Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Fox Business: Living Wage Is 'Absolutely Nuts'" video.

Paying people above the market rate isn't good for the economy.
2
"slave wages", ok nice made up term. Learn what a slave is.
1
Ylze Tyr I didn't ignore the Trader Joes article. I told you can't compare two businesses. How come Trader Joes or Costco don't pay as much as Google? That is one question I will ask. Or how come they don't hire more? When you look to Costco and Trader Joes and compare them to Walmart you see two different businesses. Walmart caters to people with a variety of goods and services for 24 hours at a low prices. Costco and Trader Joes are open only during peak hours, Trader Joes prices are higher, and Costco sells in bulk so they push more units per hour. Even you "the atlantic" article mentions that. So you can't say that since Costco and Trader Joes pay more then other businesses can as well because as I said, Google pays well so why not other businesses? Also who hires more? We have two Costco in my city, I live within 5 minutes of two Walmarts. I don't even know where Trader Joes is at. Walmarts builds more stores and hires more, Costco and Trader Joes doesn't.
1
Ylze Tyr On productivity, not every job is created equal. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/prin2.t02.htm There is data on unit labor cost, that is the compensation over productivity. You see that some jobs have become more productive where others have remained stagnate. Look at the "full service restaurant", it has remain pretty much stagnate but it's compensation when up leading to a unit labor cost of about a 4:1 ratio. That means workers at the full service restaurant are seeing their wages outpace productivity. If you look at the fastest growing jobs in productivity they are not receiving a raise, they are Software Publishers and Wireless Telecommunications, two jobs that most likely don't pay the near the minimum. Also the mindset that wages have been dropping as a whole is deceptive. http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323468604578249723138161566 The lifestyle of society is better due to increase productivity. Increase productivity has lead to better goods and services at an more affordable price. As a kind we were impressed with a radio that had 5 CDs in it, now my ipod holds my entire CD collection.
1
Ylze Tyr Now I am ready to hear your response on how I am a "moron" or "stupid" with no justification.
1
Ylze Tyr Your biggest flaw is that you simply don't understand what money is. Money isn't some finite resource. Money is nothing more than some arbitrary numbers on a computer screen on green pieces of paper that mean nothing. Money is worthless until it is invested and agreed to be used in trade to create capital. You say the minority hold all the money, that isn't true. If they did then that money would be worthless. You can stuff thousands of 20 dollar bills under your bed and it will lose value. The reason why those CEOs make so much money is that they create that much capital. Trickle down doesn't mean money trickle downs but instead wealth. As in my previous comment, we have it better off now than in the past. Due to people investing money they are able to create better goods and services to where we have better TVs, music systems, computers and so on at a more affordable price. Everyone does better. This idea that money needs to be moved around is false. We can easily flow a lot of money around but if it creates zero capital than it is worthless. Your thinking that people were taxed high in the past is false. You mindset that Reagan caused these problems is also wrong. Funny how 30 years later it finally hit us. It is safe to say it wasn't Reagan's fault. Once again, learn what money is. The flow of money means nothing. Take your $20 bill and try to buy a tribe Brazil off, you will get no where. The reason why is because money is worthless until it is agreed to be traded and creates capital. The government coming in and forcing the flow of money ruins its value. Also the term "living wage" simply doesn't exist. Stop using it.
1
Ylze Tyr The problem with the "living wage" is that it is subjective. Someone asked me if I could live off of $1/hr. I said yes if I had a spouse that was well off. M girlfriend didn't have a job for a while but she lived with me and did fine, now she has a job. The "living wage" is different for everyone which is why it is a term that means nothing thus isn't a real term.
1
michalum04 Your thoughts on taxes and trickle down economics is flawed. People make claims that trickle down isn't working by saying the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. That isn't true. People fail to realize that it isn't money that is trickled down but instead wealth. Money is arbitrary. Money is nothing more than green pieces of paper, and now numbers on a screen that have zero value until it is agreed to use in trade. The market eventually sets prices but as a whole money is worthless. You have to look at that society is getting better. Would you rather use 50s technology to play your records or use current technology to play your entire music library on your phone? Old cameras use to cost a lot but now they are inexpensive and found on all smart phones with better quality. Cars are better. Cars get up to 30 miles a gallon these days and more people own them. When my mom went to college no one on campus had a car. Now almost every student has a car. Society has it better now than in the past thanks to investment and innovation from those with the resources to do it. Increasing taxes to limit the amount of resources being invested limits growth and hurts society. The idea that the poor are getting poor is a myth. http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323468604578249723138161566
1
Ylze Tyr A small typo, with the tribe example in Brazil what I am saying is that if you try to buy something from a tribe in Brazil you won't be able to do it with your money because money to them is worthless.
