LOL $15 Min wage!!!

[arkady]

Corporate profits are at an all-time high as a % of GDP and wages are at an all time low. Time for corporations to start paying people who are actually working rather than generating profits and dividends for wealthy shareholders who contribute nothing to society.

 

[arkady]

And McDonald's isn't going to cut people if the minimum wage is raised. How will it produce hamburgers? How will it collect money? That is just an argument put forth to scare people into not pursuing their own interst. Unfortunately, from what I've read on this board, it works incredibly well. If you don't want a higher minimum wage, then forego it when it's offered but don't stand in the way of people who know they're generating mega millions for greedy CEOs and billions for passive shareholders.

 

[arkady]

Paying people not enough to live on (even college students) isn't capitalism, it's slavery. And it forces the government to subsidize billion dollar corporations.

Also, the current inflation definition has changed twice since 1980 and no loner reflects reality. Inflation is much higher than reported. Using the current definition, $10 is a fair minimum wage but under true reality, it should be much higher.

Look around you, prices of food, gas and healthcare are all skyrocketing. The price of gasoline is up from $1.50 in 2004 to $3.50 today. That's a compound annual growth rate of 9%. The reported inflation rate is like 2%. Wages need to keep pace with prices at the very least.

 

[copestag]

you know if you hit the enter key it begins a new line and if you hit it twice it begins a new paragraph...... its not necessary to create 300 posts in the hopes that a higher post count will give the dribble credence

 

[arkady]

you know if you hit the enter key it begins a new line and if you hit it twice it begins a new paragraph...... its not necessary to create 300 posts in the hopes that a higher post count will give the dribble credence

Excellent argument!

 

[jackroo]

Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't raising the minimum wage actually save us money in the long run? Hear me out and please tell me if my logic is off or if I'm accurate.
A good portion of those living on minimum wage qualify or can qualify for food stamps or some other type of government assistance. That costs us taxpayers more money to put into those assistance programs (I am, for the record, a supporter of people who truly need assistance). So if we raise the wage to $10.10 or higher and get these people living decently then they wouldn't need/qualify for assistance and the amount of people needing assistance would go down resulting in fewer dollar being spent on these programs.

I'm a supporter of raising the minimum wage, by the way. $15 is a bit much and and I don't think it would happen anytime soon but at least $10 would help some honest folks out. Some people don't have a choice but to work at fast food joints. Folks get laid off professional jobs and have to provide for their families so they're forced to go to Wendy's or wherever. Wouldn't giving these people a couple extra bucks an hour be a decent thing to do? I respect the opinions of others who disagree and would like to hear a response back to what I've posted here. Thank you.

 

[SiempreTuna]

Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't raising the minimum wage actually save us money in the long run?

No correction required: you're absolutely right

A good portion of those living on minimum wage qualify or can qualify for food stamps or some other type of government assistance

As discussed above, Bloomberg - so definitely NOT the 'liberal'* press - point to two studies that have shown that employers paying minimum wage cost the US tax payer around $7 billion per year, with MacDonalds alone costing the tax payer $1.2 billion per year (see above for links).

One of the problems, of course with changing this is that the very companies that cause the problem not only benefit from the exploitation, they also benifit from the tax payers subsidies: Walmart rake in the majority of food stamp spending. That's quite an incentive for them to bribe - sorry, lobby - for maintaining the status quo (again, see above for links).



* the US definition of 'liberal' is very bizarre as it is the polar opposite of the original meaning: the term 'Liberal' was actually coined for 19th century supporters of laissez faire economics and free trade, so essentially, the original liberal stood for pretty much exactly what the GOP claim to support today. 'Claim' because in fact, the GOP support massive subsidies to industry - so totally NOT laissez faire - and when push comes to shove, they're all for protectionism - e.g. steel and Bush 43 - so totally NOT free trade.

 

[Prepaidguy9081]

Rasing the minimum wage is just a raise in income tax.

See they wont lower the tax because you make more money. And thusly you pay more taxes on your check.

But who cares you have nore money right? But if we double the pay, then lets raise the cost of burgers, covers the raises, right? Right.

