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.

(NPR)   Remember when the CBO were screaming that minimum wage increases would hurt small businesses and kill jobs? Yeah, about that   (npr.org) divider line 123
    More: Spiffy  
•       •       •

3714 clicks; posted to Business » on 20 Jul 2014 at 6:23 PM (9 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-20 04:38:44 PM
People with more money buy more stuff creating need for more stuff and more jobs.

Unless they're rich; then they just try to buy more money.
 
2014-07-20 04:43:23 PM
The Tea Party is not going to like this.
 
2014-07-20 05:00:07 PM
I don't remember the CBO screaming about that.

I do remember the GOP screaming about the CBO's findings.
 
2014-07-20 05:00:46 PM
I see what you did there, subby
 
2014-07-20 05:11:10 PM

Shostie: I don't remember the CBO screaming about that.

I do remember the GOP screaming about the CBO's findings.


This. I think subby is confusing "CBO" with "GOP".

And we've raised the minimum wage in the past and it's never killed jobs to any significant degree, why would it do so now?

Oh, and in before "WHY DON'T WE JUST MAKE IT A HUNDRED DOLLARS AN HOUR, HURRR, DURR"
 
2014-07-20 05:18:04 PM
fusillade762: And we've raised the minimum wage in the past and it's never killed jobs to any significant degree, why would it do so now?

Because Jesus is now a Supply Side Republican, and Republican Jesus hates illegals, he hates the poors, he hates sluts, he hates homosexuals, unions, and for damn sure he hates tiny incremental fluctuation in markets as they adjust to earnings shifts. Of course, he also hates welfare, and those on welfare, and one might argue that minimum wage increases allow for less folks to be on the rolls, and thus have a chance to escape the cycle, as well as provide tax revenue, but that's just hippy talk, and as we all know, Supply Side Jesus hates hippies, rock and roll, tree huggers and all the folks who take a slice of those crazy joint things too...
 
2014-07-20 05:20:36 PM

hubiestubert: fusillade762: And we've raised the minimum wage in the past and it's never killed jobs to any significant degree, why would it do so now?

Because Jesus is now a Supply Side Republican, and Republican Jesus hates illegals, he hates the poors, he hates sluts, he hates homosexuals, unions, and for damn sure he hates tiny incremental fluctuation in markets as they adjust to earnings shifts. Of course, he also hates welfare, and those on welfare, and one might argue that minimum wage increases allow for less folks to be on the rolls, and thus have a chance to escape the cycle, as well as provide tax revenue, but that's just hippy talk, and as we all know, Supply Side Jesus hates hippies, rock and roll, tree huggers and all the folks who take a slice of those crazy joint things too...


In other words, a textbook example of creating one's god in one's own image
 
2014-07-20 05:41:48 PM
Just peg it to inflation and be done with it.

Obviously, if you increase it too much, it will cost jobs, but it needs to be periodically increased because inflation eventually reduces the buying power. So come up with some standard (not necessarily 'living wage') and just peg it to some annual standard so it stays roughly the same.
 
2014-07-20 05:46:17 PM
The CBO doesn't scream anything, derpmitter.
 
2014-07-20 06:02:01 PM

PreMortem: The CBO doesn't scream anything, derpmitter.


Not even for ice cream?
 
2014-07-20 06:08:44 PM

fusillade762: Shostie: I don't remember the CBO screaming about that.

I do remember the GOP screaming about the CBO's findings.

This. I think subby is confusing "CBO" with "GOP".


No, Subby's right, except that the CBO never screams. But it was the CBO, not the GOP, that said that:
Once fully implemented in the second half of 2016, the $10.10 option would reduce total employment by about 500,000 workers, or 0.3 percent, CBO projects (see the table below). As with any such estimates, however, the actual losses could be smaller or larger; in CBO's assessment, there is about a two-thirds chance that the effect would be in the range between a very slight reduction in employment and a reduction in employment of 1.0 million workers.

www.cbo.gov
 
KIA
2014-07-20 06:34:32 PM
That would all be a helluva lot more convincing if the last monthly job report hadn't shown that voluntary part-time employment rose by a whopping 840,000 and involuntary part-time employment rose by 275,000.  So, sure, people have part time work now at a higher wage for less hours.  Yippee.

