JBond

UDFA
Messages
2,667
Reaction score
2
DEMS’ MIDTERM PLAN MEANS LESS WORK FOR AMERICANS
For a second straight week, Democrats find themselves explaining why it’s a good thing for fewer Americans to be employed. Last week, it was a Congressional Budget Office report that said millions would leave the U.S. workforce in order to obtain ObamaCare benefits. This week, the CBO says that the centerpiece of the Obama Democrats midterm campaign pitch, a call to increase the federal minimum wage by 40 percent, will cost as many as 1 million jobs.

Democrats aren’t much disputing the finding from the nonpartisan green-eyeshade brigade, but are instead trying to explain why less work is a good thing. Again. The argument is that while those low-wage jobs would be wiped out, the enhanced incomes of those still working will pay dividends in the years to come. It’s a similar argument as last week’s: Fewer people will work, but their being “freed” from unsatisfying employment will create new opportunities and raise overall living standards.

Much as has been the case with the consequences of ObamaCare, the painful process of explaining the real-world disruptions from the application of economic theories is bloody awful work for a midterm campaign message. Unable to continue to effectively blame Republican practices from the previous decade for the unhappy condition of the economy or health sector, Democrats have decided to get proactive. Big mistake. Unfortunately, what Democrats propose fits too neatly into Republican talking points honed over the last four years, namely that President Obama’s policies mean big government and more dependency. While Dems will be torturing the forecast tables of economic reports to explain why lost insurance, higher premiums, lost jobs and more debt are necessary for building a sustainable economy, Republicans will simply say “Obama isn’t working.”

OBAMACARE TAX BLAMED FOR HUGE JOB LOSS
Daily Caller: “Obamacare’s medical device tax has already created a job loss of 33,000 in the medical device industry and 132,000 more job losses are expected, according to a new report from the industry trade group the Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed)...”

OBAMACARE FORCES MORE HOSPITAL CLOSURES
Daily Caller: “The fourth Georgia hospital in two years is closing its doors due to severe financial difficulties caused by Obamacare’s payment cuts for emergency services. The Lower Oconee Community Hospital is, for now, a critical access hospital in southeastern Georgia that holds 25 beds. The hospital is suffering from serious cash-flow problems, largely due to the area’s 23 percent uninsured population…the federal government has historically made payments to hospitals to cover the cost of uninsured patients seeking free medical care in emergency rooms, as federal law mandates that hospitals must care for all patients regardless of their ability to pay. Because the Affordable Care Act’s authors believed they’d forced all states to implement the Medicaid expansion, Obamacare vastly cut hospital payments…”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/19/dems-struggle-again-to-explain-why-less-work-is-better/?intcmp=latestnews
 
Messages
911
Reaction score
0
Is it the fault of the policies or the fault of business?

If the government says "Business - you can't continue to take advantage of the poor, you have to pay them more. Your profits are at record highs, you can't keep fucking people over and taking advantage of government subsidies and welfare to keep costs low just to please your stockholders..."

And businesses response is "We're going to keep our record profits high by firing people if you make us pay them more money."

Who is the faulty party?
 
Last edited:

Bob Sacamano

All-Pro
Messages
26,436
Reaction score
3
The government would be the faulty party if they increase the minimum wage.

You'd be paying 10 dollars for ice cream etc. if that happens.
 
Messages
911
Reaction score
0
The government would be the faulty party if they increase the minimum wage.

You'd be paying 10 dollars for ice cream etc. if that happens.

And that's what they want you to believe. Congratulations, you're part of the idiocracy.
 

JBond

UDFA
Messages
2,667
Reaction score
2
Is it the fault of the policies or the fault of business?

If the government says "Business - you can't continue to take advantage of the poor, you have to pay them more. Your profits are at record highs, you can't keep fucking people over and taking advantage of government subsidies and welfare to keep costs low just to please your stockholders..."

And businesses response is "We're going to keep our record profits high by firing people if you make us pay them more money."

Who is the faulty party?

Shut up you socialist idiot. You entire belief system is fucked. Go whine to someone else about the fact you are so useless you can not find anyone willing to pay you more than $7.50.

Your pathetic party is the same bunch of assholes that want to flood the market with more losers with no skills from third world shit holes. Fucking brilliant!
 

JBond

UDFA
Messages
2,667
Reaction score
2
Thanks for the intelligent discourse.

When all you have is the socialist drivel your hippy parents taught you, there is not much to discuss. Your replies are garbage. You are unable to bring any facts to back your position. All you have are Stalin based talking points.
 

JBond

UDFA
Messages
2,667
Reaction score
2
Its Ok kid. When you grow up, you will discover how the real world works and come to understand the socialist nonsense you believe so fervently in has killed and left destitute more people in the world than any other single failed ideology.

