The reason you can't make ends meet at minimum wage is because your government is constantly stealing from you in stealth... its called monetary inflation. Raising minimum wage is not the answer!
what rbbish. If his company cannot compete effectively in the global job market it is not because of a hike in the minimum wage!! I wonder how much he makes. I bet its over the minimum wage!1 So if he wants to save dollars, he should start by cutting his salary to a minimum wage salery!! bet he won't do that will he!!! If a bussness cannot compete, I suggest they revise their bussness model before opposing hikes in the minimum wgae!!
Anyone who is in business and can't afford to pay people $7.25 per hour should not be in business. Why not pay people 10 cents an hour, or how about everyone does an internship for free till they are trained then the employer can terminate them and get someone else for free,Wouldn't that be awesome. It would also swell the tax rolls.
@1963danno "Why not pay people 10 cents an hour..." You're forgetting that the price of labor (wage) has to be high enough to attract someone to apply for the job. No business that needs labor to exist will offer pay so low that it's not worthwhile for the worker to show up. By your reasoning, a company could charge as much as it wanted for a product and expect people to still pay for it. Consumers would look for cheaper substitutes, just as workers would look for better paying jobs.
@dbmasta If all the businesses are offering the same low wage then it will force them to accept the job. Most companies can probably pay much more than they do but choose not to
@1963danno "If all the businesses are offering the same low wage then it will force them to accept the job." You're assuming there's an infinite supply of workers who can't find alternative means of providing for themselves. Labor is a scarce resource like anything else. When it's in short supply, employers have to offer competitive wages to get the worker to choose them over another employer. Thus, a market clearing wage emerges (as w/all other resources), not slavery/exploitation.
@dbmasta Why is the unemployment rate still hovering at 9%???? There are many overqualified workers who can't even get a minimum wage job. Why would an employer hire an overqualified worker at minimum wage when they know they will go back to their higher wage rate when the economy improves???? No one offers "competitive wages" at this time, although that may change in the future with an improving economy.
@dbmasta Hence the minimum wage. Anyone willing to show up for a job no matter how unskilled and menial is worth at least minimum and then the employer can decide if they are worth more
If I were working at WalMart for MW and MW were suddenly eliminated by the gov't, and my paycheck suddely dropped as a result, I'd respond by grabbing every last piece of welfare I could get my hands on. I have a lifelong habit: it's called being able to afford to eat.
Fine. Then we'll just get rid of MW and watch as millions scramble to the welfare lines -welfare which you'll be paying for with your tax dollars. Or, we can all live in an ideal world where we CAN get by just by sharing an apartment with four other people, working three or four jobs each. We'll all move so we can be near a bus line. We'll all just be happy little peasants for the big, important business owners. Zero options for us. Bow and scrape to massah or starve.
@cincyblows You're going back to the exploitation argument, which I've already addressed. Employers have to make it worthwhile for employees, and there will be a lot more competition for labor if more jobs are allowed to exist. Supply & demand. The welfare thing has been addressed too. All the workers whose skills currently don't command MW or better would actually have job options if MW were abolished. That means less reliance on taxpayers and more reliance on themselves.
@dbmasta You addressed those issues poorly. Employers might want $15 worth of work for $3. Sorry, but there actually IS such a thing as greed. But hey, who ever said business and ethics ever share the same sock drawer, right? The reality, whether or not you want to admit it, is that those who can no longer afford to work (Sub-MW? Are you kidding me?) WILL seek welfare. They can budget their moeny all they want, but you'd see a mass influx of people to welfare lines just the same.
@hellfirewrestling98 It doesn't say that at all, and Walter Williams, the creator of the video, is black.
Also, next time be sure to spell "too" and "it's" correctly. "to stupid" and "its something" are wrong, but I'll leave the missing punctuation and missing capitalization alone. For your own sake, please don't go through life making the same mistakes. I'm just trying to help. I'm also trying to be a dick.
@dbmasta so that makes him an uncle tom, Look, Walter Williams is one of those people that if the republicans brought back slavery, Williams would be the first to put the chain around his own neck.
@hellfirewrestling98 If you understood anything he was talking about, you'd realize what he supports is the complete opposite of slavery. Requiring permission from government to engage in trade is a total assault on freedom. I would argue that slavery is the opposite of freedom. If you prefer government control over your life, then you are the one who is voluntarily accepting slavery, not Williams.
@cincyblows You mention greed as if it's exclusive to employers. Employees are greedy too, which is fine. Both sides are looking out for their own best interests. If individual workers are being "exploited," unions can form to improve their negotiating position with their employer. If it's in a qualified worker's best interests to work that job for $3/hour, then he should be allowed to. Even if he still qualifies for welfare, he needs that much less of it to bring him to a "living wage."
@dbmasta "All the workers whose skills currently don't command MW or better would actually have job options if MW were abolished." Job options? Really? You mean like between working for McDonald's for $4/hr and Burger King for $4/hr? I see the inescapable conclusion of millions of workers going on welfare. Wonderful for the taxpayers, and sure to be a crowd-pleaser among the Tea Party movement. (sarcasm) if the bone-headed decision were made to eliminate MW.
MW laws exclude certain types of work, including seasonal. I can tell you this: you cannot expect the economy to improve by eliminating MW, because we both know that employers would gladly pay their employees far less than they are now -which would make the need for welfare cases increase at the taxpayers' expense.
Our economy has endured several recessions since the start of MW. MW has never prevented the the economy from successfully overcoming from any recession in the past. We will keep MW AND turn the economy around. Any employer who can't afford to pay employees such a low wage probably shouldn't be in business to begin with.
There's a better way than abolishing MW. Why not decrease the amount of taxes that employers have to spend? That could provide incentive for employers to hire more people.
@nfwvideo1 Funny how you consider it un-American to allow an employer and employee to FREELY negotiate the terms of an employment contract. Why not let an 11 year old make some money after school if he and his parents like the job? He might think $3/hour is awesome, and he'll accumulate work experience & skills for when it's time to leave the nest. With OT, worker and employee can't negotiate anything besides 1.5x pay after 40 hours/week. Is that somehow perfect for every situation?
they prob would be in business if they paid more from the beginning, why should a person making minimum wage care if the boss makes big profits........its not about surviving its about making just a little bit more profit, most of the downsizing happened when corporations were having record profits
For those who think MW jobs are worthless, remember that the next time you go shopping, out to eat, the movies, etc, and remember that if it weren't for the folks who work their asses off for MW you couldn't have enjoyed any of it.
Hey DUMBASSES, this is simple: if businesses no longer have to pay MW, then workers will have to seek assistance through welfare. That means the employers, taxpayers that they are, will experience an INCREASE in their taxes to support the increase in entitlement spending. Anyone who supports the elimination of MW is a fucking moron.
HELLO PEOPLE!! You are completing against china where they pay them a cup of rice a day!! I am sorry but you cannot be paid $25/hr putting a screw in a piece of metal.
These freeloading liberals have the opportunity to get 3 jobs to pay their bills, and they want a raise too? it's not enough they have the opportunity to work but they actually think they deserve to be paid too? c'mon.
It's funny how liberals love capitalism when it works in their favor, but hate it when it doesn't. They always refer to the "greedy business man", when they themselves are no less greedy. During the housing bubble, there were plenty of liberals that bought a house and then just a few short years later, sold it for twice what they paid for it. I didn't hear any stories about a liberal who accepted a price far below market rate so some poor family could afford to buy it.
Profits originate in the theft of labor value. Capitalism is ALREADY a kind of redistributionism --- it exploits workers, takes their extra labor value, and redistributes it to the owners. Where do you think RECORD LEVELS of profits come from ? Products do not make themselves. Products do not ADD VALUE to themselves.
You work most of the week for free. The remaining value you create accumulates in the bank accounts of the owning class.
So owners keep up the lie that wage increases cost jobs.
@beesleeper If profits didn't exist, then how could wages exist?. If you couldn't profit from the business you created, why hang on to your workers? Why hire more? Where would the money to pay them come from? What would those workers' alternatives be? If wages provide workers with money to buy things, then aren't those a form of profit too?
Capitalist scum do not even pay their workers more then what a bum earns begging in the street. A bum gets 50k tax free. You work for a capitalist pig they only give you minimum wage. fuck capitalism.
@dbmasta The wage of a people are undermined if the nation allows 3rd world counties to dumb their slave labor goods into our markets, and if the rich ruling class refuse to protect the people form millions of illegals 3rd scum flooding our markets to grind down wages under the table and destroy all social systems set up. The fact of the mater is the rich have all the money and they will have to pay one way or another. There is no free lunch. Close the markets and protect the people earnings.
@dbmasta why not pay them nothing at all and make them slaves so no one can afford anything, not even hand outs to bums. Would it not be great if business could have slaves again. lets pay them all nothing oh boy just think of all the profits!!!!!
@MrAppleseed88 How could any employer get away with paying nothing? No one would work for them, and they'd go out of business. They have to bid up the price of labor to make it worthwhile for anyone to take any job offers seriously. Employers and workers only strike a deal when they both expect to benefit. When it's not worth it to one of them anymore, they ditch each other via firing or quitting. I say this to show that there are natural upward pressures on wages, independent of MW laws.
@dbmasta Notices you say "Workers" And workers should never be without collective barging. Business work over time to lower wages lobbing our leaders to import more illegals and HB1 visas at the same time exporting as many union busting jobs to china as possible. The power of corporations have to be for the people and country, and what is left over goes tot he corporation. The rich like minorities are obsolete.
@MrAppleseed88 You're changing the subject. I'm trying to discuss the merits of minimum wage, per the content of this youtube video. I've given several explanations as to why it's a bad policy. Please let me know if you have reasons as to why these explanations might be wrong.
@dbmasta I see wages as the only way a person has to cover his cost, housing, food, health care, education, retirement, vacations, transportation, investment monies, and profit. if a business fails to meet these cost, then it is a waste of our resources, and they are trying to max out profits by pushing their true cost of labor on others.
@MrAppleseed88 Why not let people work for less than $7.25 if that's they best they can get at first? Why force them to stay unemployed under MW? Workers have the right to seek better opportunities if their employers cut their wages too much. If the employer needs employees not to quit, he'll offer as much as he can afford to keep them interested in staying. If the employees still have better options, then tough luck for the employer. He deserves to be displaced by more resourceful companies.
@dbmasta Becasue that is the very bear basic needs. I think business should be forced to pay far more then that. Business should never be allowed to push the cost of labor off on to others. If you want someone work for you, you have to cover their housing, food, transportation, child care, education, retirement, interest payments, investment income, and profits. We must not waste resources on jobs that do not cover these cost for the people.
@MrAppleseed88 What's worth producing is not for you, me, or any authority to decide. The best guide is profit. Profits in an industry signal that demand exceeds supply. Labor & capital go toward profitable industries, raising supply and competitively pushing down profits to normal levels. ANY level of profit means a company or worker has created output that's more valuable than its input. Thus, it has been resourceful. No one is entitled to wages or profits they haven't earned in this manner.
