RE: Walmart gives jobs to people who don't deserve them and put in no effort at all. Liberals should be singing its praises.

I never said what an LPN makes. I only used that as an example of what people think they should be paid. Your proposed minimum wage increase would not take these people above what you deem a livable wage. For the record, my sister in law is an LPN. Made $12 an hour in rural PA.

Look up cost-push inflation.

http://useconomy.about.com/od/inflationfaq/f/Cost-Push-Inflation.htm

I know 3 fast food workers. All of them have decided college "wasn't for them". Yep, they are trying real hard. It is amazing you are still alive with a heart that bleeds like this.

We've reached a level of automation and convenience which eliminates the need for many jobs. Since volunteering doesn't pay, what do you propose the underclass do?

like...wow. wrote:

Look up cost-push inflation.

http://useconomy.about.com/od/inflationfaq/f/Cost-Push-Inflation.htm

I'm not sure what your point is. This is basic high-school level economic theory. The only thing the article says about wages is that in some cases wage inflation causes price inflation.

The actual economic data shows that this doesn't happen in the case of minimum wage increases.

no science zone wrote:

We've reached a level of automation and convenience which eliminates the need for many jobs. Since volunteering doesn't pay, what do you propose the underclass do?

That's a little off topic, and I'm not sure who the question is addressed to. But for the record, I'm not a Luddite.

Lol...there you go again with the education rhetoric. It isn't HS level economic theory. Bet you didn't even know what it was before looking it up, no?There are of course other factors that have the potential to negate inflation caused by cost-push, but in and of itself, you pay employees more, you have more expenses, you make less money or you lay people off to make up for the profit margin. Companies are not going to let increased wages hurt their bottom line. They WILL recover these expenses another way, like laying off people, or raising the price of goods.

Fat hurts wrote:

like...wow. wrote:

Look up cost-push inflation.

http://useconomy.about.com/od/inflationfaq/f/Cost-Push-Inflation.htm

I'm not sure what your point is. This is basic high-school level economic theory. The only thing the article says about wages is that in some cases wage inflation causes price inflation.

The actual economic data shows that this doesn't happen in the case of minimum wage increases.

Bad Wigins wrote:

The US economy depends on the production and trade of useless and harmful products. Farmers are paid to grow unhealthy food for you to eat. Advertisers are paid to fool you into eating it. Dieticians and doctors are paid to repair the damage it causes. It all goes around in a circle of money like the sneetches between the star-on and star-off machines:

http://www.sundriesshack.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Sneetches-Machine1.jpg

It is almost entirely automated so effort has nothing to do with it. You should be grateful that lazy Walmart employees will have money to spend on whatever your own useless contribution is.

Your posts are always stupid. Please take a vacation.

You Are What You Is wrote:

Wal*Mart forces its employees to be on welfare and food stamps, since they can't make enough money to support their families. Why do conservanazis love Wal*Mart when it's such a huge welfare queen and drain on our national budget?

How stupid can you possibly be? Walmart does not force anyone to work for them and therefore does not force anyone to be on welfare. These same folks would simply need more welfare if it were not for Walmart paying them.

Please try thinking before posting.

Fat hurts wrote:

get used to it. wrote:

WalMart doesn't force people to be on food stamps and welfare. That is someone's choice, not a corporations choice. People have option to get a better job or go to school and NOT work at WalMart.

Of course they don't. If they had that option they would take it.

They problem is that they don't have any good choices at all.

Try not to be so stupid. All your statement really says is that Walmart offers them a better choice than anyone else. And you are going to condemn Walmart for that?

Think people. Think.

L L wrote:

If they paid more they would get better employees.

It appears that their formula works.

Nope. Again, try thinking. These same people would exist without these Walmart jobs. And they would need that much more public assistance. You should be thanking Walmart for saving you tax dollars.

Successful teenager wrote:

And they pay 0 in taxes... No place where rent is greater than 15k has a Walmart nearby. They're basically nonexistent in urban areas. And Walmart employees can feed themselves comfortably at the store (with a discount after 90 days) for less than $75 a week. They get assistance because it was decided they were entitled to it. Not that that's a bad thing, but don't be mad at Walmart for offering minimum wages in exchange for minimum skill. A job is a job, and I'm grateful it was my first.