So now a mcdouble is 2 dollars right? Wendy's is already going this route, why not mcdonalds too? So now you make 15 instead of 7.50, but you have the same number of mcdoubles. And the government makes more taxes.

(Yes I know that the math is way simple and dose not correlate to the exact mathmatics of supply and demand curves, ect ect.)

Simple argument.
Simple idea.
Simple way to have the masses sing you praises as you raise taxes.

It's what I would do if I want you to smile while handing me more money.

 

[SiempreTuna]

Not quite sure what you mean.

Taxes on low earners in the US are only 10% to 15% which leaves 85% to 90% of the extra cash for the worker. So from that perspective, the increase is very much in the interest of the worker, not the tax man. Of course, increasing pay will mean a reduction in the amount of benefits that are paid so the tax payer will save money - as they would with any reduction in business subsidies.

Even the consumer barely suffers: I seem to recall there's something above which shows that, assuming all of the extra cost of raising the minimum wage to $15/hr was put onto the price of a Big Mac, it would increase the price to around $5 (see above for links and citations). According to Google, a Big Mac currently costs around $4.80. That means a 4% increase, not a doubling of price.

So the worker would benefit, tax payers would benefit, the deficit could (assuming the GOP didn't p*** it all away on tax cuts) benefit. The consumer would barely be affected. Even exploitative companies like MacDonalds and the like probably wouldn't see much of a reduction in their vast profits - not that they pay much tax on profits anyway, so even that would not exactly be a big deal for the US.

 

[copestag]

an interesting perspective...... except you forget 2 things.....at the very least

the minimum wage worker that pays in the low tax bracket will jump to a higher tax bracket when hes paid $15/hr

then its a game much like overtime pay....... how many hours can I work before I hit the next tax bracket and actually lose money by working more

also you must consider..... if the price is $4.80 for a big mac (I'll assume your number is correct as it wont make a difference either way)...... and these greedy corporations are only out to reap huge profits.......and raising wages to $15/hr would only raise the price to $5 (again assuming your numbers are correct)..... which is acceptable........ why do you suppose McDs doesnt just leave the wages as is and raise the price of a Big Mac to $5? wouldnt this make them even more insanely huge profits?

could it be because prices are calculated based on what the market will bare....... so raisning the price to $5 for whichever reason.... wage increases or profit increase... would actually cost them money through lower sales?

just some food (pun intended) for thought

 

[SiempreTuna]

the minimum wage worker that pays in the low tax bracket will jump to a higher tax bracket when hes paid $15/hr

Err .. no

Far from forgetting, I actually checked (I know - strange idea ):

A single person on $15/hr with zero deductibles, working 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, 52 weeks a year, would earn $31,200 which is well within the 15% bracket ($9,075 to $36,900).

then its a game much like overtime pay....... how many hours can I work before I hit the next tax bracket and actually lose money by working more

Not much of a worry, given the next tax bracket is only 25% and that goes all the way up to $89,350 (same link as above).

To start to pay more than 25% tax on $15/hr would mean working over 16 hrs a day, 365 days a year.

So not too much danger there

could it be because prices are calculated based on what the market will bare....... so raisning the price to $5 for whichever reason.... wage increases or profit increase... would actually cost them money through lower sales?

You are precisely correct: competition keeps the price down.

Exactly the same competition that keeps prices down when minimum wages increase.

Also, given that all of MacDo's competitors are affected equally, it would be a wash anyway.

BTW: I'm not saying a $15 minimum wage is remotely likely or even necessarily a good idea, I'm just saying the majority of arguments trotted out against it have been proved, by decades of experience across dozens of countries, to be complete and utter rubbish.

Every time any country, anywhere has proposed introducing or increasing a minimum wage, the same sorry arguments and dire predictions have been made. Every time, in every case, in every country, they have been proved flat out wrong: none of the calamities the opponents claimed were inevitable have EVER actually happened.

Latest economic thinking actually claims that far from destroying jobs, increasing the US minimum wage to $9.80 could create 100,00 US jobs.

