Seeking Alpha

Democrats push forward with call for higher minimum wage

Comments (148)
  • duelles
    , contributor
    Comments (18) | Send Message
     
    The minimum wage is merely part of a "wage and price control policy". An abject failure of monumental proportions under FDR and bad under Nixon. When has it ever worked? The ignorance of 63% of Americans is no reason to enact stupid laws.
    5 Mar, 09:10 AM Reply Like
  • Transcripts&10-K's
    , contributor
    Comments (694) | Send Message
     
    No need to worry duelles - as we saw with sensible gun control policies, even American support in excess of 80% won't neccessarily result in anything...
    5 Mar, 09:17 AM Reply Like
  • Ruffdog
    , contributor
    Comments (1250) | Send Message
     
    I can afford to pay an extra nickel for my big Mac if the higher minimum wage gives disposable income to the guys behind the counter. I think that I will be coming out ahead. I do not see any loosers, do you? A little inflation, maybe?
    5 Mar, 09:37 AM Reply Like
  • positivethoughts
    , contributor
    Comments (1812) | Send Message
     
    Sensible gun control policies never stop advancing.
    5 Mar, 09:40 AM Reply Like
  • Transcripts&10-K's
    , contributor
    Comments (694) | Send Message
     
    Of course, everything is a slippery slope - you create one sensible law supported by the vast majority of people (including gun owners), and you're on the way to the end of democracy as we know it. We must never change anything.
    5 Mar, 09:46 AM Reply Like
  • rick mule
    , contributor
    Comments (42) | Send Message
     
    what do you think is sensible? Registration, then confiscation then dictatorship?
    When power gets to the wrong people they will enslave you and me. I for one don't want that, do you? Look back in history all the dictatorships what do they go after first. now look at what the liberals what before anything else. Read more of the people that have advocated for gun laws it always is called sensible and needed by whom you? why?
    5 Mar, 09:51 AM Reply Like
  • positivethoughts
    , contributor
    Comments (1812) | Send Message
     
    The ones who want 'sensible gun control' have admitted that they want to ban and confiscate all guns.
    5 Mar, 09:52 AM Reply Like
  • rick mule
    , contributor
    Comments (42) | Send Message
     
    Have you thought that any regulation on wages are bad. The only reason that it coming up now is because of the unions and the get the vote for dems.
    5 Mar, 09:53 AM Reply Like
  • Transcripts&10-K's
    , contributor
    Comments (694) | Send Message
     
    "Registration, then confiscation then dictatorship" - The slope is slippery indeed!

     

    "is called sensible and needed by whom you?" As I noted above, it's called sensible and needed by the vast majority of Americans - many of whom are proud gun owners. Those are the facts - you can do with them as you please.
    5 Mar, 09:57 AM Reply Like
  • positivethoughts
    , contributor
    Comments (1812) | Send Message
     
    Look at Detroit,

     

    They spent into bankruptcy. Now, the police dont respond when needed. And the people, for the most part, are unarmed.
    5 Mar, 10:01 AM Reply Like
  • positivethoughts
    , contributor
    Comments (1812) | Send Message
     
    Criminals will not register their guns, no matter which laws you pass. Only those that would not normally use their gun in a threatening manner will register. Registration will not make things safer. It will only make good people less likely to have a gun.
    5 Mar, 10:16 AM Reply Like
  • COBeeMan
    , contributor
    Comments (1263) | Send Message
     
    *Actually, the vast majority of gun owners are in favor of certain checks such as registration ONLY IF it ends the constant attack on 2nd Amendment rights. Since that will not happen, counting their poll opinion is misleading.

     

    *Labor prices are part of the supply and demand system. Minimum wage inserts a wrench in that system. The minimum wage was NEVER meant to support a family of 4 forever. It WAS MEANT to help unskilled labor get by until they could gain skills and get better jobs. The concept has been abused causing unintended consequences.

     

    *According to The Constitution, both of these areas are to be managed by the States, NOT the federal government. The federal government should be providing research and guidelines on such topics, NOT legislation.

     

    *Perhaps a requirement for candidates running for a federal government position should be in-depth training in The Constitution, economics, and systems engineering.
    5 Mar, 10:33 AM Reply Like
  • Heinz Doofenshmirtz
    , contributor
    Comments (269) | Send Message
     
    @Ruffdog

     

    The worker at McDonald's who loses his job when McDonald's adds more machines to perform additional functions?

     

    The substitution effect will accompany any minimum wage increase. It's the law of supply-and-demand.

     

    Now if you REALLY wanted to help the guy behind the counter, you would do something to address the supply of low-skill workers like closing the borders and limiting low-skill immigration. (Like a host of other countries do.) That solution, would have a loser, and it would be the well-to-do that would have to pay more for low-skilled labor in the new equilibrium.
    5 Mar, 10:41 AM Reply Like
  • doctor678
    , contributor
    Comments (8) | Send Message
     
    Somehow this admin has no clue on how to create jobs or upward mobility so the answer is to increase the minimum wage. Minimum wage is not a career but this admin appears by its actions to make it so.
    Increasing the min. wage will increase unemployment for they have never heard the word LIFO . Last in, first out. One can either increase their prices or cut expenses. In this environment no one wants to increase prices so the the employee will pay the price. Will those who rely on tips find themselves receiving less because of an increase in the min. wage?
    Stay tuned for more economic policies that are strictly designed to garner VOTES.
    5 Mar, 10:45 AM Reply Like
  • doctor678
    , contributor
    Comments (8) | Send Message
     
    If one does not learn from history then one is doomed to repeat it.
    5 Mar, 10:47 AM Reply Like
  • Lucierja
    , contributor
    Comments (173) | Send Message
     
    Make everybody happy by retaining the $7.25/hr minimum wage but augmenting it with $2.85/hr credits toward guns and ammo. We will still be subsidizing these low paying companies by taxpayers supporting public assistance for their workers, but at least the workers will have plenty of rounds of ammo.
    5 Mar, 10:51 AM Reply Like
  • Bobbert333
    , contributor
    Comments (135) | Send Message
     
    "I do not see any loosers, do you?"
    Yes, the low skilled unemployed who are trying to get a job. Making the minimum wage higher will make it harder for them to get a job and it will make essentials more expensive for them to buy.
    5 Mar, 12:12 PM Reply Like
  • JohnnyDangerously61
    , contributor
    Comments (5) | Send Message
     
    Can you quantify what you mean by a "little" inflation? If not, then I submit to you that you're diving into a deep hole without knowing what's at the bottom.

     

    The point of the American capitalist system is that minimum wage is a starting point, not a mat to lay on. That guy behind the counter and McDs starts at $7.25/hr, he works hard, doesn't spit in the food, etc. and before you know he's a shift leader. A little longer and he's a manager. Twenty years later and he owns a chain of his own stores. That's the American Way, not setting some abritrary minimum wage becuase someone's willing to accept a "little" inflation.

     

    Jes' sayin'...
    5 Mar, 12:16 PM Reply Like
  • Bobbert333
    , contributor
    Comments (135) | Send Message
     
    "Now if you REALLY wanted to help the guy behind the counter, you would do something to address the supply of low-skill workers like closing the borders and limiting low-skill immigration."

     

    Sure it would decrease the supply of low skilled workers for the guy working behind the counter, but it would also cause a shortage of labor for the farming industry and cause food prices to increase and cause the guy behind the counter to spend more on essentials. So closing the boarders really wouldn't be that beneficial to the guy behind the counter or anyone for that matter.
    5 Mar, 12:22 PM Reply Like
  • MWinMD
    , contributor
    Comments (1870) | Send Message
     
    I haven't earned minimum wage since high school, and am one of the "1%", but I wholeheartedly support having the minimum wage at least keep up with inflation.

     

    But then, I'm just not the sort who wants to live in a third world country where there's a tiny sliver of wealthy with bars on their windows, and the rest of the country living on slave wages.

     

    I traveled in South America in the 80s. Beautiful countries, wonderful people. The bars on the windows and glass shards cemented on top of the back yard walls to keep out the starving I can do without.
    5 Mar, 01:41 PM Reply Like
  • Minutemen
    , contributor
    Comments (738) | Send Message
     
    MWinMD: Nice comment.
    5 Mar, 01:45 PM Reply Like
  • chopchop0
    , contributor
    Comments (3147) | Send Message
     
    "The bars on the windows and glass shards cemented on top of the back yard walls to keep out the starving I can do without."

