Obama to use executive order to raise minimum wage

[DeacMan]

LOL. It is the CBO who is saying what will happen if the government takes an action. I.e. business (because it will by and large be small businesses) will end up laying people off if the government changes its own regulations. That is the GOVERNMENT taking an action and business will in turn have to react. You act as if anyone who owns a small business is just rolling in cash. Which is pretty funny.

 

[WFFaithful]

The GAP seems to think it's a fair wage.

 

[PhDeac]

LOL. It is the CBO who is saying what will happen if the government takes an action. I.e. business (because it will by and large be small businesses) will end up laying people off if the government changes its own regulations. That is the GOVERNMENT taking an action and business will in turn have to react. You act as if anyone who owns a small business is just rolling in cash. Which is pretty funny.

You act as if businesses are passive and as if only small businesses will be laying people off.

bmoney, if DeacMan's small business lays somebody off, DeacMan laid him off, not Obama.

I may be parsing words here, so bare with me. I "blame" DeacMan for laying somebody off. It's DeacMan's decision. I don't "begrudge" DeacMan for laying somebody off. It's his business. It's his money. As long as he treats his workers according to the law, what he does is fine.

Businesses have to do what they have to do. They have to make money. That's what they're there to do. So don't claim to be "job creators" when you main objective isn't creating jobs.

I think it's a waste of taxpayer money to bribe businesses to hire people. Let them run efficient, profitable businesses and hire who they need to hire in order to be successful. I'd rather pay people a decent living wage that gives them a better chance at getting out of poverty rather than holding onto 500,000 people who the CBO estimates don't NEED to be in the workforce in order for our economy to function.

Taxpayer resources should go towards making sure that human capital the private sector doesn't need isn't wasting away looking for jobs that aren't there. While the government is doing that, hopefully American workers will use that additional $2 billion in net income to start their own businesses and hire some of those 500,000 people out of work.

 

[bmoneydeac]

You act as if businesses are passive and as if only small businesses will be laying people off.

bmoney, if DeacMan's small business lays somebody off, DeacMan laid him off, not Obama.

I may be parsing words here, so bare with me. I "blame" DeacMan for laying somebody off. It's DeacMan's decision. I don't "begrudge" DeacMan for laying somebody off. It's his business. It's his money. As long as he treats his workers according to the law, what he does is fine.

Businesses have to do what they have to do. They have to make money. That's what they're there to do. So don't claim to be "job creators" when you main objective isn't creating jobs.

I think it's a waste of taxpayer money to bribe businesses to hire people. Let them run efficient, profitable businesses and hire who they need to hire in order to be successful. I'd rather pay people a decent living wage that gives them a better chance at getting out of poverty rather than holding onto 500,000 people who the CBO estimates don't NEED to be in the workforce in order for our economy to function.

Taxpayer resources should go towards making sure that human capital the private sector doesn't need isn't wasting away looking for jobs that aren't there. While the government is doing that, hopefully American workers will use that additional $2 billion in net income to start their own businesses and hire some of those 500,000 people out of work.

Blame just seems like a weird word to use, especially when you agree that it's the economically prudent thing to do based on a forced change in your business model (again in the case of minimum wage increase).

 

[Wrangor]

I appreciate your candor PH but we just have completely opposing viewpoints. I don't think any amount of parsing back and forth on his issue is going to change that. You equate not forcing a 37% mandatory raise on all low skill workers to bribing businesses to hire people.

The 2b gain for the economy is government just printing more money. The job loss and pay increases go to cancel each other out and then we spend a bunch more government money paying unemployment and food stamps for the 500,000 who just lost their jobs. Whoopee more money in the economy funded by the debt. More people out of work with zero skills to find meaningful work in the future.

 

[PhDeac]

"You equate not forcing a 37% mandatory raise on all low skill workers to bribing businesses to hire people."

What? That doesn't make any sense.

Bribing business takes place through tax breaks, loopholes, incentives, etc.

"Mandatory raises" (over a 3 years period, mind you) simply raise the minimum wage to what it was 40 or so years ago adjusted for inflation.

bmoney, you brought up "blame." How you do think I should use it?

 

[Wrangor]

"You equate not forcing a 37% mandatory raise on all low skill workers to bribing businesses to hire people."

What? That doesn't make any sense.

Bribing business takes place through tax breaks, loopholes, incentives, etc.

"Mandatory raises" (over a 3 years period, mind you) simply raise the minimum wage to what it was 40 or so years ago adjusted for inflation.

bmoney, you brought up "blame." How you do think I should use it?

You think we should stiff arm businesses into hiring people. They won't. We live in a global economy. Jobs will just leave us. You are being naive.

 

[WFFaithful]

You think we should stiff arm businesses into hiring people. They won't. We live in a global economy. Jobs will just leave us. You are being naive.

How many of these minimum wage jobs can really leave? The fry cook at McDonalds can't leave. The cashier at Old Navy can't leave. The childcare worker at the daycare can't leave.

 

[PhDeac]

You think we should stiff arm businesses into hiring people. They won't. We live in a global economy. Jobs will just leave us. You are being naive.

I think the exact opposite. Not sure what you're not understanding. Please explain where you get that from my posts. You're so far off I doubt you've even read what I've posted.

And Faithful nails it. Plenty low wage jobs can't go anywhere. Many can't be replaced by technology.

