$25/hour minimum wage proposal rejected overwhelmingly!

[HenryHill]

The basic tenet of Economics is Demand creates Jobs.

Demand is possible when more and more people have discretionary money to spend.

SPENDING drives the economy, every time, always and forever.

Tax cuts for the rich only allow them to more readily monopolize and shore up their position.

There is VooDoo Economics, which IS the driver of the Earnings Gap, and there is Grass Roots Jobs, which provide DEMAND, which spirals the economy UP.

Which side of the aisle has blocked all the job creation initiatives, while creating diversion and outlawing Women's Bodies?


All the Tax Breaks for business and the Rich is pure bullshit, and never does anything to CREATE JOBS; it merely makes life more comfy for them, and allows them to buy other existing businesses, so they can underpay them too, and earn more in the process.

Notice how it's NEVER, CREATE JOBS, get a TAX BREAK?

Why is that, do you suppose?

Because they BOUGHT the legislation, and the propaganda that made it happen.

 

[hrfdez]

Why don't they just print more money instead of raising minimum wage?

Lol....just like we do here, Quantitative Easing, rightttttttt

 

[Deus Vult]

The basic tenet of Economics is Demand creates Jobs.

Demand is possible when more and more people have discretionary money to spend.

SPENDING drives the economy, every time, always and forever.

Tax cuts for the rich only allow them to more readily monopolize and shore up their position.

There is VooDoo Economics, which IS the driver of the Earnings Gap, and there is Grass Roots Jobs, which provide DEMAND, which spirals the economy UP.

Which side of the aisle has blocked all the job creation initiatives, while creating diversion and outlawing Women's Bodies?


All the Tax Breaks for business and the Rich is pure bullshit, and never does anything to CREATE JOBS; it merely makes life more comfy for them, and allows them to buy other existing businesses, so they can underpay them too, and earn more in the process.

Notice how it's NEVER, CREATE JOBS, get a TAX BREAK?

Why is that, do you suppose?

Because they BOUGHT the legislation, and the propaganda that made it happen.

so who's been in control of the White House for 6 years and had complete control of Congress from 2006 to 2010 and the Senate the whole time? Stimulus bills were passed under both idiots as I recall. Where are the jobs?

My discretionary spending has dropped a bit since 2009. And it's really dropping since a certain law went into effect. Who passed that law through both houses of Congress? I'll wait here while you type up more partisan bullsh1t to avoid taking responsibility for the fact that both parties are the same- completely corrupt.

And the war on women? You really do believe anything MSNBC tells you.

 

[Mule Train]

I like Swiss cheese, a high pay rate and Telecasters. Oh, and I also like boobs a lot.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6a3fck0NBI]Plunk Your Magic Twanger Froggy! - YouTube[/ame]

 

[SteveC]

Only the rich create jobs, and only if you are going to make them richer.

This is why we should abolish all taxes on the rich, in the hope they see fit to trickle a sliver of it down to those who are paying taxes, otherwise, there is no infrastructure such as roads and bridges for them to transport their products to the taxpayers.

And who decides who is rich?
The rich do.

Why do you hate America, and it's capitalist structure?

And why do you hate those who might be bribed into creating jobs for us taxpayers?

If you don't trust the government here, go someplace where you do, and stop complaining about some foolish concept of equal burden.

well said… funny, but sadly…. true!

Ah, therein lies the quandary… capitalistic structure.

If, left to our own self control, the structure would work perfectly and, if you believe that it's a zero-sum game and, if you believe that things will always balance out over time, then you have a pretty good capitalistic society.

The singular flaw is us - people. We are imperfect. And, we are growing more incapable of self control each millennium.

 

[Markie A]

I grew up in a Blue Collar Automotive town. You could get a different job every week & make big Union wages. There were guys that lived in the low end & guys that lived in upscale middle class neighborhoods working side by side on the production line.

Those that lived in the nice areas typically had nice Cars. They typically sent their kids to College, paid off their nice Homes & retired comfortably.

Those that chose to live in the low end were typically broke by Tuesday, drove shitty Cars, didn't send their kids to College, & never paid off their Homes (which cost 1/3 as much as the other guy's House).

These guys worked in Union shops, making identical Union wages. Anyone whom has spent any time in a Union shop has seen it! How the fuk does this happen?

Low end guys will tell you that always had bad luck. The upper middle class guys will tell you that they worked their asses off & were financially responsible............ read as "not a dumb fuk with my money".



Again, How does this happen?



I would guess that many of us started out well below the minimum wage of our generation.

 

[KSG_Standard]

The basic tenet of Economics is...

You've never studied economics or history have you?

 

[PraXis]

How about this.... we raise taxes on everyone making over $500k to 65%. Anyone that makes $250k-500k to 50%. Then $100k-250k to 40%. Everyone below $100k pays 0%.

