The #FightFor15

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

43 minutes ago, TH3 said:

See  - Here is the problem. The GOP is bankrupt on ideas on how to solve the issues are acute today.

 

Yes - Our health care costs are through the roof, pinching wage growth, sucking resources that could go elsewhere - GOP solution? - crickets. The whole structure needs to be thrown out and start with a clean sheet of paper. 

 

College costs to much? GOP legislative solutions? None.

 

Wage stagnation for the lower class? GOP? 

 

So what you get is DEM solutions: Raise the minimum wage, forgive student debt, the ACA. GOP had total control of the government from 2016 to 2018  and did nothing productive on these items. 

 

Agree on stagnation, but to be clear, ACA did nothing on healthcare costs. It just increased what I pay out of pocket because my employer saw it as a chance to reduce health insurance to the minimum standard. Meanwhile for healthcare companies business is booming. I suppose that’s why the healthcare lobby wrote the aca the way they did. 
 

what you are missing here is one of the points that draws people to GOP isn’t their policy, it’s their often forgotten but occasionally enforced position that it’s not the federal government’s job to solve everything. State and local governments get tax dollars too and are much closer to their constituents. 

Edited February 22, 2021 by Over 29 years of fanhood

[Orlando Buffalo]

34 minutes ago, TH3 said:

See  - Here is the problem. The GOP is bankrupt on ideas on how to solve the issues are acute today.

 

Yes - Our health care costs are through the roof, pinching wage growth, sucking resources that could go elsewhere - GOP solution? - crickets. The whole structure needs to be thrown out and start with a clean sheet of paper. 

 

College costs to much? GOP legislative solutions? None.

 

Wage stagnation for the lower class? GOP? 

 

So what you get is DEM solutions: Raise the minimum wage, forgive student debt, the ACA. GOP had total control of the government from 2016 to 2018  and did nothing productive on these items. 

 

Where are college costs through the roof? Not at the public schools in my area, our community college has 4 year degrees for under 12k total, UCF is less than 20k for tuition and fees. If you want to go to private you will pay for it but that is your choice. Healthcare is completely out of control but Government tried to fix that with Obama care and it just got worse. The fact that you think the solution to any of these topics is more federal control shows how economically illiterate you are. The solution to raise low wages is to tighten the job market so business must compete for quality people. The solution to high college cost is to not pay $150k for a $15k education. Healthcare is more complex but the federal government will not fix it. The people who say "do something" rarely fix anything and just cause other problems, I can deal with crickets if they don't make it worse.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

13 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

Where are college costs through the roof? Not at the public schools in my area, our community college has 4 year degrees for under 12k total, UCF is less than 20k for tuition and fees. If you want to go to private you will pay for it but that is your choice. Healthcare is completely out of control but Government tried to fix that with Obama care and it just got worse. The fact that you think the solution to any of these topics is more federal control shows how economically illiterate you are. The solution to raise low wages is to tighten the job market so business must compete for quality people. The solution to high college cost is to not pay $150k for a $15k education. Healthcare is more complex but the federal government will not fix it. The people who say "do something" rarely fix anything and just cause other problems, I can deal with crickets if they don't make it worse.

I agree. The playing field between all the different higher learning institutions has never been more level. One of the positives the internet and information access has brought us. 

[BillStime]

1 hour ago, T master said:

 

WOO HOO it went from $0 .40 a hr to $0.75 a hr so it didn't actually double but they earned & appreciated it more then and still probably had more than one job the average family made $2k a yr. in 1949 . 

 

Today they want to make double the money so they don't have to find a second job like most of us did as kids so they can hurry up and get home to play video games now there's some motivation for you !!  

 

 

 

 

You’re an idiot as always. Most people on min wage already have MULTIPLE jobs.

 

 

 

Edited February 22, 2021 by BillStime

[T master]

10 minutes ago, BillStime said:

You’re an idiot a always.

 

 

 

 

The truth hurts or will constitute a hateful response !! 

 

Love you to bro carry on with the unification tour ...

 

As far as your reply "Most people on min wage already have MULTIPLE jobs." sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do to have a better life & i applaud those that have that motivation to go do it rather than sit and whine/complain about their situation . 

