Re: another way to look at it...

by Hellsangel Fri Jan 31, 2014 11:58 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:Can these guys get along without benefits?

With tippers like Janice, it is kinda tough.

by b_A Fri Jan 31, 2014 1:04 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:taxpayers are subsidizing walmart to the tune of $5800 per employee: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-06-03/are-american-taxpayers-subsidizing-walmarts-low-wages

more detailed numbers here:
http://democrats.edworkforce.house.gov/sites/democrats.edworkforce.house.gov/files/documents/WalMartReport-May2013.pdf

The way to look at is , without walmart/MCD , taxpayers will be subsidizing them at $20k per person.

by MaxEntropy_Man Fri Jan 31, 2014 1:47 pm

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:taxpayers are subsidizing walmart to the tune of $5800 per employee: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-06-03/are-american-taxpayers-subsidizing-walmarts-low-wages

more detailed numbers here:
http://democrats.edworkforce.house.gov/sites/democrats.edworkforce.house.gov/files/documents/WalMartReport-May2013.pdf

Prof, I'm not disputing any of this. Anybody working full-time on minimum wages necessarily needs to avail of government benefits, regardless of whether it is a burger flipper, checkout clerk or janitor. This entire campaign singles out two companies merely because they happen to be large corporations which employ disproportionately large numbers of unskilled workers, while your favorite coffee shop or grocer or restaurant is no different in this respect.

MD -- republicans love to demonize people at the lowest end of the economic ladder who need these benefits. my only point in this entire exercise was to show corporations like MCD and WMT benefit from the safety net because the govt is picking up the difference between survival wages and what these corporations pay their employees. and since they don't pay them medical benefits, the cost of medical care for their employees is also shifted to the taxpayer.

i called them welfare queens because the label denotes someone who benefits from the welfare needlessly. these two corporations fit that label more perfectly than the poor folks who use them.

by MaxEntropy_Man Fri Jan 31, 2014 1:49 pm

b_A wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:taxpayers are subsidizing walmart to the tune of $5800 per employee: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-06-03/are-american-taxpayers-subsidizing-walmarts-low-wages

more detailed numbers here:
http://democrats.edworkforce.house.gov/sites/democrats.edworkforce.house.gov/files/documents/WalMartReport-May2013.pdf

The way to look at is , without walmart/MCD , taxpayers will be subsidizing them at $20k per person.

i can flip that around and say if they paid them livable wages, the burden will be shifted away from the taxpayer.

by Hellsangel Fri Jan 31, 2014 1:51 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
b_A wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:taxpayers are subsidizing walmart to the tune of $5800 per employee: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-06-03/are-american-taxpayers-subsidizing-walmarts-low-wages

more detailed numbers here:
http://democrats.edworkforce.house.gov/sites/democrats.edworkforce.house.gov/files/documents/WalMartReport-May2013.pdf

The way to look at is , without walmart/MCD , taxpayers will be subsidizing them at $20k per person.

i can flip that around and say if they paid them livable wages, the burden will be shifted away from the taxpayer.

To the consumer. Tell me, Il Professor-ai, are you an ethical consumer?

by MaxEntropy_Man Fri Jan 31, 2014 1:52 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
b_A wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:taxpayers are subsidizing walmart to the tune of $5800 per employee: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-06-03/are-american-taxpayers-subsidizing-walmarts-low-wages

more detailed numbers here:
http://democrats.edworkforce.house.gov/sites/democrats.edworkforce.house.gov/files/documents/WalMartReport-May2013.pdf

The way to look at is , without walmart/MCD , taxpayers will be subsidizing them at $20k per person.

i can flip that around and say if they paid them livable wages, the burden will be shifted away from the taxpayer.

