Chef Jim Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 I honestly don't believe an increase to $9/hr would have much of a negative impact to the economy. It may harm some small businesses, but I would venture to guess that it would have negligible effect. Of course on the flip side, that is an additional $11 Billion (from bd's link) that would be placed into the economy, and my guess is that most of those funds would be saved and recycled back into the economy. I may be wrong. Maybe a two tiered Minimum wage plan, one for small businesses, and a second for corporations. Or maybe they can make it two tiered based off the amount of employees that are employed. I don't know, but I believe that many of the corporations are able to easily withstand a minimal increase. But as someone a little earlier pointed out, most companies are paying higher than the minimum wage as it is, so I'm not quite sure how many people it would help. From where? So this $11bill in just going to magically appear? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 From where? So this $11bill in just going to magically appear? No, it would come from Businesses and then transfer over to employees. I think that is kinda obvious isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 No, it would come from Businesses and then transfer over to employees. I think that is kinda obvious isn't it? So the businesses are stuffing it under matresses?? So you're for the redistribution of wealth by the government? I'm surprised to hear you say that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 I honestly don't believe an increase to $9/hr would have much of a negative impact to the economy. It may harm some small businesses, but I would venture to guess that it would have negligible effect. Of course on the flip side, that is an additional $11 Billion (from bd's link) that would be placed into the economy, and my guess is that most of those funds would be saved and recycled back into the economy. I may be wrong. Maybe a two tiered Minimum wage plan, one for small businesses, and a second for corporations. Or maybe they can make it two tiered based off the amount of employees that are employed. I don't know, but I believe that many of the corporations are able to easily withstand a minimal increase. But as someone a little earlier pointed out, most companies are paying higher than the minimum wage as it is, so I'm not quite sure how many people it would help. progress! there must be quite a few workers making minimum wage if it's estimated to cost business $11b. might be as simple as $11b divided by ($1.75/ hour increase X 40 hours) fair to say, many workers. and i think you meant to say most of those funds wouldn't be saved and recycled back to the economy. fundamentally, i don't think the objections over this are about negative effects on the economy. it's about concern for negative effects to a few businesses (that are not likely to be big based on history) and lack of (or much less) concern for the poor. it's that simple. So the businesses are stuffing it under matresses?? So you're for the redistribution of wealth by the government? I'm surprised to hear you say that. ah, there it is. it's not the practical concerns, it's the principle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 So the businesses are stuffing it under matresses?? So you're for the redistribution of wealth by the government? I'm surprised to hear you say that. I hear what your saying, but I'm looking at this purely from a pragmatical point of view. I just believe that the current minimum wage is too low for people to survive on. And I reject the notion that minimum wage is just for teenagers or young people, there are many people who work in these jobs that are using these wages in order to try to get by. And yes, it would have been more wise for them to get an education so they wouldn't be in this position, but I don't believe that because they didn't they should be shackled to the current minimum wage. We know that profits are soaring for many big businesses, and an increase in wages by less than $2 an hour wouldn't be a devastating development for many of these companies. The reason why I support many economic "conservative" principles is because I believe them to be rational. However pure ideology doesn't influence my decisions, if something makes sense that doesn't go with standard economic conservative orthodoxy, then I'll support it. From my point of view, corporations are flushed with cash and even without the raising of minimum wages, I believe it is just a matter of time before we start seeing wage increases once the job market tightens up some. But at the end of the day, I support raising the minimum wage because I believe it would be an overall positive for the economy. And that's what trumps everything from my perspective. progress! there must be quite a few workers making minimum wage if it's estimated to cost business $11b. might be as simple as $11b divided by ($1.75/ hour increase X 40 hours) fair to say, many workers. and i think you meant to say most of those funds wouldn't be saved and recycled back to the economy. fundamentally, i don't think the objections over this are about negative effects on the economy. it's about concern for negative effects to a few businesses (that are not likely to be big based on history) and lack of (or much less) concern for the poor. it's that simple. ah, there it is. it's not the practical concerns, it's the principle. Yes, I meant to say wouldn't be saved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 ah, there it is. it's not the practical concerns, it's the principle. God you're !