Raising minimum wage...how is this supposed to help?

[Moneyguy1]

Yup. YOu are correct.

Without some constraints, the Carnegies, the Rockefellers and other "robber Barons" certainly made the citizens of the late nineteenth/early twentieth century better off.

In an ideal world, where people are governed by altruistic motives, it might be true that the rich help everyone. Not in the real world, though....

BTW....How do you "punish the rich"? Most of their money does not come from salaries, but from investments.

[Superman]

Originally posted by snowman
Pat is correct, it is their KEEPERS that yield their power for them and of course that of the keepers.

Tell me about their contributions, to anything, compared to the rich. The rich make all of us better off, thats exactly why they are rich. Punish the rich, you punish all of us. Reward the poor, you drag all of us down to their level.

The USSR was absolute proof of these facts. Add to that corruption that is necessary for that form of govt to survive and humanity is worse off, not better off for it.

It is sometimes difficult to take your remarks seriously. Helping the poor endangers society? The group that needs protection but is not corrupt.....is the rich? Your thinking, as well as that of your "president," is certainly "outside the box."

[Racerbvd]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
Yup. YOu are correct.

Without some constraints, the Carnegies, the Rockefellers and other "robber Barons" certainly made the citizens of the late nineteenth/early twentieth century better off.

In an ideal world, where people are governed by altruistic motives, it might be true that the rich help everyone. Not in the real world, though....

BTW....How do you "punish the rich"? Most of their money does not come from salaries, but from investments.

And who do you think made the investment that created those salaries??? Without those "investments" where would business be???

[Moneyguy1]

Byron:

Understanding the complexities of the economic system isd not for the faint of heart, or for those with pre conceived ideas. It is a living organism, continually evolving. Agree or not, without constraints, either legislated or moral, there is no such thing as a truly free economy.

Now I have no proof, only observing your collection of toys. I would think you are quite removed from the "working class" when it comes to net worth. Am I correct here?

Yes, investments are important but they do not translate directly into goods and services. That is, sending a check to your brokerage does not translate into economic growth as much as taking the same amount of money and purchasing product. (the multiplier effect). It is the same misconception given to government spending. Consider the arguments about all that money spent on the space program. Really....Was that money sealed in the nosecone and fired out into the nether regions of the universe, or was it paid to industries and individuals who than took these funds and purchase tooling, homes, groceries, appliances, etc.

Each of us looks at the economy from our own narrow point of view. To some it looks fantastic. To others they see little or no advantage to them.

[Superman]

That, Bob, would be a fitting and merciful and somewhat elegantly couched final post in this beleaguered thread. Too bad Superman fukked it up with another post.

[snowman]

Investments are the ONLY source of income for the poor. Wipe out investments and you supress the poor. The rich will at least come out even, but much better off than the poor. In the USSR, the largest experiment of its kind in history, the elite (or what you would call the rich) were many times better off than the poor. In fact they were better off relative to the poor than any of the so called corrupt western countrys. Just how do you explain this? You can't. Capitalism is the most equal form of society yet devised. It is also the only form that deals out capital in direct proportion to the contribution of the individual. Poor people do not contribute to anything. Only a true conservative contributes to the poor. That is a fact supported by extensive research. Liberals are selfish people that beleive that only govt extortion can support the poor. Only the liberal needs to be forced to contribute to support of the poor.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by Superman
.... The difference between the federal $5.25 MW and Washington State's $7.93, is that while both earnings potentially allow survival (eating, and living indoors), the higher wage carries the potential for an automobile. That's incentive...

So...you and other liberals want to raise the minimum wage nationally so that your liberal enclaves can still compete with rest of the country after foolishly raising your own? Reminds me of the thread complaining about high gas prices in CA as compared to other parts of the country. Only a fool would think they could have it both ways.
Next thing you know, companies in big union states like Michigan will expect the other taxpayers to help pay for inflated union wages and benefits.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by Superman
...I still think it very curious, you guys' apparent preference for social programs at the taxpayers' cost, rather than employers picking up the bill...

If you really understood economics, you would realize that employers do not "pick up the bill." They simply pass it on to the consumer...until it is no longer possible. Then they go out of business. Both at at the "taxpayers' cost."
Clearly all social welfare is at taxpayers' cost. Even if the Government is printing money, the additional unearned dollars lower the value of those taxpayers own. Even charity is at taxpayers' expense...but at least it is voluntary.

[Hugh R]

My son found out about this today. He works at a local skeet range and because they raised the minimum wage, they had to raise prices and business has dropped off enough, they're putting him and several other boys on reduced hours.

