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

So you want... wrote:

Do you want every low wage earner to move to your small town? Seems like you do.

So liberals are motivated to repel low wage earners? Seems like they do.

So, you are saying/admitting, all small towns are Republican, and all large ones are Democrat. Really?

So you want... wrote:

So, you are saying/admitting, all small towns are Republican, and all large ones are Democrat. Really?

How did you infer that?

What's wrong with attracting low wage earners who were legislated out of other cities? Do you have a problem with low wage earners?

My 16 year old daughter just got her first job, she makes $10/hour. Next Jan 1st, it will be $11. Works at a family owned business in town. She loves min wage in MA!

WhitePony wrote:

Lib Rules wrote:

Why exactly would "a lot of local places have to close their doors"? That's simply not true.

Well according to my friend that own a business in my town, "we hardly have enough money to afford paying the employees $7.50, there is no way we could pay them $15."

He owns and runs a local fast food restaurant, not a chain, where he employees several of the high school runners on my team. Great guy that just love helping out our community, but simply does not have the money to afford paying the employees much more unless he drastically raises his prices.

your friend is an idiot and moron, doesn't he know that federal bureaucrats in washington DC better know how to run his business than he does?

bad example wrote:

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.

+1

Oligarch wrote:

There should be no wages for any workers. Everything needs to go to the people who own the businesses. Jobs will be created when business owners become richer. Sure, in the short term, workers will starve. But eventually, the wealth will trickle down.

even though this is sarcastic, the sad reality is that even if this were implemented, I'm sure that not as many people would starve under this model as they have under socialist economies in other countries. Socialism has starved 60+ million to death. It would be awfully hard for anyone to top that.

but hey, my liberal arts professor who has worked in academia his entire life said socialism was cool, so what place do facts have in a conversation, right?

anapaix wrote:

Oligarch wrote:

There should be no wages for any workers. Everything needs to go to the people who own the businesses. Jobs will be created when business owners become richer. Sure, in the short term, workers will starve. But eventually, the wealth will trickle down.

even though this is sarcastic, the sad reality is that even if this were implemented, I'm sure that not as many people would starve under this model as they have under socialist economies in other countries. Socialism has starved 60+ million to death. It would be awfully hard for anyone to top that.

but hey, my liberal arts professor who has worked in academia his entire life said socialism was cool, so what place do facts have in a conversation, right?

The only way for workers to become richer is by taking pay cuts.

It is obvious that you are not smart enough to understand what you wrote:

Me: Do you want every low wage earner to move to your small town?

You: So liberals are motivated to repel low wage earners?

You implied liberals. You implied repelling low wage earners means their going to a small town.

Goodness, you are a dumb one.

Shouldn't all the Republican senators and representatives who advocate for smaller government give up their gravy train jobs, or at least work for free? This would show that they are not hypocrites who are among the highest paid beneficiaries of big government. Set an example, Republicans. Resign and lead us to smaller government.

Also, every Republican congressman should join a front-line combat unit in the military. As of now, every Republican leader (except McCain) has a history of cowardly draft dodging.

OK, Republicans. The path to redemption is clear: give up those government paychecks and go fight for this country.

So you want... wrote:

It is obvious that you are not smart enough to understand what you wrote:

Me: Do you want every low wage earner to move to your small town?

You: So liberals are motivated to repel low wage earners?

You implied liberals. You implied repelling low wage earners means their going to a small town.

Goodness, you are a dumb one.

It's so obvious you have nothing of value to contribute.

Your argument for the minimum wage, a fiscally liberal policy, is that to do otherwise would attract low wage earners. This implies liberals would prefer to repel low wage earners, which in many other observations of mine (e.g. liberals banning walmart but not starbucks from their towns) is true.

Pointing Out the Obvious wrote:

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!

If you owned a business, what would you pay your unskilled workers?

LOL... nothing of value to contribute = every post ever made by L=a md.

Watch inflation skyrocket. I have owned buisnesses for over 20 years. Most kids nowadays are not worth 5 dollars an hour, let alone 15 dollars an hour. Super lazy, lack of work ethic and zero real world skills is what American youth is turing into. I would have to almost double the price of my product if min wage doubles. Is everyone ready to pay $40 for a pizza or $20 for an hamburger? Thats what is coming.

