Started By
Message
re: Birmingham City Council votes to increase minimum wage to $10.10
Posted on 2/25/16 at 3:22 pm to AllbyMyRelf
Posted on 2/25/16 at 3:22 pm to AllbyMyRelf
quote:
The point I make when comparing companies and individuals is that both act purposefully to maximize their utility. For companies, we call that utility profit. Both react according to incentives, so we can compare how government regulates them.
Yes, like scientific management. There is some merit there, but it definitely isnt directly comparable.
quote:
Don't want to what?
Sit back and collect welfare as if it is livable.
quote:
That a market can provide care for people who get sick or hurt. Does that mean a free market society will be a utopia? No. People should still care about and help those in their community who need it. This is done more efficiently (through a utilitarian perspective) voluntarily without government force.
Eh, utilitarian definitely takes the human factor out of it, especially when they are no longer of use. That's the point though, what happens when the community doesnt provide?
quote:
We don't know exactly how industry in the US would have turned out if the US had not had protectionist policies. Consumers benefit most when countries allow for free trade, which generally causes countries to specialize in industries in which they have a comparative advantage.
Certainly do not disagree with this.
quote:
Typically, market crashes and bubbles are a result of government intervention in the market.
Yes, or the result of a run on banks, etc. I don't think it's a good idea to assume the market will correct itself. I definitely won't argue that FED intervention has caused economic problems.
1
Posted on 2/25/16 at 3:40 pm to Robert Goulet
quote:
Sit back and collect welfare as if it is livable.
There are a lot of variables to consider here. What if there were less regulations on businesses? Wouldn't that create an environment where more business could survive and increase employment? What if there were lower taxes? Wouldn't that effectively raise people's income and increase demand in the market and increase employment? So what happens if you put more regulations on businesses like minimum wage? You increase the price of labor and lower the demand for labor. What happens if you take a larger percentage of people's income through taxation? You lower people's income and lower the demand in the market.
How do we combat poverty? The first thing to consider is that poverty is relative. The bottom 30% of Americans today (in terms of wealth) are much wealthier than the bottom 30% 50 years ago. Is that not combatting poverty? There will always be a bottom 30%. That being said, wealth creation and innovation make people better off. History has shown that free markets create the best environment for innovation and wealth creation. There is no wealth pie that the top 1% are eating up. Wealth isn't fixed, it's created.
quote:
what happens when the community doesnt provide?
Then people suffer. But we have people suffering today with government social programs. Again, instead of treating symptoms of poverty, why don't we do what's best to combat poverty?
quote:
or the result of a run on banks
What caused the run on the banks? People made a run on the banks because of a bad economic situation, not the other way around.
Posted on 2/25/16 at 4:14 pm to AllbyMyRelf
quote:
What if there were less regulations on businesses? Wouldn't that create an environment where more business could survive and increase employment? What if there were lower taxes? Wouldn't that effectively raise people's income and increase demand in the market and increase employment? So what happens if you put more regulations on businesses like minimum wage? You increase the price of labor and lower the demand for labor. What happens if you take a larger percentage of people's income through taxation? You lower people's income and lower the demand in the market.
Ok, well we could hypothetical all day. Lowering taxes could cause many things. People would save more, perhaps they buy more regular goods, perhaps they don't buy more depending on the elasticity/inelasticity. One could ask what happens if there werent government regulations and create a ton of hypotheticals for that.
It is a curious thing in this country that we want all these great public services, roads, and free stuff but do not want to pay for it through taxation.
quote:
Then people suffer. But we have people suffering today with government social programs. Again, instead of treating symptoms of poverty, why don't we do what's best to combat poverty?
I have a problem with just letting people suffer in the most prosperous nation on earth. Using poverty relative to 50 years ago is a wasted venture. Sure, there will always be outliers who just frick up and will not catch up, but to use that as a reason to not try to help the others is silly. Why not try and narrow that gap? Because it was the same 50 years ago is not a valid reason.
quote:
People made a run on the banks because of a bad economic situation, not the other way around.
Yes, that and the perception of a bad economic situation.
Posted on 2/25/16 at 4:29 pm to Robert Goulet
quote:
It is a curious thing in this country that we want all these great public services, roads, and free stuff but do not want to pay for it through taxation.
Do you assume that having a government is a necessary condition for having roads and bridges and police forces, etc? And if we pay for it through taxes, then how can you call it free stuff? The US had roads, bridges, schools, police, etc before the creation of an income tax.
quote:
I have a problem with just letting people suffer in the most prosperous nation on earth
Then do something about it. Do you assume having a government is a necessary condition for helping the poor?
quote:
Because it was the same 50 years ago is not a valid reason.
The point is that it's not the same as it was 50 years ago. The rich are getting richer, but the poor are also getting richer.
