Interesting article

Raising minimum wage doesn’t affect employment, in 3 charts (and 2 McDonald’s meals)

 

The ACA is the perfect example for the minimum wage. Companies can't afford it so they're cutting back on hours for their employees, or not hiring so they stay under the threshold.

Minimum wages will cause the same thing.

And if Obama really wants all Americans to earn a "living wage", why does he want to grant amnesty to 15-20 million illegal aliens, or create programs that cause more people to flood the border illegally?

 

CHARTS!

lets look at the same data presented differently:



yup: "little connection between the two."



also, just look up how many % of the workforce is paid min. wage, then stop caring at all. Min Wage debates only come up when someone wants to look like he's the champion of the 1%. the 1% of the workforce that gets paid min wage that is.

 

I bet they wouldn't have thrown an egg at him 25 years ago. Or if they did, they wouldn't live to tell about it. They would be murdered in roid rage.

 

The massive increase in unemployment was the direct result of the financial crisis. So even if the data does show a statistically significant correlation (ignoring the fact that the data spans only 10 years), that would mean that you are saying that raising minimum wage caused the global financial crisis. That is obviously not the case.

The simple fact is that if minimum wage was indexed to inflation it would easily be around 10 bucks right now. We are in a state of dramatic income disparity, the highest of any developed country by leaps and bounds.

People are only going to be paid what they are worth. If a $10/hour minimum wage in the fast food industry means that they have to raise the prices too high to be competitive, then they will figure out a way to automate the process and hire less people. There is nothing wrong with that for anybody, including for the people that are being displaced by the higher wages and automation. They would be upset initially but in the long run everybody is better off.

 

Riddle me this Batman...why has the income disparity increased so shockingly under Obama, and why didn't we bounce back quickly from the recession like we have from EVERY other recession?

I personally think it's a layer of stupid laws like an outrageous minimum wage and the "ACA" that are crippling our economy. There are fewer and fewer people and companies driving this economy; over 92 million working-age people are sitting on the sidelines. That can't last, and a minimum wage certainly won't add people to the employment rolls.

 

The disparity has been steadily growing for the past 20 years, prior to that we were at similar levels of other developed countries. This is the direct result of reckless deregulation that started in the 80s and continues to this day. Im not sure that it has really changed much in the past few years.

With deregulation and strategically placed loopholes, the financial market exploded. Lots and lots of people have gotten rich without producing anything, no products, no services. Its just money made out of other money by pushing the limits of the system to the breaking point.

That is what happened in 07. All these big corporations in the financial industry were operating with absurdly high leverage to the point where the tiniest loss of profits put them into bankruptcy. They had been given incentive to act without any consideration for long term sustainability.

Say what you will about Obama's keneysian policies, but the crash had absolutely nothing to do with him. As for the recovery, this was a worldwide economic clusterfuck the likes of which we have never seen. There isnt anything to compare it to.

 

So in other words policies made by the government caused this mess. I'd word it different, but agree.

 

More people get paid LESS than the min. wage, legally, than actually get paid the min. wage.

Why are we even talking about it? Because you really care about the 1-2% of the american workforce who took a job in an unskilled position, and are SO bad at their work (or so pointless of a job [e.g. sign twirlers]) they couldn't make above the pay level, and put themselves through college and make something better of themselves? true champions of humanity.

plus almost half the states has their own min wage set higher than the fed. min, and it's something that really does fall under the 10th; and the laws that established it were under the New Deal, and upheld under the same liberal, unamerican, agenda.

 

I'm not going to argue to the ACA, the dramatic need for tax reform, or even the minimum wage. My big thing is the growing pay inequality between the middle class and the executive/CEO level.

Middle-class wages have been in stagnation vs inflation for approaching 3 decades, and nearly all new wealth generated is being funneled to the top (it hasn't been this skewed since 1916).

Avg middle-class folks year after year get to see things like a raise that doesn't even cover the increased cost of healthcare, bonuses lowered or not given even though companies remain profitable.

"Well just change jobs then?"

