Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Chris Christie: Minimum Wage Hike Is 'Elitist'" video.

So a ceiling on success. Ok, how about you get rid of your high speed internet and windows 8 computer, I forbid you to have something better than a windows 95 computer.
1
More spending on what improves the economy? More spending on someone to flip burgers which produces nothing or more spending to improve technology and increase innovation which people demand already? The biggest problem with what you said is that you have to understand what money is. Money is worthless until it is invested to give it value. Paying someone over what society values them to be doesn't help the economy, it just leads to higher prices or job loss. Someone is paid the min. wage because they are worth that much to society.
1
me Money has to have value. Artificially paying people a price floor ruins the value of the dollar. If you raise the min. wage than jobs will be lost for low skilled workers. That person flipping a burger won't have a job because either he will simply be let go or prices will increase so much that less people will eat out. Let us say that the government were to set a price floor on cars to $10,000. Every car had to be sold for at least that much. You will see less people owning cars because they simply can't afford those new cars. If you look at the unit labor cost of a full service restaurant, that is the price of labor over productivity, it has gone up 3.8%. That means that the price of labor is outpacing productivity. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/prin2.t02.htm Also those CEOs and businesses are not pocketing the money. If they were than the their money will be worthless. You can stuff millions of dollars under your bed but it will have zero value just sitting there. It needs to be invested and that is what businesses do. What do you want to invest in? Do you want to invest in a worker who just flips burgers or do you want to invest in new innovation and progress?
1
You don't improve an economy by rewarding failure and punishing success. Wanting to create a law to pay workers more than they are worth is rewarding failure. Not allow success and progress to happen and be rewarded hurts an economy. The min. wage argument is a way for the left to say that they have no solution in having high paying jobs the progress society be created so we need to enhance the pay of jobs that are of little value of society. Never mind the basic economics of the min. wage and how we don't even need it. The fact that we are saying that someone who produces little for society deserves a higher wage just because is a scary thought. You know, people call me a troll at times on these videos, I think I should get paid $20/hr to troll these videos so I can survive. Why? Just because.
1
***** No one is sitting on mountains of cash. You can stuff millions of dollars under your bed and I will be worthless because it isn't be invested and creating capital. Those companies do put the money back into the market and society. You mentioned all the McDonalds, that is someone putting money back into the market to create those McDonalds and those jobs. If you raise the min. wage than a company can always close down their stores or raise prices. There is a small demand for those stores but if the burgers there become too expensive than people will eat at home. I stopped eating at restaurants when they raised their prices. You also have to realize that if you look at the unit labor cost of a full service restaurant, in 15 years it has went up 3.8%. That means the price of labor is outpacing productivity. Workers there are getting raises beyond productivity. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/prin2.t02.htm
1
Ylze Tyr Well if you actually read what I wrote you would see that I said unit labor cost went up 3.8% for full service restaurant, productivity only went up 0.5%. So once again you failed to read what I wrote. I gave that data to show that the price of labor is outpacing productivity. I also pointed before how prices haven't gone up because we are getting more for our dollar than in the past. If you want to look at food prices going up than you can. A contributing factor in that is the min. wage in how the price of labor is outpacing productivity.
1
dandiehl1948 Enlighten me is you are so smart.
1
***** Do they really? You have to look at that the US is ahead of them in research and innovation in technology and healthcare. So I wouldn't say they are "kicking our asses". Australia, despite a higher min. wage (which is actually not as high as you think when cost of living is taken into account) also has more economic freedom than the US. It is hard to compare us to Denmark. Denmark has only 5 million people, we have around 30 states with a greater population.