 

[bmoneydeac]

Ph has made it pretty clear on this thread that he would rather the businesses continue to stay lean with the slack being pulled up by the government. Basically those who get laid off would get the opportunity to stay employed, pick up marketable skills, and hopefully reenter the private sector either an an employee or entrepreneur.

I don't think that's an unreasonable position.

 

[RJKarl]

You think we should stiff arm businesses into hiring people. They won't. We live in a global economy. Jobs will just leave us. You are being naive.

This is much the same argument as we had when NAFTA was passed. The jobs you are talking about are gone already. You can't outsource employees for The Gap or In N Out.

Why is it that The Gap, In N Out, Target, Costco and others can afford to pay above minimum wage, but WalMart, McD's and others say it will break them? Someone isn't telling the truth. It sounds like either WalMart, et al, are too greedy or aren't as good at business as the others.

 

[BigTreeDeac]

I still want to know why businesses cannot simply pass on the increased cost to the consumer? Where do some of you live that the price of goods/services is totally separated from labor costs? You can either pay more taxes for more subsidies or pay more money for goods. Either way we all pay more and that "payment" is part of living in such a great country. I do not relish in the idea of things costing more but itseems better than people taking more govt assistance because they are either paid too little or because they lose their job so McD can keep the dollar menu in lieu of a new $1.25 menu.

 

[Wrangor]

How many of these minimum wage jobs can really leave? The fry cook at McDonalds can't leave. The cashier at Old Navy can't leave. The childcare worker at the daycare can't leave.

It just makes investment in labor replacing technology thatch more attractive. Will accelerate the move away from human involvement in the service industry.

 

[Wrangor]

I still want to know why businesses cannot simply pass on the increased cost to the consumer? Where do some of you live that the price of goods/services is totally separated from labor costs? You can either pay more taxes for more subsidies or pay more money for goods. Either way we all pay more and that "payment" is part of living in such a great country. I do not relish in the idea of things costing more but itseems better than people taking more govt assistance because they are either paid too little or because they lose their job so McD can keep the dollar menu in lieu of a new $1.25 menu.

They certainly can which makes this supposed raise even less valuable. Higher income doesn't matter a while lot is everything suddenly costs more. I am not against increasing the minimum wage slowly each year. .25 - .50 an year adjusted with inflation. $3.00 over 3 years just screams of am academic making decisions with very little business sense. Which I guess is what we have pushing this.

It is reactionary. It is unwise. It puts a half a million people on welfare. Increasing the standard of living for a million people who are already earning a wage is not worth firing 1/2 million people. It is dumb business.

 

[PhDeac]

How many of these minimum wage jobs can really leave? The fry cook at McDonalds can't leave. The cashier at Old Navy can't leave. The childcare worker at the daycare can't leave.

It just makes investment in labor replacing technology thatch more attractive. Will accelerate the move away from human involvement in the service industry.

OH. MAI. GAWD.




But seriously, Wrangor. What's wrong with making technology more attractive. Minimum wage kicks businessmen in the ass and encourages them to advance technology. That's great for society as a whole.

 

[PhDeac]

They certainly can which makes this supposed raise even less valuable. Higher income doesn't matter a while lot is everything suddenly costs more. I am not against increasing the minimum wage slowly each year. .25 - .50 an year adjusted with inflation. $3.00 over 3 years just screams of am academic making decisions with very little business sense. Which I guess is what we have pushing this.

It is reactionary. It is unwise. It puts a half a million people on welfare. Increasing the standard of living for a million people who are already earning a wage is not worth firing 1/2 million people. It is dumb business.

Let business owners make that decision. Is increasing incomes worth firing 500,000 people or raising prices for consumers who are experiencing a net $2 billion increase in income? Do you think all business owners automatically will choose to fire people?

 

[RJKarl]

I still want to know why businesses cannot simply pass on the increased cost to the consumer? Where do some of you live that the price of goods/services is totally separated from labor costs? You can either pay more taxes for more subsidies or pay more money for goods. Either way we all pay more and that "payment" is part of living in such a great country. I do not relish in the idea of things costing more but itseems better than people taking more govt assistance because they are either paid too little or because they lose their job so McD can keep the dollar menu in lieu of a new $1.25 menu.

BigTree it wouldn't have anything like tat type of impact. Plus it's going to go from $7.25/hour to $10.10/hour overnight. It's phased in over 2-3 years.

Early on this thread I posted what a survey of HR managers said. They didn't think they'd cut back.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

This is much the same argument as we had when NAFTA was passed. The jobs you are talking about are gone already. You can't outsource employees for The Gap or In N Out.

Why is it that The Gap, In N Out, Target, Costco and others can afford to pay above minimum wage, but WalMart, McD's and others say it will break them? Someone isn't telling the truth. It sounds like either WalMart, et al, are too greedy or aren't as good at business as the others.

Uh probably because the business models for the two you fault (WalMart and McDs) are completely based on having the lowest cost. So yes, they are going to feel the effects more because there is less of a per-unit profit margin to act as a cushion.

 

[bmoneydeac]

Uh probably because the business models for the two you fault (WalMart and McDs) are completely based on having the lowest cost. So yes, they are going to feel the effects more because there is less of a per-unit profit margin to act as a cushion.

Exactly. You can walk into a Target and Walmart and immediately see the different business models at play.

 

[RJKarl]

Prices at Target don't seem to be much higher than WalMart.

In N Out is much smaller than McDs, has basically the same prices for food (lower than Wendy's or BK) but still pays $9-10/hour vs. minimum.