Jump to content

$10 minimum wage costing Mass. jobs


TheBlueVue

Recommended Posts

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/warning-massachusetts-losing-jobs-with-its-dollar10-minimum-wage/ar-BBrtiqT?ocid=spartandhp

There is so much carping about income inequality and what's a "fair" minimum wage very little, if any, consideration is given to those business owners who have to absorb those additional costs. Life would be so simple if the govt could simply mandate whatever they wanted to see happen and didn't have to be concerned with the realities of the marketplace. Govt agencies forcing employers to pay what they deem fair will never work and Massachusetts is beginning to see why. California and their $15 an hour mandate will causes more losses in hours and jobs than gains in income.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 314
  • Created
  • Last Reply

No worries. Those w/ out jobs can apply for govt giveaways and benefits ! And as Nancy Pelosi pointed out, the welfare dollar actually IMPROVES our economy !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question: Are you equally concerned with people losing their jobs because of lowered trade barriers?

I am worried about it as those trade deals also call for service sector, meaning that anyone can loose their jobs by outsourcing as a service. Much like the H1B is being abused (ala Disney and others) other industries may see the same thing happening to them if TPP and other trade agreements are approved. People don't see it coming but it will because the politicians who are getting their money from special interests and big business will allow those to pass. This will in turn drive down wages. It has happened in certain areas of the IT sector in certain regions...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question: Are you equally concerned with people losing their jobs because of lowered trade barriers?

My post wasn't about trade deals but it seems to me both parties have been complicit in exporting jobs. That does concern me but I am much more fascinated with how the left continues build envy, resentment and down right larceny in the hearts of those they prop up as the "victims of capitalism". The unvarnished truth is, capitalism, in its imperfection, provides more people with more and better opportunities for upward mobility and property ownership than any other system in the world. I also believe govt efforts to manipulate the value of labor because of income inequality is a stupid idea. The social impact of having a job is much more significant than the wages paid.

The concepts of value and clearing prices operate independently of govt interventionism. By mandating minimum wages the risk is greater for increases in loss of hours and jobs than in increasing wealth. Value simply cannot be dictated by a govt agency without doing more damage than good especially when the mandated value isn't based in reality of the clearing price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question: Are you equally concerned with people losing their jobs because of lowered trade barriers?

My post wasn't about trade deals but it seems to me both parties have been complicit in exporting jobs. That does concern me but I am much more fascinated with how the left continues build envy, resentment and down right larceny in the hearts of those they prop up as the "victims of capitalism". The unvarnished truth is, capitalism, in its imperfection, provides more people with more and better opportunities for upward mobility and property ownership than any other system in the world. I also believe govt efforts to manipulate the value of labor because of income inequality is a stupid idea. The social impact of having a job is much more significant than the wages paid.

The concepts of value and clearing prices operate independently of govt interventionism. By mandating minimum wages the risk is greater for increases in loss of hours and jobs than in increasing wealth. Value simply cannot be dictated by a govt agency without doing more damage than good.

The big complaint amongst the people is crony capitalism....both parties participate in this but the left denies doing it more....but they are just as guilty....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question: Are you equally concerned with people losing their jobs because of lowered trade barriers?

My post wasn't about trade deals but it seems to me both parties have been complicit in exporting jobs. That does concern me but I am much more fascinated with how the left continues build envy, resentment and down right larceny in the hearts of those they prop up as the "victims of capitalism". The unvarnished truth is, capitalism, in its imperfection, provides more people with more and better opportunities for upward mobility and property ownership than any other system in the world. I also believe govt efforts to manipulate the value of labor because of income inequality is a stupid idea. The social impact of having a job is much more significant than the wages paid.

The concepts of value and clearing prices operate independently of govt interventionism. By mandating minimum wages the risk is greater for increases in loss of hours and jobs than in increasing wealth. Value simply cannot be dictated by a govt agency without doing more damage than good especially when the mandated value isn't based in reality of the clearing price.

Sounds like a good argument for slavery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question: Are you equally concerned with people losing their jobs because of lowered trade barriers?

My post wasn't about trade deals but it seems to me both parties have been complicit in exporting jobs. That does concern me but I am much more fascinated with how the left continues build envy, resentment and down right larceny in the hearts of those they prop up as the "victims of capitalism". The unvarnished truth is, capitalism, in its imperfection, provides more people with more and better opportunities for upward mobility and property ownership than any other system in the world. I also believe govt efforts to manipulate the value of labor because of income inequality is a stupid idea. The social impact of having a job is much more significant than the wages paid.

The concepts of value and clearing prices operate independently of govt interventionism. By mandating minimum wages the risk is greater for increases in loss of hours and jobs than in increasing wealth. Value simply cannot be dictated by a govt agency without doing more damage than good especially when the mandated value isn't based in reality of the clearing price.

Sounds like a good argument for slavery.

and wellfare.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question: Are you equally concerned with people losing their jobs because of lowered trade barriers?

