Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Welfare for Walmart" video.

  1. No they won't. They can put in more self checkouts, fire more people or close down some of their walmarts. 
    4
  2. Ok, pay the employees more and hire less.  There is a tradeoff.
    4
  3. Evan Black The number 1 reason why Walmart exists is because of it's consumers. I never hear anything about the consumers when I hear about complaints of Walmart. Walmart offers cheap goods at convenient places and time. Walmart simply can't afford higher wages. If they could they would to squash competition. Walmart loses my business because I hate the fact that they lack workers to open up all the checkout lines or keep shelves looking nice. But to say that Walmart can pay more is not true.
    3
  4. Yep, we need to solve the problem of raising food prices and inflation.
    3
  5. You have to start somewhere. If you have limited skills to sell in the job market then you have to take the low paying job.
    3
  6. Ryan Bertram The between 3rd world and 1st world is how far they have advanced in technology and innovation.  You don't get that in redistribution of the wealth.  Venezuela practice real redistribution of the wealth and they have high inflation, starvation and saw crime go up 400%.  You have to create wealth and you do that by investment.   
    2
  7. ***** You are arguing against a wall in this case.  I get in debates with these people all the time.  They are the type that feel $15/hr is a "living wage" when I can make a living off of less than that.  So how I can make a living off of less than that?  Surely I must be living in some rat hole and starving?  The reality is that I manage my money well and I have my own place, my own car, healthcare and I eat well.  These people lack personal responsibilities and personal finance skills which is why they ask the government to take care of their finances.  A couple questions I have never been answer is why is there no complaints about businesses who pay more but doesn't hire more?  A guy reference GM here?  They pay well but where are they now? And why don't they hire more?  And if we force everyone to pay a "living wage" and people proceed to spend their money on strippers and booze would that finally be the time the preach personal responsibilities? They can't answer those questions because they have shallow, emotional arguments.  It is literally like talking to a wall.
    2
  8. ***** You can't compare Costco to Walmart, they are different businesses. Costco is open only during peak hours and sells stuff in bulk thus the push more units per hour.   Walmart is open 24 hours and sell multiple items most of them in single value.  They offer an affordable product to people.  They don't move as many units per hour.  As I type this it is 3 in the morning.  If I were to go to Walmart right now it would be basically empty, they are probably losing money at that time.  Saying that Walmart should pay more because Costco pays more is similar to saying Costco should pay more because Google pays more.  Plus, why are there no complaints about Costco not hiring more? 
    2
  9. John Edwards No, Walmart runs a different business. As I said Costco can be consider inferior because they don't pay as well as Google.  Walmart runs a business model of providing a plethora of goods at an affordable price 24 hours a day.  Costco sells bulk items only during peak times.  I don't shop at Costco because they don't provide what I need.  I shop at Walmart because they provide what I need. In Canada you have a higher min. wage and one result of a higher min. wage is that businesses do close their doors down earlier and that means less jobs.   
    2
  10. John Edwards It is a way to cater to the customer.  At 3 in the morning I am driving home and need something, Walmart is the only place that is open.  I realize that I decide to shop there again but this time at 3 in the afternoon.  The world doesn't stop at 3 in the morning.  There are people who work graveyard or work early in the morning and so on.  They need a place to shop and buy stuff.  Why do you want to make life harder for those who work odd hours?  And why do you want to kill jobs? 
    2
  11. Evan Black Walmart can't pay more because they simply can't afford to. They run a business model that employs a lot of low skilled workers and offers consumers goods at convenient locations and time. It isn't Walmart's fault that their employers refuse to better themselves. Walmart can always be like Target or Walgreens, limit their selection, limit their locations and hours and pay around a dollar more an hour.
    2
  12. Evan Black Walmart can't afford to pay more. They can always decide to close down some of their stores or fire some of those workers. It isn't Walmart's fault that their workers refuse to better themselves. Walmart already pays above the min. wage The simple fact is that Walmart can't afford to pay more. Plus, why the attack on Walmart? Why no attack on Costco for not hiring more? What about Target, Walgreens and other businesses? It is easy to pick on one company and try to remain simple but this a complex economy. So after you attack Walmart and Target becomes the next big dog, do you attack them?
    2
  13. And Sanders owns three homes. What a dictator.
    2
  14. Victor Espino I don't care if he invests.  I have a problem with him criticizing the Walton family while he has three homes himself. So he can be well off but not the Walton family?  Those CEOs he complains about can't do well but he can?   
    2
  15. Victor Espino It is though.  The Walton are worth as much as they are because they own half of Walmart, a company that actually produces jobs and provides goods and services to people. What does Bernie provide with his three homes?  How many jobs has Bernie created with his three homes?  All he wants to do is spend other people's money.  "our taxes pay for their employees being on welfare, because they don't want to pay their employees a living wage. " Walmart does not pay more for one simple reason, they can't afford it. 
    2
  16. They probably will and they are starting too (see the jobs moving over seas).  Walmart can always close down some of their stores and hire less people.
    1
  17. Sanders never asked one.  He had an agenda.
    1
  18. Your Dada Walmart can always close down some of their stores.  Instead of 8 stores in an urban area they can reduce down to 5.  Walmart just open 2 new Walmarts in the last 5 years where I live, they could always close them down again.  
    1
  19. If the only job you can get is at walmart than you need to find a way to change that.
    1
  20. Robert Reich doesn't know the difference between income and wealth.  He is a partisan hack.
    1
  21. Define a living wage.  I bet you can't.
    1
  22. Justin-Michael Fowlkes Not many people are living off of min. wage to begin with. That aside, it isn't up to a business to worry about someone's personal finances.  Someone can be making the min. wage but still make a living.  My girlfriend works part time on min. wage and she is actually paying off her loan.  That is because she lives with me and I make a lot more than she does.  I make $20,000/yr.  I pay rent, own the car, pay internet, where she pays for energy, a lot of the food, and her loan, and soon mine.  We manage our money well.  The average household income for and individual making $9.50/hr or less is over $47,000/yr.  That is because low wage workers are supplemental income and not the main earner.  That is the problem with the term "living wage" in that it is subjective.  You are paid based on your work.  You either have to find a way to earn more or manage money better if you are having a hard time making a living. Another problem with the living wage is what is $12/hr, or $20/hr?  Money is essentially worthless until society gives it value.  The same is with cars, land, houses, etc.  The Waltons have so much wealth because they own half of walmart.  The property that walmart sits on and the buildings themselves are worth a lot.  It isn't that the Waltons have a lot of income or money to spare.  If the government starts setting prices, as in the price of labor, then money becomes worthless.  So people will be making more but the dollar will be weaker. This, and much more is why the term "living wage" can't be defined.
