|
|
 |
|
|
|
#1
12-03-2013, 05:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Meer says Obama in his speech completely ignored the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) “which provides as much as a 45 percent subsidy for low-income earners,” he notes, ”not to mention the slew of other income-support and transfer programs at both the federal and state level. A single parent with two children earning $14,500 would receive $5,236 in the EITC alone, before any other transfer programs.
“People who support increasing the minimum wage are often well-intentioned, but it’s quite likely that the minimum wage does more harm than good for low-income people. There are other policies, like the EITC, that do a much better job of alleviating poverty." so, we keep having taxpayers pick up the slack? that's what eitc and other 'transfer' programs do. it leaves the tab off the companies, and keeps it on the taxpayers. so, they don't get paid more for their work, but keep getting paid by taxpayers for having a low-paying job....yeah, that's great. but i did like the part in the article that re-iterated that minimum wage increases don't cause people to lose their jobs, which is a commonly held myth. so, even if it didn't produce more jobs (and i have to wonder if they went far enough in their study to extrapolate more money in pockets to more money spent, hence more purchasing, more demand, thus needing more supply, which would mean more work) it would certainly get many currently at minimum wage into a higher bracket-and off eitc, off 'transfer' programs, and off the taxpayers backs. then again...it's not as tho my taxes would go down, they'd probably just spend the money saved on another aircraft carrier. 
|
|
#2
12-03-2013, 07:43 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 We're taking on water and no one is bailing. Instead we're pouring more into the boat as an incentive to try and get people to bail. Welfare was originally designed for crippled people. Not for HS dropouts, people who tattoo their faces, girls who have babies before legal consent or criminals who can't get a job. Stop telling kids they're special until they do something. Ties and everyone gets a trophy does nothing but harm the kids going forward. For Christ sake the President of the U.S. has said his daughter will decide when they move because she's in HS. Imagine a future boss telling her she needs to relocate?
__________________
“To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” Thomas Jefferson
|
|
#3
12-05-2013, 06:08 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I am all for a minimum wage hike as it hasn't kept up with inflation. A move to 9 bucks would seem right. From what I have been reading this would not trigger hyper inflation. I personally am more concerned about deflation as the middle class losses more and more buying power.
Getting back to this minimum wage thing, people continue to amaze and disappoint me. I am now seeing a Fight for 15 movement where they are calling for the minimum wage to go to 15 dollars. Really they have the balls to ask for doubling of wages for an unskilled job. I was good at 9 but unless you rein this absurdlty in I will have to join the dark side and say fuk you no increase whatsoever.
|
|
#4
12-05-2013, 11:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
From an economic standpoint, Employers will either have to (A) raise their prices, or (B) cut staff to accommodate the imposed sanction. This is where the lefty's lose it. They don't get that prices must stay competitive or shoppers will go elsewhere, so in order to keep prices stable, employers will need to cut staff to pay for the wage increases. So now the workday is scheduled so that an assistant manager at Walmart can run a cash register, mop a floor, chase shopping carts, etc. an hour or two a day: Mid-level employees will take on more menial responsibilities, so they can cut the # minimum wage jobs to compensate for the rise in wages. If I have a store that employs 50 people, 35 of which are minimum wage employees, and I'm forced to raise what I pay them from 7.25 to 9.00 an hour, I have to find a way to accommodate a 19.4% pay increase. I will still get the work done, only I'll do it with 28 minimum wage employees. The very people who they think this is going to help is exactly who it negatively impacts the most.
|
|
#6
12-05-2013, 12:43 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Another case of 'if you want/feel it, it's true' never mind the numbers. According to a Forbes article I found the CEO of McD's was paid $8.75 million in salary in 2012. An employee that works an average of 30hrs./week would work 1,560 hrs. in a year. At $2 higher an hour the added salary per employee would be $3,120/year. Dividing that into $8.75 million you get 2,804 employees. According to the second article cited, McDonald's employs 760,000. That 2,804 that would be covered (if the CEO was to forfeit all his salary) would represent 3 tenths of one percent of all US Micky D employees. Under your premise a 1% decrease in salary would be represent $87,500 and that divided by $3,120 would cover 28 employees.  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-1...s-pay-gap.html http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/talki...170436977.html
__________________
“To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” Thomas Jefferson
|
|
#7
12-05-2013, 12:53 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 They have been paying 2 to do that position and 2012 compensation is 40 Million. http://insiders.morningstar.com/trad...n.action?t=MCD Last edited by jms62 : 12-05-2013 at 01:11 PM.
|
Hybrid Mode
