphones with data, internet service, a car, a home, yearly vacations and everything that involves the American dream.

:rant

I know, its crazy. What are the odds that the place everyone wants to live happens to be the most expensive place to live? Coincidence or...?

[Akrazotile]

What's the cost of living in Detroit?

Supply and demand. Everyone is willing to sacrifice their first born to live in the Bay area. It's been like that, and it will always be like that, and because of that, it will always be expensive to live there.

Unless people decide they don't want to live there, and when that happens, the cost of living will go down.

Supply. And demand.


Exactly. And the funny thing is, a lot of those liberal techies could save a big chunk of change by moving over to Oakland.

But will they? Hell no. They care about enforcing tolerance and diversity for people in South Carolina. They're not trying to practice that shit themselves.

[bdreason]

. Nobody is going to pay Californians $15 an hour to do these jobs when they can just do it right across the border in Mexico for 75 cents an hour then bring it across the border tax free.

Nobody is gonna pay these people $10 an hour either. Any company that wants to outsource labor to Mexico or China is already doing it. Raising the minimum wage has more to do with allowing people to make enough money to actually live where they work. The rent prices have skyrocketed across the board in California. My family owns multiple properties in northern and southern California and we've increased rents by at least $100 every year. The cheapest apartment we currently offer is $1,200 for a 1-room studio. I honestly have no idea how anyone could survive on $10 an hour in California.

[UK2K]

Exactly. And the funny thing is, a lot of those liberal techies could save a big chunk of change by moving over to Oakland.

But will they? Hell no. They care about enforcing tolerance and diversity for people in South Carolina. They're not trying to practice that shit themselves.

Yep. Plenty of places to live in cities where you can rent for a fraction of what most are paying now, they just dont want to live there. Again, supply and demand.

So I dont feel sorry for anyone, ESPECIALLY the young ones who live in San Fran, who complains about their cost of living. If it's too expensive... move.

Problem solved.

[UK2K]

Nobody is gonna pay these people $10 an hour either. Any company that wants to outsource labor to Mexico or China is already doing it. Raising the minimum wage has more to do with allowing people to make enough money to actually live where they work. The rent prices have skyrocketed across the board in California. My family owns multiple properties in northern and southern California and we've increased rents by at least $100 every year. The cheapest apartment we currently offer is $1,200 for a 1-room studio. I honestly have no idea how anyone could survive on $10 an hour in California.

Because dumbassess will always pay it because the mailing address is 'Cali, yo'.

Even if it means they have to go into debt and live off credit cards, they'll do whatever it takes to live somewhere cool.

And they can suffer the consequences of it for all I care.

[Akrazotile]

Nobody is gonna pay these people $10 an hour either. Any company that wants to outsource labor to Mexico or China is already doing it. Raising the minimum wage has more to do with allowing people to make enough money to actually live where they work. The rent prices have skyrocketed across the board in California. My family owns multiple properties in northern and southern California and we've increased rents by at least $100 every year. The cheapest apartment we currently offer is $1,200 for a 1-room studio. I honestly have no idea how anyone could survive on $10 an hour in California.


They're not supposed to.

Minimum wage is for ENTRY level workers. In other words, people just starting out. Who should be either living at home with parents, or with roommates, or with a spouse who is presumably making more than that.

Nobody is SUPPOSED to be floating their own California studio making $10 hour. When I first moved out there I was sharing a 2 bedroom in Burbank with 3 other guys, and I worked at McDonalds. Once I got plugged into the clinical trial places I was able to move into my own tiny studio in Hollywood for $775.

Who are these burger flippers that are entitled to their own private $1,200 studio?

If someone makes the wrong life choices and is flipping burgers at 35 years old with kids to support, that's not the economies fault. That's their fault. And I empathize, and I know some of them are good people who made mistakes in their youth. But it's not the governments responsibility to basically sanction and compensate for those choices. They have to be resourceful on their own.

[Blue&Orange]

AMR was founded in 1992 when several regional ambulance providers consolidated into a single company.