1
me I actually read that and I question that source a lot. To start there are no citations for those numbers. They are basically numbers made up out of thin air unit they are cited. Next, I looked at two different counties. One I currently live in and another I grew up in. We will call them A (where I live) and B (where I grew up). I don't really want to expose where I live due to internet creepers. In county A they have housing at $693, I pay $510 for a one bedroom. Mix in a roommate it is cheaper. Now you may say to include utilities, ok, I pay $30/month in electric, that is it. Internet is optional. Transportation, $285. I pay up to $160 right now. I am working on making that less when I get my new job where I only have to walk to work. Food is at $242. That is lower about where I pay. I can cut that if I didn't eat out as much. I don't pay anything in medical right now, and what is "other"? Now county B. Housing $460, I was paying $250 when I was on my own. Transportation is $306. I don't know where they get that considering how gas is around $0.80 cheaper in county B than in County A. Also in County B you can walk everywhere. It is small (unless you live in the country). Food is about right, medical is once again $0, and what is "other"? That source for the "living wage" is not a good one. As a whole, the "living wage" is subjective and shouldn't be used in making policies.
1
me Interesting in the sources, I will tip my hat to that. At the same time I still find the numbers skeptical. They don't match what I have experience. It boils down to that the "living wage" is subjective and I am sure that Dr. Glasmeier will agree with that statement as well (if she doesn't than she shouldn't possess a PhD, and I say that as a PhD candidate myself). As I said, one can eliminate the transportation part of the expenses if they had a job they are able to walk too and thus eliminate a car all together.
1
Ylze Tyr It isn't so much about knowing more than them, it is about analyzing and being critical of data. They presented data and I analyzed it and found what I deemed to be flaws in it. I have done work in analyzing data for years and continue to do so for a living. Just because they hold a PhD doesn't mean they can't be wrong. I bet you if I were to approach the author of that study on my idea that the "living wage" was subjective they would agree with me. If they didn't then they don't deserve their PhD. A PhD means you have the ability to learn, problem solve and take criticism.
1
Ylze Tyr You may feel you are "smacking" me but all you do is misread what I write, cherry pick what you want to hear, change the subject, and claim that I am wrong without justification. Being the loudest in the room doesn't make you right Mr. Alex Jones.
1
Ylze Tyr I did find flaws in the MIT numbers. You may not agree with it but they do exist. I bet if I were to talk to the person who published those numbers they would agree with me. That is the point of the "living wage", it is too subjective to even be consider a liable term when making policy.
1
Ylze Tyr The term "living wage" isn't a real term when it comes to making economic policies because it doesn't mean anything. It doesn't mean anything because it is subjective.
1
Ylze Tyr Once again you fail to realize what money is. There have been jobs that have seen their wages go up because they have evolved in skills and technology, it is called Skill Biased Technological Change http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/05/05/Wheeler.pdf There have been some jobs that have become obsolete due to technology. My dad lost his job at the battery factory that use to employ 800 people in the 90s. They were down to 200 when they closed down. That was because we went from RC cars, cordless phones, and walkmans to cell phones and Ipods with batteries of board that recharge. The demand for batteries dropped so much that the workers needed to create them went to where they weren't being paid at all. In your eyes you think that company should have kept all of those workers and paid them well but that would have been wasteful. Not every job sees their price go up. Just like not every good sees their price go up. Black and white TVs are obsolete. No one buys them so they are worthless. In short, not every job, just like not every good has increased in value. Some have lowered in value. If we want people to be earning higher wages we either have to push them to take on more demanding jobs that require more skills or stop progress all together and go back to black and white TVs, cordless phones (no cell phones), get rid of tractors to bring back farmers and so on. We will have a lot of jobs and cheap goods to purchase, none of it would be good though.
