Open for business?

[Tigermike 3,426]

“Basically, everything this administration has done has been anti-business,” Andy Puzder

Watch on YouTube

But then business people would never take these sort of things into consideration would they.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

Why don't we raise the minimum wage above the poverty line. Then, cut the corporate tax rate to compensate. We would effectively take government out of the welfare business for everyone other than the disabled and unemployed.

Why tax corporations, take part of that money, and have the government give it to their employees. Why not just do the same thing without the transfer occurring via the government? Eliminate some of the bureaucracy.

Corporate profits are not affected, government overhead is reduced, employees feel better about themselves. Everyone wins.

[Strychnine 1,804]

Why don't we raise the minimum wage above the poverty line. Then, cut the corporate tax rate to compensate. We would effectively take government out of the welfare business for everyone other than the disabled and unemployed.

Why tax corporations, take part of that money, and have the government give it to their employees. Why not just do the same thing without the transfer occurring via the government? Eliminate some of the bureaucracy.

Corporate profits are not affected, government overhead is reduced, employees feel better about themselves. Everyone wins.

Eliminate government jobs? In this economy? You must be daft...

My kidding aside, I'm not sure that the poverty line is actually even a relevant metric anymore. 2014's poverty line for a family of four is $23,850. There are not many 2-3 bedroom residences left in this country that can be obtained for less than $500/month. At $500/month, a full quarter of $24k/year income is tied up solely in housing. A single mother that makes $40k/year with limited input from the father is likely to be struggling without government assistance, basically everywhere in the United States. Costs of everything have skyrocketed in my adult life, but wages certainly have not increased along with those costs. Minimum wage was just as unlivable at $5.15/hour as it is at $7.25/hour.

[cptau 169]

Why don't we raise the minimum wage above the poverty line. Then, cut the corporate tax rate to compensate. We would effectively take government out of the welfare business for everyone other than the disabled and unemployed.

Why tax corporations, take part of that money, and have the government give it to their employees. Why not just do the same thing without the transfer occurring via the government? Eliminate some of the bureaucracy.

Corporate profits are not affected, government overhead is reduced, employees feel better about themselves. Everyone wins.

too simple and efficient. the government likes picking the winners and losers and making money awards. the politicians love that power to legally buy votes.

The federal and state governments have hired thousands of civil servants since the 1930s to administer welfare programs. Many of those government employees would have to find new jobs.

there is also the assumption that the number of people taking government welfare money, housing, food allotments, and healthcare would take the higher paying minimum wage jobs and work 40 hour a week. Many would. Others have been conditioned for several generations not to work.

[autigeremt 6,970]

Good points made by all of you. I could support an increase to $9.15 along with a cut in corporate tax rates. I don't think it will have the effect that some think it would and I do see it costing a few jobs here and there. It's a gamble but who in here sees this group of anti-common sense free loaders (congressmen and the prez) actually doing something that makes sense?

[icanthearyou 4,468]

Good points made by all of you. I could support an increase to $9.15 along with a cut in corporate tax rates. I don't think it will have the effect that some think it would and I do see it costing a few jobs here and there. It's a gamble but who in here sees this group of anti-common sense free loaders (congressmen and the prez) actually doing something that makes sense?

To be effective, I think we would have to do better than 9.15/hour. The whole idea is to make the payment direct from employer to employee without the government being involved. If minimum wage is high enough, employed persons will not have to be subsidized. Of course the cut in corporate taxes could still be considered a subsidy but, the process is basically privatized and streamlined.. There might possibly be other beneficial aspects such as increased productivity and, a real contrast in working wage vs. non-working welfare. As CPTAU said, there is part of our culture conditioned not to work. Perhaps we can change that.

Is it possible to blend the social concerns of what we traditionally think of as liberal ideology and, the fiscal concerns of what we consider to be traditionally conservative ideology to find practical, effective solutions? The political argument is black and white but, in reality, do we really expect the solutions to problems to fit neatly into our ideological box.