My post wasn't about trade deals but it seems to me both parties have been complicit in exporting jobs. That does concern me but I am much more fascinated with how the left continues build envy, resentment and down right larceny in the hearts of those they prop up as the "victims of capitalism". The unvarnished truth is, capitalism, in its imperfection, provides more people with more and better opportunities for upward mobility and property ownership than any other system in the world. I also believe govt efforts to manipulate the value of labor because of income inequality is a stupid idea. The social impact of having a job is much more significant than the wages paid.

The concepts of value and clearing prices operate independently of govt interventionism. By mandating minimum wages the risk is greater for increases in loss of hours and jobs than in increasing wealth. Value simply cannot be dictated by a govt agency without doing more damage than good especially when the mandated value isn't based in reality of the clearing price.

Sounds like a good argument for slavery.

and wellfare.

No way, nuh-uh.

Think about how greatly it worked with plantations? umm... Native labor? errr, ...Coal mining "towns"?

....never mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problems with the ten dollar minimum wage. 7.25 is not a living wage. The companies need to quit sitting on money and put it back into the market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problems with the ten dollar minimum wage. 7.25 is not a living wage. The companies need to quit sitting on money and put it back into the market.

It's not meant to be a " living wage". That's a fake argument anyway.

Companies are under zero obligation to do what you want them to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problems with the ten dollar minimum wage. 7.25 is not a living wage. The companies need to quit sitting on money and put it back into the market.

It's not meant to be a " living wage". That's a fake argument anyway.

Companies are under zero obligation to do what you want them to do.

The minimum wage is meant to be a living wage. “By living wages, I mean more than a bare subsistence level – I mean the wages of a decent living.” President Roosevelt's words in 1933, five years before the first minimum wage became law.

And I don't care that you think its a fake argument. The credence in 99% of your posts is absent and mostly all you post is garbage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My post wasn't about trade deals but it seems to me both parties have been complicit in exporting jobs. That does concern me but I am much more fascinated with how the left continues build envy, resentment and down right larceny in the hearts of those they prop up as the "victims of capitalism". The unvarnished truth is, capitalism, in its imperfection, provides more people with more and better opportunities for upward mobility and property ownership than any other system in the world. I also believe govt efforts to manipulate the value of labor because of income inequality is a stupid idea. The social impact of having a job is much more significant than the wages paid.

Indeed, capitalism does seem to be the way that provides the most people with opportunities for upward mobility and ownership. But what happens when those who've managed to own the critical pressure points in an economy manage to game the system to preserve their attained positions? What happens when a small group gains enough money, power and influence to give themselves a disproportionate amount of power in labor issues or erect artificial roadblocks to competition? Is the government the only player in this game that "manipulate(s) the value of labor", albeit for a different end?

As Chesterton once wrote, the "too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists." "Capitalism" is a rather vague term isn't it? There are many forms or degrees of capitalism which can include everything from widespread ownership amongst a population to a situation ruled by monopolies and/or oligarchies. Certainly none of us want the latter forms. But there's nothing inherent in either that excludes them from being capitalist. They are simply extreme forms. It's through laws and regulations that we try to lessen or eliminate such things from taking over. So our choices are not to let things basically run wild and the omnipotent, invisible hand of the free market be allowed to do what it wills or to regulate every outcome. There are degrees of involvement by the people through government that can make capitalism work for everyone and maximize participation in a capitalist system. While nothing is "perfection," that shouldn't mean that we just blithely accept major problems and treat the invisible hand of the market as some sort of deity that cannot be questioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My post wasn't about trade deals but it seems to me both parties have been complicit in exporting jobs. That does concern me but I am much more fascinated with how the left continues build envy, resentment and down right larceny in the hearts of those they prop up as the "victims of capitalism". The unvarnished truth is, capitalism, in its imperfection, provides more people with more and better opportunities for upward mobility and property ownership than any other system in the world. I also believe govt efforts to manipulate the value of labor because of income inequality is a stupid idea. The social impact of having a job is much more significant than the wages paid.

Indeed, capitalism does seem to be the way that provides the most people with opportunities for upward mobility and ownership. But what happens when those who've managed to own the critical pressure points in an economy manage to game the system to preserve their attained positions? What happens when a small group gains enough money, power and influence to give themselves a disproportionate amount of power in labor issues or erect artificial roadblocks to competition? Is the government the only player in this game that "manipulate(s) the value of labor", albeit for a different end?

As Chesterton once wrote, the "too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists." "Capitalism" is a rather vague term isn't it? There are many forms or degrees of capitalism which can include everything from widespread ownership amongst a population to a situation ruled by monopolies and/or oligarchies. Certainly none of us want the latter forms. But there's nothing inherent in either that excludes them from being capitalist. They are simply extreme forms. It's through laws and regulations that we try to lessen or eliminate such things from taking over. So our choices are not to let things basically run wild and the omnipotent, invisible hand of the free market be allowed to do what it wills or to regulate every outcome. There are degrees of involvement by the people through government that can make capitalism work for everyone and maximize participation in a capitalist system. While nothing is "perfection," that shouldn't mean that we just blithely accept major problems and treat the invisible hand of the market as some sort of deity that cannot be questioned.

Well said Titan.

