Minimum wage
November 26th, 2019 at 1:17:56 PM permalink | |
Evenbob Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 146 Posts: 25010 |
No better way to kill something you love than to immerse yourself in it. You love collecting old radios, so you quit your full time job and jump into hunting down old radios and repairing and selling them for a living. Very soon your enjoyable hobby becomes a chore. If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose. |
November 26th, 2019 at 4:09:16 PM permalink | |
AZDuffman Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 135 Posts: 18136 |
If he "loves history" he should start a history meetup group or history podcast. Science and math is where teacher demand is. History is easy to teach. Add in that education in the USA will be unrecognizable in 20 years. Probably way decentralized and online. Even today, good luck getting in the district of Clarence or Amherst. Everyone wants to teach there. Ask him if he is ready to teach in Buffalo and get threatened by his students. If he is ready to deal with students who have homelives that are a disaster. Best thing is tell him to seek out some 10-year teachers and ask how they like it by then. The President is a fink. |
November 27th, 2019 at 8:35:03 AM permalink | |
SOOPOO Member since: Feb 19, 2014 Threads: 22 Posts: 4157 |
Friend's son is Buffalo teacher, and is demoralized like you describe. My sons GF is new Buffalo teacher, so now really happy to get the big paycheck with bennies and time off. She does special ed so it will be a lifetime of demoralization. But that is my opinion, and yours.... There are lifetime happy teachers.... |
November 27th, 2019 at 8:39:40 AM permalink | |
AZDuffman Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 135 Posts: 18136 |
I have met lifetime happy call center workers. For each one of those I have met many more who could barely bring themselves to show up at work. Why I now suggest get both a blue and white collar skill. The President is a fink. |
October 28th, 2021 at 10:23:38 AM permalink | |
Mission146 Administrator Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 23 Posts: 4147 | I think there was a more recent thread that discussed MW, but this works. I just didn't want to create a new thread for a relatively short post. I would declare myself the Prognosticator of Prognosticators, but anyone could have seen this coming: https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/578795-mcdonalds-hikes-up-prices-to-offset-wage-increases
Go forth, ye, and institute a $15/hour MW and watch this happen, except to a much greater percentage degree, across the board. Same game, bigger numbers. Nothing changes---except for those making...I'm going to say around $12+ an hour now. I don't see $12 getting bumped to $18 if MW goes to $15, so my expectation is that you have a wide swath of wage ranges that are going to see a lower standard of living (largely due to price increases) if MW goes up to $15/hour. Even if $12 went to $18, I think they'd probably suffer for it, all things considered. Similarly, if you think about someone making $19/hour presently, that's 262.07% of the current Federal Minimum wage. If MW is increased to $15/hour, I tend to doubt that the employer is going to bump someone presently making $19 up to $39.31/hour...more than double their current wages. Prices on base consumer goods and services (the segment where you find workers closest to minimum wage anyway, especially at the customer level) are going to go up in response to the wage increases and the gains made by those making $11-$15 currently (my semi-educated estimate) will be more than offset by the price increases. More than that, these wage increases will be taxed, will put individuals and families into higher tax brackets and will disqualify many individuals and families from some of the Government social safety net benefits that many of them already receive. If you put all of this together, the only possible conclusion is that such a drastic increase to the MW will exist for the benefit of almost nobody. Okay, maybe this post wasn't THAT short. "War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen..let us give them all they want." William T. Sherman |
October 28th, 2021 at 10:36:41 AM permalink | |
rxwine Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 188 Posts: 18632 |
I made a recent post related to this http://diversitytomorrow.com/thread/1958/29/#post175938 You believe in an invisible god, and dismiss people who say they are trans? Really? |
October 28th, 2021 at 10:51:12 AM permalink | |
Mission146 Administrator Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 23 Posts: 4147 |
I don't dispute any of that and am uncertain why it should lead to a decrease in employment. Even if that were the prediction, I wonder how they are measuring employment, as there are many ways: 1.) Full-time employment only. (Head Count) 2.) Number of total employees. (Head Count) 3.) Number of total employee hours worked. (Total Hours) For example, if a company's strategy to increased wages was to offset them on the benefits side of the equation, then rather than terminate people, you would simply have fewer full-time workers...but if you need the same number of employee hours, you would compensate by having more part-time workers, hence, more total employees. The reason for that being, of course, that part-time workers often do not get any other benefits. Additionally, if a full-time employee quits or is terminated, then the inclination of the business could be to replace that person with multiple part-time employees. Of items #1-#3 listed above, an increase to full-time employment (#1) is the only item that I would consider as being, almost automatically, a positive outcome. Items #2 & #3 can be positive, but are not automatically so. #2 can be effectuated simply by having more part-time workers, even with fewer full-time workers. #3 can be effectuated the same way, in theory. Beyond that, my concern doesn't have anything to do with number of employees anyway. My prediction (which is also conventional economic theory) is that establishments will increase prices to offset the additional monies paid out in wages. I tend to think that most of these businesses are running with as close to as few employees are needed to operate anyway---so many locations couldn't realistically make cuts even if they wanted to. "War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen..let us give them all they want." William T. Sherman |
October 28th, 2021 at 10:54:31 AM permalink | |
rxwine Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 188 Posts: 18632 |
f we conclude that raising minimum wage ultimately doesn't improve the lives at the bottom, but we're still getting greater wealth inequality year after year between the rich and the poor, that argues for a tax on the wealthy. Conservatives will scream against either, so it makes little difference to me. You believe in an invisible god, and dismiss people who say they are trans? Really? |
October 28th, 2021 at 11:13:09 AM permalink | |
AZDuffman Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 135 Posts: 18136 |
A tax on the wealthy? Why? Because they are more successful than you are? Maybe just maybe people get wealthy because they work smarter and harder? Someone had to explain why wealth inequality is a problem in the first place. After all, the more liberal a place is the more wealth inequality it tends to have. San Francisco is about the most liberal place there is and you have homeless slums around the plenty of the wealthy. The President is a fink. |
October 28th, 2021 at 11:15:56 AM permalink | |
Evenbob Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 146 Posts: 25010 |
Rush Limbaugh, is that you speaking from Beyond the Grave? This is what Rush preached for years. Used to say $10 an hour, $12 an hour, $15 an hour. Why not make it $50 an hour, what difference would it make. The employer will just raise his prices to compensate and you will always be right where you started. If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose. |