Edited February 22, 2021 by T master

[reddogblitz]

13 minutes ago, BillStime said:

You’re an idiot a always. Most people on min wage already have MULTIPLE jobs.

 

 

 

 

DC Tom, is that you?

[BillStime]

12 minutes ago, T master said:

 

The truth hurts or will constitute a hateful response !! 

 

Love you to bro carry on with the unification tour ...

 

As far as your reply "Most people on min wage already have MULTIPLE jobs." sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do to have a better life & i applaud those that have that motivation to go do it rather than sit and whine/complain about their situation . 

 

Remind us how Trump unified us?

[Backintheday544]

1 hour ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

If it was only that simple as the problem is the dynamic nature of changes in business conditions.  And how it impacts the people running and working in these businesses.  Its about changes to the "rules", in this case the minimum amount of pay per hour you are required to pay out, and what adjustments are necessary to stay in business.  So you need to adapt to the changing rules of the game.  Businesses constantly face these issues.  Input costs like a restaurants food costs rise and rarely fall for example.  But the root of the problem isn't about what the minimum wage should be as I'll get to at the end.  

 

Although labor costs are a big component of the "costs" of running a business there are other factors.  Other inputs, fixed and variable costs, taxes, regulations. specific costs and attributes of the business, along with specific costs and attributes of the market.  

 

The simplest response to raising the labor cost would be to raise prices to compensate the business for the additional costs.  Or shrink the product and hold the price like make the Whopper smaller.  Absent that you'd need to either increase productivity (measured in the value of output per hour) or cut costs somewhere else.  A fundamental question is how do you pay somebody that generates $10 of value per hour a pay rate of $15 per hour?  Over the course of a year you'll lose about $10K per employee.  The more people you employ the more you lose.  Its like being in business to sell a dollar for 90 cents.  So the challenge is to get at or above a $15 value generating level per hours per employee.  Most likely you'll try to pass on the additional cost by raising prices and if that doesn't work then you'll be left with the undesirable task of letting somebody go.  Or given a rise in labor costs entertain the idea of some sort of automation which now becomes more attractive from a cost perspective.  

 

IMO the minimum wage debate is an exercise in political misdirection under the guise of helping the unfortunate minimum wage worker.  A distraction because it avoids any discussion of a fatal structural problem with the US economy of today.  These minimum wage jobs aren't designed to be lifetime jobs for people.  But for many that is the current reality.  This is entry level work to get people into the labor force to get experience and skills that can be leveraged to move up the ladder.  But the rungs above minimum wage in the employment ladder have been removed by outsourcing and eliminating these opportunities through one way or another that are too detailed to go into here.  So just by looking at the large number of people stuck at the bottom there's no where to go for most of them.  They are stuck here without a lot of viable options.  Rather than devolving into a debate about the governments plan to dictate wage levels to small employers maybe they should focus on the things that the government and their corporate master have enacted and done in order for powerful corporations and Wall Street to strip mine US workers of their jobs and dignity along with putting millions of small businesses out of existence while raising their profits and incomes to obscene levels? 

Your breakdown misses a couple of points:

 

1. with increase minimum wages around the country, we haven’t seen an increase in price. According to a recent piece of economic research that examined the effect of prices on minimum wage increases in various states in the U.S. from 1978 through 2015, they found that a 10% increase in minimum wage only accounts for around a 0.36% increase in prices. 
 

2.  You define the value of work based on the current minimum wage, not the actual value of the work.

 

CEPR values the minimum wage right now would be $25 if it tracked with productivity: https://cepr.net/this-is-what-minimum-wage-would-be-if-it-kept-pace-with-productivity/

 

3. with increased cash in the market place, which should increase demand, businesses would only need to keep up with variable costs per unit, which will should decrease with more production.

 

While there are a lot of variables that go into businesses and business decisions, it can be broken down to a basic: if your business plan requires hiring people at a wage below the poverty line, should that business plan have a place in the US or should we use that capital on jobs that can pay people to work full time and not be in poverty?

[SoTier]

10 hours ago, Big Blitz said:

Let me be clear.  There shouldn't be a minimum wage.  Period.  It's been a net negative for society and its also worthless and outdated.  

