The Democrats do something...intelligent?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Well, its kind of why it should be done in the middle of a BOOM period, rather than what we've got now. Too many small businesses are not going to be able to cope with the crap-along economy we have at present. During a boom period, the increase won't hurt as much... well, until the next bust, but they'll perhaps be more prepared for it.

Though if we coupled it with tax cuts to small business, it could work well. I have no problems with raising the min wage if you drop the tax burden on small business (and make sure it is for small business and not some mega-millionares).

The problem with trying to raise the minimum wage during a boom period is that there tends to already be upward pressure on wages and a mindset that says "if it aint broke, don't fix it" (the economy that is). Thus there is a lot of political resistance from whomever is in power as well as the usual people who resist minimum wage increases on principle. This isn't complete bull**** either, as there is a ratcheting effect on wages as the bottom gets a raise one is demanded from those one rung above the bottom etc.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by GePap

The minimum wage today, while higher in absolute numbers, is lower than it was in the 60's when you compared it to average wages and average incomes, and it has failed to keep pace with inflation and the cost of living.

Of course the 1960s were the apex of the post WW2 economic boom in terms of wages and demand for workers. It's no surprise at all that it would fall since then.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Odin
in 1968 the minimum wage was over $8 in today's dollars. The Neo-Liberal morons rant on how government intervention is bad for the economy yet government intervention in the economy is responsible for the boom of the 50's and 60's.

Absolutely false. The reason for the economy of the 1950s and 1960s is that we were the only major industrial power which wasn't destroyed or seriously damaged by WW2. As there was enormous worldwide demand for almost everything due to the 15 or so years of depression and war, we made a lot of money trying to satisfy more than a decade of demand on a scale much more massive than our domestic economy. We did well despite ruinous levels of taxation (which Kennedy and Co. reduced significantly and left it still high as hell).

[Sikander]

Originally posted by GePap

No, the minimum wage exists to make sure we don;t have too many poor, who might get revolutionary ideas and sweep aside and burn the houses of people who are rich in order to redistribute the wealth in a far more direct way, because were are trapped by the notion that the only redeaming way towards life is work.

And like any price control (that actually does anything), it creates a shortage. In this case a shortage of cheap labor and marginal jobs. Of course as long as it stays low it really isn't having much of an effect. I agree with Kuciwalker, there are better ways to redistribute wealth than to mess up the market here.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by GePap


HOw inefficient. Death camps are more economical, and we can use the slave labor to make the process even MORE efficient.

I don't know. Having them shot right away reduces emissions of greenhouse gases and consumption of non-renewable resources right away

No, but on a serious note, $5.15 is not a wage that people can make a living on in most places. While I would much rather see a national healthcare system, I really don't see that as happening any time soon in the US. Minimum wage increases are much easier to implement. At the very least they should adjust the current wage for inflation since the last increase.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
HOw inefficient. Death camps are more economical, and we can use the slave labor to make the process even MORE efficient.

If we want to kill lots of people... yep.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I don't deny that some businesses may flounder if minimium wage is increased.

In terms of capitalism, however, that any business that needs to cut cost to the bone dispite relatively good economic conditions will not survive long.

What about times when we don't have such good economic conditions?

[Sava]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Dis, you are missing the important fact that small businesses, seeing their wages rise will fire a few of their workers, which will offset any increase in sales due to the rest of their workers having more cash.

Depending on what industry we are talking about, I don't think it will make that much difference. In food service, for instance, a good business will keep labor costs below 20-25%. Every company has its own "sweet spot" where it likes to have labor costs. Some are so obsessive that they will even get on management about individual days versus how much business is coming in.

A small business, or independently owned chain, would not be run much different... in fact, it would be easier to manage. We are just talking about fewer stores. And most independently owned chains are run by people who care more about their businesses than the managers at corporate chains. I think this would have more of a negative effect on corporate-style businesses rather than "small" businesses because "small" businesses can more easily manage their costs.

But you don't strike me as someone who has any experience in management, so it's not likely you would know what you are talking about.

I've actually had to deal with asshat corporate people breathing down my neck about labor costs exceeding a certain percentage. Oh dear god, if only someone ordered one more pizza that night, I could have justified keeping that extra kitchen worker on the clock for 30 more minutes to help me clean up the store so I didn't have to mop the ****ing floor myself.

If anything, you'll see businesses adapt to the change by trying to increase sales in other ways. If you cut labor, you lose efficiency. If you lose efficiency, you can't provide your customers with the same amount of service. And most businesses don't pay all their employees the minimum wage, so this increase is not going to affect everyone as much as you think.

But again, someone with experience in this would understand that.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Well I guess we need a crazy leftist since Ted left us. Nice to know that Oerdin is auditioning for the job .

Imran supporting the bribbery of public officials.

[Arrian]

Blocking an increase in Congressional pay Good, they're overpaid pigs.

Minimum Wage I'm torn on that one.

-Arrian

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DanS

It's the same in the US congress.

Please. They're on recess or vacation just about every other week. Sure, while on vacation they spend most of their time saliciting money from donors/bribers but they're not passing laws or fixing problems which is what they are supposedly paid to do.

[DinoDoc]

Oerdin being stupid

[Dinner]

DinoDoc being himself.

[DanS]

I think Spiff was speaking from personal experience in France and Germany. As was I, in the US.

For all of their faults, congresscritters cannot be criticized for lack of work ethic.

[DinoDoc]

What other conclusion is one supposed to draw from the rampant use of hyperbole in your posts to attack those you don't like?