Florida Business decides to pay "living wage" ahead of any Min Wage updates

[Elegiac]

I keep doing it because I never get a straight answer
if raising the minimum wage to 10 per hour is good and helps the economy raising it to 20 will be twice as good wouldn't it? and 30 would be 3 times as good

Because it experiences diminishing returns beyond a certain point.

You're reducing it to a black or white situation when in reality (as with so many things) the answer is a comfortable middle ground.

Get a clue, please.

[Vyxn]

And this has been answered. A steep increase like 500 hour is not possible, but a small increase like 15 is. It's why many states have staggered stages to increasing their min wage, where big businesses with lots of profits that can absorb the initial increase before aggregate demand goes up. Then later small business. The market takes time to adjust, and people's spending habits only increase months after a wage increase. That and minimum wage is supposed to be a starting point, a point from which everyone can afford the basics and go up from there. If you can't afford the basics, then you rely on government assistance.

but demand doesn't increase because business don't absorb the extra cost they pass it on in the cost of the product or service so the extra pay gets chewed up by the cost of living increase that follows

[Elegiac]

but demand doesn't increase because business don't absorb the extra cost they pass it on in the cost of the product or service so the extra pay gets chewed up by the cost of living increase

It's already been explained to you why this is not the case.

It is not our problem that you seem to be incapable of understanding basic mathematics, let alone economics.

[Gheld]

It was an unsustainable bubble of confidence. That's the real problem. Heck, there was a crash in 1987 to 'prove' it. The stock market was leading everyone to believe there was more then there actually was, and when it was suddenly revealed to be false... Nosedive.

It was a joke. The 1980s were a shithole for working class families. I was there. Real life happens on Main Street, not Wall Street.

[Elegiac]

It was a joke. The 1980s were a shithole for working class families. I was there. Real life happens on Main Street, not Wall Street.

Real life happens in both.

[Xeones]

I keep doing it because I never get a straight answer
if raising the minimum wage to 10 per hour is good and helps the economy raising it to 20 will be twice as good wouldn't it? and 30 would be 3 times as good

The goal is living, not living well.

[cuafpr]

Anecdotal evidence. Also, we're letting the states decide the minimum wage, and wages are still being suppressed across the board.

When will you people get it into your heads that individual experience is irrelevant to social problems.

some states (at least washington state) is looking into a raise. its much easier for local voters to change things at a local level than federal, and the feds already stick their nose in to much. and its not just individual experience its social fact work hard, work with your boss and you can move up. Just like its a fact their are high paying jobs out their but people dont want to do physically intensive work. Granted some can't but that's a different situation. This ignores the fact that most min wage jobs are designed for part time work for those wanting a second a job, or in school.... they were never designed to be jobs to live or raise a family off of. You really shouldn't even try to. Its on you to better your life if you don't want to work for it dont bitch about it. This comes from someone that had my old life style ripped away via two job losses due to budget cuts in less than a year and had to pack up move half-way across the country to live with family and settle for a job making less than 50% of what I used to make. I have no sympathy for people that are just to damned lazy to work harder and would rather sit and cry for more money doing a job a machine could do. If/when a raise is forced i'm going to laugh as those people demanding higher wages for shit work are replaced by a machine.

now if you want to talk about a scaled min wage where the min wage for worker with 1-5 years is X amount and 5-10 years is X amount etc.. basically forced raises for years experience there is room for talk. As some people dont want the responsibility a promotion sometimes comes with and yet still work hard and those do deserve raises.

[Elegiac]

some states (at least washington state) is looking into a raise. its much easier for local voters to change things at a local level than federal, and the feds already stick their nose in to much. and its not just individual experience its social fact work hard, work with your boss and you can move up. Just like its a fact their are high paying jobs out their but people dont want to do physically intensive work. Granted some can't but that's a different situation. This ignores the fact that most min wage jobs are designed for part time work for those wanting a second a job, or in school.... they were never designed to be jobs to live or raise a family off of. You really shouldn't even try to. Its on you to better your life if you don't want to work for it dont bitch about it. This comes from someone that had my old life style ripped away via two job losses due to budget cuts in less than a year and had to pack up move half-way across the country to live with family and settle for a job making less than 50% of what I used to make. I have no sympathy for people that are just to damned lazy to work harder and would rather sit and cry for more money doing a job a machine could do. If/when a raise is forced i'm going to laugh as those people demanding higher wages for shit work are replaced by a machine.

now if you want to talk about a scaled min wage where the min wage for worker with 1-5 years is X amount and 5-10 years is X amount etc.. basically forced raises for years experience there is room for talk. As some people dont want the responsibility a promotion sometimes comes with and yet still work hard and those do deserve raises.

