@tenenzuo You are right! It doesn't matter how much you are paid, but how expensive the life cost is. If inflation is high, what our lecturer repeats as an axiom (head of it many times by Americans) is just a redistribution of misery. But he lives in the land of oversimplification, unemployment is a more complex thing than abolishing the minimum wage laws! A worker is not happy with a hamburger a day, he needs shelter, health care and many benefits that have become too expensive!!!!!!!
@tenenzuo There is great percentage of the population nowadays that works without being shown on any official paper! Take a look at Spain, with so high unemployment rate 20%+ there hasn't been any social revolt, why? Because many people have willingly abolished the minimum wage benefits (health care+retirement benefits) to just keep earning an income. Labor market always conforms to the existing global rules, sitting in an office and speaking theoretically is out of reality sphere!
What about the case where the labour market is characterised by a monopsony? And the evidence provided by Card that minimum wage actually increased employment?
Astounds me when i see people talking to the president and saying i work 2-3jobs, 2-3 jobs? 1 job is all you need and dont give the fkrs more than 40 hrs a week, what the fk is going on in the usa? 7.25 an hour, 15 year olds working at mcdonalds in australia earn more than that, look in the mirror and slap yaself for letting it happen people
I agree about illegals who come here to work. While we here a lot of propeganda, the other side of all that is that they come , they work hard, they spend money while here and often pay taxes but are too scared to claim refunds so they offer a little to the federal deficit.
I don't think the lack of work for teenagers is in anyway at all related to minimum wage. They are going to pay minimum wage regardless. This is not logical to infer minimum wage has anything to do with it.
@kaygregg7 It is related, since the lowest possible wage gets raised, those who are on wages below that and don't produce or are valued enough to be paid the new rate will end up losing their jobs.
But lets say you they get together and decide they will all start out around $2 and because you have no choice on anything better they have now effectly drove wages down, and will the cost of living go down??? No it would go to fatten the upper crust.
I see the point that raising wages might rase cost of living... at the same time cost of living has been increasing steeply and wages have not increased for quite some time. I guess it could end up on either side of the scale . Because the comment about if an employer was offerening too little then people would chose to work elsewhere. Well what about this? All these greedy corporations know that if they offer you $2 you will go where you are offered $5,
@kaygregg7 If you put these comments in response to me I would actually be notified of your rebuttals.
In any case, MW is not the only thing that causes prices to rise, inflation has been a problem in nearly every part of the world, I believe. The US is no exception.
What you describing is a basically a cartel. A cartel(at least an abusive one) can only be sustained if no businesses are allowed to enter the market to offer better a better service and/or prices.
Even in the corporatist systm today, very few industries are like that. My ideal system would be a free market where entry to a market is by definition open.
If you want to talk about the lack of work for teenagers... 3 things have happened. 1. We have raised a generation of indulged young people with no motivation to work. 2. Companies have learned they can get by with less ppl , providing less quality of service and working employees harder, 3. A lot of jobs teenagers would do are done by illegal immigrants.
@kaygregg7 1. Not really and even if that were the cause you don't think pricing teenagers out of the work might have something to with that?
2. Well a business who hires more than they need is a wasteful business. Why should anyone hire more than they require.
3. Jobs are not zero sum game, the fact that a illegal immigrant works at a job, that doesn't take aways job someone else. The fact that he now lives there now means more people to serve, which means more businesses.
Do you really think that once the people who are working for below poverty level of min. wage are replaced with people making $2 $4 an hour, ever how low they can get by with, that this will create more jobs? Wake up! It is just another scheme that will make the rich richer, the poor poorer and take our liberties away by making people even more vunerable.
@kaygregg7 So restricting a person's freedom to contract is preserving liberties?
I think you have very weird conception of freedom.
Employeers cant just pay whatever they wish, they can offer whatever they wish but if it's below the market rate then workers will just opt for the business with better rates.
And really if employers could just pay whatever and the MW is the only thing stopping them, why are there any wages above the MW? If what you say is true that should be impossible.
It is wrong because the minimum was put in place to protect people from slave wages and also to protect child workers. There is no argument that minimum wage is far below poverty level and no one can actually live off of minimum wage and be self sufficient. In order to be self sufficient most minimum wage workers have to work 2 jobs. It is pretty much common sense when you look at the way corporations and businesses are run today that greed often rules and todays worker would be replaced.
@kaygregg7 Intentions don't matter, it's the results. Minimum wage results in higher unemployment and increased prices.
You're ignoring the fact that cost of living will correlate with the MW. Meaning if you increase the MW you increase prices to, since trading is a business sole source of revenue, they will have to increase prices to keep their employees on the MW, if they keep them at all.
@IMAGIMATIONanimation Well being against minimum wage is not the same as wanting lower wages people. It's just coming to the realization that workers are only hired when they bring more to business than what they're paid. Mandating an increase in wages without an increase in productivity will only make it harder for worker, poor, unskilled workers especially, to be employed.
@crazypants88, in conclusion, the minimum wage is not a detriment to the economy. Executives who have a sense of entitlement to a higher wage for lower productivity are a detriment to the economy. They run thier businesses into the ground and refuse to pay thier employees a wage they can live on while they steal all the profits.
@Waterguessen1 Don't you think you ought to demonstrate that then? That MW isn't a detriment to the economy?
No, they usually don't intentionally ruin their companies, not all workers work to live and they don't steal anything since employment is voluntary exchange of labor.
@crazypants88 You can look up the salaries of any corporate executive you want. Take $14,400 (yearly wages before taxes at $7.50 an hour) and compare that to any executive pay that you choose. How many laborers could you pay with that executive salary? You could pay 69 minimum wage workers with $1 million. There is a definate pay discrepency and it is in favor of people who do no work.
@crazypants88. Executives are generally paid the most in any company. In manufacturing they produce the least. Why would anyone argue that thier wages should not be cut in favor of decent wages for the most productive within the company? crazypants88, I sincerly hope you do not manage a business.
@Waterguessen1 Who's to say who is more productive? The worker who's labor produces a product or the executive who's managerial abilities enable the workplace to function.
I don't manage a business, but that's completely irrelevant to the discussion.
@crazypants88 Your experience level is important to the validity of your arguments. Next, a manager would be able to tell you who is productive. You assume to argue for the corporate business model but that fails to recognize the small business model. Many people own and operate thier own businesses and literally work for themselves. That is how true business works. Corporations allow executives to take all the profits without doing any work and having no responsibility.
@Waterguessen1 No it isn't. Saying it does is called ad hominem fallacy. Basically my argument's validity is seperate from my person.
I actually oppose corporations, they're a symptom of a state interference in the market.
And the MW actually hurts small businesses far more than big corporations.
Not only does the MW make starting a new business much more costly and hard, it favours big businesses who can more easily afford the extra cost involved.
@crazypants88 Again, have you started or do you operate a small business? Are you qualified to make these arguements? Are you simply repeating information you got from another youtube video? If you do not like corporations why are you arguing for them? How do are corporations symptons of state interference? Are you an anarchist? How is a business owned and operated by civilian's a symptom of "state interference"? Interference of what and how? Wow.
@Waterguessen1 Look up the ad hominem fallacy, this is a matter of fact. A person's character is is irrelevant to their argument. Would the theory of evolution be invalid if a layman conceived of it? No, that's because it's the idea or position that matters, not the person.
I'm not arguing for corporations.
Corporatehood is a status with many special priveleges given to them by the state.
The name corporation comes from being incorporated into the state.
@crazypants88. When lowering wages or initiating any cost cutting measures it is wise to start with the most expensive and least productive areas. In the case of one person who is paid as much as three but only does the work of one, that person should have reduced wages.
@craxypants88. Do not forget that the business owner is paid from the profits made by the business. In most cases that person is paid much more than the people he/she employs. Which leaves a few choices. One, reduce the number of employees or lower wages.
@Waterguessen1 Again, wrong. Reducing employees (without automation to replace that labor) will just result in a lower productivity. How is lowering productivity going to increase profits? Lowering wages would just drive your employees either to your competitors or just generally away from you.
@crazypants88 I'm glad you understand the loss of productivity! This is where you are looking at this issue with tunnel vision. Labor is only one part of a businesses total employment. There are also supervisors and managers who contribute zero to productivity but are paid more than laborers. That is the real money hole.
@crazypants88 I disagree fundamentaly with the arguement that a manager does "labor". Thier work is administration. Administration is a drag on any business. Administration takes money away from the people who actually produce a good or service by way of thier wages.
Administration is labour similar to an accountant. They file, fax, answer phones, etc. and get raped (usually) by upper management. You're confusing something like "oversight" with administration (clerical). Without them the "labourers" would have to do that tedious bullcrap which would come in way of their work (production).
@fountainherz I'm not confusing that issue, I am arguing that the upper management (that you mentioned) get's paid too much for doing little work compared to the work done by so called "unskilled laborers". Think about all the CEO's who got bonuses when thier companies went bankrupt. Why are they getting so much money? Why is paying a livable wage to the people who do the work of a business an issue? If there are no clerks or workers there is no business.