     

    Saw that in india too.
    5 Mar, 02:28 PM Reply Like
  • rick mule
    , contributor
    Comments (42) | Send Message
     
    The facts: read the way the polls are taken and then comment. The polls are skewed. Its ask question that any body with any sense would realize it was and has an agenda. but yet you quote them.
    To ask a question like : Have you stopped cheating on your spouse?
    Now think a little and then look up the question on the polls!
    6 Mar, 10:20 AM Reply Like
  • Art1$
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    I understand that the Unions want this because some of the Union Contracts with the Federal Government call for the base pay for union members is 3 times the minimum wage. That is from an economist on the staff of one of the Federal Reserve Branches. The increase they are demanding will impact Federal Contract costs and ripple throughout the economy. A great payback by Democrats for Union support.
    6 Mar, 11:15 AM Reply Like
  • phemale60
    , contributor
    Comments (2783) | Send Message
     
    History has shown that doesn't play out. Same said every time minimum wage debated before raised.

     

    I see all those on here who don't mind subsidizing Walmart, McDonald's and all the other low payers, when companies like Costco, WinCo, Whole Foods, etc. pay a decent wage, healthcare, etc. and have happier, healthier, more loyal employees.

     

    I don't eat at McDonalds or shop at Walmart so no skin off my back, but the overall economy is based on consumerism and if people can't afford to buy things we all suffer. And since unions are practically kaput middle class has diminished. We've become dependent on government not because of government but because of corporations who favor profit over country.

     

    By the way, restaurant/beverage lobbyists spending millions to influence people to say just what I'm seeing on this comment stream. Money well spent I'd say!
    6 Mar, 11:57 AM Reply Like
  • phemale60
    , contributor
    Comments (2783) | Send Message
     
    Mostly those people behind the counter are supporting kids, getting food stamps, living paycheck to paycheck barely getting by, while living on crappy food they have to sell.

     

    I'd like to see the stats on how many grow to manager!!
    6 Mar, 11:59 AM Reply Like
  • phemale60
    , contributor
    Comments (2783) | Send Message
     
    TRUE!! Crops went to rot when illegals banned from work down south.
    6 Mar, 12:01 PM Reply Like
  • phemale60
    , contributor
    Comments (2783) | Send Message
     
    Ridiculous.
    6 Mar, 12:19 PM Reply Like
  • chopchop0
    , contributor
    Comments (3147) | Send Message
     
    "I see all those on here who don't mind subsidizing Walmart, McDonald's and all the other low payers, when companies like Costco, WinCo, Whole Foods, etc. pay a decent wage, healthcare, etc. and have happier, healthier, more loyal employees."

     

    Whole Foods and Costco cherry picks the income areas where they set up shop. If they had to contend with the retail demographics that WMT or MCD did, you better believe they would be paying a different wage.
    6 Mar, 03:55 PM Reply Like
  • positivethoughts
    , contributor
    Comments (1812) | Send Message
     
    Nowadays, anyone has the chance to go to school, get a decent paying job, save their money and open their own small business.
    7 Mar, 11:24 AM Reply Like
  • Guardian3981
    , contributor
    Comments (1931) | Send Message
     
    40% increase in 2007, another 40% now, these people are getting better raises then the middle class thanks to the government.
    5 Mar, 09:12 AM Reply Like
  • Transcripts&10-K's
    , contributor
    Comments (694) | Send Message
     
    from the article:

     

    "...the minimum wage is at a 52-year low when adjusted for inflation."

     

    Yep, these people are really living high on the hog!
    5 Mar, 09:31 AM Reply Like
  • Stock Market Mike
    , contributor
    Comments (1873) | Send Message
     
    Maybe now they'll be able to pay their rent!

     

    I don't know if it's the same down there, but up here in Canada quite often corps will cut back on hours to avoid paying certain expensive benefits. A lot of minimum wage workers have ~24 hour weeks. (But that doesn't necessarily mean the worker can pick up two ~24 hour jobs to make ends meet - schedules, location, and travel might restrict the worker to a single job.) If that's the only job available... you either work or go on government support. Even with a system that supports you, most Canadians will opt to work if they can, with the hope for wages to rise over time (most do), and them to build up a resume and skills and advance to a better position.

     

    $7.25 * 24 = $174/wk, $696/mo. You'd require a roommate or two to make ends meet on that salary.

     

    I would say the government has the right idea, but you could argue over its implementation. (See Minutemen's post.) This income group is very likely to spend 100% of its earnings right back into the economy, while anyone in our income brackets is likely to have a significant portion allocated to savings, which becomes "stale" money as far as the economy is concerned. (Though some will find its way onto the stock market and continue to push the bull market along.)

     

    I'd be interested in statistics on what the actual paid wages are in various areas of the country, and various sectors. A waitress could get by on minimum wage down there due to tips, but a warehouse worker might not be able to, especially if he had expenses such as a vehicle as well.

     

    -Mike
    5 Mar, 09:48 AM Reply Like
  • Oneslydragon
    , contributor
    Comments (4) | Send Message
     
    When was it last raised? Are you not tired of McDonald's and thier peers getting tax subsedies in the form of welfare and foodstamps to their workers that help keep salaries low.

     

    Get them higher pay, and corporate profits will support the increase, and they can buy more and help the economy and get off welfare and foodstamps
    5 Mar, 10:12 AM Reply Like
  • positivethoughts
    , contributor
    Comments (1812) | Send Message
     
    Without savings, you have no investment in productive capital.
    5 Mar, 10:35 AM Reply Like
  • doctor678
    , contributor
    Comments (8) | Send Message
     
    Why do you think this admin is pushing for a higher min. wage? Simply put they have no clue on how to create an environment for job creation so there is more upward mobility beyond a min. wage. Min. wage is a starting point not a career.
    Cut corporate taxes from 35% to 25% . Give a reason for business to stay in the U.S. Manufacturing jobs gone so went the middle class.
    5 Mar, 10:53 AM Reply Like
  • chopchop0
    , contributor
    Comments (3147) | Send Message
     
    "When was it last raised? Are you not tired of McDonald's and thier peers getting tax subsedies in the form of welfare and foodstamps to their workers that help keep salaries low.

     

    Get them higher pay, and corporate profits will support the increase, and they can buy more and help the economy and get off welfare and foodstamps"

     

    Are you ready to have higher unemployment and even more welfare spending among those with no skills who need entry-level work?
    5 Mar, 11:01 AM Reply Like
  • Noquiche
    , contributor
    Comments (197) | Send Message
     
    Corporations only exist to maximize profits...the result of a wage increase will be either less jobs...or more inflation..period. Less jobs...more government support...more inflation...more poor...more government support...
    5 Mar, 01:30 PM Reply Like
  • David Crosetti
    , contributor
    Comments (10227) | Send Message
     
    The problem with the minimum wage argument is that raising the minimum wage is a "solution" to a problem that has not had anyone identify what the "problem" is.

     

    We have people in this country with few skill sets, limited education, a lack of opportunity. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to define the problem (low paying jobs being the only thing that our government is creating) and fix the problem with better jobs.

     

    Supply and demand.

     

    Dave
    5 Mar, 04:00 PM Reply Like
  • positivethoughts
    , contributor
    Comments (1812) | Send Message
     
    The problem is government is too big. Government is a cancer on wealth creation.
    5 Mar, 05:05 PM Reply Like
  • The Rebel
    , contributor
    Comments (445) | Send Message
     
    doctor678- "Why do you think this admin is pushing for a higher min. wage?"

     

    It's all about the November mid-terms. The Democrats are getting destroyed by the Obamacare fiasco, IRS and other scandals, and they need an issue to paint the Republicans as the bad guys. It is as simple as that.
    5 Mar, 09:57 PM Reply Like
  • phemale60
    , contributor
    Comments (2783) | Send Message
     
    Chipotle $CMG pays higher than minimum wage --- stock is thru the roof!
    6 Mar, 12:22 PM Reply Like
  • phemale60
    , contributor
    Comments (2783) | Send Message
     
    doctor678,

     

    Has it slipped your mind we're still coming out of a deep recession, after millions of jobs were lost? That for millions these fast food jobs are jobs, not starting points?