To the consumer. Tell me, Il Professor-ai, are you an ethical consumer?

i don't shop at walmart and i don't eat at mcdonalds. there is nothing in their menu i can eat anyway besides coffee and i don't much care for their coffee. i do however invest in index funds which holds their stock. not much i can do about that.

by gone Fri Jan 31, 2014 1:55 pm

If you increase the minimum wage, Walmart or Wendys will hire fewer people and your wait will be longer. So idiotic! If some other corporation would pay more for zero skills, they wouldn't be flipping burgers. In our county, a few hundred people lined up for a dozen jobs at Olive Garden (new in our town). Those who didn't get picked by Olive Garden are still flipping burgers. The market dictates what people get paid.

by Hellsangel Fri Jan 31, 2014 1:55 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
b_A wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:taxpayers are subsidizing walmart to the tune of $5800 per employee: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-06-03/are-american-taxpayers-subsidizing-walmarts-low-wages

more detailed numbers here:
http://democrats.edworkforce.house.gov/sites/democrats.edworkforce.house.gov/files/documents/WalMartReport-May2013.pdf

The way to look at is , without walmart/MCD , taxpayers will be subsidizing them at $20k per person.

i can flip that around and say if they paid them livable wages, the burden will be shifted away from the taxpayer.

To the consumer. Tell me, Il Professor-ai, are you an ethical consumer?

i don't shop at walmart and i don't eat at mcdonalds. there is nothing in their menu i can eat anyway besides coffee and i don't much care for their coffee. i do however invest in index funds which holds their stock. not much i can do about that.

So you shop at Target then? How is Target when it comes to treating their employees?

PS: Maybe the fact that the Walton family heavily favors Conservatives has something to do with targeting Walmart. I am not sure other department stores are any better.

by southindian Fri Jan 31, 2014 1:57 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
b_A wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:taxpayers are subsidizing walmart to the tune of $5800 per employee: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-06-03/are-american-taxpayers-subsidizing-walmarts-low-wages

more detailed numbers here:
http://democrats.edworkforce.house.gov/sites/democrats.edworkforce.house.gov/files/documents/WalMartReport-May2013.pdf

The way to look at is , without walmart/MCD , taxpayers will be subsidizing them at $20k per person.

i can flip that around and say if they paid them livable wages, the burden will be shifted away from the taxpayer.

To the consumer. Tell me, Il Professor-ai, are you an ethical consumer?

i don't shop at walmart and i don't eat at mcdonalds. there is nothing in their menu i can eat anyway besides coffee and i don't much care for their coffee. i do however invest in index funds which holds their stock. not much i can do about that.

You don't shop at the Walmart at North....? Target then...

by MaxEntropy_Man Fri Jan 31, 2014 1:57 pm

mainstreet wrote:If you increase the minimum wage, Walmart or Wendys will hire fewer people and your wait will be longer. So idiotic! If some other corporation would pay more for zero skills, they wouldn't be flipping burgers. In our county, a few hundred people lined up for a dozen jobs at Olive Garden (new in our town). Those who didn't get picked by Olive Garden are still flipping burgers. The market dictates what people get paid.

i agree with the bolded statement, but we are only arguing about if there should be a floor and what it should be. if we let the market completely dictate even that, then why have a legislated floor at all? why not do away with that?

by gone Fri Jan 31, 2014 2:01 pm

We have a technical school fifty miles away that teaches for free (yes, free!) how to become a car mechanic, a designer, cell phone tower engineer, all kinds of technical factory skills. Those who are smart and motivated are learning and becoming more than who they are. The lazy ones are having multiple kids to get free checks...this only adds to the pool of unskilled labor and ultimately increases the labor supply which brings wages down...ultimately increasing the number of poor people in the country.

by gone Fri Jan 31, 2014 2:06 pm

Ridiculous! When you put a minimum wage of 15 bucks per hour for fast food workers, why would a mechanic in the area fix cars. He'll start flipping burgers too. Companies won't be able to afford them and they'll cut corners more by giving them fewer benefits...it's not like anyone else is lining up beating down their front door with job offers. Realistically not going to happen.