    1
  23. Justin-Michael Fowlkes Plus, it isn't common sense.  Nothing is common sense. 
    1
  24. To answer Sanders' question I will say this.  We should go after home owners because their wealth is 30 times of that as a renter.  How is that?  Well, 61% of the average family's wealth is in a home.  The Walton family own half of Walmart.  If you want wealth distribution you would have to giving parts of Walmart to other people.  That won't work because 90% of small businesses fail meaning Walmarts will start to go bankrupt and the ones being successful will pull away from the pack, once again wealth disparity. There is a huge different between wealth and income.  Walmart simply can't afford higher wages.  It amazes me how ignorant people are in this country. 
    1
  25. Travis Bewley Walmart pays the market rate for a retail store.  If they were to pay anymore then they would go bankrupt.  The bigger problem is how the biggest employer in the US sells goods that are manufactured in other countries.  Manufacturing jobs pay well but we chased them out of the country due to higher regulations.  Retail businesses never pay much because their business model doesn't allow it.  Walmart would love to pay more but simply can't afford to.  The idea that Walmart likes high turnover and pissed off employees is just asinine.   
    1
  26. ***** How?  Please enlighten me. 
    1
  27. Wealth inequality happens in a lot of socialist countries with high tax rates.  That is because income is taxed, not wealth.  There is a difference.  A person can make earn a lot of income but have negative wealth due to loans.  That is why we have wealth inequality in the US because people have loans.  61% of the average family's wealth is in their house, so if you don't own a home than you have very little wealth.  At the same time you could still be making a nice wage.  Wealth inequality isn't a bad thing. Also, corporations are not receiving  welfare unless they are politically connected then that is the problem of government, not corporations.
    1
  28. donjulioanejo You describe the problems of socialism and the min. wage.  Problem is that people who support socialism are the ones that are lazy.  I see people that get no where in life and they wonder why but the main reason is because they were lazy. Working in public education I see it a lot.  I see really hard working teachers who are organize and rarely take days off get paid the same as those that are not as organize and are lazy.  They also complain when they don't make much money when they do (they sign a 182 day contract) and I see how much waste there is in public education.  There are talks of it going private (to improve it) but they don't want that.  
    1
  29. Jeremy Allen How is it more cost effective when you have a greater expense?   
    1
  30. Darris x If it is profitable they will keep it open.  But one reason why they were able to open new stores was because they made enough profits in another store.  
    1
  31. John Edwards I worked graveyard because it paid more. A lot of graveyard shifts paid more.  I also worked at 4 in the morning.  So when I was going to work or getting off of my graveyard shift Walmart was the only place open so I shopped there.  Some people have a life where they are unable to shop at "normal hours".  Why do you want to kill more jobs by forcing people to shop when you think is "normal"? 
    1
  32. John Edwards Seems like Walmart is doing just fine in that they generate more profit than Costco and have more employees and more stores. Walmart caters to a different set of customers.  They cater to those with low income, they have a variety of goods, and they are open 24 hours for those who do work odd hours in their life.  If every business followed the Costco model I, along with several others, would suffer.  It would be difficult to find time to shop, we don't have the space to buy in bulk or the need and our choices would be limited.  Walmart is ran pretty well.  They are just different than Costco. 
    1
  33. You start a business and you pay higher wages, see how far you go.
    1
  34. Catherine S. Todd Good for your business.  Walmart also pays above the min. wage and hires a lot of people.  At the same time Walmart is a one stop shop retail store that is open 24 hours.  How much does that worker working from 2 AM to 7 AM in a snowstorm makes for a company?  Some small businesses close down during inclement weather because they simply can't afford to be open then. It isn't up to a business to worry about your personal finances.  You are paid based on your work.  I make the min. wage but that job is a part time job.  My full time makes a lot more.  My girlfriend makes the min. wage and she is able to pay off her loan because I am the main earner of the home.  How much you get paid means nothing.  It is how you manage your money. The long term solution is to establish capitalism again.  The short term solution of raising prices is like every other short term solution, they are temporary fixes (if at all) that creates problems again.  You raise the min. wage and then certain people won't get hired because they don't have the skill set to justify that new wage.  Or prices go up because the cost of more expensive labor has to come from somewhere.  Where unskilled workers can't get a job then they have no chance to move up in the workforce that they won't enter to begin with.  That is why the min. wage is considered to be removing the lower rungs of the economic ladder.  Short term "solutions" are causing this mess. Walmart isn't receiving welfare, the workers are. They should be responsible for their own finances and us, as society, need to stop accepting polices that raise prices and kill jobs. 
    1
  35. Your Dada They are not entitled to the success of the business.  If they are not getting paid enough then they can work someplace else. Asking a business to take in less profits means less investments for them and less growth.  It is the same for an individual.  Would you be willing to get paid less if the business you worked for was struggling?  I doubt it.  You won't be able to grow yourself and it was you who put in the work to make yourself earn the amount you do.  You know who do take pay cuts?  Business owners.  Forcing a business to take in less profits is terrible for the economy.  It was the Waltons and their investments that made Walmart big, not the easily replaceable low skilled worker.
    1
  36. Your Dada The Waltons are not being subsidized.  The thing is that the Waltons invested in their company to grow it and as a result they made a profit.  That is how life goes and it is great.  Everyone striving for their individual goal leads to success.  Walmart is successful in that they offer a plethora of cheap products at a one stop 24 hour shop.  The drawback is that they can't afford to pay workers more.  Walmart would love to have an employee like me in that I have a lot of work experience and a strong skill set, but I would demand a wage they simply couldn't afford.  Same goes for that they can't hire doctors, engineers, or other highly skilled workers to do remedial tasks, they can't afford to pay a higher wage.  The people they hire are paid the wage they are because they either have low skills and work experience, work flexible hours, or simply just want a job for busy work (as in my uncle who has a PhD and a retired economic professor who works for little at H&R block).  In all they can't sell their labor for more and don't get paid that much.  It is the balance of businesses have to pay well or they lose good workers.  But if they pay too much then they lose money and go out of business.  A worker wants a lot of money but if they ask for too much then they won't get hired.  Let us assume you make $30/hr.  If you go to your employer and demand $50/hr you wouldn't get it since you don't have any leverage to get that. A business owner takes in profits to invest in their business and grow.  If you look at one thing that businesses invested in it would be technology.  The job of the low skilled worker has gotten easier.  Look at cash registers alone.  If you look at unit labor cost of the restaurant industry, which is the hourly compensation over productivity, you see it is rising meaning the price of labor is outpacing productivity.  Also, look at how people in poverty own TVs now, cars, the price of the pocket calculator went from around $300 to almost free.  That is how people are getting rewarded, competition means business invest to bring better products at an affordable price.  If you lower profits that takes away investments and growth and progress.  Say bye-bye to more energy efficient cars and dishwashers.  Another flaw in what you said is that you assume that money is finite.  It isn't.  The productivity of the highly skilled has increased due to their investment in technology and growth making them worth more and thus they are paid more.  The unskilled worker's productivity has stagnated thus they are not paid more.  That isn't all bad because like I said that investment creates jobs and better products at an affordable price. Those walmart workers are expendable and low skilled, they are not entitled to anything.  With what you are saying I feel you should take less pay since your employer didn't have to hire you, that is unless you possess a high skill and can sell yourself for a lot.  I am not a walmart apologist, I just want a strong economy.  