     

    This is not the 50s! Technology, globalization, union-busting have all contributed to our current economic state, as well as other actions I will not join in the blame game. Placing blame on "this admin" only shows your political stripe -- not education.
    6 Mar, 12:26 PM Reply Like
  • Minutemen
    , contributor
    Comments (738) | Send Message
     
    The Dems don't need anything to paint the GOP as bad guys. The GOP does that very well all by themselves!
    6 Mar, 12:29 PM Reply Like
  • phemale60
    , contributor
    Comments (2783) | Send Message
     
    States that have a higher minimum wage next to a state that doesn't shows no ill effects on business/jobs.

     

    Australia has $16 min. wage and escaped the global recession. Go figure!
    6 Mar, 12:31 PM Reply Like
  • phemale60
    , contributor
    Comments (2783) | Send Message
     
    positivethoughts, too simple and untrue. Right wing talking points that mean nothing. Government has been shrinking fast under President Obama yet you'd never know it!

     

    We need to invest in infrastructure jobs to grow the economy. But the GOP Congress ONLY sees the XL Pipeline and nothing else, which by the way provides temporary jobs.

     

    During the Depression the Hoover Dam was built. Republicans were sensible back then.
    6 Mar, 12:35 PM Reply Like
  • phemale60
    , contributor
    Comments (2783) | Send Message
     
    The Rebel,

     

    Republicans have stymied the president every which way they can -- he has no choice but to raise minimum wage to help those who need it, which in turn helps the country.

     

    You have your fabricated "scandals" while we're trying to get the country back on good footing. Most people are tired of the BS the GOP keeps fomenting for political purposes while using our taxes to do it!
    6 Mar, 12:39 PM Reply Like
  • chopchop0
    , contributor
    Comments (3147) | Send Message
     
    "Chipotle $CMG pays higher than minimum wage --- stock is thru the roof!"

     

    They also sell $7 burritos. Probably a little margin in there to kick back to wages vs the value menu at YUM or MCD.
    6 Mar, 03:56 PM Reply Like
  • The Rebel
    , contributor
    Comments (445) | Send Message
     
    phemale60- That was laughable. The BS you speak of is what is emanating from your comment.
    6 Mar, 10:14 PM Reply Like
  • Minutemen
    , contributor
    Comments (738) | Send Message
     
    I think that increasing the Earned Income Tax credit is better approach than raising the minimum wage. It doesn't affect employers at all and provides more income to poorer families (who can then buy more goods and services).
    5 Mar, 09:17 AM Reply Like
  • TGC004
    , contributor
    Comments (418) | Send Message
     
    We need to eliminate refundable tax credits and all other handouts. Make them work for the money as opposed to doling it out for free on the back of the taxpayers. Besides, there is a huge amount of fraud in these programs that the IRS can't be bothered to track down and eliminate.

     

    If they can't get a job, make them pick up garbage on the side of the road to earn their keep.
    5 Mar, 10:08 AM Reply Like
  • Oneslydragon
    , contributor
    Comments (4) | Send Message
     
    Corporate profits, in most cases will support the increase, though for smaller business maybe the owners will take home less, most should be able to afford it, the weaker ones can maybe do the work themselves. Sams Club will be affected, not Costco. Makes me think, Costco is strong and profitable while paying a great wage. Happy, healthy productive work force which I see when I shop there, the opposite at Sams Club. Go figure.
    5 Mar, 10:12 AM Reply Like
  • Minutemen
    , contributor
    Comments (738) | Send Message
     
    TGC004: Uhh, you have to have a job in order to qualify for Earned Income Tax Credit.
    5 Mar, 10:13 AM Reply Like
  • Landsharks6
    , contributor
    Comments (97) | Send Message
     
    With all due respect sir, some people are disabled or not mentally capable of work so there is assistance needed. I completely agree with you on the fraud.More importantly the excessive spending of our Govt. is & has been the problem,they just cant seem to budget the budget,I have to live on a certain budget as does almost everyone else including Billionaires. If we cut out the unneeded spending by our Govt. we would be in much better shape.
    5 Mar, 01:35 PM Reply Like
  • COBeeMan
    , contributor
    Comments (1263) | Send Message
     
    Landsharks6 - can you be more specific and identify which government programs you want to cut? Everyone wants to cut waste, but they all disagree on the details of what that means.
    5 Mar, 04:10 PM Reply Like
  • positivethoughts
    , contributor
    Comments (1812) | Send Message
     
    For starters,

     

    1. Defense spending

     

    Why are we still in South Korea and Japan? If the Koreans and Japanese want us there, charge them for it.

     

    2. Education

     

    Why dont companies train workers instead of the general public?

     

    3. Foreign Aid

     

    If the U.S. doesnt have enough money to cover their own social programs, how are we affording foreign aid?
    5 Mar, 05:07 PM Reply Like
  • LMinAppleton
    , contributor
    Comments (33) | Send Message
     
    COBeeMan: Which government programs to cut? How about EVERY SINGLE PROGRAM except the 18 enumerated powers listed in Article I, Section 8 of The Constitution of the United States of America?

     

    Virtually every unconstitutional power the Federal Government has undertaken is a duplication of a state agency (the EPA, Department of Education, USDA, ATF, etc.); ergo, a waste of taxpayer money.

     

    We need to start moving back towards the limitations placed upon the government by the Constitution; not sliding further toward tyranny.
    5 Mar, 08:42 PM Reply Like
  • phemale60
    , contributor
    Comments (2783) | Send Message
     
    I agree. Let's start with Congress' salary for doing zilch. And our bloated defense --- building tanks, planes even Pentagon doesn't want -- simply to keep industry profitable. Plenty of waste there!
    6 Mar, 12:42 PM Reply Like
  • phemale60
    , contributor
    Comments (2783) | Send Message
     
    LMinAppleton,

     

    Kind of like how N. Carolina has deregulated energy industry under Governor McCrory(R) who worked for Duke Energy 28 yrs.; the same energy company who just leaked 39,000 tons of coal ash into a river threatening drinking water and only given a small fine!

     

    http://nyti.ms/MR5BpA

     

    No thank you. I prefer Federal Government oversight because states have proven to not have peoples' interest over corporations, which sorry to say are really not people.
    6 Mar, 12:59 PM Reply Like
  • COBeeMan
    , contributor
    Comments (1263) | Send Message
     
    LMinAppleton - I actually agree with you that the Constitution should be used to limit Federal powers of governance. However, I also believe the federal government has the responsibility to implement programs (as agreed to by the states) that would be redundant for each state to implement independently, and to provide non-binding guidance, research, and best practices to the states (as agreed to by the states).
    7 Mar, 06:07 PM Reply Like
  • COBeeMan
    , contributor
    Comments (1263) | Send Message
     
    phemale60 - As you know, it is people, not the institution, that causes such problems. These *people* also exist in federal agencies (for relatively recent examples, the GSA and MMS are two federal organizations that made it to the news for fraud or major mismanagement; there are others). The problem with nationalizing everything at the federal level is that the corruption applies to the WHOLE COUNTRY and on a much bigger scale rather than in just one state here or there.

     

    The practical purpose of having different states is to guarantee choices. You have the right to choose any state that matches your values in which to live. Why would you want to take away that choice from other people? Why would you want to take away the choices they have and make every state homogenous?

     

    The states are the experimental areas in which new programs and new practices can be tried on a smaller scale and then, if appropriate, can become candidates for federal implementation once the bugs have been worked out. To nationalize everything without such *testing* is inefficient, ineffective, irresponsible, and irrational.

     

    A federal minimum wage implies that all states and counties have the same economy and the same supply and demand for all skillsets. Since we know this is not true, it should be left to each state to implement, or not, regulations that are appropriate to their economy and their supply and demand of labor. And the *people* can choose to live in the state that closest mirrors their values and needs.

     

    Perhaps the federal government would be best used in facilitating the re-training of people from over populated skillsets into under populated skillsets, and informing people of where they are needed. THIS would be appropriate to our form of economy (not socialist and not communist)!
    7 Mar, 06:53 PM Reply Like
  • LMinAppleton
    , contributor
    Comments (33) | Send Message
     
    phemale60: Even though "provide for the common Defense" is one of the enumerated powers, I would agree with you that there is much waste that could be cut from the defense budget; as you state, hardware that even the Pentagon doesn't want would be a good place to start. However, I don't believe the place to cut is the pensions of our disabled veterans or a reduction in forces to pre-WWII levels.

