Would eliminating the Minimum Wage result in lower unemployment? - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

AmeliaG · 09-02-2011, 04:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

...Also if you have a choice betwen welfare/foodstamps or working for $3 an hour which would you do?
...

I would way rather work for $3 an hour, than go on welfare and foodstamps.

I think we could eliminate a lot of unemployment if there were ways for people to get career and job counseling, without having to be in school. There are a lot of perfectly functional people in this country, who want to do something productive, but don't know how to match themselves with an opportunity.

Emil · 09-02-2011, 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by $5 submissions

Will knocking out the minimum wage result in less unemployment and more job opportunities?

I think so. 100s of people are standing in line applying for a single McD-job.
If wages could go down companies would be able to hire more people and even increase their profits because of the extra workers. Less people would have to get support from the government. And because of people in general making less money food prices will also go down. If people think they get paid too little then just dont take the job.
More companies would also have people work onshore that sending all the work needed to China, India...

Isn't it really that simple?

Brujah · 09-02-2011, 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AmeliaG

I would way rather work for $3 an hour, than go on welfare and foodstamps.

What life can you afford with your new $480 per month job now? Include rent, electricity, utilities, transportation to/from work, food, etc... I'd love to see your budget.

My Pimp · 09-02-2011, 08:54 AM

I am not sure that this would work .

MaDalton · 09-02-2011, 09:16 AM

in germany there is partly no minimum wage. so what happens? some people get paid really shitty and then go and get additional money from the government. so the companies save money and make more profit and the tax payer is paying for it. sounds stupid to me.

Sunny Day · 09-03-2011, 03:24 AM

I once started laughing in the middle of a job interview, for an accountant. I pointed out, the offered wage was less than the McD's I could see out the window. I had recently been a contract employee, for this same company at twice the offered wage. Minimum wage at the time was $5.75, their offer was $8.75. The Backyard Burger, had a sign at their walk-up window offering $12.00 per hour + Medical, dental, 401K & profit sharing.
Sad truth is, accountants get paid nothing ,unless you scam like the Enron owners. Where I was working, my boss, the head accountant made less per hour than the janitor.

As for unemployment. No company will hire a laid-off 40+ year old person. They want young people with no medical problems. You're not 20 something with at least a masters degree, you can forget about a job. My last job, I put over $750,000 free money in their bank and my boss twice had to defend me to keep from being fired. Third time he lost out.

Sunny Day · 09-03-2011, 03:36 AM

Usually the people who hate minimum wage, are the same assholes, I overhear in bars, complaining about unemployment, welfare & other programs for the needy. Then go on to brag how the Govt. is giving them money to rehab a building and sell condos to "suckers."
Or better, I guy I know, bitches about welfare, but the Govt. pays him to raise Angora Goats. Need that wool for the next Korean War.
Another is the person I know said, "if they elect Kerry, we'll get socialized medicine." Right after the VA paid for his hospitalization for his stroke. That's service related? He had been out of the Army for 40 years. Not like he couldn't afford it, as his business alone is worth about $5 million.

shimmy2 · 09-03-2011, 05:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AmeliaG

I would way rather work for $3 an hour, than go on welfare and foodstamps.

you just failed hood economics 101

Paul Markham · 09-03-2011, 06:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesGw

The only way I see this decreasing unemployment is by decreasing overhead for businesses so they can hire more professionals. I guess there would be fewer jobless teens? Maybe? I dunno.

It will only mean lower wages for those in the bottom of the ladder jobs. People higher up the ladder will still demand the same wages.

Will it mean that the US can manufacture goods in the US, that currently are made in the third world by people on very low ages? No, it won't.

The hole the West has dug itself into is obvious. It send so many manufacturing jobs abroad believing the "New Technologies" would save them. Then the old Third World started to get into the "New Technologies" fields.

And yet the West continued to live above it's means by borrowing money thinking it would all be fine. The banks crashed through greed and the house of cards collapsed. Idiots who think The West will continue to dominate the financial markets are delusional. Would you put your money into the hands of the bankers? Well neither will China, India and other Third World Countries.

Remember who told you this first.

gideongallery · 09-03-2011, 06:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

you do realize that a 100 man hour job that would not be profitable at minimum wage CAN become profitable at $1/hour.

reducing the minimum wage would create jobs in that way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

would YOU work for $1 an hour? no.

Also using YOUR logic you could make the case that a 100 man hour job would be REALLY profitable if you just enslaved people and paid them nothing. So do you advocate slavery?

if the choice is between earning nothing (unemployeed) and earning $1/hour i would work for $1/hour

that the point eliminating the ARTIFICIAL minimum price point that PREVENTS people from CHOOSING to accept a lower wage is what we are talking about.

Only a world class moron would equate that CHOICE with being FORCED to work for nothing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

If you run a business and you can't make a profit paying people minimum wage perhaps you shouldn't be in business and perhaps you should be working for someone who has the intelligence to run a business.

seriously, are you trying to argue that jobs that could be created at that lower price point, should be forced out of existence completely. Are you so stupid that you don't realize that impossible in the current economic environment

I hate to tell you something moron, there are other parts of the world where a $1US/ hour is a rich man wage

countries where a $1US = 20-30 rupees

the jobs aren't disappearing their going over seas to those countries, and with it all the capital, investment, profits, and TAXES.

Hank_Heartland · 09-03-2011, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AmeliaG

I would way rather work for $3 an hour, than go on welfare and foodstamps.

I think we could eliminate a lot of unemployment if there were ways for people to get career and job counseling, without having to be in school. There are a lot of perfectly functional people in this country, who want to do something productive, but don't know how to match themselves with an opportunity.

No you wouldn't

TheSquealer · 09-03-2011, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AmeliaG

I would way rather work for $3 an hour, than go on welfare and foodstamps.

The words of a naive idealist who hasn't even given thought to the basic mathematical realities of trying to live on so little money.

AmeliaG · 09-03-2011, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brujah

What life can you afford with your new $480 per month job now? Include rent, electricity, utilities, transportation to/from work, food, etc... I'd love to see your budget.

I've been that poor and worse and I don't recommend it. But I'm not sorry that I lived in a punk rock group house and ate ramen noodles and kept working on the things I felt were important (even if they didn't exactly pay great), as opposed to giving up because I was so broke and letting the government make my decisions for me.

AmeliaG · 09-03-2011, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank_Heartland

No you wouldn't

See my reply to Brujah. I would and I have.

AmeliaG · 09-03-2011, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

The words of a naive idealist who hasn't even given thought to the basic mathematical realities of trying to live on so little money.

See my reply to Brujah. I've done it for extended periods of time.