***Sorry I mean they do labor like accountants in that their work matters and it's more desk-oriented. That was a pretty bad analogy to begin with but I mean they work in similar fashion to accountant where it's more "mental" than physical and nothing is really produced per se. lol
@Waterguessen1 I don't understand the point. "paid much more than the people he/she employs. Which leaves a few choices." Uh, if they already get paid much more than the people they employee than why do they need to lower wages to make even more? Reduce employees or lower wages? When it comes to minimum wage employees I would always side with the first choice. What is the point of 2 people making $2 vs 1 person making $7? Neither have a chance to live on $2 so nothing really gained,
@crazypants88. About entitlement, you demonstrated my point perfectly. Without labor, the owner would be forced to do the work alone. Therefore there is a shared responsibility between the manager and the managed. To neglect that fact because of a sense of entitlement is wrong.
@Waterguessen1 No I haven't, again you have it completely upside down. Without the capitalist where would the capital come from, the worker? Very much doubt that he has the funds or the capital to get the equipment, housing, etc etc.
Even if he did, he would just become a capitalist and require labor.
Not to say that the worker is worthless, he's an important factor but it's predicated on a person or persons providing the means of production.
@crazypants88 It's funny that you doubt that a worker could come up with the capital to start thier own business! You are right they make so little money working that they probably could not afford starting a business. They also do not have enough to save or to invest. All of those are foundations to success in America. They do not have the means for success.
@Waterguessen1 Well I'm not saying it's impossible, if the worker has enough money through savings or loans than he is free to setup his business as he pleases. But at that point he would be a capitalist. I'm not saying workers are unable to own businesses, I'm just saying they would then be by definition capitalist if they did.
@crazypants88 So, if in your situation "workers" would be "capatilists" what is a "worker" now? Do we not all live in a nation with a capatilist financial structure? Therefore couldn't it be said that we are all capatalists by default? Would you say that workers are indentured servents, slaves or serfs at the point before they become "capatilists"?
Yea, but your missing a critical point. The price of commodities would decrease and things would become more affordable. Therefore the.employee wouldn't require more than what he earns
This mans arguement only works if you assume that workers have no involvment in the success or failure of a business. Imagine if you operate a factory that makes teddy bears. You are the only employee. Of course all the profits go to you but you do all the labor. So you hire an employee. You still take the majority of the profits because "it's your busines" (entitlement) and you pay your employee a small wage. If the business goes under you both lose your jobs. Both of you are invested.
@Waterguessen1 None of this addresses the real issue with minimum wage, which is the fact in some cases it requires employers to pay employees more than they bring to the business or what they're valued at. Could you buy 3000 dollars worth of groceries if you monthly income was 2000 dollars? No, the same with employers, they're only in business if you earn more than what they spend.
Also it's the business owner that has entitlement mentality? The person that either saved enough or borrowed enough to get his business started is the entitled one, and not the employee who's only contributing factor is the labor he provides?
This video is a perfect example of the sense of entitlement held by the so called job creators. If you want to be a businessperson and you don't want to pay a fair wage that your employee's can live on, then do the work yourself. Without workers to operate the business, the weak manacured hands of the executives would have to get dirty. I wonder, how many hands on job skills the man in this video has? Minimum wage laws protect the workers from vultures like this man.
the whole ecconomic system is not going to work period
if small buisness in north america doesn,t get a chance
the manopoly of the work force is had by courporate controled government and banking systems that destroy all chance for all but the very rich they need people like this confusing the situation
with a added problems instead of the
like real job creation in we the peoples control not corporate control
@bajskorvaren Issues with reading? "MW is only possible if jobs are plenty" which means the negative impact of MW is only negated if there are more jobs than people around. Since this is not the case MW has negative effects by limiting jobs to an even greater extent. Smokes statement was not illogical or problematic, just your inability to understand logic. If you want to attempt to make the argument that the +'s outweigh the -'s, you can , but the facts still remain.
Twage does not kill jobs it ensures that workers are not exploited his guy is an idiot. Minimum wage jobs keep people in poverty and are not living wages. The minimum wage should be increased to 15 to 20 dollars an hour!! Minimum
@mirandaluc IMO, setting a minimum wage is a balancing act. It has to be high enough so that it forces employers to increase wages and it helps out poor people, but low enough that it doesn't cause layoffs. While it would be great if everyone was paid $15-20 an hour, it would cause our unemployment rate to skyrocket.
@mirandaluc And where exactly would that extra money come from? It would come from you, the consumer. Increasing the MW to a 20 dollars would result in, at best, massive increases in prices in all industries, and at worst, massive unemployment.
1) The increase of minimum was due to the rising inflation, because food prices went up during this period 5.15 cents were not enough for the average person to live off of. 2) Are you willing to stake you whole career on the idea that getting rid of the minimum wage as well as no regulation of corporation will not have any negative externalities. 3)Raising minimum wage is good because it raises the standard of living.
@defnite You don't think artificially increasing wages wont result in rising prices. Even if what you say is true, raising the MW would just excarbate the situation.
If businesses could pay as low as they wanted without any consequence, like you imply. Why are there any wages above the MW, because if your implication were true there should be no wages above the MW, since there are, you're implication is wrong.
@crazypants88 LOL. Which one of my "implications were wrong"? I know that the rise in wage will lead to a rise in price but what you fail to take into account the social costs of not having minimum wage like: work stoppage due to people going on strikes, a dwindling middle class, less consumer spending, as well as instability and civil unrest.(which stifles investments btw). US history from 1890- 1920 supports this view. Minimum wage is not perfect but it is better than the alternative.
@defnite The implication that employers are the sole party that decides wages
You don't think that strikes, dwindling middle class and less consumer spending isnt causal with a higher MW. If prices increase buying power diminishes, which could very easily lead to worker going on strike and a dwindling middle class could very easily be attributed to the fact that the bottom rung of the economic ladder has but all been cut off since entry level jobs (the jobs MW kills off first) ..
@crazypants88 When did I ever say or implied that employers are the sole party that decides wages? I understand basic economics it is you that refuses to take into account social costs and therefore have the wrong conclusion. As far as the rest of your comment goes it is moot unless you truly believe that america's economy was better pre-minimum wage. Which would essentially would mean that you deny reality.
@defnite Yeah my bad, rereading it reveals my mistake. You didn't make that implication.
Pre MW economy was better for unskilled worker to be employed, it was not better in terms of productivity or level of technology. Also I've argued that theses "social costs" are only excarbated by the MW, how is that not taking it into account?
@crazypants88 You are partially correct with you first claim about unskilled workers. If you are an unskilled worker with a job it was great that it happened, if you did not have a job it was bad. The level of technology has risen due to the MW not in spite of it. How are social costs exacerbated?
@defnite No I'm entirely correct and if you raise it high enough it will be skilled workers that will be having a hard time finding a job.
No the level technology or it's development has little if nothing to do with the MW.
I would you even argue that it did effect it? People who work in research and development are not at or below the MW rate,maybe interns would be at the MW but I don't see how the MW could effect the progress of technology in any way other than negatively.
Raw materials undoubtedly come from MW workers, since raw materials would be higher priced with a MW it could very easily be argued that the MW hindered the progress of technology if anything.
I already explained how social costs are exacerbated in a previous comment.
people find the truth yourself because economist like this nigerian support business. ask any poor guy on the street why he cannot get a job 90% of the time its lack of meds to treat a chemical imbalance schizophrenia paranoia alcoholism bi polar etc. the ones that are mentally ok and want work dont have to settle for a cheap ass 4$ job..they can work at mcdonalds wal mart subway taco bell 7 eleven cinnabunn kfc pizza hut liquor store sweep mop cook clean all for min wage
the low skilled workers phrase is what tricks you! but the truth is if you dont have job experience then you have to apply at jamba juice mcdonalds and they will hire you as long take a shower and come in with your button up shirt tucked in cut your hair and shave. this argument will make a man/teen with no work experience settle for a 5 dollar an hour job when he can work at subway for min wage there are min wage jobs for every poor guy who does not suffer from mental issues
@1963danno I don't, but the principle is valid. No employers can pay someone more than what he brings to the business. Common sense dictates that that would lead to bankruptcy.
@1963danno People have different values, just because you have certain values doesn't mean that they're universal.
Really how are you any different from fascistic social conservative? Both of you pretend that your values are somehow paramount and that it's ok to force people to comply with them.
@1963danno Not according to the people who willingly employed themselves at the business nor the people who willingly traded with that business.
Your value judgements are not mandates from God, on what basis is it ok for you to force people to not act as they themselve wish, provided they're being perfectly peaceful?
@MenwithHill Not all below MW jobs would be at 1 or 2 dollars/hour, some sure but it would vary. Employers aren't the sole deciders when it comes to wages. Would be employes have to consent to it and it's more or less decided by the supply & demand of labor.
It is possible to raise prices to prices to keep the jobs but that often times doesn't translate into increased profits as people wont trade when the price that high.
@1963danno No, they're not making less since they weren't making the MW. Just because the MW is set to x doesn't mean people at below MW wages will then get paid x. A job is only viable if it brings in more than what it costs the employer, so if you raise the cost above what a job is valued at, an employer will then have no reason to keep that person employed.
@1963danno I was only using 4 dollars as an example. If a worker brings in more than 4 dollars/hour for a business then he can be paid 4 dollars/hour, a worker can't be paid more than what he brings in, doing so would simply lead to bankruptcy because the business' expenses would be higher than it's income.
And what could he possibly do with $6 / hour ? You should use your brain instead of being a mouth piece. Or maybe he should look for a job that pays 10 cents / hour, because if their is no minimum wage that would be the highest salary to found ( with exception to the $50million dollars CEOs). The point of the minimum wage is the restrict economic inequality, which hurts a country more than any economic factor.