You sounds like you really are a teenager. I live in Mountain View, California - dead center of Silicon Valley. The rents are astronomical and there is a Walmart right down the street.

Try to limit your utterances to things about which you are not completely ignorant.

What the What wrote:

Nope. Again, try thinking. These same people would exist without these Walmart jobs. And they would need that much more public assistance. You should be thanking Walmart for saving you tax dollars.

This is a mindless red herring.

Walmart wouldn't exist without their workers. Somebody has to work there for the company to operate. Those somebodies deserve to be paid a living wage.

Think again.

get used to it. wrote:

There are of course other factors that have the potential to negate inflation caused by cost-push, but in and of itself, you pay employees more, you have more expenses, you make less money or you lay people off to make up for the profit margin. Companies are not going to let increased wages hurt their bottom line. They WILL recover these expenses another way, like laying off people, or raising the price of goods.

They WON'T recover these expenses by laying off people. They are already staffed at the level they need to operate efficiently. If they lay off people then they can't run the business.

They generally WON'T raise prices because their prices are already set at a level that comports with what people are willing to pay.

That's not to say that nobody will lose a job or that no business will raise prices. But there are positive effects as well because minimum wage workers then have more to spend (as a group, they spend everything the get). This leads to increased sales volume. It helps to stabilize prices.

Of course, some businesses will simply take lower profits.

There are lots of excellent economic studies on the effects of raising the minimum wage. We have really good data on this. RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE DOES NOT CAUSE INFLATION.

You have to get past classical economic theory (yes, you learned it in high school). You have to find out what happens in the real world. That's what economists actually do.

Fat hurts wrote:

What the What wrote:

Nope. Again, try thinking. These same people would exist without these Walmart jobs. And they would need that much more public assistance. You should be thanking Walmart for saving you tax dollars.

This is a mindless red herring.

Walmart wouldn't exist without their workers. Somebody has to work there for the company to operate. Those somebodies deserve to be paid a living wage.

Think again.

Wow, zero comprehension, huh?

Nobody 'deserves' to be paid any more or any less than what someone else is willing to pay them.

Seriously dude, try thinking.

What the What wrote:

Wow, zero comprehension, huh?

Nobody 'deserves' to be paid any more or any less than what someone else is willing to pay them.

Seriously dude, try thinking.

That's where you are wrong. It's an ethical question. It's not just a question of cold economics.

The question is, "Should we ascribe dignity to work?" If you simply let the market decide then you are saying that human effort is only ethically as good as the god of the free market says it is. We should not serve such a false god.

I'm a capitalist. But capitalism is not an end unto itself. It must be regulated such that everyone willing to work has ample opportunity to benefit. That is how, in the end, you get both a just society and a vibrant economy.

With pure, unregulated, unbridled capitalism, you get a Darwinian society where only the few can enjoy the fruits of their labor.

Therefore, if you are willing to work hard you DESERVE to be paid a living wage. It's the right thing to do and it's good for society.

Nope. Sorry but that's called the soft bigotry of low expectations. "Oh, you poor morons - you couldn't possibly take charge of your life to improve your circumstances. Here, let us pretend that you 'deserve' $X/hr because, well just because."

Again, try thinking. It may hurt a little bit at first but once you get the hang of it you'll do fine. You might even contribute to the intellectual capital of the world rather than continuing to wallow in vacuous nonsense. Give it a try!

What the What wrote:

Here, let us pretend that you 'deserve' $X/hr because, well just because."

Yes. Just because your work contributes to society. Just because it's the right thing to do. Just because it's good for our nation. Just because it's just.

So if all these great things you think happen with raising minimum wage actually happen and you think studies support, why don't they increase the federal minimum wage beyond the typical increases to keep pace with inflation?

The real answer is because they know it will have a detrimental effect.

like . wrote:

So if all these great things you think happen with raising minimum wage actually happen and you think studies support, why don't they increase the federal minimum wage beyond the typical increases to keep pace with inflation?

The real answer is because they know it will have a detrimental effect.

Honestly, I wish that were the reason. That would mean that congress actually makes laws based on what is good or bad for our society.