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)   Bloomberg columnist asks "Can we pay a minimum wage that makes everyone rich?" In other news, Bloomberg columnists think $31,200 per year is "rich"   (bloomberg.com) divider line 217
    More: Dumbass, minimum wages, discretionary income, Service Employees International Union, hourly workers  
•       •       •

1034 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Sep 2013 at 1:00 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-05 01:02:55 PM  
No. Ushering in socialism would utterly destroy the United States of America.
 
2013-09-05 01:03:04 PM  
Until it's time to decide tax brackets. Then, that's solidly lower class, and should be taxed 400% of their income.
 
2013-09-05 01:04:30 PM  
Everyone can't be rich. If everyone is rich, no one is rich.
 
2013-09-05 01:04:46 PM  
Depends on cost of living, location, marital status, kids, etc...

But honestly? I'd rather not pay $20 for a tomato. Americans might want a living wage, but we can always hire more Mexicans.
 
2013-09-05 01:05:05 PM  
31k is a hell of a lot better than 15k.  And if that was the national minimum wage, it would allow even the poorest people to take part in the economy as consumers, which would in turn benefit everyone else.

31k doesn't make that person rich, but it could serve as the tide that raises all the boats.  Our economy is built on middle-class consumption, so putting more money in consumers' hands is a good thing.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-09-05 01:05:20 PM  
I suppose that she would be happy to have that as her salary?  Then she would be rich.
 
2013-09-05 01:05:31 PM  
So the next time someone tells you that the U.S. needs to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour, ask him what's so special about $15. Why not raise it to $50, or $100, and make everyone rich?

I do enjoy participating in fallacies.
 
2013-09-05 01:05:51 PM  
Still better than what minimum wage gets you now.

Putting $10 in the pockets of a million men will stimulate the economy more than giving one man $10 million. And, guess what? Because that millionaire probably owns a store those men shop at, he'll get his share through his profits.
 
2013-09-05 01:06:56 PM  

theorellior: Putting $10 in the pockets of a million men will stimulate the economy more than giving one man $10 million. And, guess what? Because that millionaire probably owns a store those men shop at, he'll get his share through his profits.


Bingo.
 
2013-09-05 01:07:16 PM  
Also, I've heard from reputable sources that people making $500k+ are solid middle class, so I assume that $31,200 is a bi-weekly paycheck.
 
2013-09-05 01:07:44 PM  

super_grass: Depends on cost of living, location, marital status, kids, etc...

But honestly? I'd rather not pay $20 for a tomato. Americans might want a living wage, but we can always hire more Mexicans.


You're right. We should keep squeezing the desperately poor until we get our own version of 1917 Russia. Except in our version everybody already has a gun. It'll be fun!
 
2013-09-05 01:08:16 PM  

theorellior: Still better than what minimum wage gets you now.

Putting $10 in the pockets of a million men will stimulate the economy more than giving one man $10 million. And, guess what? Because that millionaire probably owns a store those men shop at, he'll get his share through his profits.


And from whom would that $10 million come?

Every heard of the "forgotten man." It's simple economics, if you take money from people and give it to other people it does absolutely nothing to "stimulate" the economy.

Study it out.
 
2013-09-05 01:08:26 PM  

birchman: Everyone can't be rich. If everyone is rich, no one is rich.


No one's offering them $250,000 a year. I mean, that's solidly middle-class, right? $31,000 is chicken feed.
 
2013-09-05 01:08:43 PM  

super_grass: Depends on cost of living, location, marital status, kids, etc...

But honestly? I'd rather not pay $20 for a tomato. Americans might want a living wage, but we can always hire more Mexicans.


A $20 tomato would mean the pickers are bringing in close to $5 million a year. Only in the minds of the derpiest derpers is anyone suggesting that kind of pay scale.
 
2013-09-05 01:08:48 PM  
HAHAH, author admits there are studies that show raising minimum wage doesn't hurt the economy. He then says those studies are wrong because they violate very basic laws of economics. He then quotes a study that supports his view. Said study ran computer simulations to predict the effect of minimum wage changes and didn't use much actual data.
 
2013-09-05 01:09:35 PM  
Sure you can. But you'd have to get executives and "investors" to stop demanding high and ever-increasing profit so you could afford it, and that ain't gonna happen. God knows it would be just terrible if the people at the top had to go from a new Bentley every 6 months to a new Bentley once a year so the people at the bottom were paid a reasonable living wage.

Sorry, poor people, but in America we fight harder for the "rights" of people to buy $100,000,000 mega-yachts than for your right to not die of preventable illness or to afford reasonable housing and nutrition. If you could just please wander off into the forest to die quietly so you don't interrupt our golf game, though, we'd really appreciate it.
 
