Issuing a challenge to conservative's

a reply to: Ahabstar

Since there have been minimum wage increases in the past why dont you show me actual numbers instead of speculating?

a reply to: toysforadults

What I am asking is not a morality question. It is not a decision based on just ethics or even business ethics. Over the years I have had raises evaporate due to changing minimums that were either concurrent or shortly afterwards (within six months). I have worked union jobs and non-union jobs. And I prefer non-union because raises can be merit based and requested, more opportunities for promotions as well.

By and large the worker goes to $17 an hour or perhaps $20 if the business has a good profit margin potential. Never does the worker receive $24 until enough time has passed after the change and the company remains stable or increases profit margins. In cases of going to $20, expect a 3%-7% lay off. Maybe even more if it is an overnight doubling of minimum wage.

But what is crazy is Current State Minimum Wage Rates and how many states like Ohio added to their state constitutions rates pegged to the federal CPI. Or states like New York currently in incremental increases to $15. For Ohio, it could bite them big time if a huge bump to the economy happens. The rest of the country might be $15 and Ohio becomes $25-$30 alone. You can hear the doors shutting as businesses move anywhere for lower labor costs.

At a time of long standing brick and mortar stores closing down and growing food deserts. Doubling labor costs just sounds like economic homicide. How can people not see that?

a reply to: Ahabstar

I agree you cant a single piece of legislation across the board that's kind of nuts.

Home depot and Wal mart are kind of in a league of their own why do same rules apply to them that apply to my small construction company employing 3 peoplen

originally posted by: toysforadults
NOT THE MUD PIT

I challenge conservatives to use data from before minimum wage and when the minimum wage was the highest (1961) to support their free market principles.

No platitudes. Take some real data and make a real argument.

I'm going to leave you with this to bust your mythology right out of the gates. Also, I don't about your rhetoric or platitudes make a case with data or just don't post.

FDR Library marist.edu

The law I have just signed was passed to put people back to work, to let them buy more of the products of farms and factories and start our business at a living rate again.

Key words; living rate.

In my Inaugural I laid down the simple proposition that nobody is going to starve in this country. It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country.

Wuuuuuuuuutttt? No way. I have read over and over and over that it's not suppose to be a living wage. Apparently FDR when signing this into law felt different. Guess you guys like perpetuating a completely ignorant position. Weird.

Throughout industry, the change from starvation wages and starvation employment to living wages and sustained employment can, in large part, be made by an industrial covenant to which all employers shall subscribe.

So, actually compile data to support your argument that minimum wage has been worse than it was before it exist. You have hundreds of years of historical data. Use it and make an argument.

Do it without platitudes.

LOL seriously you picked one of the most economically volatile times in American history.

Wasn't this part of the reason for the failed coup of businessmen trying to woo Smedley Butler to be the puppet president who instead exposed it for what it was a failed coup. LOL or is that one of the parallels here LOL.

a reply to: rickymouse

You also have to consider that what it actually costs a business to hire an employee is much more than the actual cost of their wages. There are other costs to the business in terms of monies paid that employees never even see, but at costs businesses must pay for each employee they hire nonetheless like payroll taxes, PTO, retirement, insurance, other perks, and overhead supplies ...

on average an employee will actually cost 25 percent to 40 percent above their wages/salary amount.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: rickymouse

You also have to consider that what it actually costs a business to hire an employee is much more than the actual cost of their wages. There are other costs to the business in terms of monies paid that employees never even see, but at costs businesses must pay for each employee they hire nonetheless like payroll taxes, PTO, retirement, insurance, other perks, and overhead supplies ...

on average an employee will actually cost 25 percent to 40 percent above their wages/salary amount.

It used to cost me about thirty four percent of what wages were for overhead on my employees and that did not include the wear and tear on tools and equipment nor did it include the paid couple of holidays I did pay during the working season nor did it include the cost of my buying the guys coffee every morning at the restaurant. The more guys I put working, the more paperwork I had too, that is why I dropped back down to one crew from two. Also with two crews I used way more gas having two vehicles at the job every day.

My daughter has twenty some employees working for her at her business, but office work has way less workers comp and unemployment rates and liability insurance is way less than what I was paying too, my liability insurance was about five percent of wages vs hers being one and a half percent.

OP, perhaps the confused issue is in the the complexities of economics. One has to try to understand what actually creates inflation?

Real economic growth featuring across-the board-increases in the quantity of goods and services will restrain any inflation that is anticipated to come our way. This is why the tax cuts that were recently passed are, contrary to the aforementioned commentators schooled in Keynesian economics, actually an antidote to inflation and not a cause of it. These tax cuts were not designed to stimulate aggregate demand but to increase output. That is, they provide incentives to work harder, invest more, and to promote entrepreneurial activity. They are designed to stimulate the production of more stuff that we, as consumers, want. If inflation is a problem of too much money chasing too few goods and services, the kinds of tax cuts that were just passed, along with a less expansionary monetary policy, are exactly what is called for.

Source

Minimum wage increases are basically similiar to the Fed Reserve causing an economic stalemate with quantitive easing. There is no REAL growth achieved and thus inflation Compounded climbs.


