/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.604136]

i was watching a documentary that said that raising the minimum wage to $10.10 would raise the price of goods 1%.
Now i dont know about you guys but id be willing to pay that knowing that employees are being compensated fairly.

[Anonymous No.604140]

>>604136
I could really go for a 5% discount anon.

[Anonymous No.604176]

Minimum wage for minimum skills.

Its just niggers wanting more and more and eventually they'll get the race war they've been begging for.

[Anonymous No.604188]

Too many implications. I start no-skilled, dumb labor positions in my company at $10 an hour. It's really shitty work. I do this because the labor force at minimum wage $7.25 is a bunch of complete fools that can barely tie their own shoes. I've tried it before and they are just too dumb to stick around or just physically uncapable. So, if minimum was boosted to $10.10, I'd lose half of my current work force because they could get the same pay working a nice job as a cashier or some other less physically demanding minimum wage job. Or I'd have to start everyone off at $12 or $13 dollars to compete. And then on up the chain it goes ... that 1% bullshit is exactly that, bullshit. Raise the minimum wage 20% and all wages go up. Labor costs for all things go up 20%. Prices on everything goes up.

[Anonymous No.604194]

>>604188
well so the price of goods go up 1% but all wages go up 20%
Even better.

[Anonymous No.604195]

>>604194
Point was that consumer prices will go up a lot more than 1%.

But maybe with falling oil prices it would all even out.

[Anonymous No.604204]

>>604136
that's 1% off my annualized returns, and for what? nothing. no thankyou

If you earn minimum wage in the US you are well within the top 20% richest people in the world, we need to start looking at ways to spend that money more efficiently. Like bringing back Dickensian workhouses maybe.

[Anonymous No.604208]

>>604204
well some economist have also made the case that higher wages means higher consumer spending, which means higher economic activity.

[Anonymous No.604211]

>>604194

>if the wages go up its gotta be good for the economy

[Anonymous No.604220]

>>604208
Higher spending for consumption of the poor = real economy feeds people more (quality of the food is another matter).
I see literally nothing wrong with this, even if it reduces purchasing power of those who are already well off or reduces profit margin of the employers.

However at this point there's a question what will happen to people laid off as a result? If welfare is enough to offset their their loss of income, not much (aside from lower real output driving inflation up).
But then you get things like people not being motivated to take minimum wage jobs if they can live just as well on welfare.
Which brings forward a question: wouldn't universal basic income along with no minimum wage be a better solution?

[Anonymous No.604222]

>>604136
>i was watching a documentary that said that raising the minimum wage to $10.10 would raise the price of goods 1%.
Where is this evidence possibly based off of? It is absolutely inconceivable raising the min salary cap so high could limit inflation unless something else were to artificially keep the balance.

I seriously hope the government doesn't go even further in the red because of this...

[Anonymous No.604233]

I have a conflicting stat to the image.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/09/08/who-makes-minimum-wage/
More than half are younger than 24.

[Anonymous No.604237]

>>604195

Oil will go back up eventually, maybe not to what it was, but you can't count of commodities prices to even out the economy.

[Anonymous No.604238]

>>604176
Except niggers don't work.

>>604188
>nice job as a cashier
I would rather dig ditches or something than ever be a cashier again. You're confirmed as a spoiled rich kid.

[Anonymous No.604245]

>>604238

and I would rather be a cashier than dig ditches if it came out to the same wage.

[Anonymous No.604249]

>>604136
i would too. i don't think many ideas are so good they have to be mandatory

[Anonymous No.604264]

>>604211
well the economy revolves around demand and supply.
So if you increase purchasing power, you increase the demand and you can sell more supply.

[Anonymous No.604304]

>>604264
But the new money going to the suppliers was already in their pocket before the minimum wage increase - But now some of that money will be 'lost' to them, and end up in savings.

I always find it funny that Keynesian economists support minimum wage laws even when it doesn't make sense from even their perspective of the macroeconomy

[Anonymous No.604347]

>raise minimum wage
This kills the business.

Take it from a country with sky-high minimum wages, it makes being an employer 2expensive.

Minimum wage should be just that. Minimum. 1-room apartment, bare minimum for food, etc.