@dbmasta Business does not work that way. You think it is fair open up front and noble. These evil fucks work over time cheating their customers, suppliers, and employees all they can to max out profits. The goals of the rich are not inline with the goals of the nation. All industry needs to be nationalized so we can stop sending our jobs to 3rd world slave factories and importing 3rd illegals to drive down working wages. the rich work so hard to keep wages low, and they want even lower...
@MrAppleseed88 Profits don't guide people on what to produce? Please explain why that's not true. What are the goals of the nation? Who are you to say what everyone wants? What's fair about that? Have you considered what costs there might be to this nationalization you're proposing? Are you sure the costs don't exceed the benefits?
You claim business people are just thieves. Wealth has to exist first before it gets stolen, right?. Who are the people creating that wealth, if not businesses?
@cincyblows CEOs and CFOs are generally HIRED executives (not self-appointed), who don't necessarily have a controlling interest in the company. Thus, someone else chooses how they will be paid, and does so in a way they believe will result in an overall return on investment. Investing millions in someone who can orchestrate tens of millions of increased profits for shareholders is a good thing. However, if the CEO millions are coming from govt subsidies or fraud, that's messed up.
@dbmasta Very true. Employers who deem minimum wage workers as worth less than MW should ask themselves how important their prepped food, clean dishes, laundered bedding, stocked shelves, rotated food stock, etc, etc, are to them. Expressing a wish to pay less than MW communicates a lack of appreciation for those things mentioned.
@cincyblows I think you meant to reply in another video, but my point is that eliminating MW doesn't mean wages go to zero. If a small corner store can get by paying $4/hour, why shouldn't the owner be allowed to make a small profit serving the community, and why shouldn't there be a chance for local kids to get a start there as employees? If the owner sells filth, people either won't shop there or will get sick and sue. That risk encourages good behavior for an owner that needs the income.
@dbmasta The reality is that anyone paid less than MW is being told that they're not important to the company. Whoops! There goes the incentive to produce. Who's going to be productive for someone who expresses to them via their paycheck that their efforts aren't valued? If I had to support myself on MW (a lot of college grads have to in this economy, btw), and it were abolished, then I'd have to go on welfare that the taxpayer would have to cover. Are you willing to do that?
@cincyblows Welfare needs to go too. You wouldn't need as much welfare if you got rid of MW. People with low skills that can't qualify for MW jobs are left with little means to make $ the legal market. If it were legal for them to work for less than MW, they'd not only be productive, but they'd also be independent of entitlements. Also, the fact that they have a job means that they will build skills needed for more pay in the future. If someone is willing to take less than MW, why not let them?
If MW were abolished, there still wouldn't be enough jobs because employers would know their net profits would increas by (a) not having to pay MW, and (b) by hiring the same # of workers as they had before MW was abolished. Now, add to that the elimination of welfare and watch the tinderbox explode -and politicians like Bachmann and Radtke lose the next election.
@cincyblows Repealing MW would allow new job CATEGORIES to be created. If one grocery store can start hiring baggers again and create faster service, others will follow suit to maintain market share. Same idea with full service gas pumps. MW has knocked many of those jobs out of existence, taking away the chance for new or low skilled workers to develop their economic lives. There are higher priority policy issues than MW, addressed by Ron Paul, but MW, like all price controls, creates net loss.
@dbmasta Um no, that's not true. If it were true, then why didn't MW knock out jobs in decades past? I guarantee that if MW is repealed you're going to see your taxes go up from a mass influx of workers to the welfare lines. Great to know that we're looking at new job CATEGORIES that will provide virtually ZERO incentive. Sorry for sounding rude. I worked my ass off today while my two managers (who get paid three times my wage) sat on their asses all day doing nothing.
@cincyblows Those jobs have been knocked out gradually as real MW has risen. But the hidden damage is due to the jobs & enterprises that MW prevents from coming into existence in the first place. So, there's less wealth to go around, keeping living costs higher than they would be otherwise.
Everyone's situation is different. A low-paying job you perceive to be insulting could be a blessing to someone else. People who support MW are unintentionally denying opportunity to those most in need.
@cincyblows Also, MW is much less harmful if it is set below the free market price of labor. Still, legal restrictions on trade (price controls) of any degree are suboptimal. Think about it...trade only happens when both parties expect to benefit. Any arbitrary prevention of such trade keeps those benefits from ever happening. Exchanging labor for money is trade just as buying a McDouble is trade. Let prices work freely, and the scarce resources we have will be allocated more efficiently.
@dbmasta Trade can be optimized when one refuses to take a job paying less than one's incentive to produce. Those posts are fine for the abstract and insulated environment of a classroom. They don't play out as well in the work world. Not to be harsh, but you get what you pay for. If you hire someone to wash dishes and you pay the guy $4/hr, don't expect a lot of productivity. Do expect to have to install a revolving door for your employees who will be coming and going just about daily.
@cincyblows I agree. Underpaying people won't attract them to do a good job, if any at all. That's what puts natural upward pressure on wages, because employers need the help to make a profit. Still, there's no good reason to forbid employers & employees from freely negotiating an employment contract below a certain wage level. It's still possible that happy mediums can happen below MW. Again, $4 might seem like underpayment to one person, but to another it might seem like a good deal.
@dbmasta Why go through all of that when you can avoid it in the first place simply by maintaining MW? Because no one will be productive for long at low wages like $4/hr. Wages will only go up if there are more jobs than workers. That won't happen simply by eliminating MW, because for every new job potentially created, employers have to deal with overhead like workman's comp insurance, time spent training the new hires, etc. Employers would simply keep the number of employees low.
@cincyblows Why go through what? The extreme burden of an employer posting a $4/hr job ad? He does that anyway, regardless of the wage. If anything, more effort is wasted analyzing, promoting, & drafting MW laws. It accomplishes nothing other than getting politicians elected by the economically illiterate. If someone's not productive at $4, they'll get replaced by someone who is. If they want to keep the job, they have to do it properly. I want living standards to rise too, but MW doesn't do it.
@dbmasta Since no one can live on $4/hr then what's the point in working at all if that's what employers want to pay? As for being "economically illiterate", what happens, do you suppose, when the unemployment rate remains high AND MW is repealed? Employers aren't going to create a ton of new jobs, because that would mean more expense than it would be worth to them. This isn't a classroom. It's the real world, complete with confounding variables and complications not covered in econ 101.
@cincyblows If this was actually covered in econ 101, the world would be a better place. Who says no one can live on $4/hour? Is zero better? Increasing MW CANNOT get more people employed where it is implemented. It CANNOT create wealth. All it does is hamper the wealth-creating process by preventing certain work from ever happening. How can you speak for every worker and employer about what is worthwhile for them? You don't know their situation. Abolish MW and let them decide for themselves.
@dbmasta For that matter, one canlive off the land for free. But I wouldn't want to have to live off of worms and grass. Oh, and eliminating MW won't create jobs. All it will do is destroy incentive and encourage use of welfare funds. Why are you trying to speak for managers everywhere? And what if the majority of workers decide that eliminating MW is wrong? I suspect you're a manager of some small company and you want (virtually) free labor.
@cincyblows I'm not an employer (which is irrelevant to the validity of the argument), nor do I have any preference between employers & employees. I'm obviously not taking sides if I'm in favor of letting both sides freely make decisions as they see fit. You keep assuming that one cent below MW is a waste of someone's time, no matter what their situation. I say that's for them to decide, and getting MW out of the way lets them. Do you think that reducing MW will mean everyone's wages will drop?
@dbmasta No. I think that incentive is key. If someone is told by employers during interviews that they'll have to work for less than MW, then you'll have an entire class of workers whose productivity will be lower than if MW is retained. Do you assume that employers would embrace eliminating MW only to replace it with one cent less than MW? MW is a safeguard for taxpayers. Bold statement, but here's why: the more income a person receives from wrk, the less likelihood of needing welfare.
@cincyblows In order to maintain that incentive, businesses can only afford to cut wages to the extent that equally motivated & skilled (yet unemployed) workers are willing to take less pay. For even lower skilled workers who justify even less pay, at least they could be legally hired and depend less on welfare. Employers will eagerly try to come up with uses for the new labor resource that they can now hire at a wage that's profitable. The community benefits from the product of that new work.
@cincyblows If a crappy, low paying job is the best someone can do, it's up to them to find ways to move up the pay scale. Still, it's better for that job to exist than for it to be made illegal. At least that worker can get some experience to help him qualify for a better paying job later. With MW, he would be dependent, unemployed, and prevented from developing marketable skills that would advance his economic well-being. You're right that wages offset welfare, thus the reason to abolish MW.
@dbmasta And how will welfare be offset when wages drop? Because they WILL drop if employers see that they can increase their net profits. I'll add this: employers won't get something for nothing. Pay someone $4/hr and see how little they produce. Incentive is always key in every work level in any business. Always. If an employer told me that he would only pay me $4/hr, I'd reply that for that pay I'd sit on my butt and do nothing.
@cincyblows You're contradicting yourself. You say employers' profits rise by cutting wages. Then you say cutting wages will reduce productivity (and thus profitability) of labor. The only incentive created by MW is for employers to discriminate against everyone whose skills and productivity don't justify being paid MW. As a result, the types of jobs that only warrant a wage below MW (and the resulting goods and services they provide to the public) are prevented from existing. We all lose.
@dbmasta I'm merely telling you what will happen when business owners who are blinded by their own greed fail to take in the whole picture. I would charge, by the way, that yours is a view limited to only one side of the equation and, therefore, removed from a critical context.
@cincyblows My view is on the side of labor, employers, and consumers (everyone). I suppose not being against them makes me one sided. MW harms labor by effectively making certain productive opportunities illegal. It harms employers for the same reason. It harms consumers by preventing the fruits of that potential production for ever existing, thus holding back the potential wealth & abundance in society. I invite anyone to try explaining how any of that might be untrue.
@dbmasta If you pay someone less than MW, you're sending that person the clear message that his efforts aren't valued. Why, then, did you hire him in the first place? The only answer is that you (symbolically, not actually you) want something for nothing. That would be short-sighted and unrealistic; in the former, millions of workers would have to receive welfare in order to eat, and the latter, your net profits would be taxed and the money redistributed to those on welfare.
@cincyblows So, if an unskilled worker can only add $5/hr revenue to a company, he should still be paid at least $7.25/hr? Or should we price that worker out of the market with MW and force taxpayers to subsidize his existence, rewarding his relative lack of competence, even though he's capable of providing for himself? Please don't use "living wages" as a response, as many MW defenders do, because that doesn't address whether or not the MW law actually increases wealth for anyone. Does it? How?
@dbmasta Would you prefer an increase in taxes to pay for the welfare they'll have to sign up for when employers fail to create jobs? Because that's what will happen when employers learn that their net profits will gain by hiring only a few workers. If you really want to take your argument to the extreme, I could suggest some commentary involving plantations.
@cincyblows What reasoning do you have that abolishing MW would reduce employment? If I'm reading you right, that seems to be what you're suggesting. If so, I think you have a faulty premise there, making your increased welfare argument invalid.
