Obama to raise the Min. wage... WILL THIS WORK? (video)

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by Libertygal

 

You honestly have no idea what you're talking about. Minimum wage used to support a family of 4 with only one parent working and that is exactly what is meant to do... the minimum to live on.

As far as Unions go, again, you seem not to know what you're talking about. No one forces anyone to use Union labor unless you're talking about public unions

Do a little research.

I did. Seems you should practice what you preach.

I don't know what I am talking about? Keep telling yourself that. Everything I posted is verifiable and provable. Not only that, but I can provide links to verify my statements.

Here, let me do that.

From the Bureau of Labor and Statistics

www.bls.gov...

In 2011, 73.9 million American workers age 16 and over were
workers age 16 and over were paid hourly rates, representing 59.1 percent of
all wage and salary workers.

Of that number, 1.7 million earned exactly the prevailing Federal minimum wage of
$7.25 per hour and 2.2 million had wages below the minimum. Together, these
workers made up 5.2 percent of all hourly paid workers.

(Snip)
It was 6% in 2010, so the number of workers on minimum wage has actually DROPPED.

Among hourly paid workers age 16 and over, about 11 percent of those who had less
than a high school diploma earned the Federal minimum wage or less, compared with
about 5 percent of those who had a high school diploma (with no college) and about 2
percent of college graduates.

Among hourly paid workers of Hispanic origin, 5 percent
earned the minimum wage or less.

In other words, uneducated, or young are primarily on minimum wage. NOT those with a family of 4 looking to make living wages.

www.bls.gov...

Union Members Summary

For release 10:00 a.m. (EST) Wednesday. January 23, 2013

Technical information: (202) 691-6378 * [email protected] * www.bls.gov/cps
Media contact: (202) 691-5902 * [email protected]

UNION MEMBERS -- 2012

In 2012, the union membership rate--the percent of wage and salary workers who were
members of a union--was 11.3 percent, down from 11.8 percent in 2011,

There is your 12% of the workforce being Union members.

The union membership rate for
public-sector workers (35.9 percent) was substantially higher than the rate for
private-sector workers (6.6 percent). Within the public sector, local government
workers had the highest union membership rate, 41.7 percent. This group includes
workers in heavily unionized occupations, such as teachers, police officers, and
firefighters. Private-sector industries with high unionization rates included
transportation and utilities (20.6 percent) and construction (13.2 percent). Low
unionization rates occurred in agriculture and related industries (1.4 percent) and
in financial activities (1.9 percent).

Hm. Public sector means government, state or Federal. Who has more, private or public?

Now, on to Union contracts. For those that do not have automatic pay increases designed into their contracts, they have what is known as collective bargaining. We all have seen what arguments over collective bargaining can do, but, hey, I don't know what I am talking about.


m.washingtonexaminer.com...

Obama’s minimum wage proposal a stealth pay
raise for unions

“An analysis of union collective bargaining agreements
available from the Department of Labor’s Office of Labor-Management Standards indicates that many service, retail
and hospitality industry labor unions—such as UNITE-HERE
or the Service Employees International Union (SEIU)—peg
baseline wages to the federal minimum wage,” the Center
for Union Facts (CUF) observes . “Thus, in many cases,
raising the federal minimum wage will either trigger wage
renegotiations or automatic wage hikes for certain
unionized employees.”

Wow, that's exactly what I said, isn't it. Strange thing, facts are. This is from the Department of Labor, not something I made up.

So, I quoted facts to back up my statements, with links to goverment websites, so who here is the one that doesn't know what they are talking about?

(Looks in your direction...)

Originally posted by Libertygal
Hey, there is a surprise bonus, too!

The Unions will get as much as a 40% increase in pay! Isn't that great!

You see, Union wages are directly linked to minimum wage. Obama doesn't want to help minimum wage earners, he wants to give his Union buddies a raise.

6% of the workforce earns minimum wage.

12% of the workforce is Union.

Of that 12%, about 90% is federal employees.

Most unions, including SEIU, have contracts linked to minimum wage, for every 1.50 minimum wage goes up, Union workers get as much as 5.75 an hour increase.

Minimum wage was never meant to be a living wage, it was meant to be for teens in highschool to get a job for spending money, or to learn how to work. It was designed for seniors to supplement Social Security without losing it.

Increasing minimum wage will hurt working seniors, either causing them to quit and lose supplemental income, or earn over the threshold, and lose Social Security benefits.