You ever heard of the Great Depression???? You should look it up.
@CrusaderDom3 I want to work for $6/hr but I can't for my region because of the minimum wage. People who have more experience will receive those jobs instead of me because I can't compete based on price of labor. I have no chance or at least small chance. DAMN. :( Get rid of the minimum wage, and you will lose your job because people can perform your job for a cheaper price.
@CrusaderDom3 With the proliferation of low paying jobs that would come about if the MW were to be dropped, buying power would increase especially in cheaper goods and services since they are now far more viable as businesses since they aren't forced by law to pay people more than what they bring in for the business. This increase in both the number of businesses (competition) and the increase in production (higher supply) would undoubtedly increase buying power.
I love when people make the argument that without the MW empoyers could pay as low as they want, it's so easy to refute. Let's pretend that's valid, why are there any wages above the MW rate? I mean it's the lowest legal wage so employers should be able to just pay the MW for all jobs shouldn't they? Well as you know that's not the reality of things. Employers aren't the only ones that decide wages, there's supply & demand and also...
Why don't the CEO's of these companies take a pay cut so they can give their employees a living wage? I am so sick of watching slave labor being used over seas to assemble the products then using minimum wage hear at home then we have to hear how a living wage would be a job killer. Give me a fucking break. If anyone believes this shit then I have a bridge to sell you.
@Agoraphobicslove I am tired of not having a job; I would work for less than the minimum wage if I could. I envy illegal immigrants because at least they are getting paid.
@rzxwm10 That is exactly what corporations want to hear. Maybe you can go to India where they have no labor laws, you could work for .50 cents an hour in substandard conditions. Maybe you could even live at the job and work 12 hours a day with no overtime and no sick or vacation time. Sounds like a dream doesn't it? Well I guess it is coming to the states so you won't have to go that far.
@wiiam4 So you would sacrifice human beings for the sake of the economy? Our economy would be doing better if we had slavery too. I hate when people use the bottom line to justify horrendous working conditions.
@Agoraphobicslove The economy would not be helped be having slavery, it would raise prices as keeping slaves is costly and the main reason it was viable in the past was because agriculture among other things were so labor intensive so it became viable to kidnap people and force them to work. It wouldn't be viable now except maybe for jobs which are illegal like prostitution as that's one of the few ways you can justify the price increase.
P2 - You will never see these increased profits, in the form of reduces labor expenses, return to the market in the form of lower prices on products or more job openings. It will return only as higher investing activity by corporations (expansion or otherwise) and larger executive bonuses.
@Knowlesmil89 WHen a corporation expands, it does create more jobs. Look at Walmart. Target manage to keep their prices low because they don't have to pay their workers high wages. Consumers apparently approve of this by spending their money on Target and Walmart. Large executive bonuses are justified as well. These bonuses will return to the market as money is transfer from there wallets to hotels and other things they spend during vacation.
P1 - Economically he is perfectly right. However, people who actually do the hiring are not thinking economically. In a time where profits are at a record high with unemployment nearing record highs, what is the incentive for companies to hire individuals? If a company could hire two individuals for the price of one, would they? Absolutely not. Instead they would revel in the fact that they may hire one individual for the price of half of one.
@Knowlesmil89 People can choose to leave the company and work elsewhere if they have a better offer, and this is a constant struggle between management and labor. This is one of the method to raise wage of labor because management would pay more for good workers.
Its a little over exaggerating to saying minimum wage is bad because it will be increased to astronomically levels. The purpose of a minimum is so it can be a survival wage. The minimum wage is increased because of the constant inflation that devalues our dollar, which causes necessities such as food to raise in prices, thus increasing the cost for survival.
@ironmantis25 the argument here is that you can't set a minimum wage without expecting jobs to be loss. Would rather have 50 workers for 10 dollars each or 10 workers for 50 dollars each? Assuming you want to maintain your current costs and not acquire more costs. The labor force is shifted downward to offset the increase in wages.
well, the minimum wage is not $50 an hour, it is 7.25, which is pretty decent in my opinion. My argument is that the minimum wage is set at 7.25 so that people can sustain themselves. On the contrary to whether or not workers "deserve" to be payed 7.25, do a company really "deserve" to stay in business if they have to pay workers for less than 7.25?
@ironmantis25 I think a company deserve to stay in business if they pay their workers less than 7.25 because the people are will to do business with them despite that fact. My argument is that the minimum wage has cost other people good jobs despite sustaining some people. It also limit opportunities. I would work for less than minimum wage if it allows me a chance to get a "foot in the door" so that I can get experience and climb the ladder.
@ironmantis25 People can live comfortably on minimum wage, while others can live on the street or mooch off of someone. Is $3/ hr really that bad compared to $0? I would love to make the minimum wage; but i would rather earn it than to be granted it.
@MrAppleseed88 So if the state mandated that your employees had to have a wage that's above what they bring in, you could still employ them at a higher rate even though they didn't bring in anymore money? The fact that you are now paying your employees more than what they bring couldn't possibly result in their job being "killed"?
Give me a fucking break the CEOs should take a fucking pay cut and then we could raise the minimum wage. I agree it shouldn't be done federally but it should be on the local level. Until congress is willing to work for "minimum wage" then I don't want to hear about it being done away with. We already don't have health care or the vacation and sick time that most European countries get and now these fuckers want to do away with minimum wage. Jesus Christ they want us to go back to feudalism.
@Agoraphobicslove Far from every business owner is a big time CEO. Many have struggling businesses and reinvest most profits back into their company.
A minimum wage hurts the poor and unskilled the most. If a workers labor only bring enough to the employer to warrant a wage of x than mandating raises in the wage won't mean that an employee at a below MW job will keep his job.
Many jobs have been priced out of the existence because of rises in the MW.
@crazypants88 So then make it only for large corporations. I can agree that a federal model would not work and that it wouldn't work for smaller businesses but the answer is not to do away with minimum wage all together. I seen first had what businesses do when they get around the minimum wage. While I was in college I took a job as a waitress and because I was given tips the owner didn't have to pay a minimum wage, you know what he did, he paid his workers 2 dollars an hour.
@Agoraphobicslove Well if he had paid you MW then to make up for that increase in cost he would have to raise prices drastically, that in turn would lead to fewer costumer which in turn would mean he couldn't keep you employed since you now cost more to employ than what you bring in for the business.
Minimum wage simply doesn't work, it's raising the price of labor without demand increasing, that will just result unemployment.
@crazypants88 Wrong, he went out of business because the workers were always miserable which made him lose customers. The turn over rate was ridiculous.
@Agoraphobicslove That might be but that doesn't mean I'm wrong, just because he went under due to other reasons then I talked about doesn't mean it's impossible to go under due to the reasons I mentioned.
@publicatdamagnificen Yes because everyone who disagrees with you is malicious, it's absolutely impossible he might not agree with MW because it's hurtful not only to the poorest of the poor but also to the economy itself. No the only way he would disagree with you if he was evil in some way.
It's laughable, trying to tell the poor "it's better for you if we pay you even less". Beneath derision. I guess Cons really do think poor people are stupid.
Wakey wakey.
We have the minimum wage here in the UK, it's lifted millions out of poverty with no detrimental effects on jobs at all. In fact, the extra money being spent has been shown to stimulate the economy.
You'd be best advised to drop this stupidity, unless you really like losing elections. We KNOW why you want bosses to pay less.
@ToffClobberer Being anti-MW is not being for people being paid less, that's a strawman. People who argue against the MW usually do so because they realize that it simply prices those it's design to help (the poor and the unskilled) out of the job market.
If a worker is only valued at 4 dollars/hour than raising the MW to 6 dollars/hour will not raise that worker's wages. Since he now costs more to employ than what he brings to the table,...
...there's no way for him to continue his employment, with the exception of raising prices but that a) rarely works and b) even if it did work it results in higher prices.
Oh, and I'm sure that the Glorious CF&P "Foundation" is SOOOOO concerned about the "less fortunate members of society." Yeah right. Cutting minimum wage in half and paying poor people half of what they're getting now would help the poor ENORMOUSLY, I'm sure. Great idea.
Do you know that in the US - less than 4% of employees over the age of 25 years old are earning a minimum wage? (just in case your math skills are off - this all means that 96% of minimum wage earners are under 25yo) and less than 15% of these MW earners are actually supporting themselves and a dependent. Please, help out the entry-level job seeker by getting rid of MW laws so they can gain on the job experience and eventually earn more.
Just some more insane propaganda pumped out by the filthy rich 1%, who do no real work, to convince people of things that make no sense at all. Almost every country in the world has minimum wage laws BECAUSE DISASTER FALLS when you DON'T have it. As has happened in the US, decades ago.
And Capitalism ALWAYS brings unemployment -- which is why every successful country in the world has government programs to deal with such. Blaming it on Minimum Wage laws is just ridiculous.
@DavidDelGato Yeah who needs to actually argue against a position? Just trash the people who support it and you're golden right?
No, MW does cause unemployment. Jobs are only worth as much as people are willing to pay for the good or service that those jobs provide. If you raise MW by say 3 dollars than the employer will have to raise his prices and if no one buys his goods or services under the new price then the employees are not going to have a job for long.