@#$ing brilliant. You're suprised that a ultra-conservative such as me is against the principal of the government telling a business how much it's supposed to pay it's employees? I hear what your saying, but I'm looking at this purely from a pragmatical point of view. I just believe that the current minimum wage is too low for people to survive on. And I reject the notion that minimum wage is just for teenagers or young people, there are many people who work in these jobs that are using these wages in order to try to get by. And yes, it would have been more wise for them to get an education so they wouldn't be in this position, but I don't believe that because they didn't they should be shackled to the current minimum wage. We know that profits are soaring for many big businesses, and an increase in wages by less than $2 an hour wouldn't be a devastating development for many of these companies. The reason why I support many economic "conservative" principles is because I believe them to be rational. However pure ideology doesn't influence my decisions, if something makes sense that doesn't go with standard economic conservative orthodoxy, then I'll support it. From my point of view, corporations are flushed with cash and even without the raising of minimum wages, I believe it is just a matter of time before we start seeing wage increases once the job market tightens up some. But at the end of the day, I support raising the minimum wage because I believe it would be an overall positive for the economy. And that's what trumps everything from my perspective. What about the smaller companies that tend to employe a lot of these minimum wage people? !@#$ 'em? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 (edited) God you're !@#$ing brilliant. You're suprised that a ultra-conservative such as me is against the principal of the government telling a business how much it's supposed to pay it's employees? What about the smaller companies that tend to employe a lot of these minimum wage people? !@#$ 'em? First of all, as I mentioned in an earlier thread I believe that a comprehensive study from honest non ideological brokers would need to be done on the effects it would have on businesses and the overall effects on the economy due to the added wages. Secondly, I did say this: Maybe a two tiered Minimum wage plan, one for small businesses, and a second for corporations. Or maybe they can make it two tiered based off the amount of employees that are employed. I don't know, but I believe that many of the corporations are able to easily withstand a minimal increase. But as someone a little earlier pointed out, most companies are paying higher than the minimum wage as it is, so I'm not quite sure how many people it would help. Edited March 20, 2013 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 Because there has never (at least to my knowledge) been an increase of this amount. You're fixated with the $1 value meal. How about the $8 burger that would now be nearly $10.50. Except they wouldn't, because you're not factoring in all of the minimum wage jobs it takes to get that burger out of the field and out the drive through window. Living wages are for people who earn them. Communism doesn't work. you rude mechanical, show me where a large group of economists predict rampant inflation based on a minimum wage hike. many predict a stimulative effect to the economy as dollars in the lowest socioeconomic group will be spent and not saved unlike what happens when money is pumped into big banks and businesses. additionally it won't be money printed by the govt but taken from profits of the same individuals that for the last 5 years have been sitting on piles of cash. A large group of economists? How much more delusional can you get? They predict things in the short term without understanding the long term effects. How'd that stimulus plan work out for those economists (I'm looking at you Krugman)? How about those short term deficits that now add up to Somewhere north of $30 Trillion (off the books debt added)? You bit hard on the Happy Meal hook because you obviously don't understand basic business, supply chains or logistics. 12% here, 12% there, pretty soon it adds up to essentially killing off the middle class completely. Then you could have the total class warfare you nut jobs obviously want. At least at that point you'd have people willing to actually fight for something on your side. This is America. It doesn't matter where you're born or who your parents are, your chances of making it here is still better than anywhere else but you actually have to participate. Well, at least for a little while longer. You know, until you self-proclaimed academics leftislate even that away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 Except they wouldn't, because you're not factoring in all of the minimum wage jobs it takes to get that burger out of the field and out the drive through window. Living wages are for people who earn them. Communism doesn't work. A large group of economists? How much more delusional can you get? They predict things in the short term without understanding the long term effects. How'd that stimulus plan work out for those economists (I'm looking at you Krugman)? How about those short term deficits that now add up to Somewhere north of $30 Trillion (off the books debt added)? You bit hard on the Happy Meal hook because you obviously don't understand basic business, supply chains or logistics. 