I have no doubt that there is a point beyond which increasing the minimum wage would be detrimental, however we're nowhere near that point now. To match the buying power the minimum wage had in 1968 it would have to be $10.69/hr now. And that entirely ignores the 344% growth in US GDP over the last 46 years.

Ain't it about time we looked at the actual evidence?

 

[copestag]

youre absolutely correct........ none of those tired arguments ever come true....... government interference in business practices never have any detrimental effects

oh ya........ tell me again about how china has such a strong economy......... tell me again about all these companies that take their jobs overseas

as far as the tax brackets go........ thats really a moot argument...... since at minimum wage or $15/hr neither one pays any federal income tax.... at least not the people we're discussing here

 

[SiempreTuna]

oh ya........ tell me again about how china has such a strong economy

Oops: bad example!

China would claim it's success is down to it's command economy, i.e. the fact the government controls - indeed, owns much of - the economy.

And worse, their economic success has been so impressive, it's a prime reason why much of the developing world no longer consider democracy or capitalism such great ideas.

tell me again about all these companies that take their jobs overseas

That would be because of Anglo Saxon short termism: grabbing at short term profit (moving manufacturing abroad to exploit lower wages) and ignoring the longer term affect of rendering manufacturing outside the far east uneconomical.

Low wages aren't the reason hi tech manufacturing is almost exclusively done in the far east now: it's past investment, local expertise and the shortened supply chain. All of which was originally set up and financed by .. us.

And what a great success it's been - think mobile phones: 20 years ago, western companies led the world. Now a Korean company does. Some US companies design hardware, but they're incapable of manufacturing anything themselves.

You have to wonder if investing in people and plant at home might not have been a better idea ..

 

[Gmash]

A person with no dependents making $15 or even $10/hr certainly does pay federal income tax. With kids is a different story.

 

[copestag]

a person with no dependents can easily live off current minimum wage.... thats not who we are whining about is it?

 

[Gmash]

A single person can live easily on $7.29/hr?

 

[SiempreTuna]

thats not who we are whining about is it?

Actually, yes: I am 'whining' about them, too

Some of us are crippled by an unaccountable empathy with those worse off than ourselves. It's a disability: what can I say? Life would be so much easier if I could just ignore the suffering of others and have it be all about me

 

[Prepaidguy9081]

!

 

[pbf98]

Minnesota has started increasing their minimum wage, by raising it to 8.00 an hour, with a promise that it will increase to 10 an hour by 2016. Restaurants have already started trying to make up for their losses with the small increase by adding a "minimum wage fee" to every total. Currently they are small amounts, but they will go up with the minimum wage.

 

[jackroo]

Did anyone see that restaurant in Minnesota get grilled for that stupid 35

 

[copestag]

restaurants operate on very thin profit margins to begin with........ not every restaurant is McDs

as I recall the particular story youre talking about estimated the increase would cost them about $10K a year......... thats enough to put a small restaurant out of business...... and cost some jobs

Im guessing $7.25/hr is more desirable than $0/hr

 

[jackroo]

I see what you're saying but then we go back back to the other side of the coin: if those owners continued to pay their workers the same old $7.35/hr and continue to operate then sure they'll still be in business but those workers will still rely on food stamps and other possible assistance. It's like a vicious cycle: if you don't raise minimum wage then you have to accept a growing population (est to be over 50 million) who rely on food stamps because they don't get paid enough. That food stamp money will come from us the taxpayer who will continue to grumble about "those pesky lazy fast food folks".

 

[copestag]

its all fine and dandy to blame 50 million food stamp recipients on the minimum wage...... except there are only 1.6 million people earning minimum wage

2/3 of which are part time workers

1/2 of which are school age

1/3 of which are still in high school

2/3 of which are waitress/busboy type jobs

just some perspective on all these myths about people trying to raise their family on minimum wage....... theres just not that many of them

 

[jackroo]

I didn't say ALL 50 million were min wage workers but it's a growing number

 

[copestag]

again incorrect......... as a percentage of total workers its a rapidly declining number

if you mean the number of people on food stamps is a growing number....... that clearly has absolutely nothing to do with minimum wage.... but its a great talking point I suppose