American Medical Response (AMR), who proclaims itself to be the largest private ambulance company in the United States, announced on February 14 that they were going to be purchased by the large private equity firm of Clayton, Dubilier, and Rice (CD&R) for $3.2 billion, or roughly $64 a share. If the purchase and transaction were completed, AMR stock would not be publicly traded on Wall Street through the New York Stock Exchange anymore, but would be wholly owned by a private company.
Oh the irony UK2K, oh the irony :rolleyes: Do you even read what you post? This is what i just had finished saying:

Know what a edge fund is for example? Are you minimal aware of the world economic trend? Consolidation know what it means?.
1992? So after i ask you if you think it's 1910, i come up with some 1992 feel good story. You really need to get away from the bullshit propaganda that are shoving down your throat and actually try to undestand what is happening financial wise for the last decades.



By the way, Netflix started when Blockbuster was dominating the landscape. Amazon started in 94 when big box stores controlled everything. Facebook? You remember that website?

Netflix started as an American DVD-by-mail service in 1998. Netflix was created by a guy with $700 millions in his pocket.
Amazon "In 1994, Bezos left his employment as vice-president of D. E. Shaw & Co., a Wall Street firm, and moved to Seattle. He began to work on a business plan for what would eventually become Amazon.com." Again Oh the irony.

Facebook? Stolen.

This is not even the point, what does Amazon, netflix and facebook prove? In 1910 there was also successful business.

Yeah the paramedic dude, who is still paying his student loan, and have no background in business should just make his own hospital because, that's your solution, the world got 7 billion people and every single one of them should start their own business lol Everyone should just study economics and Business & Management, and everyone should just be at the right place at the right time, and everyone should just be a cutthroat douchebag. Because if you don't you are worthless piece of shit that deserve to live in poverty :hammerhead:

You make it so trivial, everyone can be amazon and facebook and netflix. :hammerhead:

And i don't know what i'm even arguing here, this is not the point.

What does this have to do with starting your own business? 5.2 million people last year were working for a company less than 1 year old. Guess some others took that 'if you don't like working for someone else, work for yourself' advice, eh?
lol it's not some others, it's a lot.

. The 28 million small businesses in America account for 54% of all U.S. sales.
. Small businesses provide 55% of all jobs and 66% of all net new jobs since the 1970s.
. The 600,000 plus franchised small businesses in the U.S. account for 40% of all retail sales and provide jobs for some 8 million people.
. The small business sector in America occupies 30-50% of all commercial space, an estimated 20-34 billion square feet.
. Furthermore, the small business sector is growing rapidly. While corporate America has been "downsizing", the rate of small business "start-ups" has grown, and the rate for small business failures has declined.
. The number of small businesses in the United States has increased 49% since 1982.
. Since 1990, as big business eliminated 4 million jobs, small businesses added 8 milli


And while this seems to be very good, two facts stand,
1st - smalls business are growing in numbers because they remain small, they don't grow to medium or big, know why? :sleeping
2nd - 99% of Us citizens have lost purchasing power and are poorer compared to 20 years ago.

CONSOLIDATION!

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/18/richest-62-billionaires-wealthy-half-world-population-combined

Are you telling me there are 62 people in the word that are more smarter, hardworking, dedicated, etc... etc than half the world? :lol


Your arguments, as well as all leftists policies, are based on feelings and emotions as opposed to logic. Hard to discuss something with someone who is so heavily invested in their inner Dr. Phil.
Pretty sure i'm the one that keep himself to facts after facts, while right wing idiots like you just keep blabbering the same pre-formatted brainwashed propaganda. What facts have you used? Amazon, Netflix and Facebook? :applause: I don't even get it.

Are we in ****ing China?
Right because you really care with the unfortunate ones in your country, you just don't care with the ones in china. Yeah who gives a shit about people in China? Yeah who gives a shit about people. :lol

But of course, amazingly, leftists and hippies continue to buy their products, because they don't care. They only care when they can make a political statement out of it. If they can benefit from it.
Again not the point. Foxcom factories build phones for almost every brand. Product boycott? Why not hunger strike? lol You know there's a thing called laws? Those damn things can be change, to actually protect people, and they can be change by this thing called government. Know what that is?



You want to move your factory to China? Good. Increase tariffs, and let them move their shit to the jungle. Good luck having the Chinese buy your products with their $4/day wages.
Great tell that to US government, they are the ones scared shitless of losing Apple.


