- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
More evidence why you should oppose the "national" minimum wage hike ...
Posted on 4/2/14 at 8:31 am
Posted on 4/2/14 at 8:31 am
... because the economic wizards in the Obama administration have failed to adjust for cost of living, meaning places like Baton Rouge get soaked relative to places like Manhattan.
LINK
LINK
This post was edited on 4/2/14 at 8:32 am
8
Posted on 4/2/14 at 9:32 am to RedStickBR
What's the point of raising the minimum wage if the free loaders will still just sit at home?
Posted on 4/2/14 at 9:36 am to RedStickBR
Anyone who understands statistical process control and data-based decisions gets this. Arbitrary targets are just that arbitrary goals based on ignorance. The beautify of the market economy is self-regulation based on supply and demand.
Posted on 4/2/14 at 10:10 am to RedStickBR
Wait, so they would write a bill in to law making a uniform minimum wage without adjusting for cost of living? If they actually did this then they are dumber than we all thought. This should be pretty standard in the thought process.
Posted on 4/2/14 at 10:39 am to gatorhata9
Cost of living is important. Cost a lot more to live here than in bumpkinville, West Virginia.
Posted on 4/2/14 at 10:46 am to RedStickBR
$100/hr minimum wage!!! Everyone would be rich!!!!
Posted on 4/2/14 at 11:21 am to gatorhata9
quote:
If they actually did this then they are dumber than we all thought. This should be pretty standard in the thought process.
If the American public buys into it, they're dumber than I thought. These would be some of the same folks who thought that the government shutdown meant our system of government was failing (when it was actually working, as prescribed by checks and balances).
By contrast, the Dems know exactly what they're doing. It might not appear to make sense on paper, but they're calculating enough to have an agenda beyond simply raising the min wage. (If nothing else, buying votes)
This post was edited on 4/2/14 at 11:26 am
Posted on 4/2/14 at 11:44 am to RedStickBR
I think a better argument for the republicans is to cave on this issue since they are going to lose the public debate on it, and move onto issues where they can win the public debate.
Posted on 4/2/14 at 11:59 am to RedStickBR
It would need to be $14.14 if it reflected the local cost of living here.
Posted on 4/2/14 at 12:02 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
I think a better argument for the republicans is to cave on this issue since they are going to lose the public debate on it, and move onto issues where they can win the public debate.
Posted on 4/2/14 at 12:26 pm to Mahootney
Maybe if you raise the minimum wage enough the freeloaders won't sit home?
Posted on 4/2/14 at 12:28 pm to RedStickBR
Actually the chart proves the exact opposite of what you say in your title of the thread.
Baton Rouge isnt getting soaked, it is the other way around, it is the New York people getting soaked.
Baton Rouge isnt getting soaked, it is the other way around, it is the New York people getting soaked.
Posted on 4/2/14 at 12:30 pm to RedStickBR
This is really info everyone should almost reflexible know.
Of course, it's no accident that people in high cost of living cities support the min-wage increase, even those who have to pay it. SIMPLE. Because so damned few people make the min wage in such places as to be less than insignificant.
Pretty much any federal policy such as this that doesn't differentiate based upon locale is obviously stupid from the start. I mean, literally 100% of Americans should recognize that.
Oh well. One could hope.
Of course, it's no accident that people in high cost of living cities support the min-wage increase, even those who have to pay it. SIMPLE. Because so damned few people make the min wage in such places as to be less than insignificant.
Pretty much any federal policy such as this that doesn't differentiate based upon locale is obviously stupid from the start. I mean, literally 100% of Americans should recognize that.
Oh well. One could hope.
Posted on 4/2/14 at 12:34 pm to Eurocat
quote:
Actually the chart proves the exact opposite of what you say in your title of the thread. Baton Rouge isnt getting soaked, it is the other way around, it is the New York people getting soaked.
Me thinks you don't comprehend the point.
When the govt mandates a min wage that is BELOW the prevailing wage of a place due to cost of living, that place is pretty much unaffected.
Meanwhile, in low cost of living places, a lot more employees will end up getting the new min wage.
Hence, it's a law that goes largely unnoticed in NYC while in Baton Rough, gets VERY noticed.
The law effectively FORCES BR to pay people MORE than cost of living even would require while effectively not touching the guys in high cost places.
