If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Bloomberg)   Dirty pinko Commie venture capitalist wants to double the minimum wage   (bloomberg.com) divider line 284
    More: Hero, pinko commie, minimum wages, Alan Krueger, venture capitalists, income gap, housing subsidies  
•       •       •

2561 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Jun 2013 at 1:37 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



284 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-20 01:38:43 PM
This will be a fun thread.
 
2013-06-20 01:39:47 PM

theorellior: This will be a fun thread.


Agreed. I've got my popcorn ready.

/subby
 
2013-06-20 01:40:09 PM
Wouldn't $20 be even better?
 
2013-06-20 01:41:42 PM
Do it you morons, and watch as your profits go through the roof because the aggregate level of spending goes up.

Yes, your expenditures will increase, but my money is on those people spending more since they have more and typically spend every cent, so your revenue has the potential to go up as well.
 
2013-06-20 01:42:40 PM
What's this doing in the politics tab?  It's far too rational.
 
2013-06-20 01:43:39 PM

Propain_az: Wouldn't $20 be even better?


Yes, and as mentioned in the article would be where we are at if it tracked productivity gains.
 
2013-06-20 01:44:25 PM
But then what would motivate people to work harder and do more challenging work?
Surely all our engineers, scientists and doctors would give up their current jobs if they could make just as much money flipping burgers over a hot grill for hours on end.

No, best not to think about it. The beatings will continue until moral improves, and with it the economy.
 
2013-06-20 01:44:58 PM
FTFA:  Raising the minimum wage to $15 would inject about $450 billion into the economy each year.

Yes, but that would go out of the pocket of the CEOs, thus it's a no-go.

Plus, it goes against the Republicans' "Fark You, I Got Mine" allegiance.
 
2013-06-20 01:45:38 PM
If you cannot afford to pay your full time employees 20 an hour you're a shiatty businessperson. If you simply won't you are a shiatty person as well.
 
2013-06-20 01:45:40 PM
I'm sorry folks, this would take money from the mouths of the poor, downtrodden Job Creators out there, and how would they afford their fourth and fifth homes? We really need to think of the Job Creators.
 
2013-06-20 01:46:44 PM
Adios dollar menu.
 
2013-06-20 01:47:10 PM
"I'm a very rich person. As an entrepreneur and venture capitalist, I've started or helped get off the ground dozens of companies in industries including manufacturing, retail, medical services, the Internet and software. I founded the Internet media company aQuantive Inc., which was acquired by Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) in 2007 for $6.4 billion. I was also the first non-family investor in Amazon.com Inc. (AMZN)

An ordinary middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than I ever have been or ever will be."

From Hanauer's other Bloomberg article. Link
 
2013-06-20 01:47:25 PM

GhostFish: Surely all our engineers, scientists and doctors would give up their current jobs if they could make just as much money flipping burgers over a hot grill for hours on end.


I know! I can't tell you how many people have quit their professional, productive careers in order to get Obamaphones and live a life of luxury off of welfare.
 
2013-06-20 01:47:48 PM

Propain_az: Wouldn't $20 be even better?


Or $50.

Realistically increased wages might increase some prices (hold your comments) especially for things like Rent, where in most cities rent prices continually go up to the maximum the population can afford. Housing in general would get more expensive with higher wages. Groceries would get slightly more expensive, gas prices would go up (just as they went down when the economy crashed because noone could buy gas it will go up if everyone has more money).

That said, on average most people would still have extra money left over for spending.
 
2013-06-20 01:47:55 PM

numbone: Adios dollar menu.


Hello consumers who can now afford to spend more than a dollar on a meal.
 
2013-06-20 01:48:24 PM
IMO a basic income or an increase in the EITC would achieve better results, and wouldn't drive away employers seeking cheaper labor.
 
2013-06-20 01:48:30 PM

meat0918: Propain_az: Wouldn't $20 be even better?

Yes, and as mentioned in the article would be where we are at if it tracked productivity gains.


WRONG!  The value in the article is 21.72 which is ridiculous.  That is why I mentioned $20.
 
2013-06-20 01:48:37 PM

culebra: If you cannot afford to pay your full time employees 20 an hour you're a shiatty businessperson. If you simply won't you are a shiatty person as well.


Welcome to America.
 
2013-06-20 01:48:49 PM

numbone: Adios dollar menu.


