Well, they would spend it which generates economic activity on the whole $50. That's generally the critique (right or wrong, I'm not 100% sure) about taxes vs. dropping money buckets on the poor. The rich will save a large (certainly larger) portion than the poors, who will typically spend all of it. Ergo, giving it to the poors generates more economic activity, ergo jobs, ergo growth.
Rich people... I don't care about taxes because they're already low and I'm already getting a huge payout via the bond buying and it's tax free. There's no possible way you could give poors a better deal unless you doubled the minimum wage and even then, that would just be a push probably.
How many small business do you know that could afford to pay their employees $50/hour? Not every business out there makes millions of dollars of profit each year.
No, what I meant to say was that raising the minimum wage to $50/hr would force the majority of small businesses to go bankrupt. In a perfect world, raising the minimum wage a couple of dollars would undoubtedly hurt their bottom line but most "sound" businesses would have enough of a buffer to absorb such an increase without compromising the existence of the businesses itself. The wage increases could be offset through price increases, profits or productivity (leaner).
It's not that cut and dry and you know it. Stop being an asshole Bob.
If a business can "absorb" this without hurting it's bottom line, then it was not price competitive before (i.e., over-priced already) and would be out of business fairly soon anyway.
You misread what I wrote. I stated that a wage increase would definitely hurt their bottom line but it shouldn't bankrupt them. A business being run on such thin margins that it can't afford a small wage increase is fundamentally flawed and will most likely fail anyhow.
So you agree that the gov't mucking about with the economic system has far reaching, unintended, and unfair consequences? Aren't a lot of union contract wages tied to the minimum wage? They are guaranteed to make a certain amount ABOVE minimum wage, so of course they would love to see an increase. Would everybody see a similar increase? Would firefighters who make $14/hour see anymore money if low skilled burger flippers suddenly started making $10/hour? We want to make everyone "equal" by raising the lowest common denominator versus promoting continuing education, hard work, and smart personal decisions. "You can't feed your three kids and wife on minimum wage. We need to change the system." VS "You are an idiot for having three kids while working at a fast food joint." Let's incentivize bad behavior and punish smart behavior. What results do we expect?
Amazon pays their starting employees $12/hour. So, they are not affected by the proposed increase in minimum wage. They already figured out that their employees are worth more to them than $7.25/hour.
It's actually more like a 60% increase, if you account for payroll tax, ss etc. However, monetarily speaking it is only a few dollars more and relatively small when compared to the "proposed" $25 or $50 increase. There is something inherently wrong when an individual works full time and maybe holds down a couple of part time jobs and is still below the poverty line.
~ $11/hr x 2,000 working hours in a year is what $22,000?
So employees should be paid based on the value that they offer a company? Minimum wage decreases job opportunities because young, unskilled workers often can not produce $10 of value, let alone $7.25 in value for small business. My granddad retired from the Ford plant. He tells me of incompetent employees who couldn't perform on the manufacturing line, yet couldn't be fired because of the union. They were paid $22/hour to basically push a broom while the other workers provided the value to the company. Surely you are not in favor of that practice?
The poverty line???? HAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHHAHAHAAAAAA...I deal with people every day living in tax payer funded housing, eating tax payer funded food, and using tax payer subsidized water and power. They have AC, cable TV(usually a flat screen), cars, video games, smartphones, etc. They even have healthcare due to tax payers and consumers. They also reproduce at a pretty respectable rate while not having adequate employment. The poverty line is not a good measure of how Americans are doing due to our system of welfare. To go without in America means that you don't know how to fill out gov't forms.
Ironic that you mention a Ford plant, as Henry Ford was a proponent of paying employees more because he figured they would buy more of his cars and other products. Any well run business is designed in such a way that if an employee excels you reward them for their hard work. On the topic of productivity, workers today on avg produce double what they did in 1968. So I'm sorry to say but business definitely are getting a lot of bang for their buck.
Yes, but if you pay someone above the poverty line then they would not be entitled to all these benefits.
Skilled laborers are producing more or skilled machinery run by unskilled workers are producing more?
That would be awesome, but should not a business owner be free to offer a job at any wage that he deems fair? Should a free citizen be able to accept work at any wage they deem worthy? And should not a wage be tied to the actual value of the work and not an imaginary minimum that would actually have to vary greatly throughout the nation due to cost of living being so different in many areas?
Our Federal Overlords put the poverty level at $11,490 for an individual. If you're working a minimum wage job full time, say you have ~20% in taxes taken out (I wonder if that $11,490 figure is pre or post-tax), you could work 40 hours a week, take two unpaid weeks off a year and be above the poverty level.
I recall a time when business owners were free to offer a job at any wage that they deemed fair. I believe for a few hundred years we figured out that paying people nothing and treating them as property would be better for the bottom line. Today we choose to pay migrant workers (illegals) peanuts to do the work no honest American is interested in doing for that little pay.