Edit add: Instead, of just placing bandaids onto our economic growth inflation issues, perhaps we really need to recognize where the problem began. Audit the Fed and this can be done if congress takes advantage of the timing. Trump is understanding of this need. Annual fed audits are extremely limited currently.

Now for more direct correlations

Source for US Recessions
Source for US Minimum Wage Rates


Nov 1973 to March 1975 was stagflation in conjunction with the oil embargo. Yet on May 1, 1974 $1.60 to $2.00 (40 cents) and again Jan 1, 1975 to $2.10 (10 cents) and Jan 1, 1976 to $2.30 (20 cents). This happen in the midst of an incremental increase of a 70 cent increase over 19 months.

The double dip inflation that happened Jan 1980-July 1980 and then again July 1981-Nov 1982 neatly matches up to the next incremental wage increases that happened Jan 1, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981 (a $1.05 total) with 35 cents, 25 cents, 20 cents and 25 cents going from $2.30 to $3.35. Now that resession was the last one of the 1980’s when it ended. Blamed of course on the oil crisis, the energy crisis, inflation that all started in 1970’s (and ended in 1979...oh and that whole dropping of the gold standard isn’t mentioned). What also isn’t mentioned is the last raise of minimum wage was Jan 1, 1981.

Next resession is July 1990 - March 1991. Official explaination is a little foggy as to the cause but surely didn’t have anything to do with April 1, 1990 and 1991 in which we had 45 cents to $3.80 and another 45 cents to $4.25 (90 cents over a year could not have caused the first recession in over 7 years).

And every article you find in the internet will tell you flat out that that $2.10 over two years absolutely did not herald The Great Recession. Just ignore that July 24, 2007, 2008 and 2009 has anything to do with the timeframe of Dec 2007 - June 2009.

Really how much economic harm could a $7.75 jump do spread out over however many years when $2.10 didn’t officially cause that mess. Nor did any other raise in mimmum wage with any of the others listed above, officially.

In fact only the 90 cent spread in 1996 and 1997 didn’t immediately cause a recession. What stopped it? The rapid expansion of growth on the internet that later became known as the Dot Com Bubble. A small eight month recession in 2001 that had no raise in minimum wage happening. But arguably a delayed reaction from 96-97.

Yes there are prior resessions and raises. But those were not big jumps nor significantly felt slumps. But there you go, sourced and compared. Hand in hand. Political rhetoric will tell you each one happened under the helm of a Republican President. But even the official root causes point back to policies under Democrat Presidents. None admit to changes in minimum wage all around them.

originally posted by: Malak777

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: toysforadults

Why can't you just live within your means? Minimum wage jobs were designed for high school and college kids that still live at home. Your argument is as lazy as the people who think a job will come to them someday so they sit and wait for it because they're too lazy to go find one. Then when they finally get a job, they cry about what they're making.

No, they were not designed for any other reason than hiring labour as cheap as you could. There are many millions of adults having to live their lives on the minimum wage. I know of many in the UK. They are not losers. They are hard working people doing vital jobs in the economy and society. Is that how lowly you look down on these people? They do this because there is no choice as the market has totally capitalized on the minimum wage and zero contract hours. It suits buiness, but makes poverty out of millions of people, the usual victims of the usual monsters.

Globalisation has been a monster. It make some rich, but most poor. Its days are numbered.

Maybe if the UK wasn't such nanny state hell bent on driving off business...


You people talk like an entire country should be employed by the state sometimes..

originally posted by: toysforadults
Wuuuuuuuuutttt? No way. I have read over and over and over that it's not suppose to be a living wage. Apparently FDR when signing this into law felt different.

Good for FDR. He also though his New Deal policies during the Great Depression were good ideas too. Too bad they were what kept the US in a depression for an extra decade and what helped add the 'Great' modifier.

Since I don't care what FDR said, and as others have said your challenge is based on flawed premise, this challenge is a non-starter.

Why settle for a living wage? Let's just make the minimum wage $10,000/hr. Everyone will be rich.

The problem is that businesses can always just increase prices to cover the cost of increased wages, so nothing really changes. People earn more but stuff costs more. Theoretically, it would be beneficial to an economy if people were paid more and prices stayed the same, because people would spend more, businesses would earn more that way, allowing them to pay people more. In practice it's never that easy though, and history clearly shows is that the more socialized a nation becomes, the higher prices become in the process. That is why I'm always warning you U.S. folks from following in the footsteps of the rest of the world. The U.S. actually has very low prices compared to most other nations, if you think the cost of living is high now you really have no idea how bad it can get.

originally posted by: RadioRobert
Why settle for a living wage? Let's just make the minimum wage $10,000/hr. Everyone will be rich.

I hear they did that in Zimbabwe. They're trying it out in Venezuela too.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Some of us do, but we're constantly told that we should read Chomsky or something like it.

a reply to: LABTECH767

A "living wage" or increasing the minimum wage is just an arbitrary chasing of prices as they move up. If everyone's wages increase, the cost of labor increases. If the cost of labor increases, then the cost of goods increases. If the cost of goods increases, then the living wage is not so liveable anymore. We're just injecting capital into a system, increasing inflation and devaluing our currency.

