|
|
 |
|
|
|
#1
12-02-2013, 10:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
I'm trembling at the thought that we are witnessing the reincarnation of Riot.
You keep quoting the same flawed labor-union sponsored, labor-union paid for study. It is complete biased crap that says only what the labor unions want it to say. Common sense dictates that an imposed rise in labor costs will be passed on to the consumers - If corporations thought they would increase profit by paying higher minimum wages, do you honestly think they wouldn't? Do you honestly believe that they do not have economists staffed to determine precisely what wage scale would generate the most return on investment? To assume that Employers are either too naive or short-sighted to see how great/profitable their companies would operate if they paid unskilled labor higher wages - is ironically naive and short-sighted. Economic Policy Institute: EPI advocates for low- to moderate-income families in the United States. EPI also assesses current economic policies and proposes new policies that EPI believes will protect and improve the living standards of working families. that doesn't make them bad, it just makes them biased. Funding: Eight labor unions made a five-year funding pledge to EPI at its inception: AFSCME, United Auto Workers, United Steelworkers, United Mine Workers, International Association of Machinists, Communications Workers of America, Service Employees International Union, and United Food and Commercial Workers Union. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Policy_Institute It's disingenuous to keep cutting and pasting quips from this document like it is some sort of "independent" study. Free markets cannot survive when employers are coerced and strong-armed into paying higher than market-priced wages for unskilled labor. Instead of encouraging this behavior, perhaps these folks clamoring to be overpaid might be better served to be encouraged to take accountability for themselves instead. That's the way it used to work at least. Last edited by Rudeboyelvis : 12-02-2013 at 10:34 PM. 
|
|
#2
12-02-2013, 11:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
do you wish to continue to subsidize low paid workers thru welfare? and why is it that before, corporations could pay a living minimum wage, but now they can't? overpaid? below federal poverty level is correct pay? living at poverty level is overpaid? as for unskilled-define unskilled. as has been shown, many of these 'unskilled' workers are in these jobs because of layoffs in their previous field, many have a skill, a degree, or at least some college. as for corporations, they are like racetracks, they only consider their own slice of the pie without looking at the bigger picture. and since we taxpayers help these same corporations thru tax deals, subsidies and the like, the least they could do is pay their workers enough that we wouldn't have to subsidize both employer and employee. it's a simple question-do we want corporations who make billions in profits to pay their workers enough to get off welfare, or do you want to continue to help these people get by via welfare? 'EPI advocates for low- to moderate-income families in the United States. EPI also assesses current economic policies and proposes new policies that EPI believes will protect and improve the living standards of working families.' sounds good to me, since i'm a member of a working family-the backbone of this country.
|
|
#3
12-02-2013, 11:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
'In July 2012, EPI joined forces with the AFL-CIO, Center for Community Change, Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, National Council of La Raza and SEIU to propose a budget plan titled Prosperity Economics, a counter to the Republican Party's Path to Prosperity budget plan. The Prosperity Economics plan suggests that major public investment in areas like infrastructure is needed to jump-start the economy.'
thanks for the wiki link. i agree, we need a lot of funding in infrastructure. that's been said for some time, and was something i said a vast majority of the stimulus should have gone to. it would have paid dividends. improved infrastructure in needed areas, while creating jobs for those who would do the work, which would have aided the economy. far better than a bail out of a car maker, and us later selling the stock at a loss. rudeboy, as for those who are the working poor...if you want to just maintain the current status quo, just say so. i'm saying there's an alternative, that would take that load off the taxpayers backs. if you have a better plan, i'd love to hear it.