by b_A Fri Jan 31, 2014 2:09 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
b_A wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:taxpayers are subsidizing walmart to the tune of $5800 per employee: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-06-03/are-american-taxpayers-subsidizing-walmarts-low-wages

more detailed numbers here:
http://democrats.edworkforce.house.gov/sites/democrats.edworkforce.house.gov/files/documents/WalMartReport-May2013.pdf

The way to look at is , without walmart/MCD , taxpayers will be subsidizing them at $20k per person.

i can flip that around and say if they paid them livable wages, the burden will be shifted away from the taxpayer.

To the consumer. Tell me, Il Professor-ai, are you an ethical consumer?

i don't shop at walmart and i don't eat at mcdonalds. there is nothing in their menu i can eat anyway besides coffee and i don't much care for their coffee. i do however invest in index funds which holds their stock. not much i can do about that.

Ultimately we all pay one way or another. Either as a taxpayer or consumer. You may think that since you don't eat at McDonald's it will not affect you. But if MCD raises prices so will others. And if Walmart raises wages , others like Costco/Target have to raise it too to attract better quality employees.

by gone Fri Jan 31, 2014 2:19 pm

No corporation is going to raise wages anytime soon unless mandated by the government. The country is going through massive wage deflation in every job function. Whether you're a doctor (massive reimbursement cuts) or an IT contractor (lower hourly rates), MBA, or anything else. With the exception of some highly skilled trades, everyone else is dime a dozen, can be outsourced in an instant, and can be replaced by someone younger and cheaper.

by Hellsangel Fri Jan 31, 2014 2:51 pm

mainstreet wrote:No corporation is going to raise wages anytime soon unless mandated by the government. The country is going through massive wage deflation in every job function. Whether you're a doctor (massive reimbursement cuts) or an IT contractor (lower hourly rates), MBA, or anything else. With the exception of some highly skilled trades, everyone else is dime a dozen, can be outsourced in an instant, and can be replaced by someone younger and cheaper.

Except for tenured academics.

by Propagandhi711 Fri Jan 31, 2014 3:21 pm

mainstreet wrote:Ridiculous! When you put a minimum wage of 15 bucks per hour for fast food workers, why would a mechanic in the area fix cars. He'll start flipping burgers too. Companies won't be able to afford them and they'll cut corners more by giving them fewer benefits...it's not like anyone else is lining up beating down their front door with job offers. Realistically not going to happen.

ivory tower liberals dont care about real world consequences of the grand plans they like to implement with OPM.

by gone Fri Jan 31, 2014 3:26 pm

From my friends in academia, I hear that the job market is horrible there. These are people in their mid thirties with a kid or two who still haven't found a tenure-track position that pays less than $75K. More like less than $50K for those who got a PhD in useless stuff like feminist literature or whatever.

If there was no such thing as tenure, those non-tenure instructors would gladly do the job for half the money. That would help cut annual tuition bills for the kids of struggling parents who have been laid off or are experiencing wage deflation.

Max spends hours over here 365 days a year, arguing about this and that. Has he ever argued even once for eliminating tenure to bring down tuition and reducing the average student loan debt?

by gone Fri Jan 31, 2014 3:31 pm

I can understand keeping tenure intact for people who are doing outstanding research in a highly skilled and high demand field of study where there is a very tiny pool of qualified academics to fill the opening.