I fear that CPTAU was right. Effective government is NOT the goal. Consolidating power within the parties is the goal. That power has become very valuable.

[Strychnine 1,804]

When discussing minimum wage, you must first establish what the point of minimum wage is. Is to ensure that all working Americans be guaranteed a livable wage as a minimum standard? If that is not its purpose, why bother having one at all? Isn't our overall goal also to have everyone working and getting what they need from that, instead of on some form of government assistance?

With an individual poverty threshold set at $11,670 for an individual, the $19k/year that a minimum wage of $9.15 would provide should lift them right out of poverty, right? Where in this country can an individual live on $12k/year, which is just above the threshold? What about single parents? I ask that because the poverty threshold is not accurate, or at the very least is inconsistent with what it costs to live in this country without government assistance of any kind. As of 2014, the lowest median rent in the US is $684 (midwest). That is $8200/year in rent alone, and you can easily double that once you add up the other costs to live and get to work.

[Tigermike 3,426]

When discussing minimum wage, you must first establish what the point of minimum wage is. Is to ensure that all working Americans be guaranteed a livable wage as a minimum standard? If that is not its purpose, why bother having one at all? Isn't our overall goal also to have everyone working and getting what they need from that, instead of on some form of government assistance?

With an individual poverty threshold set at $11,670 for an individual, the $19k/year that a minimum wage of $9.15 would provide should lift them right out of poverty, right? Where in this country can an individual live on $12k/year, which is just above the threshold? What about single parents? I ask that because the poverty threshold is not accurate, or at the very least is inconsistent with what it costs to live in this country without government assistance of any kind. As of 2014, the lowest median rent in the US is $684 (midwest). That is $8200/year in rent alone, and you can easily double that once you add up the other costs to live and get to work.

If the economy were growing and at or close to full employment there would be no need to increase the minimum wage since there would be competition for employees. Companies would be producing more and needing more employees which would push up wages across the board. Wouldn't it?

Something that also needs to be considered is the annual deficits and huge national debt. Both are a drain on the economy.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

When discussing minimum wage, you must first establish what the point of minimum wage is. Is to ensure that all working Americans be guaranteed a livable wage as a minimum standard? If that is not its purpose, why bother having one at all? Isn't our overall goal also to have everyone working and getting what they need from that, instead of on some form of government assistance?

With an individual poverty threshold set at $11,670 for an individual, the $19k/year that a minimum wage of $9.15 would provide should lift them right out of poverty, right? Where in this country can an individual live on $12k/year, which is just above the threshold? What about single parents? I ask that because the poverty threshold is not accurate, or at the very least is inconsistent with what it costs to live in this country without government assistance of any kind. As of 2014, the lowest median rent in the US is $684 (midwest). That is $8200/year in rent alone, and you can easily double that once you add up the other costs to live and get to work.

I think the answer lies here.

[Strychnine 1,804]

When discussing minimum wage, you must first establish what the point of minimum wage is. Is to ensure that all working Americans be guaranteed a livable wage as a minimum standard? If that is not its purpose, why bother having one at all? Isn't our overall goal also to have everyone working and getting what they need from that, instead of on some form of government assistance?

With an individual poverty threshold set at $11,670 for an individual, the $19k/year that a minimum wage of $9.15 would provide should lift them right out of poverty, right? Where in this country can an individual live on $12k/year, which is just above the threshold? What about single parents? I ask that because the poverty threshold is not accurate, or at the very least is inconsistent with what it costs to live in this country without government assistance of any kind. As of 2014, the lowest median rent in the US is $684 (midwest). That is $8200/year in rent alone, and you can easily double that once you add up the other costs to live and get to work.

If the economy were growing and at or close to full employment there would be no need to increase the minimum wage since there would be competition for employees. Companies would be producing more and needing more employees which would push up wages across the board. Wouldn't it?

Something that also needs to be considered is the annual deficits and huge national debt. Both are a drain on the economy.

