Bernie Sanders' $15 minimum wage
- Thread starter herkyhawk00
- Start date
Correct. I'm sitting here racking my brain trying to figure out all the multi-billion dollar corporations who are paying their employees a bare minimum wage. Truth is, most multi-billion dollar corporations require highly skilled and educated labor and aren't paying the bulk of their workforce a minimum wage. Minimum wages are most often paid out by small businesses and many in the food service industry. You put a $15/hour minimum wage on them and you will put them out of business or in order to survive they will cut their workforce drastically. Small business makes up the largest sector of our economy. This increased minimum wage would end up being a disaster.
As usual, the unintended consequences of these ideas will only end up hurting the poor.
Well maybe they could move?
During the Great Depression there was massive amounts of the population that moved across the country seeking better employment. Maybe these folks could move from the burgeoning cities that can't support them to where there are jobs available and a lack of a workforce to fill those jobs along with a lower cost of living, a situation that is true in many of the smaller towns and cities across the Midwest.
You never mentioned the poverty level in America and I wonder why. The top 1% make more money than the bottom half of our population - and they've created that gap through lobbyists and large political donations and the wealthy have nickel and dimed a huge portion of our population into poverty through legislation. That's the real redistribution of wealth in America, and it's sick that the right is fine with it.
Really??
I doubt Northern Indiana is a lot different from Iowa but you do realize that a 1 bedroom apartment is usually $500 per month min. Then you have food, utilities, healthcare, car insurance and gas just to have car to take you to work and back.
You can argue against increasing the min wage if you want, even to me it seems like a bit of a double edged sword but living on your own on min wage alone sounds dang near impossible without some government assistance.
Tax the super rich, billionaire types, and directly give that money to the working poor. The non working poor get none of it.
The wealth gap is crazy. I am not for a minimum wage but the super rich having all the money is not good for the country.
The wealth gap is crazy. I am not for a minimum wage but the super rich having all the money is not good for the country.
A. So what if you do pay more? You also probably make more too. You owe more to society since you are benefiting more from it. And if your handle has anything to do with your job and you are a farmer, you are the last person who should be whining about taxes with all the subsidies you get.
B. It is our money managed by the government. It costs a lot of money to create the society we live in and there is a price to be paid by everyone here to maintain. As for crony capitalism I have a lot more faith in the left to do something about it than the right, but yeah, that's not really happening for anyone in Washington. Bernie is the only candidate that I believe is actually serious about trying to do something about it too. Of course, he won't be able to do much because of Congress.
C. I pay taxes. So yes, I have carried them on my back, and if you pay taxes you have too. How many times have major businesses been bailed out by tax payers over the last 30-40 years? How many tax breaks and other subsidies do businesses get to locate in certain areas while at the same time getting all sorts of infrastructure improvements for them at the taxpayer's expense? What, you think the money for all that comes from the magic money tree?
D. No, if money at the top were used to reinvest in companies rather than pad CEO's pocketbooks like was done in the 50's and 60's then businesses themselves wouldn't see much of a change from the bottom line. Of course, share holders and CEO's would take a pay cut and that's why they always complain so much about this. You can trace a direct line between CEO and top executive pay and wage stagnation.
Not sure what your comment has to do with mine and I have no idea why you are trying to take digs at my profession other than you have nothing new to contribute to this debate and realize your argument is selfish and weak.
A fool and his money are soon parted. Income level is only one of many factors in determining poverty. This idea that if you just increase income it will reduce poverty is drivel. I know folks making $25K-30K living comfortably. I also know folks making 3 times that with squat to show for it.
Of course the anarchist republicans or tea party or whatever they are will also bitch about too many people being on welfare, when in reality most of them work or have tried working long hard hours and it doesn't pay enough for them to live. People are so dumb.
Sentence # 1 shows you're missing the point. # 2 - I'm not sure living in a trailer or shanty in small town Iowa counts as "Comfortable". Also, I assume you are speaking of young, working age people with children living that way, not older folks with inheritance money.
So a burger flipper gets paid $31K per year, that means a starting teacher should make $62K a year, which means an engineer should get paid $180K a year, which means a doctor should get paid $360K a year. So what does this solve again? Eventually $31k will be the new poverty rate, and it probably won't take very long. So long as we don't teach the burger flipper about inflation he/she will be pleased as punch.
Get on the g'ment teet and have a football roster of kids.
Could you make a list of the companies in the United States that make more than $10 billion in net profit a year? I'm guessing there will be less than 40 companies on that list, but of course you can only do this for publicly-listed companies since you can't get the data for private ones.
And for the record, NONE of those companies have 206,000 employees on minimum wage, which is how many people they'd need to raise salaries by $7 per hour in order to equate to $3 billion per annum in additional costs (yes, I'm ignoring tax for this mathematical proof of your idiocy).