Basically what we got here is simple,

this is your hero:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/martin-shkreli-the-ceo-that-hiked-price-of-hiv-treating-drug-arrested-on-securities-fraud-charges-a6776756.html

this is my hero:
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/nov/29/future-of-work-dan-price-gravity-ceo-cut-own-pay-to-give-staff-increased-minum-wage

[Akrazotile]

Oh the irony UK2K, oh the irony :rolleyes:

1992? So after i ask you if you think it's 1910, i come up with some 1992 feel good story. You really need to get away from the bullshit propaganda that are shoving down your throat and actually try to undestand what is happening financial wise for the last decades.


Netflix started as an American DVD-by-mail service in 1998. Netflix was created by a guy with $700 millions in his pocket.
Amazon "In 1994, Bezos left his employment as vice-president of D. E. Shaw & Co., a Wall Street firm, and moved to Seattle. He began to work on a business plan for what would eventually become Amazon.com." Again Oh the irony.

Facebook? Stolen.

This is not even the point, what does Amazon, netflix and facebook prove? In 1910 there was also successful business.

Yeah the paramedic dude, who is still paying his student loan, and have no background in business should just make his own hospital because, that's your solution, the world got 7 billion people and every single one of them should start their own business lol Everyone should just study economics and Business & Management, and everyone should just be at the right place at the right time, and everyone should just be a cutthroat douchebag. Because if you don't you are worthless piece of shit that deserve to live in poverty :hammerhead:

You make it so trivial, everyone can be amazon and facebook and netflix. :hammerhead:

And i don't know what i'm even arguing here, this is not the point.

lol it's not some others, it's a lot.

. The 28 million small businesses in America account for 54% of all U.S. sales.
. Small businesses provide 55% of all jobs and 66% of all net new jobs since the 1970s.
. The 600,000 plus franchised small businesses in the U.S. account for 40% of all retail sales and provide jobs for some 8 million people.
. The small business sector in America occupies 30-50% of all commercial space, an estimated 20-34 billion square feet.
. Furthermore, the small business sector is growing rapidly. While corporate America has been "downsizing", the rate of small business "start-ups" has grown, and the rate for small business failures has declined.
. The number of small businesses in the United States has increased 49% since 1982.
. Since 1990, as big business eliminated 4 million jobs, small businesses added 8 milli


And while this seems to be very good, two facts stand,
1st - smalls business are growing in numbers because they remain small, they don't grow to medium or big, know why? :sleeping
2nd - 99% of Us citizens have lost purchasing power and are poorer compared to 20 years ago.

CONSOLIDATION!

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/18/richest-62-billionaires-wealthy-half-world-population-combined

Are you telling me there are 62 people in the word that are more smarter, hardworking, dedicated, etc... etc than half the world? :lol


Pretty sure i'm the one that keep himself to facts after facts, while right wing idiots like you just keep blabbering the same pre-formatted brainwashed propaganda. What facts have you used? Amazon, Netflix and Facebook? :applause: I don't even get it.

Right because you really care with the unfortunate ones in your country, you just don't care with the ones in china. Yeah who gives a shit about people in China? Yeah who gives a shit about people. :lol

Again not the point. Foxcom factories build phones for almost every brand. Product boycott? Why not hunger strike? lol You know there's a thing called laws? Those damn things can be change, to actually protect people, and they can be change by this thing called government. Know what that is?


Great tell that to US government, they are the ones scared shitless of losing Apple.


Basically what we got here is simple,

this is your hero:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/martin-shkreli-the-ceo-that-hiked-price-of-hiv-treating-drug-arrested-on-securities-fraud-charges-a6776756.html

this is my hero:
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/nov/29/future-of-work-dan-price-gravity-ceo-cut-own-pay-to-give-staff-increased-minum-wage


Meltdown.

[Blue&Orange]

[QUOTE]CEOs now make 300 times more than typical American workers, compared to 20 times in 1965.

Even Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has called high CEO pay a

[UK2K]

Oh the irony UK2K, oh the irony :rolleyes: Do you even read what you post? This is what i just had finished saying:

1992? So after i ask you if you think it's 1910, i come up with some 1992 feel good story. You really need to get away from the bullshit propaganda that are shoving down your throat and actually try to undestand what is happening financial wise for the last decades.

