The Hidden History of Guns and the 2nd Amendment Book Tour Is Coming...

Thursday, June 6: NEW YORK, NY 7:30pm

Location: The Strand (2nd floor), 828 Broadway, NYC

Monday, June 10: WASHINGTON, DC 6:30pm

Location: Busboys and Poets, 450 K St NW, Washington, DC

Wednesday, June 12: PORTLAND, OR 7:30pm

Location: Powell’s, 1005 W Burnside St., Portland

Sunday, June 23: SEATTLE, WA 7:30pm

Location: Town Hall, 1119 8th Ave, Seattle (West Entrance) w/Elliott Bay Book Company

Tuesday, June 25: SAN FRANCISCO, CA 7:00pm

Location: First Church, 2345 Channing Way, Berkeley w/The Booksmith

Friday, June 28: CHICAGO, IL 7:00pm

Location: Frugal Muse, 7511 Lemont Rd. #146 (Chestnut Court Shopping Center), Darien

Saturday, June 29: MINNEAPOLIS, MN 7:00pm

Location: Common Good Books, 38 S. Snelling Ave, St. Paul

Become a Thom Supporter- Click the Patreon button

Mimimum Wage Workers Subsidize Our Economy?

On July 23, 2016, we discontinued our forums. We ask our members to please join us in our new community site, The Hartmann Report. Please note that you will have to register a new account on The Hartmann Report.

203 posts / 0 new

This is not a perfect exercise.

The value of the federal minimum wage in 1968 was $1.60 according to

http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/chart.htm

and using the inflation calculator at

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=1.60&year1=1968&year2=2012

gives us a value of $10.50 in 2012 but the actual minimum wage is only $7.25. This is a loss of $3.25 per hour or $6,760 a year for a full time MW worker.

According to http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012tbls.htm some 3.55 million wage workers got this minimum wage or below in 2012

3,550,000
6,760 ×
--------------------------
$23.998 BILLION = lost wages

This number only includes those at the minimum wage or below... NOT those between the minimum wage and the $10.50 per hour range.

So who's benefited from this $24 billion a year subsidy the economy got in 2012? And remember these are just rough numbers for one year.

This raises other issues of increased safety net expenditures AND lost tax revenue. But then we can always kick the can down the road by borrowing for those safety net programs so future taxpayers will be subsidizing our irresponsibility today.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

Comments

The min wage worker is exploited, the companies that use them are subsidized thru food stamps, WIC, Medicaid etc.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm
Quote Phaedrus76:

The min wage worker is exploited, the companies that use them are subsidized thru food stamps, WIC, Medicaid etc.

I doubt the companies that exploit MW workers cash in on all that 24 billion. As consumers we do as well. The point I was making about safety net subsidies instead of pushing for higher wages is this can be done in a way that seems less painful because it's through the back door... and much of what we spend is borrowed.

What's really sickening is when the MW is raised the GOP likes to get some extra tax breaks for business. Yet it's business that's been getting the free ride for all those years the MW didn't go up.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

The minimum wage worker does not subsidize anything, their low wage is a reflection of the work that they do not the person. Some jobs are not worth a high wage. Those low wages also keep poo prices low but you as the consumer can choose to purchase higher priced items from people who pay above minimum wage.

It's up to you not government to protect you from your self.

firearm owner
Joined:
Jan. 18, 2013 9:52 am

Probably if min. wage workers would learn how to collapse the economy, they'd earn billion dollar bonuses....and wouldn't be destitute.

We have a really odd way of determining the worth of economic contribution in this country.

Sitting around the pool collecting dividend checks is worth much, much more than actually producing something.

Living at the court of a king with banquet dining was worth much, much more than actually producing the food. Not much has changed.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote firearm owner:The minimum wage worker does not subsidize anything, their low wage is a reflection of the work that they do not the person.
Thanks for another demonstration of how your fragile ego gives rise to your moral pathology. Because you need to believe the working poor deserve to be poor, you want to punish them further by abolishing the federal minimum wage which deprives them of $6750 a year, ending the federal safety net programs... AND for good measure making them pay 15-20% flat tax not deductions. To insure you can feel superior to someone, ANYONE, you're obsessed with punishing the working poor. The other half of your pathological insecurity is you live in secret locations and surround yourself with guns, all to protect yourself from your "enimes".

As a taxpayer I STILL want a refund for having the military babysit you at taxpayer expense. However I would be willing to pay to see you finally receive therapy.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

So, pierpont, do you think a 17 year old flipping burgers at McDonalds or sacking groceries at the local Mom and Pop grocery (struggling to stay afloat and srtill compete with Walmart) deserves that extra "$6750"/year? Would forcing that Mom and Pop grocery out of business make you feel any better than the bullshit you accuse FO of feeling about the poor. You are pathetic.