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/07/nonfarm-payrolls- 28 8000-unemployment.html
 
2014-07-20 06:36:54 PM

Theaetetus: except that the CBO never screams


cdn.govexec.com

This is what it sounds like....'when wonks scream'
 
2014-07-20 06:41:33 PM

dittybopper: Just peg it to inflation and be done with it.

Obviously, if you increase it too much, it will cost jobs, but it needs to be periodically increased because inflation eventually reduces the buying power. So come up with some standard (not necessarily 'living wage') and just peg it to some annual standard so it stays roughly the same.


Say what you want about Ohio, but we're already doing that. Minimum wage is $7.95 ($3.98 + tips for tipped employees), which increases every year using the CPI inflation index. It doesn't hurt small business either because if the employer grosses less than $283,000 a year, their minimum wage is $7.25.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/state-minimum-wage -c hart.aspx
 
2014-07-20 06:44:32 PM

Theaetetus: fusillade762: Shostie: I don't remember the CBO screaming about that.

I do remember the GOP screaming about the CBO's findings.

This. I think subby is confusing "CBO" with "GOP".

No, Subby's right, except that the CBO never screams. But it was the CBO, not the GOP, that said that:
Once fully implemented in the second half of 2016, the $10.10 option would reduce total employment by about 500,000 workers, or 0.3 percent, CBO projects (see the table below). As with any such estimates, however, the actual losses could be smaller or larger; in CBO's assessment, there is about a two-thirds chance that the effect would be in the range between a very slight reduction in employment and a reduction in employment of 1.0 million workers.
[www.cbo.gov image 600x242]


So... the CBO has turned in their 100% estimate. Good. Let me know when they get the 30% estimate delivered.
 
2014-07-20 06:50:17 PM

hubiestubert: fusillade762: And we've raised the minimum wage in the past and it's never killed jobs to any significant degree, why would it do so now?

Because Jesus is now a Supply Side Republican, and Republican Jesus hates illegals, he hates the poors, he hates sluts, he hates homosexuals, unions, and for damn sure he hates tiny incremental fluctuation in markets as they adjust to earnings shifts. Of course, he also hates welfare, and those on welfare, and one might argue that minimum wage increases allow for less folks to be on the rolls, and thus have a chance to escape the cycle, as well as provide tax revenue, but that's just hippy talk, and as we all know, Supply Side Jesus hates hippies, rock and roll, tree huggers and all the folks who take a slice of those crazy joint things too...


What Weber argued, in simple terms:
    According to the new Protestant religions, an individual was religiously compelled to follow a secular vocation (German: Beruf) with as much zeal as possible. A person living according to this world view was more likely to accumulate money.
    The new religions (in particular, Calvinism and other more austere Protestant sects) effectively forbade wastefully using hard earned money and identified the purchase of luxuries as a sin. Donations to an individual's church or congregation were limited due to the rejection by certain Protestant sects of icons. Finally, donation of money to the poor or to charity was generally frowned on as it was seen as furthering beggary. This social condition was perceived as laziness, burdening their fellow man, and an affront to God; by not working, one failed to glorify God.
The manner in which this paradox was resolved, Weber argued, was the investment of this money, which gave an extreme boost to nascent capitalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protestant_Ethic_and_the_Spirit_of_ Ca pitalism

We've gotten over the "no luxuries" and "no large church donations" parts.  But if you are poor, it's still your fault, and ungodly.
 
2014-07-20 06:55:21 PM

KIA: http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/07/nonfarm-payrolls- 28 8000-unemployment.html


Cuz a blog with BUY GOLD! advertisements is the very best place to get rational, un-biased information on the economy
 
2014-07-20 07:07:38 PM
Demand runs Capitalism and poorish people with money to spend, spend it.

The only time "job creators" would cut jobs or raise prices is if they're in non-competitive markets; which in that case is just proving Capitalism is a sham.  Even if they tried, someone else would move into the market to accept slimmer profit margins and make up larger revenue, driving the idiots trying to extract a higher rent out.  Honestly, THATS where most of the pushback is rooted.  Higher wages forces more competition, growth, and uncertainty. CEO's don;t like two of those things, and the third when it's only risk free.