It really bothers me that people so often have these debates where they talk about the "poor" like they are some other species or something. Like they never met a real live poor person and think the condition is congenital and permanent or otherwise this completely alien thing. Could a poor person afford to get the things you take for granted? No. But that doesn't mean that every poor person will always be poor and that doesn't mean they want your condescending charity.

GatorB · 09-03-2011, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AmeliaG

I would way rather work for $3 an hour, than go on welfare and foodstamps.

Well I live in the real world and in the real world MOST wouldn't. I was making $3.50 an hour as teenager in the mid 80's. Fuck making that shit now. Are they going to lower the cost of everything to mid 1980's levels? Is gas going to be 85 cents a gallon?

Quote:

I think we could eliminate a lot of unemployment if there were ways for people to get career and job counseling, without having to be in school. There are a lot of perfectly functional people in this country, who want to do something productive, but don't know how to match themselves with an opportunity.

That would cost money and teabaggers don't want to spend ANY money even if the eventual outcome is finanically better. Reublitards don't get the whole "spend a dollar today and make $10 tomorrow" concept. Which is ironic since they are supposedly the aprty of business.

porno jew · 09-03-2011, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AmeliaG

I've been that poor and worse and I don't recommend it. But I'm not sorry that I lived in a punk rock group house and ate ramen noodles and kept working on the things I felt were important (even if they didn't exactly pay great), as opposed to giving up because I was so broke and letting the government make my decisions for me.

omg a privileged rich white girl slummed it in a punk rock house for a year and now she has stunning insights into the nature of poverty in america.

mineistaken · 09-03-2011, 12:32 PM

nope....

GatorB · 09-03-2011, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

if the choice is between earning nothing (unemployeed) and earning $1/hour i would work for $1/hour

No you wouldn't. Hell you're the guy who advocates illegally downloading because 99 cents is too much to pay for a song from Itunes. Yet you're going to work for $1 an hour. yeah peole will earn something. They'll do it buy selling drugs or stealing all the copper and aluminum you have because it pays better.

Quote:

that the point eliminating the ARTIFICIAL minimum price point that PREVENTS people from CHOOSING to accept a lower wage is what we are talking about.

Companies should be paying MORE. FACT. Minimum wage laws exist because companies REFUSE to do the right thing. It's like you would think we wouldn't need laws against rape because common sense says rape is wrong and thus no one would do it. But no, we have morons that think it's ok to rape so we have to have laws stating the obvious that it is not Ok to do that. Same thing.

Quote:

Only a world class moron would equate that CHOICE with being FORCED to work for nothing.

seriously, are you trying to argue that jobs that could be created at that lower price point, should be forced out of existence completely. Are you so stupid that you don't realize that impossible in the current economic environment

I hate to tell you something moron, there are other parts of the world where a $1US/ hour is a rich man wage

countries where a $1US = 20-30 rupees

the jobs aren't disappearing their going over seas to those countries, and with it all the capital, investment, profits, and TAXES.

YOU are the stupid one. People in the US should work for 50 cents an hour because that's the only way US companies will bring jobs back to America? Fact is going clean toilets for $1 for year THEN come back and tell us how it is so worth it. Until then STFU.

AmeliaG · 09-03-2011, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

...
That would cost money and teabaggers don't want to spend ANY money even if the eventual outcome is finanically better. Reublitards don't get the whole "spend a dollar today and make $10 tomorrow" concept. Which is ironic since they are supposedly the aprty of business.

I agree. I think it is ridiculous that people who supposedly care about business don't seem to want to do anything proactive on this sort of thing.

So many government programs are about giving a man fewer fish than he needs to survive and patting themselves on the back and too few are about teaching the man to fish.

signupdamnit · 09-03-2011, 12:48 PM

Which do you think is the worst human and which would you look down upon more? Which would you be more likely to see as your Bro?

Person A- Earns $3 an hour working a full time job for a billionaire but has to collect $200 a month in welfare to afford rent and $400 a month in food stamps to feed their family.

Person B- Owns a sponsor program but rips off their affiliates and their customers using various scams and deceitful tactics. Doesn't need any government help because they cheat others.

It's interesting the way we judge others sometimes, no? Some might say it's mainly done solely by the size of their pocketbook.

Lightning · 09-03-2011, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FeelMyTube

Yes it would. This is textbook microeconomics (taught in evey MBA / business class).

There's always someone willing to work for $1 less than minimum wage (the alternative is unemplyment).

Minimum wage benefits those who get it at the expense of the employees that would be willing to work for less and can't find work and the employers that need cheaper labor but cannot hire at less than minimum wage.

Did you read this in some text book ?..LOL

Relentless · 09-03-2011, 01:44 PM

Minimum Wage ought to be a State by State decision.
7.25 * 40 hours = 290 per week for a full time employee.
290x52 = 15K per year

You have little chance of surviving on 15K per year in New York, but you might be able to eek out an existence on that amount in Mississippi. So it would make sense that States each set a minimum wage to correspond to the cost of living in that location. It would also allow States to compete for workers, raising the minimum wage to bring in a workforce when demand exists etc...

What the Federal Government ought to be doing is setting an absolute limit on poverty. Minimum Wage is only one of many components needed to do that. Minimal health care, food programs, shelter programs, medicaid, etc etc when properly implemented would create a 'hard floor' below which no citizen could fall. Food, Sanitation, Shelter, Basic Medical Care etc are not luxuries, they are necessities - that's why we provide all of the above for prison inmates. Having citizens without food, sanitation, shelter and proper basic medical care results in rampant crime, spread of disease, and a lower standard of living overall. State minimum wage should be an income level above that absolute limit on poverty set nationally.

Relentless · 09-03-2011, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AmeliaG

Government programs are about giving a man fewer fish than he needs to survive and patting themselves on the back and too few are about teaching the man to fish.

Teaching a starving man to fish is pointless. He will learn nothing as long as he is starving. First you must feed the starving man enough fish so that he is still hungry but not starving... then you can teach him how to catch his own fish if he can actually learn to do it.

Some government programs should be about giving every person *exactly* the number of fish they need to have a safe but austere life. Other government programs should be designed to provide training and tools needed for the person to progress beyond that minimal level.

That does not change the simple fact that many people will never be able to catch their own fish... poor genetics, lack of parenting, failed education, mental illness, etc leave plenty of people without the ability to fish. In a civilized society that doesn't mean they should have 4000 square foot houses with waterfront views... but it also doesn't mean they should starve, be unable to get medical care, etc...