It's pretty clear that abolishing MW will INCREASE employment because then the lowest skilled workers and employers could legally do business together. There will be that much less dependence on welfare among the least skilled.
@dbmasta (A) Employers will only keep a few workers on the payroll. (B) Those workers will be paid less than MW. (C) Job's WON'T be created. Instead, one person will be required to do the work of two people. (D) Employers' profit margins will grow -that's the purpose of the aforementioned. ( E) Both the unemployed and the sub-MW workers will be unable to pay basic living expenses. (F) Welfare needed.
@cincyblows A) Fewer than they have now? Why? B) Maybe, depending on how many other workers want that job. May the best applicant win C) Then why hasn't 1/2 the labor force been fired yet? Why does MW have to go first? D) True, due to B, as well as it making sense to hire more people who can generate revenues greater than their wages E) But the sub-MW workers used to not have jobs, but do now, making them less poor, more likely to get better jobs later, and F) less dependent on welfare.
@cincyblows Are you concerned about exploitation of labor? If so, then why isn't MW the only wage available everywhere? Businesses have to make the jobs they create worthwhile for themselves. However, in order to attract anyone to do those jobs, not to mention go through the necessary education and training to become skilled enough, businesses have to make it worth it for those people. A lot of menial jobs aren't worth it for businesses at MW, which sucks for workers willing to take less.
@cincyblows When MW rises, most struggling, low-skilled labor intensive businesses will fail. Let's say 10 businesses in town fail. Ok, so maybe only 10 owners lose their living and move on. But what if each company employed 30 people at prior MW levels? That's 300 people out of a job because their skills can't justify being paid the new MW. Will they find a new job? They were already in the one they chose, and they wouldn't have chosen it if it wasn't the best one they could qualify for.
@cincyblows Well, maybe a clerical position in the welfare office will open up, due to the sudden surge in applicants.
Is it making sense now? The MW only preserves wages of those who might get under cut by someone equally productive (but currently unemployed and possibly receiving taxpayer subsidies) who is willing to take less pay to improve his situation. So with MW, taxpayers indirectly pay the price of keeping certain people employed for more than they're worth in the free market.
@dbmasta That's speculation at best, and dreaming at worst. Do you know of throngs of people who want to work their butts off for less than MW? The last time I heard of that kind of labor force, I read it in a history book about the pre-Civil War South. But hey, if you can staff people who will happily labor for you for .50/hr, then God Bless you. As for me, I prefer to be able to stay off of welfare, pay my bills, eat, etc.
@cincyblows Want and need are different things. People that need a means of sustenance, even if it's sub-MW, shouldn't be legally prevented from arranging that with an employer. It's ridiculous to assume that there's not a single instance where an employer and employee are both willing to come together for less than $7.25/hr. If that doesn't work for you in your situation, great. Like you, everyone else should be free to accept or reject employment as they see fit. MW limits that freedom.
@dbmasta Because their terms is a form of heavy handed fool play. If you refuse, they will export your job, import HB1 visas, or illegals to starve you into submission.
It is sticky a one sided negotiation with them having all the power and control of the out come.
Already their are millions of US workers who will not claim OT for fear of losing their job if they do..
If you think a company is fair you are a total idiot.
Companies do not care about employees, only profits.
@MrAppleseed88 Small local businesses displaced by larger corps might be able to survive if not burdened by MW, like the guy in this video. Then, for example, there'd be other jobs available in a community besides Walmart, leaving Walmart with somewhat less negotiating power over labor. OT is another dumb labor law that results in inefficient hiring/scheduling practices. Guess who else cares about profits...people applying for jobs. Both sides looking out for their best interests = win/win.
@dbmasta If a job does not pay a living wage so a person can support a family of 4, a big house, 3 car garage, vacations, medical, savings, and profit off his time, plus retirement, then that business needs to go out of business ASAP and stop wasting resources.
@MrAppleseed88 What's the point of learning any marketable skills if any menial job will get that for you? If everyone is entitled to that, who is supposed to produce it? Virtually nobody would bother learning how to, and the society's ability to generate wealth would end. In your mind, business is parasitic, but in reality what you propose is true parasitism that benefits nobody but the slimy politicians who rely on making emotional appeals to economically illiterate masses to get elected.
@dbmasta Oh, so you think that hosing and food should be with held form working people and only given to high class people with advance degrees? Housing, food, transportation, vacations, savings, retirement, and education are all given basic needs all working people should have, not just the selected few. If you want more then the employers pays you more for your efforts, but you can not think that only you and your advance degree should have basic human needs met. that is insane.
@MrAppleseed88 No, you're inventing a poor argument that I didn't make so you can trash it. Unlike you, I don't believe in forcing anyone to spend their money in one way or another. You believe in forcibly taking wealth from productive people to give to unproductive people. I don't play favorites, rich, poor, or in the middle. I believe that everyone, especially the least skilled, should have the freedom to work for any wage. MW doesn't let them, thus sustained unemployment, scarcity, & poverty.
@dbmasta They are not productive people. We gave them all they want over the last 40 years, massive tax give always 1.5 trillion a year, and all the illegal they ever wanted and all they do is ship jobs to china for slave labor and zero environmental laws. The rich have trillions in over sea profits they refuse to bring home, here they have 5 trillion they will not invest in new jobs at all. they are not productive people at all, they are not even job creators. they are evil liers.
@MrAppleseed88 So your goal is for there to be a transfer of wealth. It seems that MW accomplishes that, which is probably why you support it. However, I've explained why MW doesn't create that intended result. Without changing your opinion about corporations, can you at least acknowledge that MW legislation is ineffective and doesn't solve any problems? We both agree that higher living standards for everyone are good. We disagree on how to bring that about, but MW isn't the answer.
@MrAppleseed88 Why should a company be FORCED to pay you more than you are willing to accept? When you take a job, you are selling your labor.
What if you were selling your car. You want $6K for it and someone is willing to pay $4500 for it. You decide that you will take the $4500, but then the government jumps out of the bushes and says, "You can't sell that for $4500! It's only worth $3500....you have to give $1K back to the buyer!" Is this fair to you?
@dbmasta With the evil FED reserve bank charging the USA government and tax pay interest each and every year we have to make sure the the rate of pay not only stays way well in front of the interest charged but also enough so people can profit off their labors, cover their living expenses and invest for the future. The rich have attacked labor so much they do not even pay us enough to cover the interest payment and that is why the economy stalled out and hit a wall.
@MrAppleseed88 If I'm reading you right, I agree about the debt-based money system being a problem. But, the point is that the real result of MW is far different than its intent. Workers don't get a raise when MW rises, they get fired...they become less affordable to their employers. The employers in turn have more difficulty turning a profit, and some close down. Their businesses no longer produce, and there is less supply of their products in the market, pushing prices up on consumers.
@MrAppleseed88 Capitalism isn't the problem. The problem is overly emotional totalitarians who think they have all the answers when they don't know the questions. btw socialism is failing in Europe.
Rising min wages only put "survival mode" businesses like this out of business. Everything produced by those businesses disappears. There are fewer goods & services to go around as a result, so the cost of living rises. An economy isn't stimulated by spending, it's stimulated by production. The wealth has to come from somewhere real. Rising min wage laws can't magically wish it into existence.
I thought this was a clean, unspun, well-rounded report unlike a lot of other "news" out there.
@dbmasta It really sucks that this piece of shit is asking for government hand outs to stimulate his business and refuse to pay people poverty wages. Wasting resources keeping idiots like this as an administrator is killing our economy. we need real business educated people and we need to kill fuckign china now. Tax the rich, make them all pay for the right to earn a living off our people and nation, and put huge tariffs on all goods coming in the USA fuck china.
@MrAppleseed88 I agree that there shouldn't be business subsidies, because they encourage otherwise unproductive companies to keep mis-allocating scarce resources. However, if they can be profitable (aka resourceful) at lower wage rates that workers are willing to accept, then we're all better for it. Hike the min wage, and all the workers who aren't productive enough to earn the new min wage are left with fewer job options than before. Min wage only makes things worse for everyone.
@MrAppleseed88 Increasing taxes doesn't increase wealth in the world. Changing tax & tariff policies affect the incentives of those targeted. If everyone who wants to import to the US is heavily taxed, then there won't be much reason for them to import anymore. There will be shortages of things we're used to here, and there will be increased unemployment in importing nations. No gains anywhere, but more tax dollars spent on bureaucrats administering the program.
@MrAppleseed88 As for the rich earning a living off the general public, I don't think the general public would have much of a living at all if it weren't for the entrepreneurs & the productive enterprises they've built our economy out of. We all owe our standard of living to these guys. If we taxed away more of their profits, why should they bother reinvesting into their productive businesses? What evidence is there that the bankrupt federal govt can manage those funds more productively?
Minimum wage needs to be reduced to $3 an hour or less. Especially those who have no college degree and many workers do not know how to read and many white US workers needs to learn spanish as Mexicans are willing to work as white workers are lazy!
@patsaxon $3 an hour? What are people supposed to do? Live in a cardboard box? You can't live on minimum wage as it is, and with about the only jobs being created here being at places like McDonald's and WalMart.... Like the chasm between haves and have nots isn't wide enough already.
@patsaxon yeah sure, why $3 ? After all $1 should be even enough right ? Ho no after, let's instate slavery again, that was the good ol' time...Damn workers asking to be paid. They should be glad enough to even have a job !
I would think that if more people have a living wage, more people could afford the products these people produce.If the minimum wage increases: then while he has to pay his employees more... more people will have the funds to purchase his products then just the people HE pays, which means more people are buying, which means he stays in business...?
@Cindercheth ... nope... if the cost of labor artificially goes up then you mess with equallibrium... so they just lay off employees. If $7.50 is good, why not $10? $20?
Truthfully the manufacturing jobs are just not coming back, which is sad to say. I actually believe in raising the minimum wage by a very significant amount while simultaneously lowering taxes on businesses. This would provide the service sector workers (most of which cannot be shipped away) with a wage they could use to sustain themselves, invest in their education, or qualify for loans to begin their own business. They would also have more money to spend which would benefit
businesses. In addition, less people would be below the poverty line, meaning less spending on welfare and other public aid. The money can then be spent on developing infrastructure and investments in education and other crucial areas. The tax cuts would allow businesses to pay their workers a higher wage without having to raise costs to astronomical levels. That's all just theoretical though, I suppose. Seeing as no one can predict the future, perhaps I'm all wrong?
How can this reporter call this Cameron woman an "advocate for low-wage workers"?! She is an advocate for putting the poor out of work, which is what minimum wage laws actually do.
And people pretend that AP doesn't have a left-wing bias...
He lost business to Chinese who work for an average of .75 an hour. You idiots want to race to the bottom instead shutting down trade with china. "But we get cheaper goods from China" Lot of good that does if we don't have a job or are making less than minimum wage. MW is not even enough to support yourself as it is.
