Red1966
Well-Known Member
In this case, you're paying the "stupid tax". Stupid for paying $150-200 a pair for gym shoes.
The positive, economic effect of lowering the minimum wage to $0
- Thread starter Uncle Ben
- Start date
i find it difficult to live on $290/week..how is this part of the liberal mind set?My employees are not broke. Again, it's their problem if they are based on their poor choices. It's not my problem or yours. You've got this liberal mindset whereby you think you know what's best for the individual. Sorry....you don't.
That's that liberal nanny, "have-nots" thinking which I find nauseating.
how do i pay my living expenses on this?
propose a budget for me?
they don't, their parents do..As they fly off the shelf.
Looks like a college dorm room. How do these kids afford this?
Last edited:
Red1966
Well-Known Member
Taking money from those who earned it and giving it to others doesn't increase the amount spent by the public. Your "aggregate demand" theory is bullshit.
sheskunk
Well-Known Member
There is currently NOTHING stopping ANY employee from paying people ABOVE minimum wage. If raising peoples wages helps a business why don't they do it willingly? Why do we need the government to step in and FORCE businesses to increase there wages? Not all minimum wage paying businesses are corporate owned. Many of them are small mom and pop type places. Why don't they pay their employees $20.00 an hour?
Red1966
Well-Known Member
Not our problem. Our problem is you stealing $290 a week from the taxpayers.
Thinking your "need" somehow is others obligation.
purchasing votes regarding income taxability and creating your own personal 'tax rate' doesn't increase the amount spent by the public either.
everyone now knows that if you have money, you can effectively buy anything, including more wealth.
my 'need'..you mean my need to eat and have a roof over my head?
yeah, i'm sorry..forgive me..i've gotten used to it over the years..food to eat; a bed to sleep..i know that asking for a lot mr. employer.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
The links to the articles in your post says plenty about the practical reasons why a more livable minimum wage won't cause harm. There is economic theory that supports this observation and shows that this extends beyond Seattle's small restaurants.. I posted the following on another thread but since the right repeats itself I don't know why I can't as well.
The myth that a modest increase in the minimum wage will cause an economic storm for the poor comes up again and again. First of all, a minimum wage is just that, a minimum that is set by a govt entity. Nobody can work below this, so nobody can price minimum wage workers out of their job except for multinational companies working outside the country. This too is under the control of govt. We've allowed this to happen. We don't have to.
Another myth is that minimum wage causes unemployment. Not true. I'm giving the link below because I'm going to quote from it.http://www.swcollege.com/bef/policy_debates/increase_minimum.html
The conservative right as always use simple arguments. In this case they use a simple model taught in first year economics classes to make their argument, which is:
- the labor market is perfectly competitive,
- the minimum wage covers all workers, and
- worker productivity is unaffected by the wage rate.
A better model looks at the benefit of employee retention, which includes efficiency due to experience, cost of hiring and training, benefit of employee loyalty. There are a number of theoretical models that use these concepts.. Among these are:
- monopsony models, and
- efficiency wage models.
A more detailed look at these studies are contained in the link (see above). The myth of increased unemployment due to a minimum wage is based upon an oversimplified look at the situation. A slightly more complex way of using reasonable factors that businesses know to be true results in positive results with the minimum wage..
TBoneJack
Well-Known Member
Wow Red, that's pretty cold.
I'm a bit on the conservative side myself, so I've railed against social programs and forced government intervention in the past. But I'll bet @schuylaar is drawing social security money that she paid in.
I've really softened my stance against social programs as I've gotten older and realized that there are very good people who need that help from time to time.
Last edited:
thank you TB!
currently, my only benefit is $193 from SNAP.
you are correct in saying that i've paid into SS over the years..it is however, to the point i will receive maximum benefit when i retire without any further deposits from myself..so if i never worked again a day in my life..guess what folks?..also had a marriage for 11 years
..i get which evers bigger..and guess what?..it's going to be my SS.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
No, not everyone starts at the bottom. This is another example of a silly trope you cite without any evidence supporting it whatsoever.
In today's America, the high school dropout son of a wealthy family is likely to do better than the graduate degree earning son of a middle class family.
Last edited:
Red1966
Well-Known Member
Do you really think there would be a business that had employees who work for nothing? Restaurant employees don't make $15.00/hr. It's more like $3.00/hr, up from $2.00/hr just a couple years ago. Fast food joints pay $7-9 because they don't get tips. You seem to be missing any concept of reality.
Last edited:
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Simple arrogance, as if the needs and desires of the business trumps the needs of its workers or the community in which it operates.
torontoke
Well-Known Member
It wasnt my thread or original question..
I think happy employees are the best and most dependable. Generally happy employees are people who feel like their contributions are being well compensated for.
If the minimum wages go up or down that should dictate the cost of other things going up and down as well. But it never does.
Things only seem to go up in cost therefore wages should rise to facilitate.
Poor people equals poor economy, thats why the only stores that seem to be popping up by the hundreds are dollar stores.
Red1966
Well-Known Member
So you're not drawing SS at all, just welfare.thank you TB!
currently, my only benefit is $193 from SNAP.
you are correct in saying that i've paid into SS over the years..it is however, to the point i will receive maximum benefit when i retire without any further deposits from myself..so if i never worked again a day in my life..guess what folks?..also had a marriage for 11 years
You can only draw a percentage of you ex-husbands SS until he dies. And that only if you were married a full 10 years. If you married Jan 2, 1980 and divorced Dec 29, 1991, you were married only 9 full years. I might also mention there is no gauratee that you recieve ANY SS. The Social Security Administration is not required by law to pay anyone anything.
Unless you or your ex-husband paid FICO taxes on $118,500 a year for 17.5 years, you won't recieve the maximum.
Seems you are contradicting TB when you state you will get benefits based on someone else's payments and not your own.
Red1966
Well-Known Member
The needs and desires of the business determine whether that business exists. That trumps everything.
Red1966
Well-Known Member
I haven't created my " own personal tax rate". But my taxes definately reduce the amount I spend. You went from minimum wage to taxing the wealthy. Two totally differant subjects.