|
Post by billt on Jan 10, 2007 16:54:25 GMT -5
i keep hearing about how raising the minimum wage will cause price increases(inflation).
this is easily researched and guess what you will find after the 2 times the wage was raised in the past.....after the 96-7 increases guess what? inflation went DOWN......after the previous ones before the 1980-1 increases inflation went DOWN from around 13% to around 3%.
those are the FACTS!
also the "3" things matt says are the only things that can happen, increase prices, fire some employees, or go out of business...i submit a 4th possibility, instead of the small business owner making a profit for the year of $300,000 they could accept a profit of $250,000, stay in business, and have happier workers doing better work and WOW, the following year due to those efforts get back to a profit of $300,000 by increasing sales(some of those now buying can afford to because they get paid more since the increase!
|
|
|
Post by bravefrog on Jan 10, 2007 21:58:43 GMT -5
i keep hearing about how raising the minimum wage will cause price increases(inflation). this is easily researched and guess what you will find after the 2 times the wage was raised in the past.....after the 96-7 increases guess what? inflation went DOWN......after the previous ones before the 1980-1 increases inflation went DOWN from around 13% to around 3%. Socialist bovine excrement! My wife is currently making $7.75/hour. When the minimum wage goes to $7.25 she will be out the ten years she put in to achieve that level. Sure it isn't much but she does not have college having worked to raise children. Now, at the swoop of a pen, she is making nearly minimum wage AGAIN! Do you think her employer will raise her the 25% it would take to move her up to her position RELATIVE to minimum wage? I think not! But other prices WILL raise. If you think different then you are from outer space. The minimum wage does not help anybody and removes a lot of initiative for advancement. Read the article I wrote on my website at www.hancevillenews.com/readarticle.php?article_id=2 concerning Government trying to control this commodity. What are you, a minimum wage earner that needs a raise? Oy vey!!
|
|
|
Post by billt on Jan 10, 2007 22:09:24 GMT -5
thanks for the intended personal insult bravefrog.
my post is not socialist in any way....it is needed protection for workers who without any labor laws would be at the mercy of business at all levels.
as to your wife being "out 10 years" i have no clue where you get that nonsense, NOTHING is being taken away from her......as to price increases FACT inflation went DOWN dramaticly after the last 2 increases in 80-1 and again in 96-7.
by the way your wife's pay someway being tied to what others are paid IS a SOCIALIST concept.
|
|
|
Post by billt on Jan 10, 2007 22:18:48 GMT -5
which will be the more orderly society one where workers have NO protection and employers can treat employees as they see fit, a few lashes with the whip increases production? the history on humanity indicates that without government protection workers are at worst slaves and at best indentured servants?
OR a society with a reasonable minimum compensation for an HONEST days work, where the worker can take part in society, can advance if he works harder/more hours, can own a home and transportation.?
it is proper in a capitalist society to have MINIMUM standards of treatment for the citizens by management, IF you want to continue to exist in a civil manner.
people FOUGHT and paid with their lives for the very concepts i have posted here....during the formation of unions, a very free enterprise concept.
|
|
|
Post by protege on Jan 10, 2007 22:56:02 GMT -5
Bravefrog, your wife could look at it this way, now that she has ten years experiance at whatever she does she could quit that place and possibly go somewhere else where the min. wage is already what she earns and get hired on for a higher amount because of her experiance. For example places like McDonalds will hire 2-3 people at $7 an hour to do one persons job. But McDonalds will pay a higher amount to a manager or someone with experiance.
I can see where this raise in minimum wage will frustrate some, but it is long overdue.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Jan 10, 2007 22:59:51 GMT -5
Both of you make some good points.
Billt - if a minimum wage was in the hearts and minds of the founding fathers, when did the minimum wage become a law in the nation?
Bravefrog - If I started at a company 10 years ago at $20k and now make 30k, should I expect my employer to pay new hires doing the same job, $20k? I woudn't think so...look at the minimum wage as being a socialist program that has gone up from inflation.
Inflation has gone up regardless if it the minimum wage had anything to do with it.
