It's not a race issue, it's a socioeconomic issue! Well, then why don't we raise the minimum wage to let the lowest on the socioeconomic scale have a better chance of getting out of there so it actually pays a living wage.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

ECON 101, BRO

Cost passed on to the consumers. And we cant have that.


Fuck poor people. Just kill em off.

I don't think an increase in the minimum wage would change anything if the poor still has the same percentage of the pie. Redistribution of wealth downward is needed. How do you do that? I don't have the answers but I'm confident that a minimum wage increase won't change anything without redistributing wealth.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

They wouldn't have the same percentage of the pie. They would have more of the pie.

It amazes me how many people have accepted that poor people making enough money to feed, clothe, and shelter themselves won't be better off than poor people who don't make enough money to feed, clothe, and shelter themselves.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Well I'm on board with that. Now we have to get the Doc and the rest of the 1%ers on board.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

On which part, that I'd rather see an opposing speaker or that I didn't know who he was. Cause both are 100% true.

The only reason I ever heard of him is from the Economist. They had his booked reviewed or quoted or something. I grabbed the book on my iPad. Then I realized he wrote the Bell Curve. I knew of that book, but I didn't know who wrote it. For financial books, I mainly stick to Roger Lowenstein and Michael Lewis. I have read a few other authors, but those two guys are the only ones where I have read more than one by the same author.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You

Yeah that is him. I generally ignored him but he seems to be going full tilt last week or so.

_________________
Elections have consequences.

You are very smart.

_________________
Elections have consequences.

Except raising the minimum wage actually does redistribute wealth if the price is passed on to consumers like everyone says.

It's not really hard to convince the well off unless they somehow get their money from corporations that take advantage of the welfare system and low cost workers who can't feed, clothe, and shelter themselves with the compensation they receive. The percentage of money spent compared to your income raises so little that it wouldn't even be noticeable.

The hard part is that there are many middle class people who have built their finances around needing that small sliver of money saved based on their spending habits and have come to rely on a group of people existing that can't feed, clothe, and shelter themselves with the compensation they receive and they would have to adjust accordingly to the price that things should cost.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Look, we either pay them in LINK cards or give them a raise. They're getting the funds one way or another.

I'm not against raising the minimum wage in theory, but are you certain that raising the minimum wage would have the effect that you are hoping to achieve? Or would the additional costs to business simply be passed on to the customers, many of whom are the people receiving the raises, and/or would the amount of jobs simply be reduced, putting many of the people we are hoping to help out of jobs?

_________________
Ecclesiastes 5:8

This has always been my position. While not being against any large scale raise in general what are the effects. My simple look at it is you will get some short term advantage then you will have a inflationary like evening of the system again. In the end your whole pie is more expensive and people have the same slices. I am not an economist though so I would need to see some real studies of this. Not just Brick said it will clearly, easily work.

_________________
Elections have consequences.

There's no free lunch with raising the minimum wage. One of the following things has to happen, and in reality, a little bit of each would happen:

1) The workers being paid a higher wage are automated away by technology because rising labor costs make capital equipment more cost competitive to use. Impact: Less jobs. Low wage workers with jobs win, but many low wage jobs disappear.
2) Companies try to maintain margins and thus raise the prices on all goods and services. Impact- Inflation is borne by all of society and real purchasing power goes down. The pain is shared broadly across the economy.
3) Companies eat the extra cost and do not lower employment or raise prices. Impact: This is the one that would hit the upper classes the most because it would lower earnings on companies that they own or run including all publicly traded companies.

In scenario 3, the low wages workers win as a greater share of our economy is flowing to them. Since corporate profits are at a record high relative to all income, this is the preferred situation. It is a good way to redistribute income. Unfortunately, none of us can control how companies collectively would respond to the forced payment of higher wages. In the end, employees must be providing value add that exceeds their costs. Otherwise, over time those jobs will disappear.