@crazypants88 The CF+P: A Tax EXEMPT Lobbying organisation advocating a FLAT tax(same tax for EVERYone-e,g.10% tax for hardworking Billionaires [bailout?] and for those too lazy to become rich.YOU know?=Workers!)EU nations + many intranational organisations see the CF+P as just a mouthpiece for the Offshore Financial Centres=Tax HAVENS! "Let us keep ALL our tax we SHOULD have paid,and pay F-ALL to our workers.Thanks."Freedom and Prosperity for who?Peace from UK. (City Of London's a Tax Haven!!!)
the part i dont get is..how can somebody be worth 6 dollars and not 7.25$ the way training works is that you give him for example 2 days training...he will learn the job the same way at $4 $5 $6 $7 $8 etc there is no difference if a employer says they are not hiring then just tell applicants they are not hiring and let them go look somewhere else...
The problem is that companies are taking advantage of high unemployment and are offering minimum wage for jobs that require no skill to jobs that require 4 years of college education. That happens in 3rd world countries-now it is happening here.
@thatg98y6 Well that's how supply and demand works, when there's huge supply of workers, businesses can afford to offer less in wages. But like most pro-MW people you confuse amount of money with buying power. Productivity raises buying power, removing the MW would enable high productivity, especially in cheap goods and services.
Want to make more money? Get a college degree! Any one with out a college degree should only earn minimum wage, and that means AWU, welders and A/C repair. Businesses are hurting when they can not afford to pay minimum wage. Plus can not afford to add more jobs and benefits. Minimum wage should go back down to $3 an hour.
@NB4L The laws of supply and demand and the fact that a potential employee has to consent to the job. If he's being offered scraps and he knows he can do better he will not be inclined to accept 50 cents/hour.
But hey let's just assume what you say is true, that with out a minimum wage employers can just pay whatever to maximize profits. If that's valid why are there any wages above the minimum wage rate? Because like I said wages are determined by supply and demand, not just by employers
@NB4L simple, competition for your labor is what determines the price, just like any other good...businesses will compete to get the best workers and if you're one of them you will take the job that pays you the most for your services. companies always want to outperform their competition and they can only do that with the best workers.
@MrAppleseed88 You just don't get it do you. The problem is the fact that we have a central bank that loans to the government with interest then collects taxes through the income tax. If we did away with a private central bank and gave congress the power to create money with no interest we could do away with income taxes and implement a national sales tax and tariffs that could take care social programs.
I don't have much of an economics background, so I could just be taking bits of data out of context; why is Australia's unemployment rate only 4%, while minimum wage there is $15/hr and rising?
@Xiricon [why is Australia's unemployment rate only 4%, while minimum wage there is $15/hr and rising?]
There is no direct link between min wage and total unemployment. Unemployment levels are MOST affected by the general state of the economy. Australia is relatively booming from global demand for natural resources.
Min wage is a secondary factor and as the video explained, only affects those workers whose "worth" are near or below min wage.
@danL1011 because people who work 2 days per week are considered EMPLOYED in Australia lol. Its easy to live by statistics but its harder to see what they are comprised of.
@USTreasuryBond I was quoting someone else on the Aus. unemployment rate. Not too surprising to learn that Aus. fudges their employment numbers too. Sort of like the US advertises U3 instead of U6 I suppose.
$15/hr strikes me as high. I foresee problems ahead for Aus. when global demand for Aus. exports shrink -- might be years away though.
@USTreasuryBond Your (corp friendly) vid is partly true.In the UK,business moaned+whined about introduction of "livable-ish"min wage-but then realised(or was it their idea to begin with?)that they could/would and indeed ARE laying off permanent better paid workers and employing min wage Agency staff (NO holiday/sick etc benefits to CARE about) These DISPOSIBLE human beings are living day to day not knowing if they are wanted tomorrow,while corp profits are SKY high(and yacht REspray firms...?)
Comment removed
mcamoran 2 days ago
Primary jobs killer isn't minimum wage. Not even the close to the top.
Above all else it's INFLATION - all across the board. Not just hiring costs.
Companies are deciding between raising prices or cutting labor - or both.
The rate of INFLATION is MUCH higher than Gov't reports say.
Doubly so if you pay your workers MW to work in Fast Food.
CPI barely even acknowledges rises costs in food and oil.
Economics 101: More you have of something the less valuable it is.
MW is WAY behind Inflation.
tenenzuo 3 days ago
@tenenzuo You are right! It doesn't matter how much you are paid, but how expensive the life cost is. If inflation is high, what our lecturer repeats as an axiom (head of it many times by Americans) is just a redistribution of misery. But he lives in the land of oversimplification, unemployment is a more complex thing than abolishing the minimum wage laws! A worker is not happy with a hamburger a day, he needs shelter, health care and many benefits that have become too expensive!!!!!!!
mcamoran 2 days ago
@tenenzuo There is great percentage of the population nowadays that works without being shown on any official paper! Take a look at Spain, with so high unemployment rate 20%+ there hasn't been any social revolt, why? Because many people have willingly abolished the minimum wage benefits (health care+retirement benefits) to just keep earning an income. Labor market always conforms to the existing global rules, sitting in an office and speaking theoretically is out of reality sphere!
mcamoran 2 days ago
What about the case where the labour market is characterised by a monopsony? And the evidence provided by Card that minimum wage actually increased employment?
bs2790 1 week ago
Astounds me when i see people talking to the president and saying i work 2-3jobs, 2-3 jobs? 1 job is all you need and dont give the fkrs more than 40 hrs a week, what the fk is going on in the usa? 7.25 an hour, 15 year olds working at mcdonalds in australia earn more than that, look in the mirror and slap yaself for letting it happen people
ozbloke74 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
minimum-wage-rage.tumblr.com
milotunni97 1 week ago
This video's dead on. If minimum wage was $100 an hour, gas would be $75 a gallon. Imagine being a millionaire and barely getting by.
plcollins1987 1 week ago
Government policies always seem to have the opposite of their intended effect.
We're told the Minimum Wage is to help the poor, but in practice it ends up hurting the poor.
We're told that The War on drugs is supposed to keep drugs off the streets, but it actually creates a vibrant black market on the streets.
We're told that the war on terror is to keep you safe, but it actually makes us less safe.
etc etc etc.
TheCapitalistdog 2 weeks ago 2
I agree about illegals who come here to work. While we here a lot of propeganda, the other side of all that is that they come , they work hard, they spend money while here and often pay taxes but are too scared to claim refunds so they offer a little to the federal deficit.
I don't think the lack of work for teenagers is in anyway at all related to minimum wage. They are going to pay minimum wage regardless. This is not logical to infer minimum wage has anything to do with it.
kaygregg7 2 weeks ago
@kaygregg7 It is related, since the lowest possible wage gets raised, those who are on wages below that and don't produce or are valued enough to be paid the new rate will end up losing their jobs.
How is it not logical?
crazypants88 2 weeks ago
But lets say you they get together and decide they will all start out around $2 and because you have no choice on anything better they have now effectly drove wages down, and will the cost of living go down??? No it would go to fatten the upper crust.
kaygregg7 2 weeks ago
I see the point that raising wages might rase cost of living... at the same time cost of living has been increasing steeply and wages have not increased for quite some time. I guess it could end up on either side of the scale . Because the comment about if an employer was offerening too little then people would chose to work elsewhere. Well what about this? All these greedy corporations know that if they offer you $2 you will go where you are offered $5,
kaygregg7 2 weeks ago
@kaygregg7 If you put these comments in response to me I would actually be notified of your rebuttals.
In any case, MW is not the only thing that causes prices to rise, inflation has been a problem in nearly every part of the world, I believe. The US is no exception.
What you describing is a basically a cartel. A cartel(at least an abusive one) can only be sustained if no businesses are allowed to enter the market to offer better a better service and/or prices.
contd.
crazypants88 2 weeks ago
@kaygregg7 contd.
Even in the corporatist systm today, very few industries are like that. My ideal system would be a free market where entry to a market is by definition open.
crazypants88 2 weeks ago
If you want to talk about the lack of work for teenagers... 3 things have happened. 1. We have raised a generation of indulged young people with no motivation to work. 2. Companies have learned they can get by with less ppl , providing less quality of service and working employees harder, 3. A lot of jobs teenagers would do are done by illegal immigrants.
kaygregg7 3 weeks ago
@kaygregg7 1. Not really and even if that were the cause you don't think pricing teenagers out of the work might have something to with that?
2. Well a business who hires more than they need is a wasteful business. Why should anyone hire more than they require.
3. Jobs are not zero sum game, the fact that a illegal immigrant works at a job, that doesn't take aways job someone else. The fact that he now lives there now means more people to serve, which means more businesses.
crazypants88 2 weeks ago
Do you really think that once the people who are working for below poverty level of min. wage are replaced with people making $2 $4 an hour, ever how low they can get by with, that this will create more jobs? Wake up! It is just another scheme that will make the rich richer, the poor poorer and take our liberties away by making people even more vunerable.
kaygregg7 3 weeks ago
@kaygregg7 So restricting a person's freedom to contract is preserving liberties?
I think you have very weird conception of freedom.
Employeers cant just pay whatever they wish, they can offer whatever they wish but if it's below the market rate then workers will just opt for the business with better rates.
