Keynesian economics is an economics philosophy which is surprisingly popular in the public educational system (world-wide, it would seem). Since that's the case, the chances of an economist espousing Keynesian ideals would be a good bet. I drew a parallel between those who support this ideology with increasing the minimum wage, since both are failed principles. The point is, a student of economics does not necessarily make for a proven economist, since Keynesian economics has failed everywhere it's tried and increasing the minimum wage only increases costs on the business and thus the consumer - both result in inflation, driven by the government, just via different means.
Was there ever a time when there was fairness in the workplace wage wise? In the early 1900's business owners abused the workers and paid low wages. Then came unions which worked well up until businesses were starting to compete with other countries whose wages are low. Now unions are working against the ability for companies to compete with low wage countries. So the pendulum is starting to swing back towards business owners. And life goes on.
I have to agree with you about government. I always scratch my head thinking these guys take so much credit for nothing. And elections are always about the economy. In most cases the government can only screw things up, like allowing for those inane banking laws that got the world in the mess it is in.. but is it a mess wall street is at an all time high..we weathered the big storm of 2008 and now it's all about squeezing the lil uneducated out of work guy to work for nothing in order to manufacture something besides cars and bring about some sort of semblance of various industry back into America. The burger flippers and the hospitality industry is at it's peak..but that does not make for a healthy working class Now it's all the con about aspiring for something better and leaving the minimum wage where it is , i bet they get 45 cent increase .increasing to ten bucks like Obama suggested is of no value either it's all drudgery and Dickensesque for the bottom of the wrung . poison the bejeevers out of the environment, produce Franken Food for the poor, pesticide laced arsenic for breakfast, let em cope with cancer and heart attacks .and con them into thinking free medical care is a commie plot.. Bah .america, land of the free home of the brave .words my friend words...
look i get you, please read my last post… I don;t know about you guys but in Canada skilled people are out of work or flipping burgers… I realize it's not up to you to fix the problem..but then again is it. If you are going to give your 2 workers the least possible amount of money to work for you…and type this stuff.. do you hound this into them daily ? do you explain to them they are being prostituted to make you money and they should know better? Go and better yourselves, your a dime a dozen .. nice guy eh! but thats whats going on here…hide behind the flowery Dad talk and rape the worker for all he is worth… thats america…wonderfull...
The minimum wage in Washington State is 9.19 per hour and unemployment is 7.0. The same unemployment rate as the national one. So we have clear evidence that the doom and gloom that some predict on this thread is just not so.
No. I think what makes most sense is making welfare more generous and accessible (unless we are talking about career moochers). This would allow us to safely increase economic freedom and repeal many regulations including eventual abolition of minimum wage. I call it welfare libertarianism, lol.
No. Especially at the Federal level. Let people have more representative legislation at the state level.
Please bear with me as I stumble through this. I'm not as economy aware as I should be, but I'm just going to throw out my opinion based on some experience in the fast food arena and observations and conversations with others. And if anyone has stats on this, please share. Although there is a percentage of adults supporting themselves or a family that for some reason cannot find employment elsewhere, the majority of fast food employees are teens looking to make extra money. Living at home (no rent), being driven to and from work (no transportation costs) and generally spending what they make on gadgets, clothes, etc., which is by choice, though some do save for the future. An increase to $10.00 hr., depending on deductions, would probably give them the $7.50 as net. As far as prices go, most products are overpriced to begin with, prompted by the desire for profit, which is understandable. So, take a little more from the people at the top (I'm sure they won't suffer) and share with the people who help make that profit. And no, I'm not a lefty bleeding heart hand wringer. I've just been on the lower end, as an adult, trying to pay for mortgage, taxes, transportation, etc. and it wasn't easy. Again, if anyone has better info, please share. Enjoy!
There are 3.55 million workers who earn the minimum wage or less, and 854,000 of them are ages 16-19, leaving 2.7 million who are 20 or older. This comes out to 76% of minimum wage workers who are 20 or older. This from Forbes on 09.02.13.
