Minimum Wage Increase Passed In Senate; Now Senate/House Must Compromise - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-03-2007, 10:47 PM   #31
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 06:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


Let's help lower wage working families, but raising the minimum wage is just as likely to go into the pockets of well-off kids working weekends at The Footlocker. Assuming they still have a job.
Erm, it's been a while since I took economics, but I'll wager that already well-off people voluntarily working at the current minimum wage make up such a small percentage it's hardly worth mentioning. Anyway, my husband just quit working a seasonal sales job at a store comparable to Footlocker and they were all already making at least $7/hr.

Like ntalwar said, who the fuck cares what a CEO makes, the point is NO FAMILY can live on minimum wage. Raises wages based on CEO salaries makes no sense to me, but raising wages based on inflation and cost of living makes perfect sense.
__________________

__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 02-04-2007, 03:41 AM   #32
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,700
Local Time: 05:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


Are you, then answer me this.

No, I'm not, but my cousin is. Others have tackle the issue fairly well, so I won't beat a dead horse. Just try looking outside your little world.
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 02-04-2007, 03:43 AM   #33
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 05:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by CTU2fan
Couple the minimum wage hike with a nice maximum wage...

I'm serious.
Sure, if you value equality over freedom.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 02-04-2007, 03:45 AM   #34
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,700
Local Time: 05:05 PM
Opression = freedom?
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 02-04-2007, 04:04 AM   #35
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 05:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by love2bmama


How would you propose helping the working families, then, if not by raising wages?
Further tax credits applied towards payroll or sales taxes since today's minimum wage earners already fall below the threshold to pay federal taxes. Business tax credits for continued training of low-skill workers. But above all else, provide a growing economy that allows upward movement for entry or low-wage workers.

Hey, I'm all for higher wages as long as they're freely set by market forces.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 02-04-2007, 04:09 AM   #36
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 05:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


No, I'm not, but my cousin is. Others have tackle the issue fairly well, so I won't beat a dead horse. Just try looking outside your little world.
Why bother answering my question when it's just easier to toss an insult.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 02-04-2007, 04:30 AM   #37
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 05:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Vincent Vega


Well, you have to consider that it has to be profitable.
In the beginnings of microeconomic studies you learn how to draw the demand and supply line into a graph, and find out the equilibrium. That would look like this
http://home.arcor.de/vincent_vega85/...mum%20wage.jpg

So, in this case the price is the wage and the supply the number of workers.
The minimum wage is set above the market equilibrium, because if it was set at the equilibrium point, which is where the two lines cross, it wouldn't make any sense.
So, instead of paying the workers $7 they now get $8.

Lacking some better graphs at the moment you have to be fine with this one.
If you sat the wage at, say $20, no one would produce anymore since labour cost would be too high. If possible they would substitute it by machinery, otherwise they will shut down.

I'm sure your answer was half tongue-in-cheek.

So, the minimum wage only makes sense when it is still profitable for the producer to work, thus it can't be set too high.
Profitable!! How dare you bring up that repugnant concept. Don't you realize the sole reason businesses exist is to provide "living wages" to people. Make a profit at the end of the day, what are you, a heartless conservative?

Yes, it appears that you also managed to stay awake during Economics 101. Very nice summation, my only point being. Do governments really know better than the market where that point of profitability is? And is that point really the same in Upper Manhattan as it is in Harlem or Appalachia.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 02-04-2007, 04:54 AM   #38
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 05:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Liesje


Erm, it's been a while since I took economics, but I'll wager that already well-off people voluntarily working at the current minimum wage make up such a small percentage it's hardly worth mentioning. Anyway, my husband just quit working a seasonal sales job at a store comparable to Footlocker and they were all already making at least $7/hr.

Like ntalwar said, who the fuck cares what a CEO makes, the point is NO FAMILY can live on minimum wage. Raises wages based on CEO salaries makes no sense to me, but raising wages based on inflation and cost of living makes perfect sense.
(I borrowed this from myself from an earlier thread on the minimum wage)
http://forum.interference.com/t161411.html

What percentage of American workers 16 and over reported wages at or below the Federal minimum in 2004?
A. 20%
B. 10%
C. 2.7%

(hint) http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2004tbls.htm
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 02-04-2007, 05:24 AM   #39
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,700
Local Time: 05:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


Why bother answering my question when it's just easier to toss an insult.
I learned it from watching you...
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 02-04-2007, 05:54 AM   #40
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 06:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by love2bmama