Isolationist policies will be as devastating to us as they would be to China. We export many things to China and there have been recent examples where we've raised tariffs on Chinese goods and they've retaliated by raising tariffs on American goods. An odd but effective example would be when we raised tariffs on chinese steel and they responded by raising tariffs on chicken feet. Americans have no need for chicken feet so we export it to china where it is a product bought commonly.
@Billcruxley Of course they are going to retaliate, it's a chess match for sure. What has more power? Raising tariffs on Steel or raising tariffs on chicken feet? What you don't do is concede the fight and lower our quality of life to compete with $ .75/hr! BTW I don't want to raise MW on a federal level EVER. It defeats the whole point if you go raising it up and down. However, Gov has to stop printing money or else inflation will kill MW, your savings, your retirement.
thus when they raised tariffs on them, our producers suffered greatly. One must look at the small details that form the overall large-scale economic policies.
@Matt101984 If a person remains at a job for more than 10 years and still has not promoted or increases in pay, school wouldn't help them anyway. Do you believe higher minimum wages will make a person wealthier? If a company is forced to pay employees more, they'll lay off some and raise prices, negating whatever gain in pay you receive. You're the naive one.
If you can't afford to pay your employees minimum wage. Then you have an inferior product or inferior business strategy. That being said opening FREE trade with countries that don't have a minimum wage is an outright attack on the American quality of life. I don't want to compete with those who work twice as much and still don't have enough to pay for food, water, shelter, health care and retirement. That means I have to accept that same wage to be competitive.
Lipsareinsane minimum wages are not all starting point in peoples life they are careers for many people. Not everyone can get a raise what do the ones that can not do? To find a better job you need to go to school and not every one can afford that. How naive you are
why blame minimum wage and not the jobs shipped overseas.and the tax breaks given to move .wall street has record profits,banks wont lend money and you blame minimum wage.crazy shalow thinking
If minimum wages are increased, small businesses will nr forced to close and large corporations will just pass the wage increase onto consumers. Yeah, you'll make more money, but you'll pay more on every product or service you buy. Minimum wage jobs are meant to be a staring point for a career, promotions and pay increases should be your goal. If a boss won't increase your pay, find a better job.
This might be naive...but what about a tax credit for these small businesses weighted by number of employees funded by a tax hike for the largest businesses?
Cindia Cameron should take an economics course. Higher minimum wage leads to a lower employment rate and higher prices. There wouldn't be an economic boost.
Also, knocking away the MW will not solve unemployment either, but it will have some affect. The reason it won't solve it is due to other more massive and significant regulations. The MW has an effect, but not as significant as many other State meddling has had on unemployment.
WHAT...THE...FUCK. How many times do I hear this? It does not stimulate because the only workers able to fit those expenditures are those above the minimum wage. It may create jobs, but it will not serve the workers and business below the minimum wage any justice and will keep them unemployed, because the expenditures will still be restrained from being put into below-MW job creation. This "raise MW=more stimulus" argument is fallacious and shitty. Try something else please.
@buddywilson74 Except that its not 70 cents/hr against the competition. Its more like $5.70/hr. The US min wage worker gets $7.25/hr and his competitor only pays $1.75 hr. If your right why shouldn't we raise min wage to $20/hr?
The Ignorance of minimum wages supporters is sad. If you really could solve all of the poor workers problems by simple raising the minimum wage, why not raise it to $15, $20, why not $100 an hour? Economics 101 shows that price floors and ceilings normally do not work, they make things worse. Who do you think is paying for the extra dollar an hour? the charge either gets passed on to the customers or workers get laid off. its that simple.WAKE UP.
I do enjoy all the armchair economists here who never ran a business think they are of authority to tell those of us who do how to run our businesses.
Since you have a suppressed homosexual attraction to me and need to leave message after message in my inbox, at least use good spelling and grammar so you at least have the appearance of being able to debate.
"I enjoy the fact that you spam the boards like you did below but who cares what someone called you. get a life."
Besides, I think you need to learn facts before you post. The individual who left the "Kill me a Nigger" line left it in my inbox. He bragged he could say that to me because, he being a liberal, could say that and get away with it.
I know he wouldn't say it to my face. Now he bravely posts as"liberal4life1." lol!!
@ajgolfer1 If $24.00 in a 40hr week will mean the death of your business, you should have closed down long ago.
On last thing, the Supreme Court ruled that Corporations have rights like people, then those people i.e. Corporations are TRAITORS for sending American jobs to our Enemies.
@16Sammie 24 an hour??? lol i guess you dont own a cell phone or tv or computer because a cell pone would be 5000K with that kind of labor....if they deserve to close then 50% deserves to be unemployed
@wkruk1979 totally agree. if dip shit business fucks can not pay their taxes and a living wages we need to get these stupid fucks the hell out of business they are wasting resources.
Foreighn workeres usually live 12-people to a room, no furniture, almost no posessions, and no home-ownership. What the Conservatives and big business-owners have been trying to force us into for 40-years. In America, in the 1950s and 1960s, we created a better way of life that the world envied: a man with ONE working-class job could support a family, 2 cars, a home, and kids, on ONE paycheck. Before Nixon got elected. In the 1960s, Gasolie was 35-cents a gallon, and rents/mortgages, AFFORDABLE.
I am sure Cindia Cameron has the best of intentions, but she needs to get a clue. Minimum wage hikes DO NOT and CANNOT help the economy. They force some businesses to shut their doors, increasing unemployment. Those who got a wage hike and DON'T lose their jobs have extra cash to spend, but everyone else will have a little less - a LOT less, if theyr'e now jobless. The economy is hurt overall.
It does'nt work that way, you are putting the cart before the horse, and I have studied economics since 1974. Wage hikes help the economy, and minimum-wage jobs are NOT the ones outsourced, they are service-jobs and retail-jobs, which cannot be outsourced. You talk about economics like a kid. Outsourcing has eliminated jobs, lowered our AMERICAN standard of living, making us more like, Calcutta. Greed has ruined our American standard of living.
By investing alternative-energy, and efficiency, jobs are created as companies large and small energy costs are reduced. Sustainable living is the goal, and instead of an oilman supporting his bottom line, Obama is addressing intelligent and sane alternative energy, for a clean future of clean, cheap, abundant energy, as is my work for the last 20-years.
If people don't have money to spend because they can't even afford to live, the economy stays in recession for a very long time. Republican inattention to inflation and cost of living and stagnant wages over the years exacerbated this problem, and the economy will NEVER recovery if people can barely afford their rents, mortgages, food, school, fuel, and medical-costs. What looms is didaster if those things are not addressed, and President Obama is, thank goodness!
If people can barely afford their rents, mortages, food, school, fuel, and medical costs, what is government going to do about that? They have no means to magically reduce the cost of living, or raise people's wages without reducing others. Government can't create wealth; it can only shift it around. Some problems are simply beyond the power of gov't to address, so they ought not be trying. People are wising up to the fact Obama ain't the savior he's cracked up to be.
The reason you can't make ends meet at minimum wage is because your government is constantly stealing from you in stealth... its called monetary inflation. Raising minimum wage is not the answer!
StorminNormin1977 1 week ago
Minimum wage laws hurt low skilled workers to get a job.
StorminNormin1977 1 week ago
what rbbish. If his company cannot compete effectively in the global job market it is not because of a hike in the minimum wage!! I wonder how much he makes. I bet its over the minimum wage!1 So if he wants to save dollars, he should start by cutting his salary to a minimum wage salery!! bet he won't do that will he!!! If a bussness cannot compete, I suggest they revise their bussness model before opposing hikes in the minimum wgae!!
mirandaluc 3 weeks ago
Anyone who is in business and can't afford to pay people $7.25 per hour should not be in business. Why not pay people 10 cents an hour, or how about everyone does an internship for free till they are trained then the employer can terminate them and get someone else for free,Wouldn't that be awesome. It would also swell the tax rolls.
1963danno 1 month ago
@1963danno "Why not pay people 10 cents an hour..." You're forgetting that the price of labor (wage) has to be high enough to attract someone to apply for the job. No business that needs labor to exist will offer pay so low that it's not worthwhile for the worker to show up. By your reasoning, a company could charge as much as it wanted for a product and expect people to still pay for it. Consumers would look for cheaper substitutes, just as workers would look for better paying jobs.
dbmasta 1 month ago
@dbmasta If all the businesses are offering the same low wage then it will force them to accept the job. Most companies can probably pay much more than they do but choose not to
1963danno 1 month ago
@1963danno "If all the businesses are offering the same low wage then it will force them to accept the job." You're assuming there's an infinite supply of workers who can't find alternative means of providing for themselves. Labor is a scarce resource like anything else. When it's in short supply, employers have to offer competitive wages to get the worker to choose them over another employer. Thus, a market clearing wage emerges (as w/all other resources), not slavery/exploitation.
dbmasta 1 month ago
@dbmasta Why is the unemployment rate still hovering at 9%???? There are many overqualified workers who can't even get a minimum wage job. Why would an employer hire an overqualified worker at minimum wage when they know they will go back to their higher wage rate when the economy improves???? No one offers "competitive wages" at this time, although that may change in the future with an improving economy.
1963danno 1 month ago
@dbmasta Hence the minimum wage. Anyone willing to show up for a job no matter how unskilled and menial is worth at least minimum and then the employer can decide if they are worth more
1963danno 1 month ago
Comment removed
1963danno 1 month ago
If I were working at WalMart for MW and MW were suddenly eliminated by the gov't, and my paycheck suddely dropped as a result, I'd respond by grabbing every last piece of welfare I could get my hands on. I have a lifelong habit: it's called being able to afford to eat.
cincyblows 5 months ago
Fine. Then we'll just get rid of MW and watch as millions scramble to the welfare lines -welfare which you'll be paying for with your tax dollars. Or, we can all live in an ideal world where we CAN get by just by sharing an apartment with four other people, working three or four jobs each. We'll all move so we can be near a bus line. We'll all just be happy little peasants for the big, important business owners. Zero options for us. Bow and scrape to massah or starve.
cincyblows 5 months ago
@cincyblows You're going back to the exploitation argument, which I've already addressed. Employers have to make it worthwhile for employees, and there will be a lot more competition for labor if more jobs are allowed to exist. Supply & demand. The welfare thing has been addressed too. All the workers whose skills currently don't command MW or better would actually have job options if MW were abolished. That means less reliance on taxpayers and more reliance on themselves.
dbmasta 5 months ago
@dbmasta You addressed those issues poorly. Employers might want $15 worth of work for $3. Sorry, but there actually IS such a thing as greed. But hey, who ever said business and ethics ever share the same sock drawer, right? The reality, whether or not you want to admit it, is that those who can no longer afford to work (Sub-MW? Are you kidding me?) WILL seek welfare. They can budget their moeny all they want, but you'd see a mass influx of people to welfare lines just the same.
cincyblows 5 months ago
@cincyblows watch the video good intentions 2-3 minimum wage" it pretty much says blacks are to stupid to earn MW, its something ugh
hellfirewrestling98 5 months ago
@hellfirewrestling98 It doesn't say that at all, and Walter Williams, the creator of the video, is black.
