|
Post by trappnman on Feb 27, 2016 8:39:52 GMT -6
you seem to think this is a debate between Bernie and whatever blog you can google this morning.
if that's what you think, so be it
but the facts are, and the reality is- that the SAME arguments have been made EVERY TIME the minimum wage is raised.
Every Time
the same debate.
Every time.
the same.
and what does history show us?
Every time? THAT THAT DEBATE IS FALSE
the Walton family, owns the same amount of wealth as the bottom 40% of American.
Let that sink in................
the wealthiest family in the United States-
yet ,their workers are so underpaid in most areas of the country- that the company ADVISE tem on how to apply for welfare benefits- which they get, because their wages are so low.
PS- Walmart is against the minimum wage as well- and good grief- as the wealthiest ones around- they MUST know
" That is just 100 percent FACT. "
lol- you writing your own history now?
in addition to buying a history book, wander on down to the dictionary dept- your concept of the word "fact" is dubious at best
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Feb 27, 2016 9:05:07 GMT -6
Tman if you do not want the waltons marking so much then do not shop there and anyone else who has an issue with the waltons wealth or business model. The very people that complain about them continue to shop there. If the waltons have so much then why is wal mart struggling? You must remember the profits per time in a wal mart store are not obscene, it is done on volume and shear store numbers.
The grocery items are a super tough way to make a lot of money these days, volume is how they must do it to stay going. When stores like Hy Vee and others spend money on advertising and ads it is to bring people in, without massive volume their profits fall off the map. They have all tightened their belts due to ever rising cost of products sold, try being a beef buyer for a major chain and knowing how much and what to get, perishable products are a tough way to make a living today. Wal mart if you have noticed handles a lot more of their own brands than ever before, outsourced by other companies employing people in those business as well. When you are publicly traded you must look out for your investors or your capital will drop.
Again wal mart is a free business in a free economy, if people do not like their business model shop elsewhere. Because they built up a successful business you think they are evil and dirty? That I find odd.......... If people do not like working there go elsewhere once we get a real bump in job growth. You keep forgetting wal marts key slogan is to keep prices low and roll back prices, that is what brings butts thru those doors of many 100's of stores. If they are the same price as Target and others why would people continue to pick wal mart over another chain store? You forget they take in millions of EBT dollars every year from the federal govt as well. The people the left despise due to high profits, take in the lions share of the EBT givin out in this country every month.
We ask why? Because your dollar on avg goes further there than at other stores, unless one is Savy and looks at ads and uses coupons, but then again wal mart will match any other price, and also will scan your receipt and if they find a lower price elsewhere they refund you the difference and you can get a wal mart card for that amount. You want to end wal mart easy, have 35-40 million people say I will not shop there for 6 months. You will then have wal mart out of business. The hard part is getting people to not go there.
A cousin of mine has never spent a dime at a wal mart. Never in his life. How many people in this country can say such? You want to talk of the evils of wal mart, yet the very people are the ones that allow such to take place by shopping there on avg a few times each week.
Again how much profit is to much? Where does out federal got fit into a business and telling them or mandating them to do certain things like wages and benefits?
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Feb 27, 2016 9:16:47 GMT -6
Tman I ran a lawn care business for almost 6 years with annual sales of 1.2-1.3 million dollars on that 6 years I increased sales by 28 percent, we added a nursery and garden center and a large green house, we started to grow our own B&B trees and sold 2 semi loads of Christmas trees each winter for the last 4 years I was there. We did a major telemarketing push and ventured into new markets not touched before I came, the guy I worked for was very happy with the added results and gave me good pay and a few good bonus checks.
I am sure the nursery now adds another 300,000-400,000 in sales for him.
To raise sales and increase profits are 2 different things I can increase gross sales and show less profits that is easy to do, harder to grow sale and grow profits close to the same. Many times as input cost went up I had to find ways to either buy cheaper in even more volume or contact other groups who where more hungry for a sale. If those options where exhausted and the increase was more than the owner was willing to absorb we had to,increase cost. You cannot in business take on higher Input cost and pay higher wages without it effecting your bottom line, if you have a way to do such please explain it.