And really if employers could just pay whatever and the MW is the only thing stopping them, why are there any wages above the MW? If what you say is true that should be impossible.
crazypants88 2 weeks ago
It is wrong because the minimum was put in place to protect people from slave wages and also to protect child workers. There is no argument that minimum wage is far below poverty level and no one can actually live off of minimum wage and be self sufficient. In order to be self sufficient most minimum wage workers have to work 2 jobs. It is pretty much common sense when you look at the way corporations and businesses are run today that greed often rules and todays worker would be replaced.
kaygregg7 3 weeks ago
@kaygregg7 Intentions don't matter, it's the results. Minimum wage results in higher unemployment and increased prices.
You're ignoring the fact that cost of living will correlate with the MW. Meaning if you increase the MW you increase prices to, since trading is a business sole source of revenue, they will have to increase prices to keep their employees on the MW, if they keep them at all.
crazypants88 2 weeks ago
Actually this guy should be ashamed for putting this on youtube.
kaygregg7 3 weeks ago
@kaygregg7 Why? If you think his conclusions are wrong, shouldn't it behove you to argue why he's wrong.
People against the minimum wage are not malicious, they believe it genuinely hurts the worker and the economy.
crazypants88 3 weeks ago
Wow how much did they pay you to say this?
kaygregg7 3 weeks ago
You are right, lets get rid of minimum wage laws. I would like to work for $2 an hour.
IMAGIMATIONanimation 3 weeks ago
@IMAGIMATIONanimation you sound like a lit major
ajgolfer1 3 weeks ago
@ajgolfer1
You know, you *could* check my youtube channel, and it might give you a small hint of an idea as to what I am majoring in.
IMAGIMATIONanimation 3 weeks ago
@IMAGIMATIONanimation Well being against minimum wage is not the same as wanting lower wages people. It's just coming to the realization that workers are only hired when they bring more to business than what they're paid. Mandating an increase in wages without an increase in productivity will only make it harder for worker, poor, unskilled workers especially, to be employed.
crazypants88 3 weeks ago
@crazypants88, in conclusion, the minimum wage is not a detriment to the economy. Executives who have a sense of entitlement to a higher wage for lower productivity are a detriment to the economy. They run thier businesses into the ground and refuse to pay thier employees a wage they can live on while they steal all the profits.
Waterguessen1 1 month ago
@Waterguessen1 Don't you think you ought to demonstrate that then? That MW isn't a detriment to the economy?
No, they usually don't intentionally ruin their companies, not all workers work to live and they don't steal anything since employment is voluntary exchange of labor.
crazypants88 1 month ago
@crazypants88 You can look up the salaries of any corporate executive you want. Take $14,400 (yearly wages before taxes at $7.50 an hour) and compare that to any executive pay that you choose. How many laborers could you pay with that executive salary? You could pay 69 minimum wage workers with $1 million. There is a definate pay discrepency and it is in favor of people who do no work.
Waterguessen1 1 month ago
@Waterguessen1 Executives/managers DO work.
It may not be manual labor but it's nevertheless work.
crazypants88 1 month ago
@crazypants88. Executives are generally paid the most in any company. In manufacturing they produce the least. Why would anyone argue that thier wages should not be cut in favor of decent wages for the most productive within the company? crazypants88, I sincerly hope you do not manage a business.
Waterguessen1 1 month ago
@Waterguessen1 Who's to say who is more productive? The worker who's labor produces a product or the executive who's managerial abilities enable the workplace to function.
I don't manage a business, but that's completely irrelevant to the discussion.
crazypants88 1 month ago
@crazypants88 Your experience level is important to the validity of your arguments. Next, a manager would be able to tell you who is productive. You assume to argue for the corporate business model but that fails to recognize the small business model. Many people own and operate thier own businesses and literally work for themselves. That is how true business works. Corporations allow executives to take all the profits without doing any work and having no responsibility.
Waterguessen1 1 month ago
@Waterguessen1 No it isn't. Saying it does is called ad hominem fallacy. Basically my argument's validity is seperate from my person.
I actually oppose corporations, they're a symptom of a state interference in the market.
And the MW actually hurts small businesses far more than big corporations.
Not only does the MW make starting a new business much more costly and hard, it favours big businesses who can more easily afford the extra cost involved.
crazypants88 1 month ago
@crazypants88 Again, have you started or do you operate a small business? Are you qualified to make these arguements? Are you simply repeating information you got from another youtube video? If you do not like corporations why are you arguing for them? How do are corporations symptons of state interference? Are you an anarchist? How is a business owned and operated by civilian's a symptom of "state interference"? Interference of what and how? Wow.
Waterguessen1 1 month ago
@Waterguessen1 Look up the ad hominem fallacy, this is a matter of fact. A person's character is is irrelevant to their argument. Would the theory of evolution be invalid if a layman conceived of it? No, that's because it's the idea or position that matters, not the person.
I'm not arguing for corporations.
Corporatehood is a status with many special priveleges given to them by the state.
The name corporation comes from being incorporated into the state.
And yes I'm an anarchist
crazypants88 1 month ago
@crazypants88. When lowering wages or initiating any cost cutting measures it is wise to start with the most expensive and least productive areas. In the case of one person who is paid as much as three but only does the work of one, that person should have reduced wages.
Waterguessen1 1 month ago
@craxypants88. Do not forget that the business owner is paid from the profits made by the business. In most cases that person is paid much more than the people he/she employs. Which leaves a few choices. One, reduce the number of employees or lower wages.
Waterguessen1 1 month ago
@Waterguessen1 Again, wrong. Reducing employees (without automation to replace that labor) will just result in a lower productivity. How is lowering productivity going to increase profits? Lowering wages would just drive your employees either to your competitors or just generally away from you.
crazypants88 1 month ago
@crazypants88 I'm glad you understand the loss of productivity! This is where you are looking at this issue with tunnel vision. Labor is only one part of a businesses total employment. There are also supervisors and managers who contribute zero to productivity but are paid more than laborers. That is the real money hole.
Waterguessen1 1 month ago
@Waterguessen1 Well managers are also workers, they organize the business.
Organizing a business requires special skills which not everybody has.
That and the fact that IS labor is why they get paid more.
crazypants88 1 month ago
@crazypants88 I disagree fundamentaly with the arguement that a manager does "labor". Thier work is administration. Administration is a drag on any business. Administration takes money away from the people who actually produce a good or service by way of thier wages.
Waterguessen1 1 month ago
@Waterguessen1 So organizing a business, drafting a plan for shifts, paying employers etc etc is a drag on a business?
I'm sorry but you're dead wrong on this, administration is a form of labor, crucial for a business.
crazypants88 1 month ago
@Waterguessen1
Administration is labour similar to an accountant. They file, fax, answer phones, etc. and get raped (usually) by upper management. You're confusing something like "oversight" with administration (clerical). Without them the "labourers" would have to do that tedious bullcrap which would come in way of their work (production).
fountainherz 1 month ago
@fountainherz I'm not confusing that issue, I am arguing that the upper management (that you mentioned) get's paid too much for doing little work compared to the work done by so called "unskilled laborers". Think about all the CEO's who got bonuses when thier companies went bankrupt. Why are they getting so much money? Why is paying a livable wage to the people who do the work of a business an issue? If there are no clerks or workers there is no business.
Waterguessen1 3 weeks ago
@Waterguessen1
***Sorry I mean they do labor like accountants in that their work matters and it's more desk-oriented. That was a pretty bad analogy to begin with but I mean they work in similar fashion to accountant where it's more "mental" than physical and nothing is really produced per se. lol
fountainherz 1 month ago
@Waterguessen1 I don't understand the point. "paid much more than the people he/she employs. Which leaves a few choices." Uh, if they already get paid much more than the people they employee than why do they need to lower wages to make even more? Reduce employees or lower wages? When it comes to minimum wage employees I would always side with the first choice. What is the point of 2 people making $2 vs 1 person making $7? Neither have a chance to live on $2 so nothing really gained,
kaygregg7 3 weeks ago
@crazypants88. About entitlement, you demonstrated my point perfectly. Without labor, the owner would be forced to do the work alone. Therefore there is a shared responsibility between the manager and the managed. To neglect that fact because of a sense of entitlement is wrong.
Waterguessen1 1 month ago
@Waterguessen1 No I haven't, again you have it completely upside down. Without the capitalist where would the capital come from, the worker? Very much doubt that he has the funds or the capital to get the equipment, housing, etc etc.
Even if he did, he would just become a capitalist and require labor.
Not to say that the worker is worthless, he's an important factor but it's predicated on a person or persons providing the means of production.
contd.
crazypants88 1 month ago
@crazypants88 It's funny that you doubt that a worker could come up with the capital to start thier own business! You are right they make so little money working that they probably could not afford starting a business. They also do not have enough to save or to invest. All of those are foundations to success in America. They do not have the means for success.
Waterguessen1 1 month ago
@Waterguessen1 Well I'm not saying it's impossible, if the worker has enough money through savings or loans than he is free to setup his business as he pleases. But at that point he would be a capitalist. I'm not saying workers are unable to own businesses, I'm just saying they would then be by definition capitalist if they did.
crazypants88 1 month ago
@crazypants88 So, if in your situation "workers" would be "capatilists" what is a "worker" now? Do we not all live in a nation with a capatilist financial structure? Therefore couldn't it be said that we are all capatalists by default? Would you say that workers are indentured servents, slaves or serfs at the point before they become "capatilists"?
Waterguessen1 1 month ago
@Waterguessen1 Workers can become capitalists, they aren't capitalist by default.