1
me One your first source, there are a lot of factors that play a role in jobs as a whole. It isn't just tied to the min. wage. There are a few things that happen when the min. wage goes up. One, unemployment for the unskilled goes up, we have always seen this. This is due to them not being worth the price floor a company will have to pay by law. Another is what is called labor to labor substitution. When you increase the price of labor you will increase the demand due to workers re-entering the workforce with a greater incentive in working. Basically a person who has some skills but isn't working will end up taking on a low wage job due to the min. wage being higher and thus make supplemental income. This follows the basic supply and demand trend. Minimum Wage and Price Floors Also, as I said before, the min. wage plays a small role in overall job growth. We saw this in the 90s. When the min. wage went up we saw the percent of workers making at or below the min. wage go up from around 5% to close to 7% when it was dropping to begin with. The 90s were strong economic times. People were getting raises and jobs were being create. Raising the min. wage did nothing just like in those states. CEOs pay is going up because they are a skilled worker. They are developing a lot of capital. This is a trend known as Skill Biased Technological Change. People with skills and those who are innovated with technology develop more capital and thus earn more. You also have to realize that as a result we have seen an increase in wealth in society as a whole. We drive better cars, have better TVs, phones, cameras, life expectancy, have better computers and so on than the rich had in the 80s. They get better and so do we. You also have to consider that we are see and income gap that is growing because we do have a set of people that simply want to earn money for producing nothing. When money is given away and produces no capital that it's value is ruined. In short, if you want to stop the CEOs from getting high raises we need to cut social programs and push people to obtain jobs that require skills. You mindset on the min. wage and inflation is flawed. Not every good has seen it's value increase and not every job has as well. My dad worked in a batter factory and in the 90s they had 800 employees. A lot of products had batteries as in RC cars, cordless phones and walkmans. Newer products have batteries on board that are rechargeable. As a result that company downsize to where when they closed their factory they only had 200 employees. Their demand for batteries dropped so a lot of employees saw their value drop to zero. Same is with goods, black and white TVs have seen their values drop to zero. Blockbuster as a company as seen its value drop to zero. That is how the economy evolves. Thinking that every job is going to increase in value is wrong. Saying that the min. wage hasn't increased with inflation is wrong because as we have seen there are jobs that have actually dropped in value. I find that data from MIT to be deceptive. You may criticize my anecdotal evidence which is fine. It still doesn't change the fact that the "living wage" is subject. I live within walking distances from my job and a grocery store. I could may my transportation to be $0. My housing cost is less than the figures printed and in one case was about half of what was report. The transportation cost doesn't make sense considering how in the county I grew up in car insurance was cheaper and so was gas, but they have transportation as being higher than the county I live in now. As I said, if I were to talk to the person from MIT about the "living wage" number they posted and how it is subjective they would agree with me. If not than they don't deserve their PhD because as a PhD candidate myself I feel that anyone who earns it does so with the intelligence to be open minded on issues. The numbers they posted are not even the bare minimum in my opinion and experience.
1
Ylze Tyr No, I actually addressed the sources that were cited and how they are deceptive and don't tell the full story.
1
Ylze Tyr http://www.amazon.com/Coby-CX-TV6-Portable-Black-White/dp/B00006I56B/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&qid=1414637197&sr=8-8&keywords=black+and+white+tv There is one for $30. A sucker is born everyday. Pretty much it is obsolete.
1
Ylze Tyr You are comparing a complex economy on the Big Mac. Kind of tells you how you think. I am not changing the subject to skills. You mentioned wages and I mentioned how certain jobs are becoming obsolete. We use to have people pump our gas, that hardly happens now. We don't have people building Model T's anymore since our cars are better. Certain jobs haven't gained in value where others have. Once again this is called Skill Bias Technological Change. Like certain goods haven't increased in prices. You asked me what goods haven't seen their price change. A lot haven't. I gave the example of the pocket calculator. It cost $200 in the 80s, I bought my TI-84 for $100. That is the price of a good going down. You are able to buy more for your dollar these days. You are so concerned with how much money someone is making when you should be concerned with the purchasing power of the dollar. We have the ability to buy better goods and services with our money. It comes back to you don't understand what money is. Just because someone has more money doesn't mean they are better. You mentioned the min. wage in Australia, it is actually lower than you think when you factor in purchase power purity because cost of living is higher there. In Zimbabwe they make trillions of dollars in their currency but they have an 80% poverty rate. I suggest you try to read a little better what I am writing. I am addressing all of your comments but you keep resorting back to money and CEO despite the fact we are able to purchase more with our money now.
