New Study Shows that Welfare Benefits are Exceeding Minimum Wage Jobs.......Why Work?

[Vteckidd]

Thats the other thing no one talks about.

I DONT WANT THE CHILDREN TO SUFFER!!

So, your answer is to keep paying people to have kids? Seems Legit

[Sinfix_15]

Thats the other thing no one talks about.

I DONT WANT THE CHILDREN TO SUFFER!!

So, your answer is to keep paying people to have kids? Seems Legit

Liberals are just really compassionate and caring individuals. Seeing that children are taken care of is one of their utmost priorities.

[.blank cd]

Thats the other thing no one talks about.

I DONT WANT THE CHILDREN TO SUFFER!!

So, your answer is to keep paying people to have kids? Seems Legit

No one talks about it because its not an issue. No one is paying anyone to have kids in any sense.

[Vteckidd]

No one talks about it because its not an issue. No one is paying anyone to have kids in any sense.

As usual, wrong again.

why give credits to people who have kids vs people who dont have kids. I know people whoare divorced and trade off who gets to claim the kid that year because of Tax credits.

The dependent exemption is not the only tax break that parents can claim. Provided that your income is below $110,000 for married couples filing jointly, $75,000 for a single head of household, or $55,000 for a married person filing separately, you can also claim the child tax credit. The child tax credit trims your tax bill by $1,000 per child. Because it is a credit, and not a deduction, the child tax credit gives you $1,000 back in your pocket for every child that you have.

And then theres the EIC

The earned income credit is a refundable tax credit designed for lower income working families and individuals. The amount of the credit varies depending on your level of income and how many dependents you support.

Earned Income Credit: What is the Earned Income Tax Credit?

People are being PAID to have children, stop doing it.

A CREDIT is the same as paying someone for having a child.

[.blank cd]

As usual, wrong again.

Could you then quote the part that says they're paying for people to have kids?

Or is that just your interpretation of what the tax credit is?

[Vteckidd]

Could you then quote the part that says they're paying for people to have kids?

Or is that just your interpretation of what the tax credit is?

If you cant come to that conclusion with what i just posted, its not worth arguing. I could show you the color blue and you would argue against it.

They are giving people CREDITS for having kids, NOT DEDUCTIONS, CREDITS. That is paying people to have kids, it doesnt get any simpler than that.

[bu villain]

They are giving people CREDITS for having kids, NOT DEDUCTIONS, CREDITS.

You can't raise a kid on a deduction if you have no income.

[Vteckidd]

You can't raise a kid on a deduction if you have no income.

Why are you having kids if you have no income?

Plus these are CREDITS for having children, its really quite simple. People get POSITIVE FUNDS IE THE GOVT PAYS THEM based upon credits and deductions.

FTR , poor people arent alone in this, there are other tax credits, deductions that should be abolished IMO.

[bu villain]

yes it solves the problem.

A safety net is there to catch you when you fall. Its not there to hold you, coddle you, and never let you leave.

The net has been wokring for 4+ years. Where do you draw the line? 5 years? 10 years?

Gotta cut the cord sometime. People on UE for 99 weeks, Should be out working at Mcdonalds, YES, if they cant find a job in 99 weeks, during a RECOVERY, they should be out working a job that pays them the same amount UE does. At least at the jobthey have a chance to get promoted

I don't think it solves the problem because the problem is partly that people are not trained for the modern economy. Cutting the cord as you say doesn't magically make them more employable. As to when to cut it off, I don't think there is single number. It depends on many factors like economic conditions.

Our species made it where we are today based on my values. Our country was formed and became what it is today based on my values. Maybe all of the problems in society today is a result of trying to accommodate you with something you can accept. Government dependency is a man made problem.

Right now in the US there are more children in need of parents than we have the ability to support. Maybe if we quit supporting dead beat adults, we would be able to take care of the children and eventually there would be a lot less dead beat adults and children in need of support. All of the problems in america are growing because of your values. America is the land of opportunity, not the land of guarantee. When forced to sink or swim, some people are going to sink....

Sure those values may have gotten us where we are but you can't ignore the suffering they caused on the way either. You only care about the end goal and how fast we can get there. I care about the journey as well. Whether you like it or not, you have to accommodate my values because this is my country too and there are a lot of people who feel the same way. Our past does not dictate our future no matter how much you wish it did. Your refusal to compromise with people you don't agree with is exactly why nothing gets done in this country. If that's what you prefer to trying to find common ground, then congratulations, our government is working exactly how you should expect.

Thats the other thing no one talks about.

I DONT WANT THE CHILDREN TO SUFFER!!

So, your answer is to keep paying people to have kids? Seems Legit

It's not an answer, it's just the lesser of two evils.

[Vteckidd]

I don't think it solves the problem because the problem is partly that people are not trained for the modern economy. Cutting the cord as you say doesn't magically make them more employable. As to when to cut it off, I don't think there is single number. It depends on many factors like economic conditions.

.

They arent trained to flip burgers? be a janitor? Mop floors? turn wrenches? Say hello at Wal mart? Fold clothes?