     

    Broken promises to our retired military personnel will only erode the morale of our currently serving military personnel. Regarding this administrations' reduction in forces to pre-WWII levels: The world is a dangerous place. A weak defense is hardly a recipe for peace. When I was in school, I cannot think of a single time when the bully picked on the tough kids.
    8 Mar, 01:14 PM Reply Like
  • LMinAppleton
    , contributor
    Comments (33) | Send Message
     
    COBeeMAN: In your response to me you state you believe the federal government has the responsibility to implement programs (as agreed to by the states) that would be redundant for each state to implement independently and to provide non-binding guidance, research, and best practices to the states (as agreed to by the states).

     

    I was going to counter your argument with such things as people having a choice regarding the state in which to live and the states being experimental societies in which different ideas could be tried. But then I read your reply to phemale60. Haven't you just countered your own argument to me with the same argument that I was going to use to counter your rebuttal to me?

     

    I agree with virtually everything in your rebuttal to phemale60 except for the following: 1) new practices can be tried on a smaller scale and then, if appropriate, can become candidates for federal implementation once the bugs have been worked out; and 2) the last paragraph regarding re-training people. Neither of these are the responsibility of the federal government. However well intentioned any government program might be, unconstitutional programs implemented by the federal government always have unintended consequences (although I think some unintended consequences are actually intentional).
    8 Mar, 01:50 PM Reply Like
  • rick mule
    , contributor
    Comments (42) | Send Message
     
    The problem is what is unneeded, and who decides?
    9 Mar, 11:05 AM Reply Like
  • rick mule
    , contributor
    Comments (42) | Send Message
     
    It would seem that the social issues are not on your list? Why not change the farm subsides and the food stamp programs? social security change the date you can get full retirement, 70? most people live longer now then when it was enacted. Defense could be cut every time we do cut it we get in a war. Service by everybody at age 18: 6 months they get to pick ,army ,navy, coastguard, air force what ever still learn what it takes to keep this country safe!
    9 Mar, 11:13 AM Reply Like
  • positivethoughts
    , contributor
    Comments (1812) | Send Message
     
    social security is a ponzi scheme. It wouldnt matter how long you lived - until 55 or until 85.
    9 Mar, 12:12 PM Reply Like
  • MichaelZZ
    , contributor
    Comments (232) | Send Message
     
    SOCIAL SECURITY What’s it all about?
    9 Mar, 01:19 PM Reply Like
  • MichaelZZ
    , contributor
    Comments (232) | Send Message
     
    SOCIAL SECURITY What’s it all about?

     

    PREFACE: Before one is able to solve a problem, one must recognize, understand, and analyze the problem until one has the requisite information and facts to make the best conclusion to mitigate or resolve the problem.

     

    PROBLEM: Regarding Social Security (SS), it appears that, given the current structure of the program, funds necessary to support the program will be insufficient within a given number of years.

     

    WHAT CAUSED THE PROBLEM? The SS program was never actuarially sound due to its original structure (1% of first $3,000 wages) as a Ponzi scheme (FDR may have thought that over time, adjustments would be made to fix the program). Over the years, changes have been made, but only to enable a delay in the inevitable. The problem has been exacerbated by such phenomena as being entitled to receive SS after only being in the workforce for 40 quarters, not all workers paying into the program, et cetera.

     

    SHOULD THIS PROBLEM BE RESOLVED BY ENDING IT? The question is whether or not this program is appropriate. Does it seem rational that the workers who have participated in the workforce for 40-45 years should be entitled to retirement benefits?

     

    Congress, over many years, has issued its many stamps of approval of stimulating retirement funding, e.g., defined benefit and contribution programs, Individual Retirement Act, 401k program, et cetera.

     

    Obviously, Congress is not perfect (as evidenced by its shortsightedness regarding its “retirement” legislation and the unintended consequences) and may have been wrong in issuing these “stamps of approval”, but the probability is about 99.9% that our legislators were correct, thus a logical conclusion should be that the SS program should not be eliminated.

     

    SHOULD THE SS PROGRAM BE MODIFIED? Although less so now than 65 years ago, the SS program remains a quasi-Ponzi-like situation, thus it must be modified.

     

    (continued)
    9 Mar, 01:21 PM Reply Like
  • MichaelZZ
    , contributor
    Comments (232) | Send Message
     
    SOCIAL SECURITY What’s it all about? (continued)

     

    HOW SHOULD THE SS PROGRAM BE MODIFIED?
    The program includes revenue and obligations.
    Presently, the revenue is generated by charging workers 6.2% of his or her wages, up to a maximum of $106,800 per year plus a matched amount by the employer. http://1.usa.gov/JaUu9H

     

    Had the maximum limits, per the hyperlink, been $106,800 since inception, there would be hundreds of billions of additional funds within the SS trust fund. Further, if there had been no maximum, the fund would have benefited by additional hundreds of billions. Lastly, had all income, including passive income, been subjected to this “tax on income”, there would be even more funds.

     

    There must be a substantial reason why only earned income has been subjected to this “tax upon income” and why there has been and remains a limit upon the amount subject to this “tax upon income”.

     

    Another “interesting” factor is that not all wage earners are subject to this “income tax”.

     

    If the above had been done, every retiree would have an account that was fully funded to the extent his or her choices could be: rollover into a self-directed IRA, an annuity, etc.. This "asset" would not disappear upon death, i.e., it would be included in one's estate.

     

    The bulk of the obligations are paid to retirees who have reached the applicable ages.

     

    In December 2009, 64% were retired workers, while 15% were disabled workers, 8% were children, 8% were widows, widowers, and parents, and 5% were spouses.

     

    There could be an excellent argument that only payments to retired workers should be paid from the fund, while these other payments should come from the general fund.

     

    NOTE: If it were appropriate for a company to fund retirement obligations for its employees, why would a nation not fund the retirement of its workers?

     

    The obligations would be no less valid than those for defense, education, et cetera.

     

    As a competitive benefit, if the funds were an obligation of the federal government, the cost of producing goods and services would be reduced, which would enable companies to be more competitive regarding Japan, Inc., China, Inc., Brazil, Inc., et cetera. This would, also, be valid regarding the delivery of health care, i.e., any costs, which can be shifted from above the line to below the line would enable companies to be more competitive.

     

    CONCLUSION: By far, the best modification would be for a change from charging workers and employers to single-payer government funding.
    Until the change can be effected, legislation should be passed, which would assess this taxation on all income, earned and unearned, without limitation.

     

    The answer to the above question regarding the reason why only earned income has been subjected to this “income tax” and why there has been and remains a limit upon the amount subject to this “income tax” should be apparent and intuitive, i.e., the upper income earners would pay more.

     

    This, in essence, is why politicians, both Democrats and Republicans, and “talking heads” have been “tenderizing” the People.

     

    I ask everyone to contact his or her Representative and both Senators to inquire as to how much of our massive current federal deficit of approximately $1.6 trillion is attributable to Social Security. The answers will astound most.

     

    HINT: The answer is ZERO!

     

    mz
    April 12, 2011
    Modified June 15, 2011

     

    9 Mar, 01:28 PM Reply Like
  • bill d
    , contributor
    Comments (1880) | Send Message
     
    Exactly.
    1. How much goes into the fund?
    2. What is the amount of the current "IOUs" the gov't owes the fund?
    3. Is the fund currently self funded?
    4. How many years is the fund currently good for?
    Hint: If the gov't would stop raping the fund the federal deficit would INCREASE and if they repaid their "IOUs" the fund surplus would exceed the GNP of most countries.
    THOSE numbers will really astounded you!!!
    9 Mar, 06:40 PM Reply Like
  • rick mule
    , contributor
    Comments (42) | Send Message
     
    The biggest problem is that the senators and rep. decided to put the money into the general fund instead of keeping it separate. If they did not look at in a fashion of this is more money to spend on what we want then what the pubic wants, and we can pay it back some 40 or 50 years from now. The answer your looking for is greed of power.
    10 Mar, 10:18 AM Reply Like
  • LMinAppleton
    , contributor
    Comments (33) | Send Message
     
    rick mule: What is unneeded and who decides? Again, I refer you to Article I, Section 8. Farm subsides, food stamps, and social security? All unconstitutional and should be eliminated along with all the other unconstitutional programs (over time, say 5 to 10 years (social security over a much longer time frame); eliminating them cold turkey would probably have a severely negative impact economically--I'll admit that). Defense? One of the 18 enumerated powers.

