Originally Posted By Castleowner77 <<As for the effects. When Henry Ford doubled the wage of his workers and cut the work week to 40 hours, there were many economists that proclaimed it would be the death of the US economy>> You miss the big point here.... HENRY FORD, not the Govt, doubled the wage and cut the hours back on his workers due to high production and efficiency. That was his call based on this numbers. Today we have Govt liberals trying to make these decisions for all companies across the board, all rooted in total ignorance. Is it any wonder that Detroit and all Blue states are bankrupt with no job growth? Throw in EPA regulations and fees based on global warming junk science and we can see why companies flee blue states. Let the market work on its own and we will have massive job growth and freedom from the debt that is going to collapse this nation. This is the Tea Party simple message vs. the communists and socialists who vote Democrat.
Originally Posted By hopemax I'd like to think that the economic pressure Walmart finds itself in with the cutbacks to the SNAP program, would provide some impetus to reevalute the current state of wages in this country. To relearn the same lesson that Henry Ford did, that if you pay your workers enough to be able to afford to be your customers, it's good business. As well as other economic advantages such as decreasing turnover, which leads to more productive workers, because they can develop mastery. However, instead I see it more likely that Walmart will just increase expansion in other parts of the world, and the influx of visas granted to foreign workers.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <You're doing a VERY bad job of out-Mawncking Mawnck.> There's a serious discussion to be had about this topic. What I'm saying is that for anyone interested in it, we can have it - and we can have it without disruption if we refuse to acknowledge the disruptor is even here.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Are today's workers not worth as much as our parents were? > Of course they are. Arguably they're worth more; if you adjusted minimum wage for inflation and productivity gains since the 70's, it would be far higher than 10 bucks. <I'd like to think that the economic pressure Walmart finds itself in with the cutbacks to the SNAP program,> What it means when Walmart encourages its employees to use food stamps is that the US taxpayer is effectively subsidizing Walmart, who should be paying its workers enough for them to feed themselves. But they don't, so the taxpayers effectively pick up the difference. Think about that next time you go there to buy your Chinese-made crap.
Originally Posted By hopemax Right, and while they would be loathe to admit it on the record, Walmart probably LOVES people, as certain groups like to say "sucking off the government" because every dollar the government provides is a dollar they don't have to. They really don't want a system where there is no government assistance because then their profits take a direct hit. So who wants people lining up for their government checks? Walmart and other employers of low wage earners. Liberals may support government assistance because of their bleeding hearts, business support it for the profits. But again, off the record, and don't raise their taxes.
Originally Posted By Castleowner77 <<What it means when Walmart encourages its employees to use food stamps is that the US taxpayer is effectively subsidizing Walmart>> Nonsense. Everywhere you guys run the show ( Calif for example ) it all implodes with record food stamps, unemployment, crime, no jobs, despair...Detroit baby. Yet you guys tell us that we should listen to you and your " ideas " on how to fix jobs? Texas is booming with more job creation than any state in the union and its not even close. I rest my case and I am out.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Of course they are. Arguably they're worth more; if you adjusted minimum wage for inflation and productivity gains since the 70's, it would be far higher than 10 bucks.<< Indeed, the American worker has never been more productive, yet pay just keeps falling farther and farther behind, while the very wealthy, whose share of the economic pie is at all time highs, has the gall to lecture us about wrecking the economy, when in fact they are the ones who have been systematically destroying the middle class, driving millions of former middle class Americans into a dependence on government programs they would rather not be in. And they tell us the the answer is to allow wages to drop to third world levels. And then when the middle and former middle class have the temerity to complain, the rich sob about being persecuted and having to endure a new Kristallnacht. But I suppose that Marie Antoinette and the Czar didn't get it either.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <every dollar the government provides is a dollar they don't have to. They really don't want a system where there is no government assistance because then their profits take a direct hit. So who wants people lining up for their government checks? Walmart and other employers of low wage earners.> Yep. And the dirty little secret of the current broken immigration system is that big business LOVES it.