The gap between rich and poor is important, but not nearly as important as the gap between poor and prisoner.

gideongallery · 09-03-2011, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

No you wouldn't. Hell you're the guy who advocates illegally downloading because 99 cents is too much to pay for a song from Itunes. Yet you're going to work for $1 an hour. yeah peole will earn something. They'll do it buy selling drugs or stealing all the copper and aluminum you have because it pays better.

actually get it straight 99 is not to much to pay, it to much to FORCED to pay TWICE.

It the issue of being forced to pay for stuff you already bought all over again that i have a problem with not paying for it in the first place.

BTW i love your insane double standard there, you falsely accusing me of advocating stealing, while you actually advocating stealing over working for a living.

if you truely believed no one anywhere in america would ever take the job at $1/ hour then minimum wage laws are useless anyway, the market would automatically push the wage above the minimum wage anyway.

Quote:

Companies should be paying MORE. FACT. Minimum wage laws exist because companies REFUSE to do the right thing. It's like you would think we wouldn't need laws against rape because common sense says rape is wrong and thus no one would do it. But no, we have morons that think it's ok to rape so we have to have laws stating the obvious that it is not Ok to do that. Same thing.

Wow so you are a moron, are you actually trying to go back to a slavery arguement again

Getting raped is being FORCED to have sex against your will.

get the point

having a minimum wage prevents someone who is WILLING to take a job at less then the minimum wage

Quote:

YOU are the stupid one. People in the US should work for 50 cents an hour because that's the only way US companies will bring jobs back to America? Fact is going clean toilets for $1 for year THEN come back and tell us how it is so worth it. Until then STFU.

who said people should work for 50 cent an hour

I said people should have a CHOICE to work for 50 cents an hour if they want too.

Your arguement is that the job should be taken away from the american who is WILLING to do that and shipped of to another country

Are you actually so stupid to believe that if the minimum wage disappeared all the good paying jobs would disappear too

I earn way more than minimum wage because i have a skill set that people are willing to pay for.

mynameisjim · 09-03-2011, 06:05 PM

First of all, the reason companies aren't hiring people is because they don't need any new employees. The reason they don't need any new employees is because overall demand for goods and services is down because everyone is broke.

So how will giving people EVEN LESS money to spend going to increase demand and therefore spur companies to hire more people?

Cutting wages will further sink the economy and cause even more unemployment.

The jobs debate has been totally derailed because of all this tax bullshit. Companies have ZERO interest in hiring anybody right now because they don't need to. You could lower taxes to zero and lower the minimum wage to $1 and companies still wouldn't hire anybody because they have nothing for them to do.

That's why the only answer to jump start the economy is huge, nationwide construction project(s). Bridges, school repair, high speed internet, etc. Many different people can work in construction projects and once that money starts getting into their pockets, they'll start spending and as demand inches up for various goods and services, companies will start hiring again.

u-Bob · 09-03-2011, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FeelMyTube

Yes it would. This is textbook microeconomics (taught in evey MBA / business class).

Agreed. It's basic economics.

u-Bob · 09-03-2011, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mynameisjim

First of all, the reason companies aren't hiring people is because they don't need any new employees. The reason they don't need any new employees is because overall demand for goods and services is down because everyone is broke.

Say's Law contradicts this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mynameisjim

That's why the only answer to jump start the economy is huge, nationwide construction project(s). Bridges, school repair, high speed internet, etc. Many different people can work in construction projects and once that money starts getting into their pockets, they'll start spending and as demand inches up for various goods and services, companies will start hiring again.

1940-1945: The biggest gov spending we've seen. Yet private sector consumption went down. During the second world war private sector consumption was even lower than during the worst years of the great depression.

1946: Gov cuts spending. The Keynesians warned that millions of people would become unemployed. Yet the US economy has never seen bigger growth than in 1946.

The Keynesian answer to what you described as an economy that needs to be jump started: cause inflation. put new money into the economy.
The Keynesian answer to an economy that's about to overheat (reach full employment... and not enough people to fill all positions... extreme inflation): cool down the economy by deflating the money supply: take money out of the economy.

Enter the 1970s. stagflation... a situation with both high unemployment (the classic Keynesian response would be: put new money into the economy) and high inflation (the classic Keynesian response would be: take money out of the economy). Hmmm, can't do both

The situation that presented itself in the 1970s could simply not exist according to Keynesian theory. Yet it did. Keynesianism was intellectually bankrupt and even the neo-Keynesians and the later New Keynesians acknowledge this.

What we have now is not a matter of underconsumption or overproduction, it's a matter of mal-investment.

mynameisjim · 09-03-2011, 07:24 PM

U-Bob, you're a smart enough guy to know that I could find various proofs for my stimulus based solution as well. It really doesn't help anymore going back and forth IMHO. We are dealing with real world problems, not debate club back and forth. Even the cause of the great depression is still under debate despite nearly a century of study. A quick google search will turn up opinions that say we didn't spend enough, and others that say we spent too much.

So what's you're solution? I'm not arguing with you or even contradicting you, I'm just curious what other alternatives there are for ending the catch 22 of Americans not spending, and companies not hiring.

American companies have ZERO interest in investing in America right now, so that leaves the government to kick start things. There is simply nobody else who will do it. No tax breaks and no incentive will cause companies to invest in America and it's simply because they don't have to, they are getting better returns elsewhere around the world. There is nothing left we can do to entice business to hire Americans.

u-Bob · 09-03-2011, 07:26 PM

Charlie Virgo on minimum wage:

Quote:

..... Spurlock uses the episode to advocate increasing the minimum wage. This article is meant to address the gaping holes in Spurlock's arguments as well as the problems in the arguments that I often hear when I explain how unnecessary our minimum-wage laws are.

I'll condense these arguments into three categories:

1. that collusion among companies would drive wage rates to near zero;
2. that eliminating minimum wage would cause salaries across the board to drop; and
3. that citizens should not be compensated so poorly.

Each of these arguments may appear valid on the surface, but they all have fatal flaws.

Before delving into the debate, it may be helpful to understand a little of the history behind minimum wages. In the United States today, minimum-wage regulations are covered under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA). But 1938 was not the first time a minimum wage was accepted into law.

Twenty years earlier, Congress established a minimum-wage law specifically for women, requiring that they be paid at least $71.50 per month (25¢/hour). That law was overturned in the Supreme Court case Adkins vs. Children's Hospital, on the grounds that it restricted a worker's right to negotiate her own labor contract. If, for example, a woman wanted to increase her chance of being employed by offering her talents for $68.50 per month, the law made it illegal for her to do so.

This minimum-wage rate almost doubled within the next seven years.[1] In the 73 years since the passage of the FLSA, the federal minimum wage has been increased 28 times and decreased only once (in 1963). The most recent adjustment was made on July 24, 2009, when it was raised to $7.25.[2] It should also be noted, however, that states are allowed to mandate their own minimum wage as long as it is not lower than the federal level.