    1
  37. Catherine Todd I worked in small business for years.  I have many friends and family members who worked in small business.  My two siblings have their MBAs, my uncle is a retired economics professor.  There is a lot of business experience in my life from my friends and family.  I choose to take the science and math route to work in getting into pharmacy school (to where I will have the skill set to sell my labor for $50/hr).  Point being is that I do know how economics and business work. Walmart cannot afford higher wages, it isn't about them being rich (where does it show that they are rich?) but that their business model doesn't allow them to pay more.  If they do they will go bankrupt or not expand due to less money to invest.  Also, who cares how much the Waltons make?  They are the ones running the business, putting in all the financial risks, working 24/7 in dealing with new laws, potential lawsuits, new taxes, etc.  The worker comes in, clocks in, works and then leaves.  Yes they do work for the company but one they are expendable in that they are a low skill worker, and two Walmart didn't have to give them a job.  If you ran a business you would be putting in all the work so you should see the reward.  Competition would force you to pay higher wages. Walmart a few years back supported a min. wage increase.  When it was $5.15/hr they paid their workers nearly double that.  A min. wage increase to $7.25/hr wasn't going to hurt them but instead hurt their competitors that can't afford a higher wage.  That is why Costco supports a $11/hr min. wage, they start out paying $11.50/hr (due to their business model) so it will hurt their competitors.  If you really do run a business and pay your workers well then great.  I see your support of higher wages as your way of eliminating competition.  It means that this new law will benefit you at the expense of others.  Here is something I have to ask?  How come you don't hire more?  Why are you complaining about Walmart's wages when companies that pay more (you by what you are claiming) when other businesses are not hiring more?  Why don't you hire more.  It will make your workers happier if they have to do less work.  It is a very simple question that really no one has ever answered.  So many attacks on these low paying companies but none on ones that don't hire more.  Like Reich said in this video, GM use to have the most employees.  Where have all the manufacturing jobs gone that pay well?  In retail, due to the business model the business can't afford to pay more.  So tell me, why do you hire more? Walmart would like to pay more so they can attract better workers, all companies do, but they can't if their business model doesn't allow it.  I don't support slavery and these people are not slaves.  They have the choice of working there, Walmart had the choice of hiring them.  It isn't up to a business to take care of your personal finances.  When I complete pharmacy school down the road and I get paid $50/hr then I proceed to live outside my means then that is my fault, not my company's.  Same as in Walmart.  They pay their workers the market rate at what they can afford.  It is up to the worker to manage their money.
    1
  38. Your Dada A better question is why are there no longer higher paying jobs?  And why have the purchasing power of the dollar weaken?  Reich pointed out that the largerst employer used to be GM.  Where have those jobs (manufacturing jobs) gone?  Manufacturing jobs pay a lot, retail don't because their business model doesn't allow them to based purely on the market.  Walmart simply can't afford higher wages.  For them to be able too they would need to only be open on peak hours (7 AM to 11 PM) for example.  That would mean night shift employees would be gone.  So now people go from having a job to nothing.  Prices would have to be raised to have the money come from somewhere so now the purchasing power of the low income earner is worse.  And Walmart would carry less products.  This is now becoming a similar model to Costco.  The only difference would be the lack of membership and bulk items.  The pure and simple fact is that Walmart simply can't afford to pay more.  Doing so would hurt profits and thus hurt growth and expansion.  Your comparison to slaves is asinine.  Slaves were force to work and were sold to the plantation owners.  They were essentially property.  The Walmart worker has the ability to get a different job or move up, that is until certain policies kill higher paying jobs or hurt the purchasing power of low income households.  I still have yet to have anyone answer the simple question on why do companies that pay more, as in Costco, hire more?  I don't think we should have people on welfare, but artificially setting prices makes it worse.
    1
  39. Catherine Todd More misinformation.  First you say that people are willing to spend the extra 46 cents when in reality they aren't.  People who shop at Walmart are living on a budget and that extra 46 cents means a lot.  I know I would personally shop less at a place if their prices went up.  It also leads to the slippery slope in that "what is an extra 46 cents?", to "oh, it is just 20 more cents" and then son 30 cents, 50 cents, 10 cents, and more inflation leading to hurting the purchasing power of the lower income individuals.  The Waltons are rich because they made wise investments.  You don't get rich by giving money away. Plus, forcing them to pay more means tapping into their profits leading to less growth and less jobs.  People feel like money is finite when it isn't.  Capital has to be created and in order to do that you need wise investments.  Forcing bad investments is a practice we have been doing for years and it is hurting higher paying jobs. Walmart is a 24 hour one stop shop retail store.  That business model doesn't allow for high pay just like a restaurant doesn't allow for high pay.  The simple fact is that Walmart can't pay more.  If they did they would be paying above market rate and they would not be the rich but bankrupt.  I still have yet to have my question answered.  Why is there a constant attack on Walmart for not paying enough but never an attack on companies for not hiring?  Manufacturing jobs are leaving, jobs that pay well.  That is a problem.  Instead of creating new policies that will kill more jobs we need  look into bringing higher paying jobs back. It is funny how you claim what Walmart is doing is immoral and illegal.  You have to remember they can always chose to fire people and close down some walmarts.  Attack them and they will get rid of jobs much like the manufacturing companies did.  It isn't a support of Walmart but the facts of the market and how it works.
    1
  40. Your Dada Franchise owners of McDonalds make around 4-6 cents for every dollar they get.  Your thinking that the hamburger cost more than 99 cents isn't true, it does cost around that much. McDonalds can't raise the price anymore because demand will drop.  Same as in retail if Walmart raised the price of bread or milk than demand will drop.  Drop in demand means a drop in customers and a drop in profits.  Just like an increase in price of labor means jobs will be lost. In retail and restaurant the pay is low because that is the market rate.  If the pay were higher then there will be less jobs and lower prices. Look at pharmacist.  They get paid a lot, but there are far less pharmacists than walmart workers and the cost of drugs is high.  Never mind the skill set.  My dad currently makes $26/hr working maintenance at a factory that is basically filled with lead.  It is a dangerous job and he has a lot of skills and he gets paid a lot.  The company has a hard time retaining workers due to the job conditions and thus pay a low where in retail the job has minimal risk and skills and thus they get paid little, never mind the low profits they bring in. Things like cops, firemen, paved roads, etc. are ran by the states and cover everyone.  Everyone benefit from it.  A business can always  choose to leave or close down some of their stores.   Closing stores mean less jobs and thus less growth economically and socially. Somalia is a poor example.  That country is a mess with no control anywhere  
    1
  41. Catherine Todd So someone you agree with you accept as wise, but someone you disagree with you feel isn't.  That is a problem you should look into.  I became as intelligent as I am because I was willing to listen to people I didn't agree with. 