Many small business run on 15 percent or lower profit margins. 15 percent is quite good. So if you have an annual increase of even 2 percent for a period of 4 years that is an 8 percent increase input cost and add in another 3 percent for wages and you can see that 15 percent gets eaten away in short order.a business owner who puts in 60-80 hours per week building up a business, taking out loans to add growth to his business is going to do that for a much reduced margin? That is a pipe dream.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Feb 27, 2016 9:19:52 GMT -6
The lawn care market was and is super competitive as anyone with a pickup, trailer and a mower and fertilizer spreader thinks they are going to go out and get rich. Many fold in less than 2 years.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Feb 27, 2016 9:47:48 GMT -6
how you continue to avoid the debate, instead telling story after anecdotal story is beyond me.
I'm starting to see, by the posts you make, that you simply don't understand the issue.
get a history book- and SHOW me how raising the minimum wage to a WAGE ABOVE THE POVERTY LINE which, since it will be news to you- is WHY we have a minimum wage and why the minimum raise is increased as the circumstances demand.
how can you so completely misundersand the lesson I posted about Walmart amazes me
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Feb 27, 2016 9:54:47 GMT -6
so lets make it simple, before you bring up any more red herrings-
tell me three reasons why YOU are against raising the minimum wage so a full time worker can be above the poverty line:
1) 2) 3)
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Feb 27, 2016 21:56:17 GMT -6
What does the poverty line mean? It is used to gauge need for social programs, so if we then take min wage to 15.00 per hr which equates to 31,200 per year, how many will fall of the social program list? If that means saving tax payers millions and millions and a reduction in taxation great, if not then the 15 is just a number and will hurt the working man for the obvious reasons stated above not just by me but someone who has worked in the field of economics for many years!
Tell you 3 reasons I have given you plenty of reasons for not going to 15 per hour already good grief. It will not help the working man, it will show him or her a percentage above a line that ebbs and flows as well, Tman the poverty line today is not the same as it was 10 years ago or 15. That number has changed a lot since the inception of such, and to think that the data gathering is spot on for reaching a consensus on poverty? Sorry way off. It does not take into account geographic regions and you have different percentages of what makes up,poverty for basis on social use programs,
In fact here is what the census bureau tells you about such: The Census Bureau cautions that the thresholds should be interpreted as a "statistical yardstick" rather than as a complete accounting of how much income people need to live. They were intended to define and quantify poverty in America and to record changes in the number of persons and families in poverty and their characteristics over time.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Feb 27, 2016 22:10:54 GMT -6
3 reasons
1. Increased cost for good and services. 2. Would lower the workforce as 5.00 per man hour worked many would look at other options for many of these low income jobs. 3. Guarantee you raise the minimum wage the poverty level goes up accordingly and also puts more taxes to spend on social programs in the hands of the federal govt. 4. Many states right now pay more than the federal min wage. 5. Not all areas are the same in concerns to,housing cost and other goods and services or the same on annual taxation or sales tax for that matter, your still going to have the have some, have some more and have nots. 6. Many jobs pay far above the 7.65 and even 10 per hour today. Some of these jobs come with benefits, increase min wage to 15.00 and thee goes a lot of the benefits offered and more people,paying into Obama care. 7. What authority does the federal,goat have to mandate who makes what and how much? 8. Poverty rates follow suit so then the 15.00 becomes the old 7.65 9. CBO estimates even a Raise to 10.10 per hr would see a loss of 500,00 jobs, so seeing as of now we cannot afford to loose more jobs! 10. A risky gamble to our nations economy and we need more job growth not job cuts or creating an atmosphere for more business to take away benefits offered what ever they be, and attracting more people to social programs like EBT and AHCA.
