Reply With Quote
I got ya man. My sarcasm tends to be a little too understated at times as well.
I crunched the numbers and a loaf of bread is still cheaper than a gallon of milk.
I got ya man. My sarcasm tends to be a little too understated at times as well.
if he is a robot, i understand his paranoia, mr. smith.
tb and his natural gas money could give a if bread is $9
His 1% ass laughs while 99% ed and un able
gfy tb
I say, old boy. You wouldn't be munching on a bag of s now would you?
minimum wage raised means it's gonna be more difficult to find jobs and those who're already employed are gonna get exploited and enslaved even more
link/youtube?
To such a degree, no. I was of course exaggerating. There will be a cost increase associated with increased wages. I am an advocate of slowly raising the minimum wage. Like anything economic, I am against anything sudden. We need to test what happens as we progress.do really think paying grocery checkout clerk $15/hour would triple the price of food?
do you really think labor figures significantly into factory produced food-like industrial ?
If you recall, I have more than once pointed out that wages are generally about 20% of a product. Now that varies from job to job, but a 25% increased wage under that condition would only necessitate a 5% increase for a business to maintain the same profit. It isn't just that simple though. Increased wages will also effect the product prices purchased at the wholesale level, and everyone up the food chain is also going to want more too. In cases where a product or service cannot increased in price, this means lost jobs.
Still, wages should be market driven. The problems are not the minimum wage, but that people are not worth minimum wage in the supply of labor vs. the jobs available. This is what needs fixing. We need to make it next to impossible for low skilled illegal workers to work, and make the demand for workers cause an increase in wages so people will fill the jobs.
"There will be a cost increase associated with increased wages."
I read a comment where some economist predicted a much less than 1% raise in national spending if minimum wage was raised for the 15M minimum wagers.
Boner's simplistic, bubba-pandering take on why ALL Repugs will block any raise in the minimum wage is typical Repug War on Employees.
And of course all the minimum wages less bubbas will keep voting Repug, because only Real (White) Men vote only Repug, no matter how bubba- ing are Repug policies.
Why Obama's Minimum Wage Plan Really Worries The GOP And Business Lobby
What probably concerns House Republicans, as well as the business lobby, most about Obama's proposal is not the nominal minimum wage hike. It's the inclusion of a cost-of-living adjustment, which would tweak the minimum wage each year to adjust for inflation. This would guarantee that workers on the lowest rung of the economic ladder don't lose purchasing power, but it would also mean fast-food companies and other low-wage employers would have to pay higher wages just about every year, except in rare cases of deflation.
On Capitol Hill, it means lawmakers wouldn't have to legislate a new minimum wage every few years. The cost-of-living provision would give members of Congress less to squabble about -- and it would basically wipe out a bargaining chip for those who oppose higher minimum wages.
The president's proposal is only a day old, and the battle lines on the issue have barely been drawn. But given the significance of the indexing portion, Republicans may try to give Democrats some kind of nominal increase in the minimum wage while jettisoning the cost-of-living piece of the package. Whether or not Democrats hold strong to the inflation measure may determine if they produce a truly progressive piece of legislation. Without it, the proposal isn't much different from previous minimum wage increases, both Democratic and Republican.
Although indexing is championed mostly by advocates for low-wage workers, the idea has found some conservative adherents as well, given that it provides employers with predictability. Former GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney, most notably, said on the campaign trail last year that he supported tying the minimum wage to inflation. (He later qualified his remarks, saying the minimum wage shouldn't be raised in a weak economy.) Obama, in his address, jokingly referred to indexing as "an idea that Governor Romney and I actually agreed on last year."
The idea is apparently less popular with House Republicans, however. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) was asked by CNN's Jake Tapper after the address if he agreed with his former running-mate on the matter of indexing.
"I have never been a fan of that idea," Ryan responded. "I think it is inflationary. I think it actually is counterproductive in many ways. You end up costing jobs from people who are at the bottom rung of the economic ladder."
"Look," Ryan added, "I wish we could just pass a law saying everybody should make more money without any adverse consequences."
But even given the sluggish economic recovery, Republicans who vehemently oppose the proposal run the risk of looking callous at a time when millions of Americans work but remain poor. After all, minimum wage hikes poll very well with the general public.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...=Daily%20Brief
Come on, Repugs, kill both the indexing AND the min wage hike, over the mooching/taking 47% yet again.
I'll agree to that second part
I'm not a fan of inflation indexing. It's not region specific and under compensates workers in high cost of living areas. A codified 3 year appropriation cycle would be cleaner and likely more effective.
