Democrats Turn to Minimum Wage as 2014 Strategy

[parocks]

You've never run a business, have you? McDonalds is an oligopoly BECAUSE of policies like the minimum wage. The average profit margin for a fast food restaurant is 2.4%. With every minimum wage increase the market consolidated to the mega corporations who can afford the increase, and this is why Walmart has supported EVERY SINGLE federal minimum wage increase that has passed. It is a way to use government to push their competitors out of the market, the minimum wage has ELIMINATED small grocery stores, small gas stations, small fast food restaurants and many low profit margin industries which have been completely taken over by chains. There is literally no policy that helps McDonalds or Tops keep their oligopolies more. Raising the minimum wage is economically ignorant.

"You've never run a business, have you? McDonalds is an oligopoly BECAUSE of policies like the minimum wage."

The Minimum Wage started before McDonalds did. There were (number) increases in the minimum wage before the first McD opened.
And if you're talking about policies "like" the minimum wage, then you're talking about something much different.

If every business large or small has to do a bunch of bs paperwork for the government, and each business needs one expert in federal paperwork
then a large business has an advantage over a small business.

Fast food oligopolies are competing with fast food oligopolies. Supermarket oligopolies are competiting with supermarket oligopolies. Every one of those companies (with very few exceptions) started their business in a country with minimum wages and minimum wage hikes. Everyone is on a level playing field.

However, there are reasons why Walmart would support minimum wage hikes.

1) Press and public opinion. Walmart, for years, has been singled out by people for being awful to their employees. Walmart doesn't want to come out and say they're against something that would benefit their workers. People would think Walmart was being mean or bad in some way.

2) Temporary economic advantage. Because Walmart has been attacked by people for being bad to their workers, Walmart actually does pay over minimum wage, and probably isn't really bad to their workers, at all. A minimum wage hike would not cause Walmarts wages to go up as much as competitors, providing temporary economic advantage. Soon enough, people will point out that Walmart isn't paying the workers well enough, they'll bitch, and Walmart will raise their wages above minimum. It's a cycle. At KFC, they pay $7.55, at least according to my one person survey. KFC would have to raise their numbers to minimum wage, but the businesses paying minimum wage, would have to raise their wages a higher percentage. So, yeah, there's that. But, again, lots of extra people, we need some, best not to have them starving.

If the government would let people keep their money, there are enough people around who need it and would take it, in economic transactions. But the government takes our money, we can't give it to the people who need it through economic transactions. The market is busted, so you need welfare, you need minimum wages, so that the people who I would be buying stuff from can eat. Because the government took my money that I was going to use to buy stuff from them, I can't give it to them. The guy who runs the supermarket knows that I don't have that extra money, so the cashier stayed home. The FedGov really does take a huge chunk of everyones money.

 

[parocks]

75% of people support a lot of stupid shit.
The biggest problem we have is an authoritarian regime that is supported by the 75% that EXPECTS the federal gov to be involved in every aspect of their lives. 7.25 spends a LOT different in New Jersey than in Tennessee. Let each state decide.

The law has been around since 1938.

Focus on NSA spying, drones, how spending all that money on the military does not help my local economy one bit, or David Byrne, who I saw a couple months ago with St. Vincent.

 

[parocks]

give the rubes all the coercion they can stand. eventually that gun will be pointed at them too.
higher gross equals more income for uncle same.

It's just raising the minimum wage for the umpteenth time since 1938. Retail would be against it. Definitely it would cause them to have to do a little bit of thinking, which they really don't want to have to do. Changing numbers around. There's NSA spying. All this crazy sht is happening, completely awful. There was no NSA in 1938.

Just don't argue about it. There's no more liberty or less liberty with a $5 or a $10 minimum wage. There are no principles at stake. When you argue against raising the minimum wage, you're just arguing the economic interests of people who want to pay their workers less. You don't look like you have any values at all, but just taking a side in a labor dispute. Arguing for one number against a different, higher number. Looks terrible to voters who you want to win over. Gives "libertarian" a bad name.

 

[torchbearer]

It's just raising the minimum wage for the umpteenth time since 1938. Retail would be against it. Definitely it would cause them to have to do a little bit of thinking, which they really don't want to have to do. Changing numbers around. There's NSA spying. All this crazy sht is happening, completely awful. There was no NSA in 1938.

Just don't argue about it. There's no more liberty or less liberty with a $5 or a $10 minimum wage. There are no principles at stake. When you argue against raising the minimum wage, you're just arguing the economic interests of people who want to pay their workers less. You don't look like you have any values at all, but just taking a side in a labor dispute. Arguing for one number against a different, higher number. Looks terrible to voters who you want to win over. Gives "libertarian" a bad name.

work contracts should not be made under the threat of force.
that is the minimum wage.