Propaganda? A true story is propaganda? AMR was consolidated AFTER it began. Those companies that consolidated, who do you think started them? People who were tired of working for others. They started a company and sold it for $3 billion. What makes that propaganda?



Netflix started as an American DVD-by-mail service in 1998. Netflix was created by a guy with $700 millions in his pocket.
Amazon "In 1994, Bezos left his employment as vice-president of D. E. Shaw & Co., a Wall Street firm, and moved to Seattle. He began to work on a business plan for what would eventually become Amazon.com." Again Oh the irony.

Facebook? Stolen.

This is not even the point, what does Amazon, netflix and facebook prove? In 1910 there was also successful business.

The point is, anyone can start a business. Papa Johns sold pizza out of his garage 30 years ago. The point is, every successful business had a beginning somewhere.



Yeah the paramedic dude, who is still paying his student loan, and have no background in business should just make his own hospital because, that's your solution, the world got 7 billion people and every single one of them should start their own business lol Everyone should just study economics and Business & Management, and everyone should just be at the right place at the right time, and everyone should just be a cutthroat douchebag. Because if you don't you are worthless piece of shit that deserve to live in poverty :hammerhead:

Didn't say his own hospital, I said his own business. He went to school right? Probably had to learn medical shit? How about an in-home healthcare company? How about starting his own ambulatory business? Instead of making excuses, I bet he could find something to start if he really wanted to. And if he was good at it, and offers a product or service people want, I 100% guarantee you that he will make money. Guarantee it.

Why do you think plumbers make so much? They moonlight. Cops? They moonlight. They take their skills SOMEWHERE ELSE where someone will pay them on top of their jobs. Why can't he do that? Cause...... cause.....


You make it so trivial, everyone can be amazon and facebook and netflix. :hammerhead:

And i don't know what i'm even arguing here, this is not the point.

lol it's not some others, it's a lot.

. The 28 million small businesses in America account for 54% of all U.S. sales.
. Small businesses provide 55% of all jobs and 66% of all net new jobs since the 1970s.
. The 600,000 plus franchised small businesses in the U.S. account for 40% of all retail sales and provide jobs for some 8 million people.
. The small business sector in America occupies 30-50% of all commercial space, an estimated 20-34 billion square feet.
. Furthermore, the small business sector is growing rapidly. While corporate America has been "downsizing", the rate of small business "start-ups" has grown, and the rate for small business failures has declined.
. The number of small businesses in the United States has increased 49% since 1982.
. Since 1990, as big business eliminated 4 million jobs, small businesses added 8 milli

It is a lot. Plenty of people start businesses every year. Some work out, some don't. Part of the risk. If it was easy, everyone would do it.



And while this seems to be very good, two facts stand,
1st - smalls business are growing in numbers because they remain small, they don't grow to medium or big, know why? :sleeping
2nd - 99% of Us citizens have lost purchasing power and are poorer compared to 20 years ago.

CONSOLIDATION!

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/18/richest-62-billionaires-wealthy-half-world-population-combined

Are you telling me there are 62 people in the word that are more smarter, hardworking, dedicated, etc... etc than half the world? :lol

I am telling you if they didn't make the moves that they made, they wouldn't on that list.



Pretty sure i'm the one that keep himself to facts after facts, while right wing idiots like you just keep blabbering the same pre-formatted brainwashed propaganda. What facts have you used? Amazon, Netflix and Facebook? :applause: I don't even get it.

The fact of life. It's not really all that complicated.



Right because you really care with the unfortunate ones in your country, you just don't care with the ones in china. Yeah who gives a shit about people in China? Yeah who gives a shit about people. :lol

You used the example of Apple, and how their employees were killing themselves IN CHINA. The people of China aren't even related to the discussion.



Again not the point. Foxcom factories build phones for almost every brand. Product boycott? Why not hunger strike? lol You know there's a thing called laws? Those damn things can be change, to actually protect people, and they can be change by this thing called government. Know what that is?

Not following your train of thought on this one.