You can't do anythjing but project on what others say and accuse. But that is typical of your drivel. Instead of really addressing what FO said, as typical you just accuse.

klb10's picture
klb10
Joined:
Aug. 13, 2013 11:24 am

Probably until an economy becomes re-balanced, the best way to accomplish that would be through a guaranteed annual income through a reverse income tax administered by the IRS.

It was first suggested by Dem Presidential candidate McGovern, and many years later by the very conservative economist Milton Friedman.

National economies, unfortunately, function as they function and don't give a hoot about ideological considerations or voodoo to justify them.

Market economic systems are inherently unstable. Just because the New Deal stabilized ours somewhat, as the social democracies of Europe stabilized theirs, doesn't mean they function well on their own. They are prone to periodic collapses...on average every 10-15 years when left to their own devices. You should probably come to grips with that.

The collapse of 1929 was quickly followed by the meltdown of 1937 when some elements of the New Deal were withdrawn.

I expect another quickie from the financial meltdown of 2007. Recovery is a bad joke and nothing has been addressed. Wave on the way down.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

A guaranteed annual income at whose expense, ploy. Unless you can instill something like an egalitarian quotient into major corporations and factor in puchasing power into the MW, merely raising the MW or guranteeing an annual income is going to do nothing to answering the problem. In fact that would probaly finish off the strruggling small businesses, leaving only major corporations as the only functioning market entities.

klb10's picture
klb10
Joined:
Aug. 13, 2013 11:24 am
Quote klb10:

So, pierpont, do you think a 17 year old flipping burgers at McDonalds or sacking groceries at the local Mom and Pop grocery (struggling to stay afloat and srtill compete with Walmart) deserves that extra "$6750"/year? Would forcing that Mom and Pop grocery out of business make you feel any better than the bullshit you accuse FO of feeling about the poor.

If there MW were adjusted for inflation from the start we'd not have an economy where some businesses are built on exploiting these workers... or depending on the DECREASING value of what they are paid. It's these businesses now that are addicted to exploitation.

As for FO... I only quoted HIS stated positions on the MW, abolishing the federal safety net, a 15-20% flat tax no deductions.... and HIS rationale for wanting to punish the poor. Yes, it IS a sick morality play.

Now, have anything intelligent to add?

Didn't think so.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

Poly, how has the IMF stabilized the present "social democracies of Europe" today? Their economies are in shambles and collapsing thjat their social governments have no answer for.

klb10's picture
klb10
Joined:
Aug. 13, 2013 11:24 am
Quote Pierpont:
Quote klb10:So, pierpont, do you think a 17 year old flipping burgers at McDonalds or sacking groceries at the local Mom and Pop grocery (struggling to stay afloat and srtill compete with Walmart) deserves that extra "$6750"/year? Would forcing that Mom and Pop grocery out of business make you feel any better than the bullshit you accuse FO of feeling about the poor.

If there MW were adjusted for inflation from the start we'd not have an economy where some businesses are built on exploiting these workers... or depending on the DECREASING value of what they are paid. It's these businesses now that are addicted to exploitation.

As for FO... I only quoted HIS stated positions on the MW, abolishing the federal safety net, a 15-20% flat tax no deductions.... and HIS rationale for wanting to punish the poor. Yes, it IS a sick morality play.

Now, have anything intelligent to add?

Didn't think so.

BULLSHIT! Raising the MW is just another backdoor way for corporations to get rid of their small business competition. You are the one lacking intelligence about economics.Or, you would understand the relation of the MW and inflation. Do you understand what an egalitarian quotient even is?

klb10's picture
klb10
Joined:
Aug. 13, 2013 11:24 am
Quote firearm owner:The minimum wage worker does not subsidize anything, their low wage is a reflection of the work that they do not the person. Some jobs are not worth a high wage. Those low wages also keep poo prices low but you as the consumer can choose to purchase higher priced items from people who pay above minimum wage. It's up to you not government to protect you from your self.

However, these workers at Walmart and McDonlads generate tremendous profits. If no one stocks the shelves at Walmart, no profits. The worker is producing huge profits. They aren't getting much of the result of their labor, because their skills are simple and easily trained to the next person. However, they are clearly producing profits.

Someone is going to drive cabs, stock shelves, pick lettuce, etc. Allowing the employers to exploit, enslave or sexually abuse their workers are not ok to Democratic voters.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm
Quote klb10:

A guaranteed annual income at whose expense, ploy. Unless you can instill something like an egalitarian quotient into major corporations and factor in puchasing power into the MW, merely raising the MW or guranteeing an annual income is going to do nothing to answering the problem. In fact that would probaly finish off the strruggling small businesses, leaving only major corporations as the only functioning market entities.