 

[gwax23]

Great Parocks is back. The economic illiterate poster who rallies the other economic illiterati of this forum.

To everyone with half a brain, dont waste too much time arguing with him, its futile.

 

[gwax23]

*Read from the bottom up, I went through the pages quoting his posts. Ones at the bottom earlier, towards the top later....*

But no one is talking about raising the minimum wage to $100. Just the same ol same ol. The problem with the economy is the government takes our money. We don't have it to spend in the stores. If we had more money to spend in stores, the stores would hire more people to hand me my fast food through the window or scan my food.

They want to double it to 15. Which is a big deal, especially since many liberal states will use it as an excuse to raise it to 18-19.

No, it's just that the Minimum Wage has been in place since 1938, and periodically, it goes up to keep pace with inflation. Unless you think that the minimum wage is the one thing that is keeping us from the beautiful free market paradise, this is really not something to fight about.

3/4s of Americans would like to give the minimum wage workers a raise now, even if it might mean a tiny tiny bump in inflation and unemployment.

Focus on things that we hate, that other people hate too. The crazy new stuff like NSA and drones. Not the single thing that the poorest folks have relied upon since 1938.

When "better" people are working for the government, spying, building drones, I'm much much more in favor of people who are not considered "better", people who live near me, people who work for minimum wage, doing sht I want done in the stores that I want to go to. I'd like to give them a raise, and 75% people of Americans do to.

Then 3/4 of American can pay higher prices...which they wont. Theyll say plenty of fluffy feel good shit in polls so idiots like you can rally for minimum wage increases. The masses like you dont understand supply and demand. The founder didnt want us to live in a democracy where the idiotic mob can dictate policy. Too bad we ignored their intentions.

Why do we have to narrow our ideology and sacrifice basic principles of economic freedom so you can continue your fetish with the minimum wage?

Yes. If there was no minimum wage, everyone could be wiping old peoples asses for a $1 a day. That's the future.

We have a minimum wage now. There are people working at those jobs. There are young people working at those jobs. The minimum wage has been in place since 1938 and it's been raised dozens of times. Yet, still lots of young people in minimum wage jobs.

The total amount of money in young peoples pockets will go up. Everyone gets a 10% raise. 10% more money. But some will be fired or lose hours. But not 10%, much less than that. Just keep doing what we've been doing. Periodic raises keeping pace with inflation.

Im going to go out on a limb here and say your a statist who has no idea about economics. I tried toe educate you in the last thread I saw you on (it happened to be about minimum wage....) you refused to learn and now your spewing the same garbage. Go join the Hillary Clinton forums if you love government price fixing so much.

People wont have 10% they will have ZERO. They will lose their job or never get one in the first place. Do you have any idea about the youth unemployment statistics? Look them up not only for the US but for countries with higher minimum wages and see what this dumb law does. Further your ignoring price inflation with your bs "10% more for everyone!!"

BS.

The minimum wage was 25 cents in 1938.

The minimum wage has gone up dozens of times.

Please, show the articles about the economic catastrophe that was caused by these periodic hikes.

We have serious sht we're dealing with. FedGov seems to want to take our money and give it to people who don't shop in the same stores as I do. They shop in Washington, DC stores. And quite a while ago, everything new they did stopped being useful. So, they take my money away from me, away from my community, that has workers ready to take my money, which I don't have, because FedGov is giving it to people to spy on me.

Yes, no doubt, if you took away all social safety nets, and the FedGov took away half your money, and the minimum wage was gone, we would learn how little a person would need to keep from starving. I don't want to live there.

If FedGov stopped building drones, and let me keep my money, I could spend it in a local store. Everybody else would have much more money to spend in local stores, and those people sitting on the sidelines would be needed, and the best ones would prove to be so valuable that they'd make more than the minimum wage. No minimum wage laws would be necessary, because the free market economy where people get to keep their money would be working. But it isn't working.

So much is fkd up. The minimum wage and periodic raises in it after a debate, that works pretty well.

More rambling nonsense. It seems like your trying desperately too focus attention off minimum wage. Whats your deal? You love trying to deflect to other topics but the minimum wage just seems to hit home to you. You cant be a libertarian or any friend of liberty if you support forcing private businesses to pay a certain price for labor. You talk a bit about Obamacare, but you fail to see the difference....Forcing to buy Health Insurance at certain prices...BAD...forced to buy labor at certain prices...GOOD. What world are you living on?