     

    Don't you see? All these government programs are a major contributing factor for why this country is experiencing the problems it is. They redirect productive dollars from the private sector, entice crony capitalism, corrupt our law makers, and erode our freedom.

     

    Regarding social issues: these can be handled through charitable organizations far more efficiently and effectively than some corrupt, wasteful government program--and far more compassionately.
    10 Mar, 10:44 AM Reply Like
  • MichaelZZ
    , contributor
    Comments (232) | Send Message
     
    Bill,

     

    Your "conclusion" is incorrect.

     

    There is somewhere north of $2.5 trillion of federal paper and cash.

     

    The fund is unable to invest in anything but federal paper.

     

    Would you prefer all paper be paid off and have the funds sitting in cash?

     

    mz
    10 Mar, 11:00 AM Reply Like
  • bill d
    , contributor
    Comments (1880) | Send Message
     
    I guess I have trouble understanding all the BS about the fund running out of money by 2020 or whatever and all the talk about reorganizing it.
    Why? If the gov't is using the fund as their slush fund and they deplete the funds won't they have to get up the money from somewhere to make it up or pay it back or ????
    Some reason the contributions to the fund aren't just really invested? Why do I keep reading about the gov't "borrowing" from the fund? I assume this is just typical gov't double speak For political purposes.
    10 Mar, 03:12 PM Reply Like
  • MichaelZZ
    , contributor
    Comments (232) | Send Message
     
    Bill,

     

    I understand your "confusion", since we have been inundated by lies and misleading information, since 1935.

     

    Gore's (I supported him) "lockbox" was ignorance or a lie (politics).

     

    These past 3-4 years, we've been told that, due to our MASSIVE federal deficits, we must do something about SS. Another lie.
    If SS were cancelled tonight, the effect upon our federal annual deficits would be ZERO.

     

    Unfortunately, by law, the SS fund can only invest in federal bills, bonds, and notes.

     

    Please read my original posting, slowly and carefully.

     

    I will appreciate any critical comments accompanied by the rationale for disagreement.

     

    mz
    10 Mar, 06:37 PM Reply Like
  • MichaelZZ
    , contributor
    Comments (232) | Send Message
     
    LMinAppleton:

     

    Sorry, but you are 100% wrong.

     

    Whereas the SS program is not fiscally sound, it can be fixed quite easily with a more rational (substantially higher) SS payout. Shocking comment, but true.

     

    A retirement is one of the cornerstones of any rational society.

     

    We are USA, Inc. and all other companies are subsidiaries thereof.

     

    mz
    10 Mar, 07:01 PM Reply Like
  • rick mule
    , contributor
    Comments (42) | Send Message
     
    LMin. It would seem that we are on the same page but for eliminating SS. If it was taken out of there hands and stop all lobbyist and get term limits we can get back on track. The real problem is the people that can change the laws are the ones that make them.
    11 Mar, 11:00 AM Reply Like
  • bill d
    , contributor
    Comments (1880) | Send Message
     
    I thought I did and I agree 100% with you. Is there something I said that would make you think otherwise?

     

    Bill
    11 Mar, 04:01 PM Reply Like
  • rick mule
    , contributor
    Comments (42) | Send Message
     
    That was for Lmin she seems to want to say the same thing in a different way.
    12 Mar, 09:42 AM Reply Like
  • Cygnusx3
    , contributor
    Comments (53) | Send Message
     
    People have to have some hope. They have to be under the impression that working gets them somewhere. Not raising the minimum wage is myopic and destructive to the economy and our way of life - for everyone.
    5 Mar, 09:35 AM Reply Like
  • Noquiche
    , contributor
    Comments (197) | Send Message
     
    I would say the opposite may be true...Overpaying for low job skills teaches people that they don't need to improve themselves to "get somewhere". If one believes that they can get by on the MW then why do anything? This would likely be a more destructive force than you may think.
    6 Mar, 12:03 PM Reply Like
  • Stock Market Mike
    , contributor
    Comments (1873) | Send Message
     
    I think you'd be surprised at the desire to better one's self - few people will be content staying at minimum wage forever, even if it increases. If anything, having some spending money to buy luxuries (like a smartphone, or car) will increase the desire to earn more and buy more. Some of the money may also make its way to better food and living conditions, which will decrease healthcare costs over the long term, probably making it a net wash. (though impossible to track)

     

    There will be waste, obviously. Not everyone has the same motivations in life. Up here in Canada, the bars are always packed on Welfare Wednesday, illustrating that point nicely. But I suspect anyone working at minimum wage rather than not working already has a bit more of that motivation and desire to better themselves and/or their family. Give them a hand up and they'll probably take it and move forward.

     

    -Mike
    6 Mar, 12:38 PM Reply Like
  • COBeeMan
    , contributor
    Comments (1263) | Send Message
     
    SMM - you are implying that the motivated persons are the majority. In my experience and observations they are not. I don't have any links at hand, but behavioral experiments on motivation in standard populations have shown that a quarter are motivated to succeed and will keep trying, a quarter don't care and are happy to take handouts unless peer pressure or family intervenes, and the remaining half will try initially but will give up if too much effort is required. In this last half, their threshold for "too much" rises as they become more experienced unless they have a traumatic experience that moves them to the "don't care" quadrant temporarily.
    7 Mar, 07:07 PM Reply Like
  • MichaelZZ
    , contributor
    Comments (232) | Send Message
     
    Actually..., raising or even having a "minimum wage" is extremely damaging by unintended consequences.

     

    Think about Einstein's definition of insanity.

     

    mz
    13 Mar, 01:46 PM Reply Like
  • MichaelZZ
    , contributor
    Comments (232) | Send Message
     
    That is one of the points, but, believe it or not..., it is one of these least significant.

     

    mz
    13 Mar, 01:47 PM Reply Like
  • Ruffdog
    , contributor
    Comments (1250) | Send Message
     
    I agree, at least you have to work to collect it!
    5 Mar, 09:38 AM Reply Like
  • positivethoughts
    , contributor
    Comments (1812) | Send Message
     
    Since the minimum wage was signifigantly raised in Ontario, Canada, from $7.75 to $10.25 (it will soon be $11.00), things have become more affordable for the working poor.

     

    However, the unemployed poor have faired worse. Prices have increased about 4 - 5% per annum, so those that have seen their wages increase almost 50% in the past 5 years are better off, but those who are on government and fixed incomes, have only seen their incomes rise about 1 - 2% per annum.

     

    Those that earn higher dollars - the upper middle class and wealthy, regularly receive wage increases to combat inflation.

     

    So, minimum wage increases, along with other things that cause inflation, hurt those that dont work the most - the really poor people.

     

    Furthermore, it is much harder to find a minimum wage job since the massive set of increases than it was beforehand. This is the biggest problem with such increases.
    5 Mar, 09:39 AM Reply Like
  • jumpnjoey77
    , contributor
    Comments (473) | Send Message
     
    Outsource your manufactoring base then you outsource your wage growth.
    5 Mar, 09:55 AM Reply Like
  • positivethoughts
    , contributor
    Comments (1812) | Send Message
     
    Why not just outsource all jobs?
    5 Mar, 10:36 AM Reply Like
  • jumpnjoey77
    , contributor
    Comments (473) | Send Message
     
    Hard to outsource service jobs.
    5 Mar, 11:38 AM Reply Like
  • positivethoughts
    , contributor
    Comments (1812) | Send Message
     
    IT jobs get outsourced all the time - see India.
    5 Mar, 12:05 PM Reply Like
  • Stock Market Mike
    , contributor
    Comments (1873) | Send Message
     
    "Why not just outsource all jobs? "

     

    It's coming - but not to people across the world. Good robotics technology is only a few decades off. First truckers will be out of work (robotic fleets; trucks that drive themselves); at some point a city will roll out a driverless taxi/cab system. Eventually couriers and postal service may phase out their employees too. Few jobs are safe considering where processing power is going...

     

    People laugh at whatsapp - $19b for a company with about 50 employees - but sometime this century there'll be thousands of companies with that kind of value and small numbers of employees, and in sectors that currently employ tens of thousands.

     

    I'm not sure what that'll do to employment. Seems like massive job destruction to me, in the chase of greater corporate profits. I suppose if you're a shareholder you're fine, or if you're a mechanic that fixes the machines. (Assuming there isn't a robot that does that too...) IP jobs (like programming) will also be safe - for now, until IBM or some other company creates an artificial mind.