Once again.

Stop looking at social problems from the lens of an individual. You're more guilty of having a restricted worldview than scholars in their ivory towers.

[Vyxn]

It was a joke. The 1980s were a shithole for working class families. I was there. Real life happens on Main Street, not Wall Street.

These (Reagans) economic policies amounted to the most successful economic experiment in world history. The Reagan recovery started in official records in November 1982, and lasted 92 months without a recession until July 1990, when the tax increases of the 1990 budget deal killed it. This set a new record for the longest peacetime expansion ever, the previous high in peacetime being 58 months.

During this seven-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third, the equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany, the third-largest in the world at the time, to the U.S. economy. In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years. Nearly 20 million new jobs were created during the recovery, increasing U.S. civilian employment by almost 20%. Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989.

The shocking rise in inflation during the Nixon and Carter years was reversed. Astoundingly, inflation from 1980 was reduced by more than half by 1982, to 6.2%. It was cut in half again for 1983, to 3.2%, never to be heard from again until recently. The contractionary, tight-money policies needed to kill this inflation inexorably created the steep recession of 1981 to 1982, which is why Reagan did not suffer politically catastrophic blame for that recession.

Real per-capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989, meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in just seven years. The poverty rate declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one-sixth from its peak. The stock market more than tripled in value from 1980 to 1990, a larger increase than in any previous decade.

In The End of Prosperity, supply side guru Art Laffer and Wall Street Journal chief financial writer Steve Moore point out that this Reagan recovery grew into a 25-year boom, with just slight interruptions by shallow, short recessions in 1990 and 2001.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfer...s-and-figures/

and you was saying again?

[Elegiac]

These (Reagans) economic policies amounted to the most successful economic experiment in world history. The Reagan recovery started in official records in November 1982, and lasted 92 months without a recession until July 1990, when the tax increases of the 1990 budget deal killed it. This set a new record for the longest peacetime expansion ever, the previous high in peacetime being 58 months.

During this seven-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third, the equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany, the third-largest in the world at the time, to the U.S. economy. In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years. Nearly 20 million new jobs were created during the recovery, increasing U.S. civilian employment by almost 20%. Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989.

The shocking rise in inflation during the Nixon and Carter years was reversed. Astoundingly, inflation from 1980 was reduced by more than half by 1982, to 6.2%. It was cut in half again for 1983, to 3.2%, never to be heard from again until recently. The contractionary, tight-money policies needed to kill this inflation inexorably created the steep recession of 1981 to 1982, which is why Reagan did not suffer politically catastrophic blame for that recession.

Real per-capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989, meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in just seven years. The poverty rate declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one-sixth from its peak. The stock market more than tripled in value from 1980 to 1990, a larger increase than in any previous decade.

In The End of Prosperity, supply side guru Art Laffer and Wall Street Journal chief financial writer Steve Moore point out that this Reagan recovery grew into a 25-year boom, with just slight interruptions by shallow, short recessions in 1990 and 2001.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfer...s-and-figures/

and you was saying again?

The fact that much of that economy growth was related to a massive increase in government spending and the fact that the inflation of the Nixon and Carter eras was the result of a supply shock which had dissipated by the time Reagan came along?

It also doesn't change the fact that Reaganomics was not sustainable in the long run.

[Orbitus]

Yeah who would think that paying your employees more meant: you retain better employees, they're happier, they can afford to spend their money on leisure items which boosts business across the board, etc. But beware if you say anything bad about capitalism you're a socialist piece of shit. Pfft I'm tired of the people who are getting fucked by the current systems claiming we shouldn't be getting better. You DESERVE to be able to live life with a little wiggle room. Sure if you aren't good with your finances that's on you, but the average Joe-blow should be able to live without it being paycheck to paycheck.