Not being prepared for the modern economy is not my problem quite frankly. If you cant figure out how to be productive, then you get to work the "crappy job" on your dime, not mine. I dont want to work $7/hr jobs, so I dont sit around bitching about not being qualified or trained. I go out and get training. I put myself through school. I learned a trade/skill. its not hard.

at some point you should be forced to take a job that is paying you that same on welfare. Otherwise you are just being lazy

[.blank cd]

Liberals are just really compassionate and caring individuals. Seeing that children are taken care of is one of their utmost priorities.

This is up there with some of the stupidest times you've ever pressed the post button.

[Sinfix_15]

This is up there with some of the stupidest times you've ever pressed the post button.

Where would you rank "god bless planned parenthood" on the list of the stupidest things that presidents have ever said?

[.blank cd]

Well. If they're paying people to have kids now, still haven't recieved a check yet. They must have left me out.

[Vteckidd]

Well. If they're paying people to have kids now, still haven't recieved a check yet. They must have left me out.

Post last years tax return. I guarantee you , that your tax liability was less because of a child, and you received income credits due to having a child..

Would shock me if you didnt use those deductions or credits.

[Sinfix_15]

i wish all of those dumb ass kids would listen to this speech, but i know they wont.

[David88vert]

Did anyone watch ABC News' coverage tonight on the fast food workers strike? One of the key people they showed was a young woman, who's statement was promoted by ABC as the main statement of the workers, as support for why the minimum wage needs to be more than doubled, from $7.25/hr to $15/hr.
Her statement was that she has 8 people in her household that her paycheck has to support, and that they were barely getting by. For this reason, McDonalds needs to pay her $15/hr, and if they think that $7.25/hr is enough (minimum wage), then they need to live her life and see how hard it is to get by.

Here is the problem with that.
McDonalds is a business, not a charity. It is there to turn a profit for its shareholders, not to support 8 people in return for the work efforts of 1. The business has no business of knowing how many people you are trying to support - only to pay you an agreed to wage for the work agreed to. As a worker, you are trading your time and effort in exchange for compensation (financial, health, etc).
This argument that minimum wage is not enough is an idiotic one. If it is not enough, then go find a job that does pay enough. Arguing that businesses should give you more for the same work effort just because you are trying to support more people than you should is dumb, and shows that the people making minimum wage don't understand even what the concept of work actually is.

[BanginJimmy]

Did anyone watch ABC News' coverage tonight on the fast food workers strike? One of the key people they showed was a young woman, who's statement was promoted by ABC as the main statement of the workers, as support for why the minimum wage needs to be more than doubled, from $7.25/hr to $15/hr.
Her statement was that she has 8 people in her household that her paycheck has to support, and that they were barely getting by. For this reason, McDonalds needs to pay her $15/hr, and if they think that $7.25/hr is enough (minimum wage), then they need to live her life and see how hard it is to get by.

Here is the problem with that.
McDonalds is a business, not a charity. It is there to turn a profit for its shareholders, not to support 8 people in return for the work efforts of 1. The business has no business of knowing how many people you are trying to support - only to pay you an agreed to wage for the work agreed to. As a worker, you are trading your time and effort in exchange for compensation (financial, health, etc).
This argument that minimum wage is not enough is an idiotic one. If it is not enough, then go find a job that does pay enough. Arguing that businesses should give you more for the same work effort just because you are trying to support more people than you should is dumb, and shows that the people making minimum wage don't understand even what the concept of work actually is.

I have a more basic question. WTF would be you even try supporting that many people while working a fast food job? I know nothing of this lady and I didnt see the coverage of her, but I am going to assume that her real problem is generational bad decision making.

[.blank cd]

This is why BU's post anger and frustrate me. I actually have respect for him and think he is a smart and rational guy.... when i see someone like him come to the conclusions that he does, it makes me lose a little bit of faith in humanity. Blank never angers me, because i expect him to be irrational and stupid.

Code words for smarter than you.

The truth is, it's fiscally cheaper to give people welfare than it is to let them die in the streets, or "fend for themselves" as you say.

[Sinfix_15]

Code words for smarter than you.

The truth is, it's fiscally cheaper to give people welfare than it is to let them die in the streets, or "fend for themselves" as you say.

If i was jobless, on welfare, food stamps and sat at home smoking weed all day, you would be in here defending my honor.

I find that hard to believe.... seeing as how i walk past homeless people all the time and it doesnt cost me a dime.

[.blank cd]

Here is the problem with that.
McDonalds is a business, not a charity.

Was it you the other day that said businesses should be charitable when it came to emergency healthcare? Might have been someone else...

It is there to turn a profit for its shareholders

Is that the line they're handing out now-a-days? Lol. All this time i thought they were there to make shitty hamburgers and fries. Maybe next time Im there, I should ask for the diversified portfolio combo with a side of derivatives.

This argument that minimum wage is not enough is an idiotic one.