I see raising the minimum wage as hurting mom and pop stores but frankly the minimum wage jobs are really for people that don't require these jobs to sustain a family and in most cases, themselves in relation to seniors and teenagers.
|
|
lovinusa
Cog in Training
God Bless the USA
Posts: 78
|
Post by lovinusa on Jan 11, 2007 13:24:07 GMT -5
Billt - if a minimum wage was in the hearts and minds of the founding fathers, when did the minimum wage become a law in the nation? Inflation has gone up regardless if it the minimum wage had anything to do with it. I see raising the minimum wage as hurting mom and pop stores but frankly the minimum wage jobs are really for people that don't require these jobs to sustain a family and in most cases, themselves in relation to seniors and teenagers. well guys the question as to when min wage became the law thats easy to find www.dol.gov/esa/regs/statutes/whd/FairLaborStandAct.pdf and I quote; " THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938, AS AMENDED(29 U.S.C. 201, et seq.) Finding and Declaration of Policy SEC. 2. (a) The Congress hereby finds that the existence, in industries engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, of labor conditions detrimental to the maintenance of the minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency, and general wellbeing of workers (1) causes commerce and the channels and instrumentalities of commerce to be used to spread and perpetuate such labor conditions among the workers of the several States; (2) burdens commerce and the free flow of goods in commerce; (3) constitutes an unfair method of competition in commerce; (4) leads to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of goods in commerce; and (5) interferes with the orderly and fair marketing of goods in commerce. The Congress further finds that the employment of persons in domestic service in households affects commerce." Though I agree that the min. wage is an out dated concept. I feel it will make prices at all levels go up it and cause jobs to go away the money has got to come from somewhere and it won't be from the profits of an organization with employees. Oh it will help those people who are working at McDonalds or a covienient store make a little more money but for those already making that ammout I doubt they will get a raise. I will rebound as it allways does in a few years and all will be well again and some democrat will star hollering again that it needs to be raised again seems like a vicious circle to me
|
|
|
Post by billt on Jan 11, 2007 13:34:52 GMT -5
what is outdated about the concept please? the REASON it was enacted is clear, workers were being ABUSED, and that was causing civil unrest. do you think now that employers are suddenly benevolent people that wouldnt cut wages if the laws were dropped??? would employers maintain a safe workplace without the labor laws?
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Jan 11, 2007 13:55:11 GMT -5
I would say that the issue of a safe work environment and what dictates the wages of employees in relation to the market of what specific labor is worth and what people are willing to be paid are two different things.
|
|
|
Post by billt on Jan 11, 2007 14:08:06 GMT -5
different sides of the SAME COIN....does government have a DUTY to provide for the general welfare?
are wages not part of the concept of employment? are work conditions part of that same contract?
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Jan 11, 2007 14:29:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Jan 11, 2007 14:39:27 GMT -5
"are wages not part of the concept of employment? are work conditions part of that same contract?"
A contract is not valid unless it is accepted by both parties.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Jan 19, 2007 20:20:30 GMT -5
Why stop at $7.25?
Is that a truly "liveable" wage?
Why not $15.00/hr? Or $30/hr? I think I could live reasonably well on those wages.
Obviously, even Liberals understand that every raise in the minimum wage does hurt the economy and cost jobs so they increase it only by small increments so as to minimize the negative impact.
If you think that the Dems are pushing this increase to help 'working familes', you've been fooled yet again.
The real reason behind the increase is that a very large number of labor unions have their wages tied to the current minimum wage and that these union members will all receive automatic raises that they will NOT have to bargain with their employers to receive.
Is it any wonder why the Unions so slavishly back Democrats?
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Jan 19, 2007 20:37:39 GMT -5
Why stop at $7.25? Is that a truly "liveable" wage? Why not $15.00/hr? Or $30/hr? I think I could live reasonably well on those wages. Obviously, even Liberals understand that every raise in the minimum wage does hurt the economy and cost jobs so they increase it only by small increments so as to minimize the negative impact. If you think that the Dems are pushing this increase to help 'working familes', you've been fooled yet again. The real reason behind the increase is that a very large number of labor unions have their wages tied to the current minimum wage and that these union members will all receive automatic raises that they will NOT have to bargain with their employers to receive. Is it any wonder why the Unions so slavishly back Democrats? Excellent points...never thought about the simple fact that the minimum wage is only ever increased slightly. Isn't "working families" just another code word for poor? I think Rush is right in relation to the "Determination of Terms" that are employed in politics. Instead of using the word "withdrawl" in reference to our troops, which has a negative context, we will use "re-deployment"...that will full them. I know, instead of "Liberals" we will call ourselves "Progressives"...same thing. But alas, some people are fooled.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Jan 20, 2007 17:38:32 GMT -5
>nods<
Liberals seem to really have a problem when you tell the truth about them, their positions and their motivations, to the point they will accuse you of personally attacking them if you do so.