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Feb 27, 2016 23:54:30 GMT -6
You spend way too much time posting very definitive and narrow ranges like $7.50 per hour. One of, if not the greatest capitalist in the USA Henry Ford new fully well that to be financially successful his product either had to be low cost enough for his workers to buy it or their wages high enough for them to want to own one or more likely a combination of both. His strong capitalists of 2-3 generations ago could figure that out I don't know why modern day "business minded" folk can't grasp that today. China is spending huge sums of money to reach a 95% literacy rate, knowing that education is the way to building a middle class that will fuel an economy. They have seen how that worked here in the USA 50 years ago and also Western Europe and Japan. When a developed nation moves away from a large percentage of their families as middle class which way do they go? And what does it lead to? Obviously in the USA we have chosen to make this a political issue more so than an economic issue. Since middle class made more citizens independent the politics needed to create ways to divide and isolate groups be they liberal or conservative for their own causes or benefit.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Feb 28, 2016 7:09:01 GMT -6
Here are seven reasons why:
1. Had the minimum wage of 1968 simply stayed even with inflation, it would be more than $10 an hour today. But the typical worker is also about twice as productive as then. Some of those productivity gains should go to workers at the bottom.
2. $10.10 isn't enough to lift all workers and their families out of poverty. Most low-wage workers aren't young teenagers; they're major breadwinners for their families, and many are women. And they and their families need a higher minimum.
3. For this reason, a $10.10 minimum would also still require the rest of us to pay Medicaid, food-stamps, and other programs necessary to get poor families out of poverty -- thereby indirectly subsidizing employers who refuse to pay more. Bloomberg View describes McDonald's and Walmart as "America's biggest welfare queens" because their employees receive so much public assistance. (Some, like McDonalds, even advise their employees to use public programs because their pay is so low.)
4. A $15/hour minimum won't result in major job losses because it would put money in the pockets of millions of low-wage workers who will spend it -- thereby giving working families and the overall economy a boost, and creating jobs. (When I was Labor Secretary in 1996 and we raised the minimum wage, business predicted millions of job losses; in fact, we had more job gains over the next four years than in any comparable period in American history.)
5. A $15/hour minimum is unlikely to result in higher prices because most businesses directly affected by it are in intense competition for consumers, and will take the raise out of profits rather than raise their prices. But because the higher minimum will also attract more workers into the job market, employers will have more choice of whom to hire, and thereby have more reliable employees -- resulting in lower turnover costs and higher productivity.
6. Since Republicans will push Democrats to go even lower than $10.10, it's doubly important to be clear about what's right in the first place. Democrats should be going for a higher minimum rather than listening to Republican demands for a smaller one.
7. At a time in our history when 95 percent of all economic gains are going to the top 1 percent, raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour isn't just smart economics and good politics. It's also the morally right thing to do.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Feb 28, 2016 7:37:33 GMT -6
Tman you talked about be copying and pasting it seems you where on Mother jones again.
The typical worker is 2 times as productive exactly how? Could it be technology aiding that?
2. Is not at all close to facts givin out by the labor dept if you would like I can post the facts on who fits into the minimum wage jobs, certainly not the bread winner not even close so that point is not even worth discussion,mthe dept of labor clearly shows the break down.
3 fits with point 2 so again not even close to reality where ever you received your info, yet to the point the train just stay on course with Medicaid and foood stamps again I already pointed out the lefts ideals on such 10.10-15.00 would just become the new 7.65 on the poverty scale, it is a sliding one not hard and fast.
4 is laughable had nothing to do with min wage more to do with the Internet and technology .
5 is bull hockey if everyone has to pay the min wage then how does anyone figure that increas which would be 50 percent be taken away from profits? Good grief. They would all raise their prices and the consumer would have no choice but to pay it. Example 40 employees at 2080 hrs a year making 7.80 648,960 paid out. Now look at same employees making 15 per hour 1,248,000 in wages and then higher taxes paid out but the employer on top of the 600,000 plus in wage increases small business has those profits to just absorb 600,000 in more wages and increased taxes? In 5 years that is 3 million dollars more in wages. Yep they have those profits sitting around to absorb such................
Sorry BS on that one. Again this is hyperbole as the majority of head of house holds are not working for 7.65 and that increas would mean increasing millions of workers pay at a cost of billions to many business, lots of them small business not publicly traded companies.
Where are the workers to be attracted at right now? If where attracting more works where are they today at 7.65?
6. So is the age old technique of going higher than we really want to get the number we can live with? Bernie is not talking such Bernie wants 15 per hr not settling on less. Again 20 some states right now pay more than the minimum wage, a good job market will take care of this on its own ,new job creation again so those people in the work force have more options for better pay. High taxes and higher input cost does not make job creation stellar again just fact. Example when the oil boom is going strong in Dickinson,ND that McDonalds has to pay 15.00 per hr just to attract people to work, as most go to the oil fields and other jobs related to those who make that money in the oil fields.