Do you realistically believe that we're going to see close to or full employment anytime soon? Personally, I don't think the unemployment trend is in any danger of reversing soon. I also do not think the minimum wage is actually a very relevant issue right now. I said what I said to illustrate that if you're going to alter the minimum wage, you might as well do so in a properly meaningful way.

[Tigermike 3,426]

When discussing minimum wage, you must first establish what the point of minimum wage is. Is to ensure that all working Americans be guaranteed a livable wage as a minimum standard? If that is not its purpose, why bother having one at all? Isn't our overall goal also to have everyone working and getting what they need from that, instead of on some form of government assistance?

With an individual poverty threshold set at $11,670 for an individual, the $19k/year that a minimum wage of $9.15 would provide should lift them right out of poverty, right? Where in this country can an individual live on $12k/year, which is just above the threshold? What about single parents? I ask that because the poverty threshold is not accurate, or at the very least is inconsistent with what it costs to live in this country without government assistance of any kind. As of 2014, the lowest median rent in the US is $684 (midwest). That is $8200/year in rent alone, and you can easily double that once you add up the other costs to live and get to work.

If the economy were growing and at or close to full employment there would be no need to increase the minimum wage since there would be competition for employees. Companies would be producing more and needing more employees which would push up wages across the board. Wouldn't it?

Something that also needs to be considered is the annual deficits and huge national debt. Both are a drain on the economy.

Do you realistically believe that we're going to see close to or full employment anytime soon? (No I don't.) Personally, I don't think the unemployment trend is in any danger of reversing soon. (There's sure no indication of it changing and this administration certaintly hasn't shown they have any clue of how to change it.) I also do not think the minimum wage is actually a very relevant issue right now. I said what I said to illustrate that if you're going to alter the minimum wage, you might as well do so in a properly meaningful way. (That's fine. But if the economy were expanding wages would be pushed up wouldn't they? Which was my point.)

And I don't think the minimum wage is a relevant issue right now either. The rhetoric is there only because the democrats need something to get voters in their camp in an election off year.

[Strychnine 1,804]

When discussing minimum wage, you must first establish what the point of minimum wage is. Is to ensure that all working Americans be guaranteed a livable wage as a minimum standard? If that is not its purpose, why bother having one at all? Isn't our overall goal also to have everyone working and getting what they need from that, instead of on some form of government assistance?

With an individual poverty threshold set at $11,670 for an individual, the $19k/year that a minimum wage of $9.15 would provide should lift them right out of poverty, right? Where in this country can an individual live on $12k/year, which is just above the threshold? What about single parents? I ask that because the poverty threshold is not accurate, or at the very least is inconsistent with what it costs to live in this country without government assistance of any kind. As of 2014, the lowest median rent in the US is $684 (midwest). That is $8200/year in rent alone, and you can easily double that once you add up the other costs to live and get to work.

If the economy were growing and at or close to full employment there would be no need to increase the minimum wage since there would be competition for employees. Companies would be producing more and needing more employees which would push up wages across the board. Wouldn't it?

Something that also needs to be considered is the annual deficits and huge national debt. Both are a drain on the economy.

Do you realistically believe that we're going to see close to or full employment anytime soon? (No I don't.) Personally, I don't think the unemployment trend is in any danger of reversing soon. (There's sure no indication of it changing and this administration certaintly hasn't shown they have any clue of how to change it.) I also do not think the minimum wage is actually a very relevant issue right now. I said what I said to illustrate that if you're going to alter the minimum wage, you might as well do so in a properly meaningful way. (That's fine. But if the economy were expanding wages would be pushed up wouldn't they? Which was my point.)

And I don't think the minimum wage is a relevant issue right now either. The rhetoric is there only because the democrats need something to get voters in their camp in an election off year.

As for the rhetoric, of course, but I'd expect no less from partisan rhetoric. As for the economy and correcting it, it's current status is the result of a truly bipartisan failure that has transpired through numerous administrations. When Democrats and Republicans are rather equally culpable, I don't really expect more of them to be the answer. As I said in another thread, it's no more Obama's fault than it was Bush's, and Romney, McCain, Kerry, or Gore would not have fixed it either.