I picked up Bill O'Reilly's latest book "Culture Warrior" and, in it, he explains in some detail these linguistic contortions the Left goes through in order to mislead the largely gullible public about who they are and what their intentions are.
In particular, O'Reilly cites a man named George Lackoff, who is a professor of linguistics at (I think) a California university.
(incidentally, you might have heard Rush refer to this man too, calling him "Professor Lackoff (rhymes with...)".
Anyway, the Left seems to have adopted Professor Lackoff as their guide in their attempts to "redefine" themselves.
As you pointed out, the Left constantly changes their terminologies, based on focus-group polling, as to how to present themselves and their arguments so that they are able to foll the greatest majority of Americans on a given issue.
For instance....they know that "Liberal" (and its nearly identical twin- "socialist") don't poll well with people, as people understand to far too great a degree what being a Liberal really means. So they call themselves "Progressive", which serves two purposes: 1) it lets them avoid the "liberal" label and, 2) by inference it paints their ideological opponents as "Regressives". It is intellectually dishonest, but it works.
Same thing with their constant reference to the Bush plan to increase the number of troops in Iraq as "escalation". Think back.....where else have you heard that term? Answer: Vietnam. The Left thinks back very fondly on their effect in our defeat in Vietnam; it was perhaps them at their zenith of power and influence. So they seek to use the same perjorative terms to demonize the War on Terror with the hopes that we can once again be taken down a peg and a Republican President marginalized to boot.
|
|
|
Post by richbrout on Feb 1, 2007 22:50:49 GMT -5
Yes its a little ironic.
These same people that are against raising the minimum wage for the first time in 10 YEARS are the same ones that told us how beneficial the Bush tax cuts would be because they would put an extra 100$ in middle class Americans pockets and they can spend it at that will create demand and then jobs...........but they don't mention that with putting more money in their pockets by raising their wages. These minimum wage earners will now buy more product, increase demand and create more jobs!!!
|
|
|
Post by billt on Feb 2, 2007 0:02:01 GMT -5
i must add for me this has nothing to do with left vs right my opinion BOTHS sides are against me....this is about FREEDOM, living in a republic with laws, and a civil society.
a person like my grandfather working from "can til cant" in the coal mines was NOT "free" by any meaning of the word...after the UMWA formed he at least got [paid for his efforts, too bad he died from emphysema before he got to enjoy those meager rewards.
the minimum wage is NEEDED to have a civil society, holding people hostage to the benevolence of their employers cant work.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 2, 2007 1:08:08 GMT -5
Tax cuts allow you to keep money you have earned. Raising the minimum wage requires a small buisness, considering there are hardly any big buisnesses that pay minimum wage anymore, to either reduce their profit, raise the price of their product or reduce costs via headcount. Their not going to do the first one and stay in buisness very long. Ditto for the second one. The third option is more likely due to the fact that most small buisnesses run on a shoe string budget with a slim margin of error and there is not much they can reduce in operating expenses other than labor.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Feb 5, 2007 17:42:10 GMT -5
The tax cuts reduced the federal income tax rate on everyone who pays federal income taxes. In fact, the tax rate was cut by a larger percentage on those at the lowest end of the tax-paying scale than they were on those at the highest end.
If you're making $5.15/hr, you shouldn't be paying any federal income taxes or, if you do, you'll get back far more than you actually paid as a tax refund, factoring in the EITC (which shouldn't really be called a 'refund'- it's a wealth-transfer, pure and simple).
The benefits of a minimum wage increase are grossly overhyped while the drawbacks aren't even discussed in "polite company".
How many jobs won't be created because the small businessman now has to pay his starting workers 40% more than he did before?
How will seeing those making $5.15 suddenly get a raise affect those making above the minimum? Do you think a person hired at, say, $7/hr won't expect a raise himself, with the rationale being that the employer thought his effort and experience was worth $1.85 more than minimum when he was hired but now isn't?
Prices will inevitably increase and it will impact those at the lowest end of the economic spectrum disproportionately hard. If McDonalds has to increase the price of it's hamburgers in order to offset the wage increase while keeping profit margins where they want them to be, it's not going to bother anyone, really, other than the minimum wage earners, as their wage increases will be eaten up by commensurate price increases.
It's yet another example of Liberal "feel-good" legislation that tugs at the heartstrings even while it tugs at your wallet even harder.
|
|