Who, exactly, is Obama trying to help here? He just wants to give the illusion it is for the low wage earners, but who really benefits in the end? The guys already making 75.00 an hour, or a Senior trying to earn money for their power bill?

edit on 26-2-2013 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)

What a bunch of fluff

If Obama is a liberal, which I think he is, he certainly wants to help the lower wage workers.
That is at the core of the sentiment, I should know because that same motivation drives me
too.

Ya are looking for every possible excuse to make this a bad thing, maybe you should state your
real motive for making up these contrived interjections.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by Libertygal

Originally posted by Censored1

Originally posted by Libertygal
Hey, there is a surprise bonus, too!

The Unions will get as much as a 40% increase in pay! Isn't that great!

You see, Union wages are directly linked to minimum wage. Obama doesn't want to help minimum wage earners, he wants to give his Union buddies a raise.

6% of the workforce earns minimum wage.

12% of the workforce is Union.

Of that 12%, about 90% is federal employees.

Most unions, including SEIU, have contracts linked to minimum wage, for every 1.50 minimum wage goes up, Union workers get as much as 5.75 an hour increase.

Minimum wage was never meant to be a living wage, it was meant to be for teens in highschool to get a job for spending money, or to learn how to work. It was designed for seniors to supplement Social Security without losing it.

Increasing minimum wage will hurt working seniors, either causing them to quit and lose supplemental income, or earn over the threshold, and lose Social Security benefits.

Who, exactly, is Obama trying to help here? He just wants to give the illusion it is for the low wage earners, but who really benefits in the end? The guys already making 75.00 an hour, or a Senior trying to earn money for their power bill?

edit on 26-2-2013 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)

What a bunch of fluff

If Obama is a liberal, which I think he is, he certainly wants to help the lower wage workers.
That is at the core of the sentiment, I should know because that same motivation drives me
too.

Ya are looking for every possible excuse to make this a bad thing, maybe you should state your
real motive for making up these contrived interjections.

I just posted documentef government facts to back up my statements.

Do you have anything factual to add, or just obfuscation of facts?

I know the Unions HATE that this is coming out, but it was in their report, that I linked above, that gave the statistics.

Get back to me when you actually have something to refute the factual evidence. Until then, I deem YOU Fluffy.

So where is you fact showing Obama is not interested in benefiting the people who make
minimum wage? Where is it?

You don't have those facts, you rely on statistics that you then spin, Rush Limbette.

Minimum wage was not create for high school students and seniors Corky, it was made so that the wage
structure in the US economy had a minimum threshold, for people who traditionally have very little
power to negotiate wages or find better work.

Click here for more information.

great..........you can raise it to 50 bucks an hour if you want, if theres no damn jobs............

GG Obama.......that will fix the economy......you dipsh.............grrr.......not only that small business owners will go down so you kill them off too.....

Nice work......jesus how does this guy keep getting elected

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
great..........you can raise it to 50 bucks an hour if you want, if theres no damn jobs............

GG Obama.......that will fix the economy......you dipsh.............grrr.......not only that small business owners will go down so you kill them off too.....

Nice work......jesus how does this guy keep getting elected

See the posts above, that should answer your question. People have little to no fundamental understanding of things besides what they hear from those they support. They have little motivation to look at the man behind the curtain.

Then, when you tell the truth, you get attacked for it. Again, see the posts above. Statistics aren't facts now. Wow.

If people don't want to get paid minimum wage, they need to get educated and/or learn a marketable trade skill. Otherwise, suck it up, people that did deserve to get paid more.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
great..........you can raise it to 50 bucks an hour if you want, if theres no damn jobs............

GG Obama.......that will fix the economy......you dipsh.............grrr.......not only that small business owners will go down so you kill them off too.....

Nice work......jesus how does this guy keep getting elected

I recall people saying the same thing in the 90's - yet the economy expanded while the
same sort of policies were in place.

nevermind, my will has been broken

reply to post by Censored1


I get what youre saying......but at the same time this isnt the 90s you have to admit......and were a lot worse in a whole then we were......

Hell look at the value of the dollar compared to then.........look at the job market.....ya it was bad then but its worse now then it has been in how long?

Originally posted by Censored1

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
great..........you can raise it to 50 bucks an hour if you want, if theres no damn jobs............

GG Obama.......that will fix the economy......you dipsh.............grrr.......not only that small business owners will go down so you kill them off too.....