     

    -Mike
    6 Mar, 12:44 PM Reply Like
  • Minutemen
    , contributor
    Comments (738) | Send Message
     
    Mike: Who's going to buy all the stuff that comes off the robotic trucks if all the jobs have been replaced by robots?
    6 Mar, 12:46 PM Reply Like
  • Stock Market Mike
    , contributor
    Comments (1873) | Send Message
     
    Rich people, while the poor die starving in the streets?

     

    Okay, that was hyperbole - but you see the problem too? Within my lifetime I think we have a good chance of seeing ~30-35% employment, and hugely upward spiralling welfare/support costs. I'm not sure what that will do to the economy, but I doubt it will be good.

     

    I know the technology will come to exist, and I know corporations will embrace it for greater shareholder profits. Those two factors are almost certain.

     

    Since you can't make money from thin air (unless you're the fed), what we're left with is getting it from higher corporate taxes or getting it from the middle class. (It won't come from the super rich - that much is clear.) I think in Canada the corporate tax rate will go up, and in America the middle class will likely be taxed higher. There's a good chance that we'll see a return to more average tax rates from decades ago, which may be dozens of percentage points higher than today.

     

    http://bit.ly/10nR70Z

     

    Or perhaps we'll have a social revolution, where people embrace the made-in-America companies that hire American workers - but I wouldn't bet on that, given recent history. :P Outsourcing is king, and robots will be even better. Plus with consumerism, consumers buy the cheap crap. This is especially true when consumer purchasing power drops. All this is a rather negative spiral...

     

    -Mike
    7 Mar, 10:56 AM Reply Like
  • Minutemen
    , contributor
    Comments (738) | Send Message
     
    Mike: I think the problem is that our current primary public education system is woefully outdated and is not providing students with sufficient skills to do anything beyond unskilled minimum wage jobs. The education system needs to be completely revamped, much as it was in the past when it became mandatory for children to attend school through high school (as we moved away from agricultural society to an industrial/business society).

     

    One solution is to mandate that high school be extended two years to gain additional skills training. Students would thus graduate with an Associate's Degree with marketable skills. This is exactly the approach being taken in Chicago and New York with the P-Tech program (Google it). I strongly agree with this approach.
    7 Mar, 11:03 AM Reply Like
  • COBeeMan
    , contributor
    Comments (1263) | Send Message
     
    Minutemen - I totally agree that this is a large part of the problem. The current curriculums should be totally revamped to focus on producing graduates who 1) have critical thinking skills, 2) know how finance, business, and competition works, and 3) have the basic skills needed to get a job. However, I think schools could also help students by simply asking them every semester to write about what they want to be when they grow up, starting as soon as they can write. Of course the answer will change often and should never be judged, but the point of the question is to get them thinking about it early on and for them to develop a goal to which they can aspire (even if there are several and they change often in the early years).
    7 Mar, 07:21 PM Reply Like
  • Stock Market Mike
    , contributor
    Comments (1873) | Send Message
     
    Great post, Minutemen!

     

    This may also tackle one other rising problem - Autism/Aspergers prevalence - since it keeps the same familiar school setting. We're diagnosing Autism more and more, and at great cost to the system. I've encountered many quirky older people that obviously have Aspergers, but are undiagnosed because it wasn't understood in the past. When I ask them how they got started in life, usually their stories begin that some family friend taught them how to work on cars, or how to woodwork, or got them a job tallying up numbers in a cubicle... and then that's what they did for 35 years to support themselves and their families.

     

    Many Aspergers people don't fit the standard mould - they don't necessarily do well in Universities where speed of thought is essential, and downtime is moot. Despite that they are highly intelligent people - but they learn *different* than the majority do. Generally apprenticeship seems to be a better fit - but a learning environment that doesn't change for years longer, while simultaneously building up the skills necessary in today's workforce... that has a very good chance of turning these people into highly productive members of society. I like that way better than the 'Label & Forget' approach.

     

    +1 vote for the P-Tech program.

     

    -Mike
    8 Mar, 12:47 PM Reply Like
  • JDDurango
    , contributor
    Comments (137) | Send Message
     
    63%? When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you'll always get Paul's vote.

     

    So we're now going to pay never employed 18 year old kids with zero experience over $10/hour?
    5 Mar, 09:57 AM Reply Like
  • Heinz Doofenshmirtz
    , contributor
    Comments (269) | Send Message
     
    In many cases, the answer to your rhetorical question is, "No, we're not."
    5 Mar, 11:47 AM Reply Like
  • TGC004
    , contributor
    Comments (418) | Send Message
     
    Restaurants should eliminate order takers and just have a kiosk at each table / counter, much cheaper, more accurate, you don't have to worry about the workers not showing up for their shifts, then have a credit card reader on each one and you can get in / get out faster. Benefit to the restaurant owner would be faster table turnover, much less cost, more profit.
    5 Mar, 10:06 AM Reply Like
  • jumpnjoey77
    , contributor
    Comments (473) | Send Message
     
    Until they get hacked.
    5 Mar, 11:40 AM Reply Like
  • positivethoughts
    , contributor
    Comments (1812) | Send Message
     
    Japanese sushi restaurants do this. It is beautiful to see in person. You still pay at the front desk, but there are not waitresses unless you have a special request.
    5 Mar, 05:14 PM Reply Like
  • phemale60
    , contributor
    Comments (2783) | Send Message
     
    And when they break down. Like CVS's always do! Ha ha.

     

    Guess we need more training to fix the kiosks!! Those jobs should be good ones -- better than cashier!
    6 Mar, 12:45 PM Reply Like
  • MichaelZZ
    , contributor
    Comments (232) | Send Message
     
    There should be NO minimum wage.

     

    There should be an expansion of the EITC for citizens and green-card holders who are over 17 (to keep students in high school).

     

    Minimum wage laws falls in Einstein's definition of "insanity".

     

    mz
    5 Mar, 10:08 AM Reply Like
  • phemale60
    , contributor
    Comments (2783) | Send Message
     
    See the film "Matewan" -- how life was before labor unions. There was a reason unions/labor laws were established.
    6 Mar, 12:46 PM Reply Like
  • COBeeMan
    , contributor
    Comments (1263) | Send Message
     
    phemale60 - labor unions are another example of a good concept and purpose with poor implementation. You cannot legitimately only look at the good side. The implementation should be redesigned from scratch by systems engineers.
    7 Mar, 07:25 PM Reply Like
  • MichaelZZ
    , contributor
    Comments (232) | Send Message
     
    TRADE AND SERVICE UNIONS

     

    DEFINITION: A number of persons joining together for some common purpose.

     

    TYPES OF UNIONS: Private and public

     

    FACTS: Private and public unions negotiate with employers to obtain specific goals for those persons being represented.

     

    Subjects for negotiations include wages, benefits, and working conditions.
    If negotiations result in additional costs to an employer:
    a. A private employer will absorbed those costs or will pass some or all to the customers.

     

    b. A public employer will have its “rainy-day” funds reduced or will raise additional revenue from its taxpayers.

     

    ANALYSIS:
    a. If a private employer absorbs additional negotiated costs, margins will be affected, which will reduce taxable income, which will cause a reduction in the value of the employer’s business. If the employer passes on the additional costs to its customers, it would be inflationary and the customers would have less spendable funds for other expenditures, which may adversely affect the economics. In most instances of higher costs, those costs will be passed on to the customers.

     

    b. If a public employer raises additional revenue from its taxpayers, the taxpayers will have less spendable funds and that may adversely affect the economics.

     

    When a politician, economist, or anyone else calls for high-paying union jobs, they are implying that there be a shift of wealth from customers to the high-paying union jobs.

     

    mz
    mikiesmoky@aol.com
    February 26, 2011
    8 Mar, 12:44 PM Reply Like
  • gmom3
    , contributor
    Comments (132) | Send Message
     
    If they raise the minimum wage, does that bump up the salary for those already making that amount or more but had to work years to reach that pay? That could cause some problems for companies that would have to fit that overall increase for all employees into their budgets.
    5 Mar, 10:11 AM Reply Like
  • Stock Market Mike
    , contributor
    Comments (1873) | Send Message
     
    Generally speaking within a few years the unions will be clamouring for wage increases. Most try to maintain ratios, like 2x minimum wage, or 2.5x, with seniority getting additional increases to stay at 2.5x to 4x.