Its not, really. It's been to low for too long. $15/hr may be a bit much, but you don't ask for 50 cents more and expect them to throw 3 more dollars at you. I hear the same BS excuse about how we're gonna have to start paying $20 for a hamburger if minimum wage goes up, but it seems that the opponents excuses never stand up to simple math.

Arguing that businesses should give you more for the same work effort just because you are trying to support more people than you should is dumb, and shows that the people making minimum wage don't understand even what the concept of work actually is.

Im pretty sure that isn't anyone's argument. But then again, I hear about wealthier people getting COL raises (not performance based raises) all the time. Maybe we should take that concept away too. Or maybe the cost of living only increases if you're making a lot more than minimum wage. Maybe if your making minimum wage, gas is still 1.05 a gallon, milk is 1.50, bread is .89 cents, and rent is 200/month. It should be raised, and it should be indexed to inflation and production. If the cost of living goes up, minimum wage should go up. If someone is getting a non-performance based raise making 100k a year, someone making 15k should get one too. It doesn't matter how much you make a year, bread, milk, water, gas all cost the same whether you're a millionaire or whether you work at Mickey Ds.

And we need to stop pretending like everyone's home situation is the same. Children happen, regardless of income. Period. It's been happening that way for hundreds of thousands of years. It will keep happening that way until the end of time.

[David88vert]

Was it you the other day that said businesses should be charitable when it came to emergency healthcare? Might have been someone else...

I didn't say anything like that.

Is that the line they're handing out now-a-days? Lol. All this time i thought they were there to make shitty hamburgers and fries. Maybe next time Im there, I should ask for the diversified portfolio combo with a side of derivatives.

Clearly, you have no experience working in corporations. When you have worked for a couple of Fortune 50 companies for a few years, come back and try to speak with some knowledge.

Its not, really. It's been to low for too long. $15/hr may be a bit much, but you don't ask for 50 cents more and expect them to throw 3 more dollars at you. I hear the same BS excuse about how we're gonna have to start paying $20 for a hamburger if minimum wage goes up, but it seems that the opponents excuses never stand up to simple math.

They actually broke down the cost of making a $1 hamburger in the same report. $0.34 was the cost of materials, around $0.23 cents was the approximate rent, $0.25 went to pay employees, and $0.18 was the actual profit. If there were to raise minimum wage from $7.25/hr to $15/hr, as they are being asked to, it would increase the cost by 25%, and raise the cost of that $1 burger to $1.25. A $6.00 meal would become $7.50. That's your simple math being presented by McDonalds, liberal ABC News, and McDonalds.

Im pretty sure that isn't anyone's argument. But then again, I hear about wealthier people getting COL raises (not performance based raises) all the time. Maybe we should take that concept away too. Or maybe the cost of living only increases if you're making a lot more than minimum wage. Maybe if your making minimum wage, gas is still 1.05 a gallon, milk is 1.50, bread is .89 cents, and rent is 200/month. It should be raised, and it should be indexed to inflation and production. If the cost of living goes up, minimum wage should go up. If someone is getting a non-performance based raise making 100k a year, someone making 15k should get one too. It doesn't matter how much you make a year, bread, milk, water, gas all cost the same whether you're a millionaire or whether you work at Mickey Ds.

I'm pretty sure that you are wrong (as I actually watched it), and ABC News would say that you are wrong also - as that is the exact message that they broadcast on air at 7pm tonight.

Companies not owned by the government determine how they give raises and bonuses - that's called being in business. Are you advocating that the government take over all businesses and determine what compensation that someone should be entitled to?

You seem to think that life should be "fair". You haven't yet woken up to reality. Flipping burgers at McDonalds shouldn't be a career.

[.blank cd]

Clearly, you have no experience working in corporations. When you have worked for a couple of Fortune 50 companies for a few years, come back and try to speak with some knowledge.

Well, since you were so sure about it, I did some research to see what they said about it, and it seems that McDonalds did indeed get in the business of selling shitty hamburgers and French fries, and not what you said they were in the business for. You can read more about what they do here

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonalds

I also did some research on the company I used to work for, BP. THEY said they're in the business of energy exploration and conversion, and not what you said. You can read more about what they do here...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BP


Profitability to shareholders is a RESULT of what they're in business for.



So, wrong as usual.

I'm pretty sure that you are wrong (as I actually watched it), and ABC News would say that you are wrong also - as that is the exact message that they broadcast on air at 7pm tonight.

Is that the message they broadcasted at 7? Or was that your interpretation of said message?

Companies not owned by the government determine how they give raises and bonuses - that's called being in business. Are you advocating that the government take over all businesses and determine what compensation that someone should be entitled to?

I don't think I advocated or implied that at all.

You seem to think that life should be "fair". You haven't yet woken up to reality. Flipping burgers at McDonalds shouldn't be a career.

The reality is, everyone should be able to eat and live. Neither of which is a luxury. Especially to those that put fourth a marginal effort. This idea that people are making careers flipping burgers and living off welfare doesn't necessarily exist and is really just a generality that pundits and bloggers and generally angry and less knowledgable people have fabricated, and that you and others have latched on to, because its been presented to you ipse dixit. I would venture to say a very very small percentage of people who flip burgers for McDonald's woke up one morning and thought "Gee, I want to be the best shitty burger flipper this company's ever seen". You're using the exception as the rule so to speak, and that's really not how it works, in reality.

