Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Cops Are Harassing u0026 Spying On Living Wage Activists In Memphis" video.
-
1
-
1
-
Oh, this will be fun. First, on the DOL source. That was created when the Obama administration was in office and they supported a min. wage increase. If you read that website they don't cite their claims. Now on the 10 reasons one
1. The idea that it will put money in the pockets of the workers is flawed. One, that is making the assumption that the money exists to begin with. What makes you think the money is even there? Next, Christina Romer said this
"If they were all working full time at the current minimum — and a
majority are not — the income increase from the higher minimum wage
would be only about $50 billion. Even assuming that all of that higher
income was redistributed from the wealthiest families, the difference in spending behavior
between low-income and high-income consumers is likely to translate
into only about an additional $10 billion to $20 billion in consumer
purchases. That’s not much in a $15 trillion economy."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/03/business/the-minimum-wage-employment-and-income-distribution.html?
Also, if these people so quick to spend that money than that shows why they are poor. Instead of saving and investing it they spend it. They have poor money management skills. Plus, if it did grow the economy than why not $50/hr?
2. Comparing the CEO to the lowest paid worker is asinine. Tom Brady makes way more money than the semi-pro QB as the semi-pro QB pays to play. No one values his work. The value of the min. wage worker is low. Anyway, their pay is not that high. If you were to take the top 6 executives of Walmart and spread their pay to the 525,000 lowest paid employees of Walmart those workers will earn an extra $147 a year. That's it. It comes back to where is the money going to come from?
http://www.vox.com/2014/8/6/5970815/what-if-walmarts-ceo-took-a-pay-cut-for-his-workers
3. There were 500 economists that signed a letter not to raise the min. wage.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/13/over-500-economists-against-federal-minimum-wage-increase/
Plus, comparing overall employment to the min. wage is flaw. There are many variables that play a role in overall employment For example, when the min. wage was increased in 1996 and 1997 Robert Reich said that unemployment went down. But the reality is that prior to that unemployment was already going down
https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet
And the percent of workers earning at or below the min. wage was going down as well
https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2015/home.htm
Also, since the min. wage is so low to begin with you have to look at target groups as any effects are lost in the statistical noise. Since the passage of the min. wage we have seen a spike in teenage unemployment, especially for blacks. And when the min. wage goes up unemployment for unskilled workers go up.
https://www.epionline.org/minimum-wage/minimum-wage-teen-unemployment/
Also, another reason why you may not see a change in overall employment is due to labor to labor substitution. As you increase the min. wage older workers may re-enter the work force take over jobs that younger workers could take.
4. Walmart is not the only company that sells DVDs. But they are a "big corporation" and thus will be attacked. Also, DVDs are a bad example as the demand for them is dropping. And if all it took was a 1 cent raise and there will be no lost in demand, then why doesn't the company do that to begin with and make that much more in profits? The answer, it isn't that simple.
5. Again, this is assuming that the money is there to begin and people won't have their hours cut. Also, move people working $9.50/hr or less are not poor.
http://cdn.theatlantic.com/newsroom/img/posts/Sabia_Burkhauser_SEJ_Jan10.pdf
6. Same as point 5
7. The median age for min. wage workers is 25. Saying that most are not teens is deceptive as many are also retirees doing busy work while being retires. Also consider this, you can't work until you are 14 (at most, and many don't at that young of an age). So you hare 14-19, a five year span for teenagers. Now you have 20 to 78 (capping at life expectancy) for the rest, 58 years. 21 years and older make up 70% of the population, under 18 makes up 25% (I am too lazy to find the exact percent for 14-19 compared to 20-28, buy you can).
https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf
You have a larger pool to chose from in the non-teenage crowd. Plus, I mentioned labor to labor substitution.
8. Look at point 5
9. Every business knows that if you pay employees more than you will lower turnover rate and attract better employees. That is why the average hourly earnings in the US is over $24/hr and only around 4% of workers earn at or below the min. wage. Businesses can pay less but choose not to. They pay more because the greedy workers want more.
10. This is deceptive because it does not say the income of the other parent.
http://www.unr.edu/nevada-today/news/2011/university-economist-refutes-conventional-wisdom-about-minimum-wage-earners
So when you break it down you see those reasons are not legit. So again, there is not one reason to even have a min. wage.
1
-
1
-
The DOL does not site their claims. For example, it says
"Academic research has shown that higher wages sharply reduce employee turnover which can reduce employment and training costs."
But gives none of those academic research. That is just one of many examples. And yes, Obama being president plays a role.
1. "Well the money clearly does exist if their are people like Hillary and Donald to spend millions on campaigning on an election"
Not relevant. Many businesses are not involved in campaigning. What about Safeway, Hy Vee, Raley's, HEB and other small stores? Fact is that businesses work on thin profit margins. But, as a whole, you are deflecting here. We are talking about the min. wage and businesses, not campaign funds.
"You further state that if they willing to spend money so easily instead
of saving up and investing up as they cant because they have to live
paycheck to paycheck spending their money on the bare necessities to
survive."
So they are earning enough to survive now. If they get more they should save. The fact they won't shows why they are poor to begin with, bad money management skills.
2. " the others could come from slight and incremental price raises on products sold by Walmart"
Again, if Walmart can raise prices and not lose demand, than why doesn't that greedy business do it already and make that much more in profits? I mean, the CEO can be earning more?
" but one job should provide you with enough money to afford a living "
Define that? What is your standard? As is the vast majority of min. wage workers are not poor. But, what is your standard for "afford a living"? Owning a car? Living in a two bedroom by yourself or a studio with two roommates? Having kids? What is your standard? When I earned a min. wage of $5.15/hr I was fine. When my girlfriend earned $8.50/hr she bought a $10,000 car. Also, saying "afford a living" is an appeal to emotion phrase which is not how economics works.