[Anonymous No.604357]

>>604347
im sure any businessman worth their salt can handle paying a modest $10.10 an hour wage.

[Anonymous No.604457]

>>604208
You're not looking at the economy as a whole.

To increase consumer spending you need to increase the quantity and quality of consumer goods. You do this by investing in the economy. Minimum wage basically diverts resources away from corporate R&D projects and towards weed, liquor and strippers for poor people.

Oh no, Monsanto can't afford to keep the lab open and aren't taking on any more graduates. Sorry Darnell, looks like you won't be going to college.

[Anonymous No.604468]

>>604457
It sounds like you're speaking of trickle down economics, which works in theory but doesn't work in practice.

I do agree with you though. Higher wages = higher unemployment.

Anyone who has taken Economics 101 knows that wages are an input cost, which increases the costs. The cost is either picked up by the consumer or by the producer, it depends on the elasticity of the demand, so it would effect different economic sectors in different ways based on the inherent qualities of the good/service.

Higher minimum wage is one of those things that sounds great and makes everyone feel good, but it's not feasible and won't make the world rainbows and unicorns. Remember, if there were no minimum wage to begin with, there would be 0% unemployment.

[Anonymous No.604474]

>>604457
That's complete and utter bullshit and I encourage you to back this up with any evidence you can muster. Corporations that do any sort of R&D don't pay minimum wages as it is, precisely because they are capable of selling better products or manufacture with more efficient processes. Monsanto definitely doesn't fit your narrative in that respect.
Secondly you are being dishonest when you say that all minimum wage income goes towards illicit substances or debauchery. It's quite a lot of people and they have quite a wide array of things they can spend on if they wish to improve their quality of life, like a better car or less garbage-quality food.
Finally you ignore the fact that corporations already have little incentive to invest into increasing quantity and quality of goods the consumers simply cannot afford.

[Anonymous No.604490]

>>604357
$14 hourly
$4.5 employer's social fees

That's the pay where I live. GLHF being a businessman.

[Anonymous No.604503]

>>604136

Among those paid by the hour, 1.6 million earned exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. About 2.0 million had wages below the federal minimum. Together, these 3.6 million workers with wages at or below the federal minimum made up 4.7 percent of all hourly paid workers.

>Bureau of labor statistics

4.7% of the population.

This is a non-issue.

[Anonymous No.604504]

The minimum wage is bad for the poor. It promotes price discrimination by employers and almost always leads to higher unemployment rates for the impoverished. Its only marginally bad for the consumer. But still it's literally only benefits those lucky enough to get the jobs at an increased rate. Its a net negative

[Anonymous No.604513]

>>604468
I know right. Assuming your unemployment statistics don't include people who can't work or are unemployed for a week or 2 while they attend job interviews and things.

Though I'm not sure what you're saying here

>trickle down economics...doesn't work in practice

Trickle down economics is just a buzzword, though this cynical view of the world is actually pretty realistic and thus more viable than most other circulated ideas. Think about it.

The rich could blow their money on cocaine, dom perignon and escorts but because it takes a lower proportion of income to reduce their stressors they are less likely to do so. I suppose there are factors against this, someone who is wealthy has less incentive to work hard, they won't put as much thought into their investments as they did when they were trying to make their first million. If $50000 is the amount needed to stay out of poverty it is 5% of an income of $1 million and 0.5% of an income of $10 million, so the difference in the marginal propensity to save is only 4.5% yet the "brain power" per dollar is 10 times lower, so to speak.

I suppose the smarter and more motivated they are the higher their returns. Just let market forces deal with it. Aim for unfettered laissez faire or something like that.

[Anonymous No.604522]

>>604474
Everything in the economy is inter-related.

Monsanto doesn't employ minimum wage workers but the farmers who use their products certainly do, often migrant workers.

How am I supposed to get statistics on the spending habits of millions of different people? I know it is difficult, many things are, however taking night classes to become an electrician is a much less risky route than trying to start a successful business or achieving repeat successes on the stock market. I know that 80% of the world is poorer than an American minimum wage worker and they seem fine. I see poor folks eating KFC, smoking pot, wearing air jordans...