My years of experience working many years for one large, one small company, and for myself, is that owners and bosses become what they hated most when they were young worker-bees" "That guy/gal used to be cool to have lunch with, then they became a boss and everyone dislikes them now." This is a fact of business life.

Take a step back and examine the personalities of most of these right-wing posters. They deserve it because that's the substance of most of their posts. I would sum it up as mostly vicious.

What makes them so vicious about this? I think it is probably envy. They don't want to see anyone get a better deal out of flipping hamburgers than they used to.

As for the question, the US economy, like all developed economies, is dependent on trade in luxuries as opposed to necessities. This requires consumers with large amounts of disposable income. If those $350 apartments in your town are occupied by people who can only afford the essentials, your town's businesses will only be able to sell essentials to them. And that's if they go brick-and-mortar at all instead of buying online.

Consumer spending is already subsidized by government assistance to low wage workers and the unemployed. "Conservatives" complain about this endlessly, ignorant - sometimes genuinely but often willfully - that the alternative is further recession.

Small Gov't wrote:

Shouldn't all the Republican senators and representatives who advocate for smaller government give up their gravy train jobs, or at least work for free? This would show that they are not hypocrites who are among the highest paid beneficiaries of big government. Set an example, Republicans. Resign and lead us to smaller government.

Also, every Republican congressman should join a front-line combat unit in the military. As of now, every Republican leader (except McCain) has a history of cowardly draft dodging.

OK, Republicans. The path to redemption is clear: give up those government paychecks and go fight for this country.

i will support this when democrats who say we need to help the poor start using their own spare time and money to actually do it. Pelosi, Clinton, Obama, etc, are combined worth 150 million+ $. Yet they complain about economic inequality. When are they going to start practicing what they preach, and giving all of their money away? You could help a lot of poor americans with 150mil.

This means absolutely nothing. "We already have government subsidized X and things are fine, that means you shouldn't oppose government subsidized Y." We have already had tax cuts in the past, so does that mean you shouldn't oppose further tax cuts? We've already implemented many conservative policies, so does that mean you shouldn't oppose new implementations of conservative policies? Of course the rational answer is that you have to draw the line somewhere. Your line of reasoning is severely illogical. Just because we have gov subsidized X doesn't mean that gov subsidized Y is a great idea.

Complete speculation. No proof whatsoever.

No serious economist thinks raising the minimum wage to 15$/hr is a good idea. Raising is slowly, over time, in small increments (i.e., 2-3$ raise over 3yrs), has usually been proven to have no net effect on the economy. But no economist seriously thinks it is good for the economy to have a 100% increase in the minimum wage--even if it is spread out over a few years. That is economic equivalent of believing in creationism. You may be able to scour the internet and find one or two loons who claim to be economists and think it's a great idea--but the economic community as a whole completely rejects it.

You make a great point about how the US economy works--it relies on people spending money on nonessentials. Which is exactly why raising the minimum wage to 15$ is such a bad idea. Why? You also have to think about what this means for workers who already make 15, 16, 17$/hr. their wages surely aren't going up--but the cost of all of their goods/services will. You are essentially asking them to take a 30-50% pay cut in purchasing power. They will have a lot less money to spend on luxury items, because they will be spending a lot more on essential items--rent, food, car insurance, etc. You'll counteract this by saying "well, then the people who now make 15$/hr instead of 8$/hr will have more to spend on the non essentials." Which is highly unlikely, because as they get more and more $, the cost of all goods and services go up--there is essentially a new bottom--15$/hr is the new 7.50$/hr. As the cost of all basic goods rise--they, too will be spending more and more money on the essentials. The economy as a whole will suffer.

Then, what will the left suggest, as they have priced the lowest skilled workers out of a job, and both the middle class and the poor have had their purchasing power evaporate? "We need to raise the minimum wage!!" And it will all start again...

So you want... wrote:

Do you want every low wage earner to move to your small town? Seems like you do.

I was just using my town as an example, on the average, cost of living is very low in smaller Midwestern US towns.