Minimum Wage Hell we need Maximum Wage tax laws. The 99.9% bracket Yup, when you take in "too much", you get the near 100% income tax treatment. Moi The Progressiviest Member on Board. Bobov is gonna this. No
Amen fellow anti Federalist ! Like and a Reputation Tag too. It seems $10 should work for the inexpensive & oddly enough, Red States, and $15 for places where the cost of living is higher. Both places have MacDonalds to staff. The State is the better level of administration for this purpose. Some States, such as the Greatest State of California might even do it by districts of grouped counties. Yes we need Minimum Wage Laws to prevent the "Job Creators" from committing Economic slavery as employers try to out "low ball" each other on a more desperate for work population. Moi The Progressiviest Member on Board No
No...it should be lowered because if raising the minimum wage is bad, then lowering it, to say, 3 cents an hour, has to be good for business, and that's all that really matters.
I define "too much" as whatever Moi gets. He has such commie integrity he would cheerfully sacrifice all he has for the sake of ludicrous commie principle.
Raise it to $15, tho' I'd much rather see all workers unionize; While money is important, so are working conditions, safety and quality of life and they could get this through collective bargaining.
What would happen if this "economic slavery" ended? 1. Employers would eliminate as many jobs as possible. 2. Employers would fire most of the current workers in favor of more highly skilled and productive people. 3. The young and immigrants would lose their entry-level jobs, as would seniors and others looking to supplement low incomes. 4. Many small businesses would close, throwing huge numbers of people out of work. 5. Remaining businesses would have to make big price increases. The lower income people who rely on Wal-Mart, McDonald's, etc. to survive would be hurt the most, not the rich. So who wants this? 1. Dummies who can't see beyond their good feelings about "helping" people. 2. Mainly unions. Unions have been hurting for a long time, with falling membership, falling political clout, and falling dues income. All the media noise comes from unions who want to enroll new members, regain clout, and collect a big chunk of that $15 wage for themselves. The dummies from 1 (above) may be right to talk about greed, but they've got the wrong villains.
The constitution enumerates powers. The constitution does not enumerate the power to regulate wages. Nothing of the sort. Therefore, such legislation is unconstitutional.
Except when the Supreme Court rules that it is constitutional (U.S. vs Darby Lumber). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Darby_Lumber_Co.
The commerce clause is the most abused sentence in the history of the human race. Read it. Read the debate at the time it was ratified. SCOTUS is wrong.
I understand your point, but you're saying SCOTUS is wrong in a unanimous decision and your interpretation is the one we should rely on instead? They determine constitutionality, thereby their decision has determined it to be constitutional.
I'm not even a US citizen, of course you shouldn't rely on my interpretation. Just telling it like it is.
Following that specious logic every law not mentioned in the US Constitution would have to be unconstitutional......obviously untrue.
Yes, that is the implication. Every power exercised, but not given to Congress = unconstitutional. The powers of Congress are as follows (and a few additional powers scattered throughout the constitution): Anything outside that is unconstitutional. The government hasn't even had to venture that far out of here to come up with unconstitutional junk. Just look at its hilarious interpretation of the commerce and necessary and proper clauses. The man in your avatar had no small part in setting the government along an unconstitutional course during the 20th century.
Fortunately we have a Supreme Court to interpret constitutional law, we wouldn't want to end up like Australians. In a land where they can take your guns by decree the testicles are sure to follow.
I'm very much opposed to the Australian government. That's part of why I'm moving in the next few years. Leaving a country isn't as simple as social contract advocates would have us think, unfortunately :/ Anyway, SCOTUS' interpretation is blatantly wrong. Your system is broken. They interpret "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes" to mean... ie: even if she doesn't sell the cannabis out of state, even if she doesn't sell the cannabis within her state, even if she's using seeds from her state to grow plants in her home for personal use, she's still affecting the demand of cannabis on the interstate black market by using her own weed instead of buying from a local dealer (even though that wouldn't affect interstate commerce either). It's a complete farce and Americans everywhere should be up in arms demanding that their government move back within the powers the people and the states enumerated to it.