     

    (This is from Canada.)

     

    What private corps do is up to them. Walmart is a fine example - their wages seem to vary up here from around $9 to $16/hr. Some provinces have a minimum wage over $10, which skews all positions up a dollar or so.

     

    -Mike
    6 Mar, 12:58 PM Reply Like
  • ltinvstr
    , contributor
    Comments (14) | Send Message
     
    How is it that the Dem's say there is no inflation in this country, the risk is deflation; and in the same breath say the min wage is too low based on inflation?
    5 Mar, 10:12 AM Reply Like
  • Stock Market Mike
    , contributor
    Comments (1873) | Send Message
     
    Inflation is an average of the rising cost of everything. That doesn't quite fit, since while rent goes up, your cable TV and cellphone bill may have dropped.

     

    What you need to look at are primary costs of living - housing/rent, food, power, and perhaps also transportation. (gas/vehicle costs) At what CAGR have those core costs increased over the last 5-10 years?

     

    The inflation number might lie. I know 10 years ago most food was half as expensive at the local grocery stores. Gas too! Rent has also gone up significantly in my area. That suggests inflation of core costs is running at a 6-8% annual clip. Is it the same in your area?

     

    -Mike (BC, Canada)
    6 Mar, 01:03 PM Reply Like
  • rick mule
    , contributor
    Comments (42) | Send Message
     
    In actuality this country does not include food, or gas in the inflation index? They say because its to volatile so we get a skewed report every f@@@@@@g month.
    9 Mar, 11:21 AM Reply Like
  • supersaverguy
    , contributor
    Comments (54) | Send Message
     
    The biggest threat to the economy is deflation ...a higher minimum wage could help offset that as well as the $78 billion the government is spending on Food Stamps ... there will definitely be some losers, and technology will continue to replace unskilled workers, but that's going to happen anyway. We are all playing musical chairs to some extent... whether you're making $100k or $10/hr....
    5 Mar, 10:14 AM Reply Like
  • positivethoughts
    , contributor
    Comments (1812) | Send Message
     
    Deflation, left on its own, will turn into inflation and then settle based upon S&D.
    5 Mar, 10:37 AM Reply Like
  • LMinAppleton
    , contributor
    Comments (33) | Send Message
     
    I have to laugh at the way the Feds have bamboozled virtually everyone into believing that deflation is a bad thing. Let me see: with deflation, my money in the bank will have more purchasing power in the future--but this is a bad thing we're told. With inflation, my money will have less purchasing power in the future--and we're told this is a good thing. Ya suppose maybe we're being fed a line of BS by the Feds so they can STEAL OUR WEALTH!?

     

    I swear if the government announced tomorrow that the sun rises in the west and sets in the east, a sizeable portion of the population would believe it. Which leads me to global warming . . . but that's an argument for another day.
    5 Mar, 08:58 PM Reply Like
  • Stock Market Mike
    , contributor
    Comments (1873) | Send Message
     
    "Ya suppose maybe we're being fed a line of BS by the Feds so they can STEAL OUR WEALTH!?"

     

    The game is definitely rigged in favour of the risk takers.

     

    I personally would prefer inflation near 0%... I don't like the idea that by the time I retire my purchasing power will drop 80%. I've got to have some significant growth of my portfolio by then, because a million dollars won't be worth much...
    6 Mar, 01:09 PM Reply Like
  • COBeeMan
    , contributor
    Comments (1263) | Send Message
     
    Yes, it is a vicious chicken/egg cycle with income and expenses.
    7 Mar, 07:30 PM Reply Like
  • coffeenote
    , contributor
    Comments (12) | Send Message
     
    The view on this tends like all else along ideological lines. The right sees it as counterproductive govt interference. Same view about mandatory health care. The left sees it as corporate welfare where unwillingness of some employers to pay a living wage (or health care for that matter) is funded by others in terms of our various safety net programs. But it must be said that relatively few workers in the grand scheme of things are making min wage so that the glorious or devastating impact of increasing the min wage is probably overstated by both sides. This will neither kill us nor solve all of our problems.
    5 Mar, 10:39 AM Reply Like
  • Alex_P
    , contributor
    Comments (162) | Send Message
     
    I can't comprehend that some people here on SA think that raising the minimum wage is a good thing. Guys, do you know basic economics, supply and demand law. You can not pay employee more than the value he adds in the production process. What this will cause is that small businesses who can't afford to outsource but employ these workers , will cut the workforce and raise the wage of those who stay (most productive) or they will go out of business. I guess after that all of these "social justice cry wolfs" will be happy.
    5 Mar, 10:44 AM Reply Like
  • chopchop0
    , contributor
    Comments (3147) | Send Message
     
    Yup.

     

    No one thinks of the increase in unemployment among the fringes (youth, minorities, etc.).

     

    Luckily, there are several case studies with this. Check out western european countries
    5 Mar, 11:02 AM Reply Like
  • Andysud
    , contributor
    Comments (190) | Send Message
     
    I'm personally sick and tired of subsidizing Wal Mart and McDonalds with my tax dollars. They are the ones getting a free ride, not their employees.
    5 Mar, 10:56 AM Reply Like
  • Alex_P
    , contributor
    Comments (162) | Send Message
     
    Andysud, can you please enlighten me how you are subsidizing WMT and MCD with your tax dollars?
    5 Mar, 01:49 PM Reply Like
  • positivethoughts
    , contributor
    Comments (1812) | Send Message
     
    With government spending as it is, everyone is subsidizing everyone else, and the government is making a killing as the administrator of everyone else's money.
    5 Mar, 05:15 PM Reply Like
  • bill d
    , contributor
    Comments (1880) | Send Message
     
    As I understand it they qualify for food stamps and other gov't assistance - things that the employer should be providing or paying a livable wage.
    5 Mar, 05:42 PM Reply Like
  • Noquiche
    , contributor
    Comments (197) | Send Message
     
    trust me...soon after a mw hike...will come a hike in the bar to qualify for assistance from Unca Sam....They can't afford to lose any of the voters they purchased.
    6 Mar, 12:15 PM Reply Like
  • mydogmoe
    , contributor
    Comments (296) | Send Message
     
    I think this issue is more political grand standing than fundamental economic theory. I don't think the minimum wage is anything other than a starting point for unskilled workers to enter the job pool. A $12 wage in New York City might seem like peanuts to them but is considerably higher than $12 in Alabama. As one who used to start unskilled workers at the minimum wage we discontinued that practice over 20 years ago. We had to find a wage that was competitive to the market and would attract the type of worker who was literate, trainable and had potential to advance. The problem with many home grown Americans is they are neither of those three prerequisites. Many immigrants are more prepared than what we used to call the the "impossible to hire". That problem will not be solved by raising the wage..
    5 Mar, 12:29 PM Reply Like
  • Chazuu
    , contributor
    Comments (119) | Send Message
     
    Alex_P
    Regarding supply and demand. Demand is part of the equation. When low wage workers get more money they spend most of it quickly. Demand for services and goods like fast food increases with wage increases and MCD managers increase employment to meet the demand. No fast food restaurant manager wants to keep customers waiting. A minimum wage increase is a good way to get a slow economy moving. Fast food restaurants in North Dakota pay double the minimum wage or more because of the high demand. I don't think they are complaining because business there is very good.
    The same applies to Walmart and every other retailer catering to low and moderate wage patrons.
    Business managers don't employ people because they are cheap. They employ them because of demand.
    5 Mar, 01:11 PM Reply Like
  • COBeeMan
    , contributor
    Comments (1263) | Send Message
     
    Chazuu - The problem is in not allowing the system of supply/demand to set the wages. The wages in ND are higher because there is more demand for labor there. If there is less demand for a certain skill set, the wage should be lower. When the demand for a skill set is high the wage offered will increase because there are not enough people to fill the demand. People who find their skills not in demand need to fix that problem, not complain that they should be paid more. A higher minimum wage upsets the natural supply/demand system and will not improve the overall economy at all.

