*State of the Union Address*

[Didactic]

If I needed employees to run my business, and NO ONE applyed for my jobs at minimum wage, I would HAVE to raise my wages in order to get the employee. You have a one sided view point. Not all hourly wages are minimum. I Would not pay a 17yr old $12/hour to sweep. Again, if a gown person can only get minimum wage jobs, there is something lacking in that person. Personally I know of no one, but mid teenagers, who make minimum wage. You get paid above Min wage at McDonalds! The market is working with no need for more regulations.

Which excludes very well known predatory business practices used by corporations like Wal-Mart; swoop in, eliminate competitors, and essentially strong-arm their former employees into employment at minimum wage with shit benefits because their are very few competitors.

The vast majority of businesses naturally gravititate to the lowest common denominator; it is up to the government to define standards of labor and to enforce them.

[Zhangfei]

Obamanomics: Ruining the economy, one mistaken, big-government attempt to fix it at a time.

But that's what Bush did! It's understandable, I'm a history teacher. You only got it out by one President.

[Kalyyn]

If more people are buying your crap, you are still making more money despite paying people more. The only reason to increase prices if the increased cost of employees is covered by increased sales, is greed.

If we make laws based on the assumption that people won't be greedy, then we're in for a lot of heartache.

You can't legislate human nature away.

[Didactic]

But that's what Bush did! It's understandable, I'm a history teacher. You only got it out by one President.

Your grading system is significantly more liberal (hurr hurr) than mine, then.

[HankIV]

If more people are buying your crap, you are still making more money despite paying people more. The only reason to increase prices if the increased cost of employees is covered by increased sales, is greed.

You obviously never ran any sort of buisiness. If your costs go up, you need to raise prices. When you raise prices you sell less. This is so basic

[ptwonline]

If I needed employees to run my business, and NO ONE applyed for my jobs at minimum wage, I would HAVE to raise my wages in order to get the employee. You have a one sided view point. Not all hourly wages are minimum. I Would not pay a 17yr old $12/hour to sweep. Again, if a gown person can only get minimum wage jobs, there is something lacking in that person. Personally I know of no one, but mid teenagers, who make minimum wage. You get paid above Min wage at McDonalds! The market is working with no need for more regulations.

Actually, about half of the people who make minimum wage (or less) are over 25.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2011.htm

[Didactic]

You obviously never ran any sort of buisiness. If your costs go up, you need to raise prices. When you raise prices you sell less. This is so basic

Again, minimum wage increases do not result in increased running costs for the majority of businesses. Additionally, the demand created by the increased liquidity would offset the mythological 'increased cost'.

[Purlina]

If I needed employees to run my business, and NO ONE applyed for my jobs at minimum wage, I would HAVE to raise my wages in order to get the employee.

Well yeah, probably because your looking for people who are not minimum wage workers...

[Vyxn]

Bain Capital wasn't a high-risk angel investor. They're a vulture capitalist corporation. They swoop in, sell off what they can for a profit, run the corpse into the ground, take massive salaries, and then move on, leaving the shattered and defunct corpse in their wake.

Bain Capital makes money whether the companies they take on become successful, or don't. It's not a risk venture. If they can't turn a profit by improving the company's performance, they'll sell it off piecemeal, since the company becoming long-term profitable isn't a consideration.



There's no necessary price increase. That's malarkey. The cost to the company isn't being changed, it's just being shifted so that the employees make more and the CEO and shareholders make less.

these companies might sound familiar to you Staples, Domino's Pizza, Sealy, Sports Authority, Dunkin' Donuts, Toys R Us, Burger King and many many more that we wouldn't recognize the names
These are all companies that either Bain capitol either help start or expand with their investments or bailed out
you really need to change the channel off MSNBC and educate your self on the full truth

[Daelak]

If I needed employees to run my business, and NO ONE applyed for my jobs at minimum wage, I would HAVE to raise my wages in order to get the employee. You have a one sided view point. Not all hourly wages are minimum. I Would not pay a 17yr old $12/hour to sweep. Again, if a gown person can only get minimum wage jobs, there is something lacking in that person. Personally I know of no one, but mid teenagers, who make minimum wage. You get paid above Min wage at McDonalds! The market is working with no need for more regulations.

If you increase the minimum wage you increase the buying power for millions of people, which in turn increases aggregate demand for consumer products, which by and large is the entire existence of our economy.

The wealthiest *should* know that increasing the buying power for the bulk of the American population will *only* increase their wealth due to their investments in publicly and private companies, increase their wealth in land due to the appreciation because more people are purchasing and improving their real estate.

Wealth concentration is a very destabilizing force because it causes systematic shocks and a vicious downward spiral into a revolution. Some were less bloody than others, but history is filled with this very situation.