2013-09-05 01:09:48 PM  

Aristocles: No. Ushering in socialism would utterly destroy the United States of America.


Wow, Weeners in? Wasting no time today!

But seriously, I didn't yet read TFA, but if $31k a year is what is being proposed, I'm making under minimum wage right now at a pretty decent entry-level job. And that's crazy. But also, minimum wage right now is ridiculously low for our economy.
 
2013-09-05 01:09:51 PM  
it doesn't really matter, because last time the minimum wage was raised it destroyed all the jobs.
 
2013-09-05 01:10:08 PM  

super_grass: But honestly? I'd rather not pay $20 for a tomato. Americans might want a living wage, but we can always hire more Mexicans.


How much do you think the minimum wage is going to be raised? $20 a tomato? Are you high?
 
2013-09-05 01:10:09 PM  

Aristocles: No. Ushering in socialism would utterly destroy the United States of America.


Let me know where in the Constitution it mandates Capitalism. Go ahead, I'll wait.
 
2013-09-05 01:11:12 PM  
I'd settle for raising it to adjust for inflation, ffs.  We haven't even done that.
 
2013-09-05 01:11:18 PM  
Look, the Trickle Down will work, people! You just have to give it time!

ceramics.org
 
2013-09-05 01:11:20 PM  
http://www.globalrichlist.com/

An income of $31,200 is not rich by American standards, it is true. But if we take the whole world into account, $31,200 is actually right around the cutoff for the global 1%.

Kind of depressing, isn't it?
 
2013-09-05 01:12:11 PM  
no mention of distributing that 1/3rd of revenue spent on labor a little more evenly?

& an influx of job seekers? i was lead to believe that poor people didn't want to work.


i guess it's easier to pick sides when you paint everything black and white and fail to offer alternative compromises.
 
2013-09-05 01:12:13 PM  

Triple Oak: Aristocles: No. Ushering in socialism would utterly destroy the United States of America.

Wow, Weeners in? Wasting no time today!

But seriously, I didn't yet read TFA, but if $31k a year is what is being proposed, I'm making under minimum wage right now at a pretty decent entry-level job. And that's crazy. But also, minimum wage right now is ridiculously low for our economy.


Lol I keep forgetting how Fark censors things...
 
2013-09-05 01:12:55 PM  

Car_Ramrod: Also, I've heard from reputable sources that people making $500k+ are solid middle class, so I assume that $31,200 is a bi-weekly paycheck.


www.mindhuestudio.com

That's basically just the tax burden for these solidly middle-class folks.
 
2013-09-05 01:13:13 PM  

theorellior: birchman: Everyone can't be rich. If everyone is rich, no one is rich.

No one's offering them $250,000 a year. I mean, that's solidly middle-class, right? $31,000 is chicken feed.


My point is that it's not about a number, it's about what you can do with that amount of money. Sure, we can pay everyone a higher wage, but due to higher labor costs hat will in turn cause prices of nearly everything to increase quite a bit. Now that new shiny salary we're paying the lower class might be a bigger number, but it still can't buy any more goods than their previous salary did because everything is now more expensive. And now the $250,000 also buys less. If you pay me double the money but everything I buy also doubles in cost, what have you really given me?
 
2013-09-05 01:14:07 PM  
So that's the level of economic knowledge that let's you become a writer for Bloomberg?

I would have liked to at least see a line of reasoning as to why she expects such an increase in entrants to the labor market. Also the standard line of "McDonalds will just fire people" is pretty weak. Employees (especially the unskilled) can only work so hard, and most of those jobs have already been mechanized as much as possible.
 
2013-09-05 01:14:50 PM  
Let's see how far I can get before realizing the author is full of shiat?

I feel worse for those who want a minimum-wage job as a steppingstone to something better and would be denied that opportunity by the imposition of a higher wage floor.

Ooh second paragraph.  Not bad.
 
2013-09-05 01:16:34 PM  

Aristocles: theorellior: Still better than what minimum wage gets you now.

Putting $10 in the pockets of a million men will stimulate the economy more than giving one man $10 million. And, guess what? Because that millionaire probably owns a store those men shop at, he'll get his share through his profits.

And from whom would that $10 million come?

Every heard of the "forgotten man." It's simple economics, if you take money from people and give it to other people it does absolutely nothing to "stimulate" the economy.

Study it out.


Looks like Mr. Silly Alt didn't get to the chapter about the multiplier effect and the velocity of money. Pro-tip: you have to read more than just the cover and the author blurb of your textbooks.
 
2013-09-05 01:17:07 PM  

birchman: theorellior: birchman: Everyone can't be rich. If everyone is rich, no one is rich.

No one's offering them $250,000 a year. I mean, that's solidly middle-class, right? $31,000 is chicken feed.