7. Is nothing more than the left montra yep 95 percent of our wealth is going to the top 1 percent ok.......... Again look at the numbers posted from the govt about how Americans rank for private wealth versus other countries, why are we almost 20-30 points better than most! If your numbers where even remotely true we would not be sitting with 46-48 percent private wealth in this country.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Feb 28, 2016 7:40:06 GMT -6
Bryce here is the info on middle class. www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/12/09/are-you-in-the-american-middle-class/Bryce America spends a major sum of money on education as well, some just do it better than others. I don't think China outspends us on education. I maybe wrong but doubt it. Percent spent on education as of GDP USA ranks 57 and China ranks 104. Yes that number is off some because we are talking single percentage points but countries better than us have a much,much lower GDP. So figuring in that I am betting the USA if we went off the same GDP would be in the top 10. China has a large GDP as well. Yet still is 47 below us.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Feb 28, 2016 10:24:11 GMT -6
actually, it was economic expert Robert Reich that wrote what I posted
I think you REALLY need to check your sources, and understand opinions aren't fact. I've begged you to look at history- but you seem content to believe myths rather than reality.
cool thing is- you can raise the same points you did in 2012, and 2008- and the country has shown they disagree with YOUR view-
and the same will happen this year
once again you prove you can lead a horse to water, but logic and science and fact still won't make him think....................
why so shy about naming a name on the GOP you support both in money and time- unless you don't champion anyone, but prefer to snipe?
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Feb 28, 2016 13:57:38 GMT -6
Tman you have zero facts nor the history you claim to be the selling point for raising minimum wage to 40 percent higher than today, you claim it to be fact your copied bullets points they are far from it. Simple math and simple logic tells you small business doesn't have millions extra sitting around waiting for increased minimum wage increases, LOL. The entire concept of min wage is nothing but a left scam easy to see for those with open eyes and yes history. The good thing is we won't have to worry about it because 15.00 per hr will,never happen as Bernie the socialist has zero chance of winning. So we are arguing something that is on paper and Bernies speech trail only. Yet the left keeps banging that drum. I champion views and cause is what I champion. If I had my way it would be senator John Thune of SD as president. Common sense and still works for the poeple of his state. He wil again win in a landslide in the state of SD. Yes I worked on his campaign and given money to his campaign and I still receive a Christmas card every year from him and his family even though I live in another state. That is a class act in my book. Again I have already told you I would take Trump,Rubio or Cruz over Hillary the liar on many fronts in her not so esteamed political career or over Bernie the socialist with no REAL world work in anything in his entire life. The man that wants to increases taxes and min wage to 15 per hour durring this economy ? Really the man to move our country forward? I think not. He also wants to ban AR rifles and magazines and claims it will have an impact on gun deaths OK....................... Both want to take the Obama train and keep adding to it, at some point people will wake up from the pipe dream that or face it on the streets when inflation and other economic factors force the issue. No worries the republican side will be whittled down soon enough and then we shall see who takes on Hillairy and how the young voters go and show come November, she polls really bad with them across the board. As far as your horse analogy, I will look at the water and inspect it and if I am thirsty I will take a drink, but if not thirsty why drink just because it is there? ?
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Feb 28, 2016 14:05:01 GMT -6
If trump gets the selection I feel he will attract many voters who are fed up with either side and the same ol, same Ol. I will at least know he will be better than anything the dems have to offer and expect him to appoint a better candidate for the Supreme Court than either of the two dems.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Feb 28, 2016 19:38:00 GMT -6
Tman I think you need a new highly acclaimed economist who actually has a law degree and not one based in economics.