OOPS: GOP Rep. Inadvertently Makes The Case For Nearly Doubling The Minimum Wage
BLACKBURN: What we’re hearing from moms and from school teachers is that there needs to be a lower entry level, so that you can get 16-, 17-, 18-year-olds into the process. Chuck, I remember my first job, when I was working in a retail store, down there, growing up in Laurel, Mississippi. I was making like $2.15 an hour. And I was taught how to responsibly handle those customer interactions. And I appreciated that opportunity.
Making $2.15 an hour certainly does sound worse than today’s minimum wage, which federal law mandates must be at least $7.25 an hour. But what Blackburn didn’t realize is that she accidentally undermined her own argument, since the value of the dollar has changed immensely since her teenage years. Blackburn was born in 1952, so she likely took that retail job at some point between 1968 and 1970. And according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ inflation calculator, the $2.15 an hour Blackburn made then is worth somewhere between $12.72 and $14.18 an hour in today’s dollars, depending on which year she started.
At that time, the minimum wage was $1.60, equivalent to $10.56 in today’s terms. Today’s minimum wage is equivalent to just $1.10 an hour in 1968 dollars, meaning the teenage Blackburn managed to enter the workforce making almost double the wage she now says is keeping teenagers out of the workforce.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...mum-wage-oops/
Just the right-wing dumb politician who said she worked her way through college in the 1970s, so she can't see why it can't be done now (as if college costs haven't increased since 1970s). IIRC she wanted to kill Pell grants completely.
Minimum Wage Should Be More Than $20
If the federal minimum wage had kept pace with changes in worker productivity, busboys and baristas would be making at least $21.72 an hour today, according to a study by the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
The report, which will be released in March, found that advances in technology have increased the amount of goods and services workers can produce. But as that progress was made, wages remained relatively flat.
The study brings to mind a figure published in Mother Jones in the summer of 2011. The magazine reported that “If the median household income had kept pace with the economy since 1970, it would now be nearly $92,000, not $50,000.”
If American workers had that much money in their pockets, they would have the means to buy the manufactured goods and services they’re currently skimping on, and the demand crisis that has crippled the economy since 2008 would disappear. Industrialists would get richer off the increased sales, and money collected in taxes would likely make all state and federally paid social programs, including education and health care, feasible.
Instead, that money has gone to the richest 1 percent of Americans, who use much of it for gambling in derivatives markets and investment in existing property, rather than new, productive industries. (Eighty percent of all credit in the United States goes toward the purchase of real estate.)
http://www.truthdig.com/eartothegrou...+the+Headlines
Bouton's....
You and the articles you pick are professional Cherry Pickers. You should go to The Dalles Oregon during the Cherry Harvest season...
That $1.60/hr was an anomaly. For what ever reason, the minimum wage went from $1.15 in 1964, to $1.25 in 1965 (8.7%), to $1.40 in 1967(12%), to $1.60 in 1968 (14.3%). Total increase 1964 to 1968 was 39.4%. Someone must have noted a mistake in what ever formula they used. It went down to $1.30 in 1969. Now it was a 13% increase over 5 years.
8.61% average annual increase 1964 to 1968.
2.48% average annual increase 1964 to 1969.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 02-14-2013 at 04:33 PM.
“If the median household income had kept pace with the economy since 1970, it would now be nearly $92,000, not $50,000.”
The VRWC got going in the early 70s, starting with Lewis Powell's "take OUR country back for the 1%" memo, Tricky head Nixon killing pre-K funding (keep 'em stupid, esp the poor ones).
Does this make any sense?
Now in 2007, the largest minimum wage increase in decades was implement. Unemployment skyrocketed shortly afterward.
To combat unemployment, the supply vs. labor pool needs balancing.
Get rid of illegal immigration!
That's a ridiculous statement.
The economy crashed and burned shortly afterward. They were not related events. .Does this make any sense?
Now in 2007, the largest minimum wage increase in decades was implement. Unemployment skyrocketed shortly afterward.
Not 100%, but you cannot dismiss this either as a factor. Besides, people like ShazBot live on correlation equals causation.
I can absolutely dismiss this as a factor. It was a real estate driven, finance-centric crash, not an employment cost driven crash. Just stop.
"correlation equals causation."
That's exactly what you did. Exactly. omfg.
Real Estate driven?
Bull .
Did the banks having problems cause people not to pay their contractual commitments?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