 

But we know why a certain *cough cough* political party supports it.  

 

But why do you see many corporations you good with a $15 federal minimum wage (why not 25 is unclear) is because they know this simple fact.  

 

The same reason they don't mind raising taxes to 80 to 90%.  They can handle a $15 minimum wage.  Potential start ups and competition....just had their costs increase.  They get dealt another blow. 

 

They also know, the robots, AI, and algorithms all can do what low info dupes #FightingFor15 can do and more efficiently.......we're pretty freaking close to having online modules take the place of teachers but yay cool fight for fifteen!

 

The corporations will also adjust by cutting staff.  They can handle it.  The little guy cannot.

 

2021 economics shouldn't be dusting off the 1930s political playbook.  It's a joke.  

 

 

 

So, the US should keep the minimum wage at its current level or get rid of it entirely in order to subsidize (by providing income supports like food stamps and Medicaid) businesses too small or too poorly performing to afford to pay its workers more than $7.30 an hour (about $15k annually for full time work)?

 

That's not "1930s political playbook" but classic 1890s populism framing the issue as them (big corporations) against us (small businesses) and supposedly offering a simplistic solution (get rid of minimum wage) to solve the problem intended to screw over the real "little guys" in this scenario, minimum wage workers.

 

FYI - an algorithm is simply a computer program which is a precise set of instructions to be carried out by a computer.   The way you lumped "robots, AI, and algorithms" all together clearly demonstrates that you are totally clueless about the meaning of the word.  Maybe you should get your head out of the QAnon and other Wacko Trumpist stupidity.

 

9 hours ago, gobills404 said:

It went from 40 cents to 75 cents so I'll say close enough. Unemployment also jumped up from 4.0% to to 6.6% that year as a result. Raising it now would only make it harder for people who have lost their jobs during the pandemic to get back into the work force.

 

The increase in unemployment resulted from the recession of 1949, which was triggered by a tightening of monetary policy in response to increased inflation.  The recession started in late 1948 before the minimum wage was increased.

 

8 hours ago, Buffarukus said:

this one im alittle torn over. there is no way the min wage comes close to allowing someone the ability to care for oneself let alone anyone else. i think a jump that high is definatly destructive to small buisness, brings all other wages down and will quickly be nullified by inflation. so anyone cheering this on. youll be talking about low wages but also higher unemployment very shortly.

 

 but i  also see how companies are using the gov to sublimate their workforce on the taxpayers backs. welfare, food stamps, heap ect ect. there's a unspoken agreement where workers and companies are taking advantage of social services so incentive by both sides to not offer "full" time or simply not enter the workforce is pretty high regardless. 

 

so whats a good solution? alot of bootstrapers say get a skill to not work min wage. most of those people have good jobs and many i talk to are from the older generation. a good paying factory job with benefits, pension was waiting with your hs diploma. those are pretty rare today. now higher education isnt the answer unless youd like a house payment..to get a job.

 

so whats left? picking a trade school, join the military or be connected enough to be given a opportunity your not really "qualified" for. thats about it. 

 

 

Exactly.  We face tremendous challenges in adapting our workforce to the new economic paradigms we face.   Technology may eliminate many jobs but it will also create many more new jobs.  The reality is that most students who graduate from HS in 2020 and 2021 will likely be working in jobs and/or industries that don't exist today or, if they exist, are virtually unknown.   Meanwhile, we have millions of adult workers who are stuck in dead-end minimum wage jobs because of lack of skills.   Many have psychological, economic, logistical and/or geographic impediments that prevent them changing their situations by applying for better jobs, taking advantage of job training or apprenticeship or moving to areas with more opportunities.

 

There's no "simple" solution to this.  Raising the minimum wage is really a temporary fix because it doesn't solve the fundamental problems unskilled workers will continue to face in the future.   That doesn't mean that we shouldn't raise the minimum wage but it's not any more of a "solution" than pretending that subsidizing mom-and-pop businesses through social programs by keeping the status quo is a "solution".  

 

I don't pretend to have a solution.   I have some ideas, mainly that we need to re-think education for students who are not academically inclined.  We also need to convince this group that once they're "done" with high school, they aren't really done with education or training.  I think that going forward, successful people, whether they're MBAs or HS grads, are going to be continually learning new skills throughout their working lives as the rapid pace of technological change continues to accelerate. 