I stand corrected. I was working off $23,500 which is the poverty line for a family of 4. I should have said the head of household instead of an individual my bad.
"You can't be poor! You've got no job yet still have a house, a car, tattoos, AC, cigarettes, internet, cable TV, a smartphone, Xbox, DVD player, and three kids who haven't starved to death!!!" Maybe you just make very poor personal and financial decisions and should be extremely thankful that you live in a country that will provide for you DESPITE your idiotic actions.
Should you be a head of house hold with kids if you only make $23,500? Is this like the "right to health insurance" thing? Do we agree or disagree that you should not have the right to reproduce and expect that strangers will pay for you and your kid?
Yeah, the kids should share the fate of the parents. Dealing with the resulting crime and and societal impact is more expensive, but at least they aren't mooching off the system, amirite?
I know you don't support abortions, but would you support parents being able to sell their children? Serious question.
The kids ARE sharing the fate of their parents!!!! They learn that behavior like that is acceptable and the norm. We are dooming them to a continual cycle of welfare by not interjecting accountability into the system. The current system is
Yeah, the kids should share the fate of the parents. Dealing with the resulting crime and and societal impact is more expensive, but at least they aren't mooching off the system, amirite?
I know you don't support abortions, but would you support parents being able to sell their children? Serious question.
ed, if we can come up with a new system that would actually decrease poverty and welfare while instilling a work ethic, then I would gladly accept the greater expense because it would save money and misery in the long term. I am a huge fan of "pay as you go" in gov't, but, with how fast and loose they play with the explanations of where the money is going to come from these days, it is pretty useless.
<insertfacepalm> That really went over your head there...The kids ARE sharing the fate of their parents!!!! They learn that behavior like that is acceptable and the norm. We are dooming them to a continual cycle of welfare by not interjecting accountability into the system. The current system is
As far as selling babies....HELL YES!!!! Do you know how much you can get for a healthy, white baby these days???
Actually, my answer is.......grapefruit!!! That's what you told me, right?
! Why bother even having public schools if kids are just going to drop out when 70% actually make it? That means 30% of the kids are just pissing away our tax dollars!Why do we need to give more money to the families to provide for the children after 5 years of age... isn't that what school systems are for now? Haven't they been relegated to "parenting" children instead of actually educating them?<insertfacepalm> That really went over your head there...
Let's try this again: If we strip the last remnants of the social safetynet, which I'm sure you approve of, should the kids share in the parents abject poverty?
It's almost as if you completely ignore all the history of the country before these programs were put in place. We can actually look back to see what life was like. Hell, we can look at other countries with the kind of wealth disparity with a 25% poverty rate and approximate standards of living, which I believe was the rate before the "War on Poverty."
I mean
Came into this thread even though I never post in Vs. anymore just because of the thread title. Disappointing that it's just another minimum wage thread. :lol:
Ah. So, two parents working 40 hours week, 50 weeks a year at $7.25 minimum wage jobs (minus a generous 20% in taxes)... $23,200. 2013 Federal Poverty Guidelines puts a household of four at $23,550. So, that's $350 below the poverty line for a family of four.... but, again, that's with an overly generous 20% taken out in payroll taxes. So, by this "poverty line" measure, we should just raise minimum wage to $7.40/hour.
BUT DAYCARE! Who is going to take care of all their babies? Someone has to stay home.
Ironically enough I believe Amazon is doing precisely that to comply with Seattle's new minimum wage increase which brought minimum wage up to $15.
I should not be concerned about the expenditures and lack of moral and ethical upbringing brought about by selfish people having kids and expecting strangers to pay for them?
So cops, firemen, and other publc service workers who have kids are, by your logic, moral failures because the tax dollars of strangers go towards feeding their families?
I would think that people in public service in some shape or fashion are required to work for the tax dollars that make up their income. Not so sure the same can be said for those that collect unemployment, EBT, TANF etc but I'll have to research that in more detail
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.............Whoooooooo....every time you guys try to make this argument, it cracks me up. Do you really believe it? Can you really not see the difference? Thanks to GBA Star for stating the obvious. I tried several times unsuccessfully in the past, now I just laugh hysterically knowing that my point was well made if that is the best retort you guys can come up with.
I'll go a step further for you, Msutt. I indeed do in fact find people who doom innocent children to a life of poverty and mooching just so they can benefit from our generous welfare system "undesirable". Straight up evil is another way to put it. I also find it undesirable that our gov't has given incentives to destroy the concept of a two parent household. http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/the-number-of-children-living-in-single-parent-homes-has-nearly-doubled-in The number of US children living in single-parent homes has nearly doubled in 50 years: Census data. This sucks....agree or disagree?
A.) Are you really trying to compare public service workers who hold some kind of a job to those who do not hold a job?