My point is that it's not about a number, it's about what you can do with that amount of money. Sure, we can pay everyone a higher wage, but due to higher labor costs hat will in turn cause prices of nearly everything to increase quite a bit. Now that new shiny salary we're paying the lower class might be a bigger number, but it still can't buy any more goods than their previous salary did because everything is now more expensive. And now the $250,000 also buys less. If you pay me double the money but everything I buy also doubles in cost, what have you really given me?


If you're worried about inflation we should gradually increase the minimum wage to be equal to what it was the last time we were at our fullest employment in the U.S. (adjusted for current dollars). Then we peg the growth of the minimum wage to inflation with a delay of a year or so to smooth out the influx of new consumer dollars. Ta-da!
 
2013-09-05 01:18:05 PM  
So why does an idea that violates the most basic principle of economics keep coming back to haunt us?

Yeah, everything we need to know about the world economy is covered in an introductory class for business school freshmen. Don't try to pull that empirical study crap on me, Mr. Nobel Laureate!
 
2013-09-05 01:19:14 PM  
Capitalism can't make everyone rich. Capitalism requires that someone is being exploited.
 
2013-09-05 01:19:43 PM  

theorellior: Aristocles: theorellior: Still better than what minimum wage gets you now.

Putting $10 in the pockets of a million men will stimulate the economy more than giving one man $10 million. And, guess what? Because that millionaire probably owns a store those men shop at, he'll get his share through his profits.

And from whom would that $10 million come?

Every heard of the "forgotten man." It's simple economics, if you take money from people and give it to other people it does absolutely nothing to "stimulate" the economy.

Study it out.

Looks like Mr. Silly Alt didn't get to the chapter about the multiplier effect and the velocity of money. Pro-tip: you have to read more than just the cover and the author blurb of your textbooks.


That's bunk economics, son. After studying the forgotten man, see "The Parable of the Broken Window."

Study it out.
 
2013-09-05 01:20:27 PM  

FarkedOver: Capitalism can't make everyone rich. Capitalism requires that someone is being exploited.


^^^^
 
2013-09-05 01:20:37 PM  

birchman: theorellior: birchman: Everyone can't be rich. If everyone is rich, no one is rich.

No one's offering them $250,000 a year. I mean, that's solidly middle-class, right? $31,000 is chicken feed.

My point is that it's not about a number, it's about what you can do with that amount of money. Sure, we can pay everyone a higher wage, but due to higher labor costs hat will in turn cause prices of nearly everything to increase quite a bit.


False.
 
2013-09-05 01:21:10 PM  

FarkedOver: Capitalism can't make everyone rich. Capitalism requires that someone is being exploited.


niet, komrade, niet.
 
2013-09-05 01:21:37 PM  

HMS_Blinkin: 31k is a hell of a lot better than 15k.  And if that was the national minimum wage, it would allow even the poorest people to take part in the economy as consumers, which would in turn benefit everyone else.

31k doesn't make that person rich, but it could serve as the tide that raises all the boats.  Our economy is built on middle-class consumption, so putting more money in consumers' hands is a good thing.


But according to the free marketers, the only boat that needs to rise is the HMS Profit, and raising the minimum wage is like blowing up an inflatable raft full of C4 next to it while it's docking.
 
2013-09-05 01:21:43 PM  
If a job can't pay enough for a person to be above the poverty line working 40 hours a week, the job should not exist. If raising the minimum wage for a 40-hour week to the poverty line eliminates those jobs (which are not good jobs anyway, since you can't survive on them) we can then begin to address the real problem, which is the lack of decent jobs. (Currently masked by the fact that these "jobs" exist which a person cannot survive on).
 
2013-09-05 01:21:48 PM  
I feel bad for those who are relegated to a minimum-wage job. I feel worse for those who want a minimum-wage job as asteppingstone to something better and would be denied that opportunity by the imposition of a higher wage floor. A higher wage is great for the workers who keep their jobs; it isn't so great for those who wouldn't get hired because McDonald's starts asking its existing workforce to do a bit more. With a higher minimum wage, the cost of automating certain tasks suddenly becomes more affordable.

"I feel bad for the people that want entry-level jobs that actually pay them a fair wage. To make it easier for them, we should just make them all interns." What a prick.

Also, if he's claiming that companies haven't been asking their employees to do more with less for years and years already, then someone needs to laugh in his face right now.
 
2013-09-05 01:21:51 PM  
Ah yes another conservative "economist" who loves the failure that is Ayn Rand and thinks Henry Ford is a dirty commie.
 
2013-09-05 01:21:51 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: super_grass: Depends on cost of living, location, marital status, kids, etc...

But honestly? I'd rather not pay $20 for a tomato. Americans might want a living wage, but we can always hire more Mexicans.