What's next? Price controls? Because that worked so well for Venezuela.

the biggest problem with this "living wage" argument is defining what you need to live

for example my grandfather was one of 10.

they lived on the farm in a house with literally 2 bedrooms , limited indoor plumbing and used regulary an out house.

they were poor but managed to raise all their children and send them off into the world.

their living today would not be tolerated by most people.

today one could argue you dont need a 3 bedroom two bath , two car garage house for a family of three.

You dont need to have more than one kid
You dont need to party, get your hair/nails done, need to go out to eat, have a smart phone, have only one simple text flip phone (maybe two), kids dont need their own phones, you dont need cable/sat, you dont need to eat fancy food like steak, ect.

In short if you even start to point out just one example that if your working at mcdonalds at min wage you sure as hell dont need to be spening your money on the latest Iphone and plan you get alot of people in that situation SCREAMING AT YOU "HOW DARE YOU TELL ME HOW TO SPEND MY MONEY"

In short unless your willing to use a minimilistic form of living as a yardstick to set a "living wage" as one basic factor alone then the whole idea is intelectually dishonest and DOA.

scrounger

a reply to: ketsuko

Here's the thing: I actually agree that unfettered capitalism can be just as oppressive as any other system. I think workers should be protected.

BUT if people seriously want to increase wages, they're going to have to face economic reality: Labour has it's own value just like any good or service. And it is affected by a supply and demand curve, just like the rest. There are only so many people who are rocket scientists. People who need a rocket scientist will pay them well to secure those services.
If the only value you are adding to a company is putting boxes on a shelf or flipping a burger (and there is nothing wrong with doing either of those things), then there is a giant pool of candidates able to do that. That worker is, broadly speaking, easily replaceable. The business doesn't need to pay that person well to secure their service.

If we want real growth for wages (and why wouldn't we), we have to affect the supply and demand curve for labour. That would mean keeping jobs in the US instead of offshoring them (higher demand) and utilizing common sense immigration policies (decreasing supply). Raising wages without addressing the supply/demand curve only leads gradual inflation. Wages will never stay ahead of inflation without addressing the fundamental economic principle of labour.

So far the people most audibly concerned with wages are the same people who want to implement policies that devalue labour. Judging by the responses in many threads over the years, they will actually say they're okay with exploiting brown people and keeping wages illegally suppressed because "if you stopped lettuce prices would skyrocket!" ( Not true, and also morally bankrupt).
The theft of these jobs and their artificial devaluing of labour disproportionately affect minority and inner-city communities -- Cezar Chaves hated illegal immigration fro this reason! He used all sorts of slurs because they were undercutting his efforts to unionize and demand better conditions and wages!

The same voices that hate big business and don't think they are paying their share and make too much money are naively or cynically in rabid support of the policies that simultaneously enrich large multi-national corporations and impoverish citizens.

This is an easy battle to fight and win by using a common sense approach -- sadly it is in short supply, and the GOP is spineless and hellbent on selling immigration on "security" grounds ( also valid, but the least valid reason to curb an open border)! The evil Republicans actually have the moral high-ground if they would take it.

originally posted by: neo96

I challenge conservatives to use data from before minimum wage and when the minimum wage was the highest (1961) to support their free market principles.

Should that data account for INFLATION and cost of living being lower than it is today?

That's right people.

People need to be paid a living wage so they can go buy more stuff from China because they've made the cost of doing business so high.

It's cheaper to make snip elsewhere using SLAVE LABOR so "muricans can go out and buy the latest gadgets, and new STUFF.

Not much of a challenge.

The goal of a business is not to make cheap stuff for consumers but to make money for the owners and the company shareholders.

Apologists for Big Business say corporations moved overseas because American labor became to expensive. The truth is labor under capitalism will always be more expensive than labor under Communism.

Pick anytime in our countries history and the labor here under freedom loving and capitalist society has always been more expensive.

Todays big corpations take a little bit from each economic system to pad their pockets and throw away the rest.

They partake in Communism when they got in bed with China.
They partake in Socialism when they get bail outs and corporate welfare.
They partake in Fascism when they flood our government with lobbyists to run it their way.
They partake in capitalism when they get to keep all the profits from these schemes.

Meanwhile, everyone else below them, is told they are on their own and punished from these policies that do a lot of damage to this country.

a reply to: RadioRobert

Those same people are also the ones who ignore that the basic labor jobs you describe used to be the ones done by true entry level workers -- high school and college kids polishing their basic job skills or the disabled who truly need society's support in one or more other ways anyhow and so don't need a "living wage" in the sense most cry about.

But we've suddenly transmuted these into jobs for family breadwinners which they were never supposed to primarily be except for stop-gap jobs for those in transition for one reason or another or as supplemental income jobs for a part-time earner in a family (mom working while her kids are in school to add to what husband makes).

Under A free country and free market capitalism, all parties have freedom of speech to organize together in order to negogiate for better wages.

Under Communism, negotiations are not allowed.
The ability for workers to organize and form unions is banned under Communism and in China.


That makes labor more attractive to business while still being allowed to keep the profits from it and not being taken by the communist government.