Great tell that to US government, they are the ones scared shitless of losing Apple.


Basically what we got here is simple,

this is your hero:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/martin-shkreli-the-ceo-that-hiked-price-of-hiv-treating-drug-arrested-on-securities-fraud-charges-a6776756.html

this is my hero:
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/nov/29/future-of-work-dan-price-gravity-ceo-cut-own-pay-to-give-staff-increased-minum-wage

First off, I am my own hero.

Secondly, I don't care for that guy much, but, what's his is his. My opinion on property rights doesn't change depending on the morality of the situation. He owns the rights to the miracle drug, he can charge what he wants for it. Do I think its fair? Sure it is. Do I think its right? No, its a super dick move, but lets face it, he owns it. That's the bottom line.

I promise, I would never come over to your house and DEMAND something that was yours. Obviously, you can't say the same thing.

[Akrazotile]

:roll:


Globalization has increased corporate profits in spades, while immigration has kept the cost of employee labor low.

If you resent the growing wealth gap, you should oppose illegal immigration.

If youre a bitch too scared to oppose illegal immigration bc all youre secure enough to speak about is calling republicans racist, then good for you. Youll spend your life crying about a problem you yourself are propagating more than anyone.

[Blue&Orange]

Because dumbassess will always pay it because the mailing address is 'Cali, yo'.

Even if it means they have to go into debt and live off credit cards, they'll do whatever it takes to live somewhere cool.

And they can suffer the consequences of it for all I care.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_cluster
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_cluster#The_Silicon_Valley_case

[UK2K]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_cluster
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_cluster#The_Silicon_Valley_case

What's that have to do with where employees live?

Again, I drive an hour to work everyday. Right around 56 minutes is my morning commute. Why? Because my rent is half as much as it would be if I drove 15 minutes to work.

That's part of the trade-off. If you cant live in a high priced area or, holy shit, you decide you dont want to in order to save 25% of your paycheck every other week (like I do), you make the drive. If you don't want to make the drive, you pay the increase in costs.

Supply and demand.

[falc39]

I think it's ignorant to think giving people raises will do nothing to help them.

It's not going to help the current situation here in California. I'm concerned with actually solving the problem, not trying to band-aid with something that has it's own unintended consequences. What's really more ignorant... You are just repeating generic simplistic political talking points. I'm actually informing you of the situation here unique to this place. I actually live here and see everyday the stuff I am talking about. This is a thread about a law in California. You live in Michigan, but go ahead and try to tell me about the situation in California that I guess you supposedly know more about lol. I told you what you should read up on to better understand the situation, but if you don't want to do that and just keep repeating your talking points, then I can't help you.


They might leave, now they can work at the GAP, Arby's, Williams Sonoma, Landscaping company, the Shell Station, etc. and make 15 an hour. There's an endless supply of shit jobs that are hiring.

:facepalm No, there isn't. There isn't an endless supply of anything. You are just making shit up. A lot of those minimum wage jobs are seasonal or part-time. What you think the world is like in your fantasy is nothing like actual reality.

[falc39]

It's a pretty big increase. Perhaps too big, although it happens incrementally so inflation will eat into it by the time they get to $15.

We'll see where it goes....

There definitely needs to be action on wages to start addressing the cost of living crisis in cities.

I'd also love to see cities and states attempt more drastic action on rents... there's little to lose at this point, so there's a space for experimenting with unorthodox, heretical policies, whether wildly libertarian or wildly communistic. Whatever we're doing now, I'm pretty sure there's something better we haven't thought of yet.


Of course supply and demand play a major part in determining cost of living.

But you also have tons of other factors that can significantly increase or decrease this cost : policies that fuel housing bubbles, laws and regulations that affect the respective bargaining power of landlords and tenants, hoarding of property for speculation, zoning and other regulations, rent controls, the availability of social housing, etc.

The problem here is we are talking about California, a very progressive state already. Little to lose? I disagree with that. There is always something to lose and risk involved. It's called unintended consequences. I guess it would be a central planner's dream to live in a world with unintended consequences but that is hardly what happens in reality. You can definitely make a bad situation worse. Besides, a lot of these cities already have those kind of laws existing (rent control, zoning, etc.). It hasn't done much to help. A lot of existing laws and regulations have actually hurt the housing market and is contributing to restricting supply.