No! Not my delicious cotton and horse meat bigmac! And whatever will my kids eat if I can't feed them reconstituted chicken organ nuggets?
 
2013-06-20 01:49:00 PM
people are finally...finally...finally.... catching on to the fact that you can't consolidate all the wealth in the entire world into the hands of 1% of the people and still have a functioning economy... wow, I can't believe it.
 
2013-06-20 01:49:30 PM
Wish I could remember the exact Twain quote about how you should pay workers well - the rich are are going to wind up with the money by nightfall anyway so it might as well do some good during the afternoon.
 
2013-06-20 01:50:21 PM

Headso: people are finally...finally...finally.... catching on to the fact that you can't consolidate all the wealth in the entire world into the hands of 1% of the people and still have a functioning economy... wow, I can't believe it.


Sadly, we probably have another 15 years of people fellating rich C-level drones before the tide turns again.
 
2013-06-20 01:51:14 PM
Ah fark it. Let's go to 21$ an hour and finish off America. Let the children have their candy.

Getting rid of the wage pressure on inflation might be the solution to all our problems indeed.
 
2013-06-20 01:52:08 PM
I have a question, is there any information if raising the minimum wage helps people who make more than minimum wage?

For example is there any studies that show raising the minimum wage from $5 to $10 makes the wages of those making $20 go up?

I have always been interested in that.
 
2013-06-20 01:52:19 PM

Propain_az: meat0918: Propain_az: Wouldn't $20 be even better?

Yes, and as mentioned in the article would be where we are at if it tracked productivity gains.

WRONG!  The value in the article is 21.72 which is ridiculous.  That is why I mentioned $20.


Why exactly is it ridiculous?

If workers are producing more with their labor, why aren't they being compensated in relation to that increase?
 
2013-06-20 01:53:15 PM
approves.
img.fark.net
 
2013-06-20 01:54:38 PM

Corvus: I have a question, is there any information if raising the minimum wage helps people who make more than minimum wage?

For example is there any studies that show raising the minimum wage from $5 to $10 makes the wages of those making $20 go up?

I have always been interested in that.


I was curious about that too, because my receptionist w/ a GED making $13/hr in Flint getting bumped $7 while the people in the clinical dept already making $20/hr are going to be a bit peeved w/ no increase.
 
2013-06-20 01:55:30 PM

meat0918: Propain_az: meat0918: Propain_az: Wouldn't $20 be even better?

Yes, and as mentioned in the article would be where we are at if it tracked productivity gains.

WRONG!  The value in the article is 21.72 which is ridiculous.  That is why I mentioned $20.

Why exactly is it ridiculous?

If workers are producing more with their labor, why aren't they being compensated in relation to that increase?


there are a lot of jobs/people not worth $21.72/hr.
 
2013-06-20 01:56:43 PM

MichiganFTL: meat0918: Propain_az: meat0918: Propain_az: Wouldn't $20 be even better?

Yes, and as mentioned in the article would be where we are at if it tracked productivity gains.

WRONG!  The value in the article is 21.72 which is ridiculous.  That is why I mentioned $20.

Why exactly is it ridiculous?

If workers are producing more with their labor, why aren't they being compensated in relation to that increase?

there are a lot of jobs/people not worth $21.72/hr.


Like?
 
2013-06-20 01:56:50 PM
Fine. What are we paying the peasants these days? A quarter an hour? Make it 50 cents. Heck, make it 60 cents and tell 'em to buy something nice for the missus.
 
2013-06-20 01:57:26 PM

Arkanaut: IMO a basic income or an increase in the EITC would achieve better results, and wouldn't drive away employers seeking cheaper labor.


Then we would have to hear more cries from Republicans about how not enough people pay taxes. Also, people pay too much in taxes.
 
2013-06-20 01:58:22 PM

MichiganFTL: there are a lot of jobs/people not worth $21.72/hr.


Citation needed.
 
2013-06-20 01:59:00 PM

meat0918: Propain_az: meat0918: Propain_az: Wouldn't $20 be even better?

Yes, and as mentioned in the article would be where we are at if it tracked productivity gains.

WRONG!  The value in the article is 21.72 which is ridiculous.  That is why I mentioned $20.

Why exactly is it ridiculous?

If workers are producing more with their labor, why aren't they being compensated in relation to that increase?


Because a lot of that increase in production is due to better technology/equipment.
 