Also, next time be sure to spell "too" and "it's" correctly. "to stupid" and "its something" are wrong, but I'll leave the missing punctuation and missing capitalization alone. For your own sake, please don't go through life making the same mistakes. I'm just trying to help. I'm also trying to be a dick.
dbmasta 5 months ago
@dbmasta so that makes him an uncle tom, Look, Walter Williams is one of those people that if the republicans brought back slavery, Williams would be the first to put the chain around his own neck.
hellfirewrestling98 5 months ago
@hellfirewrestling98 If you understood anything he was talking about, you'd realize what he supports is the complete opposite of slavery. Requiring permission from government to engage in trade is a total assault on freedom. I would argue that slavery is the opposite of freedom. If you prefer government control over your life, then you are the one who is voluntarily accepting slavery, not Williams.
dbmasta 5 months ago
@cincyblows You mention greed as if it's exclusive to employers. Employees are greedy too, which is fine. Both sides are looking out for their own best interests. If individual workers are being "exploited," unions can form to improve their negotiating position with their employer. If it's in a qualified worker's best interests to work that job for $3/hour, then he should be allowed to. Even if he still qualifies for welfare, he needs that much less of it to bring him to a "living wage."
dbmasta 5 months ago
@dbmasta "All the workers whose skills currently don't command MW or better would actually have job options if MW were abolished." Job options? Really? You mean like between working for McDonald's for $4/hr and Burger King for $4/hr? I see the inescapable conclusion of millions of workers going on welfare. Wonderful for the taxpayers, and sure to be a crowd-pleaser among the Tea Party movement. (sarcasm) if the bone-headed decision were made to eliminate MW.
cincyblows 5 months ago
@cincyblows Yes, more job options become available, perhaps like the example you mentioned. How is that worse than having no options?
dbmasta 5 months ago
MW laws exclude certain types of work, including seasonal. I can tell you this: you cannot expect the economy to improve by eliminating MW, because we both know that employers would gladly pay their employees far less than they are now -which would make the need for welfare cases increase at the taxpayers' expense.
cincyblows 5 months ago
Our economy has endured several recessions since the start of MW. MW has never prevented the the economy from successfully overcoming from any recession in the past. We will keep MW AND turn the economy around. Any employer who can't afford to pay employees such a low wage probably shouldn't be in business to begin with.
cincyblows 6 months ago
There's a better way than abolishing MW. Why not decrease the amount of taxes that employers have to spend? That could provide incentive for employers to hire more people.
cincyblows 6 months ago
@nfwvideo1 Funny how you consider it un-American to allow an employer and employee to FREELY negotiate the terms of an employment contract. Why not let an 11 year old make some money after school if he and his parents like the job? He might think $3/hour is awesome, and he'll accumulate work experience & skills for when it's time to leave the nest. With OT, worker and employee can't negotiate anything besides 1.5x pay after 40 hours/week. Is that somehow perfect for every situation?
dbmasta 6 months ago
they prob would be in business if they paid more from the beginning, why should a person making minimum wage care if the boss makes big profits........its not about surviving its about making just a little bit more profit, most of the downsizing happened when corporations were having record profits
eatrocksah 6 months ago
For those who think MW jobs are worthless, remember that the next time you go shopping, out to eat, the movies, etc, and remember that if it weren't for the folks who work their asses off for MW you couldn't have enjoyed any of it.
cincyblows 6 months ago
If a business can't afford to pay its workers a modest wage that they can live off of then they don't deserve to be in business. period.
johncantees 6 months ago
Hey DUMBASSES, this is simple: if businesses no longer have to pay MW, then workers will have to seek assistance through welfare. That means the employers, taxpayers that they are, will experience an INCREASE in their taxes to support the increase in entitlement spending. Anyone who supports the elimination of MW is a fucking moron.
cincyblows 6 months ago
HELLO PEOPLE!! You are completing against china where they pay them a cup of rice a day!! I am sorry but you cannot be paid $25/hr putting a screw in a piece of metal.
partyhouse88 6 months ago
@partyhouse88 Fine, then we'll all just be good little slaves for massah.
cincyblows 6 months ago
These freeloading liberals have the opportunity to get 3 jobs to pay their bills, and they want a raise too? it's not enough they have the opportunity to work but they actually think they deserve to be paid too? c'mon.
wangobangodango 7 months ago
It's funny how liberals love capitalism when it works in their favor, but hate it when it doesn't. They always refer to the "greedy business man", when they themselves are no less greedy. During the housing bubble, there were plenty of liberals that bought a house and then just a few short years later, sold it for twice what they paid for it. I didn't hear any stories about a liberal who accepted a price far below market rate so some poor family could afford to buy it.
jjenson2006 7 months ago
@nfwvideo1 yes, that is what i was saying
kishbass 8 months ago
Profits originate in the theft of labor value. Capitalism is ALREADY a kind of redistributionism --- it exploits workers, takes their extra labor value, and redistributes it to the owners. Where do you think RECORD LEVELS of profits come from ? Products do not make themselves. Products do not ADD VALUE to themselves.
You work most of the week for free. The remaining value you create accumulates in the bank accounts of the owning class.
So owners keep up the lie that wage increases cost jobs.
beesleeper 8 months ago
@beesleeper If profits didn't exist, then how could wages exist?. If you couldn't profit from the business you created, why hang on to your workers? Why hire more? Where would the money to pay them come from? What would those workers' alternatives be? If wages provide workers with money to buy things, then aren't those a form of profit too?
dbmasta 8 months ago
Maybe sending our jobs to china was a bad fuckign idea huh???
MrAppleseed88 8 months ago
Capitalist scum do not even pay their workers more then what a bum earns begging in the street. A bum gets 50k tax free. You work for a capitalist pig they only give you minimum wage. fuck capitalism.
MrAppleseed88 8 months ago
@MrAppleseed88 Then we should raise the minimum wage above what we all earn so we can all be bums on the street.
dbmasta 8 months ago
@dbmasta The wage of a people are undermined if the nation allows 3rd world counties to dumb their slave labor goods into our markets, and if the rich ruling class refuse to protect the people form millions of illegals 3rd scum flooding our markets to grind down wages under the table and destroy all social systems set up. The fact of the mater is the rich have all the money and they will have to pay one way or another. There is no free lunch. Close the markets and protect the people earnings.
MrAppleseed88 8 months ago
@dbmasta why not pay them nothing at all and make them slaves so no one can afford anything, not even hand outs to bums. Would it not be great if business could have slaves again. lets pay them all nothing oh boy just think of all the profits!!!!!
MrAppleseed88 8 months ago
@MrAppleseed88 How could any employer get away with paying nothing? No one would work for them, and they'd go out of business. They have to bid up the price of labor to make it worthwhile for anyone to take any job offers seriously. Employers and workers only strike a deal when they both expect to benefit. When it's not worth it to one of them anymore, they ditch each other via firing or quitting. I say this to show that there are natural upward pressures on wages, independent of MW laws.
dbmasta 8 months ago
@dbmasta Notices you say "Workers" And workers should never be without collective barging. Business work over time to lower wages lobbing our leaders to import more illegals and HB1 visas at the same time exporting as many union busting jobs to china as possible. The power of corporations have to be for the people and country, and what is left over goes tot he corporation. The rich like minorities are obsolete.
MrAppleseed88 8 months ago
@MrAppleseed88 You're changing the subject. I'm trying to discuss the merits of minimum wage, per the content of this youtube video. I've given several explanations as to why it's a bad policy. Please let me know if you have reasons as to why these explanations might be wrong.
dbmasta 8 months ago
@dbmasta I see wages as the only way a person has to cover his cost, housing, food, health care, education, retirement, vacations, transportation, investment monies, and profit. if a business fails to meet these cost, then it is a waste of our resources, and they are trying to max out profits by pushing their true cost of labor on others.
MrAppleseed88 8 months ago
@MrAppleseed88 Why not let people work for less than $7.25 if that's they best they can get at first? Why force them to stay unemployed under MW? Workers have the right to seek better opportunities if their employers cut their wages too much. If the employer needs employees not to quit, he'll offer as much as he can afford to keep them interested in staying. If the employees still have better options, then tough luck for the employer. He deserves to be displaced by more resourceful companies.
dbmasta 8 months ago
@dbmasta Becasue that is the very bear basic needs. I think business should be forced to pay far more then that. Business should never be allowed to push the cost of labor off on to others. If you want someone work for you, you have to cover their housing, food, transportation, child care, education, retirement, interest payments, investment income, and profits. We must not waste resources on jobs that do not cover these cost for the people.
MrAppleseed88 8 months ago
@MrAppleseed88 What's worth producing is not for you, me, or any authority to decide. The best guide is profit. Profits in an industry signal that demand exceeds supply. Labor & capital go toward profitable industries, raising supply and competitively pushing down profits to normal levels. ANY level of profit means a company or worker has created output that's more valuable than its input. Thus, it has been resourceful. No one is entitled to wages or profits they haven't earned in this manner.
dbmasta 8 months ago
@dbmasta Business does not work that way. You think it is fair open up front and noble. These evil fucks work over time cheating their customers, suppliers, and employees all they can to max out profits. The goals of the rich are not inline with the goals of the nation. All industry needs to be nationalized so we can stop sending our jobs to 3rd world slave factories and importing 3rd illegals to drive down working wages. the rich work so hard to keep wages low, and they want even lower...
MrAppleseed88 8 months ago
@MrAppleseed88 Profits don't guide people on what to produce? Please explain why that's not true. What are the goals of the nation? Who are you to say what everyone wants? What's fair about that? Have you considered what costs there might be to this nationalization you're proposing? Are you sure the costs don't exceed the benefits?