Nice work......jesus how does this guy keep getting elected

I recall people saying the same thing in the 90's - yet the economy expanded while the
same sort of policies were in place.

And what sectors and what was the median pay of that expansion; bet it wasn't the minimum wage jobs? During economic expansion, such policies as raising a minimum wage won't be realized because of an expanding economy. It isn't until the economy begins its contraction that a wage-floor will eventually get hit and minimum-waged jobs will start to disappear. Simple supply and demand stuff here really.

During the boom of the 90s there was huge influx in supply (of jobs) that needed to be met by the demand (labor). At the end of the 2000s, we experienced the opposite where the supply (of jobs) was/is extremely low and the demand (labor) is high. Instead of smart economic moves to allow a natural correction, Government has been forcing an economic hand that continues to push the disparity even further and not allowing a contraction to occur in the labor market.

Government can't fix everything and typically controls such as: rent-control (forcing landowners to charge lower rents than what they can sustain), price floors (see milk prices), wage floors (less minimum wage jobs because the cost of labor increases) and other economic "fixes" the Government engages in have only hurt the overall economy and the economic liberty of people.

Originally posted by redoubt
reply to post by CALGARIAN

 

Here's what happens...

Raise the minimum wage and businesses raise the cost of products and services to cover their expense. This counts as inflation. So, every time you raise the wage, the cost of living goes up to offset the imbalance.

The only way to counter this is to set price limits. Many administrations have tried this and in each instance, the effort was a failure, leading to layoffs as business adjusted expenses by reducing the workforce.

There is only one problem with that. The prices keep going up. Every time I turn around a loaf of bread costs more, a box of cereal costs more, the price of gas costs more, utilities cost more. Inflation is hitting us already, and our wages are mainly stagnant. People are barely able to live off of minimum wage as it is. Inflation is already hitting us big time. The only thing I see minimum wage increase doing is maybe making the inflation going up even a little more, but I don't see it causing a hyper-inflation.

I was actually thinking they should make price gouging laws where they get taxed heavily, no corporate welfare, all tax benefits are taken away from them, and the business owner, CEO, and investors get to be taxed at minimum 10% higher than their normal tax bracket.

What might be better is to re-overhaul the taxes, where business/corporate welfare only goes to companies that increase their employees pay, and reduces their prices. Business are only able to take advantage of what are now considered to be tax loopholes if they raise their employees pay and don't increase the costs of their product, or lower the cost of the products and keep their employees pay steady without reducing their workforce. Those who increase the costs of their products, reduce the number of employees they have, and decrease the pay employees receive that are above minimum wage, only get a set bare minimum overhead deduction taken off of their taxes. They have to pay the highest tax rate for their business. This should be worse than the ATM tax. I believe the alternative tax is called the ATM tax. Their should be some type of consequences applied to the business owner, CEO, and investors as well.

reply to post by narwahl

the "common wisdom" of wage increase=price increase makes no sense)

Because they are insane. I think their thought process might go something like this. McDonalds is perceived to be cheap by everyone. If there is a wage increase for all the poor, then they will have more to spend. Therefore we can increase the prices of our burgers. They will just groan and attribute the price increase to inflation as they see all other prices increasing especially gasoline prices. McDonalds is cheap, so even with a price increase after they start to earn more, we will still be perceived as cheap.

We can't raise the prices now, since the wages didn't go up across the board yet. Timing is the key here for people accepting even higher prices. I wonder how many other businesses are thinking like that also?

Yet, the last time I stepped foot into McDonalds, I wish I went to my favorite local restaurant instead. The prices for McDonalds meals were ridiculous. By the time I bought a meal for everyone plus a little extra, I honestly believe I would have spent less, got more, and about the equivalent of a cooking the food at home. McDonalds hardly even fills you. I rather have sat down at the local restaurant, and waited for the food than to spend so much at McDonalds pre-cooked fluff stuff.

The only time I will think about even stepping foot in McDonalds again is maybe to get some of their fresh McNuggets. I admit I love those. It has been about a year since I took my family to McDonalds. I went there thinking that was the cheapest place I could go. I imagine the prices are even higher now.

reply to post by Mystery_Lady


You are kidding right? You are gonna honesty sit there and say you cant believe that making a business pay more, would result in them charging more?

##SNIPPED##

So bob makes $1000 every two weeks bring home, his bills are $1200 a month total, leaving him with $800 a month in disposable income. Well now they up your rent to $2000 a month, now you no longer have this mad money for spending or saving, so now you are stuck in a conundrum.