Is that fair?

Regardless of the tax brackets, the middle class gets fvcked the most. The middle class needs the most tax relief. Since federal taxes do not fund the federal government, why have any taxes at all?

 

[Markie A]

How about this.... we raise taxes on everyone making over $500k to 65%. Anyone that makes $250k-500k to 50%. Then $100k-250k to 40%. Everyone below $100k pays 0%.

We should also include a tax of 5% (less deductions of course) for those making over $3 million a year.



Then we should sell the people on even higher taxes for the "Ultra Rich" making over 250K per year & laugh at them when we keep the same tax bracket for those making the $3 million per year ......................... oh wait, we already did that.







No wonder they think we are too dumb to think for ourselves.

 

[So What]

Serious question:

If the minimum wage is raised to $10.10/hr, $20/hr, $25/hr, or any amount you decide to throw out there.......will the income threshold to qualify for public assistance remain the same as it is now?

If so, many of the people will no longer qualify, and will be ill prepared to manage their living expenses.

If not, what is the purpose of moving the minimum wage up?

If we will also increase the threshold for public assistance, thereby not improving anyone's living conditions, those people who are the intended recipients of the improved wage will not see a significant improvement in living conditions.

Those who are on assistance programs will stay on them, and the spending power will not improve, because all costs of living will have to be adjusted to cover the increase.

Minimum wage will always be just that, a minimum wage.

Those earning it, and those who can use it as a headline grabber, will never consider it as a "living wage".

Even if it were $100/hr, it will not be enough, as long as, the government is determined to keep a significant portion of the population dependent on government assistance.

If the answer to my question is that current income based poverty level definition remains at the current level, and only increase with the CPI, then some of this generation would have the ability to climb out.

More with each successive generation.

But the government has to be willing to let them go.

My 2 cents...

 

[Mule Train]

....and rain.

Oh God, Here Comes The Rain.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEUT8T3vrKY]Grateful Dead - Looks Like Rain (1978) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[HenryHill]

 

[KSG_Standard]

Political crusades for raising the minimum wage are back again. Advocates of minimum-wage laws often give themselves credit for being more “compassionate” towards “the poor.” But they seldom bother to check what are the actual consequences of such laws.

One of the simplest and most fundamental economic principles is that people tend to buy more of something when the price is lower and less when the price is higher. Yet advocates of minimum-wage laws seem to think that the government can raise the price of labor without reducing the amount of labor that will be hired.

When you turn from economic principles to hard facts, the case against minimum-wage laws is even stronger. Countries with minimum-wage laws almost invariably have higher rates of unemployment than countries without minimum-wage laws.

Most nations today have minimum-wage laws, but they have not always had them. Unemployment rates have been very much lower in places and times when there were no minimum-wage laws.

Switzerland is one of the few modern nations without a minimum-wage law. In 2003, The Economist magazine reported: “Switzerland’s unemployment neared a five-year high of 3.9 percent in February.” In February of this year, Switzerland’s unemployment rate was 3.1 percent. A recent issue of The Economist reported Switzerland’s unemployment rate as 2.1 percent.

Most Americans today have never seen unemployment rates that low. However, there was a time when there was no federal minimum-wage law in the United States. The last time was during the Coolidge administration, when the annual unemployment rate got as low as 1.8 percent. When Hong Kong was a British colony, it had no minimum-wage law. In 1991, its unemployment rate was under 2 percent.

As for being “compassionate” toward “the poor,” this assumes that there is some enduring class of Americans who are poor in some meaningful sense, and that there is something compassionate about reducing their chances of getting a job.

Most Americans living below the government-set poverty line have a washer and/or dryer, as well as a computer. More than 80 percent have air conditioning. More than 80 percent also have both a landline and a cell phone. Nearly all have television and a refrigerator. Most Americans living below the official poverty line also own a motor vehicle and have more living space than the average European — not Europeans in poverty, the average European.

Why then are they called “poor”? Because government bureaucrats create the official definition of poverty, and they do so in ways that provide a political rationale for the welfare state — and, not incidentally, for the bureaucrats’ own jobs.

Most people in the lower income brackets are not an enduring class. Most working people in the bottom 20 percent in income at a given time do not stay there over time. More of them end up in the top 20 percent than remain behind in the bottom 20 percent.

There is nothing mysterious about the fact that most people start off in entry-level jobs that pay much less than they will earn after they get some work experience. But when minimum-wage levels are set without regard to their initial productivity, young people are disproportionately unemployed — priced out of jobs.

In European welfare states where minimum wages, and mandated job benefits to be paid for by employers, are more generous than in the United States, unemployment rates for younger workers are often 20 percent or higher, even when there is no recession.