You claim business people are just thieves. Wealth has to exist first before it gets stolen, right?. Who are the people creating that wealth, if not businesses?
dbmasta 8 months ago
@dbmasta You mean like CEOs and CFOs who routinely take home millions each year? Bullshit.
cincyblows 6 months ago
@cincyblows CEOs and CFOs are generally HIRED executives (not self-appointed), who don't necessarily have a controlling interest in the company. Thus, someone else chooses how they will be paid, and does so in a way they believe will result in an overall return on investment. Investing millions in someone who can orchestrate tens of millions of increased profits for shareholders is a good thing. However, if the CEO millions are coming from govt subsidies or fraud, that's messed up.
dbmasta 6 months ago
@dbmasta Very true. Employers who deem minimum wage workers as worth less than MW should ask themselves how important their prepped food, clean dishes, laundered bedding, stocked shelves, rotated food stock, etc, etc, are to them. Expressing a wish to pay less than MW communicates a lack of appreciation for those things mentioned.
cincyblows 6 months ago
@cincyblows I think you meant to reply in another video, but my point is that eliminating MW doesn't mean wages go to zero. If a small corner store can get by paying $4/hour, why shouldn't the owner be allowed to make a small profit serving the community, and why shouldn't there be a chance for local kids to get a start there as employees? If the owner sells filth, people either won't shop there or will get sick and sue. That risk encourages good behavior for an owner that needs the income.
dbmasta 6 months ago
@dbmasta The reality is that anyone paid less than MW is being told that they're not important to the company. Whoops! There goes the incentive to produce. Who's going to be productive for someone who expresses to them via their paycheck that their efforts aren't valued? If I had to support myself on MW (a lot of college grads have to in this economy, btw), and it were abolished, then I'd have to go on welfare that the taxpayer would have to cover. Are you willing to do that?
cincyblows 6 months ago
@cincyblows Welfare needs to go too. You wouldn't need as much welfare if you got rid of MW. People with low skills that can't qualify for MW jobs are left with little means to make $ the legal market. If it were legal for them to work for less than MW, they'd not only be productive, but they'd also be independent of entitlements. Also, the fact that they have a job means that they will build skills needed for more pay in the future. If someone is willing to take less than MW, why not let them?
dbmasta 6 months ago
If MW were abolished, there still wouldn't be enough jobs because employers would know their net profits would increas by (a) not having to pay MW, and (b) by hiring the same # of workers as they had before MW was abolished. Now, add to that the elimination of welfare and watch the tinderbox explode -and politicians like Bachmann and Radtke lose the next election.
cincyblows 6 months ago
@cincyblows Repealing MW would allow new job CATEGORIES to be created. If one grocery store can start hiring baggers again and create faster service, others will follow suit to maintain market share. Same idea with full service gas pumps. MW has knocked many of those jobs out of existence, taking away the chance for new or low skilled workers to develop their economic lives. There are higher priority policy issues than MW, addressed by Ron Paul, but MW, like all price controls, creates net loss.
dbmasta 6 months ago
@dbmasta Um no, that's not true. If it were true, then why didn't MW knock out jobs in decades past? I guarantee that if MW is repealed you're going to see your taxes go up from a mass influx of workers to the welfare lines. Great to know that we're looking at new job CATEGORIES that will provide virtually ZERO incentive. Sorry for sounding rude. I worked my ass off today while my two managers (who get paid three times my wage) sat on their asses all day doing nothing.
cincyblows 6 months ago
@cincyblows Those jobs have been knocked out gradually as real MW has risen. But the hidden damage is due to the jobs & enterprises that MW prevents from coming into existence in the first place. So, there's less wealth to go around, keeping living costs higher than they would be otherwise.
Everyone's situation is different. A low-paying job you perceive to be insulting could be a blessing to someone else. People who support MW are unintentionally denying opportunity to those most in need.
dbmasta 6 months ago
@cincyblows Also, MW is much less harmful if it is set below the free market price of labor. Still, legal restrictions on trade (price controls) of any degree are suboptimal. Think about it...trade only happens when both parties expect to benefit. Any arbitrary prevention of such trade keeps those benefits from ever happening. Exchanging labor for money is trade just as buying a McDouble is trade. Let prices work freely, and the scarce resources we have will be allocated more efficiently.
dbmasta 6 months ago
@dbmasta Trade can be optimized when one refuses to take a job paying less than one's incentive to produce. Those posts are fine for the abstract and insulated environment of a classroom. They don't play out as well in the work world. Not to be harsh, but you get what you pay for. If you hire someone to wash dishes and you pay the guy $4/hr, don't expect a lot of productivity. Do expect to have to install a revolving door for your employees who will be coming and going just about daily.
cincyblows 6 months ago
@cincyblows I agree. Underpaying people won't attract them to do a good job, if any at all. That's what puts natural upward pressure on wages, because employers need the help to make a profit. Still, there's no good reason to forbid employers & employees from freely negotiating an employment contract below a certain wage level. It's still possible that happy mediums can happen below MW. Again, $4 might seem like underpayment to one person, but to another it might seem like a good deal.
dbmasta 6 months ago
@dbmasta Why go through all of that when you can avoid it in the first place simply by maintaining MW? Because no one will be productive for long at low wages like $4/hr. Wages will only go up if there are more jobs than workers. That won't happen simply by eliminating MW, because for every new job potentially created, employers have to deal with overhead like workman's comp insurance, time spent training the new hires, etc. Employers would simply keep the number of employees low.
cincyblows 6 months ago
@cincyblows Why go through what? The extreme burden of an employer posting a $4/hr job ad? He does that anyway, regardless of the wage. If anything, more effort is wasted analyzing, promoting, & drafting MW laws. It accomplishes nothing other than getting politicians elected by the economically illiterate. If someone's not productive at $4, they'll get replaced by someone who is. If they want to keep the job, they have to do it properly. I want living standards to rise too, but MW doesn't do it.
dbmasta 6 months ago
@dbmasta Since no one can live on $4/hr then what's the point in working at all if that's what employers want to pay? As for being "economically illiterate", what happens, do you suppose, when the unemployment rate remains high AND MW is repealed? Employers aren't going to create a ton of new jobs, because that would mean more expense than it would be worth to them. This isn't a classroom. It's the real world, complete with confounding variables and complications not covered in econ 101.
cincyblows 6 months ago
@cincyblows If this was actually covered in econ 101, the world would be a better place. Who says no one can live on $4/hour? Is zero better? Increasing MW CANNOT get more people employed where it is implemented. It CANNOT create wealth. All it does is hamper the wealth-creating process by preventing certain work from ever happening. How can you speak for every worker and employer about what is worthwhile for them? You don't know their situation. Abolish MW and let them decide for themselves.
dbmasta 6 months ago
@dbmasta For that matter, one canlive off the land for free. But I wouldn't want to have to live off of worms and grass. Oh, and eliminating MW won't create jobs. All it will do is destroy incentive and encourage use of welfare funds. Why are you trying to speak for managers everywhere? And what if the majority of workers decide that eliminating MW is wrong? I suspect you're a manager of some small company and you want (virtually) free labor.
cincyblows 6 months ago
@cincyblows I'm not an employer (which is irrelevant to the validity of the argument), nor do I have any preference between employers & employees. I'm obviously not taking sides if I'm in favor of letting both sides freely make decisions as they see fit. You keep assuming that one cent below MW is a waste of someone's time, no matter what their situation. I say that's for them to decide, and getting MW out of the way lets them. Do you think that reducing MW will mean everyone's wages will drop?
dbmasta 6 months ago
@dbmasta No. I think that incentive is key. If someone is told by employers during interviews that they'll have to work for less than MW, then you'll have an entire class of workers whose productivity will be lower than if MW is retained. Do you assume that employers would embrace eliminating MW only to replace it with one cent less than MW? MW is a safeguard for taxpayers. Bold statement, but here's why: the more income a person receives from wrk, the less likelihood of needing welfare.
cincyblows 6 months ago
@cincyblows In order to maintain that incentive, businesses can only afford to cut wages to the extent that equally motivated & skilled (yet unemployed) workers are willing to take less pay. For even lower skilled workers who justify even less pay, at least they could be legally hired and depend less on welfare. Employers will eagerly try to come up with uses for the new labor resource that they can now hire at a wage that's profitable. The community benefits from the product of that new work.
dbmasta 6 months ago
@cincyblows If a crappy, low paying job is the best someone can do, it's up to them to find ways to move up the pay scale. Still, it's better for that job to exist than for it to be made illegal. At least that worker can get some experience to help him qualify for a better paying job later. With MW, he would be dependent, unemployed, and prevented from developing marketable skills that would advance his economic well-being. You're right that wages offset welfare, thus the reason to abolish MW.
dbmasta 6 months ago
@dbmasta And how will welfare be offset when wages drop? Because they WILL drop if employers see that they can increase their net profits. I'll add this: employers won't get something for nothing. Pay someone $4/hr and see how little they produce. Incentive is always key in every work level in any business. Always. If an employer told me that he would only pay me $4/hr, I'd reply that for that pay I'd sit on my butt and do nothing.
cincyblows 6 months ago
@cincyblows You're contradicting yourself. You say employers' profits rise by cutting wages. Then you say cutting wages will reduce productivity (and thus profitability) of labor. The only incentive created by MW is for employers to discriminate against everyone whose skills and productivity don't justify being paid MW. As a result, the types of jobs that only warrant a wage below MW (and the resulting goods and services they provide to the public) are prevented from existing. We all lose.
dbmasta 5 months ago
@dbmasta I'm merely telling you what will happen when business owners who are blinded by their own greed fail to take in the whole picture. I would charge, by the way, that yours is a view limited to only one side of the equation and, therefore, removed from a critical context.
cincyblows 5 months ago
@cincyblows My view is on the side of labor, employers, and consumers (everyone). I suppose not being against them makes me one sided. MW harms labor by effectively making certain productive opportunities illegal. It harms employers for the same reason. It harms consumers by preventing the fruits of that potential production for ever existing, thus holding back the potential wealth & abundance in society. I invite anyone to try explaining how any of that might be untrue.
dbmasta 5 months ago
@dbmasta If you pay someone less than MW, you're sending that person the clear message that his efforts aren't valued. Why, then, did you hire him in the first place? The only answer is that you (symbolically, not actually you) want something for nothing. That would be short-sighted and unrealistic; in the former, millions of workers would have to receive welfare in order to eat, and the latter, your net profits would be taxed and the money redistributed to those on welfare.
cincyblows 5 months ago
@cincyblows So, if an unskilled worker can only add $5/hr revenue to a company, he should still be paid at least $7.25/hr? Or should we price that worker out of the market with MW and force taxpayers to subsidize his existence, rewarding his relative lack of competence, even though he's capable of providing for himself? Please don't use "living wages" as a response, as many MW defenders do, because that doesn't address whether or not the MW law actually increases wealth for anyone. Does it? How?
dbmasta 5 months ago
@dbmasta Would you prefer an increase in taxes to pay for the welfare they'll have to sign up for when employers fail to create jobs? Because that's what will happen when employers learn that their net profits will gain by hiring only a few workers. If you really want to take your argument to the extreme, I could suggest some commentary involving plantations.
cincyblows 5 months ago
@cincyblows What reasoning do you have that abolishing MW would reduce employment? If I'm reading you right, that seems to be what you're suggesting. If so, I think you have a faulty premise there, making your increased welfare argument invalid.