     

    *The only way the government could possibly help with supply/demand of labor is to help train people in skills that are in high demand.
    5 Mar, 04:28 PM Reply Like
  • positivethoughts
    , contributor
    Comments (1812) | Send Message
     
    Government should not help train people. That is what they do now. We have philosophy grads that spent over 100k in taxpayers money and they are unemployable.
    5 Mar, 08:09 PM Reply Like
  • COBeeMan
    , contributor
    Comments (1263) | Send Message
     
    Government did not cause that problem, the college education system did. However, I agree that any government facilitated help should be driven by the demands of business and the skillsets they need more of vs. the skillsets that pay little for (because there are too many competing).
    7 Mar, 07:33 PM Reply Like
  • Landsharks6
    , contributor
    Comments (97) | Send Message
     
    Im just curious as to why this debate is located under AT&T , Im sure they are paying above minimum wage???
    5 Mar, 01:38 PM Reply Like
  • Noquiche
    , contributor
    Comments (197) | Send Message
     
    I wondered the same thing lol
    6 Mar, 12:16 PM Reply Like
  • Alex_P
    , contributor
    Comments (162) | Send Message
     
    Chazuu,
    Based on your logic we should raise the wage for everybody than. That would work fantastic, wouldn't it? You are partially right that demand would increase initially. However, since this is tiny slice of population with tiny capital that wouldn't be much.
    But look at this:

     

    On the other side, higher cost of employees (without higher productivity) would significantly increase marginal cost of the business. That would directly affect supply curve moving to the left and decreasing the volume of production with inevitable product price increase. Who is being affected by this:
    1) Shareholders - because of initial decrease in profits. However, because of opportunity cost they will be able to move their money to another investment.
    2) Employees - Smaller volume of production will cause less workers. Those on the bottom with the least skill-set will be released first (Aren't those one who we wanted to help at the first place???)
    3) Consumers - will pay higher prices for the same product and their capital will be diverted from something more useful.

     

    How hard is for people like you to understand that economy can't move by shifting money around but by creating real wealth and being more productive?
    5 Mar, 02:18 PM Reply Like
  • Buyandhold 2012
    , contributor
    Comments (1871) | Send Message
     
    What has always amazed me is that many of the Republican commentators on the Fox network, who probably earn at least a million dollars a year, are not in favor of poor struggling people earning at least ten dollars an hour. Have those Republican commentators absolutely no sense of shame?

     

    There is dignity in all work and anyone willing to work should be paid a minimum of ten dollars an hour.
    5 Mar, 05:43 PM Reply Like
  • Noquiche
    , contributor
    Comments (197) | Send Message
     
    why not 20?
    6 Mar, 12:17 PM Reply Like
  • Alex_P
    , contributor
    Comments (162) | Send Message
     
    Buyandhold, instead to contribute to this discussion and show us analytically how did you come up with ten dollars an hour, you are just spewing your hate towards Republicans.
    You are nothing but partisan hack.
    6 Mar, 04:12 PM Reply Like
  • bill d
    , contributor
    Comments (1880) | Send Message
     
    "Democrats argue that the current minimum wage level of $7.25 per hour is low by historical standards when adjusted for inflation."
    So they don't think this contributes to inflation???
    5 Mar, 05:45 PM Reply Like
  • haoleboy1967
    , contributor
    Comments (245) | Send Message
     
    Has anyone given any thought to the illegal immigrants impact in wages? I am no scholar but here is a first hand experience.
    My father in law works in a chain franchise restaurant that is packed with illegals. He is a legal permanent resident with minimal english. He makes more than minimum wage as a dishwasher ($8.50)But I am convinced that the restaurant would have to pay more per hour to fill the jobs if they couldn't fill them with illegal workers. Perhaps he could be making $10.10 an hour without our government mandating it. This restaurant is in an upscale neighborhood with no bus line etc.
    5 Mar, 06:31 PM Reply Like
  • mydogmoe
    , contributor
    Comments (296) | Send Message
     
    Most employers that hire immigrants do it for reasons other than wages. First and foremost is work ethic and dependability. So many young American workers are unhappy with their jobs before they even start work. Immigrants see opportunity in America as they always have since this country was born. Many young Americans want the American dream but are unwilling to make the sacrifices necessary to fulfill it.
    5 Mar, 06:45 PM Reply Like
  • Guardian3981
    , contributor
    Comments (1931) | Send Message
     
    Alot of people make the futile argument that minimum wage is lower when adjusted for inflation to what it was in 1965 or whatever year they want to pull.

     

    Who is to say a certain year decades ago is the be all end all of what it "should" be?

     

    All the minimum wage increase does is make everyone making above it poorer and everyone making it the same as before.

     

    The liberals quest is for the majority of people to make minimum wage, it already has happened in other country's.
    5 Mar, 07:02 PM Reply Like
  • Uain53
    , contributor
    Comments (1357) | Send Message
     
    "..Most employers that hire immigrants do it for reasons other than wages. First and foremost is work ethic and dependability..."

     

    Not quite, at least in California...

     

    1.) High tech companies hire green card holders from India/ China because they can pay them less. Pass a law that requires ..ANY.. employee to be paid the same wage and see how quickly Jeff Zuckerberg changes his tune.

     

    2.) Construction/ restaurants/ etc. hire the illegal aliens because they pay in cash under the table.. no Taxes, SoSoc, Medicare, workmans's comp....

     

    Amnesty will only bring in the next wave to displace those already here. The growth industry is government assistence.... at least out here.
    6 Mar, 12:20 AM Reply Like
  • mydogmoe
    , contributor
    Comments (296) | Send Message
     
    Take exception to one of your remarks the companies pay illegal immigrants in cash. Number one you would have to be a very small company to do it and number two they pay ALL of their workers in cash legal or illegal, black, white or Hispanic. You have to have your head in the sand ( not you personally) if you don't believe there is a huge cash underground economy here and all over the world. Try to collect any kind of taxes in Southern European countries...
    12 Mar, 02:50 PM Reply Like
  • Chazuu
    , contributor
    Comments (119) | Send Message
     
    Alex_P
    Raising the minimum wage will raise wages for many if not everybody. And IMHO that is a good thing. The lower paid workers have been getting a smaller and smaller share of the pie. Income accruing to the upper levels tends to accumulate in stocks, bonds and other investments. This is good for bankers, brokers, accountants, M & A people and the rest of that crowd. Trickle down hasn't really worked very well. Income for the income for the lower group is spent quickly, increases the velocity of money and the demand for most goods and services increases. Our country's current situation where more and more goes to the wealthy and less and less to the rest is one of the major causes of our stagnant economy. (The other major part is that we aren't in a vacuum. If Europe and the rest of the world are slow we are certain to be affected too. )
    6 Mar, 10:11 AM Reply Like
  • Minutemen
    , contributor
    Comments (738) | Send Message
     
    One thing to keep in mind is that minimum wage employees only make up 4.6% of the U.S. workforce. That is down from 15% of the U.S. workforce in 1980. Thus there has been a trend for employers to raise salaries on their own without regulation from the government. One big reason for this that minimum wage jobs represent unskilled labor and an increasing number of U.S. jobs require skills that companies are willing to pay for. If you really want to bring people out of poverty or out of low-pay jobs, then improving skill levels would be far more productive for employers and the economy.

     

    Another factor to consider is that a majority of minimum wage employees have household incomes that are well above the poverty level. Thus the government trying to solve the problem of poverty by broadly raising the minimum wage is like trying to solve a problem with a blunt instrument when what you need is a scalpel. I go back to my comment posted above that a better, more precision approach , would be to increase the Earned Income Tax Credit.
    6 Mar, 10:40 AM Reply Like
  • mydogmoe
    , contributor
    Comments (296) | Send Message
     
    My company hired them mainly because you could depend on having them at work everyday. They also seem to be able to budget what they earn and actually save money. Today's home grown laborers have very little conception of either those qualities. And it is not a racial thing. Both groups are restless and don't comprehend that to advance you need to learn and take advantage public education and learn a skill or a trade.....
    6 Mar, 11:54 AM Reply Like
  • bill d
    , contributor
    Comments (1880) | Send Message
     
    How then are they able to send millions back to Mexico. Billions if you believe the gov't. How much does the Mexican gov't spend trying to keep their citizens from leaving?
    7 Mar, 05:42 PM Reply Like
  • Ruffdog
    , contributor
    Comments (1250) | Send Message
     
    Most MW employees are first job teenagers.
    8 Mar, 09:44 AM Reply Like
  • cactus jack 65
    , contributor
    Comments (258) | Send Message
     
    Minimum wage goes up and cost of goods goes up the only winner is the tax man and unions ...
    23 Mar, 11:22 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector

Next headline on your portfolio:

|