Increasing quantity generally decreases the price. It is like an auction of a limited supply of a product (of which a person only consumes 1), those who can bid the highest will get one, if there are more products then more people in the auction house can afford one. If the number of products exceeds the number of people in the auction house then the price will drop to a little above the cost of production. At which point investments can either increase the quality of the product or decrease the cost of production.

What happens if you take money away from investments and give it to the people in the auction house? Nothing. There is the same number of shitty products and people are just willing to pay more for it.

[Anonymous No.604526]

In Economics 101 I learned that wages are decided by market forces, and with stuff like minimum wages you artificially affect the market and get rebound effects, such as the market realizing that it's not profitable enough to keep minimum wage workers and just terminating the positions.

How do Socialists explain away this simple as fuck concept?

[Anonymous No.604532]

>>604526

>muh singularity

[Cal !7p6ZFzW.pU No.604546]

>>604245
It would cost less to rent a back-hoe for 150 an hour for 3 hours to dig a ditch than to hire 5 people and pay them minimum wage for 2 days to dig the same ditch.

[Anonymous No.604548]

>>604522
>Everything in the economy is inter-related.
Very true.
>Farmers do
You have a point there. They are also liable to suffer a hit from a hike in minimum wages, unless it's offset in subsidies.
>How am I supposed to get statistics...
Then don't pass judgement as if you had them.

>auction of a limited supply of a product
you do make good points, yes. Resources are limited and there is competition going to consume them.
However you are wrong in assuming that a hike in minimum wage must result in reduction in investment.
It would be the case if savings directly translated into investment spending. In such case moving money from groups of people with lower propensity to consume to people with higher would have the effect you describe.
But in practice savings first have to go through financial sector where they have to match up with enterprises ready to find uses for them.
Part of these money gets recycled as spending of financiers. Other parts accumulate on accounts before they are put to use. My point is there are frictions and they are not omittable.
A political decision that would move part of money into consumption will come at expense of economic profit of some, but it will also open up new opportunity for investment spending to service the new demand.

On the other hand, keeping the poor poor and real incomes low can have beneficial effect on environment and tie up less resources, so that's not entirely without merit either. Plus if the minimum wage was meant to assure everyone levels of consumption real economy is incapable of furnishing the result would be hyperinflation at least.

[Anonymous No.604565]

>>604194
Why not raise wages by 100%. Goods will go only up by 5%.

Also nice bait 6/10

[Anonymous No.604569]

>>604522
>buying a pre-made salad and complaining how its more expensive to eat "healthy"
people are lazy fucks.

[Anonymous No.604575]

>>604526
http://davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/njmin-aer.pdf
>On April 1, 1992, New Jersey's minimum wage rose from $4.25 to $5.05 per hour.
>Comparisons of employment growth at stores in New Jersey and Pennsylvania (where the minimum wage was constant) provide simple estimates of the effect of the higher minimum wage.
>Despite the increase in wages, full-time-equivalent employment increased in New Jersey relative to Pennsylvania

[Anonymous No.604590]

>>604503

the number would be much higher if you included evreyone earning between minimum wage and $10.10

[Anonymous No.604680]

>>604575
It's not like raising employee costs caused employers to hire more people, so obviously there was some other factor. That's also only a sample of one.

[Anonymous No.604686]

>>604136

bruh.

I totally agree with you, but you might as well go on /an/ and create a thread about how you think animals are a waste of time. You're wasting your breath here.

The facts are obvious and available for anyone to see that the lowest class could be making more money, and everything else would be hardly changed, but the 18-yr-old Jordan Belfort dick suckers on here don't want to hear it.

Yay capitalism!

[Anonymous No.604807]

The fact that people work for the current minimum wage justifies it.

[Anonymous No.604823]

>>604686

GTFO and go to any other board/ eddit and spread your marxists ideas

[Anonymous No.604842]

The fact that minimum wage doesn't scale with inflation is idiotic. If it did, it would already be $10+.

Also to those arguing against increasing it modestly, pro tip: you're giving money to all those workers through welfare already. If we increased the minimum wage we would cut back welfare spending.

As it is minimum wage employers are getting a free government subsidy because the govt has to pay the their workers too so they can actually afford rent/food/healthcare.