Oh how amusing you are when you get caught in your own bullshit. Here you are claiming all small businesses would whither and die, yet in the other post you complain that McDONALDS... hardly a small mom and pop, would suffer.

BTW... how many Mom & Pops are left in your town? They've pretty much been driven out of business 40 years ago by the likes of A&P and First National Stores... and when enough people had cars they could drive to these markets. They weren't killed off by the MW but through efficiencies of scale. Should government have prevented that? Yes or no?

So where is the evidence indexing the MW to inflation.... WHICH IS NOT AN INCREASE IN VALUE OF THOSE DOLLARS.... will kill these M&Ps? How is leveling the playing field giving some business an advantage over another? What you're saying is they can ONLY stay in business if the government lets them steal more value from their workers.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote klb10:
Quote Pierpont:
Quote klb10:So, pierpont, do you think a 17 year old flipping burgers at McDonalds or sacking groceries at the local Mom and Pop grocery (struggling to stay afloat and srtill compete with Walmart) deserves that extra "$6750"/year? Would forcing that Mom and Pop grocery out of business make you feel any better than the bullshit you accuse FO of feeling about the poor.

If there MW were adjusted for inflation from the start we'd not have an economy where some businesses are built on exploiting these workers... or depending on the DECREASING value of what they are paid. It's these businesses now that are addicted to exploitation.

As for FO... I only quoted HIS stated positions on the MW, abolishing the federal safety net, a 15-20% flat tax no deductions.... and HIS rationale for wanting to punish the poor. Yes, it IS a sick morality play.

Now, have anything intelligent to add?

Didn't think so.

BULLSHIT! Raising the MW is just another backdoor way for corporations to get rid of their small business competition. You are the one lacking intelligence about economics.Or, you would understand the relation of the MW and inflation. Do you understand what an egalitarian quotient even is?

Double bullshit. The MW being kept low means for a person to open a small business their "labor" as the owner is kept artifically low, they are replacing a worker being paid $8.00/hr. Raise the MW, more families can look at being entrepreneurs. Obamacare is already going to start that trend, people jumping out of corporate world free from employer based health insurance.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm

Additionally, New Jersey and SEATAC in WA voted for mw increases yesterday.

Any bets on whether employment at SEATAC, WA will fall over the qtr, yr and 5 yrs after the raise to $15/hr?

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm
Quote Phaedrus76:
Quote klb10:
Quote Pierpont:
Quote klb10:So, pierpont, do you think a 17 year old flipping burgers at McDonalds or sacking groceries at the local Mom and Pop grocery (struggling to stay afloat and srtill compete with Walmart) deserves that extra "$6750"/year? Would forcing that Mom and Pop grocery out of business make you feel any better than the bullshit you accuse FO of feeling about the poor.

If there MW were adjusted for inflation from the start we'd not have an economy where some businesses are built on exploiting these workers... or depending on the DECREASING value of what they are paid. It's these businesses now that are addicted to exploitation.

As for FO... I only quoted HIS stated positions on the MW, abolishing the federal safety net, a 15-20% flat tax no deductions.... and HIS rationale for wanting to punish the poor. Yes, it IS a sick morality play.

Now, have anything intelligent to add?

Didn't think so.

BULLSHIT! Raising the MW is just another backdoor way for corporations to get rid of their small business competition. You are the one lacking intelligence about economics.Or, you would understand the relation of the MW and inflation. Do you understand what an egalitarian quotient even is?

Double bullshit. The MW being kept low means for a person to open a small business their "labor" as the owner is kept artifically low, they are replacing a worker being paid $8.00/hr. Raise the MW, more families can look at being entrepreneurs. Obamacare is already going to start that trend, people jumping out of corporate world free from employer based health insurance.

And what, P76? Go into sales?

klb10's picture
klb10
Joined:
Aug. 13, 2013 11:24 am

Your both wrong. The push for minimum wage increases is a unions issue. Most on this board are totally uninformed as to how SEIU and other union contracts are structured. The 5% of the working population that actually make the minimum wage are just straw-men.

Dexterous's picture
Dexterous
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2013 9:35 am
Quote Dexterous:

The 5% of the working population that actually make the minimum wage are just straw-men.

Isn't the REAL question not just those who make the current MW but all those who fall between the MW and what the MW would be worth if adjusted to inflation? That would include everyone from $7.25 an hour to $10.50.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:
Quote firearm owner:The minimum wage worker does not subsidize anything, their low wage is a reflection of the work that they do not the person.
Thanks for another demonstration of how your fragile ego gives rise to your moral pathology. Because you need to believe the working poor deserve to be poor, you want to punish them further by abolishing the federal minimum wage which deprives them of $6750 a year, ending the federal safety net programs... AND for good measure making them pay 15-20% flat tax not deductions. To insure you can feel superior to someone, ANYONE, you're obsessed with punishing the working poor. The other half of your pathological insecurity is you live in secret locations and surround yourself with guns, all to protect yourself from your "enimes".