    1
  42. Your Dada You are making a strawman argument thinking that I support no government.  I support state rights. The federal government is there for two things, deal with foreign affairs and give US citizens the ability to control the government.  Everything else were to be left up to the state and local government. When states and local governments run policies then you have two things.  You have a government that represents the people better to where it isn't really government but instead a community working together.  You also have 50 states competing together to be the best.  That is a part of capitalism where everyone will benefit.  I don't support Somalia because it has on protection from anything. Your feeling of feedlots is digging at the bottom of the barrel.  Animals for millennia have been producing methane, those feedlots means nothing. Public assist is a problem of our society not allowing higher paying jobs to be produced, or ruining the purchasing power of the dollar, or allowing the federal government to run public assistance instead of states where the money will be managed better. You complain about billion the Waltons make (can you show evidence of that).  Who cares?  That is my response.  If they made that much money that means they create all those and sold that many goods to do that.  Money isn't finite.  It isn't that the Waltons are taking in all the money that exists and giving none away, they are actually creating capital.  My dad makes $26/hr because he creates that much capital.  Just like after I finish pharmacy school I would be making around $60/hr because I produce that much capital.  The walmart worker makes around 9/hr because they produce that much capital.  People should also be more concerned with what they make instead of what others make.  I really question who is the greedy one when people complain about what others making and not worry about themselves. I couldn't care less what they Waltons make.  They offer low prices and from competition other stores offer affordable prices (I don't shop at Walmart much, I try to go elsewhere).  That benefits me as a buyer. 
    1
  43. Your Dada The same can be said about liberals, as you get older you get less liberal.  Most people just want to be independent and don't want the government messing with them.  Most people are also mature and smart enough to figure their own life out. 
    1
  44. Your Dada Depends on the issue.  Economic wise I would say more are becoming conservative.  When people start looking for jobs, paying taxes and raising families they realize the cost of high taxes and regulations and oppose them.  Also, people tend to just want to mind their own business which is why many oppose Obamacare.  They don't want the government interfering with their healthcare or other aspects of life.  
    1
  45. Your Dada Then who controls the government?  That is why I support state rights. The federal government is there for two things, deal with foreign affairs and give US citizens the ability to control the governments.  States are suppose to control regulations.  Allowing state and local governments to run those programs develops a community working together where government exists in name only.  At the federal level it leads to corruption. I support regulations, I just want control of the government.  We had that through the constitution and state rights, well we use to.  Us stepping away from that is what is ruining us.
    1
  46. Costco and walmart are completely different companies.  One is a warehouse the other is retail, learn the difference.
    1
  47. He wouldn't allow them to answer the question.
    1
  48. If you can't get a job that will pay you more then you need to find a way to develop a skill to earn more. 
    1
  49. It wasn't a good point, it is comparing a manufacturing company to a 24 hour on stop shop retail store.  That is like saying GM should have paid more because pharmacist get paid $50/hr.  People at walmart get paid the market rate.
    1
  50. derrington do The only real corruption is from government.  If government didn't have any power to be bought then there would be no problems.  It isn't the free market. 
    1
  51. SoulRippster "If you pay people more, they will buy more stuff" Not if there isn't anything to buy. You can't consume what you don't produce. If you pay a group of workers to $10/hr to build widgets and they make 100 an hour, and then you pay them $15/hr to develop 100 widgets per hour you have just lower the value of the dollar. That is simple economics. "Even if you put every single dollar you can in the CEOs pocket they won't spend all of that in the economy" Not true. They spend it improving the company by improving goods and services that are available to the public. That also drives the price of goods and services down.
    1
  52. Matt Peters The roof is $0/hr. Because if you are not worth that price floor of $7.50/hr then you have just hit your ceiling.
    1
  53. SoulRippster That guy making $10 million a year will run a company, say a shoe company, that will spend money to develop a better shoe, or a shoe with bells and whistles. That creates more wealth. That man with $10 million dollars does so due to competition of a rival shoe company to attract customers which creates jobs as well. To think that those who are rich don't spend money is false. They do out of competition. You have this flaw mindset that businesses will only develop something if people have money to buy it. That isn't true. They will develop it because people demand better goods and services at an affordable price. Look at what is being produced. An Iphone comes out and a year later a new one comes out, not much different than the old one and not necessary, but it comes out and people buy it. Same with shoes, people don't need shoes that light up or lighter shoes, but the get developed and people buy them. We can stick to shoes from the 40s and be fine. It comes back to we can't consume what we don't produce. If I have more money I can buy more shoes, true. But that rich person who runs the shoe company now has less resources to develop new wealth, thus a new line of shoes that are better and cheaper will cease to exist. So now I am buying the same shoe now that was bought 30 years ago. That as opposed to a better shoe that is cheaper. So while you concept is true in a way, it hurts wealth creation and doesn't improve the economy.
    1
  54. SoulRippster The bail outs are a different problem of a federal government stepping over their limits. What is funny is that large government is what those on the left, the same people who support the min. wage and higher taxes, wants. And that is what they get, bail outs.
    1
  55. SoulRippster Recessions happen, it is a part of a developing economy. What has led to stagnate growth and recovery has been the federal government. Regulations just hinder growth, and giving the federal government that type of power allows them to be bought. You are rooting for the exact thing that is causing the problems we have now. I am on your side, you approach is just wrong though. The bail outs are the exact opposite of capitalism
    1
  56. Matt Peters "If you can't pay the wage , you shouldn't do business" Let us turn that statement around, if you can't produce more to earn a higher wage then yo shouldn't be allow to have your own apartment, car, clothes, etc. These people are not being exploited. Your article is flawed in that it it doesn't look at target groups. The min. wage, when compared to the rest of the economy, is low and raises to it has been low. Thus it is a small variable in the large economy. But when you look at select groups, such as teenagers and unskilled workers, you see their unemployment go up. But as a whole in the entire economy you don't see that negative effect because it is a small and gets lost in the statistical noise. If you break it down there isn't one single good reason to even have a min. wage. It leads to inflation and less jobs for those who need it most.