[BanginJimmy]

Well, since you were so sure about it, I did some research to see what they said about it, and it seems that McDonalds did indeed get in the business of selling shitty hamburgers and French fries, and not what you said they were in the business for. You can read more about what they do here

McDonald's - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are proving to be less logical and more of a troll every day.

I also did some research on the company I used to work for, BP. THEY said they're in the business of energy exploration and conversion, and not what you said. You can read more about what they do here...
BP - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thats the business they are in, not why they are in business.

Profitability to shareholders is a RESULT of what they're in business for.

No, its the result of good decision making. This is the exact opposite of the type of decision making of a non management employee above the age of 20.

The reality is, everyone should be able to eat and live. Neither of which is a luxury. Especially to those that put fourth a marginal effort. This idea that people are making careers flipping burgers and living off welfare doesn't necessarily exist and is really just a generality that pundits and bloggers and generally angry and less knowledgable people have fabricated, and that you and others have latched on to, because its been presented to you ipse dixit. I would venture to say a very very small percentage of people who flip burgers for McDonald's woke up one morning and thought "Gee, I want to be the best shitty burger flipper this company's ever seen". You're using the exception as the rule so to speak, and that's really not how it works, in reality.

This is a cute little rant and all, but what basis does it have in reality? Who is saying someone shouldnt have the ability to eat and live? It isnt McDonalds fault their employees are easily replaced and therefore, not worthy of higher salaries. If someone is working there after they get out of HS, or college if they go that route, that is the result of their own decisions. Its not McDonalds or BK's or Dominos job to support your lifestyle. It is on you to gain the necessary education and experience to find employment that will support your lifestyle.

[Sinfix_15]

Well, since you were so sure about it, I did some research to see what they said about it, and it seems that McDonalds did indeed get in the business of selling shitty hamburgers and French fries, and not what you said they were in the business for. You can read more about what they do here

McDonald's - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I also did some research on the company I used to work for, BP. THEY said they're in the business of energy exploration and conversion, and not what you said. You can read more about what they do here...

BP - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Profitability to shareholders is a RESULT of what they're in business for.



So, wrong as usual.


Is that the message they broadcasted at 7? Or was that your interpretation of said message?

I don't think I advocated or implied that at all.


The reality is, everyone should be able to eat and live. Neither of which is a luxury. Especially to those that put fourth a marginal effort. This idea that people are making careers flipping burgers and living off welfare doesn't necessarily exist and is really just a generality that pundits and bloggers and generally angry and less knowledgable people have fabricated, and that you and others have latched on to, because its been presented to you ipse dixit. I would venture to say a very very small percentage of people who flip burgers for McDonald's woke up one morning and thought "Gee, I want to be the best shitty burger flipper this company's ever seen". You're using the exception as the rule so to speak, and that's really not how it works, in reality.

Everyone does have the right to eat and live. I like eating lobster and living with a bunch of shit to play with. That's why i put in the work to get a good job. If people dont like mcdonalds and riding the bus, they should do the same.

[David88vert]

Well, since you were so sure about it, I did some research to see what they said about it, and it seems that McDonalds did indeed get in the business of selling shitty hamburgers and French fries, and not what you said they were in the business for. You can read more about what they do here

McDonald's - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I also did some research on the company I used to work for, BP. THEY said they're in the business of energy exploration and conversion, and not what you said. You can read more about what they do here...

BP - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Profitability to shareholders is a RESULT of what they're in business for.

So, wrong as usual.

Running a cash register at a gas station is not the same as working with executive management. When you have put some time into helping executives scope out a 25 year plan for a company, let me know.

Generating profit is the whole reason that a company exists, you believe that their goal is to sell fried burgers and greasy fries as a favor to society? LOL

Is that the message they broadcasted at 7? Or was that your interpretation of said message?

Actually, it is what they broadcast - I'm not interpreting it. Your attempt to imply that it is not is a failure.

I don't think I advocated or implied that at all.

Re-read your statement and then work on improving your communication skills then. How exactly were you proposing that businesses be stopped from giving COL increases? Wouldn't that be through a law? If not, how would you enforce it?

The reality is, everyone should be able to eat and live. Neither of which is a luxury. Especially to those that put fourth a marginal effort. This idea that people are making careers flipping burgers and living off welfare doesn't necessarily exist and is really just a generality that pundits and bloggers and generally angry and less knowledgable people have fabricated, and that you and others have latched on to, because its been presented to you ipse dixit. I would venture to say a very very small percentage of people who flip burgers for McDonald's woke up one morning and thought "Gee, I want to be the best shitty burger flipper this company's ever seen". You're using the exception as the rule so to speak, and that's really not how it works, in reality.

I agree with the italized part.