How exactly did you miss that?
Posted on 4/2/14 at 12:37 pm to SettleDown
Because the working stiff gets a raise. Of course it gets noticed by every working man now finally making enough to live decently.
It will also reduce the number of unemployed as people will now see a reason to work. A good salary, no longer a pittance.
It will also reduce the number of unemployed as people will now see a reason to work. A good salary, no longer a pittance.
Posted on 4/2/14 at 12:39 pm to Eurocat
quote:If yu are living on min wage you are brain damaged to begin with.
Of course it gets noticed by every working man now finally making enough to live decently.
Posted on 4/2/14 at 12:41 pm to Eurocat
quote:Um. It's also noticed by the guy who now has to pay it despite the cost of living in their area not necessitating it. Meanwhile, the guy paying it in NYC laughs cause he already had to pay more with the high cost of living.
wage hike ...Because the working stiff gets a raise. Of course it gets noticed by every working man now finally making enough to live decently.
quote:This literally makes me laugh out loud. Are there some folks who will suddenly get off their arse who were happy to sit prior to a higher min wage? Yeah. I suppose.
It will also reduce the number of unemployed as people will now see a reason to work. A good salary, no longer a pittance.
But, a higher min wage for a small - medium business doesn't change how much that business had available in resources to hire people. How to people not understand this?
Posted on 4/2/14 at 12:46 pm to Eurocat
quote:
Actually the chart proves the exact opposite of what you say in your title of the thread.
Baton Rouge isnt getting soaked, it is the other way around, it is the New York people getting soaked.
That would be incorrect. What the chart shows is how much $10.10 is worth in a variety of different areas. Thus, if we wanted the national increase across all the states to average out to $10.10 on a COL-adjusted basis, Baton Rouge would only need to pay its workers a minimum wage in the $8.86 range (using Birmingham as a proxy). Instead, Baton Rouge companies have to pay $10.10, or 14% greater than what would be required on an apples-to-apples basis after adjusting for COL. Meanwhile, by only paying $10.10, a place like New York City only pays about 45% as much as would be required on an apples-to-apples basis after adjusting for COL.
So this is essentially a transfer of competitiveness from poor areas to rich areas (assuming COL is a reasonable proxy for how poor or rich an area is).
Poo-poo on all the progress LA and the south have made on becoming more competitive. This will stick it to them!
Posted on 4/2/14 at 12:48 pm to SettleDown
quote:
This literally makes me laugh out loud. Are there some folks who will suddenly get off their arse who were happy to sit prior to a higher min wage? Yeah. I suppose.
I think its probably larger than you realize. If you can make more sitting on your arse vs. working, what are you going to do?
If it flips, does that change the equation? yes it does. Obviously we are a little fat with welfare in some places but you need a carrot and a stick. Just cutting welfare isn't going to get all of them off the asses.
quote:
But, a higher min wage for a small - medium business doesn't change how much that business had available in resources to hire people. How to people not understand this?
Only about 4% of workers are min wage workers, most of them are fast food or retail.
LINK
While some franchise owners would be impacted, i think its more likely large corporations that would feel this impact not small or medium businesses.
Most small businessmen I know are smart enough to know that if you pay the min, you get the min. They pay higher wages. Its the businesses that large enough to make variation in work very low due to training, automation and strict supervision that get away with paying min wage.
Posted on 4/2/14 at 12:53 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
arse who were happy to sit prior to a higher min wage? Yeah. I suppose. I think its probably larger than you realize. If you can make more sitting on your arse vs. working, what are you going to do?
Another failing of liberalism. The belief that people who have managed to make enough terrible life decisions to end up needing the min wage to raise a family think the same as everyone else. Hence, what "I" would do is pretty much irrelevant. If "I" found myself only able to get a job barely paying what I could make sitting on my arse, I'd be smart enough to recognize only ONE of those options affords the possibility of moving UP from that point. For me, the decision to not sit on my arse would be easy. That there are those that make the other decision is actually a counter to your argument.
quote:Are you trying to argue my point? Are you missing that those are NATIONAL stats and that obviously, in some places that number is much higher because in others, it's damned near zero?
Only about 4% of workers are min wage workers, most of them are fast food or retail.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News