Warrior General Games

Originally posted by TruBucfan22
Oh i know they are. It will get worse the more we try to run the companies out of the US. Its weird how socialist think we live in a perfect world. Like companies will just sit there and let the government tax the shit out of them and force them to raise wages.

Do they not believe in cause and effect?

Ask yourself why they aren't already.

wow, the iron law of wages in reverse somehow

looking forward to these raised wages.

Originally posted by glbisthewaytobe
We've already exported most of our jobs and it wasn't because labor costs were too high. It's because the wealthy elite just want more money.

Which one is it because those are competing statements ?

Business is always about lowest cost of production or operation because good businesses do not live in the moment.

Originally posted by glbisthewaytobe
Strong economies are active ones. Since 84%ish of the us population would benefit from the minimum wage increase to $15( which is factored into the math) you create shit loads of economic activity since 84%ish of the population spend all their take home income. And they will spend it. And yeah raising the minimum wage to $8 won't do shit, because we're not increasing the purchase power really. We've done this before. And it was a smashing success.

I agree with your first statement.

Not really sure what the rest of it says to be honest. Assuming I am only paying $10 an hour to my employee right now and I, along with every other business, raises those wages to $15, you are saying that all these employees will take that extra $5 and spend it back to me and the other business owners and there is growth in there somewhere ?

I know this is a waste of time but try to consider some monumental differences in the current economy and business climate then there were in 1960's/70's/80's/90's or even 10 years ago and then you can understand why "It worked in 1972" does not provide any sort of proof that it would work in 2016 or 2020.

I actually think higher wages will work in certain industries and in certain areas but across the board, good luck Bernie.

Originally posted by Cowpoker
I agree with your first statement.

Not really sure what the rest of it says to be honest. Assuming I am only paying $10 an hour to my employee right now and I, along with every other business, raises those wages to $15, you are saying that all these employees will take that extra $5 and spend it back to me and the other business owners and there is growth in there somewhere ?

I know this is a waste of time but try to consider some monumental differences in the current economy and business climate then there were in 1960's/70's/80's/90's or even 10 years ago and then you can understand why "It worked in 1972" does not provide any sort of proof that it would work in 2016 or 2020.

I actually think higher wages will work in certain industries and in certain areas but across the board, good luck Bernie.

How does that extra 5 bucks not make it back to you eventually?

Originally posted by glbisthewaytobe
How does that extra 5 bucks not make it back to you eventually?

The $5 will require me to pay an additional $.39 in payroll taxes so I give the employee $5.39. The employee pays $.39 in SS/Med, $.50 in federal income tax, $.30 in state taxes and walks home with an additional $3.81 cents.

You send me $215.30 every week, I will return $152.40 the following week and we can see how much better off you are at the end of the year.

I can give you one difference between the economics of 2016 to any other time period where we raised minimum wage each time we respond to a post about the topic and see if any of them make sense to you.

1. The average American worker is carrying far more debt then he was at any other time period that we have increased the minimum wage. What does that mean, a large portion of additional money will (or should be) used to service debt and pay interest. That doesn't mean that all of them will service their debt, apparently folks are dumb enough that we needed to pass legislation that creditors needed to print out proof that paying 18-25% interest on that borrowed money and only paying the minimum, would make that $700 recliner cost $1586 by the time you actually paid it off.

I'll be honest, as a commercial/retail/service based business, and if you were looking out only for your best interests, you would be far more supportive of tax credits, lower taxes on lower income brackets, welfare/food stamp/assistance payments from the federal/state/county governments because they provide the same available spending money for your consumers without you having to fund it in the hopes that you get a portion of your money back.

Originally posted by Cowpoker
The $5 will require me to pay an additional $.39 in payroll taxes so I give the employee $5.39. The employee pays $.39 in SS/Med, $.50 in federal income tax, $.30 in state taxes and walks home with an additional $3.81 cents.

You send me $215.30 every week, I will return $152.40 the following week and we can see how much better off you are at the end of the year.

I can give you one difference between the economics of 2016 to any other time period where we raised minimum wage each time we respond to a post about the topic and see if any of them make sense to you.

1. The average American worker is carrying far more debt then he was at any other time period that we have increased the minimum wage. What does that mean, a large portion of additional money will (or should be) used to service debt and pay interest. That doesn't mean that all of them will service their debt, apparently folks are dumb enough that we needed to pass legislation that creditors needed to print out proof that paying 18-25% interest on that borrowed money and only paying the minimum, would make that $700 recliner cost $1586 by the time you actually paid it off.

I'll be honest, as a commercial/retail/service based business, and if you were looking out only for your best interests, you would be far more supportive of tax credits, lower taxes on lower income brackets, welfare/food stamp/assistance payments from the federal/state/county governments because they provide the same available spending money for your consumers without you having to fund it in the hopes that you get a portion of your money back.

Increasing the purchase power of the largest population will always be a net positive in a consumer based economy. Always.

Originally posted by glbisthewaytobe
Increasing the purchase power of the largest population will always be a net positive in a consumer based economy. Always.

Thats pretty general.... increasing the 'purchase power' of your 'weakest link' helps most significantly - but the poor segment keeps increasing so go figure, so you gonna tax him less or let him earn more, is he gonna be more self-sufficient and with more options or are you gonna bait him with subsidies, are jobs which produce valuable products going to be kept domestic, or how many students DO go to Australia to pick fruit?

Its a net positive until interest, taxation, depreciation... theres so many ways to fleece the people..) ..and theres a 20 week waiting period before the labor board can open your file if you have a grievance regarding a prior employers unpaid wages... how many consumers are affected and how seriously in this single instance/office... whats the aggregate effect of all govt programs that obviously could be of better service, or how about just the 3 programs that disservice people worst?