I can tell you from firsthand experience that you are 100% wrong that people are not making careers flipping burgers. When I was first out of high school, I worked at a local Burger King for a couple of months. I was the youngest person that worked there. The two ladies that made biscuits every morning had been there for close to 20 years each, and received government assistance, and provided for their families off their salary. Our main guy that made burgers during the lunch rush also had been making fast food burgers for over 20 years, and was very good at it. He did not have kids, but did support his mom as she lived with him in his rental house. Only one of them could afford a car. All three of them were white (not black), and all made more than minimum wage, but only by a little bit. None of them were looking for a better paying job, they just went day-by-day, with no ambition to move from their current employment.

These aren't exceptions to the rule - go walk in you local fast food restaurants at lunchtime and see if you have just kids working, or grown adults that have been doing this for awhile.

My statements haven't come from others - I've seen it in real life. You should try it sometime.

[.blank cd]

They actually broke down the cost of making a $1 hamburger in the same report. $0.34 was the cost of materials, around $0.23 cents was the approximate rent, $0.25 went to pay employees, and $0.18 was the actual profit. If there were to raise minimum wage from $7.25/hr to $15/hr, as they are being asked to, it would increase the cost by 25%, and raise the cost of that $1 burger to $1.25. A $6.00 meal would become $7.50. That's your simple math being presented by McDonalds, liberal ABC News, and McDonalds.

So, assuming this is 100% correct (albeit limited) information, and the math works out as it should, and I could effectively double the minimum wage at McDonalds by charging an extra quarter for my dollar burger and current consumption rates remained stable, would this topple a US economy?

We know that marginal propensity to consume is higher in individuals with lower disposable income and lower in individuals with higher disposable income, what do you think will happen to the extra $8/hr: Will it be spent or saved?

[David88vert]

So, assuming this is 100% correct (albeit limited) information, and the math works out as it should, and I could effectively double the minimum wage at McDonalds by charging an extra quarter for my dollar burger and current consumption rates remained stable, would this topple a US economy?

This information was broadcast on ABC News, so you can research and review it yourself.
If you were to double minimum wage, then costs would rise 25%, that is what they made very clear. Anyone who has taken a Econ 101 course would know that as cost rises, demand decreases, so it is unlikely that current consumption rates would remain the same.
One industry, like fast food, does not have the capability to topple the US economy - I would hope that you already know that. To even ask that question is not logical.

We know that marginal propensity to consume is higher in individuals with lower disposable income and lower in individuals with higher disposable income, what do you think will happen to the extra $8/hr: Will it be spent or saved?

Spent.

What you seem to not comprehend is that this would not be a "raise for fast food workers". This would affect all industries that have workers currently paid under the "new minimum wage rate". We both know that this new rate will not be $15/hr - that would be too big of an increase, too quickly. The effect would be devasting on the economy, as employers would adjust their rates to keep their profit margins, making the prices of many items rise quickly. Of course, the prices on some items can only rise so much, or enough people will quit buying them, causing the businesses to close, and putting those workers in the unemployment line. Those striking workers don't think about that though, and it appears that you don't think about that either.

[Vteckidd]

So, assuming this is 100% correct (albeit limited) information, and the math works out as it should, and I could effectively double the minimum wage at McDonalds by charging an extra quarter for my dollar burger and current consumption rates remained stable, would this topple a US economy?

?

topple? no, but all you would do is pay the Minimum wage worker more, and his dollars would be worth LESS. You would have solved nothing and caused a raising in prices, and also massively distorted unskilled and skilled labor jobs. The toppling effect would be extremely detrimental to the low skilled worked you are trying to help.

Cost of unskilled labor going up means cheap goods will raise in prices which.........doesnt help the low paged worked.

Raising the minimum wage to $15 hr HURTS the worker, doesnt help them at all, actually hurts everyone else as well. A business doesnt operate in a vacuum , all other competitors will be affected.

A 25% price raise kills the middle class and poor. thats all that matters.

Simple fact is they are unskilled labor workers, they deserve the lowest wages out of unskilled labor workers because they do a job anyone can master with no education and no training. these jobs arent made to be careers (unless you go into management). If they dont want to work for minimum wage, they get to go find a job that pays them better. If they cant, thats not mcdonalds problem.

I say give them their $15/hr raise, and then layoff half the workforce. Or fire them all because there are people waiting to take their jobs.

[.blank cd]

I find that hard to believe.... seeing as how i walk past homeless people all the time and it doesnt cost me a dime.

Ok. If you took away welfare altogether at this very second, do you think that homeless population would increase or decrease?

[Sinfix_15]

Ok. If you took away welfare altogether at this very second, do you think that homeless population would increase or decrease?

In the short term it would increased. In the long term it would decrease.

[.blank cd]

Running a cash register at a gas station is not the same as working with executive management. When you have put some time into helping executives scope out a 25 year plan for a company, let me know.

I did a tiny bit more than run a cash register.

Generating profit is the whole reason that a company exists, you believe that their goal is to sell fried burgers and greasy fries as a favor to society? LOL

Maybe you should ask McDonalds why they're in business.