For long periods of time (some cases 10 years plus like from the 80's to early 90's) the minimum wage wasnt raised at all and due to inflation it became meaningless as people like McDonalds began to pay as much as twice to three times the federal minimum. You dont even think about the jobs that WHERE NEVER CREATED because of the minimum wage. You focus solely on existing jobs. More ignorance of economic principles and unintended consequences. (What is seen and what is not seen)

Just agree with them, argue about the numbers a little bit, come up with an answer like 8,9,10 over successive years. Just like it always is. Taking the side of 25% against the 75% on an issue that's been around since 1938, there's gotta be something else to talk about. I'd like to see huge paycuts for FedGov workers. Taking our money, against our will, spending on sht we don't want. And paying their minions much bigger $ than minimum wage. Knock all FedGov workers down to minimum wage. Periodic minimum wage hikes are the main thing for hard working poor people. I'm not against them. They should have a thing. That's their thing, I don't think we should be screwing them.

If you really gave a damn about minimum wage workers you wouldnt be so ignorantly supportive of the most anti poor bill ever invented, the minimum wage. It prevents people from getting a job and on the job training, so theyll continue to be poor, and remain on welfare (which you dont mention because apparently youve summed up all our economic problems to solely government employees. Apparently Taxes, welfare, regulations dont mean a damn right? If we can stop foreign wars everything will be peachy right?) I cant tell if your an idiot or if you genuinely believe surrendering on all basic economic principles should be our political strategy. Pragmatism.....

Libertarians have a problem distinguishing between practical solutions to today's problems and "ideal world" solutions. Ideally everyone gets to keep their money. Because they keep their money, they have it to spend. But we don't live in "ideal world" at all.

Day 1 of Econ 101 in college they tell you that we don't live in a free market. Day 2 they forget that, and pretend that we do.

Standard charts and graphs apply in fantasy land. And yes, no doubt, free markets work best to get the people the stuff they want.

And yes, no doubt, a hike in the minimum wage is bound to be inflationary. But nowhere near what people think it's going to be.
Fight the right battles. There is so much sht, and it's getting worse. The minimum wage people, who actually do stuff that I like, like handing me my food, putting my food on the shelfs of the stores, etc etc. I got no problem with them. And 1 out of 50 might lose their job, or might lose 10% of their hours (probably Obamacare related). But they do get a raise. That's real money to them. We aren't talking about the government taking our money to buy ads to remind us that they take our money to push us around. For me, it's decent poor people who aren't screwing me over getting a little raise. And that's just something that has been true my entire lifetime, and probably everyone here's entire lifetime unless there are 75 year olds on this board. There is inflation. It's not being caused by min wage hikes (primarily).

Get rid of the Fed Gov workers COLA. Fire Gov workers. Let us keep our money. We have extra money. We want to spend it. That's where wage hikes should be coming from - the labor is needed, because there's money being spent. But all our money goes to the NSA apparently. I'm guessing housing prices are still doing up in the DC area. The spies gotta live close to big spy buildings near Washington, DC.

Here's another thing. I'd like to see young people with more money in their pocket. They're cooler than old people. Or should be, they typically are. When young consumers have more money to spend, there are more choices for younger, cooler people.

Look what Obamacare did. "Hey young people, we know you won't be going to a hospital anywhere as often as someone 30 years older than you, but we will change you the same as the old people." Younger folks are simply getting screwed.

I have no idea what in this rambling nonsense your trying to say. You underestimate all statistics regarding hikes in the minimum wage, 1 in 50? 10%??? You have got to be kidding me. You quickly admit its inflationary (without delving into the details of this) but then run off on a tangent with incomprehensible nonsense.

 

[gwax23]

"You've never run a business, have you? McDonalds is an oligopoly BECAUSE of policies like the minimum wage."

The Minimum Wage started before McDonalds did. There were (number) increases in the minimum wage before the first McD opened.
And if you're talking about policies "like" the minimum wage, then you're talking about something much different.

If every business large or small has to do a bunch of bs paperwork for the government, and each business needs one expert in federal paperwork
then a large business has an advantage over a small business.

Fast food oligopolies are competing with fast food oligopolies. Supermarket oligopolies are competiting with supermarket oligopolies. Every one of those companies (with very few exceptions) started their business in a country with minimum wages and minimum wage hikes. Everyone is on a level playing field.

However, there are reasons why Walmart would support minimum wage hikes.

1) Press and public opinion. Walmart, for years, has been singled out by people for being awful to their employees. Walmart doesn't want to come out and say they're against something that would benefit their workers. People would think Walmart was being mean or bad in some way.