No workers are not indentured servants, they can leave a job at a whim.
crazypants88 1 month ago
@Waterguessen1 contd,
Capitalist have an entitlement mentality the same a way a person who buys a tv has a entitlement mentality because he wants to watch it.
crazypants88 1 month ago
Yea, but your missing a critical point. The price of commodities would decrease and things would become more affordable. Therefore the.employee wouldn't require more than what he earns
Bojji1 1 month ago
I agree mostly but I just think it should be lower to $6/hr. No mw is unreasonable and inhumane
timoback3000 1 month ago
This mans arguement only works if you assume that workers have no involvment in the success or failure of a business. Imagine if you operate a factory that makes teddy bears. You are the only employee. Of course all the profits go to you but you do all the labor. So you hire an employee. You still take the majority of the profits because "it's your busines" (entitlement) and you pay your employee a small wage. If the business goes under you both lose your jobs. Both of you are invested.
Waterguessen1 1 month ago
@Waterguessen1 None of this addresses the real issue with minimum wage, which is the fact in some cases it requires employers to pay employees more than they bring to the business or what they're valued at. Could you buy 3000 dollars worth of groceries if you monthly income was 2000 dollars? No, the same with employers, they're only in business if you earn more than what they spend.
contd.
crazypants88 1 month ago
@Waterguessen1 contd.
Also it's the business owner that has entitlement mentality? The person that either saved enough or borrowed enough to get his business started is the entitled one, and not the employee who's only contributing factor is the labor he provides?
crazypants88 1 month ago
This video is a perfect example of the sense of entitlement held by the so called job creators. If you want to be a businessperson and you don't want to pay a fair wage that your employee's can live on, then do the work yourself. Without workers to operate the business, the weak manacured hands of the executives would have to get dirty. I wonder, how many hands on job skills the man in this video has? Minimum wage laws protect the workers from vultures like this man.
Waterguessen1 1 month ago
@Waterguessen1 Like I've said I think this claim you're making about the entitlement mentality among business owners is absolutely up side down.
You're the one arguing people should be paid higher than the rate their valued at.
Minimum wage doesn't protect anyone from anything, with the exception being a job,
If you mandate the lowest possible wage high enough than the poor and unskilled are going to have a hard time finding a job.
crazypants88 1 month ago
they must be working for big corporations
the whole ecconomic system is not going to work period
if small buisness in north america doesn,t get a chance
the manopoly of the work force is had by courporate controled government and banking systems that destroy all chance for all but the very rich they need people like this confusing the situation
with a added problems instead of the
like real job creation in we the peoples control not corporate control
more bs just saying
smokenbudesq 1 month ago
MW is only possible if jobs are plenty
and its the costs of product and service we consume thats the killer here
with out a balance in both areas income and expence the min wage will not solve the issue of affordability.
with out employed people you have a welfare burden which only makes the situation worse
north america must once again start to produce its own high quality things not imported cheap
manufactured crap with zero life ware expectations,like toxic childrens play toys
smokenbudesq 1 month ago
@smokenbudesq if jobs are plenty there are no jobs to be removed from minimum wage laws, which makes that statement illogical ::p
bajskorvaren 1 month ago
@bajskorvaren Issues with reading? "MW is only possible if jobs are plenty" which means the negative impact of MW is only negated if there are more jobs than people around. Since this is not the case MW has negative effects by limiting jobs to an even greater extent. Smokes statement was not illogical or problematic, just your inability to understand logic. If you want to attempt to make the argument that the +'s outweigh the -'s, you can , but the facts still remain.
TicTocKnight 1 month ago
@1963danno Yes, you showed me how badly it's argued....by asserting that it's not argued.....
Honestly you're getting to the point where you're making absolutely no sense.
crazypants88 1 month ago
businesses dont keep employees they dont need, not at 1$/hr not at $100/hr, so no min wage does not decrease employment. this is BS.
carryclass 1 month ago
@carryclass I suggest you look up the term non sequitur
crazypants88 1 month ago
@1963danno No it's well argued, something you should try sometimes.
crazypants88 1 month ago
Twage does not kill jobs it ensures that workers are not exploited his guy is an idiot. Minimum wage jobs keep people in poverty and are not living wages. The minimum wage should be increased to 15 to 20 dollars an hour!! Minimum
mirandaluc 1 month ago
@mirandaluc IMO, setting a minimum wage is a balancing act. It has to be high enough so that it forces employers to increase wages and it helps out poor people, but low enough that it doesn't cause layoffs. While it would be great if everyone was paid $15-20 an hour, it would cause our unemployment rate to skyrocket.
Hello59239 1 month ago
@mirandaluc And where exactly would that extra money come from? It would come from you, the consumer. Increasing the MW to a 20 dollars would result in, at best, massive increases in prices in all industries, and at worst, massive unemployment.
crazypants88 1 month ago
1) The increase of minimum was due to the rising inflation, because food prices went up during this period 5.15 cents were not enough for the average person to live off of. 2) Are you willing to stake you whole career on the idea that getting rid of the minimum wage as well as no regulation of corporation will not have any negative externalities. 3)Raising minimum wage is good because it raises the standard of living.
This has to be a joke of some sort.
defnite 1 month ago
@defnite You don't think artificially increasing wages wont result in rising prices. Even if what you say is true, raising the MW would just excarbate the situation.
If businesses could pay as low as they wanted without any consequence, like you imply. Why are there any wages above the MW, because if your implication were true there should be no wages above the MW, since there are, you're implication is wrong.
crazypants88 1 month ago
@crazypants88 LOL. Which one of my "implications were wrong"? I know that the rise in wage will lead to a rise in price but what you fail to take into account the social costs of not having minimum wage like: work stoppage due to people going on strikes, a dwindling middle class, less consumer spending, as well as instability and civil unrest.(which stifles investments btw). US history from 1890- 1920 supports this view. Minimum wage is not perfect but it is better than the alternative.
defnite 1 month ago
@defnite The implication that employers are the sole party that decides wages
You don't think that strikes, dwindling middle class and less consumer spending isnt causal with a higher MW. If prices increase buying power diminishes, which could very easily lead to worker going on strike and a dwindling middle class could very easily be attributed to the fact that the bottom rung of the economic ladder has but all been cut off since entry level jobs (the jobs MW kills off first) ..
contd
crazypants88 1 month ago
@crazypants88 When did I ever say or implied that employers are the sole party that decides wages? I understand basic economics it is you that refuses to take into account social costs and therefore have the wrong conclusion. As far as the rest of your comment goes it is moot unless you truly believe that america's economy was better pre-minimum wage. Which would essentially would mean that you deny reality.
defnite 1 month ago
@defnite Yeah my bad, rereading it reveals my mistake. You didn't make that implication.
Pre MW economy was better for unskilled worker to be employed, it was not better in terms of productivity or level of technology. Also I've argued that theses "social costs" are only excarbated by the MW, how is that not taking it into account?
crazypants88 1 month ago
@crazypants88 You are partially correct with you first claim about unskilled workers. If you are an unskilled worker with a job it was great that it happened, if you did not have a job it was bad. The level of technology has risen due to the MW not in spite of it. How are social costs exacerbated?
defnite 1 month ago
@defnite No I'm entirely correct and if you raise it high enough it will be skilled workers that will be having a hard time finding a job.
No the level technology or it's development has little if nothing to do with the MW.
I would you even argue that it did effect it? People who work in research and development are not at or below the MW rate,maybe interns would be at the MW but I don't see how the MW could effect the progress of technology in any way other than negatively.
crazypants88 1 month ago
@defnite contd.
Raw materials undoubtedly come from MW workers, since raw materials would be higher priced with a MW it could very easily be argued that the MW hindered the progress of technology if anything.
I already explained how social costs are exacerbated in a previous comment.
crazypants88 1 month ago
@defnite contd.
...have now been priced out of existence. And lastly consumer spending would of course drop seeing as buying power has dwindled and prices increased.
crazypants88 1 month ago
if the 1st place is not hiring the 10th place will for min wage
hapz3000 2 months ago
people find the truth yourself because economist like this nigerian support business. ask any poor guy on the street why he cannot get a job 90% of the time its lack of meds to treat a chemical imbalance schizophrenia paranoia alcoholism bi polar etc. the ones that are mentally ok and want work dont have to settle for a cheap ass 4$ job..they can work at mcdonalds wal mart subway taco bell 7 eleven cinnabunn kfc pizza hut liquor store sweep mop cook clean all for min wage
hapz3000 2 months ago
the low skilled workers phrase is what tricks you! but the truth is if you dont have job experience then you have to apply at jamba juice mcdonalds and they will hire you as long take a shower and come in with your button up shirt tucked in cut your hair and shave. this argument will make a man/teen with no work experience settle for a 5 dollar an hour job when he can work at subway for min wage there are min wage jobs for every poor guy who does not suffer from mental issues
hapz3000 2 months ago
@1963danno I don't, but the principle is valid. No employers can pay someone more than what he brings to the business. Common sense dictates that that would lead to bankruptcy.
crazypants88 2 months ago
@1963danno People have different values, just because you have certain values doesn't mean that they're universal.
Really how are you any different from fascistic social conservative? Both of you pretend that your values are somehow paramount and that it's ok to force people to comply with them.
crazypants88 2 months ago
@1963danno Not according to the people who willingly employed themselves at the business nor the people who willingly traded with that business.
Your value judgements are not mandates from God, on what basis is it ok for you to force people to not act as they themselve wish, provided they're being perfectly peaceful?
crazypants88 2 months ago
Of course, you will get million of new jobs at 1/2$/hour.