They also could be terribly inefficient and employing more labor then they really need, but in our current climate of shareholder maximization I'm guessing there's a fat chance there.
 
2014-07-20 07:09:53 PM
Conservatives go ape-shiat with dire predictions every time the minimum wage is raised, and none of them come true. You'd think people would learn.
 
2014-07-20 07:17:09 PM
I don't understand what some executives think. If they keep outsourcing jobs, eliminating positions, and lowering wages, how are people going to have the disposable income to purchase their products?
 
2014-07-20 07:22:21 PM

Enlightened Liberal: I don't understand what some executives think. If they keep outsourcing jobs, eliminating positions, and lowering wages, how are people going to have the disposable income to purchase their products?


This.

And strong username to post content ratio
 
2014-07-20 07:33:59 PM

Tyrone Slothrop: Conservatives go ape-shiat with dire predictions every time the minimum wage is raised, and none of them come true. You'd think people would learn.


I'm learning that people who don't want to spend more money on labor control most of the message, every time.
 
2014-07-20 07:36:58 PM

dittybopper: Just peg it to inflation and be done with it.

Obviously, if you increase it too much, it will cost jobs, but it needs to be periodically increased because inflation eventually reduces the buying power. So come up with some standard (not necessarily 'living wage') and just peg it to some annual standard so it stays roughly the same.


It's one of the stupidest things they could have done, to create a minimum wage with no automatic yearly increase.
 
2014-07-20 07:41:32 PM
Nope, never heard anything like that op.. I did hear the GOP taking a few key words out of context and losing their minds as usual though
 
2014-07-20 07:55:24 PM

dittybopper: Just peg it to inflation and be done with it.

Obviously, if you increase it too much, it will cost jobs, but it needs to be periodically increased because inflation eventually reduces the buying power. So come up with some standard (not necessarily 'living wage') and just peg it to some annual standard so it stays roughly the same.


1 gallon of gasoline, national average.

The last time the federal minimum wage was raised (to $7.25/hr), gas cost $2.503 per gallon on average.  This week, Gas costs $3.635 per gallon.  If the minimum wage were pegged to gas prices, it would currently be $10.53 per hour.
 
2014-07-20 08:00:22 PM
Nah it couldn't possibly cost jobs. There are no businesses with thin profit margins that depend on minimum wage workers to stay in business that would be effected by raising their labor costs. That's just ridiculous.
 
2014-07-20 08:08:49 PM
i58.tinypic.com
 
2014-07-20 08:16:15 PM

Mentat: [i58.tinypic.com image 585x485]


Heh, now that's a paper tiger.

As a tech support technician, I'll charge a hell of a lot more than $15/hr when that thing inevitably breaks.
 
2014-07-20 08:19:04 PM
Oh yeah? Well, Microsoft just announced that they're laying off 18,000 people!
Checkmate, libtards!
 
2014-07-20 08:27:06 PM

Jack Lambert's Missing Teeth: There are no businesses with thin profit margins that depend on minimum wage workers to stay in business that would be effected by raising their labor costs.


If your margins are that thin, you need a better business plan.
 
2014-07-20 08:27:35 PM

Jack Lambert's Missing Teeth: Nah it couldn't possibly cost jobs. There are no businesses with thin profit margins that depend on minimum wage workers to stay in business that would be effected by raising their labor costs. That's just ridiculous.


How many businesses dependent upon minimum wage workers aren't also dependent upon customers who make minimum wage?

Sales of their relevant goods or services will increase dramatically if a majority of Americans see an increase in purchasing power.
 
2014-07-20 08:30:34 PM

Enlightened Liberal: I don't understand what some executives think. If they keep outsourcing jobs, eliminating positions, and lowering wages, how are people going to have the disposable income to purchase their products?


They argue that it keeps the price down, which allows ever-poorer customers to afford their product. And to a degree, they were correct. Cars are way more expensive than they used to be, but everything else has dropped as the era of globalization stripped out inefficiencies in the supply chain. A drill that cost $100 in 1980 costs an equivalent $30 today. Clothes are ridiculously less expensive than they were in 70's and 80's.

