re: Govt Assistance and Minimum Wage

quote:

---

So what would be the difference between that and raising minimum wage?

---

Uh, one is market driven while the other is artificially driven by government regulation?

Geez, leave it to a fricking liberal with no understanding of free market economics to not grasp this.

quote:

---

ust going in-depth for some of you so that you finally understand how this all works

---

If only you were as half as smart as you think you are. Riddle me this, if the company is forced to increase wages, where do those costs get absorbed in corporate balance sheet? Does the company just take them out of their profits or whould they raise prices to offset the cost? The latter of course. No who pays the higher cost? The consumer, right. In many cases, the same consumer who just had a slight wage increase. Or the consumer who didn’t have a wage increase who is now forced to pay for the increase in goods associated with the mim wage increase.

So basically it’s corporate welfare paid for by the middle class. frick You very much!

quote:

---

Yep, the min wage is paid by companies that usually have very low margins. Lefties think the increase will come from profits, but that's not the case. That price increase is passed on to consumers.

---

Not only that, if you raise the minimum wage then all wages go up. Businesses are forced to either cut their workforce or raise prices. Do libs think those mom an pop businesses that they claim to love so much can afford to raise their wages?

My shop pay starts at $10 an hour for unskilled labor. We train anyone willing to work. If minimum wage goes up we will have to pay our employees more, which means we will have to raise fees on our products.

quote:

---

have thoughts of my own

---

Some really ignorant ones.

quote:

---

You have yet to show me how

---

I can't show something to people who are blind.

quote:

---

Just going in-depth for some of you so that you finally understand how this all works

---

Actually, this is not in-depth at all. In fact, you didn't even break the surface of the issue.

quote:

---

Question: How can you have it both ways?

---

Simple solution, yet extremely difficult to do. You build a strong, diversified workforce.

quote:

---

If someone is being paid a wage that is not liveable, they will require assistance. If they make enough to live, they will not be eligible

---

This is simpliton logic. You leave out so many economic factors that it's ridiculous. When you raise minimum wage in a given area you skew the market curve and it has some detrimental effects. Mainly, you raise the standard of living (this is not a good thing BTW, it just means you've made it more expensive to live somewhere) and you've opened the door for low cost alternatives and innovation (there a ton more negative affects but I'll stick to those two for the purposes of this post). See the Amazon Prime stores for a really good example. They literally have no cashiers. There is actually a much deeper topic about creating jobs that require high skills and hurting the low skilled worker, but I'll avoid that for now.

quote:

---

This is due to some indoctrination that I do not understand.

---

It's due to nothing more than basic economics. There's no indoctrination.

quote:

---

lead you to believe that if anyone gets any raises that the company is going to go bankrupt and no one will have any jobs and that trickle down economics will help everyone.

---

Bankrupt? Sure, you can certainly bankrupt smaller companies by increasing their labor costs. Larger companies? They'll offset with innovation. See McDonald's automated ordering system all across Europe for a good example. Small companies tend to do one of two things, raise prices or layoff workers. Labor is the single most costly aspect of any business. You increase the cost, you hurt the business's bottom line.

quote:

---

The problem with this logic is that if the worker did make better life choices and really all workers made better life choices in and did not want to work a minimum wage job because they were more qualified, then who would be hired to do the job? And if no one was hired to do the job because it was all beneath them then they would have to pay more money for to hire people to do those jobs.

---

There is so much wrong here I'm struggling to figure out where to start.
First, the life cycle of person's skill set is fluid. That is to say, at some point, everyone is an unskilled worker and they gradually evolve into high skill sets. There will never be a shortage of unskilled labor. The work force is cyclical.

Anyway, I've tried to hit all the high notes, but there is just so much wrong with your post that it's difficult to dissect.

I'll end with this. The Bureau of Labor Statics released a study a while back with the list of things people need to do to not be permanently poor in the this country. They came up with 2 requirements.

1. Get and keep a job (even a low skill job, any job)
2. Don't have kids before you get married.

ETA: My memory is coming back to bite me in the arse, I can't find the article but for some reason I think there may have been 3 factors. The third being Graduate high school. I may be wrong though...

quote:

---

So posters of this board are against govt assistance. The same people have shown to be against minimum wage increase.

Question: How can you have it both ways?

---

The fact that you see these two statements as definitive descriptions of two opposing philosophies, demonstrates that you do not know what the hell you are trying to ask. These statements are not in conflict with one another at all, except in some scripted fictional world based on some weird world view.

I am firmly in both camps and see no conflict at all.

quote:

---

Seems to me that the modern day right-winger does love to give their tax dollars to protect the corporate world. This is due to some indoctrination that I do not understand.

---

'Conservatives' (what you define as 'right wing) doesn't like to give tax dollars for anything. We are content to fund federal programs that are constitutional but we expect them to be run honorably and efficiently. We agree to fund projects that provide for the common defense and for standard law enforcement functions. We do not think the federal government should be in the business of financing social experiments. And we think that the constitution's words means what they say, and should be held as the absolute standard of what the govern can and cannot do. We think that when it does not serve some pressing problem than the constitution should b amended to address whatever the pressing problem is, rather than just make up an 'interpretation' that fits some socially driven fad.

quote:

---

First the sponsors of a right-wing radio show or news will lead you to believe that if anyone gets any raises that the company is going to go bankrupt and no one will have any jobs and that trickle down economics will help everyone. Everyone that is including the guy who makes less than a livable wage.

---

This is so grammatically and factually so false that it deserves nothing but rejection.

quote:

---

Second, you blame the worker for poor life choices. The problem with this logic is that if the worker did make better life choices and really all workers made better life choices in and did not want to work a minimum wage job because they were more qualified, then who would be hired to do the job? And if no one was hired to do the job because it was all beneath them then they would have to pay more money for to hire people to do those jobs.

---

Gibberish again.

Life choices are what defines an individual. Millennia of evolution has produced a model that encourages 'good' life choices and penalizes 'bad' life choices. In all cultures, poor life choices are used as teachable moments for the younger generations to observe and use in his own progression, hopefully avoiding those poor choices.

In the past half century, we have intervened in the operation of these evolutionary processes. We have set up a culture that does not recognize that any choices are really 'bad' and that whatever they do, they should be shielded from the consequeces of those decisions. Of course this has resulted in a cultural 'progression' that breeds more poor life choices and builds resentment from those who are financially penalized to protect a favored culture from its inherent poor choices.

quote:

---

Just going in-depth

---

I dont think you know what that means.

quote:

---

Yeah. Thats what i thought. You dont really have any real substance. Youre just entrenched.

---

Just go take ONE economics course. Just ONE.

You're a fricking idiot.

quote:

---

Just go take ONE economics course. Just ONE.

You're a fricking idiot.

---

Relate the benefit of taking an economics course to what I said. Youre a fricking dolt, dude. If you want to Hash it out with me further lets do it. But you certainly aren't going to score any points by simply saying "take an economics course."