OT: Raising the minimum wage doesn't work.

Page 2 of 2  
wrote:

You still didn't answer if my assumptions were correct.

Umm, what does job security, living wages or health care have to do with a discussion about minimum wage? Minimum wage is what is paid to those who have no experience, no skills and often no higher education to perform an entry level job. Those entry level jobs are where one begins their career path. If one wants a living wage, health care, job security, paid vacations, stock options, a company car, an expense account and other perks that come with a NON entry level job one must work hard, get promoted, get more education, get promoted again while they are climbing the corporate ladder.
If one is not willing to make those sacrifices to climb the ladder one is not entitled to the rewards that bring. I would think your pixie dust would have explained that to you.

Try again.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 1:21:18 PM UTC-5, NorMinn wrote:

Where exactly do you think living wages, healthcare, etc appear from, if not from corporations? That's where countless Americans have found good paying jobs, health care, vacation, sick days, retirement plans, etc. The libs are the ones spreading out the pixie dust in the form of record numbers of people on food stamps, unemployment insurance that never ends, welfare, etc. The corporations actually pay employees out of real money. The libs pay it out of the govt printing press and pile it on to the national debt.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Extremely wrong. On more than one count. Opinions are very often based on almost nothing BUT facts. Many people have been sentenced to death because the "opinion" of a forensic pathologist was persuasive enough to sway a jury. That opinion is usually based on the detailed examination of evidence and using scientific tests to draw conclusions. When such witnesses are qualified by the court as experts in their field, their "expert opinion" is considered factual, especially when compared to say the musings of self-qualified internet expert. (-:
Secondly, there are now dozens of well-designed studies that support your observation that raising the minimum wage *cuts* dependency on food stamps and other government handouts.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/04/economists-agree-raising-the-minimum-wage-reduces-poverty/
It has a pretty easy to understand description (with graphics) of those studies with a nice summation of the most important work in the field like this one:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/15038936/Dube_MinimumWagesFamilyIncomes.pdf
The gist? Yes, some jobs may be lost but the benefits far outweigh the negatives. The article concludes with:
<<As many economists have argued, the minimum wage "substantially 'held up' the lower tail of the U.S. earnings distribution" through the late 1970s, but this effect stopped as the real value of the minimum wage fell in subsequent decades. This gives us an empirical handle on how the minimum wage would help deal with both insufficient low-end wages and inequality, and the results are striking. Charles Darwin once wrote, "If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin." One of the key institutions of the modern economy, the minimum wage, could dramatically reduce the misery of the poor. What would it say if we didn't take advantage of it?>>
--
Bobby G.




Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 8:24:29 AM UTC-5, Robert Green wrote:

This whole thing is a crock. The vast majority of people who are earning minimum wage are not supporting a family. They are young, under 25, many are teenagers in part-time jobs. That's the way the world works. You get an entry level job that requires no skills. A lot of people do that when still in high school, or summer jobs during college. Then you move up to a better, higher paying job. The libs want to pretend the world is static and that there are 50 year olds out there that are supporting a family of 4 on min wage. Raising the min wage will solve nothing. There are about 1.5 mil people earning min wage, but that group isn't static. People start there and move up. It's just another read herring instead of fixing the real problems with the economy. The solution to better wages for *everyone* is economic policies to grow the economy. Instead, we have a president who chooses to divide, engage in class warfare. Now he's saying he's gonna ignore the constitution and try to go it alone. We'll see how far that gets him.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

you can support this opinion with facts?
That's the way the

no, they would like you to understand that they are TRYING to support a family of 4 and that min wage doesn't allow that
Raising the

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

minimum wage. Say 100 times.
--
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

these tax things were put in place in the mid-80s (by strong bipartisan majorities, BTW) because Congress at the time actually wanted to reign in what they THEN viewed as widely outrageous executive pay.
In order to fight this Evil, they effectively capped executive salary (what they are paid to actually run the company) by making nothing more than $1 million deductible. (If you look at the proxy filings for most publicly held companies, a large %age of them still top actual salaries at that point).
Then, in an attempt to "align the interests of the shareholders and the executives", tax-favored performance based things such as stock options, etc. So, instead of paying someone for actually running the company, they paid them to run the books. I don't think it was coincidence that first book-cooking scandal took place within the next two years after passage. Over the long haul, all sorts of things occurred. In no apparent order of importance:
1). Executive pay rose substantially (although interestingly enough if you look at many of the indicators they rise and fall with the stock) and execs were paid orders of magnitude more than even the most captive board would have had the balls to pay them before. 2)> The concentration of wealth starts the spike around the same time. 3). The marker people like to point to, ratio between exec pay and the average on the shop floor, ballooned. After bouncing around 30X or so during the 60s, 70s, and early 80s, it took off cresting north of 300x before falling back with the stock market. So to those clamoring for Congressional action I point to the above and suggest they be damn careful what they wish for.
(Actually if I were in charge, I'd make dividends tax-favored. You can't restate a dividend, if you reinvest you get you the advantages of compounding, and the main metrics (%age of cash flow used to pay the dividends and whether the dividend grows) are much easier to understand, figure, are not as susceptible to accounting games as the current metrics.
--
Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.