CBO: Obama’s minimum wage plan would cost jobs but help millions

[DEAD7]

Economics is based on equilibrium states. Consider the supply/demand of labor. There will be far more people willing to supply labor for a higher minimum wage, but somewhat fewer people who will provide it (between 0-1 million jobs, according to the CBO) as they won't want to pay the higher wages.

Secondly,16 million families helped, 500,000 hurt, is not a difficult call. A lot of those 16 million get off the dole. The 16 million families will also become more powerful consumers, who will subsequently create jobs through demand, most likely creating low-wage jobs through non-durable consumables - creating a likely equilibrium state over time, but not in the immediate sense.

I get it, I just think its a bit ruthless to toss current workers in the bushes...

I also think minorities will disproportionately make up those cut from the work force, making this another screw job by the left.

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

Thats what I thought I was reading. So we are sacrificing part of the current workforce for the benefit of those who survive the cut... That shyt is ruthless.

it's capitalism. by its nature its ruthless.

 

[Meta Reign]

Just to expound here.

If I were a liberal I would be highly insulted by this proposal. Obama is spitting in yall faces. $10.10. . . Really?

If he was bout it. He would require that big multinationals (like a Walmart) be required to pay a minimum of $25/hr. If they decide to leave, then enact a plan that gives supercheap loans to more local chains to expand their businesses.

liberals don't even know how to be liberals anymore. Everyone is a status quo kum guzzler

 

[ghostwriterx]

When you look at the real demographics of who makes the MW you realize it's mostly 2 groups of people and this whole media thing is a farce

1.)HS teenagers/College students trying to get side money
2.) Older folks who retired from their careers and want some extra cash

Its not 28 year old single mothers with 3 kids like the democrats have made it out to be . And they KNOW that, but they're trying to go for the emotional aspect instead of the facts. When you raise the mw what you're REALLY doing is making sure little jimmy in the suburbs can get his iPhone quicker

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/pilots-near-minimum-wage-012500215.html

Food for thought next time you're flying... esp on those regional airlines.

 

[KingpinOG]

Damn debating over minimum wage. They need to find a way to raise wages accross the board. There's no way in hell that wages should be as low as they are for most American workers.

The best way to do that is through job creation. There are too many unemployed people and the surplus of labor is driving down wages.

 

[KingpinOG]

This thread proves that left wingers are completely clueless about the negative repercussions of the policies they support. Either that or they are just in denial.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

The best way to do that is through job creation. There are too many unemployed people and the surplus of labor is driving down wages.

Well seems like they are too busy fighting to get anything done. Common sense has no place in Washington.

 

[No1]

Well seems like they are too busy fighting to get anything done. Common sense has no place in Washington.

First off, minimum wage has a direct impact on millions of workers. But besides that, it affects the wages of everyone else. There is a strong correlation between business becoming unionized and bringing about higher wages and business in the same area or industry doing the same to actually avoid unionization. In most instances when you increase the wages of the people at the bottom, people at other levels have an increase in wages as well. You can't pay a cashier 10.10 an hour and then look at the person who has been there for 5 years and pay them the same. It seldom works that way. Second, his labor surplus comment is foolish because we are looking at the lowest participation in 50 years due to the state of the economy. Third, wages became stagnant well before any of the current market conditions. This began in the 70s. That's my 2 second, non-exhaustive spiel.

 

[无名的]

Pretty sure they're republican lies. No jobs were lost with Obamacare, in fact they created more jobs, govt jobs which give great benefits and pension. I am sure that pissed off a lot of rich people.

I think the people that would lose jobs here, are the immigrants. Like the mexicans.

More government jobs means taxpayers, not just rich people, lose.



The sad reality is so many people barely have skills that justify the current minimum wage. A lot of you are going to be in for a really rude awakening, especially after you say dumb shyt about cutting executive pay, when those same executives toss your ass to the curb after increasingly cost-effective and efficient robots become the status quo.

 

[No1]

More government jobs means taxpayers, not just rich people, lose.



The sad reality is so many people barely have skills that justify the current minimum wage. A lot of you are going to be in for a really rude awakening, especially after you say dumb shyt about cutting executive pay, when those same executives toss your ass to the curb after robots become the status quo.

This is an incredibly simplistic economic outlook. How do taxpayers necessarily lose if there are more necessary government jobs that bring about a net benefit to society....

I bet you also think that overcrowded school districts would benefit from less teachers, etc.

The growth of government does not = a loss to tax payers.