The most common concern I hear when discussing the possibility of eliminating the minimum wage is that companies will be able to get together and gang up on their employees, forcing them to accept wages of nearly nothing. This sounds plausible, but it leaves out two key points: employees are not "forced" to work at a specific place, and competition between businesses will automatically lead to different wages (not just between companies, but within the company as well).

The idea that employees are forced into jobs and exploited for their labor is well represented by the website Minimum-Wage.org. Here is just one statement from the "History" section:

Before the minimum wage was introduced during the Great Depression of the 1930s, there was no national minimum wage, or indeed any legislation to protect workers from exploitation.[3]

This perspective is driven by the idea that workers are not free to choose who they work for and in what conditions, but have to accept what their bosses present them. But workers are free to work where they like (to the extent that they can get hired, that is).

It's true, however, that an employer does have a measure of control over the would-be employee in the same sense that a vendor is controlled by his or her customers. In other words, an employee needs to have a skill that is worth paying for, just like the vendor needs to have a product that his or her customers are willing to buy.

The other error with the idea that companies will resort to collusion to keep wage rates extremely low is that it doesn't take competition into consideration. In order to rise above the rest, a company needs to have better talent than its competitors. Obtaining talented people, drawing them from other areas of employment, is most easily done by offering superior salaries and benefits.

This is easily demonstrated by the fact that most workers are paid more than the legal minimum. In fact, according to the Social Security Administration, the average wage was approximately $21/hour in 2010.[4] If an employer isn't required to pay more than $7.25, why is the average almost three times that? The answer is simple: a company needs to pay more to get better employees. Even if an entire industry does collaborate and depress wages, the arrival of even one competitor willing to pay higher salaries will erase the others' advantage. Thus, both natural competition and workers' freedom prevent companies from being able to "force" employees into exploitation.

Although it's not as common, many people are also concerned that eliminating the minimum wage, currently at $7.25 on the federal level, would drop wages across the board by an equal amount. Someone making $20/hour, the theory goes, will quickly see their wage drop to $12.75. The error in this thinking, however, is that the minimum wage is not a price floor for all wages ? just for those that would be less in the absence of regulation. A person making $20/hour won't see a change in his or her pay if the minimum wage is decreased because the company isn't basing his or her wage on the minimum wage to begin with. Job descriptions don't list salaries of "$10 higher than minimum wage," for example.

The only salaries that would be affected would be those that are already overpriced, namely jobs utilizing unskilled labor. Just as not all products are worth paying $7.25 to receive, not all jobs are worth paying $7.25 to have someone complete.

The final argument, that citizens should not be treated so poorly as to receive a wage of $7.24, is not based on economics but on the moral standing of those in favor of minimum wages. They believe that a resident of the most powerful country in the world should not have to worry about living comfortably. While I agree that basic services should be provided to those in need, who administers these services is a major question. Those that are pro?minimum wage believe that the government should be the one granting assistance, in the form of artificial wage rates. Governments are hardly the only ones able to aid the poor and destitute.

Indeed, in the episode of 30 Days I watched, Spurlock and his fiancée are able to furnish their entire apartment through a local church's donation center. They received dishes and kitchenware, a table and chair and even a couch, all for free. Other organizations, like Goodwill and the Salvation Army, also provide basic living materials at significantly reduced prices, because voluntary donations are the primary source of their merchandise.

The idea, however, that government can manipulate the economy for some without consequences for others is fallacious. Like many of the ideas behind state social programs, this one is based more on wishful thinking than sound principle. The other end of this issue relates back to the first argument. Those that are working minimum-wage jobs are not forced to continue on that path. If they develop skills that employers are willing to pay more to make use of, they will progress upward.

No discussion of minimum wages would be complete without mentioning their effects on unemployment levels. To keep things simple, let's assume a company has 10 minimum-wage workers for an total hourly cost of $72.50 ($7.25 × 10). If the minimum wage is raised another $0.70, that would raise the company's labor costs to $79.50 per hour. The problem is that, all things equal, the budget only allows for $72.50/hour.

The easiest thing to do in this situation is to reduce the number of people employed to 9, which would put the total hourly cost at $71.55 ($7.95 × 9), under the allotted amount of $72.50. This is not to say that increasing the minimum wage will automatically lead to increased unemployment. What it does do, however, is add one more strain on businesses.

u-Bob · 09-03-2011, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mynameisjim

U-Bob, you're a smart enough guy to know that I could find various proofs for my stimulus based solution as well. It really doesn't help anymore going back and forth IMHO. We are dealing with real world problems, not debate club back and forth. Even the cause of the great depression is still under debate despite nearly a century of study. A quick google search will turn up opinions that say we didn't spend enough, and others that say we spent too much.

So what's you're solution? I'm not arguing with you or even contradicting you, I'm just curious what other alternatives there are for ending the catch 22 of Americans not spending, and companies not hiring.

American companies have ZERO interest in investing in America right now, so that leaves the government to kick start things. There is simply nobody else who will do it. No tax breaks and no incentive will cause companies to invest in America and it's simply because they don't have to, they are getting better returns elsewhere around the world. There is nothing left we can do to entice business to hire Americans.

The essential difference between the Neo/New Keynesian interventionists and the pro-free market Austrian School (in regards to this issue) is whether or not an artificial boom is sustainable.

New Keynesians agree that pumping new money into the economy creates an artificial boom. Even Krugman admitted that the housing bubble was caused by the Fed's easy money policies. In fact Krugman was one of the people who actually called for a housing bubble...

The problem with artificial booms (in the Austrian view) is that they are just that: artificial. There's nothing backing up that new money. The result is a shift in resources from where they would normally go into sectors that would otherwise be obvious to be unsustainable.

The interest rate is essentially the price of money. if you take a cab and pay $50 for that,t hen that $50 was the price for a cab ride. If you borrow $500 and pay back $550 then the price of that $500 was $50 or 10%.

Obviously people will be more inclined to borrow money when the price is lower then when it is higher. Artificial low interest rates leads to mal-investment. People start projects they would otherwise not have started. They start projects that are not sustainable in the long run. Why are they not sustainable? Because the price of money is artificially being kept low and the Gov (central bank) can't keep doing this forever (or they would cause hyperinflation.. think Zimbabwe). When the price of money goes up again, those companies that couldn't exist without cheap/free money run into problems.

What we need is the market to do its work. What we need is liquidation of bad investments.

If no one is buying the products you are selling then that is the market giving you a signal. It's telling you that no one is willing to buy those products at the price you are selling them.