However, considering that Max's research on this site has been completely crappy and he spends hours of his time here instead of actually doing some research, he may want to start his charitable acts of kindness by giving up tenure : )

by b_A Fri Jan 31, 2014 3:49 pm

We may have stumbled on to a win-win solution here Smile

Academics give up their tenure or reduce their salaries. Tuition comes down. More people get education and get out of the minimum wage rut jobs. The labor pool of unskilled workers is reduced and that forces companies to compete with each other for the available workers and pay more than minimum wage. Less burden on the taxpayers. The govt reduces taxes (instead of finding creative ways to spend on other pet schemes - yeah right !!) and the economy gets better. Everybody wins.

by truthbetold Fri Jan 31, 2014 4:18 pm

To all
making max's tenure or job performance a point of argument is crossing boundaries of forum decorum. let people deal with their own family, job , children, use of personal or professional time and other personal issues. it would be polite and wise to.limit our comments.on posted topics and other wordly issues.

p.s. max and i argue on many issues but we should refrain from developing personal animosity against people with a different pov.

by gone Fri Jan 31, 2014 4:32 pm

No one has any personal animosity for Max. I don't. However, his arguments are pretty mind-numbingly dumb. When he bashes corporations, I hope he realizes that academia is following the business model as well. When government steps in and starts giving unlimited loans to students, so that they can get a degree in art history, these schools keep raising tuition every year whether the kids have any ability to pay back the debt or not.

Finally, if you want to be the police, please start censoring yourself first, followed by Bittu and Propagandhi.

by gone Fri Jan 31, 2014 4:41 pm

Also I am not making light of anyone's minimum wage situation. Life cannot possibly be easy for them and I have become extremely spiritual since moving to such a poor town. I consider myself extremely fortunate when I see so much poverty around me.

I also see a lot of abuse. People don't want to flip burgers all day, so they have a dozen kids with a dozen different men, so they can make thrice as much as they formerly made and do nothing. This just brings in more poor and unskilled people into the world AND the single parent is a terrible role model who does not give the kids any values that are parents gave to us (moral values, the importance of a good education, hard work). Instead they're told that they'll be taken care of by the government and all they have to do is have babies or fake a disability.

In the other hand, we have a chicken farmer down the road, staunch conservatives and churchgoers who tithe 10% of their income every Sunday, who is perfectly content making less than 20 grand a year, and wouldn't take a dime from taxpayers.

by gone Fri Jan 31, 2014 4:43 pm

I meant our parents. Not are.

by gone Fri Jan 31, 2014 4:51 pm

You would not be happy either if you were working hard everyday, tithing 10% of your weekly income to your temple in spite of making hardly anything and then someone a mile or two away had a dozen babies out of wedlock to make thrice as much as you and raised them to become complete delinquents and half of them ended up in a prison not too far from you.

by confuzzled dude Fri Jan 31, 2014 4:56 pm

b_A wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:taxpayers are subsidizing walmart to the tune of $5800 per employee: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-06-03/are-american-taxpayers-subsidizing-walmarts-low-wages

more detailed numbers here:
http://democrats.edworkforce.house.gov/sites/democrats.edworkforce.house.gov/files/documents/WalMartReport-May2013.pdf

The way to look at is , without walmart/MCD , taxpayers will be subsidizing them at $20k per person.

Not really, mom & pop shops tend to pay a bit more than these giant corporations.

by Hellsangel Fri Jan 31, 2014 4:58 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
b_A wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:taxpayers are subsidizing walmart to the tune of $5800 per employee: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-06-03/are-american-taxpayers-subsidizing-walmarts-low-wages

more detailed numbers here:
http://democrats.edworkforce.house.gov/sites/democrats.edworkforce.house.gov/files/documents/WalMartReport-May2013.pdf

The way to look at is , without walmart/MCD , taxpayers will be subsidizing them at $20k per person.

Not really, mom & pop shops tend to pay a bit more than these giant corporations.

Ha ha ha!

by confuzzled dude Fri Jan 31, 2014 5:03 pm

truthbetold wrote:To all
making max's tenure or job performance a point of argument is crossing boundaries of forum decorum. let people deal with their own family, job , children, use of personal or professional time and other personal issues. it would be polite and wise to.limit our comments.on posted topics and other wordly issues.

p.s. max and i argue on many issues but we should refrain from developing personal animosity against people with a different pov.