Obviously I wouldn't support a minimum wage of like $15 like some people are talking about, but $10 and then scaled with inflation after I think makes perfect sense.

[Anonymous No.604847]

>>604686
>i am right and everyone else is wrong

[Anonymous No.604862]

>>604847
no
>I and many others with me are right, /biz/ is wrong as usual.

[Anonymous No.604890]

>>604807
>If you're not happy with your wage, why don't you just get paid more?
Free marketers actually think this.

[Anonymous No.605024]

>>604347
>Force unintelligent people and people who have made bad life decisions to spend 40 hours of their life each week in a shit job which in the end gives them absolute minimum amount of money to survive
>In USA where public services are a fucking joke and going to the hospital costs like hell
I'm sure the crime rates won't go up at all

[Anonymous No.605028]

>>604807
>Live in Asia where minimum wage is $1 / day
>Come to USA
>Can make 30x more money each day and still get paid less than minimum wage
>Take the job to send money to family in shit country

OR

>A Job anyone can do
>10 available jobs
>1000 people trying to get those jobs
>In the end only way to compete is to agree to work for less than the other guy
>Wage war to the bottom since working is better than being unemployed

[Anonymous No.605033]

>>605024
>>605028

So what is your point exactly...

[Anonymous No.605037]

>>605033
That forcing people to become slaves is not good for the society. Someone has to do those jobs and I don't think we should piss on the worker's face just because it's the only thing he can get. Would you rather have them staying unemployed and stealing for living? A community works best when the lowest paid person doing the shittiest job with almost zero change to climb up gets enough so they can feel happy and feel like they belong to the community.

[Anonymous No.605040]

In general all economist agree raising the minimum wage increases unemployment at least temporarily.
Unless the economist goes by some completely new school of economic thought, they agree on supply and demand.

A minimum wage is technically inefficient, but I believe if it is made correctly it can make up for that inefficiency.

Our market isn't perfect, therefore some corrections can help. Raising the minimum wage to an "efficient" level can over time lead to more of the poor working which will increase unemployment but it will also increase the amount of people working in the end. The question is, does the incentive of an increased wage and therefore more willing workers help, or hurt the economy in the long run?

I think $8 an hour works right now. Doing what we've done in D.C (raising it to $11.25) only has exacerbated businesses and increased unemployment though.

[Anonymous No.605042]

>>605037
You are essentially making the welfare argument.

Money for poor decreases crime and increases "good" actions, therefore it helps?
Or money for poor disincentives working and leads to the gimmedat mentality of places like Ferguson?

Hard to answer. It probably depends on the time and location. (Detroit or Seattle)

[Anonymous No.605045]

>>605042
Raising minimum wage and welfare aren't completely same topics. The workers are actually doing something worthwhile in the society. If welfare and minimum wage are almost the same then why should the lowest people get a job? Raising the minium wage increases the motivation to get a job instead of living on welfare and it raises the motivation of the workers in general.

[Anonymous No.605557]

>>604548
minimum wage is like an unwritten union protecting the most vulnerable in society but beyond a certain point is doesn't accomplish much

[Anonymous No.605594]

>>604136
>On average they earn half of their family's total income
>56% are women
So either there are men who are under earning or this is complete bullshit.

[Anonymous No.605770]

>>605040

The key caveat there is "at least temporarily". Economics is called the dismal science for a reason, there are no universally agreed on or reliable models. Observation is often better than theory, and as >>604575 points out, minimum wage increases aren't always correlated with higher unemployment. One answer might be that the increase in spending power at the lower end of incomes feeds through into higher demand in the economy in general, another might be that higher tax take and reduced welfare redirects public expenditure into areas that create more jobs. The economy is a hugely complex system, so who really knows? Certainly not economists.

[Anonymous No.605906]

>>604457
>implying that nigger Darnell was going to college. Now Chad, Chad is missing out.

[Anonymous No.605923]

You all do realize the only reason for this is to further increase inflation? Politicians are trying to inflate our way out of our problems.

[Anonymous No.605930]

>>605594
Or a lot of them are single (more women than men at least) and earn 100% of household income

Also not included: how many are black?