2) Temporary economic advantage. Because Walmart has been attacked by people for being bad to their workers, Walmart actually does pay over minimum wage, and probably isn't really bad to their workers, at all. A minimum wage hike would not cause Walmarts wages to go up as much as competitors, providing temporary economic advantage. Soon enough, people will point out that Walmart isn't paying the workers well enough, they'll bitch, and Walmart will raise their wages above minimum. It's a cycle. At KFC, they pay $7.55, at least according to my one person survey. KFC would have to raise their numbers to minimum wage, but the businesses paying minimum wage, would have to raise their wages a higher percentage. So, yeah, there's that. But, again, lots of extra people, we need some, best not to have them starving.

If the government would let people keep their money, there are enough people around who need it and would take it, in economic transactions. But the government takes our money, we can't give it to the people who need it through economic transactions. The market is busted, so you need welfare, you need minimum wages, so that the people who I would be buying stuff from can eat. Because the government took my money that I was going to use to buy stuff from them, I can't give it to them. The guy who runs the supermarket knows that I don't have that extra money, so the cashier stayed home. The FedGov really does take a huge chunk of everyones money.

Oligopolies competing with oligopolies in the same industry? How thick are you. They wouldnt be oligopolies.... Learn what a oligopoly is.

Is anyone arguing that a hike in the minimum wage doesn't create unemployment, underemployment or inflation?

No. We get it.

But 75% of the people believe that the tiny tiny amounts are outweighed by the benefits of the raise.

There are so very many many many things that cause unemployment and inflation.

This particular one has a benefit. That's why 75% of the people support it.

The government taking so much of our money and spending on sht we don't want is the biggest problem.

YOU ARE. You underplay the effects of minimum wage and claim that you have no problem with it being raised. You claim since we dont live in a true free market that we should actually RAISE the minimum wage.

Econ 101 describes conditions of free markets. Free markets work great. We don't live in a free market. At all.

1) The Fed Gov takes our money. The lack of my money in my pocket means I can't give it to my neighbor. Free market broken.

2) Fast food restaurants, supermarkets, are oligopolies. Their prices are determined differently. W/ perfect competition, prices = the cost. W/ oligopolies, the prices
= total amount of money. A McChicken is a $1 because McDonalds determined that they'd make the most money if the McChicken was a dollar. Companies who can just make up their prices don't need to respond to labor cost rises if they don't want to. KFC was running a special for at least a month. 10 pieces of chicken, $10. We aren't talking about a situation where there are hundreds of sellers of undifferentiated wheat. We don't live there any more. And 75% know this. And 25% seem to think that arguing over whether the minimum wage should be $7.25 or $9 or $10 is something you should do in public.

Listen, when 75% of the people want to give the poor working folks the periodic raise they have been getting since 1938, it's not time to argue with them. I don't like reading in the newspaper that social conservatives want to give the poor folks their raise, or that tea partiers want to give the poor folks their raise, but libertarians don't want to give the poor folks the raise that they've been getting since 1938.

It make libertarians just look like dicks. Yeah, we get it, there might be a little bit of inflation, or a tiny bit of unemployment. But every single time the hikes took place, since 1938, there hasn't been any problems that can be clearly pointed to.

You really want the libertarians to be known as the people who want to fight to keep the poor people from getting their raises? Liberty? Screw that. $7.25 for the poor people, not $10.

It's almost as if you don't understand that we do have a minimum wage. And that minimum wage has been going up dozens of times. The same amount of Liberty is there when the minimum wage is $7.25 or $10. Just arguing about numbers. The idea behind the minimum wage is that it's supposed to keep pace with inflation.

Social security has an automatic COLA.
Fed Government employees have an automatic COLA.

Minimum wage hikes require a debate and a vote.

More rambling nonsense. So since we dont live in a perfect Free Market we shouldnt pass reforms to put us in that direction? By your ridiculous logic we should just become a communist state because we dont live in a pure free market.... Earlier I said you where being foolishly pragmatic in an attempt to win votes. Now its clear you dont favor economic freedom whatsoever.

The law has been around since 1938.

Focus on NSA spying, drones, how spending all that money on the military does not help my local economy one bit, or David Byrne, who I saw a couple months ago with St. Vincent.

Why do you have this passion love affair with the minimum wage. Your desperately trying to deflect to anything you can find. Do you work minimum wage? I worked for less than minimum for years, on the books and technically off the books. The pay was shit but I got value on the job skills that lead me to better and better jobs. With your shit policies in place I would have been priced out of the market and probably never got a job.

 

[WM_in_MO]

So... It's like 99% of online debates?

 

[gwax23]

So... It's like 99% of online debates?