|
|
#4
12-03-2013, 10:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#5
12-03-2013, 11:11 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by Danzig
for starters, let's try to stay on topic. i'm not riot, and never will be. do you wish to continue to subsidize low paid workers thru welfare? Quote:
please post the links, i'd like to see those. seriously. and why is it that before, corporations could pay a living minimum wage, but now they can't? overpaid? below federal poverty level is correct pay? living at poverty level is overpaid? Quote:
no it's not a different discussion. minimum wage isn't above poverty level. businesses paid a living wage in the past, but minimum wage hasn't increased as the cost of living has done so. but profits have risen. as for unskilled-define unskilled. as has been shown, many of these 'unskilled' workers are in these jobs because of layoffs in their previous field, many have a skill, a degree, or at least some college. this is a more accurate analogy: http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/20...age-to-20hour/ as for corporations, they are like racetracks, they only consider their own slice of the pie without looking at the bigger picture. and since we taxpayers help these same corporations thru tax deals, subsidies and the like, the least they could do is pay their workers enough that we wouldn't have to subsidize both employer and employee. Quote:
my point is that businesses accept subsidies from the federal govt (us) but then say the federal govt has no place in their business and how it's run, which is rather disingenuous. i'm not saying businesses who take subsidies automatically pay low wages. the koch bros (tied for 4th richest in the u.s.), for instance, have gotten subsidies. and yes, corporations who pay minimum wage are 'forcing us' to pay for their sins, because they pay a low wage which means their employees qualify for welfare, food stamps ,rent assistance, etc. i'm saying that employees shouldn't have to be subsidized by taxpayers. they are working, they should make enough for us not to have to suppor them. it's a simple question-do we want corporations who make billions in profits to pay their workers enough to get off welfare, or do you want to continue to help these people get by via welfare? Quote:
hold on now. now teenagers are teens til age 25?! well, if that helps make your argument, then you've got me! but according to the table i'm looking at, there's a slot for 16-19 year olds. those are teens. and it's less than a quarter of min. wage recipients. http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012.htm 'EPI advocates for low- to moderate-income families in the United States. EPI also assesses current economic policies and proposes new policies that EPI believes will protect and improve the living standards of working families.' sounds good to me, since i'm a member of a working family-the backbone of this country. Sounds good to me too. As I said, it doesn't make them bad, just makes them biased. __________________ “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....” ~ Noam Chomsky, The Common Good
|
|
#6
12-03-2013, 12:03 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
The problem I see is that currently corporations are sitting on record high piles of cash that they are not reinvesting. Why should they; they have no reason to, as taxes are low (as few corporations pay anything resembling the actual tax rate). Companies spend money to expand when it's a way to lower tax liability and/or when demand for their products is up. With middle- and lower-class wages at historically low levels, the majority of Americans don't have the disposable income to create demand. With tax rates so low, companies don't have any motivation to spend any of the huge amounts of money they are currently hoarding. Same with the ultra-wealthy; there is only so much money they can spend and then they start to hoard it. And that takes it out of the economy and hurts everyone.
Companies are not going to cut staff if minimum wages are raised. They may try to get the same amount of work out of fewer staff, but they're doing that now anyway, so where's the loss for the average worker? If there is demand for their products, they will hire staff to meet the demand, but to create demand, you need people with money to spend. There are desperately few types of jobs that MUST stay here, and a lot of those are service sector jobs, which are historically very low-paying jobs. But the more disposable income those workers have, the more they can spend, which is good for the entire economy. It's why food stamps are better for the economy than tax cuts. Food stamps get spent (at local, private businesses); tax cuts get hoarded and taken out of the economy. Without demand, you have no growth. And demand is not created by the wealthy; it's created by the vast numbers of poor and middle class when they have money to spend: http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_...eate_jobs.html
__________________
Gentlemen! We're burning daylight! Riders up! -Bill Murray
|
|
#7
12-03-2013, 12:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
 saw that slate article yesterday. for years now, we've been told to cut taxes on the top % of people, that it would help create jobs. where are the jobs? i remember reading in the past that people are actually paying banks to hold their cash. there's no incentive for them to do anything with the money, so it just sits.
|
|
#8
12-03-2013, 01:41 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Taking whatever amount was given away in food stamps plus the interest away from businesses. Not just Arab owned local joints employing only family.  The 'broken window' economic theory was busted long ago. Oddly enough by a Frenchman. Wish the President was aware of it pre Cash for Clunkers.