1
me There are high skilled jobs available that are not being filled simply because people don't have the skills to work them. Instead of people getting history and business degrees in college we should push people to get science, health care and engineering degrees. Yes there will be min. wage jobs to do, but people working them would be young individuals just entering the workforce, retirees, and those working part time for supplemental income. You mentioned how someone who is poor can develop skills. One way is to work a job. That is a start. Also college is expensive because of college loans, but almost anyone can qualify for it. But when you raise the min. wage you hinder the ability for those coming from poor families from getting a job. I have seen it with inner city kids. They can't get a job even though they want too. You say businesses pay as little as possible. That isn't true. One, less than 5% of workers make at or below the min. wage. 2/3 or min. wage workers get a raise within a year. And the average wage in the US is over $24/hr. If it was really true that businesses were paying little than those numbers wouldn't exist. You idea that businesses will pay little is not true. Due to competition they will have to pay more to get better workers. Why are engineers pay so well? Why are those who work Sunday paid time and a half in some companies? Why is the average wage $24/hr? Because businesses have to pay workers well.
1
me In the end I will ask you this. If someone is having a hard time getting a job and is not able to due to several reasons, the min. wage being one of them, what are they supposed to do? Someone who is in in high school that wants a job, a chance to bring in some extra money which is great if they are from a low income family, and better themselves, can't because they were just price out of the market due to the min. wage. What is that individual suppose to do?
1
Ylze Tyr You don't seem to understand how inflation works. Not everything increases in value. I have showed you that. Inflation is where prices go up. But as I have shown you goods and services are better. It would be an issue if prices were going up but technology was not getting better. That isn't the case though. As I said before, what I own is better than some rich guy owned in the 80s I didn't ignore "me's" question. I explained to them how the min. wage isn't the only factor in jobs. There are several factors. I did give out information in how everytime the min. wage went up so did unemployment for the unskilled. And when exposed to a higher min. wage at a younger age it makes harder for them to succeed. But I guess you didn't read that comment.
1
Ylze Tyr My response to who will work min. wage jobs? I said that already. Go back and read my comments. Or are you going to claim you can't see them again? That is a funny claim you keep making. We can have this back and forth tug-o-war again where I post the comment 3 times and then on your page and then you just change subjects or ignore it, your choice. To say it again, the people who will work those min. wage jobs will be those just entering the workforce, retirees and those working part time jobs for supplemental income. On college tuition, there are cheap colleges available and almost anyone qualifies for a loan. It requires work.
1
Ylze Tyr I didn't dodge the question, he is what I responded to them Because raising the min. wage doesn't help the economy. The min. wage is one small factor in the complex economy. When it gets raised we see increase in prices and higher unemployment for those with low skills. As an individual who worked with inner city kids I see it harder for them to get a low paying job due to the fact they cannot get hired for a lower wage. Those from richer neighborhoods with parents with connections have not problem, but those with low skills get hurt even more. Your problem is that you think you shown me data to counter what I am saying but you haven't. You feel that you have shown me data that raising the min. wage has lead to job creation. The problem is, and I have explained this to you, that the min. wage is not the only factor for all jobs. The min. wage can be raised to $10/hr tomorrow, I will still have a job, many others will as well. Those that won't have a job are those with low skills and we have seen this. And it hurts them in the long term. http://www.nber.org/papers/w10656.pdf http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/unintended-consequences-raising-minimum-wage.pdf The problem with CEO pay is that one, we have a group of people who feel entitled and are getting money for nothing. That ruins the value of the dollar and to counter CEOs have to take on more. Also, who cares? As I said before, we are reaping the benefits as a society with better goods and services. The average student loan debt for the pharmacy student is over $65,000 http://www.kuendowment.org/s/1312/endowment/farabove/index.aspx?sid=1312&gid=1&pgid=1530 The lowest paid pharmacist made nearly $90,000. http://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/pharmacist/salary People need to earn a degree that is worth something. The EPI is left leaning. That is well known. I have read a lot of their resources. I will counter with this video What You Weren't Told About The Minimum Wage It brings up good points. It does cite some info from the Heritage foundation, a right wing think tank but it does bring up good points. In all there really isn't a reason to even have a min. wage. Here is what it is. Person A goes up to a company and ask for a job. Person A agrees to work for $5/hr because they can't get a job. The government comes in and says no, now person A doesn't have a job. The logic behind it is not clear. I have shown you where the average wage is over $24/hr, and how 2/3 of min. wage workers get a raise after a year, and the percent of workers making at or below the min. wage is dropping (all info in that video), so the thought that businesses will pay low is false. Like I said, try this whole reading thing, you learn it in elementary school.