This post was edited on 2/25/16 at 4:31 pm
Posted on 2/25/16 at 5:02 pm to AllbyMyRelf
quote:
Do you assume that having a government is a necessary condition for having roads and bridges and police forces, etc? And if we pay for it through taxes, then how can you call it free stuff? The US had roads, bridges, schools, police, etc before the creation of an income tax.
I can see where this is headed straight towards libertarianism. I will save you the time and let you know that I understand that contactors build roads, etc. I meant free stuff as what some think of it. Taxation is necessary in this country, no matter unpopular. The US was quite a bit different when that was true, the same as youre trying to tell me about relative wealth.
quote:
Then do something about it. Do you assume having a government is a necessary condition for helping the poor?
I do by paying my taxes. I, like you, also benefit from social programs that are paid into. And no, I don't trust communities to help out the poor. I used to think like this, but it isn't reality in the world we live in.
quote:
The point is that it's not the same as it was 50 years ago. The rich are getting richer, but the poor are also getting richer.
I thought your point was that the poor were staying the same in number? Of course the poor benefit from advances in technology. This is the same technology that has, and could continue to pull people out of poverty. A little bit of human kindness surely wouldnt hurt either.
ETA: Do you think more Libertarian thinking would help fix this country? Not a loaded question, just curious. That line of thinking used to really interest me.
This post was edited on 2/25/16 at 5:05 pm
Posted on 2/25/16 at 5:04 pm to JustGetItRight
quote:
The thread has grown into a discussion bigger than the Birmingham ordinance, but just to keep the information in the OP current, the Alabama legislature just nuked the increase.
The story says the governor hasn't said if he would sign it, but that's irrelevant. In Alabama, it only takes a simple majority to override a veto and it passed by a 2 to 1 margin in both chambers.
He signed it.
Posted on 2/25/16 at 5:54 pm to Robert Goulet
quote:
I can see value of arguments on both sides depending on how theyre presented.
I think women should have a say within reason.
I think rape, incest, and the mother's health being grave are all good arguments for abortion. The problem is most abortion is just another form of birth control. Either embarrassed parents forcing their teenage daughter or careless adults who don't want a baby. It's really, really easy to have lots of sex and never have a child. You just have be responsible.
Posted on 2/25/16 at 6:15 pm to TideJoe
quote:
It's really, really easy to have lots of sex and never have a child. You just have be responsible.
This can't be said enough. A birth control prescription can be had for as little as $10/month.
Posted on 2/25/16 at 6:35 pm to Robert Goulet
quote:
It won't make a difference in the bottom line. The price elasticity of demand for fast food shows that people who already pay the prices will buy fast food at an increased price.
You don't know shite about demand and fast food if that's what you propose.
Posted on 2/25/16 at 6:58 pm to TeLeFaWx
quote:
which is happening in San Francisco because they set their wages to like $15/hr.
What? Cost of living in San Fransisco is nearly twice that of anywhere in Alabama. So you think that people are moving into San Fransisco for a $15 an hour job? If they really are then they are the dumbest mother frickers on the planet and need to fall down one of the hills and die. A cheap apartment in San Fransisco is like 2k a month.
Posted on 2/25/16 at 7:01 pm to the808bass
quote:
You don't know shite about demand and fast food if that's what you propose.
You're right, I fricked that up. Thanks for not being condescending about it.
ETA: was only joking about the condescending part, thanks for correcting me.
This post was edited on 2/25/16 at 7:50 pm
Posted on 2/25/16 at 7:28 pm to Robert Goulet
quote:
Taxation is necessary in this country, no matter unpopular
Taxation is necessary in order to have a government. Those taxes come from wealth creation, which comes from the private sector. The government exists because the private sector exists, and the government's primary job is to make sure basic institutions that existed before are preserved, like property rights.
quote:
Do you think more Libertarian thinking would help fix this country?
If more people understood market processes like entrepreneurial competition and market prices, I think you would see many 'services' that the government provides be taken away and given back to the private sector.
Posted on 2/25/16 at 7:49 pm to AllbyMyRelf
quote:
Taxation is necessary in order to have a government. Those taxes come from wealth creation, which comes from the private sector. The government exists because the private sector exists, and the government's primary job is to make sure basic institutions that existed before are preserved, like property rights.
Yes, and government (in some form) is necessary to maintain good order and discipline, especially in a country like this. Dual Federalism was great I'm sure, but the role has grown. I won't try and argue that the gov't doesn't overreach often, just that I have noticed a need for a lot of these policies and gov't agencies the older I get.
quote:
If more people understood market processes like entrepreneurial competition and market prices, I think you would see many 'services' that the government provides be taken away and given back to the private sector.
Perhaps many services could be done more efficiently. We both know they won't be turned over to the private sector easily.