That's because our resident "DIG"ambara swamis know only to critic (not provide any solutions) just like their favorite right wing bullies.

by b_A Fri Jan 31, 2014 5:36 pm

truthbetold wrote:To all
making max's tenure or job performance a point of argument is crossing boundaries of forum decorum. let people deal with their own family, job , children, use of personal or professional time and other personal issues. it would be polite and wise to.limit our comments.on posted topics and other wordly issues.

p.s. max and i argue on many issues but we should refrain from developing personal animosity against people with a different pov.

I agree with you. My post was in a lighter vein and I apologize to MAX if he was offended.

by gone Fri Jan 31, 2014 5:37 pm

What does a digambara swami mean? English translation?

by FluteHolder Fri Jan 31, 2014 5:42 pm

THERE TWO TYPES OF JAIN AND ONE IS DIGAMBAR THEY PEOPLE LIVE NAKED AND EAT BEFORE THE SUN SET SLEEP ON THE EARTH
http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061214082313AAuqSCX

by confuzzled dude Sat Feb 01, 2014 12:57 am

"In 2012, the average American taxpayer making $50,000 per year paid just $36 towards the food stamps program."

"The average American family pays a staggering $6,000 a year in subsidies to Republican-friendly big business."

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/19844-food-stamps-are-affordable-corporate-welfare-is-not

by confuzzled dude Sat Feb 01, 2014 1:05 am

mainstreet wrote:What does a digambara swami mean? English translation?

"dig"amabara swami : a person whose favorite pastime is taking digs at others

by Merlot Daruwala Sat Feb 01, 2014 5:08 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
b_A wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:taxpayers are subsidizing walmart to the tune of $5800 per employee: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-06-03/are-american-taxpayers-subsidizing-walmarts-low-wages

more detailed numbers here:
http://democrats.edworkforce.house.gov/sites/democrats.edworkforce.house.gov/files/documents/WalMartReport-May2013.pdf

The way to look at is , without walmart/MCD , taxpayers will be subsidizing them at $20k per person.

i can flip that around and say if they paid them livable wages, the burden will be shifted away from the taxpayer.

Every skill has a certain market price. Meddling with them only introduces all kinds of distortions. A higher wage for an unskilled worker will push up all wages, and drive up overall inflation, which is another form of taxation and a regressive one at that. So you'all just swap one burden for another. There's also a risk of higher unemployment because businesses can't afford the higher expense.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sat Feb 01, 2014 7:20 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
b_A wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:taxpayers are subsidizing walmart to the tune of $5800 per employee: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-06-03/are-american-taxpayers-subsidizing-walmarts-low-wages

more detailed numbers here:
http://democrats.edworkforce.house.gov/sites/democrats.edworkforce.house.gov/files/documents/WalMartReport-May2013.pdf

The way to look at is , without walmart/MCD , taxpayers will be subsidizing them at $20k per person.

i can flip that around and say if they paid them livable wages, the burden will be shifted away from the taxpayer.

Every skill has a certain market price. Meddling with them only introduces all kinds of distortions. A higher wage for an unskilled worker will push up all wages, and drive up overall inflation, which is another form of taxation and a regressive one at that. So you'all just swap one burden for another. There's also a risk of higher unemployment because businesses can't afford the higher expense.

MD-- then it is best to have no floor at all because setting any kind of floor does what you say will happen to the wage spectrum.

by Merlot Daruwala Sat Feb 01, 2014 9:24 am

Yes, that is the other extreme school of thought. I think the current model is good. Set a floor wage that forces people to aspire for a higher station in life while ensuring they don't starve. one possible refinement: automatic recalibration of this floor every 3 years, indexed to inflation.

by confuzzled dude Sat Feb 01, 2014 9:43 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Every skill has a certain market price. Meddling with them only introduces all kinds of distortions. A higher wage for an unskilled worker will push up all wages, and drive up overall inflation, which is another form of taxation and a regressive one at that. So you'all just swap one burden for another. There's also a risk of higher unemployment because businesses can't afford the higher expense.