This has been the case at 3 of the 4 companies I've worked for, including the present. Unlike the guys on the floor, I get enough other perks to stick around.

 

so your gripe is you want more of a business's, that you don't own, profits?

 

I like how you ignored the rest of the post to come up with some off-base assumption. How does another company paying their own employees more instead of funneling it up to the top get me more money?

Oh wait, you've already admitted you don't care to actually discuss stuff online and prefer to just troll and not be serious.

Carry on.

 

The rest weren't really points, that why I ignored them.

My last job gave me a raise that didn't cover the new payroll taxes and I was actually making less money each month, so I got a new one that was a 33% percent increase in total pay after taxes.

but noes, roughly 300,000 americans are making money out of proportion to me... they are hoarding all the money so my share is smaller!

except, everyone's share, today, is larger... it's like money isn't finite.

it doesn't? because you're not employed by another company?


Edit, you almost tricked me there!!!!



however, if you're getting rich because of having your hands in the pockets of those in power (green energy loans, bailouts vs. providing value), then I say to you: it’s not that some group is getting an unfair slice of the pizza, it’s that the the oven is broke. The poor should not subsidize the rich.

and a quote for good measure:


but so long as the gap is smaller, you'd rather have the poor poorer? because I'll tell you want, I'd rather be poor today than anytime in history since 1916...

 

I think a better way to think about it is that he is saying, of the "pie" that is any single company's payroll expense, it should be more evenly(1) distributed among the workers versus being extremely concentrated among the C-level executives.

Or, said another way, he might be suggesting that there is probably NOT a good justification for most CEOs making 200-some-odd times as much as the average employee in the same firm. Should the C-level folks make a lot more than the line guys and gals or cubicle prairie dogs? Probably. But maybe a spread that extreme is not a good thing.

(1) "More evenly" is not the same as "equally"

 

is there a good justification for getting paid well above the average for your patricular job just because the company you work for happens to profit well? shareholders and investors may not like that...

If you want to be rewarded for teh success of your company, buy shares in it. Else work for a private company that engages in profit sharing, else it doesn't make sense for any company to pay its employees a greater rate as it does better, just because it does better when it could hire others to do the same work for substantially less.

Executives didn't just go to work and suddenly became head honcos; they worked HARD to get where they are and are now rewarded more than handsomely. But if I wanted to get a job where I got rewarded monetarily for the amount of effort I put in I'd have become a janitor, not sit in a cube counting the minutes pass by. But to think that you can just work 9-5 each day and that you should suddenly reap in the rewards of something you have no stake in is an odd sentiment, imho.

 

Considering I'm directly responsible for Usage Instructions, Installation and Calibration Instructions for a $15x,xxx,xxx manufacturing facility..........and poor instructions/direction could LITERALLY mean MILLIONS in liability lawsuits if someone gets hurt or killed because I make a mistake.......

Hmmm, I didn't realize I have no stake in the company I work for.

 

do what the hackers do, show them their valuerbilities by purposefully creating fault, then hope they pay you more because they are forced to see your worth?

whoops! all these people wouldn't be dead if you paid me my worth!

 

Just remember; YOU DIDN'T BUILD THAT.

 

Don't forget to not take a pay check for the first two years of the company, so all the income can go to making the company viable. Make sure you spend 70 hours a week on the job and then fly off to some **** hole for a trade show on the weekends, only to do it all over again on Monday.

The dirty little secret about "income inequality" is that most of the one percenters only spend a few years at the top. After years of HARD work the top salesman becomes the sales manager maybe for 5-6 years. The lawyer becomes a partner, Joe the Plumber grows his business to 10 trucks. The "big money" comes in for 5-6-10 years and then they retire, or business goes South.

Democrats and Socialists have made a living out of demonizing those who have worked hard and now are reaping the rewards. Now the "prize" for that success is to pay over half of your income back to the government. Apparently for some that's not enough.

 

But I want to be rewarded for work I didn't do, ideas I didn't have, and risks I didn't take.