Unemployed young people lose not only the pay they could have earned but, at least equally important, the work experience that would enable them to earn higher rates of pay later on.

Minorities, like young people, can also be priced out of jobs. In the United States, the last year in which the black unemployment rate was lower than the white unemployment rate — 1930 — was also the last year when there was no federal minimum-wage law. Inflation in the 1940s raised the pay of even unskilled workers above the minimum wage set in 1938. Economically, it was the same as if there were no minimum-wage law by the late 1940s.

In 1948 the unemployment rate of black 16-year-old and 17-year-old males was 9.4 percent. This was a fraction of what it would become in even the most prosperous years from 1958 on, as the minimum wage was raised repeatedly to keep up with inflation.

Some “compassion” for “the poor”!

Thomas Sowell

 

[Caleb]

I just don't get it
But, I do realize it's because of where I live.
I do plan to move back to the sticks, and, take a huge
cut in salary

Again the exact same boat. I live in one of the most expensive areas of the country. If I made what I make here out in the hills it would be a good living. Here I live like a damn peasant. I have to save up money if I want to buy a new pair of shoes. It's freaking frustrating...

 

[El_Greco]

I am happy with the place where I live...

1 driving hour to Frankfurt, or Nürnberg, or Stuttgart

So you should be somewhere near Heilbronn? That's where I am.

 

[lǎo​wài]

So you have your "Smart Ass Detector" on today?



I don't care if they raised the MW to $1,000.00 per hour . . . nothing, i.e., N O T H I N G is gonna change . . . . not ever.

Just more of what you delineated above.

BTW, at $1,000.00/hr . . . how much would a 40 of Colt Malt Liquor cost me?

JimJim, JimJim, JimJim. The price of a 40 of Colt 45 is immaterial. How can one put on price on something that "Works Every Time"

 

[Mule Train]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT0OJEFlq7A]George Carlin - The Owners of America - YouTube[/ame]

 

[stondoubt]

I wouldn't support $25/hour minimum wage here... however, the minimum wage has not increased since the raise to $7.25/hour in July 2009. Currently, you would have to earn $8.01/hour to make up for inflation of the dollar. Add in the rising cost of everything - beyond inflation - and it is not a far stretch to think that $10/hour is a fair minimum wage.

 

[realjimjim]

JimJim, JimJim, JimJim. The price of a 40 of Colt 45 is immaterial. How can one put on price on something that "Works Every Time"

 

[lǎo​wài]

The basic tenet of Economics is Demand creates Jobs.

Demand is possible when more and more people have discretionary money to spend.

SPENDING drives the economy, every time, always and forever.

Tax cuts for the rich only allow them to more readily monopolize and shore up their position.

There is VooDoo Economics, which IS the driver of the Earnings Gap, and there is Grass Roots Jobs, which provide DEMAND, which spirals the economy UP.

Which side of the aisle has blocked all the job creation initiatives, while creating diversion and outlawing Women's Bodies?


All the Tax Breaks for business and the Rich is pure bullshit, and never does anything to CREATE JOBS; it merely makes life more comfy for them, and allows them to buy other existing businesses, so they can underpay them too, and earn more in the process.

Notice how it's NEVER, CREATE JOBS, get a TAX BREAK?

Why is that, do you suppose?

Because they BOUGHT the legislation, and the propaganda that made it happen.

How much legislation has been written by ALEC? How much is written at the state level?

I will say that tax cuts for the top have resulted in the creation of millions of jobs. It's just that those jobs created in 'Murica are mostly minimum wage and the rest are far below that.

so who's been in control of the White House for 6 years and had complete control of Congress from 2006 to 2010 and the Senate the whole time? Stimulus bills were passed under both idiots as I recall. Where are the jobs?[/ QUOTE]

Where are the jobs indeed. Is this a troll? Filibuster? Vows to oppose anything the president or dems do? I agree that both parties are nothing more than two sides of the same coin, only differentiating themselves on social issues, but they should still pragmatically conduct the business of government.

My discretionary spending has dropped a bit since 2009. And it's really dropping since a certain law went into effect. Who passed that law through both houses of Congress? I'll wait here while you type up more partisan bullsh1t to avoid taking responsibility for the fact that both parties are the same- completely corrupt.

My discretionary spending has gone off the charts since I left the land of the free.

And the war on women? You really do believe anything MSNBC tells you.

Are you seriously suggesting that one particular political party doesn't have an unhealthy interest in the goings on in a women's uterus?

I'm glad I'm from the United States. Were I not from there (here?), I'd have no idea what it meant to chase the American Dream.

I tried it inna 'Murica but failed. Should have gotten a government job, or at least a job in a company the relies on government contracts. You know... the private sector.