[Anonymous No.605946]

>>605930
man is like you people have never been inside a walmart.
Yes there are white women working minimum wage.
Still that shouldnt be the single deciding factor.

[Anonymous No.605949]

>>604136

About that picture, if you're 35 working for minimum wage, you did that to yourself.

[Anonymous No.605951]

>>605949
Or you followed /biz/'s advice

[Anonymous No.605952]

A lot of capitalist shills need fuck off back to /pol/

[Anonymous No.605958]

>>605951
So what you're saying is this thread's topic is a horrible idea?

[Anonymous No.606077]

>>604136

ITT: People who have never had to live off minimum wage

[Anonymous No.606082]

What about people that can't do $10.10 worth of work in an hour?

[Anonymous No.606222]

I read a study that said the total increase in the price of goods a poor person on minimum wage would be higher than anything they get from welfare. In other words, an increase in the minimum wage acts like a regressive tax and hurts the poorest of the poor (people raising families on minimum wage). This is only if little to no jobs are lost though, if there are a ton of people losing jobs cause of minimum wage then increase in goods will be very little.

[Anonymous No.606226]

>>606222
Which is why the real answer is the universal basic income

[Anonymous No.606247]

>>606226
I thought I smelled a commie.

(although I agree)

Problem is, like food stamps, student loans, and mortgage assistance, inflation will eat it overnight and the rich will still get richer.

With automation, we don't really have a choice though. People will need to be able to live in a world without work.

[Anonymous No.606271]

>>604188
Yes.
Up the chain it goes.
If you can't close that gap by any means other than raising the price of goods, you're a pretty shitty businessperson.

[Anonymous No.606272]

>"raising minimum wage a single penny will cause a global financial meltdown!"
>minimum wage has been raised dozens of times yet nothing noteworthy ever happens

reality sure can be inconvenient

[Anonymous No.606273]

>>604357
Fucking this.

[Anonymous No.606556]

>>604304
Erm no, the poorest sections of society proportionally spend more of there income on goods and services. A wage increase would be spent on say clothes, food, services etc. Whereas rich people would just squirrel it away in savings

[Anonymous No.606558]

>>604136
10/10 significant kek OP

[Anonymous No.606882]

>>606556
'Savings' are actually spent, do you think banks pile the money up in a Scrooge McDuck money Bank?

[Anonymous No.606887]

>>604233
yeah cause they give you 10 cents more an hour as a 'raise' and then you are no longer minimum wage.

[Anonymous No.607122]

>>604357
Well go out and do it yourself if it's so fucking easy you little fucking shitbag

[Anonymous No.608484]

>>604136
>i was watching a documentary
Even considering formulating an actual opinion based on something so stupid.

And this is why democracy is retarded

[Anonymous No.608486]

>>604136

Maybe, but there are other considerations than the price of goods.

How many people would lose their jobs?
How much less would companies return to shareholders?
How many goods would simply be bought from overseas?

[Anonymous No.608488]

>>606556

Rich people would squirrel their money away in investments in productive parts of the economy i.e. By starting a business and employing people or by investing in a business.

The middle class would buy themselves an extra TV or a slightly bigger home. This adds absolutely nothing to the productivity of America - it might give some people some jobs for a short period of time, but it's all just doing nothing but spending savings that otherwise could have been spent on increasing production.

[Anonymous No.608498]

Giving money to poor people leads to higher inflation, which makes rich people poorer.

[Anonymous No.608508]

I was bored

Is this worth it for you, OP?

[Anonymous No.608553]

One recent the economy is sluggish is all the minimum wage people have no money to buy things, so things go unbought, so companies slow down production, and the economy gets even more sluggish in a cycle.

A higher minimum wage means a lot of people start buying more stuff, and this kickstarts the economy.

[Anonymous No.608558]

>>608486
>>what is the velocity of money

Can we really be having this discussion without anyone bringing up the fact that poor people with these jobs immediately spend every dime you give them?

[Anonymous No.608560]

>>608488
Dude what? The fuck...?

People spending money on useless shit is kind of the keystone in the whole "businesses turning profits" equation

Does everyone on /biz/ just regurgitate conservative propoganda?

You know they publish papers on this stuff right? Do studies? Crunch statistics?

[Anonymous No.608564]

>>608553
Its simply the wrong answer.