As a taxpayer I STILL want a refund for having the military babysit you at taxpayer expense. However I would be willing to pay to see you finally receive therapy.

It's not the worker it is the job they are performing. The difference between the income now and the income 40 years ago has more to do with monitary policy and safety net programs than the work being performed.

As far as me living in a secret location with fire arms that is a mater of survival not insecurity.  

As far as your refund I already explained you get more money back in taxes than you pay in so no refund is needed, however if you insist on a refund send me your address and I will return your 6 cents or so that would have been used to feed and house me during my military adventures.

firearm owner
Joined:
Jan. 18, 2013 9:52 am
Quote Pierpont:
Quote Dexterous:

The 5% of the working population that actually make the minimum wage are just straw-men.

Isn't the REAL question not just those who make the current MW but all those who fall between the MW and what the MW would be worth if adjusted to inflation? That would include everyone from $7.25 an hour to $10.50.

OK, if you really believe you want to help the entry level worker, and you really believe in your postings, you can raise the minimum wage to $10.50/hr. but EXCLUDE ALL the union contracts from the automatic increases tied directly to the minimum wage. That way you can help the people you seem so very concerned about, and I will not have to be concerned about all the fallout associated with your proposal.

Deal?

You consent to that, and I will happily sit in your drum circle and chant with you at the next occupy event.

Good luck convincing all those currently making $10.50/hr. that they should be content working at that wage because this increase is just for the entry level workers.

Dexterous's picture
Dexterous
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2013 9:35 am
Quote Phaedrus76:

Additionally, New Jersey and SEATAC in WA voted for mw increases yesterday.

Any bets on whether employment at SEATAC, WA will fall over the qtr, yr and 5 yrs after the raise to $15/hr?

Interestingly, the Seatac, Washington increase to $15 an hour raises wages almost to what they were in that area 40 years ago for the same lines of work. Of course, with inflation, it's only about half of the previous purchasing power. A $30 an hour minimum would have covered it.

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&I...

$15 an hour is now the highest minimum wage in the country.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Dexterous:

Good luck convincing all those currently making $10.50/hr. that they should be content working at that wage because this increase is just for the entry level workers.

Seems you're moving the goal post or maybe I didn't understand your original point. Yes, of course those currently making the $10.50 an hour would not be happy making what was now considered the MW... and yes, they might get automatic raises to keep above that. But all you're saying is those who think they are now $3.25 above the current MW are actually at the 1968 MW adjusted to inflation. Put that way, OF COURSE they deserve a raise as well. Like those receiving the MW, these workers are also subsidizing the economy. I didn't include them, OR those who fall into the $7.25 - $10.50 range because I don't have the numbers. So I went only with those at $7.25 as a starting point for this discussion.

There are reasons why wages for many American's have essentially been stagnant for decades... and the declining value of the MW is one of those reasons. Heaven forbid the workers on the bottom get lifted up. But those on the Right who love capital and loathe labor would probably be against this.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

And your answer to my suggesting exclusion of the union contracts from MW discussions is????

Dexterous's picture
Dexterous
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2013 9:35 am

Dex, you are complaining about one of the positive effects of a raised minimum wage, raised wages for others in the vicinity. I doubt many of the execs think this MR raise is "unfair" to them in the same way the people making the new MW already would. OF COURSE!!! This is why labor should always be for a raised minimum wage and unions have every bit as much right, or more, to bargain collectively as does the corporation.

It is amazing to me how those who have cashed in on being advantaged in the finance games can complain about any rise in compensation for the people at the bottom who got screwed by the finance games. I can find few, if any, of these kings of finance who is worth the price of their skin. We can do without them, but we need workers.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm

MW goes up, it bumps everyone in the near bottom up as well. Union worker or not. That it effects union contracts is a bad thing how?

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm
Quote Dexterous:

And your answer to my suggesting exclusion of the union contracts from MW discussions is????

What part of my sentence

Put that way, OF COURSE they deserve a raise as well.

Are you having a problem with?

Otherwise, keeping wages below the rate of inflation is the backdoor to subsidize the profits of business owners and the economy for those whose wages/salaries increase at or ABOVE the rate of inflation.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

I don't think at the start of this thread most of you had any idea as to how you are being played.

You have totally made my point. It has nothing to do with the high school kid flipping burgers as a first job, it never was, it's all about union contracts.

Since the largest line item in any city budget is the pension obligations, this would only push things further in the wrong direction, faster.

Think of not raising the minimum wage as being 'for the kids' so they won't have to pay for your stupidity someday.

Dexterous's picture
Dexterous
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2013 9:35 am
Quote Dexterous:I don't think at the start of this thread most of you had any idea as to how you are being played.
You flatter yourself without due cause.

Quote Dexterous:You have totally made my point. It has nothing to do with the high school kid flipping burgers as a first job, it never was, it's all about union contracts.
No, it's as I SAID THE ISSUE IS: the refusal to index the minimum wage to inflation steals value from the wages those on the bottom receive and subsidizes the rest of the economy. Whether those at the bottom of the union pay scale benefit is a side bonus.

Quote Dexterous:Since the largest line item in any city budget is the pension obligations, this would only push things further in the wrong direction, faster.
If pension funds are actuarially unsound... they should be made so by adjusting employee pay-in and benefit rates. This isn't rocket science even if you seem to think it is. No one should get a pension windfall just because their pay get's a bump in this manner. But if you're saying there is pension abuse in the public sector... sure there is. Here in Mass some state cops work ton's of overtime just before retirement just to get a bigger pension. This is insane... AND I certainly don't want tired cops involved in high speed car chases or exercising poor judgment when it comes to guns.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

Probably since the nation generates $200,000 annually for each family of four, a min. wage of $15 an hour for a head of household...about $24,000 a year for a family of four, wouldn't bankrupt us. It still leaves $176,000 from each family's share of the national pie to go elsewhere.

Yaught makers will still have plenty of business. BigAg might even peddle more of its poisoned, disease-ridden food.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Pierpont:
Quote Dexterous:I don't think at the start of this thread most of you had any idea as to how you are being played.
You flatter yourself without due cause.

Probably because I always look for ulterior motives when I see a bunch of SEIU workers with pre printed signs in front of a McDonalds impromptu employee walkout.

Quote Pierpont:
Quote Dexterous:You have totally made my point. It has nothing to do with the high school kid flipping burgers as a first job, it never was, it's all about union contracts.
No, it's as I SAID THE ISSUE IS: the refusal to index the minimum wage to inflation steals value from the wages those on the bottom receive and subsidizes the rest of the economy. Whether those at the bottom of the union pay scale benefit is a side bonus.

Your "side bonus" would cost hundreds of times more to taxpayers than giving Johnnie a couple of bucks more per hour at Burger King.

As I have stated before, I prefer to see a person work, and receive an additional subsidy from the government, rather than sitting around the pool and be forced to walk to the mailbox to pick it up every month. Aren't you guys all about FDR?

Quote Pierpont:

Quote Dexterous:Since the largest line item in any city budget is the pension obligations, this would only push things further in the wrong direction, faster.
If pension funds are actually unsound... they should be made so by adjusting employee pay-in and benefit rates. This isn't rocket science even if you seem to think it is. No one should get a pension windfall just because their pay get's a bump in this manner. But if you're saying there is pension abuse in the public sector... sure there is. Here in Mass some state cops work ton's of overtime just before retirement just to get a bigger pension. This is insane... AND I certainly don't want tired cops involved in high speed car chases or exercising poor judgment when it comes to guns.

You almost quoted word for word from one of Scott Walker's speeches in Wisconsin. Are you going Tea Party on us?

Dexterous's picture
Dexterous
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2013 9:35 am
Quote Dexterous:
Quote Pierpont:
Quote Dexterous:I don't think at the start of this thread most of you had any idea as to how you are being played.
You flatter yourself without due cause.

Probably because I always look for ulterior motives when I see a bunch of SEIU workers with pre printed signs in front of a McDonalds impromptu employee walkout.

NOW you're moving the goal post. You said I was played, now you're claiming YOU are the one with the problem. So what's YOUR ulterior motive for joining this thread and moving the goal post?

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Dexterous:
Quote Pierpont:

If pension funds are actually unsound... they should be made so by adjusting employee pay-in and benefit rates. This isn't rocket science even if you seem to think it is. No one should get a pension windfall just because their pay get's a bump in this manner. But if you're saying there is pension abuse in the public sector... sure there is. Here in Mass some state cops work ton's of overtime just before retirement just to get a bigger pension. This is insane... AND I certainly don't want tired cops involved in high speed car chases or exercising poor judgment when it comes to guns.

You almost quoted word for word from one of Scott Walker's speeches in Wisconsin. Are you going Tea Party on us?

I think I'm on record as being a deficit hawk which is why I oppose waste, fraud and abuse AND irresponsible tax cuts as we've seen from both the GOP and Obama. We've become the land of the Free Lunch with both parties having their own variations on the theme. This hardly makes me a Tea Party crackpot since I'm not deluded that only spending is the problem and tax cuts are a free lunch.

As for pensions... if the programs are deferred benefits, why should the tax payer pitch in? Though if the state or city is guardians of this money and the f*ck up... this raises other issues. The real problem here is not that public employees are making a killing... and if there's abuse, it should be stopped... but that the rest of the economy is sinking for the working poor and lower middle class. The game has been rigged with free trade, refusal to raise the MW, and irresponsible tax cuts. As a result it's the ones at the top who are getting the bulk of the rewards.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:

As for pensions... if the programs are deferred benefits, why should the tax payer pitch in? Though if the state or city is guardians of this money and the f*ck up... this raises other issues. The real problem here is not that public employees are making a killing... and if there's abuse, it should be stopped... but that the rest of the economy is sinking for the working poor and lower middle class. The game has been rigged with free trade, refusal to raise the MW, and irresponsible tax cuts. As a result it's the ones at the top who are getting the bulk of the rewards.

I can't really move a goalpost that has not yet been defined. Can you help me? What exactly is the goal? At the beginning of this thread, it was to raise the minimum wage to $10.50/hr. and give Johnnie a few bucks more per week, which somehow will turn him into a tax paying citizen.

I pointed out that a huge number of people, by contract, as well as anyone tied to the MW, including SS recipients, will also be affected, thus reigning havoc on budgets everywhere. Causing the 50% of Americans that actually pay Federal income taxes, be required to pay more, not to mention their increased cost of goods purchased.

(Not a good thing to morph this into a "Corporations and business owners never raise their prices when their costs of production go up" reply. The left never understands that argument.)

Let's just agree that Johnnie can have his $10.50/hr. and it stops there. That seems to be great place to plant a goalpost.

Dexterous's picture
Dexterous
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2013 9:35 am
Quote Dexterous:
Quote Pierpont:

As for pensions... if the programs are deferred benefits, why should the tax payer pitch in? Though if the state or city is guardians of this money and the f*ck up... this raises other issues. The real problem here is not that public employees are making a killing... and if there's abuse, it should be stopped... but that the rest of the economy is sinking for the working poor and lower middle class. The game has been rigged with free trade, refusal to raise the MW, and irresponsible tax cuts. As a result it's the ones at the top who are getting the bulk of the rewards.

I can't really move a goalpost that has not yet been defined. Can you help me?

Pretty sleazy of you to disconnect your response to what I wrote IN A DIFFERENT POST... http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2013/11/mimimum-wage-workers-subsidize... then pretend you've no idea what I'm talking about.

Grow up Dex.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Dexterous:
Quote Pierpont:
Quote Dexterous:You have totally made my point. It has nothing to do with the high school kid flipping burgers as a first job, it never was, it's all about union contracts.
No, it's as I SAID THE ISSUE IS: the refusal to index the minimum wage to inflation steals value from the wages those on the bottom receive and subsidizes the rest of the economy. Whether those at the bottom of the union pay scale benefit is a side bonus.

Your "side bonus" would cost hundreds of times more to taxpayers than giving Johnnie a couple of bucks more per hour at Burger King.

As I have stated before, I prefer to see a person work, and receive an additional subsidy from the government, rather than sitting around the pool and be forced to walk to the mailbox to pick it up every month. Aren't you guys all about FDR?

Gee... I'd rather see a person work for a fair wage, NOT get handouts, AND pay some taxes. Seems you prefer redistribution in this case. I think it's justified in others.

So are you saying there's NO way to increase the MW without forcing taxpayers to pay extra, unearned, pension benefits?

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Dexterous:I pointed out that a huge number of people, by contract, as well as anyone tied to the MW, including SS recipients, will also be affected, thus reigning havoc on budgets everywhere.
Have a credible source that TODAY'S SS benefits are tied to the MW? Of course an increase in the MW would mean an increase in the amount paid into the fund.

Now do you ever intend to deal with the simple idea here that NOT indexing the MW to inflation is robbing MW workers of their earnings? If it were a couple hundred bucks a year... that's one thing. But the next effect of the failure to keep pace with inflation robs these workers of about $6700 a year.... I believe that's about 40% of what the MW should be. Hell... this isn't giving anyone anything extra. SS is tied to CPI and I believe Congress's pay is as well. Those sleaze balls don't even vote anymore on a pay increase. It's automatic.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:

So are you saying there's NO way to increase the MW without forcing taxpayers to pay extra, unearned, pension benefits?

Yes

Quote Pierpont:
Quote Dexterous:I pointed out that a huge number of people, by contract, as well as anyone tied to the MW, including SS recipients, will also be affected, thus reigning havoc on budgets everywhere.
Have a credible source that TODAY'S SS benefits are tied to the MW?

SS payment increases are indexed to CPI. Higher minimum wage> higher prices > higher cost of living> higher SS payments.

Quote Pierpont:

Now do you ever intend to deal with the simple idea here that NOT indexing the MW to inflation is robbing MW workers of their earnings?

Minimum wage workers for the most part pay no Federal Income Tax, and in many cases actually receive a check from the government through the Earned Income Tax Credit program.

Are prepared to lower the minimum wage during periods of deflation?

Dexterous's picture
Dexterous
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2013 9:35 am

I would be glad to lower the maximum wage. Minimum wage workers pay all the taxes the rich avoid and have to borrow to do it. Sales tax alone, gets them a big percentage to gripe about.

Dex, while you are pinching the pennies, the big bucks are flowing right past you. You are being conned. It is not the poor who are taking money out of your pocket. Follow the money. The Free Riders are in the Power Tower Gliders, not working more than one crap job to keep from drowning.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm
Quote drc2:

I would be glad to lower the maximum wage. Minimum wage workers pay all the taxes the rich avoid and have to borrow to do it. Sales tax alone, gets them a big percentage to gripe about.

Not a correct. Minimum wage workers do not pay all the taxes the rich avoid.

I never mentioned sales taxes but in most states sales taxes do not apply to food and clothing.

Quote drc2:

Dex, while you are pinching the pennies, the big bucks are flowing right past you. You are being conned. It is not the poor who are taking money out of your pocket. Follow the money. The Free Riders are in the Power Tower Gliders, not working more than one crap job to keep from drowning.

This thread is not about all the taxes the rich and middle class are paying so fixing loopholes and raising taxes is not on the menu here.

I am not worried about paying Johnnie more money.

I am just stating what I believe is the real reason all this is getting attention in the first place.

Dexterous's picture
Dexterous
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2013 9:35 am

Having followed your posts on minimum wage, I find that you repeat myths and refuse to pay any attention to how economics really works. You have a player's perspective on the zero sum of wages, not a systems perspective. OK, I get it.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm
Quote Dexterous:

Your both wrong. The push for minimum wage increases is a unions issue. Most on this board are totally uninformed as to how SEIU and other union contracts are structured. The 5% of the working population that actually make the minimum wage are just straw-men.

Straw-men are entry level, they do napkins and ketchup dispensers, too.

Boehner is compiling his response to MW by checking history:

The classical example is in a parliamentary announcement by Sir
Robert Peel: "When that question is made to me in a proper time, in a
proper place, under proper qualifications, and with proper motives, I
will hesitate long before I will refuse to take it into
consideration."

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Dexterous:I am not worried about paying Johnnie more money.

I am just stating what I believe is the real reason all this is getting attention in the first place.

The REAL reason for this thread is simply to highlight what SHOULD be obvious: that someone is cashing in on the refusal to index the MW to inflation. They are getting a unearned windfall at the expense of the working poor who have lost now some $6700 a year. The real QUESTION is why you are intent to defend this.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Dexterous:Are prepared to lower the minimum wage during periods of deflation?

So we must shape policy for deflation that's highly unlikely as opposed to inflation which is virtually ALWAYS present? And if it's not... the wage would not go up. I repeat... holding on to value is NOT a gain.

Still waiting for you to make ANY moral case why MW workers should be losing now some 40% of the value of their wage. You speak of the alleged effects on others, but EVADE the effects on those who are actually being harmed. But, let me guess... only others have an ulterior motive.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote drc2:

Having followed your posts on minimum wage, I find that you repeat myths and refuse to pay any attention to how economics really works. You have a player's perspective on the zero sum of wages, not a systems perspective. OK, I get it.

I think you answered your own question in this post. I think you understand my position on this, continuing on becomes repetitious.

Dexterous's picture
Dexterous
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2013 9:35 am

Yes, I think I have diagnosed your pathology on this issue. You are a MONOPOLY player rather than a game manager. You think "winning" in a dysfunctional game is what works. The point of the game was to show how the players collapse the game and need a redeal. Boom and Bust is really repetitous. I know that sustainability is boring.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm

Actually, minimum wage workers and taxpayers subsidize profits. Companies like Walmart and McDonalds pay their workers so little in wages and benefits (if any) that taxpayers are left making up the difference.

The companies intentionally keep most of their work force in a position where they don't qualify for full time status and the benefits that comes with.

Instead, the workers apply for various federal benefits just to make it from day to day.

All this while we are fed lies from the industries about the workers earning minimum wage being teens just starting out in the work force. In reality, far too many of these workers earning the minimum are adults trying to support a family. Many are working multiple jobs at minimum wage and still can't make ends meet.