But the price can only go so low, and I think we probably reached that limit sometime around 2000. It's been nothing but rearranging the deck chairs since then, which is why CEOs come in, get their parachute, and then get the fark out.  Because there's no way to game the system long-term any more, so they have to bail out before anyone realizes they are powerless to stop the impending doom.
 
2014-07-20 08:30:51 PM

Mentat: [i58.tinypic.com image 585x485]


F*ckin' robots... Takin' our jobs...
 
2014-07-20 08:31:45 PM

IlGreven: dittybopper: Just peg it to inflation and be done with it.

Obviously, if you increase it too much, it will cost jobs, but it needs to be periodically increased because inflation eventually reduces the buying power. So come up with some standard (not necessarily 'living wage') and just peg it to some annual standard so it stays roughly the same.

1 gallon of gasoline, national average.

The last time the federal minimum wage was raised (to $7.25/hr), gas cost $2.503 per gallon on average.  This week, Gas costs $3.635 per gallon.  If the minimum wage were pegged to gas prices, it would currently be $10.53 per hour.


It would also be $10.53 if it had been inflation-adjusted since I got my very first job.
 
2014-07-20 08:47:42 PM
If we had a national COLA this wouldnt be a BFD.
 
2014-07-20 08:53:14 PM
In publicly traded corporations, Executives (Officers and Board) don't manage anything but the balance sheet and have little knowledge of, or concern for, the business of the corporation. Especially conglomerates. Upper and middle managers run the business, and they are only slightly less vulnerable than rank and file employees. Labor is both the most expensive and fungible item on the balance sheet, so if some ratio needs tweaking before the deadline to file a report, labor is going to get hit, first. Corporate governance statutes and case law actually require the Board to put the best interests of the shareholders before any other interest, including the company, itself, if it is the target of a takeover. As long as this disconnect is in place, workers will never earn anything close to what they did a generation ago without mass collective bargaining.
 
2014-07-20 08:54:12 PM

Jack Lambert's Missing Teeth: Nah it couldn't possibly cost jobs. There are no businesses with thin profit margins that depend on minimum wage workers to stay in business that would be effected by raising their labor costs. That's just ridiculous.


*twitch*
 
2014-07-20 09:07:09 PM

jso2897: Oh yeah? Well, Microsoft just announced that they're laying off 18,000 people!
Checkmate, libtards!


Most of which are in Hungary that has a minimum wage of about $1.80/hour.
 
2014-07-20 09:12:23 PM

Heraclitus: If we had a national COLA this wouldnt be a BFD.


Canada, I'm sick up to here with your RC bullshiat. Coke is just better.


img3.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2014-07-20 09:16:25 PM

dittybopper: Just peg it to inflation and be done with it.

Obviously, if you increase it too much, it will cost jobs, but it needs to be periodically increased because inflation eventually reduces the buying power. So come up with some standard (not necessarily 'living wage') and just peg it to some annual standard so it stays roughly the same.


Yes, necessarily living wage, that's how we grew a martherfarking middle class in the first martherfarking place. And it's going to take some serious wage increasing at the bottom and tax increasing at the top to bring back a healthy martherfarking middle class.

/We also need to fix the infrastructure.
//We also need to fix the corporate tax system and reverse the perverse incentives to export good-paying jobs.
///And penalize "flag of convenience" US corporations.
////And tie tax breaks to the creation of real jobs in the US.
//Five, five slashies. Are your eyes bleeding yet?
 
2014-07-20 09:20:19 PM

Jack Lambert's Missing Teeth: Nah it couldn't possibly cost jobs. There are no businesses with thin profit margins that depend on minimum wage workers to stay in business that would be effected by raising their labor costs. That's just ridiculous.


Fark your semiliterate lies: Labor as a percentage of cost of goods sold.

NB: Your cost of production is not the price you charge customers.
 
2014-07-20 09:31:46 PM

doglover: Heraclitus: If we had a national COLA this wouldnt be a BFD.