We could give every adult citizen over age 21 10k a year without raising taxes (universal basic income) today by simply cutting out means tested welfare programs.

Probably more than that as i ran the numbers without taking out prisoners.

We would be in fucking golden times if they all pissed away the monthly checks or invested them in small business. Basically anything but save.

And we know poor people dont save so its spend or buy a business. The number one factor seen when studying entrepeneurs? The key to them going through with it? , ir was found that those who had been gifted money ornrecieved an inheritance were most likely to start on the entrepeneurial route.

Studies of small scale basic income projects showed the same benefit of an increase in small business (as well as reduced crime , less drug use and violence , better school attendance and an uptick in measures of general health)

Educate yourselves and stop spouting trite propoganda

[Anonymous No.608591]

>>608560

Who gives a shit if they spend money on more goods from China or on improving their homes? It does nothing to improve the real productive capacity of the country.

[Anonymous No.608779]

>>604513
>though this cynical view of the world is actually pretty realistic and thus more viable than most other circulated ideas.
It really isn't.

Concentrating wealth on the top damages the middle class that stands for most consumer spending (that is required for economic growth).

Capitalism doesn't scale past a certain point, a billionnaire isn't going to buy things for 1000x as much as a millionnaire does.

[Anonymous No.608784]

Who do you think paid to have that documentary created?

|
|>
|
|@
|

[Anonymous No.608791]

>>608591
>It does nothing to improve the real productive capacity of the country.
If there is no consuming, there is no production.

[Anonymous No.608864]

>>604188
but muh feelings

[Anonymous No.608967]

>>604136

>I'd be happy doing this
>So I want to force everyone else to do it
>"Liberal" "progressivism": The Post

Then why don't you choose to patronize stores that voluntarily pay their workers wages you approve of rather than using an already bloated government to legislate your preferences for everyone else?

[Anonymous No.608985]

>>608967
Well my parents pay their workers fair wages.
They own a company that buys, remodels and rent houses.
Although the workers are more skilled than the average minimum wage worker I think the the main culprits of wage supression are mostly big corporations and not small businesses.

[Anonymous No.608987]

>>608985

>I think the the main culprits of wage supression are mostly big corporations and not small businesses.

So don't give "big corporations" your money.

It's that simple, no bureaucrats needed.

[Anonymous No.608988]

>>608987
I dont, i rarely shop at walmart. That doesnt change the situation.

[Anonymous No.608994]

>>608988

>That doesnt change the situation.

Doesn't change what situation?

That people who are not you entered into a voluntary agreement with corporations with which you have no business?

And because you personally don't agree with the terms of this contract in which you have no stake whatsoever, you believe you should be allowed to dictate its terms by proxy?

[Anonymous No.608997]

>>608994
i believe that if the majority of americans agree to an increase of the minimum wage then businesses should comply.

[Anonymous No.609000]

>>608994
You're retarded. By your logic, it should still be legal for companies to add sawdust to their "ground beef" and design cars that burst into flames simply because you're not forced to buy that particular brand.

Just because you can think of a possible scenario where regulations might be unnessecary doesn't mean that they actually would be. Sprinkling your magic "free market" dust on everything isn't a cure-all like the wealthy and powerful would like you to believe.

[Anonymous No.609005]

>>608997

>i believe that if the majority of americans agree to an increase of the minimum wage then businesses should comply.

They would comply, eagerly, if said majority made their desire known by only doing business with corporations where workers were paid wages they found reasonable.

Basically what you want is to either take the easy way out, by using government as a blunt instrument to achieve what you don't care to do yourself, or to impress your will via fiat upon people who apparently don't feel strongly enough about the issue to take actions available to them now.

I'm curious as to what exactly empowers you and your hypothetical majority to make decisions for other people.

[Anonymous No.609006]

>>608994
>voluntary agreement
It's not the same as two approximately equivalent businesses entering a contract.

And it is my business if wages are so low that workers can't survive without food stamps and other tax relief. My taxes are subsidizing Walmart's poverty wages.

I think minimum wage is a poor way to prevent this, but it's better than nothing, and negative income tax isn't politically viable.