3. "At most you can say that the minimum wage has no effect on employment what so ever"
I acknowledge that because there are several other factors involved. You should read my whole comment. I told you how in the 90s we saw no increase in unemployment because unemployment was dropping already and the percent of min. wage workers was as well. Businesses were already hiring at a higher wage. There are several factors involved in employment such as taxes and wealth of the local community. Emeryville, Ca has had the highest min. wage in the US for years. They have an unemployment rate below the federal rate. Three of their top four employers, though, are Pixar and two pharmaceutical companies, businesses that pay close to six figures. A $20/hr min. wage won't hurt the employment of those workers. In the state of Washington, however, they have a high min. wage and high teenage unemployment. There is a trend there.
4. If you increase prices demand drops. Plus, the article you gave me said DVDs which are not in demand. What about McDonalds? They don't sell DVDs? Or Hy Vee? The don't sell them much if at all.
5. You clearly did not read the paper I gave you. The reason why those workers at $9.50/hr are not poor is because they live in a household with a primary earner. As with my girlfriend, I was the primary earner so she could buy a care with her wage. That is the norm for those earning that low of a wage. Most who are poor either
1. don't have a job at all
2. earn over $10/hr to begin with
6. Ok
7. Median is not the same as the average. For example, you have 4 people ages 16, 22, 24, and 68. The average is 32.75 years even though three of the people are below the age of 25. The median is 23.5 years. See the difference and how one number represents the population better? I feel you need to study statistics.
8. OK
9. The average hourly earnings in the US is over $24. Plus those greedy businesses can pay less by law but choose not to. They instead pay more. Why? Because of competition. If a business can pay more they will. The article brought up Costco. Google pays their employees over $80,0000, why doesn't Costco?
10. It linked the studies, it is all there. There is also this
http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2015/december/effects-of-minimum-wage-on-employment/
So what you have shown is that you lack understanding of statistics where I showed you the median is a better analysis than the average. You did not give a rebuttal to all of my comments, such as the one I made about Robert Reich or Christina Romer. You did not read the sources I gave because you felt that $9.50/hr is where poverty ends when the paper was saying those earning below that are not poor to begin with, and you used emotion with " afford a living". Your argument falls apart when broken down making those reasons worthless. Again, when broken down there is not one single good reason to even have a min. wage.
1
-
The Center for Economic and Policy Research is a think tank, not an academic journal. No that does not mean it does not contain important information, it just means it is not academic. So be aware and realize the difference.
1. Not every business has a CEO. In fact, most don't. Plus I showed you how cutting CEO pay does not lead to significantly higher wages.
If you give workers a high wage then they should save. They should keep their expenses the same and with the extra income from the higher wage they should save and invest.
2. So now you are seeing the complexity of the issue. Businesses just can't raise prices as it kills demand. Also, Walmart is not making lots of money. Businesses work on thin profit margins.
"alright here how about one where you can have just a little bit of time
of without having to worry about if you'll be able to eat again."
That is not a standard. That is vague and can mean a lot.
I do agree that anecdotal evidence is not really the best, but my point was that the "living wage" subjective.
"Appeal to emotion its a slogan and its irrelevant if theirs reason
behind a slogan, everyone does it or have you forgotten Donald Trumps
Make america great again. "
Which I didn't buy in to. Anyway, this is a discussion on the min. wage, not Donald Trump. Please stay on topic and stop deflecting.
3. It is a common trend with other states. Making it harder for teens to get a job means they enter the workforce later and thus they have a harder time getting a higher paying job when they are in their 20s.
4. You can't raise prices that easily. Also, larger companies can do with less staff before raising prices. For example, a McDonalds who may have 12 franchises in a city may cut down to 10, and cut the hours of others so it is no longer 24 hours. A small local burger joint with only one location can't do that and has to raise prices. Larger companies can cut before raising prices giving them a competitive edge. Also, those cuts means less hours thus less income for workers.
5. Again, the vast majority of them are not poor. Also, if it created an economic boost, why not $50/hr? Christina Romer showed how a small min. wage increase won't grow the economy a significant amount, if at all.
7. Ok, what are you talking about here? You are ignoring how the average is flaw and the median age is a more accurate representation of the work force. Also, you are ignoring the larger pool for non-teenagers in the work force compared to teenagers. Anyway, to say the youth have it harder is simply not true. The youth, compared to 1984, have smart phones, better cars, high speed internet, not longer have to use the Dewey Decimal system, have information at their fingertips. Here you and I are debating the min. wage and exchanging info that is easily accessible online. Things are, at the very least, different, but not harder.
9. Define "adequate amount". You are again throwing out phrases without standards. And because of competition wages do go up.
10. They level out afterwards because the economy adjusts to the new price floor on wages.
You really didn't break down anything. You deflected by bring up Trump which has nothing to do with the issue. You deflected by talking about how the youth have it worse today than in 1984 (which is not true). You failed to set a standard on a "living wage".
When broken down there is not one single good reason to even have a min. wage
I will also add on helping poor people. Most people are poor because they are irresponsible. Raising the min. wage is not going to help them even if they did get a raise due to their irresponsibility. K-12 education is free for all in all 50 states. Even at that between 10 to 20 percent of US naturally born citizens who are of age don't have a high school diploma. That is due to irresponsibility. What makes you think they will all of a sudden be responsible now? Thus saying raising the min. wage will help the poor is not necessarily true and no one can accurately predict.
1