MenwithHill 2 months ago
@MenwithHill Not all below MW jobs would be at 1 or 2 dollars/hour, some sure but it would vary. Employers aren't the sole deciders when it comes to wages. Would be employes have to consent to it and it's more or less decided by the supply & demand of labor.
crazypants88 2 months ago
@1963danno So you should be able to tell people they can't enter into voluntary agreements just because you don't like it?
How is that any different from forbidding gay or interracial couples from marrying?
crazypants88 2 months ago
@1963danno contd.
It is possible to raise prices to prices to keep the jobs but that often times doesn't translate into increased profits as people wont trade when the price that high.
crazypants88 2 months ago
@1963danno No, they're not making less since they weren't making the MW. Just because the MW is set to x doesn't mean people at below MW wages will then get paid x. A job is only viable if it brings in more than what it costs the employer, so if you raise the cost above what a job is valued at, an employer will then have no reason to keep that person employed.
contd.
crazypants88 2 months ago
@1963danno ...and your intellectual capacity is revealed
crazypants88 2 months ago
@1963danno I was only using 4 dollars as an example. If a worker brings in more than 4 dollars/hour for a business then he can be paid 4 dollars/hour, a worker can't be paid more than what he brings in, doing so would simply lead to bankruptcy because the business' expenses would be higher than it's income.
crazypants88 2 months ago
@1963danno Yes if he needs more workers, his demand for workers goes up, I don't think I ever argued against this.
crazypants88 2 months ago
@1963danno He is worth whatever the market said he is worth. If i had full employment, then any extra labor is deemed worthless by the market.
rzxwm10 2 months ago
And what could he possibly do with $6 / hour ? You should use your brain instead of being a mouth piece. Or maybe he should look for a job that pays 10 cents / hour, because if their is no minimum wage that would be the highest salary to found ( with exception to the $50million dollars CEOs). The point of the minimum wage is the restrict economic inequality, which hurts a country more than any economic factor.
You ever heard of the Great Depression???? You should look it up.
CrusaderDom3 2 months ago
@CrusaderDom3 I want to work for $6/hr but I can't for my region because of the minimum wage. People who have more experience will receive those jobs instead of me because I can't compete based on price of labor. I have no chance or at least small chance. DAMN. :( Get rid of the minimum wage, and you will lose your job because people can perform your job for a cheaper price.
rzxwm10 2 months ago
@CrusaderDom3 With the proliferation of low paying jobs that would come about if the MW were to be dropped, buying power would increase especially in cheaper goods and services since they are now far more viable as businesses since they aren't forced by law to pay people more than what they bring in for the business. This increase in both the number of businesses (competition) and the increase in production (higher supply) would undoubtedly increase buying power.
contd.
crazypants88 2 months ago
@CrusaderDom3 contd
I love when people make the argument that without the MW empoyers could pay as low as they want, it's so easy to refute. Let's pretend that's valid, why are there any wages above the MW rate? I mean it's the lowest legal wage so employers should be able to just pay the MW for all jobs shouldn't they? Well as you know that's not the reality of things. Employers aren't the only ones that decide wages, there's supply & demand and also...
contd
contd.
crazypants88 2 months ago
@CrusaderDom3 contd.
...employees-to-be have to consent to these wages. So if a wage is lower than what people want than that job won't be staffed.
Also the great depression was excacerbated by interventionist policies, much like the minimum wage hurts the economy today.
crazypants88 2 months ago
Why don't the CEO's of these companies take a pay cut so they can give their employees a living wage? I am so sick of watching slave labor being used over seas to assemble the products then using minimum wage hear at home then we have to hear how a living wage would be a job killer. Give me a fucking break. If anyone believes this shit then I have a bridge to sell you.
Agoraphobicslove 2 months ago
@Agoraphobicslove I am tired of not having a job; I would work for less than the minimum wage if I could. I envy illegal immigrants because at least they are getting paid.
rzxwm10 2 months ago
@rzxwm10 Labor harship is nothing compare to the hardship of joblessness.
rzxwm10 2 months ago
@rzxwm10 That is exactly what corporations want to hear. Maybe you can go to India where they have no labor laws, you could work for .50 cents an hour in substandard conditions. Maybe you could even live at the job and work 12 hours a day with no overtime and no sick or vacation time. Sounds like a dream doesn't it? Well I guess it is coming to the states so you won't have to go that far.
Agoraphobicslove 2 months ago
@Agoraphobicslove one thing you arent looking at is that india's economy is growing much more quickly than the united states economy
wiiam4 2 months ago
@wiiam4 So you would sacrifice human beings for the sake of the economy? Our economy would be doing better if we had slavery too. I hate when people use the bottom line to justify horrendous working conditions.
Agoraphobicslove 2 months ago
@Agoraphobicslove The economy would not be helped be having slavery, it would raise prices as keeping slaves is costly and the main reason it was viable in the past was because agriculture among other things were so labor intensive so it became viable to kidnap people and force them to work. It wouldn't be viable now except maybe for jobs which are illegal like prostitution as that's one of the few ways you can justify the price increase.
crazypants88 2 months ago
P2 - You will never see these increased profits, in the form of reduces labor expenses, return to the market in the form of lower prices on products or more job openings. It will return only as higher investing activity by corporations (expansion or otherwise) and larger executive bonuses.
Knowlesmil89 2 months ago
@Knowlesmil89 WHen a corporation expands, it does create more jobs. Look at Walmart. Target manage to keep their prices low because they don't have to pay their workers high wages. Consumers apparently approve of this by spending their money on Target and Walmart. Large executive bonuses are justified as well. These bonuses will return to the market as money is transfer from there wallets to hotels and other things they spend during vacation.
rzxwm10 2 months ago
P1 - Economically he is perfectly right. However, people who actually do the hiring are not thinking economically. In a time where profits are at a record high with unemployment nearing record highs, what is the incentive for companies to hire individuals? If a company could hire two individuals for the price of one, would they? Absolutely not. Instead they would revel in the fact that they may hire one individual for the price of half of one.
Knowlesmil89 2 months ago
@Knowlesmil89 People can choose to leave the company and work elsewhere if they have a better offer, and this is a constant struggle between management and labor. This is one of the method to raise wage of labor because management would pay more for good workers.
rzxwm10 2 months ago
Its a little over exaggerating to saying minimum wage is bad because it will be increased to astronomically levels. The purpose of a minimum is so it can be a survival wage. The minimum wage is increased because of the constant inflation that devalues our dollar, which causes necessities such as food to raise in prices, thus increasing the cost for survival.
ironmantis25 2 months ago
@ironmantis25 the argument here is that you can't set a minimum wage without expecting jobs to be loss. Would rather have 50 workers for 10 dollars each or 10 workers for 50 dollars each? Assuming you want to maintain your current costs and not acquire more costs. The labor force is shifted downward to offset the increase in wages.
rzxwm10 2 months ago
@rzxwm10
well, the minimum wage is not $50 an hour, it is 7.25, which is pretty decent in my opinion. My argument is that the minimum wage is set at 7.25 so that people can sustain themselves. On the contrary to whether or not workers "deserve" to be payed 7.25, do a company really "deserve" to stay in business if they have to pay workers for less than 7.25?
ironmantis25 1 month ago
@ironmantis25 I think a company deserve to stay in business if they pay their workers less than 7.25 because the people are will to do business with them despite that fact. My argument is that the minimum wage has cost other people good jobs despite sustaining some people. It also limit opportunities. I would work for less than minimum wage if it allows me a chance to get a "foot in the door" so that I can get experience and climb the ladder.
rzxwm10 1 month ago
@ironmantis25 People can live comfortably on minimum wage, while others can live on the street or mooch off of someone. Is $3/ hr really that bad compared to $0? I would love to make the minimum wage; but i would rather earn it than to be granted it.
rzxwm10 1 month ago
the only thing that kills jobs is lack of demadn.
MrAppleseed88 2 months ago
@MrAppleseed88 So if the state mandated that your employees had to have a wage that's above what they bring in, you could still employ them at a higher rate even though they didn't bring in anymore money? The fact that you are now paying your employees more than what they bring couldn't possibly result in their job being "killed"?
crazypants88 2 months ago
Give me a fucking break the CEOs should take a fucking pay cut and then we could raise the minimum wage. I agree it shouldn't be done federally but it should be on the local level. Until congress is willing to work for "minimum wage" then I don't want to hear about it being done away with. We already don't have health care or the vacation and sick time that most European countries get and now these fuckers want to do away with minimum wage. Jesus Christ they want us to go back to feudalism.
Agoraphobicslove 2 months ago
@Agoraphobicslove Far from every business owner is a big time CEO. Many have struggling businesses and reinvest most profits back into their company.
A minimum wage hurts the poor and unskilled the most. If a workers labor only bring enough to the employer to warrant a wage of x than mandating raises in the wage won't mean that an employee at a below MW job will keep his job.
Many jobs have been priced out of the existence because of rises in the MW.
crazypants88 2 months ago
@crazypants88 So then make it only for large corporations. I can agree that a federal model would not work and that it wouldn't work for smaller businesses but the answer is not to do away with minimum wage all together. I seen first had what businesses do when they get around the minimum wage. While I was in college I took a job as a waitress and because I was given tips the owner didn't have to pay a minimum wage, you know what he did, he paid his workers 2 dollars an hour.