    1
  57. Matt Peters Aw, citing Card, Krueger, Reich, et. al. The typical people to go to. https://www.epionline.org/minimum-wage/minimum-wage-teen-unemployment/ There are three papers that say otherwise, ones that don't use phone interviews for gathering data or look at a handful of counties (as Card and Krueger did). The pure fact is that the min. wage leads to higher unemployment amongst teens. Most of the data shows that minus a few that cherry pick data and have been called out for it (the exact same people you just cited). It does lead to price increases as well. The fact that food prices are going up doesn't follow the current economic trend. We are producing more food than ever but food prices are going up when it should be going down (much like TV, cell phones, computers prices are going down). But the price of food is going up. The reason why is that retail, restaurant and grocery outlets hire low skill, thus low wage workers. The min. wage increase means they have to increase prices because the money doesn't exist. The min. wage is outpacing productivity in that workers in those areas of the market are seeing their productivity remain stagnate. "There are plenty of reasons, but since you are operating on a false definition of Liberty, freedom and fairness , I doubt any of the economic growth we can prove will matter to you." Well there isn't economic growth. If it led to economic growth then when the federal min. wage went up in 2007 nearly over $2/hr we would have avoided the recession. We didn't and have seen a slow recovery from it. Also if it did lead to growth then why not $50/hr? And on fairness, it isn't fair that certain workers, teenagers, are priced out of the job market due to you setting an arbitrary price floor that you based off of nothing. I mean, why is the min. wage set at $7.25/hr? That leads back to why not $50/hr, or even just $20/hr? Those numbers are completely arbitrary. "Wrong again as the hand of the market you talk about so much will not allow all extra cost to be taken out on consumer prices. Such increases would be marginal." You admitted that increase will exist. If all it took was a small increase and not lose any customers, why don't businesses raise prices already and collect that much more profit? The answer is that it isn't that simple. I repeat, there isn't one single good reason to even have a min. wage. It doesn't work in theory or in practice. Teenage unemployment is at an all time high, so is the min. wage. Citing Card and Krueger, whose research has been shown to be flawed and cherry picked doesn't change any of those facts. As I said, if it did do good then why not $50/hr, or even $20/hr?
    1
  58. Matt Peters Also I am not a libertarian, I am a moderate. Most issues I take a moderate stance on, the min. wage I don't because everything both in theory and practice point to negative results. So tell me, if the min. wage led to growth, why when the federal min. wage was raised over $2/hr around 2007 did we not see a booming recovery following a recession? Why did we see teenage unemployment go up? Seems to contradict what you just said.
    1
  59. Matt Peters As I said, you didn't present evidence. What you presented has been called out in the past and has shown to be deceptive. There are several variables that effect overall employment. You also have what is called labor to labor substitution. When the price of labor goes up then more workers will enter the work force who don't need to, they, due to being older, will take over the job of teens and those of low skilled. Also due to a higher wage will be less likely to leave sooner thus meaning less jobs for those just entering the workforce. That is why the min. wage is referred to removing the lower rungs of the economic ladder. Why don't you want teens from low income areas to get jobs and better themselves? It was a $2/hr raise. It went from $5.15/hr to $5.85/hr in 2006, then to $6.55/hr in 2008, and then $7.25/hr in 2009. So it wasn't a 45 cent raise. Out of all those numbers none of them were 45 cent raises. In a span of 3 years (I was mistaken to say 2007, it started in 2006) it went up over $2. But yet there was still an economic crisis and a slow recovery since. To quote you "You're out classed sir." Teenage unemployment is at an all time high, so is the min. wage.
    1
  60. Matt Peters I have pointed to you other data that is better. The massive deflation was due to a recession which occurs naturally, but according you should have been avoided, or at the least recovered from due to he over $2/hr min. wage. I posted 3 studies contradicting your two studies, one that did phone interviews in only 14 counties, a small sample size. The increase was over $2/hr in a span of 3 years. You first said it was 45 cents, now you are saying it is under a dollar in 2007, you need to get your facts straight. "There is no economist that would connect the collapse to the minimum wage. " But you are connecting economic growth to the min. wage. I am not connecting the collapse to the min. wage. I never said the min. wage led to it. We raised the min. wage in the 90s and were fine due to other variables holding more weight leading to growth. But the increase in 2006 to 2009 didn't lead to growth even though you said raising it would. That is the argument I am presenting to you that you are twisting. "We still have not Re-regulated the markets and fixed the marginalized market caused by it. " Actually the market is highly regulated which caused the slow recovery. Recessions happen, it is a part of the evolution of the economy. Every recession except for two took around 5 years to recover from, all with little to no federal government involvement. The two that took the longest were the great depression and now, both times we saw massive federal spending, more regulations and increase in taxes. The federal government and their regulations caused the slow recovery. What caused the crash is debatable, what isn't debatable is what is causing the slow recovery. The only people who feel that the slow recovery is not from the federal government are Keynesian economist that are becoming more and more silent every year.  "It is provable that Income has not kept pace with productivity for 35 years. " That is no true, even the BLS has wages keeping up with productivity. The fact is that those with skills and those who invent technology are becoming more productive and are seeing the increase in wages. Those who cook burgers and Burger King are not. It is called Skilled Biased Technological Change. Those who are skilled or how invested in technology or created it are getting the increase in wages due to them being more productive. Now that doesn't mean that those on the bottom are not well off. More technology means more productivity and thus better goods and services at a lower price. That is a brick cell phone cost nearly $4000 in the late 80s but almost anyone, even those on welfare, can afford smart phones today. Or someone like me, who only earns around $25,000/yr has 4 computers at home, a TV, a smart phone, my own car (2006 model), where someone earning that much in the past wouldn't have anywhere near that. Cars are better, TVs are better, we have Ipods as opposed to walkmans, Blu rays as opposed to VHS and so on. That is why when food prices go up it is the opposite of what should be happening. We are producing more food, we have an over supply of it. It should be cheap. But regulations like the min. wage leads to higher prices in food. Grocery store workers are low skilled low wage workers, those who work at Sprint are not. Thus the increase in min. wage leads to higher food prices, but not higher cell phone prices. "How do explain the fact that adjusted minimum wage had the buying power of $13 an hour in 1969? " So. The value of the worker is not $13/hr. I explained to you why some prices are going up. The min. wage is outpacing productivity. You feel that everything inflates and that inflation is a must. That isn't true. Not everything inflates, and really inflation should hardly be happening. If inflation was happening then not only will those Blockbuster employees still be employed, but they will be earning more. But the fact is that the price of both goods and services either rise, fall, or remain the same. As I shown with the cell phones, the price of them dropped. They are better than in the past and cheaper. The same is with certain workers. My dad worked at a battery factory. In the 90s batteries were huge with all these portable devices. Now with everything having rechargeable batteries on board (my Ipod is 9 years old, keeps recharging), the demand of batteries dropped. They closed down the factory 3 years ago due to lack of demand. All those workers' values went to $0/hr. They dropped in price. So not everything inflates.