__________________
“To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” Thomas Jefferson
|
|
#9
12-03-2013, 02:21 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
We get it now can we move on to the Trillion Dollar unfunded wars?
|
|
#10
12-03-2013, 04:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
http://tamutimes.tamu.edu/2013/02/28.../#.Up5GrCed4fQ
|
|
#11
12-03-2013, 05:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Meer says Obama in his speech completely ignored the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) “which provides as much as a 45 percent subsidy for low-income earners,” he notes, ”not to mention the slew of other income-support and transfer programs at both the federal and state level. A single parent with two children earning $14,500 would receive $5,236 in the EITC alone, before any other transfer programs.
“People who support increasing the minimum wage are often well-intentioned, but it’s quite likely that the minimum wage does more harm than good for low-income people. There are other policies, like the EITC, that do a much better job of alleviating poverty." so, we keep having taxpayers pick up the slack? that's what eitc and other 'transfer' programs do. it leaves the tab off the companies, and keeps it on the taxpayers. so, they don't get paid more for their work, but keep getting paid by taxpayers for having a low-paying job....yeah, that's great. but i did like the part in the article that re-iterated that minimum wage increases don't cause people to lose their jobs, which is a commonly held myth. so, even if it didn't produce more jobs (and i have to wonder if they went far enough in their study to extrapolate more money in pockets to more money spent, hence more purchasing, more demand, thus needing more supply, which would mean more work) it would certainly get many currently at minimum wage into a higher bracket-and off eitc, off 'transfer' programs, and off the taxpayers backs. then again...it's not as tho my taxes would go down, they'd probably just spend the money saved on another aircraft carrier.
|
|
#12
12-03-2013, 07:43 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 We're taking on water and no one is bailing. Instead we're pouring more into the boat as an incentive to try and get people to bail. Welfare was originally designed for crippled people. Not for HS dropouts, people who tattoo their faces, girls who have babies before legal consent or criminals who can't get a job. Stop telling kids they're special until they do something. Ties and everyone gets a trophy does nothing but harm the kids going forward. For Christ sake the President of the U.S. has said his daughter will decide when they move because she's in HS. Imagine a future boss telling her she needs to relocate?
__________________
“To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” Thomas Jefferson
|
|
#15
12-03-2013, 10:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
 Not exactly. Our respectfully departed would drone on and on in a ridiculous attempt to try and convince (or more accurately wear down) anyone who would listen, that her skewed view, backed up with the ever famous fact-less, biased charts, was the only correct opinion. This thread is beginning to take that turn. I pointed out that the "facts" you keep presenting are anything but, and this "study" that keeps getting referenced is biased. Just like when she tried, ad nauseam, to brow beat people into believing that her point of view was the only acceptable perspective to hold, based on skewed data which she attempted to use to make her point, as fact.
|
|
#16
12-03-2013, 10:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
now it's 'facts' and a 'study' because you don't like what they have to say. i have seen you write opinions about what the study talked about, but i don't know that you've posted any facts to refute any of their findings. is their math wrong? their conclusions incorrect? you said you read it, but then you write things that are opposite to what they've found, which is why i go back and put up portions that are in direct contradiction to your claims. but, instead of telling me who funds the epi, why don't you show me a study that says raising the minimum wage would kill jobs? a study that shows it's better for us to continue to subsidize the working poor? you talk about coercion against corporations who make profits in the billions, what about coercing me and others like me to have our tax dollars pick up the slack? is there a study that shows that instituting the minimum wage back in the day killed jobs? or when it's raised, that it does so? http://www.businessinsider.com/minim...workers-2013-2 this is an article about going direct to industries affected by the last min. wage increase, and how they handled the higher labor costs. again, i am only trying to find a way to get the working poor (and we want people to work and support themselves, right?) off the dole. do you know of a better way? also, all wages, not just the minimum wage, are below where they should be based on historic numbers. businesses are making better profits than ever, but their workers, who are more productive than ever, see no results from that. at any rate, let's move on from that portion regarding the epi study. let's say raising the minimum wage is no solution. what is? Last edited by Danzig : 12-03-2013 at 10:22 AM.
|
Hybrid Mode