[PWB15]

So what supposed to happen to the people making $13 an hour

[Blue&Orange]

Those companies that consolidated, who do you think started them? People who were tired of working for others. They started a company and sold it for $3 billion. What makes that propaganda?

Right and now if you want to start your own company you have to deal with a $3 billion corporation. Hence not being 1910, hence consolidation, hence, wages cuts, because no competition, hence you are not getting it and i'm tired.


And if he was good at it, and offers a product or service people want, I 100% guarantee you that he will make money. Guarantee it.
That's why there is ~30.000 bankruptcies every quarter of the year in the US, that's why only half of new startups last 5 years.

Let's get back on track, point is, people are whining about a 10 year phased increase in minimum wage that basically will only be marginally above inflation, whining how prices will increased, after 20 years of prices doubling up ABOVE inflation, and wages basically remaining the same, inflation ASIDE.



Globalization has increased corporate profits in spades, while immigration has kept the cost of employee labor low.

If you resent the growing wealth gap, you should oppose illegal immigration.

If youre a bitch too scared to oppose illegal immigration bc all youre secure enough to speak about is calling republicans racist, then good for you. Youll spend your life crying about a problem you yourself are propagating more than anyone.
Dude i don't give a single **** about US immigration problem, US has all the right to control immigration flow if they think it's in their best interest, but a Wall? Is this 1775? Why not using your mammoth of an army to patrol the border with drones and shit. Yes mexico is going to pay the wall :lol

[DeuceWallaces]

It's not going to help the current situation here in California. I'm concerned with actually solving the problem, not trying to band-aid with something that has it's own unintended consequences. What's really more ignorant... You are just repeating generic simplistic political talking points. I'm actually informing you of the situation here unique to this place. I actually live here and see everyday the stuff I am talking about. This is a thread about a law in California. You live in Michigan, but go ahead and try to tell me about the situation in California that I guess you supposedly know more about lol. I told you what you should read up on to better understand the situation, but if you don't want to do that and just keep repeating your talking points, then I can't help you.



:facepalm No, there isn't. There isn't an endless supply of anything. You are just making shit up. A lot of those minimum wage jobs are seasonal or part-time. What you think the world is like in your fantasy is nothing like actual reality.

1) It's also a general conversation on economy and labor rights that I was discussing.
2) California is not unique in expensive and/or gentrified housing markets. I have lived in many of these places.
3) Considering the aforementioned, I still think you're wrong, and feel a 10K a year raise will clearly help many people, even given the endless amount of complexities and contingencies surrounding the core issue both in California and other large markets.

[UK2K]

Right and now if you want to start your own company you have to deal with a $3 billion corporation. Hence not being 1910, hence consolidation, hence, wages cuts, because no competition, hence you are not getting it and i'm tired.

That's been the case every year in history. Everyone has to compete against someone established. What part of 'businesses show up every year that weren't around the year before' is confusing to you? **** look around you, new shit comes out every year. How are you going to sit there and argue that its too hard to start a business vs some mega corporation when people are doing it every day?

http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/fortunefastestgrowing/2010/companies/bestinvestments/

That list is from 2010. Go through there and tell me how many of those companies are more than 30 years old? I spot checked a hand full of them.... very few. Which must mean... they were started fairly recently. And they're turning a profit? No way!




Right and now if you want to start your own company That's why there is ~30.000 bankruptcies every quarter of the year in the US, that's why only half of new startups last 5 years.

You can lead a horse to water, but you cant make them drink. That's called taking a risk. Ever watch that show Shark Tank? Lots of people risked their whole lives on designing a branding products. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't.

Maybe if we cut back on the miles and miles and miles and miles of government regulations, and maybe if you didn't have to navigate stacks of paperwork just to sell a ****ing nail, maybe starting a business would be a bit easier?



Let's get back on track, point is, people are whining about a 10 year phased increase in minimum wage that basically will only be marginally above inflation, whining how prices will increased, after 20 years of prices doubling up ABOVE inflation, and wages basically remaining the same, inflation ASIDE.