Originally Posted By hopemax Wall Street Journal says 18% of all food stamp dollars are spent at Walmart. How much does that equal in their profits. I'm not sure. Where does food stamp money come from...YOU...through your taxes. So your taxes end up in Walmart's profits. If that's not a subsidy, I don't know what is.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Tom, and anyone else seriously interested in looking (as opposed to coming back 3 minutes later when he couldn't possibly have even read the thing) - the link is a good primer to why modest minimum wage increases have never increased unemployment. That's our history. Many decades of such increases, inevitable cries each time that it will add to unemployment, and then... it doesn't. Time after time after time.<< Darn those pesky facts. But who needs facts when we have ideology?
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Dabob, I fully agree with you that modest COL increases in minimum wage are a good thing. Putting more money into circulation by giving people more money to spend on goods and services is what is going to save this nation's economy, not the increased concentration of wealth via tax breaks for Romney and his friends. The wealthy don't create jobs - the middle class does. Obviously. But I think that the people pushing this big increase in Seattle aren't considering how easily many of them can be replaced once they increase the cost of their labor and tip the scales toward automation.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Let me rephrase - COL increases in ALL wages are a good thing, not just minimum wage.
Originally Posted By Castleowner77 <<Putting more money into circulation by giving people more money to spend on goods and services is what is going to save this nation's economy,>> This is only true when the money comes from producing something. This does not work when the money is stolen from one person ( me ) and given to another ( shinebox ) in the form of a welfare transfer like food stamps or any other program. All you have done is take the same pot of money and moved it around, no growth....just socialist redistribution.
Originally Posted By Castleowner77 SAme thing with raising the min wage...it would seem that the workers getting more money would have more to spend right? Wrong.. The employer will cut hours back or let people go to protect profit margins. In the end, there is no gain and only destruction and harm to the business who now must operate with less people or higher prices. Econ 101
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>But I think that the people pushing this big increase in Seattle aren't considering how easily many of them can be replaced once they increase the cost of their labor and tip the scales toward automation.<< I agree, but then again, they have been automating anyway. Perhaps saving money on labor allows more for R&D into automated systems. Or perhaps automation is inevitable. But I do agree with your larger point, that some of the workers are assuming that they will indeed have jobs regardless. A huge jump of nearly $5 an hour would likely mean prices would be raised significantly, and effectively erase whatever gains the workers might have made. Seems like a no win really. Add to it all that the old stalwarts of the fast food industry are facing more competition than ever.
Originally Posted By hopemax > A huge jump of nearly $5 an hour would likely mean prices would be raised significantly,< Why? In theory, business should already be setting their prices on "what the market will bear." If the market can withstand a significant price increase, then businesses are failing in their fiduciary responsibilities. They'll probably be able to get away with small increases, but anything too big, and one is left to wonder why they weren't charging more NOW. It's not from the goodness of their hearts;it's because they don't have much room to maneuver. It's this pressure that drives innovation. Some say people/hours will be cut, but if the demand is there, then their loss in productivity means they're just handing market share over to their competitors.
Originally Posted By hopemax The people who would be paid more, are the people who are most likely receiving public assistance. Any increase in their wages, would lead to a decrease in government assistance. For the person, they really won't have much more money than they did before. Just the satisfaction that they're work leads them to be self-sufficient. But it's not like the wages are going to lead to an increase in the money supply. Just less propping up of the existing economy through government action.
Originally Posted By doombuggy This state..WA loves taxing people to death. The cost of living is higher here then in Anaheim. IF they did raise the min to $15 I wouldn't be surprised if they started a state income tax.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "This state..WA loves taxing people to death. The cost of living is higher here then in Anaheim. IF they did raise the min to $15 I wouldn't be surprised if they started a state income tax." Come on. States don't LOVE taxing people, but services cost money. Considering only around ten states don't have a state income tax, you're lucky it's gone this long without. I'm curious though- without a state income tax, what's the property tax and sales tax rates? They've got to make it up somehow, it doesn't all come from bingo.