Do you move and try to find a cheaper place? Or do you just try to increase your revenue? Well considering bob runs a massage business out of his house, and all of his clients are locals, moving isnt gonna work for him.

So his only recourse at the moment unless he has the early lease termination fee is to charge more for his services to now cover his increased costs associated with running his home business ie. Rent

Ok now substitute bob with any busines, lets say circle k gas station. Their owner amd knvestors expect to make around two grand a month from their jnvestment a piece, when the labor costs are 80 an employee a week higher ( which is roughly the exact amount of the proposed increase btw) now these folks are not gonna see that, as they have ten employees, this is an extra 800 dollars a week, $3, 200 a month more than previous.

Either the investors and owners will have to accept $1, 200 a month instead of their 2k, or they can raise their prices to reflect their new added labor costs.

Just tell me, honestly, you dont see the owner amd investors wanting their money. Bec ause this is the direction your coming from, actjng like the minimum wage inceease is a magical item that somehow comes out of thin air, and knly helps the poor, yet effects no other sector of the economy.

It effects those that are greedy beyond imagination, I dont know, or have even heard of an investor that wants to make less than the projectd return on their investment, on the contrary, no amount of return will ever be high enough for these losers.

What part of limitless human greed rules these peoes lives do you not get? If their motivation was based kn anything other than raw unadulterated greed, there would be no need for a minimum wage, they would already be paying their workers well.

The fact they have to force these people to pay these people higher than slave wages should inform you of their motivations.

reply to post by inverslyproportional


You are absolutely correct........and i agree with everything you are saying, because thats an excellent break down............

Only next time.......

Dont be such a D*ck about it.................


If you want to educate people.........do it in a fashion that is constructive to learning something new.......

Not everyone knows how things work as you or other people do............and presenting it like a total d-bag doesnt help educate them..........

reply to post by CALGARIAN


So many angles on this one.

Raising the minimum wage brings more workers down into minimum wage existence.
Raising the minimum wage to $9 insults those that had somehow earned the raises up to $9.
Raising the minimum wage to $9 does nothing. A single person will still just barely make it on $9.

I heard Obama say that people could live on this $9 per hour. What? People can live on $0 per hour. There is no ''living'' wage. That sort of talk is propaganda. If there is a ''living'' wage then the Government is in charge of telling you how much you can make and how much is necessary to ''live''. If this was really the answer then the minimum wage ought to be raised to $45 per hour. Or more. How about $173 per hour? Sounds good. Let's all make a lot of money!!

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask


Sorry to disapoint you bro, but I am not a teacher, I am a doer. I speak directly and plainly, I am not here to stroke the overblown egos of idiots who are too stupid to use the empty space between their ears, I have explained this at leadt 7 timesin the thread, yet still keep getting the " it doent make sense to me why a business would charge more because they have to pay more, this doesnt make any sense" line.

It isnt my fault these people got life screwed up from mcdonalds face book and American idol, blame the parents, they are the tards who thought keeping it in the fMily was a good idea.

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask


Btw, I starred you, as I appreciate your honest opinion, I find that when one dispenses with the unnecessary unpleasantness of faking their reactions, we all come to know eachothers minds a lot better, the fake civil discourse used by most these days infuriates me.

You called me a male member, and a female hygien product in the same post, cudos bro, I was both at least.

This is what I consider actual discourse, if you are limited in your emotional reactions, your lying to those your addressing, and showing them a lot of disrespect by doing so.

If I am out of line, and nobody says hey your being a real cack right now, how am I to know? All of us arent born to be or even meant to be politicians, I am not politically correct, as I am not in politics.

I am a simple man, I speak plainly, if some dont like my direct no nonsense style, they are free to deny their ignorance any time they choose to do so. If they choose not to, I will likely go back into negative ats points Gain.

Because it is obviously ok to be an idiot and troll threads you know nothing about, but calling an idiot an idiot if frowned on in this the everyone is a winner generation.

When I was a kid, and a man was an idiot, it was alright to say as much, as the truth shouldnt hurt, they can stop being stupid anytime. It is a lroven fact that ignorance is curable, if they stay ignorant on purpose, they are stupid, and I have no problem being the one to tell them.

Originally posted by Miraj
reply to post by CALGARIAN

 

Can we have a video with some guy who doesn't think screaming makes his points valid?

Seriously.

Sometimes thats all that people understand. He's upset.