and OF COURSE, we reflexively know which party provided the MAJORITY no raise votes
http://www.nationalmemo.com/poll-lar...-to-inflation/
and so we reflexively know Repugs, esp in the House, will defeat the bill.
Remember, it was various Repugs who called for NO minimum wage to stimulate employment of $1 or $2/hour jobs, and for abolishing child labor laws.
Buoyed by Protests, Obama Embraces $10 Minimum Wage
http://truth-out.org/news/item/19988...0-minimum-wage
Still too low. Minimum wage should be enough so a single person doesn't need public assistance of food stamps, etc.
http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/chart.htm
Last edited by boutons_deux; 11-12-2013 at 05:34 PM.
Big Majorities Favor Progressive Tax-And-Spend Policies
In a stunning change of public at udes, Republicans have lost majority support for their signature, if not only, economic policy issue: tax cuts.
The results from a host of polls this year indicate that Democrats can win big in future elections if they focus on progressive tax-and-spend policies that create jobs, protect Social Security and Medicare and require rich Americans and big corporations to shoulder more of the burden of supporting government.
Likewise, if the public views Democrats as nothing more than “Republican lite” on economics, offering a weak brew of deference to Wall Street and discredited Chicago School theories, these same polls suggest Democrats will throw away an opportunity to shift national economic policies away from Reaganism.
Asked what budget priorities they want Congress to focus on, 68 percent of voters chose strengthening the economy and creating jobs while just 28 percent want deficit reduction and lowering the national debt (the Tea Party platform).
Those figures come from a Hart Research Associates telephone poll of 1,009 registered voters conducted in late October for Americans for Tax Fairness, a coalition of 325 progressive, labor and similar organizations.
While the poll was conducted for progressives, it is consistent with other polls sampling public at udes about the economy, taxes and federal spending.
Indeed, the latest poll shows that even a quarter of Tea Party Republicans favor some progressive tax and spend policies.
It also shows that almost 4 in 5 registered voters want to close corporate loopholes — which both parties say they support, but which Republicans have repeatedly blocked, arguing that this would amount to backdoor tax hikes. Some Democrats have also worked to protect corporate tax favors.
A convincing 7 in 10 voters favor maintaining current tax rates on profits earned offshore and imposing a 30 percent or higher tax on annual incomes above $1 million, a policy known as the Buffett Rule. Both of these policies are favored by progressive Democrats and opposed by leading Republicans.
http://www.nationalmemo.com/big-majo...es-polls-show/
hmm, PROGRESSIVE ideas across the spectrum, but, read my lips, a small Repug extremist minority in the House or Senate will block all progress.
govt spending is great for economy, while austerity, that the fraud Ryan, Fix The Debt, Bowles-Simpson, tea baggers want to implement for 10 years, is irrefutably VERY BAD for any society.
Government Investment Hits Lowest Level Since World War II
It now amounts to 3.6 percent of GDP, compared to an average of 5 percent after the war.
The biggest decline has been in infrastructure spending, which has fallen off a cliff since 2010, when the midterm elections swept in a wave of conservative Tea Party Republicans who have repeatedly demanded spending cuts and even pushed the country to the edge of multiple crises to get their way. Those Republicans have blocked President Obama’s attempts to invest in the country’s crumbling infrastructure, which will need about $450 billion a year for the next decade to get it up to snuff.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...vestment-fall/
The deficit hawks and Fix The Debt assholes say DISHONESTLY that they're worried about leaving huge debts to future generations so austerity (affects mainly Bishop Gecko's 47%) IS the only answer. (oh, btw, Repugs also want cut taxes on the wealthy and corps, because of the debt and deficit)
But they aren't worried about dumb people from cuts in education, nor decrepit, failing roads, sewers, water, electrical grid which austerity will bequeath on future generations.
BD fishing for a raise ... Keep on yo grind playa
...$10 dollars and hour is OK, even for working teens. but people trying to raising families on that will still need assistance at that level...
there's NO JUSTIFICATION for anybody any age working 40 or more hours/week but still qualifying their cheap-ass, under-paying employer to be subsidized by taxpayers to top up the employees' wages with public assistance.