If you just invested $1000000 in a new carriage factory and except for a few Amish no one is buying your horse drawn carriages then it doesn't make sense to continue borrowing more cheap money to keep your factory going but then it's time to scale things down. Then it's time to sell some (or all) of the wood, leather,metal, tools etc you intended to use to build carriages. Yes, you probably won't be able to recuperate your $1000000 investment (some of the wood can only be sold as firewood (at a lower price than you expected to get for it if it was part of a finished carriage), some of the tools are too specialized to be used for something other than building Amish style carriages and can only be sold as scrap metal etc), but that is the great thing about the free market: it rewards responsible behavior and it punishes bad behavior. Maybe you should have started with a small factory or you could have started building those carriages in your garage. And you could have expanded your operation if things went well, but no... because money was cheap you overreached and now you end up paying the price for that)

Keeping unsustainable business in business by putting them on an IV with cheap money does not provide more wealth. It does not provide more goods and services that people want and are willing to pay for. Keeping unsustainable business in business only harms sustainable and new business because it raises the prices of the resources they are competing for (skilled laborers, wood, oil, leather etc).

And it gets even worse when they start directly bailing out companies. Because that way they totally remove all responsibility.

(I'm off, i'll be back on monday)

BFT3K · 09-03-2011, 09:58 PM

I think currently minimum wage in the states is $7.25 p/hr.

$7.25 x 40 hours = $290, less approximately 25% in assorted payroll taxes and deductions (not including health care), leaves you with around $220 for the week.

That averages LESS than $1,000 p/month to pay ALL of your bills and life expenses.

And some of you think people would be able to live on LESS than this?!

PLEASE!

Robbie · 09-03-2011, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThunderBalls

In August of 1996 Clinton signed a 90 cent increase for minimum wage into law. The very next month the stock market took off and continued for the next 4 years marking the biggest economic expansion in US history. Draw your own conclusions.

Do you think that had anything to do with that? I don't. For one thing there was a giant Internet bubble that pumped the economy incredibly.

mynameisjim · 09-03-2011, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by u-Bob

The essential difference between the Neo/New Keynesian interventionists and the pro-free market Austrian School (in regards to this issue) is whether or not an artificial boom is sustainable.

New Keynesians agree that pumping new money into the economy creates an artificial boom. Even Krugman admitted that the housing bubble was caused by the Fed's easy money policies. In fact Krugman was one of the people who actually called for a housing bubble...

The problem with artificial booms (in the Austrian view) is that they are just that: artificial. There's nothing backing up that new money. The result is a shift in resources from where they would normally go into sectors that would otherwise be obvious to be unsustainable.

The interest rate is essentially the price of money. if you take a cab and pay $50 for that,t hen that $50 was the price for a cab ride. If you borrow $500 and pay back $550 then the price of that $500 was $50 or 10%.

Obviously people will be more inclined to borrow money when the price is lower then when it is higher. Artificial low interest rates leads to mal-investment. People start projects they would otherwise not have started. They start projects that are not sustainable in the long run. Why are they not sustainable? Because the price of money is artificially being kept low and the Gov (central bank) can't keep doing this forever (or they would cause hyperinflation.. think Zimbabwe). When the price of money goes up again, those companies that couldn't exist without cheap/free money run into problems.

What we need is the market to do its work. What we need is liquidation of bad investments.

If no one is buying the products you are selling then that is the market giving you a signal. It's telling you that no one is willing to buy those products at the price you are selling them.

If you just invested $1000000 in a new carriage factory and except for a few Amish no one is buying your horse drawn carriages then it doesn't make sense to continue borrowing more cheap money to keep your factory going but then it's time to scale things down. Then it's time to sell some (or all) of the wood, leather,metal, tools etc you intended to use to build carriages. Yes, you probably won't be able to recuperate your $1000000 investment (some of the wood can only be sold as firewood (at a lower price than you expected to get for it if it was part of a finished carriage), some of the tools are too specialized to be used for something other than building Amish style carriages and can only be sold as scrap metal etc), but that is the great thing about the free market: it rewards responsible behavior and it punishes bad behavior. Maybe you should have started with a small factory or you could have started building those carriages in your garage. And you could have expanded your operation if things went well, but no... because money was cheap you overreached and now you end up paying the price for that)

Keeping unsustainable business in business by putting them on an IV with cheap money does not provide more wealth. It does not provide more goods and services that people want and are willing to pay for. Keeping unsustainable business in business only harms sustainable and new business because it raises the prices of the resources they are competing for (skilled laborers, wood, oil, leather etc).

And it gets even worse when they start directly bailing out companies. Because that way they totally remove all responsibility.

(I'm off, i'll be back on monday)

As far as an infrastructure stimulus plan being artificial, that's not entirely true. Even conservative estimates put return on smart infrastructure investments at 2.5-3% due to increased productivity and other factors over time. Modernizing infrastructure gives short term gains in jobs and consumer spending, but it also gives long term gains due to the return caused by living in a modern and more efficient society. High speed rails, nation wide high speed wifi, modern schools, etc. These things all allow us to be more productive, educated and innovative which gives us long term economic stimulus.

As far as cheap money and bailing out business and propping up companies, I never suggested any of that.

Don't forget, our economy was relatively normal until we decided to wage two of the longest wars in American history....simultaneously. Then we allowed the banking industry to totally wipe out a majority the equity every American had in their home, after which we gave the banks all the money they lost right back. It's not like we need to re-invent the wheel here. We just need to right the ship. America has worked for a pretty long time, it's just that a few stupid people at the top made some incredibly short sighted decisions, some for ideology, and some for greed.

BFT3K · 09-04-2011, 10:28 AM

GatorB · 09-04-2011, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relentless

Minimum Wage ought to be a State by State decision.
7.25 * 40 hours = 290 per week for a full time employee.
290x52 = 15K per year

You have little chance of surviving on 15K per year in New York, but you might be able to eek out an existence on that amount in Mississippi. So it would make sense that States each set a minimum wage to correspond to the cost of living in that location. It would also allow States to compete for workers, raising the minimum wage to bring in a workforce when demand exists etc..

Actually most states do have their own minimum wage. If you would educate yourself on the topic you would know this.

http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/america.htm#Consolidated

And no you can't live on $15,000 a year ANYWHERE. People making only $15K a year be eligible for some kind of government assistance which is what we are trying to avoid. The lone except is a single person with no dependents. But even they can't live on $15K a year. After FICA and income taxes are taken out a single person making minimum wage is only left with $13,300 a year to live on. And of course that's not counting other taxes he'd pay like state income taxes or sales taxes, gas taxes etc etc. In my state you get taxed 8.25% on FOOD. And I'm not talking just McDonald's and shit I'm talking groceries.