[fintstone]

Well Supe...it didn't take a degree in psychology to predict that...Common sense clearly is not common.

[john70t]

Hugh R, mabye more burger slingers have a few extra bills in their pocket and can now afford to do something fun, like skeet shooting?

I'll confess I know little about economics, but I do know that the results of carefull gardening only shows up many months afterwards, if it hasen't been trampled....

[Hugh R]

I don't think too many burger slingers are doing skeet shooting. What's your point? In his case, you raise wages, costs go up.

[john70t]

Because wages have gone up.....which results in excess capitol....which results in local spending....which results in more business....and the need for more employee hours(eventually).
Sorry, my post was pretty simplistic, but even the first Ford said that he was selling a car that his employees could afford.

There are way too many factors/facets of economics I don't study(some long-term and most short) to counter-argument(pun) the fact is that America either has to 1)become extremely protectionist in some areas or 2)become a third world nation in order to equally join a world-market (Nafta etc) where labor is as cheap as the surrounding starving millions.
I personally would rather see an introduction of a well-planned universal health care than a pay raise, but after seeing how SS is going I'll remain doubtfull.

[snowman]

John. I will personally pay for a one way ticket to your choice of health care heaven. Just leave my health care alone and don't fk it up.

People in Canada, the UK and many other countries around the world spend their last buck coming to the US to get good health care. Their systems are FAILURES, total complete failures. Their statistics are total LIES. In the UK, when someone dies while in the queue for say a heart operation, its NATURAL causes, not lack of health care that did him in. Don't believe it? Just ask some Brits. Even the worst off illegal aliens here get quicker and better health care than the so called insured in those Mecca’s of divine great universal health care. Just read the London Times. EVERY single day there is a story of someone who died of lack of care, someone who would have NOT died in this country. Yet their statistics show they offer better care, yeh, right. You have to know ALL Europeans have corrupt governments and equally corrupt statistics, just like the USSR had.

As to economics, you are clearly unschooled. Even the most basic courses teach that what you assume is totally wrong. If costs go up, demand goes DOWN, not up. Inflation creates opportunity for the taxman, and no one else. The min wage person can NEVER afford to shoot skeet. With higher cost there is even less an opportunity to do so. Also there are fewer workers employed. I will pay someone $25 to mow my lawn, but I will NOT pay someone $35 to do so. Lost opportunity, lost income, lost job.

[Racerbvd]

Originally posted by john70t
Hugh R, mabye more burger slingers have a few extra bills in their pocket and can now afford to do something fun, like skeet shooting?

I'll confess I know little about economics, but I do know that the results of carefull gardening only shows up many months afterwards, if it hasen't been trampled....

Well, if everything else is going to cost more, he may not even have a job, and he surely won't have any money to do anything fun. You don't to confess about how little you know about economics, your post prove that

[Lothar]

Kudos to the Senate. The minimum wage hike was rejected in the Senate because no offsetting tax break was offered to small business.

Raising the minimum wage is bad policy regardsless of tax breaks, but at least a wrench has been thrown in the works for now.

People who cannot do work worth $7.25 per hour will get to keep their jobs for a while longer. Teenagers and minorities take it in the shorts every time the minimum wage is raised because they simply don't get hired.

[snowman]

Ever wonder why there are no longer restaurants with waitresses? The min wage, that’s why.

So long car hops, any low price restaurant, with a waitress or waiter. Self serve is a direct result of min wage law. Same for gas stations. Do it yourself. All those entry level people no longer have a chance, nothing, nada. They either get better skills or never get a job.

Now they are all on welfare while the mexicans get the job, for $10 an hour, plus lunch, no tax deductions. Beleive it or not its cheaper to hire an illegal for $10 an hour, plus lunch than it is to hire a legal at $5.25 per hour. Make that $7 plus an hour and you will never see a legal employed at the entry level again.

We need to start making judges that reflect american ways and not those of commie left wing political types that should be shipped off to europe.

[Moneyguy1]

I doubt if it is that simple. Technology has permitted business and industry to eliminate human labor. No judgement here, just the reality of the situation. Those changes would have happened in any case as technological advancements permitted.

[snowman]

Not true. Those changes were brought about by increased expense, otherwise they would not have happened. Technology is driven by the cost of labor.

[Moneyguy1]

Wrong. Asd usual. Oversimplified and trite.

Technology is its own engine. It is man's nature to tinker, invent and improve!!

You really need to get out a bit more and mingle with the "common folk"!!