Re-read your statement and then work on improving your communication skills then. How exactly were you proposing that businesses be stopped from giving COL increases? Wouldn't that be through a law? If not, how would you enforce it?

It was a hypothetical statement.

I can tell you from firsthand experience that you are 100% wrong that people are not making careers flipping burgers. When I was first out of high school, I worked at a local Burger King for a couple of months. I was the youngest person that worked there. The two ladies that made biscuits every morning had been there for close to 20 years each, and received government assistance, and provided for their families off their salary. Our main guy that made burgers during the lunch rush also had been making fast food burgers for over 20 years, and was very good at it. He did not have kids, but did support his mom as she lived with him in his rental house. Only one of them could afford a car. All three of them were white (not black), and all made more than minimum wage, but only by a little bit. None of them were looking for a better paying job, they just went day-by-day, with no ambition to move from their current employment.

These aren't exceptions to the rule - go walk in you local fast food restaurants at lunchtime and see if you have just kids working, or grown adults that have been doing this for awhile.

My statements haven't come from others - I've seen it in real life. You should try it sometime.

Seems as if your statements are anecdotal evidence

[David88vert]

I did a tiny bit more than run a cash register.

Maybe you should ask McDonalds why they're in business.

It was a hypothetical statement.

Seems as if your statements are anecdotal evidence

I doubt that you had the ear of the executives of BP. And certainly not included in any long-term strategy planning.

I know why McDonalds is in business. They certainly aren't there to take money from the shareholders and give it to the employees.

So, you can use hypotheticals and it should be taken as a serious discussion point, but if I use real life experience, then that is anecdotal evidence, and shouldn't really be considered? Considering that you have no scientific or statistical evidence to support your statements, it appears that once again, I am the only one bringing any evidence to the table.

[.blank cd]

This information was broadcast on ABC News, so you can research and review it yourself.
If you were to double minimum wage, then costs would rise 25%, that is what they made very clear. Anyone who has taken a Econ 101 course would know that as cost rises, demand decreases, so it is unlikely that current consumption rates would remain the same.
One industry, like fast food, does not have the capability to topple the US economy.

I would say the demand curve for a dollar hamburger is a bit flatter than other things...

What you seem to not comprehend is that this would not be a "raise for fast food workers". This would affect all industries that have workers currently paid under the "new minimum wage rate". We both know that this new rate will not be $15/hr - that would be too big of an increase, too quickly. The effect would be devasting on the economy, as employers would adjust their rates to keep their profit margins, making the prices of many items rise quickly. Of course, the prices on some items can only rise so much, or enough people will quit buying them, causing the businesses to close, and putting those workers in the unemployment line. Those striking workers don't think about that though, and it appears that you don't think about that either.

Ok, so we went from talking about McDonalds to the entire group of people making minimum wage, and we went from talking about doubling minimum wage, to not doubling minimum wage

We know that $15 is a starting point for a negotiation. So lets say they settle on $10, which is reasonable.

Using our same marginal propensity to consume, what do you think people making minimum wage are going to do with the extra $3/hr? Will it be spent or saved?

[David88vert]

I would say the demand curve for a dollar hamburger is a bit flatter than other things...

And you base your statement upon what statistical or scientific evidence?

Generally, people tend to cut back on eating out first when they try to save money, then luxuries like car washes, etc. - i.e. discretionary spending. Do you think that Starbucks will continue to make their same profit if they have to increase the payout to the employees? Where is the tipping point where they decide to close the less profitable stores, and when they need to cut some benefits?

Ok, so we went from talking about McDonalds to the entire group of people making minimum wage, and we went from talking about doubling minimum wage, to not doubling minimum wage

We know that $15 is a starting point for a negotiation. So lets say they settle on $10, which is reasonable.

Using our same marginal propensity to consume, what do you think people making minimum wage are going to do with the extra $3/hr? Will it be spent or saved?

Now we can get to the core of your statements. You consider that going from $7.25/hr to $10/hr is reasonable for minimum wage. From earlier statements, you also mentioned tying pay increases to the rate of inflation. That is what the Democratic Congressmen John Conyers, Jr., Jesse Jackson, Jr. and Dennis Kucinich introduced as a plan back in June of 2012. The “Catching Up To 1968 Act of 2012” would bump the minimum wage up from $7.25 an hour and require an annual increase tied to inflation.
Are you sure that you aren't a Democrat?

President Barack Obama promised to raise the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour by 2011. How did he do on keeping that promise?
Poverty | Change.gov: The Obama-Biden Transition Team


Lower income people are definitely more likely to spend any increase in income, rather than save it. There is no question about that. What they will spend it on though is another matter. There is no one saying that fast food workers will spend it on fast food. They are highly likely to spend it in their local economy - I think that we can agree on that. Stores that sell low cost items, like dollar stores, would likely benefit from an increase in minimum wage, even though they have to pay out more to their employees.
As for a real benefit, in 2012, 1.6 million people in the country made minimum wage, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
2 million were paid below minimum wage, and that is a total of 3.6 million workers - less than 5% of the total work force.
Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2012
So, how much of an economic stimulus would you gain by increasing the minimum wage?