The problem with the minimum wage is that it stays the same for years then has to be increase by huge amounts. Businesses and republicans don't want to raise it so they delay delay delay. But it ALWAYS gets raised eventually and in the end these business end up hurting themselves when they get $2 increases in the minimum wage. Congress needs to raise the minimum wage one more time then after that have it increase annually based on CPI. It's better for workers and business because they will KNOW it's coming and how much it will be instead of sitting around thinking for 10 years "oh god I hope they don't raise the minimum wage this year." then one day "Oh damn now I have to pay out $2 an hour more?" It also helps because it no longer becomes a political issue.

MovieMaster · 09-04-2011, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by $5 submissions

Is there a racial component to the US minimum wage laws as mentioned by Prof. Milton Friedman below? Or it is just academic hokum that has to bend to the hard contours of post- New Deal political realities?

Amen brotha!

Ron Bennett · 09-04-2011, 01:30 PM

Among the worst offenders of paying below minimum wage are various government and non-profit entities, such as community swimming pools. Most people are surprised to learn that some occupations are exempt from minimum wage laws and can legally pay even less than $7.25 per hour. Some summer jobs in Pennsylvania, reportedly, pay per hour in the high $5s / low 6s.

On a related topic, most people, including many employers, are surprised to learn that in some states, such as Pennsylvania, that the employer doesn't legally have to provide any breaks at all for persons age 18+, if they don't want to ...

And the kicker is that while providing breaks is voluntary on the employer's part in some states (ie. Pennsylvania), if the employer provides them, it's mandatory for the employee to take them.

Bottom line is, the employer sets the rules; many of the legal protections many employees assume they have, they don't really unless they've negotiated for them, as part of a collective bargaining (ie. is a member of a union).

Ron

GregE · 09-04-2011, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mynameisjim

First of all, the reason companies aren't hiring people is because they don't need any new employees. The reason they don't need any new employees is because overall demand for goods and services is down because everyone is broke.

So how will giving people EVEN LESS money to spend going to increase demand and therefore spur companies to hire more people?

Cutting wages will further sink the economy and cause even more unemployment.

The jobs debate has been totally derailed because of all this tax bullshit. Companies have ZERO interest in hiring anybody right now because they don't need to. You could lower taxes to zero and lower the minimum wage to $1 and companies still wouldn't hire anybody because they have nothing for them to do.

That's why the only answer to jump start the economy is huge, nationwide construction project(s). Bridges, school repair, high speed internet, etc. Many different people can work in construction projects and once that money starts getting into their pockets, they'll start spending and as demand inches up for various goods and services, companies will start hiring again.

Bingo.

Good luck selling that painfully obvious logic to a teabagger or, even more so, to an idiot like gideon though.

gideongallery · 09-04-2011, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GregE

Bingo.

Good luck selling that painfully obvious logic to a teabagger or, even more so, to an idiot like gideon though.

the amazing thing is you guys keep accusing me of being entitled while your the ones arguing for the rights of people to EARN a minimum wage

the biggest pay day i ever got was when i worked for $1/hour because i gave up 59/hour of my normal rate for a percentage of the business.

if you think your wage is too low try and figure out how you can make/save the company 7 times what it cost you to work there. The average company, has to make that amount just to break even.

minimum wage is not an issue for anyone who thinks like that.

shade001 · 09-04-2011, 03:36 PM

A whole thread full of fail.

It saddens me that all of you think any economic problem can or would be fixed by the government. A government that owes a huge debt to a private bank, the Federal Reserve, run by international bankers.

Every time one of you utters an opinion on anything more complicated than tying your shoes the collective world I.Q. goes down a few points and Baby Jesus begins to cry.

woj · 09-04-2011, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mynameisjim

First of all, the reason companies aren't hiring people is because they don't need any new employees. The reason they don't need any new employees is because overall demand for goods and services is down because everyone is broke.

So how will giving people EVEN LESS money to spend going to increase demand and therefore spur companies to hire more people?

Cutting wages will further sink the economy and cause even more unemployment.

The jobs debate has been totally derailed because of all this tax bullshit. Companies have ZERO interest in hiring anybody right now because they don't need to. You could lower taxes to zero and lower the minimum wage to $1 and companies still wouldn't hire anybody because they have nothing for them to do.

That's ridiculous, there is ALWAYS stuff to do... companies don't hire because benefit from hiring is lower than the cost... lower the cost and the benefit vs cost equation shifts in favor of hiring more people...

Take fast food industry for example... most fast food places are not open 24/7... and that's because lets say they earn $200/night, but have to pay $250 in labor costs... so it makes no sense to keep McDonalds open at night.... lower the cost of labor to $150 and suddenly, there is room to hire some night shift workers...

similar logic can be applied to ANY business...

(by cost of labor, I don't necessarily mean wages, but also various taxes, unemployment insurance, health insurance, and other costs and barriers to hiring...)

Robbie · 09-04-2011, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jesus H Christ

It's not that simple. The problem starts with the Fed/State payroll tax on top of their salaries plus healthcare. This tax can easily total up to 50% of an employees starting base salary.

Yep, it always burned my ass to have to pay MATCHING social security funds for my employees. Fucking govt. double dipping for social security and spending it on wars and lavish lifestyles for politicians and kickbacks to their buddies.

Hiring someone these days is a damn adventure all in itself. It's VERY expensive to have employees. TOO expensive.

$5 submissions · 09-04-2011, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymor

I see fast food companies advertising $9.50 / hour.
Minimum wage is $7.25. I conclude that even indulged jobs for teenagers already pay more than minimum wage, so minimum wage is no longer relevant.

Thank you for point that out. Highlights the market dynamics behind wages. So even if there is NO minimum wage, employers would still be under pressure to pay prevailing wages based on industry and skill level of the employee.

kane · 09-04-2011, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emil

I think so. 100s of people are standing in line applying for a single McD-job.
If wages could go down companies would be able to hire more people and even increase their profits because of the extra workers. Less people would have to get support from the government. And because of people in general making less money food prices will also go down. If people think they get paid too little then just dont take the job.
More companies would also have people work onshore that sending all the work needed to China, India...

Isn't it really that simple?

Yes and no. In a perfect world that is how it works. However, we don't live in a perfect world.. Say someone takes a job for $3 per hour. You can't live on $3 per hour. There might be exceptions to the rule, but the average person cannot support themselves on $3 per hour. So they will still likely be getting food stamps, possibly housing assistance, welfare, babysitting assistance etc. so they aren't really out of the system, they end up getting moved to a different part of the system.

The only way for it to really work and people having a decent life at that wage is if prices drop quickly and substantially and that is likely not going to happen.