Hes different because he masquerades as some sort of libertarian/fan of ron paul (hence his registration here) but hes clearly either

a) a moron

or

b) a socialist in disguise.

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

Instead of raising the minimum wage, how about eliminating income taxes up to the poverty line of EVERY WORKER in America.


Let's see the scumbag aristocrats justifying taking from the poor (impoverished)

 

[danda]

I think the Republicans should just play chicken with the dems for shits and giggles.

Oh, you want a $10 minimum wage? We iike $12.

oh, you're good with $12? We've decided to push for $15. and so on.

See who blinks first.

That will confuse the hell out of all those blue collar dem supporters.

And it won't matter anyway, as the fed can always print mo money, and this economy is fucked up beyond all repair anyway.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

The minimum wage only ever became an issue because they devalued the Dollar in the first place. Create a problem, fix the problem they created by seizing more power, and at the end of the day we end up thanking them for erasing our freedom. How about we instead elect people who refuse to create these problems in the first place that later generations will have to solve by stealing more freedom from our children and grandchildren?

 

[GunnyFreedom]

This is possibly one of the best ideas I've ever heard.

Raise the minimum wage high enough to overshadow welfare recipients.

And I think we should use the bar as 20 hours worked per week, not 40 hours, because let's face it, many of the low-income earners are working less than 40 hours a week (not all of course).

So based on some napkin math, it looks like we'll have to push the minimum wage to $60/hour to make sure the 20-hour-per-week people take home $60,000 pretaxes and earn too much to draw from any of the welfare programs detailed above.

"Full Time" for the purposes of welfare, is 30hr a week.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

There are no fast food restaurants that are not major chains, at least not anywhere I have ever lived or been.

Most of those are mom and pop operations that bought into the franchise. They have razor thin margins.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

Pandering to the lowest common denominator...

Oh you don't want $15/hr minimum wage?

Y U HATE POOR PEOPLE!?

It's so stupid it's genius, by controlling the schools they have made most people LITERALLY TOO IGNORANT TO ARGUE BACK EFFECTIVELY.

This is what progressives have wanted. Low-information voters ignorant of history, economics, and the Constitution.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

I welcome this debate.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

4.7% of the adult workforce earns minimum wage (source: http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2013/ted_20130325.htm), with the bulk of those being 18-24 years of age. Those 18-24 year olds, also have some of the lowest voter turnout of any age group. If this is the Dems' strategy for victory in 2014, the GOP has nothing to worry about.

 

[CaptUSA]

I'm sorry, but I have to return to my original post, here.

It's funny that they get you guys arguing over the efficacy of such programs. The article, itself, told you what this was about. It's about a power play. It has nothing to do with whether changing a wage would do anything. This is about motivating a specialized constituency over a broad one.

Everyone has an interest in ending the minimum wage, but it is a small interest since most of us don't make it anyway. But there is a constituency that has an intense interest in expanding the minimum wage whatever the consequences. When you have that dynamic, it makes it easy to drive certain voters to the polls to get you the power you are really after.

Milton Friedman spoke about how those with a special interest have a concentrated focus while those in the rest of the public do not. Their focus on the opposite side of whatever issue is less intense.

Again, with all due respect, you guys are discussing the wrong issue here. This is not about whether or not raising the minimum wage would work, this is about organizing a special interest to gain power.

It doesn't matter if you win or lose this debate, the mere fact that the issue is debated creates a win for those seeking more power.

 

[angelatc]

Libertarians have a problem distinguishing between practical solutions to today's problems and "ideal world" solutions. Ideally everyone gets to keep their money. Because they keep their money, they have it to spend. But we don't live in "ideal world" at all.

Day 1 of Econ 101 in college they tell you that we don't live in a free market. Day 2 they forget that, and pretend that we do.

Standard charts and graphs apply in fantasy land. And yes, no doubt, free markets work best to get the people the stuff they want.

And yes, no doubt, a hike in the minimum wage is bound to be inflationary. But nowhere near what people think it's going to be.
Fight the right battles.

Why bother fighting at all? There's no way to ever win using your plan.

 

[angelatc]

4.7% of the adult workforce earns minimum wage (source: http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2013/ted_20130325.htm), with the bulk of those being 18-24 years of age. Those 18-24 year olds, also have some of the lowest voter turnout of any age group. If this is the Dems' strategy for victory in 2014, the GOP has nothing to worry about.

I disagree. As long as the public has the perception of a benevolent government, they will vote for that benevolency. Health care was the perfect example. Before Obamacare, an overwhelming majority of people were happy with their health care - even people who were not insured. But because the media portrayed it much differently, people voted because they thought they would be helping someone else.