It's pretty clear that abolishing MW will INCREASE employment because then the lowest skilled workers and employers could legally do business together. There will be that much less dependence on welfare among the least skilled.
dbmasta 5 months ago
@dbmasta (A) Employers will only keep a few workers on the payroll. (B) Those workers will be paid less than MW. (C) Job's WON'T be created. Instead, one person will be required to do the work of two people. (D) Employers' profit margins will grow -that's the purpose of the aforementioned. ( E) Both the unemployed and the sub-MW workers will be unable to pay basic living expenses. (F) Welfare needed.
cincyblows 5 months ago
@cincyblows A) Fewer than they have now? Why? B) Maybe, depending on how many other workers want that job. May the best applicant win C) Then why hasn't 1/2 the labor force been fired yet? Why does MW have to go first? D) True, due to B, as well as it making sense to hire more people who can generate revenues greater than their wages E) But the sub-MW workers used to not have jobs, but do now, making them less poor, more likely to get better jobs later, and F) less dependent on welfare.
dbmasta 5 months ago
@cincyblows Are you concerned about exploitation of labor? If so, then why isn't MW the only wage available everywhere? Businesses have to make the jobs they create worthwhile for themselves. However, in order to attract anyone to do those jobs, not to mention go through the necessary education and training to become skilled enough, businesses have to make it worth it for those people. A lot of menial jobs aren't worth it for businesses at MW, which sucks for workers willing to take less.
dbmasta 5 months ago
@cincyblows When MW rises, most struggling, low-skilled labor intensive businesses will fail. Let's say 10 businesses in town fail. Ok, so maybe only 10 owners lose their living and move on. But what if each company employed 30 people at prior MW levels? That's 300 people out of a job because their skills can't justify being paid the new MW. Will they find a new job? They were already in the one they chose, and they wouldn't have chosen it if it wasn't the best one they could qualify for.
dbmasta 5 months ago
@cincyblows Well, maybe a clerical position in the welfare office will open up, due to the sudden surge in applicants.
Is it making sense now? The MW only preserves wages of those who might get under cut by someone equally productive (but currently unemployed and possibly receiving taxpayer subsidies) who is willing to take less pay to improve his situation. So with MW, taxpayers indirectly pay the price of keeping certain people employed for more than they're worth in the free market.
dbmasta 5 months ago
@dbmasta That's speculation at best, and dreaming at worst. Do you know of throngs of people who want to work their butts off for less than MW? The last time I heard of that kind of labor force, I read it in a history book about the pre-Civil War South. But hey, if you can staff people who will happily labor for you for .50/hr, then God Bless you. As for me, I prefer to be able to stay off of welfare, pay my bills, eat, etc.
cincyblows 5 months ago
@cincyblows Want and need are different things. People that need a means of sustenance, even if it's sub-MW, shouldn't be legally prevented from arranging that with an employer. It's ridiculous to assume that there's not a single instance where an employer and employee are both willing to come together for less than $7.25/hr. If that doesn't work for you in your situation, great. Like you, everyone else should be free to accept or reject employment as they see fit. MW limits that freedom.
dbmasta 5 months ago
@dbmasta Because their terms is a form of heavy handed fool play. If you refuse, they will export your job, import HB1 visas, or illegals to starve you into submission.
It is sticky a one sided negotiation with them having all the power and control of the out come.
Already their are millions of US workers who will not claim OT for fear of losing their job if they do..
If you think a company is fair you are a total idiot.
Companies do not care about employees, only profits.
MrAppleseed88 7 months ago
@MrAppleseed88 Small local businesses displaced by larger corps might be able to survive if not burdened by MW, like the guy in this video. Then, for example, there'd be other jobs available in a community besides Walmart, leaving Walmart with somewhat less negotiating power over labor. OT is another dumb labor law that results in inefficient hiring/scheduling practices. Guess who else cares about profits...people applying for jobs. Both sides looking out for their best interests = win/win.
dbmasta 6 months ago
@dbmasta If a job does not pay a living wage so a person can support a family of 4, a big house, 3 car garage, vacations, medical, savings, and profit off his time, plus retirement, then that business needs to go out of business ASAP and stop wasting resources.
MrAppleseed88 6 months ago
@MrAppleseed88 Sarcasm?
danmcdonald22 6 months ago
@MrAppleseed88 What's the point of learning any marketable skills if any menial job will get that for you? If everyone is entitled to that, who is supposed to produce it? Virtually nobody would bother learning how to, and the society's ability to generate wealth would end. In your mind, business is parasitic, but in reality what you propose is true parasitism that benefits nobody but the slimy politicians who rely on making emotional appeals to economically illiterate masses to get elected.
dbmasta 6 months ago
@dbmasta Oh, so you think that hosing and food should be with held form working people and only given to high class people with advance degrees? Housing, food, transportation, vacations, savings, retirement, and education are all given basic needs all working people should have, not just the selected few. If you want more then the employers pays you more for your efforts, but you can not think that only you and your advance degree should have basic human needs met. that is insane.
MrAppleseed88 6 months ago
@MrAppleseed88 No, you're inventing a poor argument that I didn't make so you can trash it. Unlike you, I don't believe in forcing anyone to spend their money in one way or another. You believe in forcibly taking wealth from productive people to give to unproductive people. I don't play favorites, rich, poor, or in the middle. I believe that everyone, especially the least skilled, should have the freedom to work for any wage. MW doesn't let them, thus sustained unemployment, scarcity, & poverty.
dbmasta 6 months ago
@dbmasta They are not productive people. We gave them all they want over the last 40 years, massive tax give always 1.5 trillion a year, and all the illegal they ever wanted and all they do is ship jobs to china for slave labor and zero environmental laws. The rich have trillions in over sea profits they refuse to bring home, here they have 5 trillion they will not invest in new jobs at all. they are not productive people at all, they are not even job creators. they are evil liers.
MrAppleseed88 6 months ago
@MrAppleseed88 So your goal is for there to be a transfer of wealth. It seems that MW accomplishes that, which is probably why you support it. However, I've explained why MW doesn't create that intended result. Without changing your opinion about corporations, can you at least acknowledge that MW legislation is ineffective and doesn't solve any problems? We both agree that higher living standards for everyone are good. We disagree on how to bring that about, but MW isn't the answer.
dbmasta 6 months ago
@MrAppleseed88 Why should a company be FORCED to pay you more than you are willing to accept? When you take a job, you are selling your labor.
What if you were selling your car. You want $6K for it and someone is willing to pay $4500 for it. You decide that you will take the $4500, but then the government jumps out of the bushes and says, "You can't sell that for $4500! It's only worth $3500....you have to give $1K back to the buyer!" Is this fair to you?
jjenson2006 7 months ago
@dbmasta With the evil FED reserve bank charging the USA government and tax pay interest each and every year we have to make sure the the rate of pay not only stays way well in front of the interest charged but also enough so people can profit off their labors, cover their living expenses and invest for the future. The rich have attacked labor so much they do not even pay us enough to cover the interest payment and that is why the economy stalled out and hit a wall.
MrAppleseed88 8 months ago
@MrAppleseed88 If I'm reading you right, I agree about the debt-based money system being a problem. But, the point is that the real result of MW is far different than its intent. Workers don't get a raise when MW rises, they get fired...they become less affordable to their employers. The employers in turn have more difficulty turning a profit, and some close down. Their businesses no longer produce, and there is less supply of their products in the market, pushing prices up on consumers.
dbmasta 8 months ago
@dbmasta LOL!! I have to agree with you on this one! Maybe there's a cottage industry for carboard signs?
cincyblows 5 months ago
@MrAppleseed88 Capitalism isn't the problem. The problem is overly emotional totalitarians who think they have all the answers when they don't know the questions. btw socialism is failing in Europe.
cincyblows 6 months ago
Rising min wages only put "survival mode" businesses like this out of business. Everything produced by those businesses disappears. There are fewer goods & services to go around as a result, so the cost of living rises. An economy isn't stimulated by spending, it's stimulated by production. The wealth has to come from somewhere real. Rising min wage laws can't magically wish it into existence.
I thought this was a clean, unspun, well-rounded report unlike a lot of other "news" out there.
dbmasta 8 months ago
@dbmasta It really sucks that this piece of shit is asking for government hand outs to stimulate his business and refuse to pay people poverty wages. Wasting resources keeping idiots like this as an administrator is killing our economy. we need real business educated people and we need to kill fuckign china now. Tax the rich, make them all pay for the right to earn a living off our people and nation, and put huge tariffs on all goods coming in the USA fuck china.
MrAppleseed88 8 months ago
@MrAppleseed88 I agree that there shouldn't be business subsidies, because they encourage otherwise unproductive companies to keep mis-allocating scarce resources. However, if they can be profitable (aka resourceful) at lower wage rates that workers are willing to accept, then we're all better for it. Hike the min wage, and all the workers who aren't productive enough to earn the new min wage are left with fewer job options than before. Min wage only makes things worse for everyone.
dbmasta 8 months ago
@MrAppleseed88 Increasing taxes doesn't increase wealth in the world. Changing tax & tariff policies affect the incentives of those targeted. If everyone who wants to import to the US is heavily taxed, then there won't be much reason for them to import anymore. There will be shortages of things we're used to here, and there will be increased unemployment in importing nations. No gains anywhere, but more tax dollars spent on bureaucrats administering the program.
dbmasta 8 months ago
@MrAppleseed88 As for the rich earning a living off the general public, I don't think the general public would have much of a living at all if it weren't for the entrepreneurs & the productive enterprises they've built our economy out of. We all owe our standard of living to these guys. If we taxed away more of their profits, why should they bother reinvesting into their productive businesses? What evidence is there that the bankrupt federal govt can manage those funds more productively?
dbmasta 8 months ago
@dbmasta
That is a load of purse shit.
beesleeper 8 months ago
i say 400 trillion per hour....
ajgolfer1 9 months ago
maybe he can't pay the higher minimum wage cause his business sucks and nobody wants to buy his shit.
kishbass 10 months ago
Minimum wage needs to be reduced to $3 an hour or less. Especially those who have no college degree and many workers do not know how to read and many white US workers needs to learn spanish as Mexicans are willing to work as white workers are lazy!
patsaxon 10 months ago
@patsaxon $3 an hour? What are people supposed to do? Live in a cardboard box? You can't live on minimum wage as it is, and with about the only jobs being created here being at places like McDonald's and WalMart.... Like the chasm between haves and have nots isn't wide enough already.
Pbirv 10 months ago
@patsaxon yeah sure, why $3 ? After all $1 should be even enough right ? Ho no after, let's instate slavery again, that was the good ol' time...Damn workers asking to be paid. They should be glad enough to even have a job !
Melpheos1er 9 months ago
"some extra change...." Well, at least they admit it!
Onneff69 10 months ago
I would think that if more people have a living wage, more people could afford the products these people produce.If the minimum wage increases: then while he has to pay his employees more... more people will have the funds to purchase his products then just the people HE pays, which means more people are buying, which means he stays in business...?
^That seems to make sense to me^
Cindercheth 11 months ago
@Cindercheth ... nope... if the cost of labor artificially goes up then you mess with equallibrium... so they just lay off employees. If $7.50 is good, why not $10? $20?
dmowings 10 months ago
Truthfully the manufacturing jobs are just not coming back, which is sad to say. I actually believe in raising the minimum wage by a very significant amount while simultaneously lowering taxes on businesses. This would provide the service sector workers (most of which cannot be shipped away) with a wage they could use to sustain themselves, invest in their education, or qualify for loans to begin their own business. They would also have more money to spend which would benefit
Billcruxley 11 months ago
@Billcruxley
businesses. In addition, less people would be below the poverty line, meaning less spending on welfare and other public aid. The money can then be spent on developing infrastructure and investments in education and other crucial areas. The tax cuts would allow businesses to pay their workers a higher wage without having to raise costs to astronomical levels. That's all just theoretical though, I suppose. Seeing as no one can predict the future, perhaps I'm all wrong?