It seems like there should be a way to take that into account in a bill like this. Obviously, what constitutes a fair living wage is going to vary in different econonmic areas. It doesn't do anyone any good to raise the minimum wage to a point that the economy collapses, but at the same time the working poor in the US need a higher minimum wage. How anyone (congress! ) could think the minimum wage should be the same in those 2 places is beyond me.
To be fair Saipan and the CNMI in general have earned a fairly bad reputation with the U.S. Congress and the federal government in general. There were all these exposes (even a 20/20 report) some years back about the dreadful conditions under which our $3.05 an hour workers were laboring. The federal government asked the CNMI to raise it's minimum wage like more than ten years ago and our local legislature made a lot of promises but never did anything. (I've been told that every time they tried, the Chamber of Commerce woud lobby and shut it down). There's this one Democratic represenative from California by the name of Miller who has been after the CNMI for years. When the Dems got the majority in Congress we all knew that we were finished and Miller would finally take us down. And that's what happened. (Though the Republicans tacking on all that stuff in the Senate has got some buisness people in Saipan all excited that maybe we might yet be able to escape being pressed into the U.S. minimum wage plan).
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 02-04-2007, 07:49 AM   #41
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 12:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


Profitable!! How dare you bring up that repugnant concept. Don't you realize the sole reason businesses exist is to provide "living wages" to people. Make a profit at the end of the day, what are you, a heartless conservative?

Yes, it appears that you also managed to stay awake during Economics 101. Very nice summation, my only point being. Do governments really know better than the market where that point of profitability is? And is that point really the same in Upper Manhattan as it is in Harlem or Appalachia.
Hehe, just yesterday I wrote my exam on microeconomics.

My Professor once said, after an answer made by someone was very consumer friendly, "We aren't benevolent, but opportunistic."
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 02-04-2007, 10:37 AM   #42
The Fly
 
Greenlight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Never far from a cup of coffee
Posts: 282
Local Time: 12:05 AM
I remember there was a lot of scaremongering when Labour introduced a minimum wage in the UK a few years ago. There were cries then that it would put lots of small firms out of business, affect profit levels, increase unemployment etc etc. Well basically that didn't happen and instead there's been a long period of economic growth -one thing Labour has got right.
I'm just amazed how low the US minimum rate is. Even allowing for a cheaper cost of living in the US, it seems very low compared to other countries. Over here it's a bit over £5 which is around $10 per hour.
__________________
Greenlight is offline  
Old 02-04-2007, 10:39 AM   #43
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 06:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500

(I borrowed this from myself from an earlier thread on the minimum wage)
http://forum.interference.com/t161411.html

What percentage of American workers 16 and over reported wages at or below the Federal minimum in 2004?
A. 20%
B. 10%
C. 2.7%

(hint) http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2004tbls.htm
That table has nothing to do with how "well-off" teenagers are, so I'm still confused as to why you said that. I personally have never met a "well-off" kid working at minimum wage. In fact, I've barely met anyone working at minimum wage b/c most employers have already realized that minimum wage is a joke.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 02-04-2007, 11:04 AM   #44
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 05:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Liesje


That table has nothing to do with how "well-off" teenagers are, so I'm still confused as to why you said that. I personally have never met a "well-off" kid working at minimum wage. In fact, I've barely met anyone working at minimum wage b/c most employers have already realized that minimum wage is a joke.
Well, exactly. The de facto minimum wage has already risen as the demand for labor has increased in a growing economy. I'll borrow something else from the last thread as it hasn't changed.

Quote:
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics: Sixty-three percent of minimum wage workers receive raises within one year of employment, and only 15 percent still earn the minimum wage after three years. Furthermore, only 5.3 percent of minimum wage earners are from households below the official poverty line; 40 percent of minimum wage earners live in households with incomes $60,000 and higher; and, over 82 percent of minimum wage earners do not have dependents.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 02-04-2007, 12:57 PM   #45
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
ntalwar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,900
Local Time: 06:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500

Hey, I'm all for higher wages as long as they're freely set by market forces.
If such a small percentage of hourly workers earn minimum wage, perhaps this is just "window dressing" legislation. Your predictions of economic doom as a result of a minimum wage hike have no historical basis. The minimum wage is set by an elected governemt (of /for/by the PEOPLE), so the government can do what it wants in this area.
__________________

__________________
ntalwar is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com