It's a 5 year increase but, I don't think anyone is whining about the increase so much as people (like myself) recognize that you can't put a band-aid on a bullet hole. This, like everything else government tries to do, doesn't fix shit. This is a temporary solution for VOTES. It doesn't actually solve any problems.

That's my issue. This fixes nothing. If throwing out min. wages made us all rich, then I vote we make the min wage $50,000/hr and we can all live in fat cribs with nice rides.

[ThePhantomCreep]

No, not at all. You've got it all wrong. People save money to MAKE money.

I know that in your mind it sounds great to have all the money out in the market changing hands from day to day. That would cause the greatest depression in history.

How the hell would anybody get a loan from a bank? Where do you think that money comes from? That's money that people have saved up. And people who have a lot of money saved up can afford to put their money in long term, high interest plans. With that money secured, banks can loan people money for mortgages, car payments, business loans, etc... Without that money, most people are completely fcuked. Most people don't have enough money laying around to buy those things cash down.

I know you lefties hate "wealth inequality" but without the very wealthy, there's nobody to invest.

This post highlights the screwed up logic of the 1% shill.

Consumer spending makes up 70% of our GDP, yet this genius thinks stuffing all the money into the off-shore accounts of the very wealthy is what makes for a strong economy, literally the opposite of what any credible economist would say.

Yes, we need the super wealthy to have more money, so they can loan it to the poor and thus drown them in debt. Awesome logic. :lol

These same brainiacs will then wonder aloud why GDP growth is anemic. Uh, because no one has any money to spend?

If you give the working and middle classes more disposable income, they will most likely spend it. It's that simple. This increases revenues for businesses, which leads to more profit, more hiring, etc.

$15/hr doesn't even stretch that far in an expensive-ass state like California, it's the equivalent of $10/hr in poorer, less desirable places. By 2022, $15 in California will be even less impressive than it is now, but it's better than nothing.

[97 bulls]

This post highlights the screwed up logic of the 1% shill.

Consumer spending makes up 70% of our GDP, yet this genius thinks stuffing all the money into the off-shore accounts of the very wealthy is what makes for a strong economy, literally the opposite of what any credible economist would say.

Yes, we need the super wealthy to have more money, so they loan it to the poor and thus drown them in debt. Awesome logic. :lol

These same brainiacs will then wonder aloud why GDP growth is anemic. Uh, because no one has any money to spend?

If you give the working and middle classes more disposable income, they will most likely spend it. It's that simple. This increases revenues for businesses, which leads to more profit, more hiring, etc.

$15/hr doesn't even stretch that far in an expensive-ass state like California, it's the equivalent of $10/hr in poorer, less desirable places. By 2022, $15 in California will be even less impressive than it is now, but it's better than nothing.
For the win!!!!!!!

[NumberSix]

This post highlights the screwed up logic of the 1% shill.

Consumer spending makes up 70% of our GDP, yet this genius thinks stuffing all the money into the off-shore accounts of the very wealthy is what makes for a strong economy, literally the opposite of what any credible economist would say.

Yes, we need the super wealthy to have more money, so they loan it to the poor and thus drown them in debt. Awesome logic. :lol

These same brainiacs will then wonder aloud why GDP growth is anemic. Uh, because no one has any money to spend?

If you give the working and middle classes more disposable income, they will most likely spend it. It's that simple. This increases revenues for businesses, which leads to more profit, more hiring, etc.

$15/hr doesn't even stretch that far in an expensive-ass state like California, it's the equivalent of $10/hr in poorer, less desirable places. By 2022, $15 in California will be even less impressive than it is now, but it's better than nothing.
Who said anything about off shore accounts? :roll:

[falc39]

California's $15/hour Wage Could Help Workers, Cost Jobs (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/californias-15hour-wage-workers-cost-jobs-38000299)


Economists including Clemens said in interviews that projecting what would happen in California is tough because the proposed increase is significantly larger than those in the past and may have unintended consequences.

One leading economist on minimum wage issues said an increase from $10 to $15 would reduce employment among the least-skilled workers by at least 5 to 10 percent. But the impact on employment might be even bigger because employers would have to absorb significantly higher costs.

"I would go so far as to call this reckless," said David Neumark, an economics professor at the University of California, Irvine.