1
Ylze Tyr Rent has gone up but what people rent out is better. They get dishwashers and fitness rooms and AC where in the past they didn't get as much. Food and clothes should be dropping in prices. When you look who work min. wage jobs they are usually people working retail which sells food and clothing. Considering how wages are outpacing productivity in those area the reason for the price increase is because of the mandated price floor. The value of the worker has to come from somewhere.
1
Ylze Tyr It does give people are reason to pay workers a low wage if they are just entering the workforce. People do volunteer internships so they can gains skills and connections to get a better job. If you don't have much to sell to an employer than you can't sell yourself for very much. How about someone gets a degree that is worth something when they pull out a loan. The average debt for a pharmacist graduate is over $60,000, the lowest salary for them was $80,000. Those individuals won't be in debt for 20-40 years of their life.
1
Ylze Tyr You seem real passionate about raising the min. wage. I gave you a plethora of info on why it is not good to raise it. All you have done is give talking points in how CEOs have all this money and things are more expensive as if we are starting to live in this wasteland like in the Road Warrior. When how you are really pushing this and how you can't even read what I am sending you I am starting to think that you are a min. wage worker yourself. Here is a little advice for you, if you want to earn more than the min. wage than how about you develop a skill to earn it. You are not paid to make a living, you are paid what you are worth. If you don't have enough money either find a way to earn more or cut expenses.
1
Ylze Tyr The min. wage is one small factor in the economy. Australia has more economic freedom than the US leading to a stronger economy.
1
Ylze Tyr If you have empathy than why do you want to kill jobs for the unskilled? When you raise the min. wage you raise unemployment for the unskilled. You are hurting those who are less fortunate. You see, when you try to show me min. wage and compare it to unemployment you are looking at overall unemployment. I look at unemployment based on skills and raising the min. wage has raised unemployment for those with little to no skills. I gave actual reviewed and published articles, you have talking point. You really need to think about that.
1
Ylze Tyr Your links are showing overall employment, not employment of the unskilled. http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/unintended-consequences-raising-minimum-wage.pdf http://www.nber.org/papers/w10656.pdf If raising the min. wage is so good than why not raise it to $50/h? The economy will be so much stronger according to you.
1
Ylze Tyr Where does it mention it? It just says employment, it doesn't specifies skilled or unskilled. And what is wrong with the exaggeration, I can admit that we should abolish the min. wage, that can be seen as an exaggeration. So why not $50/hr? You are now avoiding the question. What the magical $10.10? If it causes more money to flow it should improve the economy. It comes back to that you don't know what you are talking about. You need to absorb some new information for once and stop believing left wing talking points.
1
Ylze Tyr Your sources say independent economist across the country. Who are they? That is making a claim without justification, not a reliable source. I guess I can say this, most economist say raising the min. wage is bad, it is the exact same thing your sources did.
1
Ylze Tyr Why stop at the minimum? Why not push for a $50/hr min. wage? I mean, we want to make lives better.
1
Ylze Tyr Your problem is that you are cherry picking data to support your cause again. As I said before, when broken down there isn't a single reason to even have a min. wage. Most of the data has shown the left to be wrong on this issue. Getting rid of the min. wage will allow those without a job to get one since they will no longer be out priced from the market.
1
Ylze Tyr So I ask you in all of this, why do you want to hurt the job market for low skilled workers? Why do you want prices to go up because of increasing the min. wage? And why stop at $10/hr? Why not $50 if it doesn't do any harm to the economy? That last question you are avoiding because when broken down one sees that there isn't a reason to even having a min. wage.
1
Ylze Tyr But whatever, you being the loudest doesn't mean you won, it just means you are far more passionate about a topic you know little about. You are so passionate because you must make the min. wage yourself and a law is the only way you are able to get a raise where I can earn one myself. I will continue to push for a low min. wage, even abolish one. Seeing inner city children not being able to get a job is a problem. It continues to hurt them. They are not worth $7.25/hr which is why we see an increase in teenage unemployment when the min. wage goes up. You are preventing them from bettering their life for you benefit of a raise.