GFY n!gg@
How McDonald’s And Walmart Became Welfare Queens
No, the new welfare queens are even bigger, richer and less deserving of taxpayer support. The two biggest welfare queens in America today are Walmart and McDonald’s.
This issue has become more known as we learn just how far some companies have gone in putting their employees on public assistance. According to one study, American fast-food workers receive more than $7 billion dollars in public assistance. As it turns out, McDonald’s has a “McResource” line that helps employees and their families enroll in various state and local assistance programs. It exploded into the public when a recording of the McResource line advocated that full-time employees sign up for food stamps and welfare.
Walmart, the nation’s largest private-sector employer, is also the biggest consumer of taxpayer supported aid. According to Florida congressman Alan Grayson, in many states, Walmart employees are the largest group of Medicaid recipients. They are also the single biggest group of food stamp recipients. Walmart’s “associates” are paid so little, according to Grayson, that they receive $1,000 on average in public assistance. These amount to massive taxpayer subsidies for private companies.
The simplest solution is to raise the minimum wage. If full-time employees are living below the poverty level — especially those with children — its no surprise that they are going to need public assistance. Raising the minimum wage over a period of time will eliminate much of this corporate welfare. The costs will be slightly higher prices at fast-food restaurants and low-end retailers.
The next proposal is more severe: Charge back the amount of public assistance any employee receives to the company he or she works for. It would be separate from tax filings, and simply be a direct penalty charged to the firm. I doubt there is much political will for this proposal, but I can see some people — especially on the left — supporting it.
http://www.nationalmemo.com/how-mcdo...elfare-queens/
Yes, the sure way to improve the economy is to outlaw jobs
goddam, you're ed up.
A study of ALL the studies done on effect on unemployment due to raising the minimum wage going back decades has a graph showing a tall e at 0, iow, NO CHANGE in the unemployment rate due to raising the minimum wage.
Chris Hayes showed the graph a couple days ago. but google "effect of minimum wage increase on unemployment"
but of course you support taxpayers topping up the wages of low wagers with public assistance, subsidizing big employers with $Bs.
Low Wages: U.S. Taxpayers Pay $7 Billion Annually to Help Fast-Food Workers
about 52% of fast-food workers are enrolled in at least one public assistance program such as SNAP (food stamps) Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), which is costing taxpayers $7 billion in public assistance.
According to a recent study “Fast good, poverty wages: The public cost of low-wage jobs in the fast-food industry,” three-quarters of American’s who enroll for public benefits are working, many of them within the food industry. Median pay for a fast food worker is about $8.69 per hour. And when you factor in the part-time hours and lack of benefits, the wage is hardly enough to put value meals on the table, let alone pay all of the bills associated with running a home.
“The taxpayer costs we discovered were staggering,” said co-author of the study Ken Jacobs of the Center for Labor Research and Education at the University of California, Berkeley to NPR. “The combination of low wages, meager benefits and often part-time hours means that many of the families of fast-food workers have to rely on taxpayer-funded safety net programs to make ends meet.”
The overwhelming majority of people working in the fast-food industry are adults who support themselves, not teenagers. And an estimated 68% are the main wage-earners in the family. One quarter work at a fast-food joint to help support children.
http://naturalsociety.com/low-wages-...#ixzz2lanIt3Fz
i'm all for tying min wage to inflation
of course.
And of course there are no other variables to consider. The government hasn't been gaming the unemployment for 30 years now. And people don't change their behavior in other ways to adjust for government mandates.
I know its been said a million times but Christ you're stupid.
Raising the minimum range by definition is outlawing employment contracts.
goddam, you're stupid to think that people who have done these many 10s of studies on the effect of raising minimum wage take no other variables int account.
And what are these variable you speak of.
And what %age workers under $20K/year are on employment contracts? and what %age of all employees?
In America, you work or are fired at the pleasure of the employer, with effectively NO protections, unless you are in a union. butt naked, indefensible employees is every employer's dream.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