    1
  61. Matt Peters I told you about deflation and inflation and the min. wage. Deflation has been happening already. Several factors caused the recession. My point was that you said that the min. wage increase led to growth. Well, where is that growth? I am not seeing it? I guess we needed a $50/hr min. wage., or maybe $15/hr. I guess a $2/hr increase (pretty high compared to previous raises) was not enough. https://www.epionline.org/minimum-wage/minimum-wage-teen-unemployment/ There are my sources.  "You are setting up strawmen and I am pissing on them, I suggest you cease" You said this "There are plenty of reasons, but since you are operating on a false definition of Liberty, freedom and fairness , I doubt any of the economic growth we can prove will matter to you" In response to me saying there isn't one single good reason in even having a min. wage. Your response is that it led to growth. Now you are retracting that statement? So what is it? " The fact technology becomes cheaper does not negate other factors of economics. There is not a single state where minimum wage can afford an apartment alone.  (Hint there is no such thing as people on welfare who don't work)" Actually my technology point does play a role. It shows the purchasing power of the dollar is higher. We also see that in people have more disposable income these days. The idea that people are not earning more is completely false, they are. And if you are trying to pay rent with a min. wage job that is your problem. Get a roommate, find a cheaper apartment. Rent out a room. You are now asking that low wage jobs with develop little wealth pay for luxury items. That is now how an economy grows. " No sir, I know why prices go up, I understand inflation better than you do. I want to know why pay used to keep pace with both inflation and productivity. " You don't seem to know how inflation works. As I said with pay and productivity, it is keeping up. According to what you are saying not only will that factory in my home town that built batteries still be around, but they will be paying workers more despite the lack of demand. People who are more productive are paid more, it is called skilled biased technological change. But to think that workers working at a fast food joint are working harder is completely false. Look up unit labor cost of restaurants, you will find that hourly compensation is outpacing productivity in that sector. That means pay is outpacing productivity there, and it is the same for other low skilled jobs. " Yes I am saying if your company is more profitable you should not get all of the extra profit. You are piece of shit if you do without thinking about sending some extra down to workers regardless of what you moronically think their work was "worth".  But that is something else entirely. Unions should have the right to disrupt your profit if you don't. " Less profits means less investment which means less growth and less wealth. Companies just don't sit on profits, they invest it. Where do you think all that new technology comes from? It just doesn't appear out of nowhere. A business uses profits to invest and create. We can force more money going to those that create little wealth and that is exactly what you will get, little wealth. "The recession we had no mass recession in the 20th century after the depression was because of Labor laws and wage laws as well as tax code that prevented demand and supply from becoming unbalance d . Since 1981 these have been getting done away with.  " We had one under Carter. " I have a masters in economics from USC" With the way you talk I doubt it. I guess I can throw around a fake degree. I have PhD in economics form UC Berkley. But I won't lie, I don't. I have done this for a while as well, I concluded there isn't one single good reason to even have a min. wage. For you supposedly having a masters in economics you resorted to emotions pretty bad. As in "When a CEO is earning 500 times what his employees earn eventually demand will hit a roof as consumers have less money to consume." and "You are piece of shit if you do without thinking about sending some extra down to workers regardless of what you moronically think their work was "worth"" Not statements I would expect from someone who holds a masters. But considering how those with PhDs act (I am a grad. student so I have experience) I am not surprise. On your first statement, demand for better goods and services are almost infinite. The reason why the demand for batteries dropped is because, as I explained, portable devices have rechargeable batteries on board. If people had more money (ignoring that flawed idea) they won't buy more Walkmans or cordless phones which require batteries, but instead Ipod and cell phones which come with batteries and can be recharged. Think about that. You seem to lack understanding of demand.
    1
  62. Matt Peters So you are now retracting your statement that the increase in the min. wage creates growth? If you are an adult earning the min. wage then you are almost beyond help. Or it says something is very wrong with out economy. The min. wage is said to remove the lower rungs of the economic ladder. A teenager working a min. wage job allows them to gain experience to they can work higher wage jobs at an older age (when they are an adult). But if the min. wage goes up teenagers can't get jobs, thus they enter the workforce at a later age and thus we now have the problem of adults working low skilled task a high school student can do. So the min. wage created that problem. Following Carter we had massive inflation and an increase in unemployment and a negative GDP growth, we hit a recession. We recovered from it quickly just like we recovered from the recession in 1988 quickly. And the recession in the 50s and early 60s. Data doesn't lie. We see recessions all the time. How we recover is key. "As I said I have grown to have disdain for people who think being a successful business person is simply having made money.  If you had no regard for the health of the company Such as Bob Nardelli , Carly Fiorina and Mitt Romney  did.  They are failures as business people because of what happened to the companies. The fact they made money off it means they are manipulators. " I agree that our financial system is out of wack, it is mainly due to the federal government messing it up. I don't thing those individuals were successful. I know fixing the problem is reducing the role of the federal government in the economy. "Yes but ability for the consumer to pay for the goods aren't. " True, but that is purely due to there not being an infinite amount of resources. What we have to push for is the development of those resources into wealth. We do that by allowing those in the private sector to invest in what people demand and having workers work at the best of their ability. We don't achieve that buy just giving money away. "Indeed , but what happens when you have less companies? " New companies come and go, and there will always be competition in a free market. What removes competition is the government. Keep in mind that it was Walmart that supported a higher min. wage at one point knowing it will eliminate competition from smaller companies. Costco is the same way. " How is this type of investment benefiting anyone but people with large amounts of the particular stock?" That is how a corporation works. If all the major CEOs of Walmart for example were to take in $0 all the employees earning less that $25,000 would make something like $7 extra dollars a month. Corporations run off of stocks and if the company is not profitable then people will demand new CEOs to get an investment off of their stocks. "And you will argue it's "unfair" for the government to tell a company how to run their business, how widely they can expand or what they should pay and I liken this emotional attitude of your side to someone saying it's wrong for the government to regulate and tell someone he can't rape and abuse people and you will fail to see it as the same thing, which makes me believe sociopath... but hey,  " Rape is a law that effects everyone and gives back something equal to everyone. While I am not allowed to rape I will be protected by it in that it is illegal for others to rape me. With regulations on a business you are saying that the second you invest your own money in private property to do business with private individuals, you have to follow these set of rules simply due to the lifestyle you choose. That is not equal and the only way you can justify doing that is if the government gives something back to the company in return That is the difference between rape laws and business regulation laws.