You're right. We should keep squeezing the desperately poor until we get our own version of 1917 Russia. Except in our version everybody already has a gun. It'll be fun!


Pffftt, they're Mexican, and they do work Americans don't want to. So if you think about it, it's not hurting anyone.
 
2013-09-05 01:21:54 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: If you're worried about inflation we should gradually increase the minimum wage to be equal to what it was the last time we were at our fullest employment in the U.S. (adjusted for current dollars). Then we peg the growth of the minimum wage to inflation with a delay of a year or so to smooth out the influx of new consumer dollars. Ta-da!


We are about there.  I would say the last time we were near fullest employment was 99/2000.   That wage adjusted for inflation is about on par with min wage of today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:History_of_US_federal_minimum_wage_ i ncreases.svg">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:History_of_US_federal _minimum_wage_i ncreases.svg
 
2013-09-05 01:22:22 PM  

birchman: theorellior: birchman: Everyone can't be rich. If everyone is rich, no one is rich.

No one's offering them $250,000 a year. I mean, that's solidly middle-class, right? $31,000 is chicken feed.

My point is that it's not about a number, it's about what you can do with that amount of money. Sure, we can pay everyone a higher wage, but due to higher labor costs hat will in turn cause prices of nearly everything to increase quite a bit. Now that new shiny salary we're paying the lower class might be a bigger number, but it still can't buy any more goods than their previous salary did because everything is now more expensive. And now the $250,000 also buys less. If you pay me double the money but everything I buy also doubles in cost, what have you really given me?


Except labor is not 100% of the costs of goods. Raw materials, manufacturing equipment, energy, transportation costs, insurance, ext. are all part of the final cost of a good.  Doubling the minimum wage would not double the costs of goods.
 
2013-09-05 01:22:43 PM  

FarkedOver: Unregulated Capitalism can't make everyone rich. Unregulated Capitalism requires that someone is being exploited.


There are some things better handled by the government, because profit motives really screw up industries with near universal demand as well as industries where growth is undesirable. (Education, Healthcare, Infrastructure, Defense, etc. in the first group, Prisons in the second.)
 
2013-09-05 01:22:43 PM  

Slaves2Darkness: Ah yes another conservative "economist" who loves the failure that is Ayn Rand and thinks Henry Ford is a dirty commie.


Henry Ford was a Nazi.  Everyone knows that.
 
2013-09-05 01:23:04 PM  
The REAL minimum wage is $0.
 
2013-09-05 01:23:35 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: FarkedOver: Unregulated Capitalism can't make everyone rich. Unregulated Capitalism requires that someone is being exploited.

There are some things better handled by the government, because profit motives really screw up industries with near universal demand as well as industries where growth is undesirable. (Education, Healthcare, Infrastructure, Defense, etc. in the first group, Prisons in the second.)


Unregulated capitalism, crony capitalism and or regular capitalism requires that someone is being exploited.  There hopefully that clears up any confusion about what capitalism requires.
 
2013-09-05 01:24:15 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: FarkedOver: Unregulated Capitalism can't make everyone rich. Unregulated Capitalism requires that someone is being exploited.

There are some things better handled by the government, because profit motives really screw up industries with near universal demand as well as industries where growth is undesirable. (Education, Healthcare, Infrastructure, Defense, etc. in the first group, Prisons in the second.)


There are other options than government or profit-seeking corporations. Capitalism in and of itself is destructive, exploitative and unnecessary.
 
2013-09-05 01:26:46 PM  

Aristocles: theorellior: Aristocles: theorellior: Still better than what minimum wage gets you now.

Putting $10 in the pockets of a million men will stimulate the economy more than giving one man $10 million. And, guess what? Because that millionaire probably owns a store those men shop at, he'll get his share through his profits.

And from whom would that $10 million come?

Every heard of the "forgotten man." It's simple economics, if you take money from people and give it to other people it does absolutely nothing to "stimulate" the economy.

Study it out.

Looks like Mr. Silly Alt didn't get to the chapter about the multiplier effect and the velocity of money. Pro-tip: you have to read more than just the cover and the author blurb of your textbooks.

That's bunk economics, son. After studying the forgotten man, see "The Parable of the Broken Window."

Study it out.


Yes, yes, I mean it's not like we gave trillions of dollars to the manufacturing and financial sectors of the economy at the expensive of the middle class during the 2008 crises. Why that would be bunk. I mean who really needed stimulus, bail outs, TARP, loans and Quantitative Easing. Nobody that is who. No, no Keynesian economics just does not work, as proven by the 2008 crises. We gave no person or firm nothing and the economy was just fine.


/Except the exact opposite happened.
//We are all Keynesians the only difference is who we want to help.
///Trickle down has been a complete failure
 
Displayed 50 of 217 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report