GatorB · 09-04-2011, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

That's ridiculous, there is ALWAYS stuff to do... companies don't hire because benefit from hiring is lower than the cost... lower the cost and the benefit vs cost equation shifts in favor of hiring more people...

Take fast food industry for example... most fast food places are not open 24/7... and that's because lets say they earn $200/night, but have to pay $250 in labor costs... so it makes no sense to keep McDonalds open at night.... lower the cost of labor to $150 and suddenly, there is room to hire some night shift workers...

Ok so if they lower the wages by 40% then they'll hire workers. Workers who don't exist because no one will work for 40% less than the curent minimun wage. I wouldn't.
ther's this myth that if business could lower wages then they'll hire more workers. I think thay would take that savings and put it in their pockets and we would still have an unemployment problem. Also even if they did feel like hiring more workers there is the myth that they are millions of Americans willing to work for $4 an hour like it was 1988. The only workers willing to work for $4 an hour speak spanish and no one wants them here.

GatorB · 09-04-2011, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

Yes and no. In a perfect world that is how it works. However, we don't live in a perfect world.. Say someone takes a job for $3 per hour. You can't live on $3 per hour. There might be exceptions to the rule, but the average person cannot support themselves on $3 per hour. So they will still likely be getting food stamps, possibly housing assistance, welfare, babysitting assistance etc. so they aren't really out of the system, they end up getting moved to a different part of the system.

That is exactly my point. Heck there are people making $7.25 an hour that get foodstamps etc. at $3 they'd get even MORE. Where does this money come from. Ironically from the people bitching that the minimum wage is too high. So their taxes would have to be RAISED to give these people more welfare money. Also lowering the wages means less money coming in for SS and Medicare taxes which means the deficit gets even higher. If raised the minimum wage to $10 an hour then those on welfare would recieve LESS welfare and foodstamp of they get any at all. That SAVES money. They would get LESS money for the earned income credit. That SAVE money. They would pay MORE SS and medicare taxes. That SAVES money.

Also people on foodstamps don't pay sales tax on the food they buy. Where I live people like me not on foodstamps pay 8.25%. Maybe if there were less peole on foodstamps the tax on the food I'm buying wouldn't have to be 8.25% because there would be more people paying taxes on it. The way you get people off foodstamps is to increase their wages enough that they no longer qualify for them. This isn't rocket science people.

GatorB · 09-04-2011, 10:12 PM

Another thing to consider. Of the 9% unemployed and face it it's really 15%, the VAST majority of those people had jobs paying MUCH more than minimum wage. So lowering the minimum wage or getting rid of it completely does NOTHING to lower unemployment for those people who were making $30K, $40K, $50K a year.

raymor · 09-04-2011, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BFT3K

I think currently minimum wage in the states is $7.25 p/hr.

That averages LESS than $1,000 p/month to pay ALL of your bills and life expenses.

And some of you think people would be able to live on LESS than this?!

PLEASE!

As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, even many fast food places and gas stations are paying $12.50 or so. So if you need to earn more than $7.25, either start showing up sober so you qualify for McD's or better, or wait until you're 18 to move out.

When you talk about minimum wage employees, these are the ones who aren't responsible and hard working enough for even fast food. Darn right you can't make a decent living showing up an hour late and stoned out of your mind. Tough. Show up on time and you can make $12.50.

kane · 09-04-2011, 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymor

As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, even many fast food places and gas stations are paying $12.50 or so. So if you need to earn more than $7.25, either start showing up sober so you qualify for McD's or better, or wait until you're 18 to move out.

When you talk about minimum wage employees, these are the ones who aren't responsible and hard working enough for even fast food. Darn right you can't make a decent living showing up an hour late and stoned out of your mind. Tough. Show up on time and you can make $12.50.

This is a gross oversimplification of a larger problem. On one hand you are correct. A guy working a minimum wage job is much more likely to flake off, do a bad job etc than a guy making $15 or more. The reason is that the minimum wage guy is likely a kid who is just doing the job so he can make a few extra bucks while the other guys is likely supporting himself or others. Also, the more you pay, the larger the pool of prospective employees is so you can choose to be picky and select the best.

However, one of the main problems we are having now is that there are a ton of people who built a middle class life for themselves on a manufacturing job that paid $15-$25 per hour. That job is now gone and it isn't coming back. Many, hell, most, of the new jobs being created are lower paying service industry jobs or higher paying tech jobs. This means the guy has to make a choice. He can either take the lower paying job, declare bankruptcy and start over from scratch, but still not be able to provide much of a life for himself and his family or he can go back to school, get retrained and get a higher paying job. Neither one of those is a fast, easy fix nor is either other of those a pretty situation when you have kids to feed, but that is the way the world works and it is a situation a lot of people are facing today.

What I'm getting at is that getting a better paying job, a job that you can afford to support a family on and make a decent living on is a lot more difficult to get than just showing up sober or working hard. removing the minimum wage is not going help these people in the slightest unless it has an immediate effect on prices and brings things down in cost dramatically and quickly and that isn't going to happen.

09-02-2011, 09:16 AM	#55
MaDalton I am Amazing Content! Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 39,822	in germany there is partly no minimum wage. so what happens? some people get paid really shitty and then go and get additional money from the government. so the companies save money and make more profit and the tax payer is paying for it. sounds stupid to me. __________________ AmazingContent.com - providing only the best content and service since 2003 Monetize your content on Veegaz.com - one of Germanies largest VOD sites Got German traffic? We convert it into money for you! Skype: madalton02826 - Email: oltecconsult [at] gmail [dot] com

09-03-2011, 03:24 AM	#56
Sunny Day Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 1,406	Min Wage I once started laughing in the middle of a job interview, for an accountant. I pointed out, the offered wage was less than the McD's I could see out the window. I had recently been a contract employee, for this same company at twice the offered wage. Minimum wage at the time was $5.75, their offer was $8.75. The Backyard Burger, had a sign at their walk-up window offering $12.00 per hour + Medical, dental, 401K & profit sharing. Sad truth is, accountants get paid nothing ,unless you scam like the Enron owners. Where I was working, my boss, the head accountant made less per hour than the janitor. As for unemployment. No company will hire a laid-off 40+ year old person. They want young people with no medical problems. You're not 20 something with at least a masters degree, you can forget about a job. My last job, I put over $750,000 free money in their bank and my boss twice had to defend me to keep from being fired. Third time he lost out.