    1
  63. Matt Peters So when the min. wage goes up and there is growth it is due to the min. wage? But if it goes up and there is a recession is isn't due to the min. wage? That is about as bias of a way of thinking as possible. It is complete cherry picking of data and if you do have a masters in economics you need to return it. My boss will personally fire me if I cherry picked data like you just did. "I know engineers who work at Starbucks and lawyers pull 30 K . I think you're beyond reality. " They must not be very good then. They are also the extreme minority. "That the increased cost is negated by default increased spending as you are not the only employer who raised wages." A lot of times employers don't pay higher wages, they cut hours to make up for the increase in price of labor. Plus, if workers are making more money but are not producing more all that does is reduce the value of the dollar. This really hurts small towns. I have seen the min. wage literally bring businesses down in small towns. Now there are other factors involved but for the small business I worked for when the min. wage went up we cut a lot of hours and raised our prices and still struggled. it was a common thing around my home town. " Wage income kept pace with inflation and productivity until the 80's. I will not tolerate the moronic libertarian freak out about inflation.  " Wages have kept up with productivity. You have to look at Skilled Biased Technological Change. You also have to consider how people have more disposable cash now than in the past and have more wealth. You are looking at just pure money, as an econ. major you should realize that money has value and isn't set in price. As with a brick cell phone costing well over $1000 in the 80s but now smart phones are under $100. That is why the data you keep looking at is flawed thus form a questionable source. "Explain , and I want a specific example ." Too easy. I can give two examples both dealing with federal taxes. First I have 2 jobs. One gives me a W2 and another a 1099. On that 1099 I pay zero taxes. But on my W2 I pay taxes without a choice. The federal tax code is so messed up that those who don't earn as much pay a lot due to those who earn more having several breaks to reduce their taxes to almost nothing. At times they can lie and the IRS won't catch them because as long as you report income they don't care. When I report taxes I lie all the time on expenses. If I get audited they won't be coming after my boxes of receipts. The reason why is because the IRS is understaffed and underfunded due to the inability of the federal government to properly manage a budget thus liars can get away with tax breaks. So in a nutshell, the complex federal tax code and lack of ability of the federal government to properly manage a program (the IRS in this case) leads to an unbalance in taxes people pay where the very people you want to help, the poor and middle class, get screwed. Now another example. In the 40s due to more taxes set by the new deal employers couldn't pay employees more without being taxed more. But a loop hole allowed businesses to pay via healthcare insurance benefit which was 100% tax free (and in some cases a deductible) courtesy of your federal government. Now this created the problems we have with healthcare now. This is why we had the problem of pre-existing conditions. This removes the ability of those getting the insurance from negotiating prices with the insurance company. The business that offers it offers a generic plan from a company as opposed to a personal plan that the consumer can decide to pay for and negotiate for a cheaper price. Thus insurance companies increased prices and lowered quality due to lack of competition. Now enter Obamacare and insurance companies are increasing rates higher than ever. So now the federal government is making a problem they created worse. There are two examples in detail. " If your business model does harm to people in a community or you are taking advantage of people who don't understand or have little choice but to accept your contract or they get nothing, You're a criminal as far as I'm concerned. " So you support oppressing people you simply don' t like or agree with. I don't think we need as many bars as we do. How about we shut them down? They lead to people to become alcoholics and waste their money. Are the bartenders criminals then for feeding off of someone's addictions? "The government has every right to set the rules of the game if it plans to have a stable system. " No it doesn't. " You only like the government poking it's nose in when it hurts your profits or prevents you from getting ripped off." Seems like you like government to suit your needs. On CEO pay, here http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2013/08/15/ceos-pay-slash-workers-benefit/
    1
  64. Matt Peters You are making this too easy. You said this "I never claimed there wasn't, just that there is no data saying increased minimum wage has never been connected as a cause of an economic problem in a city, county, state or country it's been done in.  That the increased cost is negated by default increased spending as you are not the only employer who raised wages." So you are saying that the min. wage either leads to growth or nothing. But when the min. wage goes up and the economy hits a recession you say they are not related. That is you being bias. "except I have already presented two studies showing this is not what happens" And I presented 3, and the guy on this video presented more. 3>2, plus what Skylar Lehto presented. "Data, as anyone who says they have "seen it" is by default the inferior in the debate." But you said this "I know engineers who work at Starbucks and lawyers pull 30 K " So it seems that while are are both inferior, we are even since you have "seen it" as well. "It's more than likely it was due to competition from large chains that should not be allowed (yes ALLOWED) to exist. " That is quite a pathetic statement to make. Your idea of helping society is bringing people down. That is like saying preventing people from getting PhDs will improve our university system. We don't grow an economy by bringing people down. In the 80s and early 90s only the rich had cell phones. Did we take them away? No. We allowed them to have them. Now almost everyone has a smart phone. If we would have took the cell phones away, which is preventing success, we will still be using rotary phones. I bet you support giving everyone a trophy as well. Or would tell the fast runner at a high school track meet to slow down. That is not how you improve an economy. There are several good reasons to have chain businesses. "I was actually asking you to prove regulation that hurts business that also doesn't serve another purpose of protecting someone else. " I was proving a point how regulations designed to supposedly help the economy and the middle class end up hurting. I work my job where I get a 1099 due to my skills. One reason I have those skills is that at a young age I was able to work a low wage job. Now I work a high skill job where I pay $0 in taxes. Some of my co-workers earn close to 6 figures and pay $0 in taxes or close. It goes the same with the healthcare example. Government is causing the rise in healthcare cost. Now you point towards profit because according to you profit=evil because profit=success and it isn't fair that someone is doing better than you. But our for profit system is arguably the best in the world. In the US a non-profit, government run system simply won't work. Look at the post office. I don't want to stand in line hoping to get care. The government creating lack of competition has create the the problems in healthcare. And somehow a non-profit system is supposed to create competition? "No, I support curbing  behavior that does harm to people or the community." Ok, you raise the min. wage. The business decides to leave town or hire less people, or raise prices or close their doors earlier. How does that improve a community? The reason why businesses do that is because of one simple reason, they simply can't afford higher wages. Especially small business in small towns. You are comparing this to rapist and burglars. You are violating a business's property rights. You are literally holding a gun to a business owner's head telling them how to run their business. That business owner out of their own free will is deciding to create a business and invest their money in it and you are deciding how they should run it. You are the crook. How about if you buy a house I use the government to tell you to allow homeless people in your home? You clearly are better than them? We should prevent homeowners from existing so that homeless people have homes. Do you support that? Your comparison of rapist and burglars to business owners investing in their business is shallow. Also you decision on who is hurting the community while exercising their rights are arbitrary. You need to give your masters degree back, or I need to avoid UCS since they have a weak economics department.