On the contrary, there is no guarantee that providing these corporations with more subsidies will help them pay their employees better; for them bottom line is wall street. Do we really need these chain stores at every traffic light, economy would do just as fine with good old corner stores.

by Merlot Daruwala Sat Feb 01, 2014 10:11 am

confuzzled dude wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Every skill has a certain market price. Meddling with them only introduces all kinds of distortions. A higher wage for an unskilled worker will push up all wages, and drive up overall inflation, which is another form of taxation and a regressive one at that. So you'all just swap one burden for another. There's also a risk of higher unemployment because businesses can't afford the higher expense.
On the contrary, there is no guarantee that providing these corporations with more subsidies will help them pay their employees better; for them bottom line is wall street. Do we really need these chain stores at every traffic light, economy would do just as fine with good old corner stores.

Stop patronizing them and they'll shut down. I hope you have a good plan in place for the 300 folks each large store employs. See, they don't have any skills...

by Hellsangel Sat Feb 01, 2014 10:15 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Every skill has a certain market price. Meddling with them only introduces all kinds of distortions. A higher wage for an unskilled worker will push up all wages, and drive up overall inflation, which is another form of taxation and a regressive one at that. So you'all just swap one burden for another. There's also a risk of higher unemployment because businesses can't afford the higher expense.
On the contrary, there is no guarantee that providing these corporations with more subsidies will help them pay their employees better; for them bottom line is wall street. Do we really need these chain stores at every traffic light, economy would do just as fine with good old corner stores.

Stop patronizing them and they'll shut down. I hope you have a good plan in place for the 300 folks each large store employs. See, they don't have any skills...

It is already happening, thanks to the internet shopping boom

http://www.businessinsider.com/shopping-malls-are-going-extinct-2014-1

by Merlot Daruwala Sat Feb 01, 2014 10:50 am

Walmart does depend on food stamps, but in a different sense.

It's ironical that McD and Walmart, so important to the poor for the affordable fare on offer, should be attacked by those purportedly championing their cause.

by Propagandhi711 Sat Feb 01, 2014 10:54 am

Liberal champions firmly believe in protesting current status, no matter what the status is..they don't care abt unintended consequences, just that the rich be punished. Especially true for global liberals

by confuzzled dude Sat Feb 01, 2014 10:58 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Every skill has a certain market price. Meddling with them only introduces all kinds of distortions. A higher wage for an unskilled worker will push up all wages, and drive up overall inflation, which is another form of taxation and a regressive one at that. So you'all just swap one burden for another. There's also a risk of higher unemployment because businesses can't afford the higher expense.
On the contrary, there is no guarantee that providing these corporations with more subsidies will help them pay their employees better; for them bottom line is wall street. Do we really need these chain stores at every traffic light, economy would do just as fine with good old corner stores.

Stop patronizing them and they'll shut down. I hope you have a good plan in place for the 300 folks each large store employs. See, they don't have any skills...

Are you suggesting that consumer will stop spending/eating out once big box & restaurant chains cease to exist? There will be 15 new stores employing 20 each; I agree products may end up costing 10% more which would still be fine. How much does an average American spend on eating out, 3000/year? So what's an additional $300, if it reduces over all burden on the tax payer in terms of corporate subsidies he is already on the hook for. Please don't take it as me suggesting complete elimination of corporations, all I'm suggesting is Govt., rather than blindly kowtowing to the corporations should devise a plan to automatically adjust tax breaks, subsidies based on their performance and practices. Key is to strike some balance.