1
Ylze Tyr Ok, living wage: " an amount of money you are paid for a job that is large enough to provide you with the basic things (such as food and shelter) needed to live an acceptable life" Alright, what does that mean? What value is that? What is an acceptable life? Who determines what is an acceptable life? You? Me? I bet your my standards are lower than yours considering how frugal I am. What is shelter? A one bedroom apartment with 4 roommates or a 3 bedroom home by yourself? What type of food? Healthy food to keep healthcare cost down or cheap food? That is why the term "living wage" doesn't mean anything. It is subjective and thus anyone who uses it are doing so to justify their point with emotions instead of an actual rational argument. Now you never showed I was wrong. All you did was prove how vague the term "living wage" was. You never mentioned my sources or tried to debunk them. You just skipped over it and went straight to the "living wage" as if you were holding a hand of aces. Instead all it showed was that I was right about you all along. You cherry picked want you wanted to attack me with. You skipped over the Youtube video I sent you or the BLS link. And after that you still scream that I am wrong. Nice.
1
Ylze Tyr Actually you didn't address my sources. You never mentioned productivity when I showed the numbers from the BLS. You never mentioned the video in how the increase in the min. wage has led to higher prices and loss of jobs for the unskilled. You went to the living wage. Yes, you did talk about CEO pay and I told you how that stat was deceptive. CEOs are getting paid more because they, though innovation and technology, have become more productive. That actually makes society better. As I have also showed you in that society people are getting paid more. I showed that with a WSJ article and in how people are living longer and have better goods and services at a more affordable price. That is how trickle down works, wealth is trickled down. We have better things overall. You mindset of what money is proves to be flawed. Flowing more money doesn't mean anything if the value of the dollar is worthless. If you flow money around but don't generate any wealth in the process than you have accomplished nothing. In capitalism the rich 1% don't hold onto all the money because if they did than that money would be worthless. They invest it to create wealth that everyone uses. The fact that you refuse to even attempt to counter my sources I gave you and you don't understand basic terms as in money and capitalism, and you lean on a deceptive term like "living wage" shows how little you know about the economy and market.
1
michalum04 Those owners are generating that much capital which is why they are getting paid that much. Society does reap the benefits. As a child owning a CD player that played 5 discs was unique, now my entire library is on my ipod. We are better off now than in the past. And just because the rich supposedly hold so much wealth and income doesn't mean it is bad. If I told you that you had to choose from 1/6 of a pie or 1/9 of another pie your decision would be based on which pie is bigger. If the 1/9 piece was from a pie that was way bigger than the 1/6 one then you will pick the 1/9 piece. That is the situation we are in now. We are better off now than in the past.
1
Ylze Tyr The term "living wage" is a term that you can't use in making economic policies which is why it is a term that doesn't exist. One can look at an individual's circumstance and determine their "living wage", but in the end it is different. As I said I can live off of $1/hr if I had a spouse earning more. We actually see that in that in that over 3/4 of min. wage earners are not poor because they are not the primary earners of the household. The average household income of a min. wage earner is over $47,000/yr. Thus someone can be making the min. wage and make a living. Someone can be making $12/hr in an area where $10/hr is consider a "living wage". Now factor in clothes, if they are diabetic, if they live in a "bad" neighborhood and have to use the AC and can't keep windows open, heat, etc. You have a cost of living that is high. $12/hr isn't much. That is one big reason why the term "living wage" is frivolous. Another reason is because one is based on how much they are worth, not to make a living. If a person doesn't earn enough either they have to cut expenses or find a way to earn more. Asking businesses to pay someone above the capital they produce ruins the business and the economy. As we have seen leads to further unemployment from those who struggle the most. A mandated "living wage" isn't going to help those with no job.