    1
  65. Matt Peters In depth study, really? So 14 counties is in depth study? Never mind that when federally when the min. wage goes up so does teenage unemployment. Also watch the video "What You Weren't Told About The Minimum Wage" by Skyler Lehto. He does an in depth study that makes your "in depth" study look like child's play. "No, I am saying correlation is not causation" And the same holds true to the min. wage and economic growth. Let us look at an example. Robert Reich made a claim that under the Clinton administration they raised the min. wage and things were fine. The reality is that when they raised it the percent of those who were earning at or below the min. wage was dropping (as mentioned in Skyler's video) and thus raising it didn't actually do anything in that most people were already getting paid above the min. wage. It was a pure political move. Now you mentioned a CATO study as the only one who supposedly has show only negative effect but I have shown you more. Plus, the one you just linked, look at what is say. No "discernible" effect. But they are saying there is an effect. As I said the raises in the past have been small thus all negative results have been small. Or as in Robert Reich's case people were already getting paid above the min. wage thus the federal raise was completely frivolous. Also I showed you 3 studies which beat your 1 on that issue. Unless you think 1>3 which at this point I would not be surprise. And teenage employment is completely relevant I am smart enough to know that overall the min. wage has a small effect on the overall economy. When the average hourly earnings is over $24/hr, when less than 5% of workers earn at or below the min. wage, when around 2% of min. wage workers work fulltime, as a whole the min. wage worker plays a minute effect on the overall economy. I can admit that raising it in 2006 didn't lead to the crash but raising it in the past didn't lead to economic growth. You, on the other hand can't admit that. Any negative effect to the min. wage is done at target groups, such as teenage employment and prices in areas that employ low skill workers. That is why when variables are removed we see an increase in teenage unemployment, or high teenage unemployment in areas where the min. wage is high. And we also see an increase in prices. But what you have to remember is that the min. wage, as is, does not effect the overall economy. But any effect is negative, it just gets lost in the statistical noise. As an econ. major you should have taken advanced stats. This was something my class learned when I took and and a project we did. " If your business model hurts or takes advantage of people , you shouldn't engage in the activity. " And who decides that? You? You do know that major corporations such as Walmart and Costco have supported higher min. wages in the past knowing it would hurt smaller companies and thus creating less competition. That is because those companies have more staying power to go through more expenses until the economy stabilizes. So now you have a situation where those businesses are using the government to harm other businesses. I don't mind regulations, they need to be done at the state level though so we can have actual control of the government. You need to remember one thing, too much government is just as bad as no government. Right now we have too much. I have no problems with monopolies as well. With today's technology they will not be as strong. The main reason why they were strong in the past was simply due to lack of technology. People didn't have cars to move around or computers for online shopping. These days monopolies exist due to government reducing competition as I just showed. You saying natural monopolies existed in the past without noticing the change of technology is careless of you. "No you should not be able to lock others out or to manipulate supply and market.  If that's what you have to do to keep you company on top then you need to go. It really is that simple." No it isn't that simple. Those business owners have a constitutional right to their property and what they want to do with it. Funny how you mentioned an act from 1938, around that time there was a lot of unconstitutional and destructive things done to the economy. If a state wants to create such regulations that is within their state rights. But at the federal level that violates the constitution (the federal min. wage is unconstitutional) and needs to be stopped. Too much government is just as bad as no government. What you support are arbitrary laws that you base off nothing more than your feelings. You feel that this business is bad thus they should be stopped. Walmart's model allows for cheaper goods and services for low income consumers. I despise shopping at Walmart. I avoid it if I can and for the most part do. But every other place in most areas have goods and services at a higher price. Plus, with chains what that also leads to is the fact that every Walmart in the country has to have the same standards. My poor experience at the Walmart in my city means I am less likely to shop at one in another city even though they may be great. So there are advantages to chain businesses. You are saying they are all bad but they are not. They are not all good. That is a clear difference between you and me, I see the middle ground. You are one side or the other. Like when you said the min. wage leads to all positive but no negative results (even though several studies exist that show otherwise). "No, fuckwhit it is about a fair market place. " What is a "fair market place"? Creating policy that raises prices is not "fair". Unless you support price control. Telling people how to run their business is not "fair". You are using a completely arbitrary and subjective word there. So when I stand in front of my committee for my PhD defense and I say "after 5 years it is only fair for me to get my PhD" would that fly? Knowing my committee it wont'. Once again you are basing your ideas off of emotions. Let us look at Walmart again and the min. wage. While they have supported a higher min. wage (which creates an unfair market), they have a limit in how much to pay. If the CEOs of walmart were to earn $0, the workers of walmarts would earn an extra $0.0014 per hour. That is simply not that much. Walmart, along with other low wage worker jobs, have thin profit margins. They simply can't afford more. Most of their money comes from shareholders. If walmart were to practice higher wages then the shareholders will demand a new board and vote one in so they can get money off of their stocks. Now you may think the whole idea of stocks is bad, but it goes back to it helping a business in they can keep prices low and attract more customers. The business I shop at is smaller and more local but doesn't have shares of stocks (as far as I know, if they do it is small). Thus their prices are higher. As someone with a masters in economics this should be basic to you. "Now present me a study where this was a huge problem directly connecting minimum wage increases to this actually happening and we might have an actual argument." I have shown you studies. Also I told you how in the large scale the min. wage is small. It plays a minute role in the overall economy (even though you think it leads to noticeable growth which is false). But if it didn't lead to negative results then why not $50/hr? Or even $20/hr? Costco is pushing for around that rate, $20/hr? So why not? "In the long term since ALL businesses raised wages the increased spending negates the cost long term." Not all businesses raise wages though. Some, as in Walmart or McDonalds for example, has the ability to avoid wage increases by investing in automation. There are now self checkouts and McDonalds with touch screens for ordering. Walmart can do away with the door greater or have less workers picking up carts in the parking lot. And they have. One reason why I avoid Walmart is that they lack cashiers. But they get away with it due to low prices. They can get away with cutting back more. Not all businesses are created equal, that is also something you failed to learn in you masters route (you really need to get your money back). Saying all businesses will raise wages is completely false. They will cut hours, close down doors earlier, and raise prices. But not every business will raise wages since every business is different. And while you are enforcing how much is paid per hour, you are not enforcing how much is paid per week. There will not be increased spending either. Higher wages with same productivity just means higher prices. You can't consume what you don't produce.
    1
  66. Buffalo_Chips They can always choose not to hire you. A wage means that your boss sees you as an investment and is willing to take a financial risk on you. And if you prove your worth then you will get a raise in some way, either from that boss or a competitor if your boss refuses to pay more.
    1
  67. aleche96 Yep, I was so bad off that I had to pay my $6000 car with on payment, no loans. Man, my boss made it hard for me.
    1
  68. CriminalGameplay Even if there are allies there will be someone who is going to go against the group and work to their advantage. They will pay more to bring in better employees and have a more successful business. That one CEO will be considered "greedy" by his "allies". You see, greed is good.
    1
  69. Victor Espino Bernie wants to create a tax plan that arbitrarily taxes rich people more to spend on other people.  He wants to spend other people's money.  The Walton's actually earn their money.  There is the difference.  "but that service and job being provide require their workers to be on welfare. " Which is not the Walton family's fault.  They offer them a job at the market rate. They can't afford more.  It is not their fault those workers refuse to better their lives. "it's like me saying I'm providing a job I pay this guy 1 cent an hour" If you can find someone to work for you for 1 cent an hour than you have found a fool. No one will work for so little. "they're only asking for enough money to not have to be on welfare. " And where is that money going to come from? "the CEOs make record profits, billions, on the backs of their employees and providing their employees wages that require them to be on welfare. " And a lot of those profits goes to the shareholders. They want to see their investment grow.  If it weren't for shareholders than Walmart will be no bigger than Raley's or Hy Vee who pay their workers similar wages but no one complains about.  Also, it you were to take the top 6 executives of Walmart and spread their salary to the 525,000 lowest paid employees of Walmart, they will earn an extra $147 a year.  That's it.  CEOs are not earning that much. "if you can't understand that then, idk , it's pretty simple for me." That is the problem.  You are taking a complex issue and trying to make it simple.  I have said I wish liberal economic policies will work because they are simple. If all it took was raising taxes to provide certain service than I will be all for it. It isn't that easy though.  Take "free college" for example. We lack TAs, professors, tutors and other skilled workers.  Where are they going to come from?  How are we going to provide those services when we lack the people to actually provide it?  Raising taxes is not going to help in that case.
    1