Brian Hibbs, owner of comic book and graphic novel store Comix Experience, said he supports the idea of a minimum standard of living, but he thinks the wage hike won't accomplish that because it will hurt small businesses. Projecting that his payroll for six employees will be $40,000 greater in 2018, he started a graphic novel membership club to meet the new wage requirements. If the membership doesn't grow, he said, he may have to close.

"I don't think this was thought through," he said. "The cost of labor is so high. It's very, very difficult to run a profitable business at this point."


Yasmin Fernandez, an activist who has sought a higher minimum wage, works in San Jose as a cashier at a gas station in the morning and at a Panda Express restaurant in the afternoon and evening.

The 34-year-old said she takes home about $2,400 per month after taxes. After paying her living expenses and helping her widowed mother, sick brother and four nephews back in Mexico, she usually has about $150 left for herself. She works from 6 a.m. to 11:30 p.m. almost every day.

An increase to the minimum wage will be heavenly, she said, describing how it would offer "a little more money for me, to maybe go to a concert or do something fun once in a while," as well as "help my family even more."

So this activist lady chooses to live in Silicon Valley, one of the highest areas for cost of living and housing prices, and she is expecting her minimum wage to support not only herself, but 6 other people back in Mexico? The minimum wage was never meant for this.

[Dresta]

This post highlights the screwed up logic of the 1% shill.

Consumer spending makes up 70% of our GDP, yet this genius thinks stuffing all the money into the off-shore accounts of the very wealthy is what makes for a strong economy, literally the opposite of what any credible economist would say.

Yes, we need the super wealthy to have more money, so they can loan it to the poor and thus drown them in debt. Awesome logic. :lol

These same brainiacs will then wonder aloud why GDP growth is anemic. Uh, because no one has any money to spend?

If you give the working and middle classes more disposable income, they will most likely spend it. It's that simple. This increases revenues for businesses, which leads to more profit, more hiring, etc.

$15/hr doesn't even stretch that far in an expensive-ass state like California, it's the equivalent of $10/hr in poorer, less desirable places. By 2022, $15 in California will be even less impressive than it is now, but it's better than nothing.
Ignorance at its finest. I see you keep parroting that incorrect 70% of GDP stat. Try looking into things a bit before just parroting them like some inane drone. And even at the % consumer spending is (which is much lower than 70%), consumers are spending far more money than they actually have (i.e. borrowing), which of course, in your warped and completely illogical worldview, is a good thing. Borrowing for investment is far preferable and much more productive than borrowing to consume.

Consumption does not drive real economic growth, and it only takes the most basic logic (which you evidently lack) to understand why this is so. The only real way to increase wealth is to improve the efficiency of production. Inflating an artificially concocted statistic (i.e. GDP) is not a sure fire indicator of real growth, wealth and prosperity.

[97 bulls]

Ignorance at its finest. I see you keep parroting that incorrect 70% of GDP stat. Try looking into things a bit before just parroting them like some inane drone. And even at the % consumer spending is (which is much lower than 70%), consumers are spending far more money than they actually have (i.e. borrowing), which of course, in your warped and completely illogical worldview, is a good thing. Borrowing for investment is far preferable and much more productive than borrowing to consume.

Consumption does not drive real economic growth, and it only takes the most basic logic (which you evidently lack) to understand why this is so. The only real way to increase wealth is to improve the efficiency of production. Inflating an artificially concocted statistic (i.e. GDP) is not a sure fire indicator of real growth, wealth and prosperity.
I don't believe GDP is used to give us an overall view of growth. It just shows whose putting money into the economy. I don't do much research on it, but I would like to know who or what make up the other 30%?

Saying that....no matter how efficient you may be at creating at product, if no one wants it, it's worthless.

It's simple supply and demand. Demand dictates the supply. I think that term should be switched to be honest. There is NO Incentive for a business to grow (invest) if they are not making money. The only way to make money is to move product. Once you move product and can no longer keep up with demand, THEN you expand (invest in your business) and buy another building, warehouse, store etc. And thus you NEED MORE PEOPLE to run it.

Of you don't have people to buy your product, then your business won't be going very far. How is this do difficult to comprehend? ????