Canada, I'm sick up to here with your RC bullshiat. Coke is just better.


[img3.wikia.nocookie.net image 850x760]


But RC is a better mix with Jack.

Yukon Jack...
 
2014-07-20 09:32:03 PM

Enlightened Liberal: I don't understand what some executives think. If they keep outsourcing jobs, eliminating positions, and lowering wages, how are people going to have the disposable income to purchase their products?


That's too many quarters away (i.e. more than one) so they don't care.

It's like how conservatives don't care if there's global warming. When Jesus comes back tomorrow and raptures them, what's left for them to care about?
 
2014-07-20 09:45:48 PM
Just another CBO "guesstimate" that may have missed its mark.
 
2014-07-20 09:52:35 PM

dittybopper: Just peg it to inflation and be done with it.


Ohio raised minimum wage by $1.70 several years ago and pegged it to inflation. It was fantastic at the time, but there hasn't been any official inflation to speak of since 2009. This year it went up a dime. Now, I don't know what measurement of inflation they use, but no government agency takes food, energy, or medical care into account when figuring inflation. So, now minimum wage is too low again. Of course, the fact that too many people get paid minimum wage, and that there are never any raises worth mentioning, is a bigger problem, but that's a story for another day.
 
2014-07-20 09:59:22 PM
I have no problem with minimum wage differing from region to region the way something like sales tax does. So let the states, counties, municipalities go whichever way they want and we'll see how it shakes out over time.
 
2014-07-20 09:59:43 PM

TyrantII: Demand runs Capitalism and poorish people with money to spend, spend it.

The only time "job creators" would cut jobs or raise prices is if they're in non-competitive markets; which in that case is just proving Capitalism is a sham.  Even if they tried, someone else would move into the market to accept slimmer profit margins and make up larger revenue, driving the idiots trying to extract a higher rent out.  Honestly, THATS where most of the pushback is rooted.  Higher wages forces more competition, growth, and uncertainty. CEO's don;t like two of those things, and the third when it's only risk free.

They also could be terribly inefficient and employing more labor then they really need, but in our current climate of shareholder maximization I'm guessing there's a fat chance there.


Actually very competitive markets could force price increases since companies in those markets probably operate on slim margins already and there's not much room to cut more. If they're running their businesses inefficiently then that's a problem that can be fixed but assuming slim margin and reasonable efficiency the effect of raising minwage is probably going to be higher prices. I find the argument that businesses are going to make up the difference in the cost of doing business through an increased number of customers driven by higher wages to be unpersuasive. Some portion perhaps but not all of the difference.
 
2014-07-20 10:01:06 PM
Imagine how many more refrigerators the "poor" will have now!
 
2014-07-20 10:04:48 PM

wax_on: TyrantII: Demand runs Capitalism and poorish people with money to spend, spend it.

The only time "job creators" would cut jobs or raise prices is if they're in non-competitive markets; which in that case is just proving Capitalism is a sham.  Even if they tried, someone else would move into the market to accept slimmer profit margins and make up larger revenue, driving the idiots trying to extract a higher rent out.  Honestly, THATS where most of the pushback is rooted.  Higher wages forces more competition, growth, and uncertainty. CEO's don;t like two of those things, and the third when it's only risk free.

They also could be terribly inefficient and employing more labor then they really need, but in our current climate of shareholder maximization I'm guessing there's a fat chance there.

Actually very competitive markets could force price increases since companies in those markets probably operate on slim margins already and there's not much room to cut more. If they're running their businesses inefficiently then that's a problem that can be fixed but assuming slim margin and reasonable efficiency the effect of raising minwage is probably going to be higher prices. I find the argument that businesses are going to make up the difference in the cost of doing business through an increased number of customers driven by higher wages to be unpersuasive. Some portion perhaps but not all of the difference.


Maybe they could make up the difference by trimming executive compensation?


Nah... that's crazy talk.
 
2014-07-20 10:12:23 PM

Mentat: [i58.tinypic.com image 585x485]


I've got no problems with a future where robots do all the grunt work and humans spend all their time being creative or lazy.  Assuming there's a guaranteed minimum income.
 
Displayed 50 of 123 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report