I don't get this. You don't want to guarantee a floor for the value of labor, but you do want to guarantee a floor for income by redistributing down. Is that a correct assessment of your position? Work for peanuts, but the government will send us all checks? I don't see how that is advantageous over simply valuing labor to a degree that people can earn a living.
I love the closet corporatists in this thread talking about using the government to end corporatism.
the initial wage laws were to prevent abuse, were they not? When did it become about a "fair wage" or a "living wage" and who determines what is fair. I am not well versed on the history of wage laws but it appears that FDR set the initial minimum wage at a whopping 25 cents per hour or $11/week based on a 44/hr work week. Inflation adjusted that is about $4.20 per hour in 2015. Bernie and the rest are trying to make the minimum wage something it was never intended to be. They are trying to fix the wealth gap by forcing wages for jobs that in many cases would be automated at a $15/hr wage (plus workers comp, unemployment insurance, FICA, and rest). I don't doubt Bernie's compassion, I doubt his solution will do anything to really fix the problem.
Absolutely. ^^ For those that espouse the "fair wage"...how would you deal with someone that now made more money due to a higher minimum wage, but would promptly spend/blow it on a foolish purchase, etc, and be right back to broke? They will still be in poverty and no amount of extra money directed their way will solve that.
On the contrary, it will create more problems. For one, fewer jobs will be available for unskilled people to apply for. Secondly, it will create more inflation.
The age old question lives on - if raising the minimum wage to $15 is good, why isn't $20 better? Why not $100? Why not $100,000?
I don't know this, but I suspect poverty status for purposes of qualifying for government benefits is determined by your pay, not your spending habits or bank account. If I'm right about that, this foolish spender wouldn't be on government assistance and I wouldn't have to do anything with that person. When I say I'm for a fair wage. I'm talking about fair to me. I want these people making enough money so that I don't have to make up the difference. They can spend it all on cough syrup and anal waxing for all I care.
That question has been answered numerous times. We want to raise it to the point where they no longer qualify for assistance so I can stop paying. Its entirely practical and self interested.
If trump can deliver on his message of getting more commerce in usa,wages will rise due to supply and demand.If he delivers on his promise that we obey our own immigration laws,wages will rise for legal americans due to supply and demand.
a
that's fair - I was trying to be nice. I do think Bernie is good for the national debate, however. I wouldn't vote for him, but I at least know his intentions if he were to get elected. Can't say that with most politicians in my opinion.
that's fair - I was trying to be nice. I do think Bernie is good for the national debate, however. I wouldn't vote for him, but I at least know his intentions if he were to get elected. Can't say that with most politicians in my opinion.
I think the $15 an hour mark is a bit high for minimum wage but I love the people who think any person can live comfortably off 25K. I'm not sure what rent and utilities are where you live but wow. Outside of small Iowa towns, that just isn't reasonable. I guess it depends upon your definition of comfortable.
Natural - poverty status is determined by income level...but, income level is relative in my mind, because as soon as you raise the "floor", then inflation will soon cause the new, higher income level to be the new floor...and voila, the same people will still be lacking...and still in need of gov't assistance.
I can see no way that raising the minimum wage is going to reduce, in any significant quantities, the number of people needing gov't assistance. Once the wage is raised, prices will follow suit.
So you punish those who have created wealth for themselves by helping those who chose not to do the things necessary in order to climb the ladder. Unbelievable! It amazes me how common this thought process is. It reminds me of "No Child Left Behind" and giving everyone a medal. The thought process that because you are well off you should be forced to lose more of your income to prevent yourself from earning more money in order to help those who don't have much, it absolutely asinine. Unfortunately, people that have your thought process can't see why that thinking is so incredibly ludicrous.
We really shouldn't need to guess at this. We have been running this experiment with minimum wage for the better part of a century. What do the economics show? How does inflation here compare to nations without a minimum? When the debate was about $10/hour several years ago I googled it up and the data seemed to negate your position.
Empirically your harms to not occur when we raise the minimum wage. Based on history, we are more likely to spur economic growth by raising the minimum wage and pumping more disposable income to the bottom of the food chain who in turn is likely to spend it and produce more jobs. Jobs are driven primarily by demand, not supply.
"The root cause of today’s underperforming economy remains insufficient spending by households, businesses and governments to fully employ all those who want a job. And the cure for this is simply policy measures to boost spending."
http://www.epi.org/blog/productivity-growth-job-growth/
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/econo...mall-business-owners-back-a-minimum-wage-hike
https://www.americanprogressaction....minimum-wage-would-help-not-hurt-our-economy/
How is randomly picking numbers from some arbitrary metric you created proving anything? Why $10 billion in net profit? You even said yourself that you can't get all the data necessary to even begin to make any logical conclusions. You are making a strawman here just to suit your needs. That or you explained your point so poorly that you are the last person to be declaring what is idiocy.
