Restaurant Workers Lose Their Jobs Over Newsom’s $20 Minimum Wage

Yes; some people are tremendously effective in energizing the economy, and make a lot of money helping people get the things they want and need at the prices they are willing to pay- and in the huge volumes that generates, they make a lot of money. That is an example of what is possible for others, a prime motivation to succeed- assuming you accept that as your obligation in life. Wise people seek to learn from the successes of the few, not hate them for succeeding.

However, if you are one that believes that life owes you, that the people who produce great benefits should subsidize those who produce little or nothing so their life is easy and comfortable without productivity... you become a kind of parasite, making your living like ticks and leeches do, by extracting your support from those who actually produce, so you do not have to. There are people who genuinely can't support themselves, and we help them- but sadly, we also tolerate and support far more who can't because they won't. And every dime we give them by decree, by welfare, by arbitrary wage levels unrelated to the value of their productivity- proliferates more of the same. Reward productivity and performance, and those things grow. Punish it, and it diminishes, Reward sloth, and that grows. These determine the health of society, and the ability to be generous as well. And, it is the generosity of the very wealthy that keep most of our humanitarian and environmental efforts afloat. They give back on a huge scale.

Money is a simple way to make the value of what you produce universal, so we aren't limited to bartering the goods we produce. But if you produce no value- you should not get money for that; because that would be stolen money. Any law mandating a wage is embracing socialism, disconnecting income from productivity; thus discouraging productivity- and encouraging the parasitic means of sustenance. That's a fatal mistake for a nation. Parasites are detrimental to the host they live on, and if their number grows- they eventually will kill the hosts. Then, because they have destroyed their source, they too die.

It is nature, not man, that makes the real rules of survival. In nature, if you don't hunt- you don't eat, and when you get hungry enough you will get off your butt and hunt. Unless some fool comes along and gives you a fish everyday...... then you become dependent on that fool, and blame him for not providing more.... and there is no need to learn to fish on your own. Human weakness.... accommodated, rewarded, promoted.

Millions of species have survived and thrived for millions of years on the principles of nature. They have done this without laws, without religions or any of the man-made conventions we use to try and bring order to humanity- and they have done that without poisoning the earth or using up all the natural resources. It's obvious that all these creatures know something we do not. As it stands today, man is the only species in the history of the world that is likely to be the sole cause of it's own extinction... and often has no clue it is doing so.

 

Yes, the free market would go a long way to working the problem out.

Healthcare is ludicrously expensive because it is not a free market, nor
is pharmaceuticals. With free market restrictions in so many places,
it is tempting to put them into others.

Oh, and our President would be out if it was a free market, starts wars
we can't pay for.

And our 'defense budget' that can't be used for actual defense
(Posse Comitatus Act).

 

There is no illusion, delusion, or deception that Democrats won't sink to when they're pandering for votes. That's been true for all my long life....

 

Hahahahahah

You would take out a car loan, THEN would take out a HELC loan to pay off the car ? SO you would spend $1000 in fees to save $20 in interest, and lower your credit score in the process ?

 

You can make 20% on your money ?

BS…….if you could do that literally everyone would.

BTW, the 30y average return on stocks is 7% (if you’re good at picking stocks) - HELOC rates currently are at 6.5% in most areas of the country right now….

Current auto SUPERPRIME rates are at 5.6% on new and 7.6% on used, and Prime(most americans) are at 7%-9.73

 

Minimum wage is by all standards of inflation non existent at the federal level. No one pays federal minimum wage to their employees. If a bill like Californias went to the national level it would create more poverty than lift people out of it.

even the CBO has recognized this fact.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/55681#:~:text=In general, increasing the federal,their family income would fall.

in this article it shows more people would lose their jobs than would be lifted out of poverty. That’s not good economics or sympathetic. This is just greed for those it would help and a middle finger to the rest.

 

Plutocratic socialism cognitive dissonance: Federal subsidies to U.S. businesses now cost American taxpayers nearly $100 billion a year.
According to Good Jobs First's Subsidy Tracker, since 2009, Tesla has received $2.8 billion in government subsidies. About 88% of those subsidies came from states, while the rest came from federal grants.

Workers in the US have an estimated $50bn-plus stolen from them every year, according to the Economic Policy Institute, surpassing all robberies, burglaries and motor vehicle thefts combined. The majority of these stolen wages are never recovered by workers.

Demand and supply are both vital components of a thriving economy. They work in tandem, influencing the prices of goods and services and determining the quantity produced and consumed. When the demand-side of the economy is undermined by low wages, it also undermines the economy. A lesson learned by Henry Ford when he double his employees' wages, in part, to encourage them to purchase his automobiles.

 

Your example is free market example not a minimum wage hike

 

Why borrow money to buy something that loses value dramatically from day-one like a car does? Instead, choose a less expensive (or used) vehicle and pay cash for the damned thing!

Sure, unless someone hits the lottery he'll have to borrow money to buy a house -- but to buy a car?! .

 

Rocket mortgage has no fees. I would take out the loan to free up funds for more lucrative investments. Or not use my safety fund to pay for a car. People do this all the time.

 

First, let me say that I'm excluding political corruption, which I consider substantial. Other than that, subsididies are generally intended to benefit society in some way. Sometimes it's like the environmental crap where they think its critical to change power sources, do they subsidize solar, wind farm, wind farms and electric cars, to make them more appealing to the public. Such benefit go to companies to lower the costs and prices- and they provide subsidies to the consumers of those goods or services for the same reason. I personally believe in each concept standing on it's own merits, so I'm generally opposed to subsidies. But while that money does come from taxpayers- in one way or another it goes back to taxpayers, or at least what's left after it's used to expand the size and scope of government. I have never taken a subsidy, either for business or personal- not a covid check, not even an unemployment check.