12% here, 12% there, pretty soon it adds up to essentially killing off the middle class completely. Then you could have the total class warfare you nut jobs obviously want. At least at that point you'd have people willing to actually fight for something on your side. This is America. It doesn't matter where you're born or who your parents are, your chances of making it here is still better than anywhere else but you actually have to participate. Well, at least for a little while longer. You know, until you self-proclaimed academics leftislate even that away. what took so long? i thought an attack on economists and academics would come much sooner. ok, lets replace academics with evidence. where is the evidence, data,historical precedents, whatever you want to term it that supports your position? until you come up with some, "because i said so" remains your argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 what took so long? i thought an attack on economists and academics would come much sooner. ok, lets replace academics with evidence. where is the evidence, data,historical precedents, whatever you want to term it that supports your position? until you come up with some, "because i said so" remains your argument. Hold yourself to your own standard first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 (edited) watching the documentary "american winter" on hbo and this venture capitalist is interviewed: "if it were true that lower taxes for the rich and more wealth for the wealthy led to job creation, today we would be drowning in jobs". seems logical to me. where's the flaw in his reasoning? Edited March 21, 2013 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 watching the documentary "american winter" on hbo and this venture capitalist is interviewed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKCvf8E7V1g "if it were true that lower taxes for the rich and more wealth for the wealthy led to job creation, today we would be drowning in jobs". seems logical to me. where's the flaw in his reasoning? Let me ask you, are taxes lower or higher for the wealthy today than they were a few years ago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 (edited) Let me ask you, are taxes lower or higher for the wealthy today than they were a few years ago? indulge me and look at the graph at 2:20. do you dispute it? i ask in all seriousness as i'm no tax expert. while you're at it check out trump's face at about 1:30, it's worth it just for giggles. this has actually been banned on TED's site. i checked it out. if you search this guy you'll just get a thread complaining about it and some limp explanation that the presentation was mediocre and wasn't thought provoking. censorship documented here under "controversies" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TED_(conference) Edited March 21, 2013 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 (edited) indulge me and look at the graph at 2:20. do you dispute it? i ask in all seriousness as i'm no tax expert. while you're at it check out trump's face at about 1:30, it's worth it just for giggles. this has actually been banned on TED's site. i checked it out. if you search this guy you'll just get a thread complaining about it and some limp explanation that the presentation was mediocre and wasn't thought provoking. censorship documented here under "controversies" http://en.wikipedia....ED_(conference) Well when he says the rich are not the job creators no ****. The biggest job creators in this country are the small business owners. People like my boss. But guess what, he is in the income bracket that is considered rich. The government is whacked when the define rich as a couple making over $250k a year. That's why we're not flush with jobs. The past 4 years those job creators have been afraid to hire due to the unknown in the tax laws and how Obamacare was going to effect their bottom line which effects their decision to hire. And sure the rich have gotten richer, that's the way it works. Wealth creates wealth. The more you have the more risks you can take and along with those risks does tend to come the rewards. The other reason the rich get richer is they have the incentives. You are complaining about the shrinking middle class. Is that the fault of the rich? If it is please explain how. Those in the middle class who have the drive will be the ones that succeed. Those that don't will continue to flounder. I would also like to have you explain how taxing the rich more is going to put more money in the pockets of the middle class. Isn't that up to them? Bottom line is he does make some good points but your big government and higher taxes on the rich is NOT going to help the middle class. Edited March 21, 2013 by Chef Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 it's like i tell people trying to lose weight....anybody that says they