[Tigermike 3,426]

When discussing minimum wage, you must first establish what the point of minimum wage is. Is to ensure that all working Americans be guaranteed a livable wage as a minimum standard? If that is not its purpose, why bother having one at all? Isn't our overall goal also to have everyone working and getting what they need from that, instead of on some form of government assistance?

With an individual poverty threshold set at $11,670 for an individual, the $19k/year that a minimum wage of $9.15 would provide should lift them right out of poverty, right? Where in this country can an individual live on $12k/year, which is just above the threshold? What about single parents? I ask that because the poverty threshold is not accurate, or at the very least is inconsistent with what it costs to live in this country without government assistance of any kind. As of 2014, the lowest median rent in the US is $684 (midwest). That is $8200/year in rent alone, and you can easily double that once you add up the other costs to live and get to work.

If the economy were growing and at or close to full employment there would be no need to increase the minimum wage since there would be competition for employees. Companies would be producing more and needing more employees which would push up wages across the board. Wouldn't it?

Something that also needs to be considered is the annual deficits and huge national debt. Both are a drain on the economy.

Do you realistically believe that we're going to see close to or full employment anytime soon? (No I don't.) Personally, I don't think the unemployment trend is in any danger of reversing soon. (There's sure no indication of it changing and this administration certaintly hasn't shown they have any clue of how to change it.) I also do not think the minimum wage is actually a very relevant issue right now. I said what I said to illustrate that if you're going to alter the minimum wage, you might as well do so in a properly meaningful way. (That's fine. But if the economy were expanding wages would be pushed up wouldn't they? Which was my point.)

And I don't think the minimum wage is a relevant issue right now either. The rhetoric is there only because the democrats need something to get voters in their camp in an election off year.

As for the rhetoric, of course, but I'd expect no less from partisan rhetoric. As for the economy and correcting it, it's current status is the result of a truly bipartisan failure that has transpired through numerous administrations. When Democrats and Republicans are rather equally culpable, I don't really expect more of them to be the answer. As I said in another thread, it's no more Obama's fault than it was Bush's, and Romney, McCain, Kerry, or Gore would not have fixed it either.

Maybe so. But who is in charge and has been for six years? Call it rhetoric if you like but what have they done?

[Tigermike 3,426]

Since we are talking about jobs.

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration on Friday announced a strategy to start slashing emissions of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas released by landfills, cattle, and leaks from oil and natural gas production.

link

Three-Stocks-That-Will-Profit-From-Obama’s-War-on-CoalJust days before the EPA is set to release it’s plan to drastically reduce carbon dioxide emissions from electricity producing engines across America, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce says that the anticipated ambitious pollution-control plan could force more than a third of coal-fired power plants to close, resulting in economic losses of $50 billion a year and the elimination of 224,000 more jobs.

link

Unemployment and Economic Losses Ahead as Obama Ramps Up War on Coal

Monday, White House advisor John Podesta told lawmakers that there was “zero” chance of slowing down President Obama’s war on the coal industry in spite of the job losses and economic consequences the administration’s proposed new, stringent regulations will engender.

Dang it's not just rhetoric on my part. In their own words they don't give a crap about jobs as long as they push their religion on the nation.

link

In March, Sheehan's group, which represents coal mining companies as well as owners of coal-fired plants like American Electric Power AEP.N and Southern Co SO.N, released a report warning that the EPA plan may kill more than 2.85 million jobs.

link

Cuts in carbon emissions slow economic activity by raising the cost of electricity. That is why cap-and-trade bills proposed in the 111th Democratic Congress by Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Joe Lieberman (D-CT) and Representatives Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Edward Markey (D-MA) were defeated. These bills would have raised taxes by about $650 billion over eight years, which would in 2010 have been the largest tax increase in history. Council of Economic Advisers chair Jason Furman (then National Economic Council deputy director) told Senate Finance Committee staffers that the figure could reach $1.3 trillion to $1.9 trillion over the same period.

