Higher minimum wage = Hot Air by Politicians

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by iwilliam

 

I have thought about this issue many times and I see validity on both sides, sexual education should be available to the population in general as well as family planing information and at least affordable contraceptives (state should only offer free contraceptives if there is a state or social demographical problem). Its a issue of civility...

I would also favor the requirement of a "license for reproduction", A validation of capability for parents that would offer a better protection to the offspring and force giving reproduction a moment of reflection. Any sanction would be in the benefit of the offspring not the state and unlicensed reproduction would automatically activate a social security and minor protection process.

Nuff said....

reply to post by Catalyst317


I say lower wages for billion dollar ceos and execs. that would force them to put that excess somewhere

either infrastructure training or GASP employees

I phone fail - sorry

26 degrees slimey cold hands an I phone and no readers is a bad combo!

Bottom line is ( I am a small businessman) that if I have to raise wages I will either be more selective in hireing for entry level which means less kids get a shot to work their way up or I'll lower the mid level wages to compensate maybe even drop some hours and suck it up and do more myself.

In both instances I'll pass any decrease in my profit margin onto the consumer as will all other employers; goods and services will cost more so any "raise" will be negated buy that increased cost. It's a wash basically.

In the dairy industry I work off a 10-12% profit margin so a small change in min wage of say 24% along with an increase of ( and looking like this year too ) 35% grain price increase, coupled with increased gas prices, Obama care taxes etc my milk prices will have to go up by a large margin. Therefore everyone's milk will cost a lot more. Your 1.75 raise would disappear quickly...if you like most Americans drink two gallons a week.

ETA: Sorry for mistakes I am in barn (without reading glases typing on iphone) just delivered my second set of twins so far today. All healthy and doing fine. St

It's easy to understand if you think about it. When a product becomes more expensive to produce, the price will raise to ensure profit. Profit is the reason for business, if you are not making a profit, you will not keep your business.

When I first got a minimum wage job (around 2003), minimum wage in my state was $5.15 per hour. As of right now, minimum wage is 7.25. When I got 5.15 per hour, gas was around $1.50 per gallon, rent was around $250 per month for a one bedroom apartment. Now, minimum wage is $7.25, gas is $3.49, Rent is around $375. That's not to mention the price of essentials like food, soap, and clothing.

Raising the minimum wage is a short term gain/long term loss situation. That's the hell of it. And yes, you can live on Minimum wage, you may not live a luxurious life, but you will live. That is less true, however, if you have a family to support. Believe me though, I'm one of those minimum wage workers people like to talk about so much, and I'm saying don't raise it! Things are expensive enough as it is.

Australia pays a $16 US per hour minimum wage. Australia has much lower unemployment than the US. The single best way to improve the US economy is to move the US minimum wage to match Australia. Increasing the US minimum wage has never led to a recession, or to increased unemployment. There is a Laffer curve (an optimum point) for the minimum wage. Payroll taxes are higher, welfare is lower. Consumer spending would increase. Doubling the minimum wage has negligible increase in prices at Walmart or at McDonald's. The problem we face, as an example, is if Kohl's pays minimum wage, then JC Penney has to also, as margins are very thin in retail. However, both companies are on an equal competitive footing whether the minimum wage is high or low.

Raising the minimum wage for people on low incomes will mean that a large number of them will no longer require government aid to live. This means that employers will no longer be subsidised by tax payers money in the form of benefits, food stamps etc.

Surely its not free market capitalism if there are large employers out there that only survive by paying wages that are so low they need to be subsidised by other people's taxes?

If your business model is so messed up you can only show a profit by paying third world wages then your model needs changing or your business should be allowed to fail and it's market share be picked up by a competent business that doesn't need handouts from me as a tax payer.

reply to post by SprocketUK


Good for you Sprocket ! Star for you.

How much does one person need to benefit ( profit ) off of some other persons work

I do think Greed has a great deal to do with our problem as a country.

JG.

Originally posted by SprocketUK
Raising the minimum wage for people on low incomes will mean that a large number of them will no longer require government aid to live. This means that employers will no longer be subsidised by tax payers money in the form of benefits, food stamps etc.

Surely its not free market capitalism if there are large employers out there that only survive by paying wages that are so low they need to be subsidised by other people's taxes?

If your business model is so messed up you can only show a profit by paying third world wages then your model needs changing or your business should be allowed to fail and it's market share be picked up by a competent business that doesn't need handouts from me as a tax payer.

c'mon...you're making logical, reasonable arguements. don't you know that all of these businesses should profit off of the cheap labor?? we need to keep the pressure on the poor and middle class for their retched lives, and take it off of those angelic benefactors, our wealthy, job creating, employers

reply to post by jaduguru


Thanks. I don't think any upper limit on how much some people need to profit off others.

My points were mostly aimed at the free marketeers who want business left alone and don't think the government should have any say in wages. Well the flip side of that is why should the government have to subsidise them by allowing them to pay so little that their workers need benefits?


As far as I can see, if they can't pay a living wage they need to remodel their business. Not expect me to pay for the shortfall in income while they rake in the profits and whine about social spending on schools and health care.


Jimmy yeah, duly noted :-D

reply to post by SprocketUK


Oh I agree with you .. dont get me wrong. I just didnt touch on the subject that I/we would have to pay MORE taxes in subsidies ( aka taking/stealing part of an actual production/profit wage(r) to those that have no value ( aside from taking/stealing with No inherent production to the community )).

Those that sit on their hands can have their hands .. but not handouts. No sir .. not from me.

I agree 100%

JG