"Creating wealth" for yourself by making everyone else's life miserable and harming the well being of the United States is not something we should be celebrating. "Greed is good" is not a winning policy or is it a moral policy we should be following.
I wonder how many people that are trumpeting the $15/hr. minimum wage have people working for them.
In my little world, a $15 wage would mean either eliminating at least 5 of the 18 people working for me, and having a massive downgrade in the quality of our product, or increasing our prices 15-20%. And then watching half our business go elsewhere because we just prices ourselves out of business.
This would completely rock several industries' worlds, in a very bad way.
AND, you're forgetting to mention that it's not just laborer pay that goes up, but now management needs to see an appropriate pay raise as well. Or, I guess they'd lose their jobs too.
Now, I really like what IKEA did. They had MIT come up with a living wage that was specific to the area around their stores based on costs of living in that locale. But, that involves people who actually understand economics, so such an idea would make Bernie's head hurt.
In my little world, a $15 wage would mean either eliminating at least 5 of the 18 people working for me, and having a massive downgrade in the quality of our product, or increasing our prices 15-20%. And then watching half our business go elsewhere because we just prices ourselves out of business.
This would completely rock several industries' worlds, in a very bad way.
AND, you're forgetting to mention that it's not just laborer pay that goes up, but now management needs to see an appropriate pay raise as well. Or, I guess they'd lose their jobs too.
Now, I really like what IKEA did. They had MIT come up with a living wage that was specific to the area around their stores based on costs of living in that locale. But, that involves people who actually understand economics, so such an idea would make Bernie's head hurt.
lol, this isn't even a serious argument. Take that one back to the echo chamber.
However, continue to ignore my point about welfare being redone if or even eliminated if a living wage is maintained. I don't like paying for free loaders either but I think the way you incentivize people to work is actually make it worth their while to do it.
This is actually what I support. I was just going with the $15 argument for the sake of making an argument. To make it work best, you would have to adjust rates for cost of living. Plus, this provides a whole new incentive for spreading business around and into areas that really need it if the cost of living becomes a factor for where to place the factory. I also think that of any of the plans out there, this is the only one that has a snowball's chance in hell of passing, but that's only with a complete overthrow of Congress and the Republicans lose power there.
I consider myself a Republican, and I would be pretty disgusted if a plan like the one we're discussing were introduced and immediately shot down.
We increased our starting wage for new hires this year, which will increase our seasoned employees' wages as well, and I couldn't be happier for them. They deserve it, and we were able to make it work within the confines of our budget. Win/win!
Gosh, I didn't realize the United States is a Third World country, and that we have it so bad here. I guess I need to get out more.
Wouldn't all your competition face the same choice, less quality or higher prices? Now if the MIT plan was around any just your locality went up to $15 while your competition down the road got by at $9 you might have a point. But one of the advantages of one national standard is you are treated the same and have no unique disadvantage.
Nat, Nat, Nat...a write up from the very left leaning EPI, an opinion piece from a US News magazine and another piece from the left leaning American Progress Action group hardly adds up to proof of anything related to the minimum wage.
I don't have much time to respond now, but seriously, talk to some actual business owners, read further, past the propaganda of the left...and mostly, let's wait and see what really happens when the MW gets raised to something that actually will be meaningful. (Caveat - I know multiple business owners that support an increased MW, as well as many that do not. This isn't a one way street subject by any means, even amongst business owners.)
I realize many business owners like the idea that their customers will have more cash to spend. I think that was in one of the links. There are studies on what happened in the past when we raised the wage. They are mixed, but lean towards positive economic outcomes far more than not. If you feel differently, that burden is on you because I've provided empirical data that shows its a fine economic decision before we even get into all the other rational reasons for wanting to pay people via work rather then handouts.Nat, Nat, Nat...a write up from the very left leaning EPI, an opinion piece from a US News magazine and another piece from the left leaning American Progress Action group hardly adds up to proof of anything related to the minimum wage.
I don't have much time to respond now, but seriously, talk to some actual business owners, read further, past the propaganda of the left...and mostly, let's wait and see what really happens when the MW gets raised to something that actually will be meaningful. (Caveat - I know multiple business owners that support an increased MW, as well as many that do not. This isn't a one way street subject by any means, even amongst business owners.)
I find your desire to wait until after the election and after some bill is passed to form an opinion on this topic odd. But if you hold to that, then you are free to bow out of the conversation. Don't expect me to follow you to the sidelines however.
So are you in the $10.10 camp or the $15? The difference between $10.10 and $15 is more than a rounding error.
I'm in the living wage camp which I would define as whatever amount it takes to remove a person from poverty if they work 40 hours a week. I think that's currently closer to $10. I sort of have a soft spot for that MIT regional wage idea, but I can think of some rather obvious drawbacks for business owners. My bottom line is I don't want to pay for people who are working. I also don't want to eliminate the safety net. So I want work to pay more than welfare.