The wage discussion aside, as a country we need to provide the education and skill development that will make our high schoolers valuable to employers. One of our biggest failures as a society is that too many kids get to 18 years old and have no tangible skills to offer an employer. And as they age, it doesn't get any better.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You

Even in that case, they aren't any worse off, and it still would be passed off both to them and the higher income people. If we assume that 20% of the population gets raises, and companies pass it on to 100% of the customers, the benefit should still result in 80% of the others helping pay for more. Now, that is very simplistic and doesn't get into the idea of who eats fast food and shops at Wal-Mart but it isn't 100% poor people.

As for job losses, I think we can stop worrying about that. We live in a time where companies have a "fiduciary responsibility to maximize shareholder value". If they can eliminate a $7/hr or a $15/hr cost they will do it. They are likely operating at the lowest possible numbers. To put it another way, do you think Wal-Mart would double the number of workers if the minimum wage was cut in half?

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Stop saying that everyone has the same slices. That makes no sense. You can't raise the minimum wage and have everyone with the same slice unless you are just adjusting for inflation. In terms of productivity, the minimum wage has lagged way behind. Even with inflation, it is just starting to catch up. You guys are operating under the idea that the current minimum wage is correct for no real reason.

It may not work and what is the downside? Poor people that weren't making much money still don't make much money. You don't not do something because the worst case scenario is that things will stay the same.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

You have made this wrong assumption in the past discussing this. You are not counting all the other people that will get raises because the floor is lifted. Many jobs have salaries contractually obligated or simply set off of what the minimum is. Example is every union trade person is likely to get the same percentage increase you give the poor in effect.

_________________
Elections have consequences.

Higher min wage has already failed.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... b3e47b3d13

_________________

Poor people do well with 2 and 3, and automation is happening regardless of the minimum wage at any level. We let the minimum wage stagnate at levels that make no sense given past levels and automation happened all over the place. Even places like restaurants that are allowed to ignore the minimum wage are automating those jobs out of existence.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

I give you the example of why I think like that in replying to Jorr while you wrote this.

In answering your question I bolded I say not what is the downside but what is the point. If I believe inflationary type reactions will basically erase the new higher wages why bother?

_________________
Elections have consequences.

You know what I meant.

A lot of people get raises every year too.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Rick wants free puppies for all!

_________________

Of course not. But I don't think it's crazy to think they might squeeze down their workforce if they had to pay twice as much.

_________________
Ecclesiastes 5:8

3 is the only option that truly helps and how do you make that happen without severe government influence.

_________________

The gains may be less than hoped for but it is illogical to think that there will be no gains whatsoever.

We'll use McDonalds as an example. Let's say they pass 100% of the cost onto customers. For every customer that comes in that doesn't earn minimum wage(or if you really want to go that far, doesn't have a wage based on the minimum wage) they are paying slightly more.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Yes, I noted that 2&3 are good for low wage workers. However, where your logic fails on automation is that as you raise the cost of wages, you make investments in productivity technology more cost competitive.

If a company has a low wage worker cost of $20M annually, and you raise that by 50% to $30M annually, you now have a much bigger incentive to spend on expensive equipment to remove cost layers. Even if you have to spend say $50M upfront, your savings on employment costs are recurring each year. Basically, you have lowered the project hurdle rate significantly.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You

They already do. How many workers do you think Wal-Mart puts in every store that they don't need?

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

FTFY Jorr. Walmart and large companies get used as examples of places that take advantage of the system and can absorb things like a large raise to wages. Even if you believe all of that they are not the only employers. All employers from small places to even competitors of Walmart are hanging on by a thread. Hank's link on Seattle was informative even if the review is not yet peer reviewed.

We are basically talking about retail and service when you are talking about poor people that do not make enough to live. Outside of a behemoth like Wally World I doubt many can absorb the hit.

_________________
Elections have consequences.

Read Hank's link.

_________________
Elections have consequences.