[Didactic]

If you increase the minimum wage you increase the buying power for millions of people, which in turn increases aggregate demand for consumer products, which by and large is the entire existence of our economy.

The wealthiest *should* know that increasing the buying power for the bulk of the American population will *only* increase their wealth due to their investments in publicly and private companies, increase their wealth in land due to the appreciation because more people are purchasing and improving their real estate.

Wealth concentration is a very destabilizing force because it causes systematic shocks and a vicious downward spiral into a revolution. Some were less bloody than others, but history is filled with this very situation.

You cannot blame the wealthy; they're just business majors, not economics majors.

[HankIV]

Which excludes very well known predatory business practices used by corporations like Wal-Mart; swoop in, eliminate competitors, and essentially strong-arm their former employees into employment at minimum wage with shit benefits because their are very few competitors.

The vast majority of businesses naturally gravititate to the lowest common denominator; it is up to the government to define standards of labor and to enforce them.

How does Walmart control the ENTIRE labor market? Employees can always leave for a higher paying job, since your example has Walmart paying below the market. Employees are not serfs, or slaves. Sounds like you are talking dictatorship.

[Daelak]

these companies might sound familiar to you Staples, Domino's Pizza, Sealy, Sports Authority, Dunkin' Donuts, Toys R Us, Burger King and many many more that we wouldn't recognize the names
These are all companies that either Bain capitol either help start or expand with their investments or bailed out
you really need to change the channel off MSNBC and educate your self on the full truth

You need to update on your economics. Where the money comes from to spend in a consumer economy is completely irrelevant. If your ideal were true, then every government program, including the military, would have no ripple effect on the private economy, this is patently false and there is over 70 years of economic data to show for it.

This is why the economic stimulus worked, because the billions of dollars that went to the states help prolong the incomes of the state workers, which in probably every state, they are the majority employer. The reason for the drop-off was because the stimulus was not enough, which ensured the lay-offs of millions of workers, which in turn killed consumer purchasing power, which ensured private sector lay-offs

[GreatSageCorban]

Again, minimum wage increases do not result in increased running costs for the majority of businesses. Additionally, the demand created by the increased liquidity would offset the mythological 'increased cost'.

Not sure how an increase in payroll expense doesn't factor into the above.


Just to augment the discussion, here the #'s we're talking about population wise from 2011.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2011.htm
In 2011, 73.9 million American workers age 16 and over were paid at hourly rates, representing 59.1 percent of all wage and salary workers.1 Among those paid by the hour, 1.7 million earned exactly the prevailing Federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. About 2.2 million had wages below the minimum.2 Together, these 3.8 million workers with wages at or below the Federal minimum made up 5.2 percent of all hourly-paid workers. Tables 1 through 10 present data on a wide array of demographic and socioeconomic characteristics for hourly-paid workers earning at or below the Federal minimum wage.

[Didactic]

How does Walmart control the ENTIRE labor market? Employees can always leave for a higher paying job, since your example has Walmart paying below the market. Employees are not serfs, or slaves. Sounds like you are talking dictatorship.

-le sigh- We are talking in terms of local markets, in Wal-Mart's case. Furthermore, history gives plenty of examples of corporations banding together to eliminate 'freedom of employment' and force workers into accepting lower wages and poorer conditions.

[Zhangfei]

Your grading system is significantly more liberal (hurr hurr) than mine, then.

Middle schoolers and high schoolers get more leeway. They're the ones who usually parrot this stuff

[Daelak]

How does Walmart control the ENTIRE labor market? Employees can always leave for a higher paying job, since your example has Walmart paying below the market. Employees are not serfs, or slaves. Sounds like you are talking dictatorship.

Because you are under the assumption that the market is efficient and there are *only* rational actors involved in the market. Wages are sticky and localized, and if you are wal-mart you exploit the inefficiencies in the labor market and the time-lag in legislation/lawsuits.

[Purlina]

How does Walmart control the ENTIRE labor market? Employees can always leave for a higher paying job, since your example has Walmart paying below the market.

That only works if their are more jobs then potenial employees...

[Endus]

You obviously never ran any sort of buisiness. If your costs go up, you need to raise prices. When you raise prices you sell less. This is so basic

Costs don't necessarily go up.

The issue is that you aren't including shareholder dividends and CEO salaries as "costs" (and they are), and you're not acknowledging that the entity which primarily sets prices is the market, not the producer, in a capitalist economy.

Profits go down when costs go up. Not the same thing.

[Didactic]

Because you are under the assumption that the market is efficient and there are *only* rational actors involved in the market. Wages are sticky and localized, and if you are wal-mart you exploit the inefficiencies in the labor market and the time-lag in legislation/lawsuits.

The 'freedom of choice of employer' myth is a very annoying talking point, really...