Paul Roderick Gregory , CONTRIBUTOR I cover domestic and world economics from a free-market perspective FOLLOW ON FORBES (355) Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own. In my Robert Reich’s F Minus In Economics: False Facts, False Theories, I gave Professor Reich an F for his Higher wages can save America’s economy — and its democracy. For those who missed it, the reasons for my grade (as a 40-year teacher of economics) are Reich’s lamentable disregard for facts and his lack of knowledge of basic economics. My specific criticisms included:
First, Reich’s assertion that America’s growth and prosperity rest on a “basic bargain” that corporations pay their workers enough so that they can buy their products is wrong. Reich claims the bargain was pioneered by Henry Ford in 1914, who decided to pay his workers enough to buy his Model T’s.
Second, historical statistics show Reich’s assertion that the Great Depression was caused by businesses allowing wages to stagnate and profits to soar in the 1920s is false.
Third, Official U.S. data from 1964 to present reject Reich’s claim that declining employee compensation and rising corporate profits (measured absolutely or as shares of national income) cause economic downturns. Corporate profits fall (often dramatically) during economic downturns, while compensation of employees better holds its own. The employee compensation share of national income rises immediately preceding and during recessions. Reich makes claims about economic relationships with little or no regard to facts.
Fourth, I conclude that Reich does not understand wage formation in labor markets, although he was Secretary of Labor under President Clinton. Apparently such knowledge is not necessary for such a position. He seems to think that stingy corporations could pay their workers much more. He does not realize they most businesses operate in a competitive environment. If they pay more than the competitive wage, they cannot remain competitive themselves.
Robert Reich’s immediate response to my F, entitled Beware Capitalist Tools, takes me to task for a number of sins in my paper. Let’s run through his complaints:
Recommended by Forbes EYVoice: How Exceeding Customer Expectations Impacts Growth
Robert Reich's F Minus In Economics: False Facts, False Theories AccentureVoice: Preparing For Transformation: Utilizing As-A-Service Value Levers
Obama: Ain't Broke, Fix It. Broke: Keep As Is Airbrushing Away The Numerous False Promises Of Obama Care Ideological Blinders Prevent An Obama Pivot On The Economy MOST POPULAR Photos: The World’s Highest-Paid Actors 2015 TRENDING ON LINKEDIN Ten Things Never To Do On LinkedIn MOST POPULAR Photos: Top College In Every State
Reich: “If I’m correct, Gregory asks, how could it possibly be that America become the world’s richest and most powerful economy in late nineteenth century, when the typical worker was earning peanuts?”
Gregory: No, I said nothing about workers earning peanuts. I asked why America became the world’s richest economy prior to the 1914 bargain upon which Reich claims America’s prosperity rests. A minor point, but he makes a big deal of this.
Reich: “Gregory then criticizes me for suggesting that Henry Ford benefited financially by increasing the wages of his workers, who could then afford to purchase Model T’s. Gregory
says Ford increased the wages of his workers because, in Gregory’s words, “Ford could afford” to pay his auto workers more, given the enormous productivity increases generated by Gregory: Can Reich seriously think that I believe that Henry Ford was not motivated by self interest? That’s not the issue. Rather I characterized Reich’s urban legend about Henry Ford’s wanting to make his employees customers as making no sense. What business model relies on your own employees buying what you produce? I use the Ford Company’s own statistics to give the real explanation of Ford’s $5 wage: Assembly line productivity soared by a factor of 720, shrinking labor costs per car, and allowing Ford to more than halve the Model T’s price. Ford’s real pioneering move was to invest large amounts in training his work force. Ford paid his workers above their productivity to prevent them from leaving with the skills he paid for. Modern economists call Ford’s innovation an efficiency wage.
Reich: “Gregory goes on to say that total wages rose sharply from 1915 to the Great Depression, but he completely misses (or ignores) my point. Income inequality widened dramatically in the 1920s. It reached a peak in 1928, when the top 1 percent took home over 23 percent of total income.”
Gregory: Sorry, Mr. Reich. You cannot change your metric after it has been proven false. Your article states specifically that “the wages of most American workers stagnated even as the economy surged. Gains went mainly into corporate profits and into the pockets of the very rich.” When I showed these facts to be false, you tried to switch your argument to the distribution of income. Too late, but I show below that substituting income distribution does not help Reich’s cause.
Reich: “Does he (Gregory) not know that the median wage has barely increased for three decades, and that it is now 5 percent lower than it was in 2000, adjusted for inflation?”