Agoraphobicslove 2 months ago
@Agoraphobicslove Well if he had paid you MW then to make up for that increase in cost he would have to raise prices drastically, that in turn would lead to fewer costumer which in turn would mean he couldn't keep you employed since you now cost more to employ than what you bring in for the business.
Minimum wage simply doesn't work, it's raising the price of labor without demand increasing, that will just result unemployment.
crazypants88 2 months ago
@crazypants88 Wrong, he went out of business because the workers were always miserable which made him lose customers. The turn over rate was ridiculous.
Agoraphobicslove 2 months ago
@Agoraphobicslove That might be but that doesn't mean I'm wrong, just because he went under due to other reasons then I talked about doesn't mean it's impossible to go under due to the reasons I mentioned.
crazypants88 2 months ago
Comment removed
ToffClobberer 2 months ago
Uncle Tom
publicatdamagnificen 2 months ago
@publicatdamagnificen Yes because everyone who disagrees with you is malicious, it's absolutely impossible he might not agree with MW because it's hurtful not only to the poorest of the poor but also to the economy itself. No the only way he would disagree with you if he was evil in some way.
crazypants88 2 months ago
Comment removed
ToffClobberer 2 months ago
It's laughable, trying to tell the poor "it's better for you if we pay you even less". Beneath derision. I guess Cons really do think poor people are stupid.
Wakey wakey.
We have the minimum wage here in the UK, it's lifted millions out of poverty with no detrimental effects on jobs at all. In fact, the extra money being spent has been shown to stimulate the economy.
You'd be best advised to drop this stupidity, unless you really like losing elections. We KNOW why you want bosses to pay less.
ToffClobberer 2 months ago
@ToffClobberer Being anti-MW is not being for people being paid less, that's a strawman. People who argue against the MW usually do so because they realize that it simply prices those it's design to help (the poor and the unskilled) out of the job market.
If a worker is only valued at 4 dollars/hour than raising the MW to 6 dollars/hour will not raise that worker's wages. Since he now costs more to employ than what he brings to the table,...
contd.
crazypants88 2 months ago
@ToffClobberer contd.
...there's no way for him to continue his employment, with the exception of raising prices but that a) rarely works and b) even if it did work it results in higher prices.
crazypants88 2 months ago
@publicatdamagnificen so... you racist ?
XRayden 2 months ago
Oh, and I'm sure that the Glorious CF&P "Foundation" is SOOOOO concerned about the "less fortunate members of society." Yeah right. Cutting minimum wage in half and paying poor people half of what they're getting now would help the poor ENORMOUSLY, I'm sure. Great idea.
DavidDelGato 3 months ago
Comment removed
Enaresbclimber 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Do you know that in the US - less than 4% of employees over the age of 25 years old are earning a minimum wage? (just in case your math skills are off - this all means that 96% of minimum wage earners are under 25yo) and less than 15% of these MW earners are actually supporting themselves and a dependent. Please, help out the entry-level job seeker by getting rid of MW laws so they can gain on the job experience and eventually earn more.
Enaresbclimber 3 months ago
@DavidDelGato ad hominem fallacy, attack people's argument and not their characters.
I could say the exact same thing about you and it would be more valid since the MW does hurt the poor, this is factual.
crazypants88 2 months ago
Just some more insane propaganda pumped out by the filthy rich 1%, who do no real work, to convince people of things that make no sense at all. Almost every country in the world has minimum wage laws BECAUSE DISASTER FALLS when you DON'T have it. As has happened in the US, decades ago.
And Capitalism ALWAYS brings unemployment -- which is why every successful country in the world has government programs to deal with such. Blaming it on Minimum Wage laws is just ridiculous.
DavidDelGato 3 months ago
@DavidDelGato Yeah who needs to actually argue against a position? Just trash the people who support it and you're golden right?
No, MW does cause unemployment. Jobs are only worth as much as people are willing to pay for the good or service that those jobs provide. If you raise MW by say 3 dollars than the employer will have to raise his prices and if no one buys his goods or services under the new price then the employees are not going to have a job for long.
crazypants88 3 months ago
@crazypants88 The CF+P: A Tax EXEMPT Lobbying organisation advocating a FLAT tax(same tax for EVERYone-e,g.10% tax for hardworking Billionaires [bailout?] and for those too lazy to become rich.YOU know?=Workers!)EU nations + many intranational organisations see the CF+P as just a mouthpiece for the Offshore Financial Centres=Tax HAVENS! "Let us keep ALL our tax we SHOULD have paid,and pay F-ALL to our workers.Thanks."Freedom and Prosperity for who?Peace from UK. (City Of London's a Tax Haven!!!)
Slave2PaperWithInkOn 3 months ago
D:< your a genius!
love ur voice, even though its kinda funny..
TWEWY09 3 months ago
the part i dont get is..how can somebody be worth 6 dollars and not 7.25$ the way training works is that you give him for example 2 days training...he will learn the job the same way at $4 $5 $6 $7 $8 etc there is no difference if a employer says they are not hiring then just tell applicants they are not hiring and let them go look somewhere else...
hapz3000 3 months ago
The problem is that companies are taking advantage of high unemployment and are offering minimum wage for jobs that require no skill to jobs that require 4 years of college education. That happens in 3rd world countries-now it is happening here.
thatg98y6 3 months ago
@thatg98y6 Well that's how supply and demand works, when there's huge supply of workers, businesses can afford to offer less in wages. But like most pro-MW people you confuse amount of money with buying power. Productivity raises buying power, removing the MW would enable high productivity, especially in cheap goods and services.
crazypants88 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Want to make more money? Get a college degree! Any one with out a college degree should only earn minimum wage, and that means AWU, welders and A/C repair. Businesses are hurting when they can not afford to pay minimum wage. Plus can not afford to add more jobs and benefits. Minimum wage should go back down to $3 an hour.
patsaxon 3 months ago
A lobbying group against the minimum wage? How much of a complete brain-dead dupe do you have to be to fall for this bullshit?!
marley54fd 3 months ago
@marley54fd dude, this is true. it is basic economics that the minimum wage kills jobs and raises the cost of living, which both hurt the poor.
DP3mo24hofosho 3 months ago
so without a minimum wage what would stop an employer from paying his workers 50cents an hour to maximize profits?
NB4L 3 months ago
@NB4L The laws of supply and demand and the fact that a potential employee has to consent to the job. If he's being offered scraps and he knows he can do better he will not be inclined to accept 50 cents/hour.
But hey let's just assume what you say is true, that with out a minimum wage employers can just pay whatever to maximize profits. If that's valid why are there any wages above the minimum wage rate? Because like I said wages are determined by supply and demand, not just by employers
crazypants88 3 months ago
@crazypants88 i got it thank you for the reply
NB4L 3 months ago
@NB4L Don't mention it
crazypants88 3 months ago
@NB4L simple, competition for your labor is what determines the price, just like any other good...businesses will compete to get the best workers and if you're one of them you will take the job that pays you the most for your services. companies always want to outperform their competition and they can only do that with the best workers.
familyguy350z 3 months ago
You are a commie.
No no no. If you make minimum wage, it is best you suck off the tax payer for medical, dental, education, child care, housing, and food stamps.
Because fuck man, it is best the capitalist max out profits with all the money they refuse to pay you, and make the tax payer cover your cost.
You think this is the good old days when a person could earn their way in life.
Fuck no man, if is all about capitalist profits!!!!
They mean more then you, or the tax payer...
MrAppleseed88 4 months ago
@MrAppleseed88 You just don't get it do you. The problem is the fact that we have a central bank that loans to the government with interest then collects taxes through the income tax. If we did away with a private central bank and gave congress the power to create money with no interest we could do away with income taxes and implement a national sales tax and tariffs that could take care social programs.
Agoraphobicslove 2 months ago
I don't have much of an economics background, so I could just be taking bits of data out of context; why is Australia's unemployment rate only 4%, while minimum wage there is $15/hr and rising?
Xiricon 4 months ago
@Xiricon [why is Australia's unemployment rate only 4%, while minimum wage there is $15/hr and rising?]
There is no direct link between min wage and total unemployment. Unemployment levels are MOST affected by the general state of the economy. Australia is relatively booming from global demand for natural resources.
Min wage is a secondary factor and as the video explained, only affects those workers whose "worth" are near or below min wage.
danL1011 3 months ago
@danL1011 because people who work 2 days per week are considered EMPLOYED in Australia lol. Its easy to live by statistics but its harder to see what they are comprised of.
USTreasuryBond 3 months ago
@USTreasuryBond I was quoting someone else on the Aus. unemployment rate. Not too surprising to learn that Aus. fudges their employment numbers too. Sort of like the US advertises U3 instead of U6 I suppose.
$15/hr strikes me as high. I foresee problems ahead for Aus. when global demand for Aus. exports shrink -- might be years away though.
danL1011 3 months ago
@USTreasuryBond Your (corp friendly) vid is partly true.In the UK,business moaned+whined about introduction of "livable-ish"min wage-but then realised(or was it their idea to begin with?)that they could/would and indeed ARE laying off permanent better paid workers and employing min wage Agency staff (NO holiday/sick etc benefits to CARE about) These DISPOSIBLE human beings are living day to day not knowing if they are wanted tomorrow,while corp profits are SKY high(and yacht REspray firms...?)
Slave2PaperWithInkOn 3 months ago