Anyway, I respect your view and definitely agree with some of it. No use in belaboring a conversation any longer.
Posted on 2/26/16 at 10:45 am to OMapologist
quote:really. you are going to feed them off the dollar menu? exclusively?
Nobody's starving as long as we've still got the dollar menu.
16.2 million kids are food insecure in the US and you really could not give less of shite. Just because nobody on your street is hungry does not mean nobody else is you stupid cloistered fuk
This post was edited on 2/26/16 at 10:51 am
Posted on 2/26/16 at 10:50 am to MIZ_COU
Minimum wage was never created to make it a livable source of income.
Posted on 2/26/16 at 11:17 am to HottyToddy7
quote:
Minimum wage was never created to make it a livable source of income.
“No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country.” FDR
LINK
Posted on 2/26/16 at 11:22 am to TRUERockyTop
quote:
I'm not for the guys at McDonald's making 15 an hour, but the current $7.25 min. wage is trash. Roughly 10 an hour is very fair, IMO.
Heck no. If you don't have any skills, degree, or even a little ambition, you shouldn't be rewarded for being lazy. 7.25 is plenty. Anyone who needs to make more should get a little bit of gumption about them, and make it happen themselves. But most of them won't bother because they can live off the government.
Posted on 2/26/16 at 12:14 pm to BowlJackson
The fact is that if you have any kind of drive or ambition at all, you won't make 7.25 for long. I know quite a few people who started out like that and are now managers or some sort or another. That's why I don't feel bad about the minimum wage. Just work your arse off and work your way up the ladder.
Posted on 2/26/16 at 2:06 pm to BowlJackson
I think a concern is minimum wage increases being a de facto pay cut for those making over minimum wage.
After a period of time is a 7.25 minimum wage any different than 15.00? Or $100?
Minimum wage workers are still minimum wage workers, and will their purchasing power really be different?
Or will the effect be turning people making 15 to 20 per hour into minimum wage workers who will be struggling once prices adjust?
After a period of time is a 7.25 minimum wage any different than 15.00? Or $100?
Minimum wage workers are still minimum wage workers, and will their purchasing power really be different?
Or will the effect be turning people making 15 to 20 per hour into minimum wage workers who will be struggling once prices adjust?
Posted on 2/26/16 at 3:09 pm to Person of interest
Some existing issues with the minimum wage hike in cities:
Linky.
Linky
at the end of the day, to satisfy the people with no skill and drive making minimum wage, you are shitting on the people who have put in time gaining experience and skills to get ahead and now they will have to be bumped too.
Walmart employs roughly 1.5 million people. Say that they have 25% working at any given time which I would assume is fair, a $1 dollar increase to all hourly wages would result in them paying an additional 375,000 an hour in payroll not including additional taxes. That adds up to a loss of nearly 3.3 billion a year.
quote:
Seattle’s $15 minimum wage law is supposed to lift workers out of poverty and move them off public assistance. But there may be a hitch in the plan.
Evidence is surfacing that some workers are asking their bosses for fewer hours as their wages rise – in a bid to keep overall income down so they don’t lose public subsidies for things like food, child care and rent.
Full Life Care, a home nursing nonprofit, told KIRO-TV in Seattle that several workers want to work less.
“If they cut down their hours to stay on those subsidies because the $15 per hour minimum wage didn’t actually help get them out of poverty, all you’ve done is put a burden on the business and given false hope to a lot of people,” said Jason Rantz, host of the Jason Rantz show on 97.3 KIRO-FM.
Linky.
quote:
When Wal-Mart Stores Inc. chief Doug McMillon announced plans to boost store workers’ minimum wage earlier this year, he said the move was intended to improve morale and retain employees.
Yet for some of the hundreds of thousands of workers getting no raise, the policy is having the opposite effect.
In interviews and in hundreds of comments on Facebook, Wal-Mart employees are calling the move unfair to senior workers who got no increase and now make the same or close to what newer, less experienced colleagues earn. New workers started making a minimum of $9 an hour in April and will get at least $10 an hour in February.
“It is pitting people against each other,” said Charmaine Givens-Thomas, a 10-year Wal-Mart veteran. “It hurts morale when people feel like they aren’t being appreciated. I hear people every day talking about looking for other jobs and wanting to remove themselves from Wal-Mart and a job that will make them feel like that.”
Linky
at the end of the day, to satisfy the people with no skill and drive making minimum wage, you are shitting on the people who have put in time gaining experience and skills to get ahead and now they will have to be bumped too.
Walmart employs roughly 1.5 million people. Say that they have 25% working at any given time which I would assume is fair, a $1 dollar increase to all hourly wages would result in them paying an additional 375,000 an hour in payroll not including additional taxes. That adds up to a loss of nearly 3.3 billion a year.
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News