2013-06-20 01:59:57 PM
We've been subsidizing a minimum wage with social services already. Food stamps and welfare have been keeping us afloat for some time now. Meanwhile, the GOP want to cut those. It's a trickle up economy. It's always been trickle up. The argument between supply-side economics and keynesian economics is like the argument between creationism and evolution. You may have politicians on both sides, but only one is correct and backed up by evidence.


i.imgur.com
 
2013-06-20 02:00:46 PM

Cataholic: Because a lot of that increase in production is due to better technology/equipment.


Is that supposed to be a good reason?
 
2013-06-20 02:02:15 PM

meat0918: Propain_az: meat0918: Propain_az: Wouldn't $20 be even better?

Yes, and as mentioned in the article would be where we are at if it tracked productivity gains.

WRONG!  The value in the article is 21.72 which is ridiculous.  That is why I mentioned $20.

Why exactly is it ridiculous?

If workers are producing more with their labor, why aren't they being compensated in relation to that increase?


Because the (increasingly parasitic) stock market demands the maximum of profit in the shortest amount of time.

/ because otherwise SOCIALISM
 
2013-06-20 02:03:12 PM
"The fundamental law of capitalism is that if workers have no money, businesses have no customers "

Yea, um, no That's no the fundemental law of capitalism.  If there was one, it would be let the free market determine cost and prices.

/increasing the cost of unskilled labor in entry level jobs is good how?
 
2013-06-20 02:03:43 PM

MichiganFTL: meat0918: Propain_az: meat0918: Propain_az: Wouldn't $20 be even better?

Yes, and as mentioned in the article would be where we are at if it tracked productivity gains.

WRONG!  The value in the article is 21.72 which is ridiculous.  That is why I mentioned $20.

Why exactly is it ridiculous?

If workers are producing more with their labor, why aren't they being compensated in relation to that increase?

there are a lot of jobs/people not worth $21.72/hr.


Those jobs are rapidly being automated.

I say again though, if you're producing more with your labor, why wouldn't you be compensated more?

Is it fear of being fired because you asked for a raise when your boss knows he can find any Joe Schmo of the street to do your job for less?

That's part of the reason we have a minimum wage in the first place.  It places a floor on wages, which in turn stabilizes the economy a bit, and I'd wager stops deflation a bit too since we have a stopping point in the race to the bottom for wages.

Maybe the question we should ask is this "Is the minimum wage above or below the market price for labor?"
 
2013-06-20 02:08:16 PM

MichiganFTL: Corvus: I have a question, is there any information if raising the minimum wage helps people who make more than minimum wage?

For example is there any studies that show raising the minimum wage from $5 to $10 makes the wages of those making $20 go up?

I have always been interested in that.

I was curious about that too, because my receptionist w/ a GED making $13/hr in Flint getting bumped $7 while the people in the clinical dept already making $20/hr are going to be a bit peeved w/ no increase.


There have been studies but the standard errors have made the inferences weak. Basically most economists postulate a positive effect on other wages because of a few reasons

-Since minimum wage becomes relatively more expensive, demand for non-minimum wage labor goes up, which in turn drives up wages
-Employers want to stem a loss in productivity that would be caused by the closing of the wage gap between minimum and non-minimum wage workers
-minimum wage increases pump money into the economy and stimulate demand. the increased demand results in businesses scaling up, and since a lot of lower end jobs scale up with technology and machinery, demand for skilled labor goes up more
 
2013-06-20 02:09:04 PM

2 grams: "The fundamental law of capitalism is that if workers have no money, businesses have no customers "

Yea, um, no That's no the fundemental law of capitalism.  If there was one, it would be let the free market determine cost and prices.

/increasing the cost of unskilled labor in entry level jobs is good how?


And what happens is that in the pursuit of profit, potentially and eventually the only profit to be made is at the expense of worker's salaries.The "free market" then dictates worker's wages decrease, and demand consequently also decreases, meaning less profit since demand drives the economy, so wages decrease more as the owner's try to maintain profits, because the free market is an ideal and not a reality, and human nature takes over and mucks up the works.


It becomes a spiral downward, a bust.  How big of a bust depends on how much demand was removed from the economy.
 
2013-06-20 02:09:27 PM
Whoa whoa whoa.


You mean in a consumption based economy a strong consumer will drive growth?


This is amazing.
 
2013-06-20 02:09:31 PM

Cataholic: meat0918: Propain_az: meat0918: Propain_az: Wouldn't $20 be even better?