There is no such thing as pure capitalism, there are only capitalistic systems that are ultimately controlled by politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff - 100% of what you post is garbage, and it's NOT suppose to be s living wage. Living wage has no damn meaning. What passes as good in Kentucky or Montana doesn't work in Cali or NY.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff - 100% of what you post is garbage, and it's NOT suppose to be s living wage. Living wage has no damn meaning. What passes as gone in Kentucky or Montana doesn't work in Cali or NY.

Says the person that has trouble writing coherent sentences.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Says the person that has trouble writing coherent sentences.

It's coherent. Don't act like you've never had a typo .

Loser.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have no argument, Jeff. So instead you have to go petty and juvenile and mock somebody's AutoCorrect on their phone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Says the person that has trouble writing coherent sentences.

It's coherent. Don't act like you've never had a typo .

Loser.

Hahaha. I am always on my phone and I never have the autocorrect problems that you CONSTANTLY have.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff - 100% of what you post is garbage, and it's NOT suppose to be s living wage. Living wage has no damn meaning. What passes as good in Kentucky or Montana doesn't work in Cali or NY.

"What passes as good in Kentucky or Montana doesn't work in Cali or NY."

Even your edited version is crap. Could you be any more vague?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff - 100% of what you post is garbage, and it's NOT suppose to be s living wage. Living wage has no damn meaning. What passes as good in Kentucky or Montana doesn't work in Cali or NY.

"What passes as good in Kentucky or Montana doesn't work in Cali or NY."

Even your edited version is crap. Could you be any more vague?

My interpretation is that living wages are different in different cities, states, regions, etc. So while $15 an hour might be "living wage" in, say, Chicago, that may be way more than living wage in Bowling Green, Kentucky. Or a $11/hr living wage in Clanton, AL may not come close to being a living wage in NYC (all these figures are very general, so don't quibble).

My question to that would then be, how hard would it be to come up with some sort of cost of living index that sets a "standard living wage" then indexes it higher or lower depending on where someone lives?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the damn purpose of the minimum wage if it wasn't meant to be a living wage? The minimum wage is fine and dandy when you're in high school but when you're by yourself in the real world and working 40 hours a week( for many jobs, only 36 hours a week) you're bringing in roughly less than a thousand bucks a month.

Now let's put 200 dollars a month on food ( no eating out)

Cheap Rent ( 200 -300)

Cheap car payment ( 100-200)

Power, cable, utilities ( 100-300) bucks

Health/ auto insurance (around 100)

Cheap cell phone (atleast 50)

Get sick and cannot pay the copay, tough luck!! If the lower class is forced to live on minimum wage, then the gap needs to be bridged to a living wage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While working in SC, I argued for the state to have a self-sufficiency study done. There are two Universities that do it (Rutgers and University of Washington). I argued after studying both models that the University of Washington study was much more comprehensive. The study defines self-sufficiency as the minimum living wage which different family types would have to earn in order to cover all their costs (not just the ones defined by the poverty index, which doesn't factor in child care for example) without any government assistance. There is a statewide average, but they do collect the data at a county level and break it down that way. Alabama had a self sufficiency standard set back in 2003. It looks like some of the data was updated in 2007, but it is still at a minimum 10 years old. I think this data is much more accurate and really does paint a picture of how much it really costs to live. Link to data

As for why I pushed for this in SC, I believed strongly that if you truly believed that the fight for a living wage needed to happen outside of a mandatory increase in the minimum wage (which I do support), I wanted citizens and state agencies as well as the state's Chambers of Commerce to be well armed with data which told them how much it cost to live in the state. Then when recruiting companies to come here, this data could be used to show them roughly how much money they should be paying their lowest level employees, assuming they did not want folks living on welfare and having to work. I think we all agree, if you work full time, you should be making enough money to sustain yourself. I was lucky in that the Governor did agree to use this data when pushing for companies to come to SC and using it within other statistical measures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff - 100% of what you post is garbage, and it's NOT suppose to be s living wage. Living wage has no damn meaning. What passes as good in Kentucky or Montana doesn't work in Cali or NY.

"What passes as good in Kentucky or Montana doesn't work in Cali or NY."

Even your edited version is crap. Could you be any more vague?

My interpretation is that living wages are different in different cities, states, regions, etc. So while $15 an hour might be "living wage" in, say, Chicago, that may be way more than living wage in Bowling Green, Kentucky. Or a $11/hr living wage in Clanton, AL may not come close to being a living wage in NYC (all these figures are very general, so don't quibble).

My question to that would then be, how hard would it be to come up with some sort of cost of living index that sets a "standard living wage" then indexes it higher or lower depending on where someone lives?

I don't know if a standard federal wage is needed or even desired. It probably should fall on the states because they know their living conditions. The federal government could provide kickback money or something to the states that offers a living wage. Just brainstorming here.

I understood what Raptor meant though. I wasnt going to let him talk in vague and broad language so when I call out his argument, he couldnt deny ever saying what I called him out on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A federal minimum wage I think is still required as a floor, in the case of state's who choose not to have a minimum wage. For those who truly don't like unions, I would think support of a decent minimum wage makes sense as one way from keeping unions from even being needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Members Online

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...