The rich, middle class and poor all have their very different spending and earning personalities, regardless of how you want to measure it.

Originally posted by glbisthewaytobe
Increasing the purchase power of the largest population will always be a net positive in a consumer based economy. Always.

You are not increasing the overall purchase power and you are not doing it for even the majority of the population.

What percentage of the population that is eligible to work or is of working age is currently working ?

If I pay you a nickel and you can purchase a loaf of bread, gallon of gas and a pair of socks for that nickel, that is your purchasing power. If I pay you $50 and you still can only afford a loaf of bread, gallon of gas and a pair of socks, your purchasing power has not increased.

Go ahead and duplicate the business model of almost any business from 1970's without taking in to any consideration the changes in technology, changes in labor requirements, changes in market, changes in consumer options and see how successful you are. It sounds a little risky doesn't it but so far, that is the ONLY proof that you have used to justify adding labor costs to US based business, I'm sorry but I am going to need a little more then that to justify making the US business less globally competitive.

If you want to get something be ready to give something, lets start talking about removing healthcare, removing payroll tax, lowering business tax rates, easing regulations and converting those costs to labor costs. In other words, instead of me contributing $16,000 to pay for health insurance for an employee, allow me to give them an additional $16,000 in wages/salary and allow them to make their own decisions on healthcare, or retirement for that matter.

Oops, forgot another example of how things are different now then they were in the past, although I mentioned several in the post.

2. Market Options. This might not apply to fast food where I believe most min. wage workers can be found. You can order online from anywhere in the world. You do not have to go through an importer to locate a product, you do not have to order from a catalog or middle man that also has overhead costs that need to be paid for. The entire globe has become incredibly efficient which again means that low cost production/operation will always win. I would imagine that this huge shift in business will trend away from being pro-labor and while reducing labor costs my only delay the inevitable, increasing labor costs will only speed the maturation process up and create a larger incentive to trend away from employee costs.

If you are a younger man, you really don't need to be ashamed about missing the gravity of that situation. As far as you know, we could always pick up a phone and compare prices and read reviews of 4 slice toasters and have one on our door step in a day or 2. It wasn't that long ago when you actually had to hop in your car or get on your horse, drive to a department store and decide if you wanted to chose from 1 of 3 options or waste another hour driving 20 miles to the next department store and hope that they have a model that is cheaper and that it is in stock and you do not have to return a week later to pick up a special order. There was a lot of margin in that sale price because the department store had overhead and fixed costs but your options were limited and garage and yard sales were not as reliable as ebay or Amazon.

Originally posted by glbisthewaytobe
We've already exported most of our jobs and it wasn't because labor costs were too high. It's because the wealthy elite just want more money.


When a company has to outsource labor. It is because he US labor costs are deemed too high. That is the entire reason the wealthy elite outsource labor.

Originally posted by TruBucfan22



When a company has to outsource labor. It is because he US labor costs are deemed too high. That is the entire reason the wealthy elite outsource labor.



One of the few times I agree with GLB. The wide majority of companies outsource to make more money....and keep investors/shareholders and their wallets happy

Originally posted by Cowpoker
The $5 will require me to pay an additional $.39 in payroll taxes so I give the employee $5.39. The employee pays $.39 in SS/Med, $.50 in federal income tax, $.30 in state taxes and walks home with an additional $3.81 cents.

You send me $215.30 every week, I will return $152.40 the following week and we can see how much better off you are at the end of the year.

I can give you one difference between the economics of 2016 to any other time period where we raised minimum wage each time we respond to a post about the topic and see if any of them make sense to you.

1. The average American worker is carrying far more debt then he was at any other time period that we have increased the minimum wage. What does that mean, a large portion of additional money will (or should be) used to service debt and pay interest. That doesn't mean that all of them will service their debt, apparently folks are dumb enough that we needed to pass legislation that creditors needed to print out proof that paying 18-25% interest on that borrowed money and only paying the minimum, would make that $700 recliner cost $1586 by the time you actually paid it off.

I'll be honest, as a commercial/retail/service based business, and if you were looking out only for your best interests, you would be far more supportive of tax credits, lower taxes on lower income brackets, welfare/food stamp/assistance payments from the federal/state/county governments because they provide the same available spending money for your consumers without you having to fund it in the hopes that you get a portion of your money back.

You do realize that you just explained why we have inflation. And have completely left out that wages have never kept up with inflation. Convenient.

Originally posted by TruBucfan22
When a company has to outsource labor. It is because he US labor costs are deemed too high. That is the entire reason the wealthy elite outsource labor.

It is impossible for US labor costs to be too high for the US market.

Originally posted by glbisthewaytobe
Because rich people don't like parting with money. That's why they lobby so hard for free trade agreements, tax loopholes, etc, etc. Are you like, new at life?

Edit: literally every time we raise the minimum wage the economy improves. Literally. Every. Time.

If can take a couple of months or a couple of years, but every time the minimum wage has been increased the economy has grown following that minimum wage increase.

It's about income elasticity, supply and demand, economies of scale, etc.

The more money there is being exchanged in the economy, the more goods/services being produced. The more goods/services there are being produced, the greater the economies of scale and the more competition there is to keep price inflation below the level of wage increases. As long as minimum wage increases do not exceed inflation, there is no inflationary price pressure on a macro-economic level. When a minimum wage increase exceeds inflation or is localized, inflationary price pressure exists.

Originally posted by TruBucfan22
Raising minimum wage, will only raise the price of goods. If a company has to pay it's employees more, it will then in turn charge it's customers more. So your raise to $15 an hour means nothing when milk will cost $7 per gallon.

the cost of living goes up and those people still making minimum wage are still at or under the poverty line.



So your solution is to keep minimum wage at $7/hour while the cost of a gallon of milk goes up to $5?