 

 

[Big Blitz]

29 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

So, the US should keep the minimum wage at its current level or get rid of it entirely in order to subsidize (by providing income supports like food stamps and Medicaid) businesses too small or too poorly performing to afford to pay its workers more than $7.30 an hour (about $15k annually for full time work)?

 

That's not "1930s political playbook" but classic 1890s populism framing the issue as them (big corporations) against us (small businesses) and supposedly offering a simplistic solution (get rid of minimum wage) to solve the problem intended to screw over the real "little guys" in this scenario, minimum wage workers.

 

FYI - an algorithm is simply a computer program which is a precise set of instructions to be carried out by a computer.   The way you lumped "robots, AI, and algorithms" all together clearly demonstrates that you are totally clueless about the meaning of the word.  Maybe you should get your head out of the QAnon and other Wacko Trumpist stupidity.

 

 

 

 

Robots:  Automation 

 

AI:  Does tasks humans don't have to at various places of work

 

Algorithms:  To come up with the next Netflix screenplay.  

[All_Pro_Bills]

3 hours ago, Backintheday544 said:

Your breakdown misses a couple of points:

 

1. with increase minimum wages around the country, we haven’t seen an increase in price. According to a recent piece of economic research that examined the effect of prices on minimum wage increases in various states in the U.S. from 1978 through 2015, they found that a 10% increase in minimum wage only accounts for around a 0.36% increase in prices. 
 

2.  You define the value of work based on the current minimum wage, not the actual value of the work.

 

CEPR values the minimum wage right now would be $25 if it tracked with productivity: https://cepr.net/this-is-what-minimum-wage-would-be-if-it-kept-pace-with-productivity/

 

3. with increased cash in the market place, which should increase demand, businesses would only need to keep up with variable costs per unit, which will should decrease with more production.

 

While there are a lot of variables that go into businesses and business decisions, it can be broken down to a basic: if your business plan requires hiring people at a wage below the poverty line, should that business plan have a place in the US or should we use that capital on jobs that can pay people to work full time and not be in poverty?

Thanks for the well articulated response.  I actually have an undergraduate degree in economics.  I spent some time earning an okay living in the discipline before moving on to other adventures that in all honesty paid a lot more.  I can tell you the most important thing I learned is that you can design a study or some economic model to produce pretty much any result you want by tweaking the inputs and jiggling the assumptions.  I'll wager the study you cite was paid for and run by somebody advocating a raise in the minimum wage.   No surprise our beliefs are confirmed by the study!  Conversely, I can find studies that show it will drastically raise unemployment sponsored by people against raising it.  No surprise our beliefs are confirm by our study too!  Lying with statistics is one thing its been called.

 

But don't get me wrong.  I'm not saying I'm correct and you're incorrect. 

 

However, if the minimum wage jumps to $15 or some adjusted level of $25 be prepared for a real-life outcome much different than any studies predict pro or con.  I think it was Yogi Berra that said "In theory, theory and practice are the same, in practice, theory and practice are different" 

Edited February 22, 2021 by All_Pro_Bills

[Backintheday544]

22 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Thanks for the well articulated response.  I actually have an undergraduate degree in economics.  I spent some time earning an okay living in the discipline before moving on to other adventures that in all honesty paid a lot more.  I can tell you the most important thing I learned is that you can design a study or some economic model to produce pretty much any result you want by tweaking the inputs and jiggling the assumptions.  I'll wager the study you cite was paid for and run by somebody advocating a raise in the minimum wage.   No surprise our beliefs are confirmed by the study!  Conversely, I can find studies that show it will drastically raise unemployment sponsored by people against raising it.  No surprise our beliefs are confirm by our study too!  Lying with statistics is one thing its been called.

 

But don't get me wrong.  I'm not saying I'm correct and you're incorrect. 

 

However, if the minimum wage jumps to $15 or some adjusted level of $25 be prepared for a real-life outcome much different than any studies predict pro or con.  I think it was Yogi Berra that said "In theory, theory and practice are the same, in practice, theory and practice are different" 

Unfortunately I only minored one Econ while getting my masters in Accounting and my LLM in Taxation. 
 

