Loss of testosterone and the inability to denigrate his lessers.
Okay, let’s compromise.
Do I hear $8.50 with an annual raise based on inflation?
Basically, if you make just $7.50 an hour you are on a slow (or in some circumstances, fast) slide to homelessness, no transport and having to go to food banks to eat. No health care of course. Food is not the issue for most poor people, we do have food banks. Keeping a roof over your head, keeping the utilities on and getting to work and back are the issues. If you have health issues, it’s indigent care in the emergency room. Which can get you killed, sometimes.
An earlier poster made the point that raising the minimum wage to $100/hr would be considered ridiculous. The real question is, why is it ridiculous? The answer is because if wages were that high, the goods and services being produced by businesses would no longer be affordable. The same is true of any increase in minimum wage - it is a vicious cycle. The minimum wage increase forces businesses, if they don’t lay off workers, to increase the cost of their goods and services. This in turn makes it more difficult for those on minimum wage to afford those goods and services, so a call is made to increase minimum wage again…it’s a never-ending cycle.
Except that that isn’t what happens.
Then why not make it a $100/hr?
Loss of jobs, including the non-minimum wage ones. Or do you believe that business owners are simply greedy bastards lighting cigars with $100 bills and can redistribute their wealth to poor people?
And if some call that socialism, how are they THAT far off the mark?
It isn’t what happens when minimum wage has been raised historically, this is a non-argument because at the small increases that keep with inflation, the blowback you conservatives claim will happen, doesn’t.
I’m so sorry that keeping workers above serfdom doesn’t cause the collapse of civilization as you so wish it did. Increasing wages for people who will turn right around and spend it (i.e., welfare and low wage earners) has multipliers that make it the quickest way to jumpstart an economy as opposed to business owners keeping more of their money in a bank account. Money either goes to the workers, stays in the business (and then gets to the workers) or the owners just keep all gains. You want the third thing to keep happening which is what has been happening for 30 years of Reaganomics which have been a proven failure. The balance of income needs readjustment to the workers.
If the increased wages were perfectly balanced out by increased prices on goods, then why do conservative big business proponents care so much if it’s all the same?
So $7.25 isn’t enough, but $100 is too much. How much is good? $10? Why is that?
I don’t play childish games. How about ‘because $10 is a reasonable low level wage at 2012 costs of living, will probably have a net positive effect on the economy, and because the rich and corporations can easily afford it’?
Well, can they? No disrespect, but how do you know they can? We’ve got a business owner in this thread that says he would have to lay off two employees if the wage was $10/hr.
Maybe if it was $5/hr the economy would explode. Maybe the same would happen at $20.
I don’t think it’s a “childish game” to ask what you think that we can soak out of the rich and the corporations and still keep the same prices and employment levels..
Its exactly this. Decades of increased worker productivity and nearly no wage increases is exactly fat cat owners and crony capitalism, we don’t have free markets in America.
A
There is nothing wrong with socialism.
How about, instead, we don’t have any minimum wage at all, and instead let the market determine wages while tweaking the tax code in various ways to address the real problem folks are trying (badly) to fix by having a minimum wage? How about that?
-XT
- Look at the poor ignorant peon talking about the huge difference between wages just below a living wage and wages just above one! Meanwhile the professionals make 10-20x that, and the capitalists make 500x what the professionals do.
- I can guarantee you you’re wrong. Price pressure will push other wages up.
Better than letting the people at the bottom work while homeless. Damn, I remember the days when a job generally meant a roof over your head.
I believe that business owners are greedy bastards.
We have a person who claims to be a business owner who claims he would have to lay off two employees if the wage was $10 an hour.
When it comes to employee wages, the LAST people to believe is business owners. They have EVERY incentive to keep employee wages down. Money in their pocket, y’unnerstand?
Would you agree to work for less money if the company promised to pass all of the savings on to the consumers?
I swear to god I hope you’re not a doctor, a chef, demolitions tech, or anything that involves measurements or dosages because if so the country is truly fucked.
I mean if someone said they like to put a shake of salt in their tomato soup, would you suggest they empty the whole salt shaker in it?
If someone took an ibuprofen for a headache, would you suggest they take the whole bottle?
If someone liked fireworks at the fourth, would you suggest they try the Tsar Bomba on full yield?
Most people learn there’s a butter zone to things when they’re 6.
If they sold everything I needed ever ever ever, hell yes I would. But keeping the same buying power at one store while losing it at every other store isn’t what’s being discussed, making that a poor comparison at best.
Why, exactly, do you think worker productivity has increased so much over the last few decades?