by confuzzled dude Sat Feb 01, 2014 11:01 am

Propagandhi711 wrote:Liberal champions firmly believe in protesting current status, no matter what the status is..they don't care abt unintended consequences, just that the rich be punished. Especially true for global liberals

yeah! let's conveniently ignore the fact that majority of these global liberals fall under top 5, 10% of earners.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sat Feb 01, 2014 11:54 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:Yes, that is the other extreme school of thought. I think the current model is good. Set a floor wage that forces people to aspire for a higher station in life while ensuring they don't starve. one possible refinement: automatic recalibration of this floor every 3 years, indexed to inflation.

then i am not sure what we disagree on. not much i suspect. currently it's not pegged to inflation.

by Idéfix Sat Feb 01, 2014 12:44 pm

Merlot Daruwala wrote:Yes, that is the other extreme school of thought. I think the current model is good. Set a floor wage that forces people to aspire for a higher station in life while ensuring they don't starve. one possible refinement: automatic recalibration of this floor every 3 years, indexed to inflation.

Raising the minimum wage to keep up with inflation is what the fight is about.

Congressional Democrats are pushing a bill that would gradually raise the federal minimum to $10.10/hour from $7.25 and index it to the Consumer Price Index. But the measure faces little chance of passing the Republican-led House, where many members argue that a higher minimum wage would lead businesses to cut jobs.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/12/04/5-facts-about-the-minimum-wage/

by Hellsangel Sat Feb 01, 2014 12:45 pm

Why doesnt Obama propose changing the poverty level?

by Idéfix Sat Feb 01, 2014 12:48 pm

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
b_A wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:taxpayers are subsidizing walmart to the tune of $5800 per employee: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-06-03/are-american-taxpayers-subsidizing-walmarts-low-wages

more detailed numbers here:
http://democrats.edworkforce.house.gov/sites/democrats.edworkforce.house.gov/files/documents/WalMartReport-May2013.pdf

The way to look at is , without walmart/MCD , taxpayers will be subsidizing them at $20k per person.

i can flip that around and say if they paid them livable wages, the burden will be shifted away from the taxpayer.

Every skill has a certain market price. Meddling with them only introduces all kinds of distortions. A higher wage for an unskilled worker will push up all wages, and drive up overall inflation, which is another form of taxation and a regressive one at that. So you'all just swap one burden for another. There's also a risk of higher unemployment because businesses can't afford the higher expense.

Here: http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/14050

by Idéfix Sat Feb 01, 2014 12:50 pm

Hellsangel wrote:Why doesnt Obama propose changing the poverty level?

Changing the poverty level doesn't automatically give poor people relief. Increasing the minimum wage in step with inflation does.

by Hellsangel Sat Feb 01, 2014 12:57 pm

One of the primary functions of management consultants is to tell businesses where to cut costs to maximize profits. Increasing the minimum wage will be an increased cost for businesses, the most natural place for them to cut will be jobs. Already many supermarkets are doing it with self checkout lines, home delivery and the like. Businesses are in it for the profit. An increased minimum wage will be offset by cost reductions elsewhere.

PS: Retail banking too is cutting jobs through automation.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sat Feb 01, 2014 1:11 pm

Merlot Daruwala wrote:Yes, that is the other extreme school of thought. I think the current model is good. Set a floor wage that forces people to aspire for a higher station in life while ensuring they don't starve. one possible refinement: automatic recalibration of this floor every 3 years, indexed to inflation.

Tell us how rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, and the gap between them is widest ever?

by Merlot Daruwala Sat Feb 01, 2014 9:15 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:Yes, that is the other extreme school of thought. I think the current model is good. Set a floor wage that forces people to aspire for a higher station in life while ensuring they don't starve. one possible refinement: automatic recalibration of this floor every 3 years, indexed to inflation.

then i am not sure what we disagree on. not much i suspect. currently it's not pegged to inflation.

The discussion began with the use of food stamps by WMT and McD employees. If you want them to stop doing that, their wages have to rise 50-60%. And that would send other wages spiraling as well. An inflation indexation has no such impact, but on the flip side, WMT employees will continue to use food stamps - which is so irksome to many.

by Sponsored content