1
Ylze Tyr One can look at an individual's situation and determine their "living wage", but in the end it doesn't mean anything. I looked at the MIT reference and it is off, I question the numbers. In the county I live in thy have housing listed as $638, I pay $510 for rent for a one bedroom. Transportation at $285, I pay around $150. One could pay less to basically zero if they walk to work and everywhere else. "Other", which is what? Energy bill? I pay $20/month due to not using the AC or heat. Food, I pay around $140 and that is even high. I have zero dollars in medical costs. I question where they get their numbers because mine is less. It can be even lower if one were to get a roommate or two. The county I grew up in had housing at $460, I paid $250 with a roommate. Transportation is listed at $306. That is funny because gas is $0.80/gal cheaper in that county than the county I live in now, but transportation is more expensive? Car insurance is cheaper there as well and if you were like me I walked and rode my bike everywhere. Those number on that "living wage" calculator are questionable and strengthens my mindset that the term "living wage" is pointless.
1
Ylze Tyr Also I am waiting for you to debunk my other sources. You can't keep your arguments straight as well. First you talk about "living wage" and used an article from The Atlantic to support your cause. I debunked it and you refuse counter just showing that source was weak. Than you talked about productivity. I debunked that with a BLS source and a youtube video talking about the min. wage where it first talked about productivity and a reason why certain people became more productive and paid more is because of Skilled Biased Technological Change. Than you switched to trickle down economics which wasn't a part of the discussion to begin with. You have pushed everything else aside and are trying to justify you are right by ignoring everything and push the "living wage" argument. I have showed you how those numbers from MIT are off. What is funny is they say this "In such cases, the calculator is likely to underestimate costs such as housing and child care." So they underestimate housing cost but yet I have showed that they overestimated them. Real accurate. Also real nice how they don't reference their numbers well. But whatever, you keep thinking you won. You can continue to push this and ignore other parts of the debate you lost and choose to ignore. If it makes you feel good than do it.
1
gunnyblender Yes, because they didn't even cite where they got those numbers. You read the page you see numbers without citations. It is a weak article. And in the county I live in I don't have a roommate and pay less in housing than they say, and there are cheaper places to live. And having a roommate isn't rent assistance, it is people making a decision to save money. You know, if you don't make enough money either you have to find a way to earn more or cut expenses.
1
gunnyblender Compared to the MIT source that doesn't cite where they get their numbers then yes. It is also funny how you, and Ylze Tyr don't even mention the BLS source or the video I posted on here a couple of times. Nice cherry picking though.
1
gunnyblender So you are going to be like the other poster, just plug your ears and say "la la la". Nice, good job at being myopic.
1
gunnyblender Look up the definition of myopic "lacking imagination, foresight, or intellectual insight."
1
The term "living wage" doesn't exist. There are too many variables to actually determine what a "living wage' is. You are paid what you are worth, and at Wal-Mart it isn't much. If you are not making enough money either you have to find a way to earn more or cut expenses. Paying people more than the capital they produce doesn't help anyone. Raising the min. wage will have people losing jobs or prices going up. People say the Waltons can afford it but that isn't true. Kyle's justification for it is that they own more than 40% of the income, they have 40% of the wealth. Wealth does not equal income. And less profits means less investment and overall less progress. There is not one single good reason to even having a min. wage. Learn what money is first and then you will see why.
1
Rathelm MC Actually we have a lot of high skill/high wage jobs available that are not being filled because people don't have the skills to do it. Look at the medical field, look at pharmacy, there are openings but no one to fill it. UMKC guarantees you a job when you get a Pharm. D. degree there. On college costs, colleges are cheap, and would be cheaper if we fill the positions needed of more professors. Also almost anyone can qualify for a loan. But we do have JuCo and CC that people can attend for a low amount of money. It requires work though.
1
zeroa69 Wal-Mart is a real job, it just doesn't pay well because the workers there don't produce much capital. Paying them more won't help anyone, it will just lead to jobs loss and increase in prices.
1
CollinDUBS Really, how? What You Weren't Told About The Minimum Wage
1
BramSLI1 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/28/business/smallbusiness/even-with-high-unemployment-some-small-businesses-struggle-to-fill-positions.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2013/09/skills_gap.html http://www.usatoday.com/longform/money/2014/10/14/jobs-for-college-grads-by-metro/16046989/ That is if you are wondering about where the high skill jobs are at. If you are wondering about forcing workers to be paid more leading to increase in prices and job loss you can view this. What You Weren't Told About The Minimum Wage
1
Rathelm MC Businesses don't hire and train due to increase costs and liability. More laws are being created to where businesses have to pay more to hire someone one. Now we have a law that requires businesses to pay for health insurance. It is too much of a risk at the cost. And college is cheap. Almost anyone qualifies for a loan and there are a lot of cheap options for college.
1