Your executive example is even more senseless and is just a ridiculous red herring. Basically, you're saying that because of the fact that increased minimum wage laws would potentially force executives to curve their own salaries, that we should be against it because in the future those same executives will just invest in technology that will render you useless. Not only is that improbable in many areas, but it ignores the fact that if those same executives could do so at the current rate, they would do so anyway. So your using what, if it were to occur, is inevitable as something that should deter individuals for pushing for greater salaries in the present. Your entire argument ignores that the push for higher minimum wages is not a singular goal and it is under the penumbra of policies aimed at restoring the collective purchasing power and bargaining power of the working class. The push for higher wages is not separate from the labor movement, etc. None of these things will be easy to accomplish but all of them are worth fighting for.

 

[DEAD7]

Basically, you're saying that because of the fact that increased minimum wage laws would potentially force executives to curve their own salaries, that we should be against it because in the future those same executives will just invest in technology that will render you useless. Not only is that improbable in many areas, but it ignores the fact that if those same executives could do so at the current rate, they would do so anyway. So your using what, if it were to occur, is inevitable as something that should deter individuals for pushing for greater salaries in the present. Your entire argument ignores that the push for higher minimum wages is not a singular goal and it is under the penumbra of policies aimed at restoring the collective purchasing power and bargaining power of the working class. The push for higher wages is not separate from the labor movement, etc. None of these things will be easy to accomplish but all of them are worth fighting for.

Everything about it seems bad for the black community... yet you make it sound grand (worth fighting for). I predict we will be the hardest hit demographic when the jobs are cut and the demographic hurt most by the technology pushed to replace low skilled workers. The working class will gain more purchasing power(how much more is unknown) but that working class will be comprised of even fewer minorities than it is now.
These feel good, do the right thing initiatives always end up shytting on blacks

I would prefer an increase in welfare to this. There is no way forcing the private sectors hand will end well for minorities...

 

[acri1]

you know of some recessions that started after minimum wage increases? statewide or national. im all ears

^Will be conveniently ignored.

 

[无名的]

This is an incredibly simplistic economic outlook. How do taxpayers necessarily lose if there are more necessary government jobs that bring about a net benefit to society....

I bet you also think that overcrowded school districts would benefit from less teachers, etc.

The growth of government does not = a loss to tax payers.

Your executive example is even more senseless and is just a ridiculous red herring. Basically, you're saying that because of the fact that increased minimum wage laws would potentially force executives to curve their own salaries, that we should be against it because in the future those same executives will just invest in technology that will render you useless. Not only is that improbable in many areas, but it ignores the fact that if those same executives could do so at the current rate, they would do so anyway. So your using what, if it were to occur, is inevitable as something that should deter individuals for pushing for greater salaries in the present. Your entire argument ignores that the push for higher minimum wages is not a singular goal and it is under the penumbra of policies aimed at restoring the collective purchasing power and bargaining power of the working class. The push for higher wages is not separate from the labor movement, etc. None of these things will be easy to accomplish but all of them are worth fighting for.

What is necessary? Very subjective word. The government is bloated. It is inefficient. It is wasteful. We need less, not more government employees with sweetheart pensions and healthcare plans who are nearly impossible to fire. I've seen it firsthand and it's sickening. The growth of government doesn't have to mean a loss to taxpayers, but it is a loss for taxpayers. The idea that the government would ever grow, while only adding value-added positions is just ridiculously utopian.

Government isn't all bad. I don't mind my taxes going to things like libraries and I don't want certain things outsourced to private industry like prisons. I like teachers and view them as more essential than others, but I'm not going to just assume, like you seemingly are, that more of something is the answer. There are too many other variables that affect performance.

You looked entirely too deep into my executive comment. The main point was many people aren't even worth the minimum wage.

 

[ghostwriterx]

I get it, I just think its a bit ruthless to toss current workers in the bushes...

I also think minorities will disproportionately make up those cut from the work force, making this another screw job by the left.

listen to an anarcho-capitalist complain about ruthlessness.

 

[Wild self]

More government jobs means taxpayers, not just rich people, lose.



The sad reality is so many people barely have skills that justify the current minimum wage. A lot of you are going to be in for a really rude awakening, especially after you say dumb shyt about cutting executive pay, when those same executives toss your ass to the curb after increasingly cost-effective and efficient robots become the status quo.

CEOs get paid over 500 times the amount of workers in America. Other first world countries is 30 to 50 times the amount (American CEOs got paid that prior to Reagan). We need to slash the CEO bonuses and stop buying excuses from them and they saying "we need to have incentive to work"

But these people act like CEOs are gods and can't be touched.