More importantly, let's note that about 11 percent of part-time workers (persons who usually work less than 35 hours per week) were paid the federal minimum wage or less, compared with about 2 percent of full-time workers. This year, with Obamacare coming, companies created 4 times more part-time jobs than full-time jobs - and that's a new trend, and a major flip-flop from last few years. You support the program that is helping create more of these minimum wage jobs, and just want to pay them more? How is that sustainable?


I think that I need to be clear here - I am not against raising the minimum wage, just against the government making quick, drastic changes to private industries when the current economic situation does not call for it, unlike the undereducated fast food workers who are calling for it. McDonalds does not have an obligation to support a family of 8 for the work of 1 person flipping burgers or manning a cash register. Do you understand that a "living wage" is not the same as minimum wage?

[Vteckidd]

And you base your statement upon what statistical or scientific evidence?

Generally, people tend to cut back on eating out first when they try to save money, then luxuries like car washes, etc. - i.e. discretionary spending. Do you think that Starbucks will continue to make their same profit if they have to increase the payout to the employees? Where is the tipping point where they decide to close the less profitable stores, and when they need to cut some benefits?




Now we can get to the core of your statements. You consider that going from $7.25/hr to $10/hr is reasonable for minimum wage. From earlier statements, you also mentioned tying pay increases to the rate of inflation. That is what the Democratic Congressmen John Conyers, Jr., Jesse Jackson, Jr. and Dennis Kucinich introduced as a plan back in June of 2012. The “Catching Up To 1968 Act of 2012” would bump the minimum wage up from $7.25 an hour and require an annual increase tied to inflation.
Are you sure that you aren't a Democrat?

President Barack Obama promised to raise the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour by 2011. How did he do on keeping that promise?
Poverty | Change.gov: The Obama-Biden Transition Team


Lower income people are definitely more likely to spend any increase in income, rather than save it. There is no question about that. What they will spend it on though is another matter. There is no one saying that fast food workers will spend it on fast food. They are highly likely to spend it in their local economy - I think that we can agree on that. Stores that sell low cost items, like dollar stores, would likely benefit from an increase in minimum wage, even though they have to pay out more to their employees.
As for a real benefit, in 2012, 1.6 million people in the country made minimum wage, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
2 million were paid below minimum wage, and that is a total of 3.6 million workers - less than 5% of the total work force.
Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2012
So, how much of an economic stimulus would you gain by increasing the minimum wage?

More importantly, let's note that about 11 percent of part-time workers (persons who usually work less than 35 hours per week) were paid the federal minimum wage or less, compared with about 2 percent of full-time workers. This year, with Obamacare coming, companies created 4 times more part-time jobs than full-time jobs - and that's a new trend, and a major flip-flop from last few years. You support the program that is helping create more of these minimum wage jobs, and just want to pay them more? How is that sustainable?


I think that I need to be clear here - I am not against raising the minimum wage, just against the government making quick, drastic changes to private industries when the current economic situation does not call for it, unlike the undereducated fast food workers who are calling for it. McDonalds does not have an obligation to support a family of 8 for the work of 1 person flipping burgers or manning a cash register. Do you understand that a "living wage" is not the same as minimum wage?

STOP, he doesnt like facts.

[.blank cd]

I know why McDonalds is in business. They certainly aren't there to take money from the shareholders and give it to the employees.

They are there to take money from you in exchange for a Big Mac, fries, and a large diet coke.

So, you can use hypotheticals and it should be taken as a serious discussion point, but if I use real life experience, then that is anecdotal evidence, and shouldn't really be considered?

I wasn't using a hypothetical statement as empirical evidence. You however, used anecdotal evidence as evidence that suggests there is a large percentage of people who've made flipping fast food burgers a dedicated career choice. So yes, your anecdotal evidence should not, and is rarely, if ever, considered in place of actual empirical evidence in the science of economics, or the science of anything at all for that matter.

So, instead of saying "I worked in/walked in 1 of 12000 franchises and this lady had been there for 29 years, so this is what it's like", show me the data

[David88vert]

They are there to take money from you in exchange for a Big Mac, fries, and a large diet coke.

That is the method that they use. That is not why they are there. You are presenting a small business mindset, which is not the same as how a corporate executive thinks.

I wasn't using a hypothetical statement as empirical evidence. You however, used anecdotal evidence as evidence that suggests there is a large percentage of people who've made flipping fast food burgers a dedicated career choice. So yes, your anecdotal evidence should not, and is rarely, if ever, considered in place of actual empirical evidence in the science of economics, or the science of anything at all for that matter.

Did I say for you to take personal experience as scientific research? I don't see where I stated anything even remotely like that.
I did say that you did not present anything of evidence - just conjecture.

So, instead of saying "I worked in/walked in 1 of 12000 franchises and this lady had been there for 29 years, so this is what it's like", show me the data

I already gave you a link to the BLS, but look up the Center for Economic and Policy Research - a liberal think tank. They did a study as well on minimum wage.