1
Ylze Tyr And you avoiding answering the $50/hr min. wage shows that you lost since you can't justify why we can't raise it that much. Either you support raising the min. wage in that it will help the economy so if we raise it more it will help. Or you realize that raising the min. wage does have negative side effects thus we shouldn't do it but you don't want to admit it.
1
Ylze Tyr Let us break this down point by point. 1. You said productivity was up thus the min. wage should be higher. I told you how not every job has seen and increase in productivity and how in some jobs wages are outpacing productivity. It is because not every job is the same thus not every job will increase in productivity at the same rate if at all. You ignored that and failed to bring that argument up.
1
Ylze Tyr 2. You mentioned inflation and how prices are going up. Wages are the price of labor and as with goods not everything has seen their prices go up. We have seen prices go down for a lot of goods and the same is with labor. There are some jobs that are obsolete and are not worth anything and thus no longer exist. Same with certain goods, there are some that don't exist or have little to practical use. Thus trying to tie the min. wage to inflation, like with productivity, is not possible.
1
Ylze Tyr 3. You may not have mentioned this but it is brought up, but there are claims that if there were no min. wage than businesses will pay very little. If that were the case than why is the average wage in the US is over $24/hr? Why do 2/3 of min. wage workers see a raise within a year? Why do less than 5% of workers make at or below the min. wage? If it were true that businesses were pushing to pay very little than very little of those making the min. wage would see a raise, there will be far greater than 5% making at or below the min. wage, and the average wage will be less than $24/hr.
1
Ylze Tyr 4. You have just confined yourself to the min. wage and employment. I told you how the min. wage is one small factor in the economy and isn't the only variable involved in employment. I also told you about labor to labor substitution. In how and increase in the min. wage leads to an increase in supply of workers (we see that now in SeaTac), and low skilled workers get replaced with those of higher skilled who simply have a greater incentive to rejoin the workforce and make supplemental income. Also, as we see in SeaTac, there are other ways to cut cost, losing benefits and time off pay and increase in prices have come. So just looking at employment is deceptive. But all those arguments aside you refused to answer why not raise it to $50/hr? If the min. wage didn't hurt employment but in fact helped it as you claim, wouldn't raising it to $50/hr help it more? Your refusing the answer it shows that you understand that price control, or raising the min. wage does have negative effects. You even asked about why not a maximum wage? You are displaying that you do realize that price control is not good for the economy thus you understand that their are problems with the min. wage. Because if there weren't any problems than we might as well raise it to $50/hr, or $100, or even more.
1
Ylze Tyr Your last comment shows a big flaw in you. You said a "reasonable living wage". What is reasonable? To me I can say $50/hr. Think about it, people would work less lowering stress, creating more jobs, increasing health, more people will afford college and be educated leading to a smarter society. In fact, why $50/hr at all, why not give everyone $100,000? I mean, think about the benefits of it. You are avoiding those types of questions because in reality you see the problems of just giving money away, or artificially paying someone more money. You refuse to acknowledge it but you do understand that it does have negative effects thus raising the min. wage does have negative effects.
1
Ylze Tyr I like how you talk about experts when I gave out info from experts as well. What you have done is cherry pick.
1
Ylze Tyr And no, you haven't debunked. I listed point by point the arguments we had here, more of them you didn't even talk about (productivity for example) and chose to ignore them. I brought it up a few more times but in the end you resorted to the min. wage and employment because in every other issue of the min. wage you were shown to be wrong. If there really isn't any negative effects in raising the min. wage than why set the bar so low? Why not raise it to $50/hr? Isn't the overall goal is to create more jobs that pay well? Than why not do it through the min. wage if it apparently increases employment (or has no effect, one of your sources says it increases employment, another says it has no effect)? I mean, people on the bottom will be making $50/hr and a lot more jobs will be created. Poverty will be gone and things will be better. So why set the bar so low? Why not $50/hr?
1
Ylze Tyr Screaming the loudest saying you won doesn't mean you won. But if it makes you sleep better at night than I have no problem being someone else's punching bag. At least I did some good making someone feel better.
1