Gregory: Reich’s statistics again do not square with the facts. Working men and women measure their compensation by hourly earnings plus fringes, adjusted for inflation. If we go back Reich’s three decades, real hourly earnings today are up thirty percent (not Reich’s “barely increased”) and are up ten percent since 2000 (versus Reich’s down 5 percent). (See Economic Report of the President 2013, table B-49). Reich misleadingly lets the reader think that real earnings stagnated for thirty years, while in fact they increased up to the Obama recession and then stagnated ever since.
Reich: “Does he (Gregory) not have access to the fact that wages are now a lower percent of the total economy and corporate profits a higher percent than at any time in the last thirty-five years?”
Gregory: Reich should again check his facts with the Economic Report of the President 2013, Table B-28. The 2012 national income share of compensation of employees (62 percent) was matched within fractions of a percent in 2010, 2006, and 1997, and is not “the lowest in the last 35 years.” There has been little variation in the compensation share with a high of 67 percent and a low of 62 percent with no apparent trend in sight.
Reich: “Total wages isn’t the issue; it’s the distribution of those wages. Income inequality widened dramatically in the 1920s. It reached a peak in 1928, when the top 1 percent took home over 23 percent of total income — just as inequality rose in the years leading up to the Great Recession….”
Gregory: Reasonable people, including economists, can argue we need a more equal distribution of income for fairness and equity. But economists believe that the distortions of transferring income from one person to another cause some loss of output. Reich argues, to the contrary, that unequal distributions of income cost us growth and prosperity: “Unless the vast middle class, and everyone seeking to join it, have enough money in their pockets — and share sufficiently in the gains from growth — businesses cannot possibly do well.”
As a believer in letting data talk, I obtain a slightly positive correlation between Gini coefficient measures of inequality (after taxes and transfers) and 1996-2010 growth rates for the thirty one countries for which the OECD provides data. The data again disagree with Reich: the greater the inequality, the higher the long-term growth rate. If too much inequality destroys growth as Reich believes, we would get a negative correlation, even with such a simple test.
I could cite more of Reich’s errors, but they might seem too technical to the reader. Reich seems unaware of the consensus among economists – shared, by the way, by Keynes himself – that shifts in consumption, investment, net exports, and investment can cause business cycles, but they do not explain the long run, as Reich claims they do. As Keynes, famously quipped: “In the long run we are all dead.” Reich has yet to catch on. In the long run, a self-correcting mechanism returns the economy to potential output and employment.
Even the reliably Keynesian CBO projects long term growth rates using real factors, such as demography, projected technological progress, capital formation, labor force participation rates, quality of education, and immigration.
Modern growth economics has contributed to our understanding of growth and development by adding institutional factors to the mix. Innumerable studies have shown that the quality of institutions — rule of law, corruption, legal restrictions on domestic and foreign trade — determine long-run economic performance. Bad institutions mean bad economic performance.
If Reich is truly interested in understanding the determinants of prosperity, wages, and growth, he should use his lawyer’s training to study our regulatory environment, tax system, incentives to stimulate capital formation, saving, and innovation. He should focus on the most important factor of all – our collapsing K-12 education system. (I recommend Endangering Prosperity: A Global View of the American School).
Although I am holding fast on not changing Reich’s F grade, I have tried to keep my arguments reasoned and factual. Reich is less restrained. He characterizes me as a “polemicist,” who engages in “diatribes,” “ad hominem attacks,” and writes “garbage.”
I’ll let readers decide whose discourse they prefer and whose evidence they find more compelling.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Feb 28, 2016 19:50:46 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Feb 28, 2016 21:35:56 GMT -6
Who says that absolute dollars spent measures the results. Look at it from a % of GDP and see where it falls. We out spend most of the world on most items as we have in most cases the most to spend, but are getting the best results for what we spend? We have a very well developed college system and one of the reasons that tuition is very high is not as much about all the loans as it is the money foreign families are willing and able to spend filling our undergrad and graduate programs. I was in India in 2008 and they only had educational capabilities to handle 15% of the qualified graduate students in country so the desire and need to have grad students all over the world and families willing to fund their education. Same for many other Asian nations as well.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Feb 29, 2016 7:21:52 GMT -6
I find it odd you are afraid to state who you support-
are you that ashamed of the man?