Let me ask you this - what do you think will be accomplished by raising the minimum wage? Give examples.

[.blank cd]

In the short term it would increased. In the long term it would decrease.

You're right. It would increase.

So using right now as our base homeless/indigent population, we know as someone who's homeless, you have a few options

We can starve and die
We can panhandle or steal and get by
Or We can get a job.

Lets say 1/3 do each. So when the homeless population increases:

What happens to the jail population?
What happens to the hospital population?
What happens to the pool of unskilled labor?

[.blank cd]

And you base your statement upon what statistical or scientific evidence?

Elasticity of demand.

Generally, people tend to cut back on eating out first when they try to save money, then luxuries like car washes, etc. - i.e. discretionary spending.

So you would say, to someone with a lower income, a $1 hamburger is equally as discretionary as a $10-$20 car wash?

Do you think that Starbucks will continue to make their same profit if they have to increase the payout to the employees?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficiency_wage

President Barack Obama promised to raise the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour by 2011. How did he do on keeping that promise?
Poverty | Change.gov: The Obama-Biden Transition Team

Considering it was $5, and now its 7.25, and considering the opposition, Obama and I would say...

As for a real benefit, in 2012, 1.6 million people in the country made minimum wage, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
2 million were paid below minimum wage, and that is a total of 3.6 million workers - less than 5% of the total work force.
Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2012
So, how much of an economic stimulus would you gain by increasing the minimum wage?

We'll round it off and say 4m since everyone who makes more than minimum wage would likely be bumped up too, and those who make less than min wage maybe bumped all the way, or maybe just $3

So around $3/hr, at maybe an average of 30hrs a week, times 4 million, times 52 weeks. MPC is about 80:20. That would be the economic benefit over the year. 15% of THAT would go to state and federal taxes depending where you live.

If all of the places that sold low cost goods and groceries and cheap hamburgers hired just one person to keep up with increased sales, how many jobs would that be?

[David88vert]

Elasticity of demand.

The last I checked, $1 hamburgers are not considered to be Veblen or Giffen goods, and as such, the demand would be negative, not positive, per the formula. This works with necessities, such as gasoline, but not luxuries, such as eating out. You can still easily carry a lunch, it does not prohibit you from eating. When you studied the formula, did they not teach you about substitution of goods or breadth of definition?

So you would say, to someone with a lower income, a $1 hamburger is equally as discretionary as a $10-$20 car wash?

No, the lower income individual might not even have a car. That is secondary to what is discretionary.
The fact is, to the lower income person, eating out even for a hamburger is discretionary.
And the person who makes more than minimum wage, and has a car, might choose not to get a car wash every week, and instead wash it themselves or cut back on the amount of washes, as they are now spending more for every other service that involves minimum wage employees.
The key is that you aren't producing more wealth, you are just rearranging people's priorities based upon a manipulated price point.

Considering it was $5, and now its 7.25, and considering the opposition, Obama and I would say...

It's hardly what he promised. Would you agree that it is a broken promise? If you think that it is not a broken promise, please explain how it is not.

You might appreciate this though: http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth484/minwage.html

Basically, there are less people at minimum wage than in the past, so isn't that a good thing? Are you wanting more people to be working at minimum wage, or less people at minimum wage?

We'll round it off and say 4m since everyone who makes more than minimum wage would likely be bumped up too, and those who make less than min wage maybe bumped all the way, or maybe just $3

So around $3/hr, at maybe an average of 30hrs a week, times 4 million, times 52 weeks. MPC is about 80:20. That would be the economic benefit over the year. 15% of THAT would go to state and federal taxes depending where you live.

If all of the places that sold low cost goods and groceries and cheap hamburgers hired just one person to keep up with increased sales, how many jobs would that be?

Where is this increase demand coming from? Have you even been to Econ 101? As prices rise, demand falls - learn the basics first. You aren't creating wealth, you are simply shuffling people around. People working at a Starbucks that closes will simply shift to working for Family Dollar. As you stated, Starbucks makes 11% profit. What happens when some of the stores that are already near the bottom of the list of profitable stores tip over the edge? If a $4.25 Chai tea jumps to $5, do you actually think that demand will stay the same or increase?
When demand falls, Starbucks either has to cut costs or lower prices. They aren't going to lower the price back to $4.25 and make less profit. They will cut staff, who will have to go and find another job. This could be by laying off individuals or closing a location.

Or, to you, does only what the government collect in taxes matter?

Let me ask you this question. how many college graduates have you interviewed this year in regards to giving them job offers? I have interviewed quite a few, and find that they fall into two camps - those that make the effort to prepare for an interview, and those that put forth no effort to even read a little online or watch a YouTube video. I've found that only about 1 out of 10 even are hirable for a job that requires no experience, only a slight bit of reading prior to an interview. And I'm not talking about minimum wage - jobs that pay $40-45K to start, and that have training included at full pay rate.
Oh yeah, but my real world experience really doesn't matter though, right?