With cap-and-trade's failure to pass Congress, the Environmental Protection Agency is now set to institute the scheme by regulation. No need for congressional legislation, Mr. Obama is taking matters into his own hands.

,,,

,,,

,,,

Everyone wants cleaner air, but most people also want the security of employment that comes from industrial activity. Most would agree on the need to strike the right balance between the economy and the environment. The question is what is that balance. The air is getting cleaner every year, as old equipment is replaced by new. Greenhouse-gas emissions from power plants have declined by 16 percent from 2005 to 2012, according to EPA.

Under preliminary reports of the proposed regulations, every state would have to meet its target by ensuring plants reduce emissions or by financing reductions in other ways, such as reducing consumer demand or investing in more costly renewable energy such as wind and solar power. These impose real costs on the economy, such as fewer factories, trips, and jobs. Electricity made from solar power costs twice as much as electricity made from natural gas.

,,,,

,,,,

In May 2010, when the country was debating the cap and trade plans proposed by Messers Kerry, Lieberman, Markey, and Waxman, the Congressional Budget Office issued a report entitled How Policies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions Could Affect Employment. It concluded that "job losses in the industries that shrink would lower employment more than job gains in other industries would increase employment, thereby raising the overall unemployment rate."

link

[channonc 466]

When discussing minimum wage, you must first establish what the point of minimum wage is. Is to ensure that all working Americans be guaranteed a livable wage as a minimum standard? If that is not its purpose, why bother having one at all? Isn't our overall goal also to have everyone working and getting what they need from that, instead of on some form of government assistance?

With an individual poverty threshold set at $11,670 for an individual, the $19k/year that a minimum wage of $9.15 would provide should lift them right out of poverty, right? Where in this country can an individual live on $12k/year, which is just above the threshold? What about single parents? I ask that because the poverty threshold is not accurate, or at the very least is inconsistent with what it costs to live in this country without government assistance of any kind. As of 2014, the lowest median rent in the US is $684 (midwest). That is $8200/year in rent alone, and you can easily double that once you add up the other costs to live and get to work.

Poverty statistics don't incorporate a lot of costs that should be included in cost of living calculations (healthcare costs, childcare, etc.). We should use an aggregate of the self sufficiency standard. Most states have one (of course, mine is one of the few that doesn't). But this is much more comprehensive and broken into different family types and is done by county. Unfortunately, Alabama's is a bit dated at 2003, but adjusting for inflation on those numbers should at least be in the ballpark.

http://www.selfsuffi...d.org/pubs.html

Edited to add:

What is the Self-Sufficiency Standard?

The Self-Sufficiency Standard defines the amount of income necessary to meet basic needs (including taxes) without public subsidies (e.g., public housing, food stamps, Medicaid or child care) and without private/informal assistance (e.g., free babysitting by a relative or friend, food provided by churches or local food banks, or shared housing). The family types for which a Standard is calculated range from one adult with no children, to one adult with one infant, one adult with one preschooler, and so forth, up to two-adult families with three teenagers.

[Grumps 3,706]

Strychnine asked the important question: What is the purpose of the minimum wage? Additionally, should the minimum wage for a 16 year-old working after school and on weekends should be the same as for a single mother working the same job? I think it should, but whether or not it should be the same depends upon your view of the reason for the minimum wage.

[autigeremt 6,970]

Interesting exchanges for sure. Like I've said before this is political gamesmanship. My daughter makes $7.50 per hr. part time while going to school. A job like hers isn't meant to be permanent. If it were young people would have an even harder time finding a job. People who are stuck in low wage positions have to look in the mirror at sone point and accept some of the responsibility here. Today's job market is tough, but jobs can be found if you acquire the right skill set and it doesn't need a 4 year degree. I do believe pay scales could be a bit higher given the increased cost of living, but it's not up to the government to set the bar. The free market should dictate this.

If government did it's founded job and keep it's nasty, infectious, corruptive hands out of things the country would be in a better place.