Debates
20 Feb 21
22 Feb 21
2 edits
@joe-shmo saidIt's not true that a minimum wage increase does not change properties of the system. Minimum wage is below the poverty line. Getting these 30 million workers above the poverty line completely changes from whom they receive a paycheck. Government or corporation? It fundamentally changes the economic model.
Take a free standing spring and and place it in your hand. It has a fixed height relative to your hand. Now shove your hand toward the opposite end of the spring. While you are shoving the spring compresses ( the ends move towards each other ), whenever you stop shoving the spring will return to its rests height after oscillating a bit.
This is obviously analogous to ra ...[text shortened]... he spring toward the other is surely talking about short term. The economic shove is unsustainable.
If we want to get away from arbitrary minimum wage numbers, I think a better marker would be to require employers to pay full-time employees enough to keep them out of poverty (i.e. off the gov't dole).
22 Feb 21
@joe-shmo - Big Union doesn't have written in a contract to get a $8 per hr. raise.
Joe, I do not know how they have worded the raise in their contract but you don't know either.
For all I know they could have - and likely did have, wording where they get twice
the increase that the minimum goes up, or something similar. Works for them...? yup
22 Feb 21
Please keep in mind...
As the compassionista democrats pour their hearts out in trying to appear as the
friend of the downtrodden, hard working minimum wage earner, the truth is, they
have never ever even thought of taking the big yoke from around their neck, and
that is the income taxes that the feds impose on these "poor" people.
After all the strata of wage earners get their raises and the smoke clears, the only
essential change will be that we are all in a higher tax bracket. BOOK IT.
"And for those of you in Rio Linda..."
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
22 Feb 21
@earl-of-trumps saidI can almost guarantee a deal that extreme does not exist. You honestly think a company is going to pay double the wage for each worker...
@joe-shmo - Big Union doesn't have written in a contract to get a $8 per hr. raise.
Joe, I do not know how they have worded the raise in their contract but you don't know either.
For all I know they could have - and likely did have, wording where they get twice
the increase that the minimum goes up, or something similar. Works for them...? yup
22 Feb 21
@earl-of-trumps saidUhhh, do I see gas prices creeping on up, a lot of the middle class drive cars! Joe said he would not increase tax with the under $400K crowd, but there are a LOT of taxes that he will increase, like gas, and,uuuuhhh, guess who pays it.
Please keep in mind...
As the compassionista democrats pour their hearts out in trying to appear as the
friend of the downtrodden, hard working minimum wage earner, the truth is, they
have never ever even thought of taking the big yoke from around their neck, and
that is the income taxes that the feds impose on these "poor" people.
After all the strata of ...[text shortened]... will be that we are all in a higher tax bracket. BOOK IT.
"And for those of you in Rio Linda..."
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
22 Feb 21
2 edits
@wildgrass saidThe poverty line just moves up. You can't eradicate poverty by arbitrarily changing the min wage. It may appear that way short term, but long term it just goes back to where it was with respect to population proportions with new arbitrary numbers...
It's not true that a minimum wage increase does not change properties of the system. Minimum wage is below the poverty line. Getting these 30 million workers above the poverty line completely changes from whom they receive a paycheck. Government or corporation? It fundamentally changes the economic model.
If we want to get away from arbitrary minimum wage numbers, I thin ...[text shortened]... e employers to pay full-time employees enough to keep them out of poverty (i.e. off the gov't dole).
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
22 Feb 21
1 edit
@earl-of-trumps said
@joe-shmo - Big Union doesn't have written in a contract to get a $8 per hr. raise.
Joe, I do not know how they have worded the raise in their contract but you don't know either.
For all I know they could have - and likely did have, wording where they get twice
the increase that the minimum goes up, or something similar. Works for them...? yup
Traditionally, unions have supported minimum wage initiatives because their contracts have been directly or indirectly tied to the minimum wage. For instance, UNITE contract that covered workers in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and South Jersey said the following:
"Whenever the federal legal minimum wage is increased, minimum wage [in the agreement] shall be increased so that each will be at least fifteen ( 15% ) percent higher than such legal minimum wage.”
15% above minimum becomes the new minimum for union workers, it doesn't say anything about compensating workers already making at least $17.25 per hr.
These are the types magnitude for such agreements. Your wage doubling scenario is pure fantasy.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/edrensi/2017/01/19/why-it-is-that-unions-fund-the-fight-for-15/?sh=b8d870e50ce1
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
22 Feb 21
2 edits
https://www.businessinsider.com/raising-federal-minimum-wage-cbo-jobs-poverty-2019-7
See this is the kind of thing that clearly supports "you can't get something for nothing" economic spring analogy.
"Raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2025 would shed 1.3 million jobs from the economy but also reduce the number of Americans living in poverty by the same amount, according to a report the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released on Monday."
Your losing 1.3 million jobs to lift 1.3 million out of poverty. What has actually been done here? What happens to the 1.3 million who lost their jobs? How are they magically kept out of poverty?
22 Feb 21
1 edit
@joe-shmo saidThe money is already in the system, via food stamps and welfare. The fundamental change is not the amount of money coming in the door of poor households, it's the source of that money.
The poverty line just moves up. You can't eradicate poverty by arbitrarily changing the min wage. It may appear that way short term, but long term it just goes back to where it was with respect to population proportions with new arbitrary numbers...
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
22 Feb 21
2 edits
@wildgrass saidIf the money is already in the system through gov welfare systems why is everyone already not lifted out of poverty?
The money is already in the system, via food stamps and welfare. The fundamental change is not the amount of money coming in the door, it's the source of that money.
22 Feb 21
@joe-shmo saidTechnically I guess they are, depending on your viewpoint. Big gubment manages welfare programs to protect families from poverty. The poverty level is set at real wages. If your income falls below that, you receive federal assistance dollars to make up the difference. So you are considered and counted as impoverished by the federal aid program, but are able to live with food and shelter like humans should. The poverty line is currently higher than where a full-time employee making minimum wage would earn. Full time minimum wage workers are therefore considered impoverished and offered federal assistance.
If the money is already in the system through gov welfare systems why is everyone already not lifted out of poverty?
I would rather see that gap closed by corporations, not gubment. Maybe it's just me?
22 Feb 21
@earl-of-trumps saidPoor people don't pay taxes.
Please keep in mind...
As the compassionista democrats pour their hearts out in trying to appear as the
friend of the downtrodden, hard working minimum wage earner, the truth is, they
have never ever even thought of taking the big yoke from around their neck, and
that is the income taxes that the feds impose on these "poor" people.
After all the strata of ...[text shortened]... will be that we are all in a higher tax bracket. BOOK IT.
"And for those of you in Rio Linda..."
To poor people, the "big yoke" is welfare programs. These programs allow for government control, what you can eat and where you can live. Raising the minimum wage would remove the government yoke and replace it with capitalism.
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
22 Feb 21
2 edits
@wildgrass said"I would rather see that gap closed by corporations, not gubment. Maybe it's just me?"
Technically I guess they are, depending on your viewpoint. Big gubment manages welfare programs to protect families from poverty. The poverty level is set at real wages. If your income falls below that, you receive federal assistance dollars to make up the difference. So you are considered and counted as impoverished by the federal aid program, but are able to live with foo ...[text shortened]... assistance.
I would rather see that gap closed by corporations, not gubment. Maybe it's just me?
But its not going to be closed by corporations, its going to be closed by the gubmint either way you slice it. The corporations aren't paying because its a better economic system...they are "theroetically" ( and I stress theoretically ) going to pay as a result of Big Government saying, you are going to pay. Its turtles all the way down for this scenario.