While you’re right about studies and theories we do have economic data from cities and states that increased the minimum wage and what actually happened.

 

Now perhaps we would get a different result if it occurred on the Federal level vs state level but that would be more theory.

[Orlando Buffalo]

18 hours ago, Backintheday544 said:

Your breakdown misses a couple of points:

 

1. with increase minimum wages around the country, we haven’t seen an increase in price. According to a recent piece of economic research that examined the effect of prices on minimum wage increases in various states in the U.S. from 1978 through 2015, they found that a 10% increase in minimum wage only accounts for around a 0.36% increase in prices. 
 

2.  You define the value of work based on the current minimum wage, not the actual value of the work.

 

CEPR values the minimum wage right now would be $25 if it tracked with productivity: https://cepr.net/this-is-what-minimum-wage-would-be-if-it-kept-pace-with-productivity/

 

3. with increased cash in the market place, which should increase demand, businesses would only need to keep up with variable costs per unit, which will should decrease with more production.

 

While there are a lot of variables that go into businesses and business decisions, it can be broken down to a basic: if your business plan requires hiring people at a wage below the poverty line, should that business plan have a place in the US or should we use that capital on jobs that can pay people to work full time and not be in poverty?

You actually took economic classes and wrote that businesses should have to make sure their employees make more than poverty level wages? Should wegmans have owed me above poverty level wages when I worked there after school in high school? Should the bank I worked for after I graduated college paid me more than my worth from the get go? Who are you arguing for with this argument? People who make minimum wage are 90% of the time starting their work history and can not produce $20 an hour worth of work. I will make one other point, the minimum wage increase will make first chances harder to come by and that will hurt the poor much more than the rich. My kids will be able to get jobs at $15 an hour at publix or Chick-fil-A based on who me and my wife know, while the unknown kid will have a much harder time 

[All_Pro_Bills]

2 hours ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

You actually took economic classes and wrote that businesses should have to make sure their employees make more than poverty level wages? Should wegmans have owed me above poverty level wages when I worked there after school in high school? Should the bank I worked for after I graduated college paid me more than my worth from the get go? Who are you arguing for with this argument? People who make minimum wage are 90% of the time starting their work history and can not produce $20 an hour worth of work. I will make one other point, the minimum wage increase will make first chances harder to come by and that will hurt the poor much more than the rich. My kids will be able to get jobs at $15 an hour at publix or Chick-fil-A based on who me and my wife know, while the unknown kid will have a much harder time 

A friend of mine runs a moderately successful engine repair shop.  He doesn't have any advanced degrees nor does he subscribe to any specific economic theory.  He employs 5 people in the operation.  These 5 employees have varying levels of skill and ability.  Some can do a "standard" repair job in a couple hours.  Others are not as skilled or proficient and therefore take longer.  

 

In one of our conversations he told me about one of his relatively new employees.  This employee had approached him asking for a raise.  What he told the employee was interesting and insightful.  He told the employee he would give him a raise but only when certain conditions were met.  Those conditions being his skill level and experience allowed him to do the job more effectively and efficiently.  In other words, when his productivity improved.  The problem at the time was the employee wanting the raise needed 5+ hours to do the job vs. a senior highly proficient employee needing 2 hours.  And to do the job in 5+ hours he also needed to consume the time of the boss and the senior employee.  Taking them away from their work and making them less productive. 

 

So my friend told him "when you can do the job in less than 5 hours and do not need any of my time or the time of the other employee I can give you a raise".  If my friend was required to pay this employee some "minimum" level of compensation that exceeded what he could produce he wouldn't have hired him.  His unskilled status wouldn't have fit his businesses "cost model".  Nor would that employee have been provided the opportunity to gain proficiency at the task and increase his earnings potential.  I think that nicely supports your premise of "pricing" low and unskilled workers out of the employment market. 

 

Also, I think we (you and I) would agree minimum wage jobs are not intended to be lifetime employment.  They are basically entry level jobs where employees can gain experience and expertise to increase their earnings potential allowing them to climb up the job and skill ladder.  But like I said in previous posts the rungs on the ladder above the minimum wage are broken.  Policy makers should concentrate on fixing the broken steps on the job ladder and not on the bottom rung.   