Yes, and as mentioned in the article would be where we are at if it tracked productivity gains.

WRONG!  The value in the article is 21.72 which is ridiculous.  That is why I mentioned $20.

Why exactly is it ridiculous?

If workers are producing more with their labor, why aren't they being compensated in relation to that increase?

Because a lot of that increase in production is due to better technology/equipment.


But then you are responsible for more.

Being responsible for more is a big portion of the argument for CEOs to get such huge fellating bonuses.

Goose meet Gander?
 
2013-06-20 02:09:40 PM

Shvetz: Meanwhile, the GOP want to cut those. It's a trickle up economy. It's always been trickle up. The argument between supply-side economics and keynesian economics is like the argument between creationism and evolution. You may have politicians on both sides, but only one is correct and backed up by evidence.


Supply side was a response to KEynesian failures in the 1970s. In fact, it used a lot of the basis of Keynesian theory but tried to work it from a different angle, so to speak.

You know what trickle's up wealth? Inefficient use of resources. Apparently the wealthy are really good at not spending excessive funds without a return on investment while the poor generally aren't. Give the poor all the money you want, it'll still end up in the hands of the wealthy.
 
2013-06-20 02:10:35 PM

2 grams: "The fundamental law of capitalism is that if workers have no money, businesses have no customers "

Yea, um, no That's no the fundemental law of capitalism.  If there was one, it would be let the free market determine cost and prices.

/increasing the cost of unskilled labor in entry level jobs is good how?


Because it stimulates aggregate demand?

Poor people spend all of ther money
 
2013-06-20 02:13:11 PM
Nice article. Simple and to the point. +1 subby.
 
2013-06-20 02:14:42 PM
Technically it makes sense for all employers of skilled labor to support a minimum wage hike. Every business benefits from every other business paying its workers more. The ideal selfish position would be for me to be able to pay my workers peanuts to make Widget X, while the Widget Y and Widget Z factories have to pay their workers $20/hr. Now 2/3 of the population can afford lots and lots of Widget Xs, while I retain very low costs.
 
2013-06-20 02:15:05 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: MichiganFTL: there are a lot of jobs/people not worth $21.72/hr.

Citation needed.


Your a teenage worker at McDonalds. That's why I think their should be 2 tiers of minimum wage. One for jobs like that and one for what most people consider "real jobs" that families depend on.
 
2013-06-20 02:15:40 PM

impaler: Arkanaut: IMO a basic income or an increase in the EITC would achieve better results, and wouldn't drive away employers seeking cheaper labor.

Then we would have to hear more cries from Republicans about how not enough people pay taxes. Also, people pay too much in taxes.


Maybe so, but we're going to hear that anyway. I'm just saying what I think works best for the economy, not necessarily what's politically feasible.
 
2013-06-20 02:15:46 PM
We don't need to double the minimum wage we need to create an Employer of Last Resort (ELR) program.

An ELR program would entail the government guaranteeing every able bodied citizen who wants to work a 40 hour a week job with health care benefits. This type of program would replace the need for welfare for able body people and the need to set a minimum wage only those who do not want to work and those who are not able to work will not be able to draw a pay check and that pay check will be at a minimal per hour rate set by the government, say $15 an hour with increases tied to the cost of living.

ELR workers would be employed by the government and as an ELR worker where and what you are doing will be controlled by the government. If we need workers in area for say disaster relief or to build a pipeline then ELR workers may get reassigned from one location to another.

Finally to minimize the disruption to employers they will be allowed to hire ELR workers from the government at a subsidized rate, say at a rate of $5 an hour. That rate to increase by $.50 an hour for each year they employ ELR workers.
 
2013-06-20 02:16:13 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: MichiganFTL: there are a lot of jobs/people not worth $21.72/hr.

Citation needed.


Ok, well I work in healthcare so I can really only speak of those, but I'd say at my place receptionists, medical assistants, schedulers, PCT's, medical records staff and file clerks. Keep in mind that most of these do make $20+ when benefits are factored in since my company has a rather encouraging benefits plan that pays 80-90%. The area I'm in isn't a high cost of living either, so yeah, maybe in Chicago/NYC they'd need more due to cost of living, but come on, tell me why a GED who answers and transfers calls should be making just a bit less than the RN w/ a BSN and/or the systems admin w/ a 4-yr?
 
Displayed 50 of 284 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report