09-03-2011, 03:36 AM	#57
Sunny Day Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 1,406	People who hate Min wage. Usually the people who hate minimum wage, are the same assholes, I overhear in bars, complaining about unemployment, welfare & other programs for the needy. Then go on to brag how the Govt. is giving them money to rehab a building and sell condos to "suckers." Or better, I guy I know, bitches about welfare, but the Govt. pays him to raise Angora Goats. Need that wool for the next Korean War. Another is the person I know said, "if they elect Kerry, we'll get socialized medicine." Right after the VA paid for his hospitalization for his stroke. That's service related? He had been out of the Army for 40 years. Not like he couldn't afford it, as his business alone is worth about $5 million.

09-03-2011, 01:44 PM	#73
Relentless www.EngineFood.com Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 5,697	Minimum Wage ought to be a State by State decision. 7.25 * 40 hours = 290 per week for a full time employee. 290x52 = 15K per year You have little chance of surviving on 15K per year in New York, but you might be able to eek out an existence on that amount in Mississippi. So it would make sense that States each set a minimum wage to correspond to the cost of living in that location. It would also allow States to compete for workers, raising the minimum wage to bring in a workforce when demand exists etc... What the Federal Government ought to be doing is setting an absolute limit on poverty. Minimum Wage is only one of many components needed to do that. Minimal health care, food programs, shelter programs, medicaid, etc etc when properly implemented would create a 'hard floor' below which no citizen could fall. Food, Sanitation, Shelter, Basic Medical Care etc are not luxuries, they are necessities - that's why we provide all of the above for prison inmates. Having citizens without food, sanitation, shelter and proper basic medical care results in rampant crime, spread of disease, and a lower standard of living overall. State minimum wage should be an income level above that absolute limit on poverty set nationally. __________________ Website Secure \| Engine Food ICQ# 266-942-896

09-03-2011, 06:05 PM	#76
mynameisjim Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 2,985	First of all, the reason companies aren't hiring people is because they don't need any new employees. The reason they don't need any new employees is because overall demand for goods and services is down because everyone is broke. So how will giving people EVEN LESS money to spend going to increase demand and therefore spur companies to hire more people? Cutting wages will further sink the economy and cause even more unemployment. The jobs debate has been totally derailed because of all this tax bullshit. Companies have ZERO interest in hiring anybody right now because they don't need to. You could lower taxes to zero and lower the minimum wage to $1 and companies still wouldn't hire anybody because they have nothing for them to do. That's why the only answer to jump start the economy is huge, nationwide construction project(s). Bridges, school repair, high speed internet, etc. Many different people can work in construction projects and once that money starts getting into their pockets, they'll start spending and as demand inches up for various goods and services, companies will start hiring again. __________________ jim (at) amateursconvert . com Amateurs Convert

09-02-2011, 08:54 AM	#54
My Pimp Confirmed User Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 1,201	I am not sure that this would work .

09-03-2011, 12:32 PM	#68
mineistaken See signature :) Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: ICQ 363 097 773 Posts: 29,656	nope....

09-03-2011, 12:48 PM	#71
signupdamnit Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 6,697	Which do you think is the worst human and which would you look down upon more? Which would you be more likely to see as your Bro? Person A- Earns $3 an hour working a full time job for a billionaire but has to collect $200 a month in welfare to afford rent and $400 a month in food stamps to feed their family. Person B- Owns a sponsor program but rips off their affiliates and their customers using various scams and deceitful tactics. Doesn't need any government help because they cheat others. It's interesting the way we judge others sometimes, no? Some might say it's mainly done solely by the size of their pocketbook.

09-03-2011, 07:24 PM	#79
mynameisjim Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 2,985	U-Bob, you're a smart enough guy to know that I could find various proofs for my stimulus based solution as well. It really doesn't help anymore going back and forth IMHO. We are dealing with real world problems, not debate club back and forth. Even the cause of the great depression is still under debate despite nearly a century of study. A quick google search will turn up opinions that say we didn't spend enough, and others that say we spent too much. So what's you're solution? I'm not arguing with you or even contradicting you, I'm just curious what other alternatives there are for ending the catch 22 of Americans not spending, and companies not hiring. American companies have ZERO interest in investing in America right now, so that leaves the government to kick start things. There is simply nobody else who will do it. No tax breaks and no incentive will cause companies to invest in America and it's simply because they don't have to, they are getting better returns elsewhere around the world. There is nothing left we can do to entice business to hire Americans. __________________ jim (at) amateursconvert . com Amateurs Convert Last edited by mynameisjim; 09-03-2011 at 07:27 PM..

09-03-2011, 09:58 PM	#82
BFT3K Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Narnia Posts: 10,764	I think currently minimum wage in the states is $7.25 p/hr. $7.25 x 40 hours = $290, less approximately 25% in assorted payroll taxes and deductions (not including health care), leaves you with around $220 for the week. That averages LESS than $1,000 p/month to pay ALL of your bills and life expenses. And some of you think people would be able to live on LESS than this?! PLEASE! Last edited by BFT3K; 09-03-2011 at 10:03 PM..

09-04-2011, 10:28 AM	#85
BFT3K Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Narnia Posts: 10,764

09-04-2011, 01:30 PM	#88
Ron Bennett Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 1,653	Among the worst offenders of paying below minimum wage are various government and non-profit entities, such as community swimming pools. Most people are surprised to learn that some occupations are exempt from minimum wage laws and can legally pay even less than $7.25 per hour. Some summer jobs in Pennsylvania, reportedly, pay per hour in the high $5s / low 6s. On a related topic, most people, including many employers, are surprised to learn that in some states, such as Pennsylvania, that the employer doesn't legally have to provide any breaks at all for persons age 18+, if they don't want to ... And the kicker is that while providing breaks is voluntary on the employer's part in some states (ie. Pennsylvania), if the employer provides them, it's mandatory for the employee to take them. Bottom line is, the employer sets the rules; many of the legal protections many employees assume they have, they don't really unless they've negotiated for them, as part of a collective bargaining (ie. is a member of a union). Ron __________________ Domagon - Website Management and Domain Name Sales Last edited by Ron Bennett; 09-04-2011 at 01:33 PM..

09-04-2011, 03:36 PM	#91
shade001 Confirmed User Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 396	A whole thread full of fail. It saddens me that all of you think any economic problem can or would be fixed by the government. A government that owes a huge debt to a private bank, the Federal Reserve, run by international bankers. Every time one of you utters an opinion on anything more complicated than tying your shoes the collective world I.Q. goes down a few points and Baby Jesus begins to cry.

09-04-2011, 10:12 PM	#98
GatorB The Demon & 12clicks Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: SallyRand is a FAGGOT Posts: 18,208	Another thing to consider. Of the 9% unemployed and face it it's really 15%, the VAST majority of those people had jobs paying MUCH more than minimum wage. So lowering the minimum wage or getting rid of it completely does NOTHING to lower unemployment for those people who were making $30K, $40K, $50K a year.