Supply and demand is a bit more complicated. Low wages make lower priced goods, making them more affordable. Most importantly, wages are the same as any other expense of business- a cost, and if you run a business efficiently, that cost has to be what provides the best benefit for the money. That means that the most productive people are the best paid; the least productive the lowest paid. In a true free enterprise system, labor competes for jobs and price, just like the people they work for have to do. But we don't have that, and all the benefit of law serve labor. Everylast one. There is no minimum profit for a company. No unemployment insurance for owners. No workmans' comp, nobody paying half your social security for you, no free vacations. You either cut it by running a tight ship, or you go under. Anyone who thinks business gets all the benefits knows nothing about business. Every employer has been an employee, and knows the circumstances. But very few employees have been employers- so their perception is that of an outsider that has no real understanding of the job of management. As I've founded 9 enterprises and serve as CEO of two today, and have been an employer for 50 years, I think I do.

The best formula for business is to hire the best people and pay the best wages- to produce the best products and market share. But, generally the share of people who want jobs and can fill that role is fairly small, and the void is filled by the less qualified, less motivated people. But to stabilize the process, productivity and wages must have a consistent relationship If you are twice as productive as the next guy- you are worth twice the money.

Paying more money does not ensure more productivity. Many will assume they were always worth it, and finally just breaking even- nd that is not motivation. The exception to this is when there is a performance level that must be maintained to keep your job. The right wage is related to productivity- and the need for good people is always high, but hard to fill. If you look at the mentality of unions, the objective is to get paid as much as possible for doing as little as possible. That's about as anti-success a formula as one can conceive- and they seek to achieve that through means that would be illegal for the business to use.

I can and have taught people how to get jobs, get raises and promotions- and I've demonstrated it personally. Without a degree, without a work history, or list of skills. This is because the most important thing an employer needs to hire- is great attitude. Walk into a company where you can talk to the owner or boss rather than a HR person, show them those qualities- and they will find a place for you, even if the "not hiring" sign is up.

Laws can't regulate attitudes, and the opportunities a good attitude can get you, especially in the lower skilled jobs- are huge. I have a stepson who got job as a welders helper in a trailer factory at 18. At 20- he was the shop manager. Today at 50, he's the president of a metals processing company with 3 factories- and the head-hunters contact him several times a year with offers. He does not have a degree- he's just, sharp, works hard, thinks right, and knows how to turn a workforce into a team. All learned- on the job. Last salary I heard for him was $400K, with a $50k signing bonus. Attitude + performance.

Such people don't wait for a raise to "motivate" them. They are motivated, and deliver it. IF the employer does not recognize that, they move on to one who will. As an employer, what I want is the same thing you want when you buy anything- your money's worth.

 

Democrat economics. Nobody wins.

 

On average over 30 years, you are correct. However, I've made over 20% for the last 5 years. A couple of years over 30%.
I honestly don't care if you don't believe me. Right now, I might not do this as interest rates are way up. I was just saying that I have done it. My home mortgage is 2.875% and I bought a used car for my daughter at 3%. That same year, my investments were up 33%. Why wouldn't you do that?

 

My mortgage is at 1.4%. Got it almost 25 years ago.

Your “investments” were not typical, but good for you!!

 

You mean like a college education ?

YES, most people actually finance their cars.

 

So you took a HELOC loan from Rocket Mortgage to pay for other things ?

 

No.

 

Well that would be hard to do since Rocket Mortgage doesn't do HELOC loans.....

 

I have one.

 

The recovery was underway by 1936. Then the Supreme Coirt outlawed much of the New Deal, and Roosevelt was foolish enough to try and balance the budget before the emergency was over.

Of course, by then a new emergency was looming.

 

No it wasn’t.

 

I will cry no tears for the 1% of the 1% in terms of wealth:
The top 1% holds $38.7 trillion in wealth. That's more than the combined wealth of America's middle class, a group many economists define as the middle 60% of households by income. Those households hold about 26% of all wealth. Low-income Americans, representing the bottom 20% by income, own about 3% of the wealth.

The tax code favors income from wealth (such as capital gains) over income from work. As a result, billionaires often pay a smaller percentage of their income to the federal government than most working families.

Wages have not kept pace with productivity gains. While companies’ profits soar, workers’ paychecks remain relatively flat. This divergence has contributed to income inequality.

US government, through the three branches of government, has a heavy hand in favor of the haves over the have-nots.

When workers earn low wages, their purchasing power diminishes. They have less disposable income to spend on goods and services. This reduction in consumer spending can and will slow down economic growth. Low-wage workers often rely on government assistance programs such as SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program). When a substantial portion of the population earns low wages, the government spends more on safety net programs. This places a burden on taxpayers and diverts resources from other essential investments.

It is amazing how right-wing socialists will cry and cry over government assistance for the least among us, but not a word over corporate welfare which places an even greater burden on taxpayers.

 

We need more Musks, Gates, Jobs, Dells, …. Not less. Wealth creation benefits everyone.

 

DEMAND creates employment. Labor creates wealth.

 

The good news Democrat economics does not exist, but Democratic economics does.
Trump Did Say 'The Economy Always Does Better Under Democrats'