Please help me understand how a $15 minimum wage is a good idea.

Responsibility is the KEY wrote:

Subsidizing employers business costs taxpayers $TRILLIONS. Employers should use profits to pay employees and must stop sponging off local taxpayers.

Presumably that was meant to be funny. The alternative is rather frightening.

can someone explain to me why we should put our faith in trickle down economics?

Salaries and profits have exploded for the top 1 percent of this country, but wages for the middle and lower classes have stagnated. Why isn't the money trickling down?

Seems to me that we need "trickle up" economics instead. If we work to raise wages for the bottom 99% of the country, then consumers have more money to spend. That would stimulate the economy, and compensate for the increased cost of paying workers a higher salary.

Just a thought

Pointing Out the Obvious wrote:

You dumb ass wrote:

I'm serious. You don't want any of this.

I'm serious as well. I'd be quite happy to read your explanation/justification regarding your worth.

Of course, you really haven't got anything. That much is pretty obvious. But I'd love to see you try.

Are you tempting me, too? You do NOT want any of this.

pin racer wrote:

can someone explain to me why we should put our faith in trickle down economics?

Salaries and profits have exploded for the top 1 percent of this country, but wages for the middle and lower classes have stagnated. Why isn't the money trickling down?

Seems to me that we need "trickle up" economics instead. If we work to raise wages for the bottom 99% of the country, then consumers have more money to spend. That would stimulate the economy, and compensate for the increased cost of paying workers a higher salary.

Just a thought

Actually, the middle class is shrinking mostly because people are moving to the upper class. Some are moving down the economic ladder, but more are moving up :-)

You dumb ass wrote:

Pointing Out the Obvious wrote:

I'm serious as well. I'd be quite happy to read your explanation/justification regarding your worth.

Of course, you really haven't got anything. That much is pretty obvious. But I'd love to see you try.

Are you tempting me, too? You do NOT want any of this.

Yes. Go for it, dumb ass.

pin racer wrote:

Seems to me that we need "trickle up" economics instead. If we work to raise wages for the bottom 99% of the country, then consumers have more money to spend. That would stimulate the economy, and compensate for the increased cost of paying workers a higher salary.

That's just inflation. Everyone would have more money but nothing more would get produced, the prices would simply rise.

No one has ever advocated for trickle-down economics; that is nothing but a leftist political quip. Please do some basic research.

hrhr wrote:

pin racer wrote:

can someone explain to me why we should put our faith in trickle down economics?

Salaries and profits have exploded for the top 1 percent of this country, but wages for the middle and lower classes have stagnated. Why isn't the money trickling down?

Seems to me that we need "trickle up" economics instead. If we work to raise wages for the bottom 99% of the country, then consumers have more money to spend. That would stimulate the economy, and compensate for the increased cost of paying workers a higher salary.

Just a thought

Actually, the middle class is shrinking mostly because people are moving to the upper class. Some are moving down the economic ladder, but more are moving up :-)

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/01/25/upshot/shrinking-middle-class.html

Ummm...welcome to the 21st century.

The movement you note was from earlier decades. Nobody is arguing about "Gee, we need to do something because in the 1980s the middle class shrunk." Folks are like generally talking about this century.

Pointing Out the Obvious wrote:

hrhr wrote:

Actually, the middle class is shrinking mostly because people are moving to the upper class. Some are moving down the economic ladder, but more are moving up :-)

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/01/25/upshot/shrinking-middle-class.html

Ummm...welcome to the 21st century.

The movement you note was from earlier decades. Nobody is arguing about "Gee, we need to do something because in the 1980s the middle class shrunk." Folks are like generally talking about this century.

Things stagnated, not really regressed. While not ideal, I don't see it as a cause for alarm. It makes sense given the "Great Recession" and "Dot-com bubble" in that period.

Also, given that this thread is in the context of minimum wage, the current minimum wage is in line with the minimum wage of the '80s and '90s (inflation adjusted) - the biggest growth period for the upper class.

Because I have 10 years of college in math and the sciences and I deserve it.

Pointing Out the Obvious wrote:

You dumb ass wrote:

Are you tempting me, too? You do NOT want any of this.

Yes. Go for it, dumb ass.

I don't believe you can handle what I can lay down.

hrhr wrote:

Pointing Out the Obvious wrote:

Ummm...welcome to the 21st century.