Billcruxley 11 months ago
How can this reporter call this Cameron woman an "advocate for low-wage workers"?! She is an advocate for putting the poor out of work, which is what minimum wage laws actually do.
And people pretend that AP doesn't have a left-wing bias...
willzyx1980 11 months ago
He lost business to Chinese who work for an average of .75 an hour. You idiots want to race to the bottom instead shutting down trade with china. "But we get cheaper goods from China" Lot of good that does if we don't have a job or are making less than minimum wage. MW is not even enough to support yourself as it is.
jimmyj37 11 months ago
@jimmyj37
Isolationist policies will be as devastating to us as they would be to China. We export many things to China and there have been recent examples where we've raised tariffs on Chinese goods and they've retaliated by raising tariffs on American goods. An odd but effective example would be when we raised tariffs on chinese steel and they responded by raising tariffs on chicken feet. Americans have no need for chicken feet so we export it to china where it is a product bought commonly.
Billcruxley 11 months ago
@Billcruxley Of course they are going to retaliate, it's a chess match for sure. What has more power? Raising tariffs on Steel or raising tariffs on chicken feet? What you don't do is concede the fight and lower our quality of life to compete with $ .75/hr! BTW I don't want to raise MW on a federal level EVER. It defeats the whole point if you go raising it up and down. However, Gov has to stop printing money or else inflation will kill MW, your savings, your retirement.
jimmyj37 11 months ago
@jimmyj37
thus when they raised tariffs on them, our producers suffered greatly. One must look at the small details that form the overall large-scale economic policies.
Billcruxley 11 months ago
What is effecting the manufacturing in America is foreign manufactures in other countries that offers labor at lower cost.
patsaxon 11 months ago
@Matt101984 If a person remains at a job for more than 10 years and still has not promoted or increases in pay, school wouldn't help them anyway. Do you believe higher minimum wages will make a person wealthier? If a company is forced to pay employees more, they'll lay off some and raise prices, negating whatever gain in pay you receive. You're the naive one.
LibsAreInsane 1 year ago
If you can't afford to pay your employees minimum wage. Then you have an inferior product or inferior business strategy. That being said opening FREE trade with countries that don't have a minimum wage is an outright attack on the American quality of life. I don't want to compete with those who work twice as much and still don't have enough to pay for food, water, shelter, health care and retirement. That means I have to accept that same wage to be competitive.
jimmyj37 1 year ago
Lipsareinsane minimum wages are not all starting point in peoples life they are careers for many people. Not everyone can get a raise what do the ones that can not do? To find a better job you need to go to school and not every one can afford that. How naive you are
Matt101984 1 year ago
why blame minimum wage and not the jobs shipped overseas.and the tax breaks given to move .wall street has record profits,banks wont lend money and you blame minimum wage.crazy shalow thinking
stealthgerm 1 year ago 2
why is minimum wage so low in USA? Where I live it is 9.50 an hour
dave777blaster 1 year ago
minimum wage is theft of labour
fringeailments 1 year ago
If minimum wages are increased, small businesses will nr forced to close and large corporations will just pass the wage increase onto consumers. Yeah, you'll make more money, but you'll pay more on every product or service you buy. Minimum wage jobs are meant to be a staring point for a career, promotions and pay increases should be your goal. If a boss won't increase your pay, find a better job.
LibsAreInsane 1 year ago
This might be naive...but what about a tax credit for these small businesses weighted by number of employees funded by a tax hike for the largest businesses?
quidproquo2004 1 year ago
@nfwvideo1 Yes, and yes as long as it is not forced child labor.
MapleMeadows 1 year ago
It's fairly straitforward. Abolish the minimum wage.
MapleMeadows 1 year ago
Cindia Cameron should take an economics course. Higher minimum wage leads to a lower employment rate and higher prices. There wouldn't be an economic boost.
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
Also, knocking away the MW will not solve unemployment either, but it will have some affect. The reason it won't solve it is due to other more massive and significant regulations. The MW has an effect, but not as significant as many other State meddling has had on unemployment.
Nellsing 1 year ago
WHAT...THE...FUCK. How many times do I hear this? It does not stimulate because the only workers able to fit those expenditures are those above the minimum wage. It may create jobs, but it will not serve the workers and business below the minimum wage any justice and will keep them unemployed, because the expenditures will still be restrained from being put into below-MW job creation. This "raise MW=more stimulus" argument is fallacious and shitty. Try something else please.
Nellsing 1 year ago
Total BS. If you can't outperform your competition for 70 cents an hour your not that competitive......
buddywilson74 1 year ago
@buddywilson74 Except that its not 70 cents/hr against the competition. Its more like $5.70/hr. The US min wage worker gets $7.25/hr and his competitor only pays $1.75 hr. If your right why shouldn't we raise min wage to $20/hr?
vipero00 1 year ago
The Ignorance of minimum wages supporters is sad. If you really could solve all of the poor workers problems by simple raising the minimum wage, why not raise it to $15, $20, why not $100 an hour? Economics 101 shows that price floors and ceilings normally do not work, they make things worse. Who do you think is paying for the extra dollar an hour? the charge either gets passed on to the customers or workers get laid off. its that simple.WAKE UP.
examinfo 1 year ago 2
Some people arent worth the minimum wage. Like at McDonalds some ugly pimply pizza faced kid flipping burgers and spitting in my food.
tatomuck18 1 year ago
i earnt more than that when i was 16 some 14 years ago packing shelves at a department store!!!
moonyob 1 year ago
sad part is this idiot on this video runs a factory with dangerous equipment and expects to have people wrok for minimum wage
nfwvideo 1 year ago 2
what a shit country to live in
moonyob 1 year ago 2
I do enjoy all the armchair economists here who never ran a business think they are of authority to tell those of us who do how to run our businesses.
rasl04 2 years ago
i enjoy that u spam the boards like u did below who cares what someone called u get a life
""i feel a pedophile should be allowed in this FREE MARKET KILL ME A NIGGER TOMMROW !!!! lmao
nfwvideo 2 years ago
nfwvideo...
Since you have a suppressed homosexual attraction to me and need to leave message after message in my inbox, at least use good spelling and grammar so you at least have the appearance of being able to debate.
"I enjoy the fact that you spam the boards like you did below but who cares what someone called you. get a life."
Hope that helps
rasl04 2 years ago
the point is you spammed the boards because someone posted something they had every right to do it is a free country you know
nfwvideo 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This is what wkruk1979 left in my mailbox:
"i feel a pedophile should be allowed in this FREE MARKET KILL ME A NIGGER TOMMROW !!!!
i love not haveing to take responsibility for what i write as a liberal"
I have flagged his comment and YOU TUBE will be contacting him.
rasl04 2 years ago
your point? if i was u id be more worried about spamming the message boards
liberal4life1 2 years ago 5
get a life man
nfwvideo 2 years ago
Besides, I think you need to learn facts before you post. The individual who left the "Kill me a Nigger" line left it in my inbox. He bragged he could say that to me because, he being a liberal, could say that and get away with it.
I know he wouldn't say it to my face. Now he bravely posts as"liberal4life1." lol!!
rasl04 2 years ago
im still waiting for that to happen
nfwvideo 1 year ago
thats not enough,raise it to $100/hr or $1000/hr!!
ntn1987 2 years ago
for sure amazing this is a FACTORY!!! in this video and the owner is paying minimum wage, terrible
wkruk1979 2 years ago 7
@wkruk1979 you cant force an employer to hire an employee at a loss
ajgolfer1 9 months ago
@ajgolfer1 If $24.00 in a 40hr week will mean the death of your business, you should have closed down long ago.
On last thing, the Supreme Court ruled that Corporations have rights like people, then those people i.e. Corporations are TRAITORS for sending American jobs to our Enemies.
16Sammie 9 months ago
@16Sammie 24 an hour??? lol i guess you dont own a cell phone or tv or computer because a cell pone would be 5000K with that kind of labor....if they deserve to close then 50% deserves to be unemployed
ajgolfer1 8 months ago
@wkruk1979 totally agree. if dip shit business fucks can not pay their taxes and a living wages we need to get these stupid fucks the hell out of business they are wasting resources.
MrAppleseed88 8 months ago
Foreighn workeres usually live 12-people to a room, no furniture, almost no posessions, and no home-ownership. What the Conservatives and big business-owners have been trying to force us into for 40-years. In America, in the 1950s and 1960s, we created a better way of life that the world envied: a man with ONE working-class job could support a family, 2 cars, a home, and kids, on ONE paycheck. Before Nixon got elected. In the 1960s, Gasolie was 35-cents a gallon, and rents/mortgages, AFFORDABLE.
Beamshipcaptain 2 years ago
I am sure Cindia Cameron has the best of intentions, but she needs to get a clue. Minimum wage hikes DO NOT and CANNOT help the economy. They force some businesses to shut their doors, increasing unemployment. Those who got a wage hike and DON'T lose their jobs have extra cash to spend, but everyone else will have a little less - a LOT less, if theyr'e now jobless. The economy is hurt overall.
nasaguy 2 years ago
It does'nt work that way, you are putting the cart before the horse, and I have studied economics since 1974. Wage hikes help the economy, and minimum-wage jobs are NOT the ones outsourced, they are service-jobs and retail-jobs, which cannot be outsourced. You talk about economics like a kid. Outsourcing has eliminated jobs, lowered our AMERICAN standard of living, making us more like, Calcutta. Greed has ruined our American standard of living.
Beamshipcaptain 2 years ago
By investing alternative-energy, and efficiency, jobs are created as companies large and small energy costs are reduced. Sustainable living is the goal, and instead of an oilman supporting his bottom line, Obama is addressing intelligent and sane alternative energy, for a clean future of clean, cheap, abundant energy, as is my work for the last 20-years.
Beamshipcaptain 2 years ago
If people don't have money to spend because they can't even afford to live, the economy stays in recession for a very long time. Republican inattention to inflation and cost of living and stagnant wages over the years exacerbated this problem, and the economy will NEVER recovery if people can barely afford their rents, mortgages, food, school, fuel, and medical-costs. What looms is didaster if those things are not addressed, and President Obama is, thank goodness!
Beamshipcaptain 2 years ago
If people can barely afford their rents, mortages, food, school, fuel, and medical costs, what is government going to do about that? They have no means to magically reduce the cost of living, or raise people's wages without reducing others. Government can't create wealth; it can only shift it around. Some problems are simply beyond the power of gov't to address, so they ought not be trying. People are wising up to the fact Obama ain't the savior he's cracked up to be.
nasaguy 2 years ago
Then who is? Face it, hes the best president we've had in 46-years. And is solving problems, instead of doing nothing, like Bush.
Beamshipcaptain 2 years ago
wow this guy would want people to work in a machince shop for 2 bucks if he could
wkruk1979 2 years ago
LOL, you're worried about your business. What about your employees, and their needs? Even $7.25/hour isn't enough to live on.
If you don't like it, shut down your business.
jeffw1267 2 years ago 2