Missouri Returning to Reason - Rolling back minimum wage

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Fools

That is the very reason why per capita and percentages are used, they were even used in what you posted.

Now you are moving the goalposts.

I feel that you are. Have you ever taken a class in statistics? Per Capita means little as a county with 5000 people would clearly have lower property values than a county with one million people just by the simple issue that more people "want" to live there.

As a person that has suffered real poverty for a couple of years in my life, I have not only facts to back me up but personal experience. People, such as yourself, that believe forcing businesses to pay more than they can for services provided have no idea how the market exists. To you, it is all spread sheets and data. No blood, sweat, and tears. The fact of the matter is that small businesses are raped by federal and state taxes - as well as local. One of the reasons they can't afford to pay people more is because 50 percent of their gross income is taken away in taxes. Do you know that if you started a business and employed people that you have to match their federal, social security, and medicaid? So say you pay someone 10 bucks an hour. Of that ten bucks lets say the person pays 20 percent out in payroll taxes (low estimate) so his gross with 40 hours a week will be 20,800 dollars a year of which, 4,160 will be taken out. More than likely he will get that back - however the employer also has to match that 4,160 dollars so the employer is actually paying this person 12 dollars an hour. The employer will not get any of that back.

Now lets say the government comes along and says, well 10 bucks is not fair! you must pay 15! Well lets do that math again. We'll use 22 percent though because the employee has probably moved into a new tax bracket.

Now our happy camper is making 31,200 a year. Not much but enough to scrape by. Of that, 6,864 is taken out in taxes. Of which he may or may not get all of it back. So now our employer is paying this guy 38,064 a year to employ this person. Quite a bit of money to pay someone for making sandwiches or what not. Lets say he has 10 employees and they all make the same. Now we are up to 380,000 a year in payroll where we used to be at 250,000 a year. Is his business going to be able to survive an increase of 130,000 dollars of payroll? Maybe, maybe not - more than likely he will cut hours or employees to get that money back. Its his call as it is his business.

The next step in your plan will be to tell businesses what they could or could not keep in profits. You know that is the end game really so quit pretending.

In other words, you are a fascist in a clearly definitive sense. Not in a name calling sense.

originally posted by: seagull
If I can do this, so too can anyone.

But not everyone. Why is that so difficult to grasp?

a reply to: Fools

I didn't make the original claim. I pointed out something I noticed in what you posted as proof.

Not sure why you call it my plan.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Wayfarer

The minimum wage should be abolished entirely. Let the market decide what the wage basement for each job should be. If said basement doesn't pay the bills, seek a different career.

why in the hell do you think they passed a federal minimum wage in the first place. workers were getting F'ed as far as pay. and that was THE MARKET that did that. read a history book once in a while

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Fools

I didn't make the original claim. I pointed out something I noticed in what you posted as proof.

Not sure why you call it my plan.

I say that because I have read earlier posts of yours. You seem a typical socialist.

a reply to: daskakik

...and? Why is that my problem? Why is it anyone elses problem other than that persons? I'm sorry, but I am not responsible for their lives. I am what can laughably be called the working poor. Been it most all of my life, probably will be for the remainder of it. I've plans that are, seemingly, beginning to come to fruition. I've asked no one for help, nor will I. Whatever opportunities present themselves I will grab for, if I fail it's on me. If I don't, that's on me, as well.

Someone earlier in the thread gave reference to Gordon Gecko. Greed is good, that Gordan Gecko.

Greed is good. Greed is what helped me get up at 6 am, walk to work--rain or shine, hot or cold, work a double shift as often as I could get away with it, walk home again. Could have ridden the bus, but that walk was my personal time. My time for thinking, making plans, etc...

That's greed at work. Greed is also me wanting to keep what I earned by the sweat of my brow after that hour long walk in the rain or shine, hot or cold. Why should I be expected to work those kind of hours just so I can hand the tax man a good percentage of it? Answer me that? For services, I'm told. Streets that never get fixed. Medical care that I earn to much money to qualify for. etc... Those services? Thank you, no. I'd just as soon pay my own way. Medical care I'll buy my own insurance thanks, and pay for what I need.

All this meant I did without many times. Which bill might not get paid on time, so that tuition check would clear. Noodles for dinner (good thing I like noodles!!) so that that same young lady had a warm winter jacket, or new shoes when she needed them.

Opportunity is where you find it, or make it. It's never been any more or less than that.

originally posted by: Fools
I say that because I have read earlier posts of yours. You seem a typical socialist.

I'm not a socialist. I don't believe in any political ideal.

If I was to espouse any ideal it would be anarcho-capitalism but I'm not naive enough to believe that would ever work so I just post on ATS based on the facts available to me.

originally posted by: seagull
...and? Why is that my problem?

It isn't.

I just pointed out that the logic of your statement is wrong.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Fools
I say that because I have read earlier posts of yours. You seem a typical socialist.

I'm not a socialist. I don't believe in any political ideal.

If I was to espouse any ideal it would be anarcho-capitalism but I'm not naive enough to believe that would ever work so I just post on ATS based on the facts available to me.

You sir/maam are no anarcho capitalist. If you want to be the devil's advocate, that is fine - but do not pretend to be something you are not.

Also if that is what you would want to be, define anarcho capitalist in your words.

a reply to: Fools

Comprehension trouble?

I didn't say I was an anarcho-capitalist. I said if I was to espouse a political ideal that would be it but, I don't buy it so, I don't preach it.

What I did say was that I don't espouse any political ideal.

a reply to: Fools

Double trouble.

a reply to: daskakik

"If I was to espouse any ideal it would be anarcho-capitalism"

You seem to like obscuring as many of your arguments as possible, so I am sure that you are not sure what you really believe. I am asking why you would choose anarcho-capitalism as an idea you would espouse if any and what you believe anarcho capitalism to be.

a reply to: Fools

To me Anarcho-capitalism is best described at The Mises Institute

I like the way it sounds but it wouldn't work in the real world.

Since that is the closest and it won't work then, I choose none. So, no, you are wrong, I'm not a socialist.

a reply to: daskakik

You spend the vast majority of your time defending it so what else am I to think - or anyone else for that matter.

a reply to: Fools

You seem to be mistaking me questioning certain claims made by anti-socialists as me defending or even supporting socialism. It isn't the same thing.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: seagull
If I can do this, so too can anyone.

But not everyone. Why is that so difficult to grasp?

Everyone CAN, not everyone DOES.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Not everyone can, for various reasons.

Broad brush fallacy applies to positive claims as well as negative ones.

a reply to: daskakik

Again, everyone CAN have a big old snuggle with excuses, not everyone DOES, however.

originally posted by: Fools

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Fools

Is his business going to be able to survive an increase of 130,000 dollars of payroll? Maybe, maybe not - more than likely he will cut hours or employees to get that money back. Its his call as it is his business.

The next step in your plan will be to tell businesses what they could or could not keep in profits. You know that is the end game really so quit pretending.

In other words, you are a fascist in a clearly definitive sense. Not in a name calling sense.

Maybe that employer needs to take a cut instead of trying to keep the bottom line.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
Again, everyone CAN have a big old snuggle with excuses, not everyone DOES, however.

Again, talking in absolutes, EVEN IN CAPS, usually makes you wrong.

You did it, given your circumstances. Everyone isn't you and their circumstances are not like yours.