I can't wait to see what the job market will look like after 30 million uneducated, non-English speaking people are added. Should be fun. That will help drive up wages, right my little socialist buddy?
 
Messages
911
Reaction score
0
Let's use your ice cream analogy.

Let's say an ice cream parlor employee serves (on average) 10 cones per hour. That's a very conservative estimate but maybe it evens out to that when you factor in non-peak hours. The proposed federal minimum wage increase is $2.85. For them to break even on cost, a $3.50 cone now costs $3.79. Even if we take compounded costs from bulk ice cream vendors and cone manufacturers (who may be paying more than minimum wage already) we are probably barely breaking 4 dollars. If that.

So the ten dollar ice cream cone scare tactic is nonsense. Inflation and oil speculation drive prices up way more than any minimum wage increase.

Basically what you are saying is "Fuck 16.5 million Americans, I don't want to spend 30 cents more on an ice cream cone."
 
Last edited:
Messages
911
Reaction score
0
But there is another possibility here — one that, in this profit-obsessed country, no one is even considering.

That possibility is that McDonald's could double its restaurant-worker wages and not increase its prices at all ... but instead just make a little less money. In other words, it could better balance the interests of all three of its stakeholders — shareholders, customers, and employees — instead of shafting employees to deliver as much profit as possible to shareholders.

According to the Kansas City researcher who did the original wages-to-Big Mac study, McDonald's spends about 17% of U.S. revenue on employee salaries and benefits.

If that ratio holds true worldwide, McDonald's would have spent about $4.7 billion on salaries and benefits last year, on revenue of $27 billion. Meanwhile, the company made about $8.5 billion of operating income. (This is for the corporate parent, not the franchises.).

If McDonald's doubled the wages of its restaurant employees (not management, which is presumably very well-compensated), it might add, say, another $3 billion of annual expenses. This would knock its operating profit down to a still healthy $5.5 billion.

Importantly, however, $5.5 billion is still a lot of money. McDonald's would still be very profitable.

Big Macs would still cost the same as they do today (billions and billions would still be served!)

McDonald's managers would still take home their impressive salaries.

And McDonald's restaurant employees would, finally, rise above the poverty line. And their extra spending money would quickly be spent on other products and services, thus helping the whole economy.

By paying these higher wages, McDonald's would also be able to hire the best restaurant workers in the whole economy, thus presumably improving the McDonald's experience for customers and reducing turnover and retraining costs.



Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/mcdo...yees-and-make-less-money-2013-7#ixzz2to4F2QEm

To provide a real-world example, In N Out pays it's employees $10.50 cents to start, and provides much higher quality food than McDonalds for the same price. They are insanely profitable, with mealtime lines that stretch around the corner every day of the year.

I know these are all just made-up Stalin "facts" but maybe they are useful to someone more intelligent than I am.
 

ThoughtExperiment

Quality Starter
Messages
9,906
Reaction score
3
So the ten dollar ice cream cone scare tactic is nonsense. Inflation and oil speculation drive prices up way more than any minimum wage increase.
So inflation causes inflation...

Really, what do you think causes general inflation? It's mostly wage inflation.

Of course the 10 dollars was an exaggeration, but if the goverment just mandates that workers make more, of course everything dependent on workers will cost more.
 
Last edited:
Messages
911
Reaction score
0
Things like oil and goods speculation have a far greater affect on inflation than wage hikes.
 

ThoughtExperiment

Quality Starter
Messages
9,906
Reaction score
3
Oh, those evil right wing speculators again. LOL

If wage inflation doesn't hurt anything, why doesn't the government mandate higher wages for everyone? And why stop at a couple dollars... Make minimum wage $20/hr.
 
Last edited:
Messages
911
Reaction score
0
You can giggle or you can understand. Your choice.

This is not an all inclusive list, but I would think that it covers the vast majority of what we have experienced since the end of WWII (today, we are most threatened by the link between financial markets and commodities). The bottom line is that there are a number of processes that can create inflation, none of which starts with, “the money supply increases.” Someone make a conscious decision to raise a price or wage, and they must be able to make this stick. Because every higher price you pay means someone is getting more income, inflation causes a redistribution of income. Sometimes it does so in a manner that we would endorse and sometimes not. But in any event, it causes a rise in the demand for money that the Fed will almost certainly accommodate–and rightfully so, for refusing to do so almost always serves to punish those already in the weakest position.

I’m afraid this more realistic perspective does not offer a nice, simple rule as in the money growth ==> inflation camp. That said, neither do they since that’s not how the world really works! In reality, monetary policy does not cause inflation, and it is not well placed to stop it. What it does do is very strongly and directly affect interest rates. But prices are determined elsewhere in the system.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2011/05/30/what-actually-causes-inflation/
 
Messages
911
Reaction score
0
No, it isn't. It's about what drives inflation and whether monetary policy is one of those factors.
 
Top Bottom