 

 

 

Edited February 23, 2021 by All_Pro_Bills

[Backintheday544]

3 hours ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

You actually took economic classes and wrote that businesses should have to make sure their employees make more than poverty level wages? Should wegmans have owed me above poverty level wages when I worked there after school in high school? Should the bank I worked for after I graduated college paid me more than my worth from the get go? Who are you arguing for with this argument? People who make minimum wage are 90% of the time starting their work history and can not produce $20 an hour worth of work. I will make one other point, the minimum wage increase will make first chances harder to come by and that will hurt the poor much more than the rich. My kids will be able to get jobs at $15 an hour at publix or Chick-fil-A based on who me and my wife know, while the unknown kid will have a much harder time 

I’m saying businesses that require people to work at a pay level that is less than the poverty line in order to be profitable are poor business structures and as a country should re-evaluate their place in the US. 
 

For example, if you run a business and your net income is $100,000 a year. However, you’re net income is subsidized by paying you’re employees less than a living wage by $120,000. So if you were actually paying a living wage you’d have a $20,000 loss. Does a business like that actually belong in the US anymore and shouldn’t we re-allocate resources your business is using to businesses that can pay a living wage? Should businesses, even small businesses, be able to profit because they pay a minimum wage that is less than a living wage.

 

 

[SoCal Deek]

1 hour ago, Backintheday544 said:

I’m saying businesses that require people to work at a pay level that is less than the poverty line in order to be profitable are poor business structures and as a country should re-evaluate their place in the US. 
 

For example, if you run a business and your net income is $100,000 a year. However, you’re net income is subsidized by paying you’re employees less than a living wage by $120,000. So if you were actually paying a living wage you’d have a $20,000 loss. Does a business like that actually belong in the US anymore and shouldn’t we re-allocate resources your business is using to businesses that can pay a living wage? Should businesses, even small businesses, be able to profit because they pay a minimum wage that is less than a living wage.

 

 

Yikes!  It's not your position to tell a business that they cannot exist in America...unless they are doing something illegal, or immoral, or both. You can always vote with your feet and shop elsewhere. If the employees can make more money working for this hypothetical business owner's competitors, they should go work there.  That is how the free market economy works. 

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

On 2/22/2021 at 11:54 AM, BillStime said:

You’re an idiot as always. Most people on min wage already have MULTIPLE jobs.

 

 

 

 

Aren’t Most people on minimum wage are high school kids working part time?

 

I dont think Minimum wage was ever meant to support a family and be a career objective.

Edited February 23, 2021 by Over 29 years of fanhood

[BillStime]

24 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

 

Aren’t Most people on minimum wage are high school kids working part time?

no

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

2 hours ago, Backintheday544 said:

I’m saying businesses that require people to work at a pay level that is less than the poverty line in order to be profitable are poor business structures and as a country should re-evaluate their place in the US. 
 

For example, if you run a business and your net income is $100,000 a year. However, you’re net income is subsidized by paying you’re employees less than a living wage by $120,000. So if you were actually paying a living wage you’d have a $20,000 loss. Does a business like that actually belong in the US anymore and shouldn’t we re-allocate resources your business is using to businesses that can pay a living wage? Should businesses, even small businesses, be able to profit because they pay a minimum wage that is less than a living wage.

 

 

you’re exactly correct when labor costs become too high there are a few outcomes:

1) go out of business

2) automate /force self service

3) outsource 

 

I challenge everyone in favor of $15 to boycott an establishment that pays minimum wage. Put your money where you mouth is and be part of the solution. 

[Backintheday544]

1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

Yikes!  It's not your position to tell a business that they cannot exist in America...unless they are doing something illegal, or immoral, or both. You can always vote with your feet and shop elsewhere. If the employees can make more money working for this hypothetical business owner's competitors, they should go work there.  That is how the free market economy works. 

Some think it immoral to pay people below a living wage.

 

Heres a church that agrees: https://www.ucc.org/justice_worker-justice/living_wage/

Edited February 23, 2021 by Backintheday544