have the answer is a damn liar. but what i do know, is what were doing isn't working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 it's like i tell people trying to lose weight....anybody that says they have the answer is a damn liar. but what i do know, is what were doing isn't working. Actually that's a terrible analogy. You want to lose weight, eat well and exercise. Effectively, the hard stuff. Also, how can you say "what we're doing isn't working"? Tell me which other country has managed to grow this wealthy in comparison to its peers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Actually that's a terrible analogy. You want to lose weight, eat well and exercise. Effectively, the hard stuff. Also, how can you say "what we're doing isn't working"? Tell me which other country has managed to grow this wealthy in comparison to its peers? to your first point, just attended a lecture by a renowned expert in the field of obesity ( i won't mention the university as i'm confident it would be ridiculed as a bastion of liberalism, but rest assured you've heard of it and he was brought in by another renowned university to give the talk). the needed caloric intake for a human to sustain life is 800 cal/day. americans consume on average 2800 cals. our bodies adjust metabolic rates to regulate supply and demand to within a few cals/day. still, the balance is on plus side, so to speak, which results in weight gain. when we decrease the caloric intake, the body decreases the metabolic rate resulting in disappointing weight loss. the trick is to reset the thermostat and no one knows how to do that. exercise is promising but far from a panacea. to your second point, it's working for the winners. there are far too many losers and that doesn't bode well for even the current winners. to borrow a few bullets from the documentary (which i highly recommend): the greatest determinant of wealth in the us is the wealth of ones parents. upward mobility in the us is among the lowest of the developed world. so much for the american dream. i won't repeat the numbers on poverty as appeals to compassion are largely ineffective here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 to your first point, just attended a lecture by a renowned expert in the field of obesity ( i won't mention the university as i'm confident it would be ridiculed as a bastion of liberalism, but rest assured you've heard of it and he was brought in by another renowned university to give the talk). the needed caloric intake for a human to sustain life is 800 cal/day. americans consume on average 2800 cals. our bodies adjust metabolic rates to regulate supply and demand to within a few cals/day. still, the balance is on plus side, so to speak, which results in weight gain. when we decrease the caloric intake, the body decreases the metabolic rate resulting in disappointing weight loss. the trick is to reset the thermostat and no one knows how to do that. exercise is promising but far from a panacea. You're speaking to a guy who went from 255 to 195 in less than 6 months (after 3 years I'm at 210-215). I did it through hard work. See diet and exercise forum for more details. to your second point, it's working for the winners. there are far too many losers and that doesn't bode well for even the current winners. to borrow a few bullets from the documentary (which i highly recommend): the greatest determinant of wealth in the us is the wealth of ones parents. upward mobility in the us is among the lowest of the developed world. so much for the american dream. i won't repeat the numbers on poverty as appeals to compassion are largely ineffective here. No, it's creating winners. If the greatest determinant of wealth in North America is the wealth of ones parents, then I'd be working 7 days a week in a bakery at minimum wage. Just out of curiosity, do you come from a wealthy family since you obviously would fall in the top 1-2% of income as a doctor? If people would put as much effort to better their lives and sacrifice as immigrants do, then you'd see much less people on lower incomes. Middle class usually creates complacency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 You're speaking to a guy who went from 255 to 195 in less than 6 months (after 3 years I'm at 210-215). I did it through hard work. See diet and exercise forum for more details. No, it's creating winners. If the greatest determinant of wealth in North America is the wealth of ones parents, then I'd be working 7 days a week in a bakery at minimum wage. Just out of curiosity, do you come from a wealthy family since you obviously would fall in the top 1-2% of income as a doctor? If people would put as much effort to better their lives and sacrifice as immigrants do, then you'd see much less people on lower incomes. Middle class usually creates complacency. congratulations, you're an outlier. yes, i've seen success at weight loss attempts but many more failures. i'm from a middle class family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 congratulations, you're an outlier. yes, i've seen success at weight loss attempts but many more failures. i'm from a middle class family. Because success is difficult. That's the point. Probably why you went from a middle class family to a greedy 1%'er? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts