Missouri lowers minamam wage????

[jusplay4fun]

That is impressive research and data quoted, Duk. Well done. It is late and I do not have time at the moment to rebut each point, BUT here is, for me at least, the Bottom Line:

Here is a study by the CBO, Congressional Budget Office, which is supposed to be non-partisan and is often used in the US for Congressional law and basis for economic impact. The Health Care ideas are given to CBO for analysis so that the discussion has some semblance of reasonableness. I will quote the CBO conclusion here:

"Raising the minimum wage would increase family income for many low-wage workers, moving some of them out of poverty. But some jobs for low-wage workers would probably be eliminated and the income of those workers would fall substantially.

Increasing the minimum wage would have two principal effects on low-wage workers. Most of them would receive higher pay that would increase their family’s income, and some of those families would see their income rise above the federal poverty threshold. But some jobs for low-wage workers would probably be eliminated, the income of most workers who became jobless would fall substantially, and the share of low-wage workers who were employed would probably fall slightly."
SOURCE: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/44995

So the impact helps some and hurts other low-income households. BOTH our points are proven. And you said it yourself (to paraphrase), that studies are, at best, ambiguous. Ergo, Sum.

JP4F

[jusplay4fun]

Two points,as a second round of comments and reactions:

1) the graphs seem impressive, but upon a cursory look, I do not understand what point they are making. They are confusing, at least to me.

2) The information about nurses seem incorrect and may be due to different meaning of what a nurse is. Let me explain:

DUK said:

I think you're naive about the advancement to higher paying jobs, though. For a few people, it works. For many, it never will. Employers demand more work for less money all the time. Sure, a journeyman millwright might make a nice sum, but that's only because there's very few of them. If there were millions of millwrights, they'd be getting minimum wage, too. Nurses are one example that comes to mind. They go to university for years with the promise of a high-paying job. In the end, a few will win the lottery and get a job in a hospital trauma centre making $200K/year. Meanwhile, two-thirds of them will end up working in an old folks home for $20 an hour. If more went into university and fought for those same jobs, they would just push the average wage down. There would still be a few getting those trauma centre jobs for $200K/year, but meanwhile their sisters in the old folks homes would be getting $18 an hour.

My online source, to rebut Duk's point as it relates to NURSES:
What You Can Expect to Earn as a Nurse
The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported that in 2014 nationally, a registered nurse’s median annual salary was $66,640. The lowest 10% of registered nurses on the pay scale earned $45,880 annually, while the top 10% of earners brought in $98,880 in annual pay. Nurses with the minimum required education generally start out toward the lower end of the scale, progressing toward the top end with advanced nursing education and training.
Enrolling in an RN to BSN degree program is a great way to begin supplementing your knowledge and skills, which can lead you toward higher-paying nursing jobs.
https://www.jacksonvilleu.com/blog/nurs ... -by-state/

My response: I think we may not be talking the same things when discussing Nurses. In the USA, there are CNA (nursing assistants, many of them working in "old folks home" for rather low wages), LPN (License Practicing Nurses, I see them as having the equivalent of a two year college degree, in the USA) and the RN (Registered Nurse) which I cite in my quote above. There is also a Nurse Practioner, who are one step below a Physician (M. D.) in the USA and can prescribe meds and can diagnose and treat routine illnesses, flu, allergies, sore throats, and the like. I do not know what occurs in Canada and that may complicate the discussion even more. So, in conclusion here is that your nursing # do not make sense to me.

Last point, for now: I think DUK is basically correct, many who are in low income (minimum wage) jobs DO NOT finds ways OUT of those types of jobs. Many are lacking ------ (YOU CHOOSE: Time, energy, motivation, opportunities, are not free of family obligations) to improve by getting better paying jobs.

JP4Fun

[jusplay4fun]

and Bernie still has not corrected an obvious typo in a major place....in the title of this thread. I was not the only person to point this out.

What are you waiting for Bernie? the next election? It does not take that much time to edit the TITLE. Maybe 15 seconds?

[Bernie Sanders]

I don't care about exploiting the peasants... I just wish they'd stay off the roads. Make roads only accessible to the 1% (those who have a million dollars in cash in their wallet instead of insurance coverage) and the amount of accidents will go down. Hooray for freedom!

I'm in favor of that, as long as the 1% have to pay the full costs of those roads.

Leave it to the rich to reinvent slavery to build and maintain roads aka eliminate minimum wage.

After all it was the rich who fought and died for our wars in the Middle East. Look at the brave President Trump, oh wait he had a boil on his @ss and was declared 4F....ok look at the brave former Vice President Cheney....oh shucks he had what ....5 deferment to avoid the Vietnam War?

Yes, let's not forget the rich who broke their backs building the railroads, highways, buildings and infrastructure that makes this country great.

God bless the rich and may they receive more tax cuts. God, please help The Trump family and get those Russians to funnel more money to them to MAKE AMERICA WHITE AGAIN!

[jusplay4fun]

Duk said:

"And that's all perfectly okay with me. I have no problem with the profit motive. I just have a problem with dishonest people who cry about how they will imminently go bankrupt if they have to give their employees a raise. (Sorry to digress into anecdotal territory here, but the owner of the company I work for has six vacation homes, each valued at over $10 million. His latest acquisition is a historical building he picked up for $25 million. At the same time, he had to fire a bunch of veterans making between $23 and $26 per hour and replace them with new hires making $19, because apparently the business was on the verge of extinction and couldn't afford those horrendous paycheques.)"

My response:
There is no doubt there is greed and the richer one is, the more likely to be greedy and greedier. Your example clearly and cogently illustrates that idea. In response, I will use one of my favorite quotations, although it may be paraphrased.

Money is like manure; you pile up lots of it in one place and it smells really bad. Spread it around (as fertilizer) and it does LOTS of good.

I believe it is attributed to Andrew Carnegie, one of the 1% of the 1% and considered to be essentially a "robber baron" (making the equivalent of BILLIONS of US Dollars) that did usher in the Progressive movement* in America (USA) as a reaction to their excesses. Andrew Carnegie ended up giving away most of his fortune and set up numerous philanthropic entities to help give that money away for good worthy causes. I think some of his foundations still give away money today. Howard Hughes and J. D. Rockefeller are other examples of such philanthropists with foundations.

* This led to the Sherman Anti-Trust law in the USA and the election of the progressive Teddy Roosevelt.

To me, a big factor in society is a strong middle class, those who are relatively very generous with time and are the "worker bees" of society. They do not have lots of money and there are at least 3 levels of the middle class.

Money, greed, and fair distribution of income and money will be an ethical and economic issue that will be with humans for a very long time. To digress into another Forum thread (that I have written about), the "universe" of Star Trek imagines a society that has essentially worked out those issues and everyone is motivated to do altruistic efforts and careers and where poverty is no more. We can dream of that type of society, even if that may be overly optimistic to envision such a society. The minimum wage debate here is our attempt to work out some of those difficult issues. There are no easy answers here, IMO. It is okay to disagree on these difficult issues.

JP4Fun

[jusplay4fun]

Money, greed, and fair distribution of income and money will be difficult ethical and economic issues that will be with humans for a very long time. To digress into another Forum thread (that I have written about), the "universe" of Star Trek imagines a society that has essentially worked out those issues and everyone is motivated to do altruistic efforts and careers and where poverty is no more. We can dream of that type of society, even if that may be overly optimistic to envision such a society.

The minimum wage debate here is our attempt to work out some of those difficult issues. There are no easy answers here, IMO. It is ALSO okay to disagree on these difficult issues.

Yes, I had this at the end of my previous post, but this is my conclusion and my attempt to put a "big picture" conclusion of the entire debate on this topic.

JP4Fun

[Dukasaur]

1) the graphs seem impressive, but upon a cursory look, I do not understand what point they are making. They are confusing, at least to me.

This thread has taken more of my time than I wanted to invest, but I'll answer that question, anyway.

What the graphs are showing is pretty much what the title of the article is. While corporate profits are shooting to record highs, wages are plummeting to record lows.

Basically this exposes the Big Lie, the Horatio Alger feel-good narrative, usually expressed something like "take care of the business and the business will take care of you." According to the Big Lie, the Horatio Alger feel good narrative, if you keep your nose to the grindstone, work hard, have a solid work ethic, and improve productivity, the firm you work for will have a bountiful future and prosper. In turn, the firm will reward your efforts and you too will prosper.

The truth is quite the opposite. If you keep your nose to the grindstone, work hard, have a solid work ethic and improve productivity, the firm you work for, or at least its owner, will have a bountiful future and prosper. In turn, the firm will look for every opportunity to cut back your hours, induce you to accept a wage cut, reduce your benefits, and if they can't find a way to do any of those, they'll push you out the door through some scheme like early retirement and replace you either with a kid making minimum wage or a robot.

At the same time, the graphs also expose another Big Lie: the propaganda about how American business is being crushed by competition from Asia and other low-wage markets, and needs to cut wages in order to survive. In fact, far from being crushed, American business is in a state of almost-perpetual boom. Even "crisis" like 2008 turn out to be just little statistical blips, already forgotten by most.

[Thorthoth]

1) the graphs seem impressive, but upon a cursory look, I do not understand what point they are making. They are confusing, at least to me.

This thread has taken more of my time than I wanted to invest, but I'll answer that question, anyway.

What the graphs are showing is pretty much what the title of the article is. While corporate profits are shooting to record highs, wages are plummeting to record lows.

Basically this exposes the Big Lie, the Horatio Alger feel-good narrative, usually expressed something like "take care of the business and the business will take care of you." According to the Big Lie, the Horatio Alger feel good narrative, if you keep your nose to the grindstone, work hard, have a solid work ethic, and improve productivity, the firm you work for will have a bountiful future and prosper. In turn, the firm will reward your efforts and you too will prosper.

The truth is quite the opposite. If you keep your nose to the grindstone, work hard, have a solid work ethic and improve productivity, the firm you work for, or at least its owner, will have a bountiful future and prosper. In turn, the firm will look for every opportunity to cut back your hours, induce you to accept a wage cut, reduce your benefits, and if they can't find a way to do any of those, they'll push you out the door through some scheme like early retirement and replace you either with a kid making minimum wage or a robot.

At the same time, the graphs also expose another Big Lie: the propaganda about how American business is being crushed by competition from Asia and other low-wage markets, and needs to cut wages in order to survive. In fact, far from being crushed, American business is in a state of almost-perpetual boom. Even "crisis" like 2008 turn out to be just little statistical blips, already forgotten by most.

Duk, don't worry about real-world events, play Forum games instead.

[jusplay4fun]

Despite your explanation, I still cannot make sense of the graph. I guess I need to read the article to more fully comprehend them. (Like you, Duk, I have spent A WHOLE LOTTA time on this thread, more than I intended, but it did make me go find the CBO report and read up on this topic. That is what good, reasonable discussion should do: cause us to learn and better understand the issues. We are not parrots or robots repeating the "party lines" but instead use our intelligence and our resources to learn and better comprehend these complex issues. Too many want to turn all this into merely short over-simplified sound bites and then YELL at each other.)

I will accept the likelihood that what you contend (in your cited article) is true. I am sure that big companies have learned to master the tax codes to maximize profit for themselves and for upper management. The Rich get richer. There is little doubt about that.

Some of the legislation in the US Congress seems to support the idea that this will continue and even worsen under Trump. That for me is a big concern. Trump is a rich businessman pretending that he is a populist, running for office to help the "little guys" and the "forgotten" people, what some called "deplorables." Those campaign themes are what made Trump's campaign work and what caught Hillary's campaign off-guard, in my opinion, in the Presidential election. WoW, I was not planning on going there in this thread, but it is relevant, IMO.

JP4Fun

1) the graphs seem impressive, but upon a cursory look, I do not understand what point they are making. They are confusing, at least to me.

This thread has taken more of my time than I wanted to invest, but I'll answer that question, anyway.

What the graphs are showing is pretty much what the title of the article is. While corporate profits are shooting to record highs, wages are plummeting to record lows.

Basically this exposes the Big Lie, the Horatio Alger feel-good narrative, usually expressed something like "take care of the business and the business will take care of you." According to the Big Lie, the Horatio Alger feel good narrative, if you keep your nose to the grindstone, work hard, have a solid work ethic, and improve productivity, the firm you work for will have a bountiful future and prosper. In turn, the firm will reward your efforts and you too will prosper.

The truth is quite the opposite. If you keep your nose to the grindstone, work hard, have a solid work ethic and improve productivity, the firm you work for, or at least its owner, will have a bountiful future and prosper. In turn, the firm will look for every opportunity to cut back your hours, induce you to accept a wage cut, reduce your benefits, and if they can't find a way to do any of those, they'll push you out the door through some scheme like early retirement and replace you either with a kid making minimum wage or a robot.

At the same time, the graphs also expose another Big Lie: the propaganda about how American business is being crushed by competition from Asia and other low-wage markets, and needs to cut wages in order to survive. In fact, far from being crushed, American business is in a state of almost-perpetual boom. Even "crisis" like 2008 turn out to be just little statistical blips, already forgotten by most.

[mookiemcgee]

Despite your explanation, I still cannot make sense of the graph. I guess I need to read the article to more fully comprehend them.
JP4Fun

Did you click the link to the article explaining the graphs? The first shows that 'corporate' gross profit margin is at all time highs for US business.

The second shows wages as a percent of the economy (GDP) are at an all-time low. This implies in the corporate world there is plenty of "meat on the bone" (gross margin) that corporations could use to pay higher wages, however they are simply not using the extra margin for that purpose.

[jusplay4fun]

Mookie,

I have already admitted that the gap between the rich and the rest is growing. I may have said between the rich and the poor, but nonetheless, the gap continues to get larger. Point conceded.

As explained, I did not click on the link. Recenlty, I clicked on a link on CC and it seems I got a virus very soon thereafter. I am not sure that one led to the other, but it it likely not a coincidence. That link was not provided by Duk, but I am hesitant to click on links. I take Duk at his word on the graphs and his (the article's) interpretation of the graphs.

JP4Fun

Despite your explanation, I still cannot make sense of the graph. I guess I need to read the article to more fully comprehend them.
JP4Fun

Did you click the link to the article explaining the graphs? The first shows that 'corporate' gross profit margin is at all time highs for US business.

The second shows wages as a percent of the economy (GDP) are at an all-time low. This implies in the corporate world there is plenty of "meat on the bone" (gross margin) that corporations could use to pay higher wages, however they are simply not using the extra margin for that purpose.

[Dukasaur]

http://globalnews.ca/news/3598469/sears-canada-lay-offs-management-bonuses/

While 2,900 Sears Canada employees are losing their jobs, benefits and pension plans, the company’s CEO and senior managers are getting bonuses.

(...)

The retail chain will pay up to $9.2 million in retention bonuses to 43 executives and senior managers and 116 store general managers. The managers have to remain with the company for four months to get the full bonus.

For example, the CEO will be paid a retention bonus of $50,000 for two months in addition to his salary.

However, managers will receive an instalment of the bonuses after 45, 90 and 180 days, regardless of whether “key performance indicators have been met,” the documents said.

(...)

Anil Verma with the Rotman School of Management said although this seems “perverse” it is typical to hand out bonuses to management when a store goes bankrupt.

(...)

2,900 employees out of a job

On June 22, Sears Canada said it was seeking court protection from its creditors and was planning to cut about 2,900 positions across Canada. The company also said it will be closing 59 locations as a result of its restructuring plan.

The terminated employees will not be getting any severance pay and will lose all benefits and pension plans.

[mrswdk]

EVIL CAPITALISM

[jusplay4fun]

And the alternative is what? evil communists? evil fascists? evil rich people? evil middile managers?

People are greedy,, regardless of the economic system.

A two word response implies little thought, especially if both words are in All CAPS.

JP4F

EVIL CAPITALISM

[luns101]

Hell, I own a corporation.

For realz, KB?!!

What is it so we can organize a minimum wage protest.

[KoolBak]

See my siggy? Oh....and I'm the only employee...so yeah....I'd love a raise!! lmao

Nice to see you again ;o)

[Dukasaur]

:lol: See my siggy? Oh....and I'm the only employee...so yeah....I'd love a raise!! lmao

Nice to see you again ;o)

I approve a raise for KB!

[luns101]

:lol: See my siggy? Oh....and I'm the only employee...so yeah....I'd love a raise!! lmao

Nice to see you again ;o)

Crap............I was hoping this was on a bigger scale with at least 1,000 employees. I was gonna say, there has to be at least one unskilled young hippie within your organization you could go Undercover Boss on, and end up paying $18/hour, along with their student loans for 6 years of community college. Then a big hug at the end.............

Good to see you again, as well............

(improper uses of ellipses for Symm and the punctuation police, included)

[KoolBak]

I USED to have up to 10....easier on my own...

And I DO pay my 2 boys under the table...I should probly report myself Thanks for the virtual raise!!! Now if you'd follow up by buying a few hundred belts per month..... ;o)

[Woodruff]

I haven't read the entire thread...I tried, but there was just too much misinformation and outright bullshit. So perhaps what I'm about to say has already been said, I don't know. But that's never stopped me before, so...

The real "job creators" are not the businessmen, not even those who start up businesses. The real job creators are the purchasers, and in particular the poor.
I hear the shrieks already, but allow me to explain.

If a man starts a business selling widgets, and hires employees to make and sell those widgets, but customers don't come to his business in enough numbers to sustain it, that only very temporarily creates any jobs at all. Therefore, the strength of job creation lies with those customers.

Now, why would I suggest that it is the poor who are at most the job creators? Because they put the highest percentage of their income back into the economy. The rich are saving...in fact, statistics say that the rich are saving a lot, through various means. The middle class is sadly moving toward the poor in this regard, as saving within the middle class is starting to become a by-gone thing, so I don't mind including them within that grouping of job creators. But it is those who are returning their income back into the economy who are the job creators.

Therefore, if you want to boost the economy, you do it through the poor (why yes, that might also mean welfare).

All of that trickle-down crap just doesn't reflect the reality. And for what it's worth, I like capitalism. I think it's the best system available for MOST situations.

[karel]

I don't care about exploiting the peasants... I just wish they'd stay off the roads. Make roads only accessible to the 1% (those who have a million dollars in cash in their wallet instead of insurance coverage) and the amount of accidents will go down. Hooray for freedom!

I'm in favor of that, as long as the 1% have to pay the full costs of those roads.

Leave it to the rich to reinvent slavery to build and maintain roads aka eliminate minimum wage.

After all it was the rich who fought and died for our wars in the Middle East. Look at the brave President Trump, oh wait he had a boil on his @ss and was declared 4F....ok look at the brave former Vice President Cheney....oh shucks he had what ....5 deferment to avoid the Vietnam War?

Yes, let's not forget the rich who broke their backs building the railroads, highways, buildings and infrastructure that makes this country great.

God bless the rich and may they receive more tax cuts. God, please help The Trump family and get those Russians to funnel more money to them to MAKE AMERICA WHITE AGAIN!

you really are a idiot?dems started slavery,take your lame ass socialist ass and go live in another country,why in the f*ck would you pay someone to flip a damn burger for 15 a hour,maybe instead of sucking on moms tit get off your lazy asses and go get a real job son,besides obama killed jobs for 8 yrs,but your not gripping about that

[Bernie Sanders]

I don't care about exploiting the peasants... I just wish they'd stay off the roads. Make roads only accessible to the 1% (those who have a million dollars in cash in their wallet instead of insurance coverage) and the amount of accidents will go down. Hooray for freedom!

I'm in favor of that, as long as the 1% have to pay the full costs of those roads.

Leave it to the rich to reinvent slavery to build and maintain roads aka eliminate minimum wage.

After all it was the rich who fought and died for our wars in the Middle East. Look at the brave President Trump, oh wait he had a boil on his @ss and was declared 4F....ok look at the brave former Vice President Cheney....oh shucks he had what ....5 deferment to avoid the Vietnam War?

Yes, let's not forget the rich who broke their backs building the railroads, highways, buildings and infrastructure that makes this country great.

God bless the rich and may they receive more tax cuts. God, please help The Trump family and get those Russians to funnel more money to them to MAKE AMERICA WHITE AGAIN!

you really are a idiot?dems started slavery,take your lame ass socialist ass and go live in another country,why in the f*ck would you pay someone to flip a damn burger for 15 a hour,maybe instead of sucking on moms tit get off your lazy asses and go get a real job son,besides obama killed jobs for 8 yrs,but your not gripping about that

What happen Karel????? Did a Mexican steal your job from you? Mom kicked you out of her trailer home?

Get a piece of cardboard and write down homeless. Now go to a busy street corner with your hand outstretched. You'll find out it's those burger flippers who will come to your aid, not those Trump types.

[Woodruff]

you really are a idiot?dems started slavery,take your lame ass socialist ass and go live in another country

Yes, the real perspective of "Republican Democracy" - if you don't like it, leave. But don't you dare have a differing opinion.

[DoomYoshi]

I haven't read the entire thread...I tried, but there was just too much misinformation and outright bullshit. So perhaps what I'm about to say has already been said, I don't know. But that's never stopped me before, so...

The real "job creators" are not the businessmen, not even those who start up businesses. The real job creators are the purchasers, and in particular the poor.
I hear the shrieks already, but allow me to explain.

If a man starts a business selling widgets, and hires employees to make and sell those widgets, but customers don't come to his business in enough numbers to sustain it, that only very temporarily creates any jobs at all. Therefore, the strength of job creation lies with those customers.

Now, why would I suggest that it is the poor who are at most the job creators? Because they put the highest percentage of their income back into the economy. The rich are saving...in fact, statistics say that the rich are saving a lot, through various means. The middle class is sadly moving toward the poor in this regard, as saving within the middle class is starting to become a by-gone thing, so I don't mind including them within that grouping of job creators. But it is those who are returning their income back into the economy who are the job creators.

Therefore, if you want to boost the economy, you do it through the poor (why yes, that might also mean welfare).

All of that trickle-down crap just doesn't reflect the reality. And for what it's worth, I like capitalism. I think it's the best system available for MOST situations.

Giving money to the poor exacerbates the problem of people making and selling widgets. There is too much useless crap.

[Woodruff]

I haven't read the entire thread...I tried, but there was just too much misinformation and outright bullshit. So perhaps what I'm about to say has already been said, I don't know. But that's never stopped me before, so...

The real "job creators" are not the businessmen, not even those who start up businesses. The real job creators are the purchasers, and in particular the poor.
I hear the shrieks already, but allow me to explain.

If a man starts a business selling widgets, and hires employees to make and sell those widgets, but customers don't come to his business in enough numbers to sustain it, that only very temporarily creates any jobs at all. Therefore, the strength of job creation lies with those customers.

Now, why would I suggest that it is the poor who are at most the job creators? Because they put the highest percentage of their income back into the economy. The rich are saving...in fact, statistics say that the rich are saving a lot, through various means. The middle class is sadly moving toward the poor in this regard, as saving within the middle class is starting to become a by-gone thing, so I don't mind including them within that grouping of job creators. But it is those who are returning their income back into the economy who are the job creators.

Therefore, if you want to boost the economy, you do it through the poor (why yes, that might also mean welfare).

All of that trickle-down crap just doesn't reflect the reality. And for what it's worth, I like capitalism. I think it's the best system available for MOST situations.

Giving money to the poor exacerbates the problem of people making and selling widgets. There is too much useless crap.

If someone wants a widget and is willing to pay money for that widget, then clearly that widget is NOT, by definition, useless.

Try again.