To add on to this right here, I would show Costco as an example. I believe their average hourly wage for a retail place of all places is around $21 an hour for an hourly worker. http://www.glassdoor.com/Hourly-Pay/...-Pay-E2590.htm Their lowest job from Glassdoor pays $11.80. http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/talki...135707283.html Costco has relatively low turnover compared to Wal-Mart. In my 7 years at Wal-Mart from 3 different stores I saw dozens of new people come and go in those places.

[cuafpr]

oh to the thought this will make all employees happy lets say tom and John are hired together, Tom works hard, talks with his boss and is given a raise to 10.00/hr while john does just enough to not get fired. now this new law is passed and suddenly john is making 10.00/hr just like Tom... The company can't give Tom a pay raise due to pay caps that position, or budget reasons, or whatever. So now Tom has worked hard and been a model employee for next to nothing since John is now making the same. So now Tom starts to do less and John doesn't do anymore either. Sure John could suddenly get motivated by they 10.00/hr but i wouldn't bet on that happening. Or maybe if its a big enough company Tom could get promoted soon. If you think a company is going to absorb the sudden increase in labor cost I'm guessing you don't run a business or have a degree in it, it will be passed on via price increases (except for some that pay take a bottom line cut), and a lot of small business simply can't afford anymore in labor cost and have a reason to stay open.

[scotty823j]

This topic is Not wow related, so it as well should be closed

[cuafpr]

Once again.

Stop looking at social problems from the lens of an individual. You're more guilty of having a restricted worldview than scholars in their ivory towers.

yes b.c. getting out and seeing the world and living in 3rd world countries and learning what poverty really is.. gives me a restricted world view...

[Elegiac]

yes b.c. getting out and seeing the world and living in 3rd world countries and learning what poverty really is.. gives me a restricted world view...

Poverty being relative does not make it any less socially deleterious.

[Vyxn]

The fact that much of that economy growth was related to a massive increase in government spending and the fact that the inflation of the Nixon and Carter eras was the result of a supply shock which had dissipated by the time Reagan came along?

It also doesn't change the fact that Reaganomics was not sustainable in the long run.

Spending reductions, including a $31 billion cut in spending in 1981, close to 5% of the federal budget then, or the equivalent of about $175 billion in spending cuts for the year today. In constant dollars, nondefense discretionary spending declined by 14.4% from 1981 to 1982, and by 16.8% from 1981 to 1983. Moreover, in constant dollars, this nondefense discretionary spending never returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagan’s two terms! Even with the Reagan defense buildup, which won the Cold War without firing a shot, total federal spending declined from a high of 23.5% of GDP in 1983 to 21.3% in 1988 and 21.2% in 1989. That’s a real reduction in the size of government relative to the economy of 10%.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfer...s-and-figures/

and you was saying again?

[Xeones]

These (Reagans) economic policies amounted to the most successful economic experiment in world history.

If you're rich. All it has done is create a massive income disparity.

[Orbitus]

It's already been explained to you why this is not the case.

It is not our problem that you seem to be incapable of understanding basic mathematics, let alone economics.

Its Vyxn. He doesn't understand anything. Pretty much any thread he posts in he loses the argument the minute his fingers touch the keyboard to start typing.


[Infracted]

[Elegiac]

Spending reductions, including a $31 billion cut in spending in 1981, close to 5% of the federal budget then, or the equivalent of about $175 billion in spending cuts for the year today. In constant dollars, nondefense discretionary spending declined by 14.4% from 1981 to 1982, and by 16.8% from 1981 to 1983. Moreover, in constant dollars, this nondefense discretionary spending never returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagan’s two terms! Even with the Reagan defense buildup, which won the Cold War without firing a shot, total federal spending declined from a high of 23.5% of GDP in 1983 to 21.3% in 1988 and 21.2% in 1989. That’s a real reduction in the size of government relative to the economy of 10%.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfer...s-and-figures/

and you was saying again?

You were saying?

[sockzz]

This is just how they make their employees feel ok for living in Florida