What these companies have done is put the burden of paying these workers on the backs of taxpayers. They have externalized the costs of employment by encouraging the workers who complain to apply for federal benefits that come out of your pocket and mine.

The "profits" these companies reap is ripped right out of the pockets of their employees and us. Raising the minimum wage should not necessarily require an increase in the costs of the products.

Let the difference come out of these artificially boosted profits.

Republicans love to scream about "welfare queens" and other exaggerations in order to justify their attacks on the very federal support programs these underpaid workers need to survive.

The truth is this: Walmart, McDonalds, and the other major corporations underpaying their workers in that way are the biggest welfare cheats themselves!

"Studies track high cost of fast-food pay" ... $7 billion taxpayer support for under-payed workers subsidizes profits

miksilvr
Joined:
Jul. 7, 2011 12:13 pm
Quote Dexterous:
Quote Pierpont:

So are you saying there's NO way to increase the MW without forcing taxpayers to pay extra, unearned, pension benefits?

Yes

Still waiting for some explanation of this amusing theory. So how can the system absorb the "tax" speculators place on our our commodities as they leech off the economy... but not an increase in the MW?

So what you're claiming is it's IMPOSSIBLE to make pension systems for public employees actuarially sound without taxpayer bailouts. How did the old corporate defined benefits pension system work?

And how does this mesh with your preferred "solution" to keep the MW low then subsidize them with taxpayer benefits?

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote drc2:

Yes, I think I have diagnosed your pathology on this issue. You are a MONOPOLY player rather than a game manager. You think "winning" in a dysfunctional game is what works. The point of the game was to show how the players collapse the game and need a redeal. Boom and Bust is really repetitous. I know that sustainability is boring.

Very good, drc2.

Actually, minimum wage workers and taxpayers subsidize profits. Companies like Walmart and McDonalds pay their workers so little in wages and benefits (if any) that taxpayers are left making up the difference.

The companies intentionally keep most of their work force in a position where they don't qualify for full time status and the benefits that comes with.

Instead, the workers apply for various federal benefits just to make it from day to day.

All this while we are fed lies from the industries about the workers earning minimum wage being teens just starting out in the work force. In reality, far too many of these workers earning the minimum are adults trying to support a family. Many are working multiple jobs at minimum wage and still can't make ends meet.

What these companies have done is put the burden of paying these workers on the backs of taxpayers. They have externalized the costs of employment by encouraging the workers who complain to apply for federal benefits that come out of your pocket and mine.

The "profits" these companies reap is ripped right out of the pockets of their employees and us. Raising the minimum wage should not necessarily require an increase in the costs of the products.

Let the difference come out of these artificially boosted profits.

Republicans love to scream about "welfare queens" and other exaggerations in order to justify their attacks on the very federal support programs these underpaid workers need to survive.

The truth is this: Walmart, McDonalds, and the other major corporations underpaying their workers in that way are the biggest welfare cheats themselves!

"Studies track high cost of fast-food pay" ... $7 billion taxpayer support for under-payed workers subsidizes profits

- See more at: http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2013/11/mimimum-wage-workers-subsidize-our-economy#comment-240363

You are absolutely right. Our McDonalds and BK workers earn the same as Max and Sibylla, [our local fast food brands,,Subway is rising in popularity with teens. McD is kids, Subway is teens]and they are not teenagers, and are not starving, and the restaurants are full, the drive throughs always occupied.

.Max

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Raising the minimum wage will leave the minimum wage worker right back where they started from before the wages were increased.

It works like this; the government mandates a wage increase the employer has two choices increase product cost to support new higher wage or lay people off. If they raise the cost of their products people may or lb may not stop buying from their store. If they do raise prices every other store with minimum wage workers is doing the same thing as well as union work places that have automatic increases tied to minimum wage. This will raise the cost of living across the board leaving the working poor right where they started, working multiple jobs to get by.

firearm owner
Joined:
Jan. 18, 2013 9:52 am
Quote firearm owner:Raising the minimum wage will leave the minimum wage worker right back where they started from before the wages were increased. It works like this; the government mandates a wage increase the employer has two choices increase product cost to support new higher wage or lay people off. If they raise the cost of their products people may or lb may not stop buying from their store. If they do raise prices every other store with minimum wage workers is doing the same thing as well as union work places that have automatic increases tied to minimum wage. This will raise the cost of living across the board leaving the working poor right where they started, working multiple jobs to get by.
BS, look at the rest of the civilised world outside of your bunker.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

The GOP Is on the Road to Mass Lockups for Women Who Have Miscarriages

Thom plus logo The Republican Party's attack on women's reproductive rights has put the nation on a terrifying path

The GOP's Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice is on its way.
Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system