The movement you note was from earlier decades. Nobody is arguing about "Gee, we need to do something because in the 1980s the middle class shrunk." Folks are like generally talking about this century.

Things stagnated, not really regressed. While not ideal, I don't see it as a cause for alarm. It makes sense given the "Great Recession" and "Dot-com bubble" in that period.

Also, given that this thread is in the context of minimum wage, the current minimum wage is in line with the minimum wage of the '80s and '90s (inflation adjusted) - the biggest growth period for the upper class.

You are either a liar or monumentally stupid.

////////////////////////////////////

From your own article:

From 1967 to 2000:

Upper income increased by 18 percentage points = good

Lower income decreased by 9 percentage points = good

Middle income loss of 9 percentage points largely represents movement to upper income

From 2000 to 2013:

Middle income continued to decrease (by an additional 2 percentage points)

Upper income reversed to decrease by 3 percentage points

Migrations out of upper and middle income absorbed into lower income

/////////////////////////////////

So which is it - liar or stupid?

Any employer that pays less than $10 / hour should be jailed and his business auctioned off to someone who will. If you can't make money paying employees $10 , then you should go out of business and let people who can make money get your customers.

Ram it down........ wrote:

Any employer that pays less than $10 / hour should be jailed and his business auctioned off to someone who will. If you can't make money paying employees $10 , then you should go out of business and let people who can make money get your customers.

What a really good idea for a really stupid person!

Upper income increased by 18 percent and then decreased by 3 percent over 13 years, with some ups and downs within that 13 year period including a slight uptick at starting at 2011. In 2007 it was still at 25% (tied for the peak), then the recession hit and it bottomed out in 2011. It appears to be slightly ticking back up now, though the sample size is really too small to tell apart from statistical noise. That looks like stagnation, with a blip for the recession.

I'm not denying that 22 is less than 25. Given the context, however, it looks more like a stagnation than a regression. The percentage in the upper income level is still over 3 times that in 1967, even after the biggest recession since the Great Depression.

the minimum wage is over 17 dollars an hour in Australia. People and businesses (including fast food chains, which personally I would do without) here are doing just fine.

south dakota wrote:

the minimum wage is over 17 dollars an hour in Australia. People and businesses (including fast food chains, which personally I would do without) here are doing just fine.

$17 AUD = $12 USD. And cost of living is much higher in Australia.

south dakota wrote:

the minimum wage is over 17 dollars an hour in Australia. People and businesses (including fast food chains, which personally I would do without) here are doing just fine.

That is an absolutely HORRIBLE way to try to make an argument. Seriously, for your own sake please try to understand how to find, formulate and present rational arguments. This will help you on any topic and in life in general.

vainaoibne wrote:

pin racer wrote:

Seems to me that we need "trickle up" economics instead. If we work to raise wages for the bottom 99% of the country, then consumers have more money to spend. That would stimulate the economy, and compensate for the increased cost of paying workers a higher salary.

That's just inflation. Everyone would have more money but nothing more would get produced, the prices would simply rise.

No one has ever advocated for trickle-down economics; that is nothing but a leftist political quip. Please do some basic research.

The hero of the reptards, the draft dodging coward ronald reagan, absolutely advocated for trickle-down.

"At the center of Reagan’s economic doctrine was the idea that economic gains primarily benefiting the wealthy—investors, businesses, entrepreneurs, and the like—will "trickle-down" to poorer members of society, creating new opportunities for the economically disadvantaged to attain a better standard of living. Prosperity for the rich leads to prosperity for all, the logic goes, so let’s hurry up with those tax cuts already."

Umm, reptards wrote:

vainaoibne wrote:

That's just inflation. Everyone would have more money but nothing more would get produced, the prices would simply rise.

No one has ever advocated for trickle-down economics; that is nothing but a leftist political quip. Please do some basic research.

The hero of the reptards, the draft dodging coward ronald reagan, absolutely advocated for trickle-down.

"At the center of Reagan’s economic doctrine was the idea that economic gains primarily benefiting the wealthy—investors, businesses, entrepreneurs, and the like—will "trickle-down" to poorer members of society, creating new opportunities for the economically disadvantaged to attain a better standard of living. Prosperity for the rich leads to prosperity for all, the logic goes, so let’s hurry up with those tax cuts already."

No he didn't. That was a description written by an angry liberal. Keep digging.