btw- 355 followers for your last "expert"-
my last word on it- federal minimum wage has been raised, also in many cities- (ps those cities are experiencing less UE and more prosperity than the rest of country)
Fact
"Contrary to stereotypes, low-wage workers whose pay scales are affected by the minimum wage are overwhelmingly adults, many supporting families. Adults 20 years of age or over make up 89 percent of all workers who would receive a raise if the federal minimum wage were raised"
Fact
"Raising the minimum wage right now is more important than ever. Minimum wage increases stimulate the economy by increasing consumer spending, without adding to state and federal budget deficits. Consumer spending drives 70 percent of the economy, and increasing demand is key for jumpstarting production and re-hiring. A raise in the minimum wage puts money into the pockets of low-income consumers, who immediately spend it at local businesses. The Economic Policy Institute estimates that the Raise the Wage Act of 2015, which would raise the federal minimum wage to $12 per hour by 2020, would result in wage increases totalling more than $79 billion for roughly 35 million workers in communities across the country. Strengthening the minimum wage can help build a sustainable economic recovery – without increasing costs for taxpayers.
And more families than ever are relying on low-wage and minimum wage jobs to make ends meet. This is because job losses during the Great Recession hit higher-wage sectors like construction, manufacturing and finance hard, while new job growth has been concentrated disproportionately in low-wage industries. Fully 58 percent of all jobs created in the post-recession were low-wage occupations, according to a 2012 report by the National Employment Law Project. This is not a short term trend – six of the top ten growth occupations projected by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics for next decade are low-wage jobs, including home health aides, customer service representatives, food preparation and service workers, personal and home care aides, retail salespersons, and office clerks. Raising the minimum wage would boost pay scales in these types of jobs where millions of Americans today spend their careers. "
Fact
"The best economic research, and real world experiences with minimum wage increases, confirms that raising the minimum wage does not cause job loss. The most sophisticated minimum wage study to date, published in November 2010 by economists at the University of Massachusetts, University of North Carolina, and University of California, compared employment data among every pair of neighboring U.S. counties that straddle a state border and had differing minimum wage levels at any time between 1990 and 2006, and found that minimum wage increases did not cost jobs. A companion study published in April 2011 found that these results hold true even during periods of recession and high unemployment. For more research on the effect of the minimum wage on employment, click here. A widely-cited 2013 study by the Center for Economic and Policy Research reviews the past two decades of research on the impact of minimum wage increases on employment and concludes that “the weight of the evidence points to little or no effect of minimum wage increases on job growth.”"
Fact
" recent rigorous study by economists at the University of California examining the impact of minimum wage increases on teen unemployment found that even minimum wage increases implemented during times of high unemployment – such as the recessions of 1990-1991, 2001 and 2007-2009 – did not result in job losses for teens or slow employment growth.
Critics like to suggest that the last increase in the federal minimum wage in 2009 caused a spike in teen unemployment. But as a NELP report demonstrated in 2011, teen unemployment rises faster than adult joblessness during every recession – whether or not the minimum wage goes up. This is because teens are the last hired, and so are always the first fired when the economy shrinks and adults compete with them for scarce jobs. "
Fact
"Will employers go out of business if they have to pay a higher minimum wage?
No. While opponents frequently make this claim, research and experience demonstrate otherwise. In fact, many of the loudest minimum wage opponents are the country’s largest and most profitable companies. A 2012 report by the National Employment Law Project found that two-thirds of all low-wage workers are employed by large companies rather than small businesses, and that the vast majority of the largest low-wage employers in the country are earning strong profits and can afford higher wages.
It’s also important to remember that since the minimum wage has lost so much value over the last several decades, employers today are actually being allowed to pay less – in real dollars – than they were in the late 1960’s.
Many employers and small businesses, in fact, support minimum wage increases. For more, visit Business for a Fair Minimum Wage. "
so dither and dather and believe trickle down works and the sun rises in the west......
My last word with you on politics until you endorse a candidate
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Feb 29, 2016 7:25:16 GMT -6
university after university, study after study
what more do you want
|
|