[Anonymous No.609010]

>who's helped by raising the minimum wage
Unions. No one else. If you're making minimum, odds are you've been there for less than a year and they'll just cut you and raise wages for senior employees.

[Anonymous No.609017]

>>609010
Care to back that claim up with something other than
>muh evil unions
?

Otherwise your post is going in the FUD bin.

[Anonymous No.609019]

>>609000

>By your logic, it should still be legal for companies to add sawdust to their "ground beef" and design cars that burst into flames simply because you're not forced to buy that particular brand.

Setting aside the absurdity of comparing voluntary employment terms to glaring health and safety issues, why shouldn't they?

Your dustbeef example is similar to the "pink slime" controversy of last year. Every single retailer made the ingredient lists of their products readily available, and people did nothing, until they heard a term that sounded gross, and then instead of simply buying products that didn't include that particular ingredient, they moved to ban its use.

If you don't want a certain product, or prefer a certain quality, why do you need the government to provide you with it? Can't you read? Can't you make decisions for yourself?

>Just because you can think of a possible scenario where regulations might be unnessecary doesn't mean that they actually would be. Sprinkling your magic "free market" dust on everything isn't a cure-all like the wealthy and powerful would like you to believe.

And just because you can think of a possible scenario where regulations are necessary doesn't mean they need to be applied to every possible commercial transaction. Sprinkling your magic "minimum wage" dust on everything isn't a cure-all like the central planners would have you believe.

[Anonymous No.609025]

>>609006

>It's not the same as two approximately equivalent businesses entering a contract.

Why not? Do businesses have some mythical power to force you to accept their terms? Don't you think you ever enter into a transaction holding an advantageous position over another party? Do you feel the government should be able to force you to pay a certain price for goods if the sale price is lower?

>And it is my business if wages are so low that workers can't survive without food stamps and other tax relief. My taxes are subsidizing Walmart's poverty wages.

Your taxes are no more subsidizing Walmart when you pay benefits for their workers than they are for those who don't work at all. That's like saying you're subsidizing a company when you pay unemployment to their former workers. They aren't beholden to look after your life simply because they offered to buy a few hours of your labor. The sooner you realize that, the better off you'll be in life.

>I think minimum wage is a poor way to prevent this, but it's better than nothing, and negative income tax isn't politically viable.

"Better than nothing" is one of the worst reasons available to invite the state into your affairs, most especially when they aren't your affairs at all, but those of others.

[Anonymous No.609027]

>>609017
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324048904578318541000422454
>unions and their members directly benefit from minimum wage increases—even when nary a union member actually makes the minimum wage
>oftentimes, union contracts are triggered to implement wage hikes in the case of minimum wage increases
>the increases restrict the ability of businesses to hire low-skill workers who might gladly work for lower wages in order to gain experience
>union members thus face less competition from workers who might threaten union jobs
>a 2004 study in the Journal of Human Resources by economists William Wascher, Mark Schweitzer and David Neumark determined that lower-wage union workers typically see a boost in employment and earned income following a mandated wage hike
>never mind the corresponding drop in jobs and earned income for nonunion minimum-wage workers
So yea, muh evil unions.

[Anonymous No.609031]

>>609010
uhhh I don't think anyone in a union makes minimum wage.

[Anonymous No.609033]

>>609031
See>>609027
That is true. Doesn't that make you want to rethink the minimum wage?

[Anonymous No.609037]

So let's stop spouting things we heard from some person or media, and let's start looking at business more intuitively.

So let's focus on the businesses that pay people minimum wage, which is a very small portion of businesses. If we force those businesses to increase their labor costs, what happens? One of two things, either the business makes the consumers pay for that increase in wage, or it comes out of the reinvesting profits.
Depending on if the business can get away with it under the law of price elasticity of demand, the first event would essentially make the more wealthy consumers poorer for the sake of increasing minimum wage salaries.
The second event would kill investment into more efficient technologies for the supply side which could increase future worker productivity and decrease non-labor costs therefore making their products cheaper, increasing worker wages, or both.

Under these assertions, and inferences, it would seem as though increasing inflation-adjusted minimum wage is more of a instant gratification that doesn't benefit anyone in the long-run. Increasing supply side efficiency is what makes an economy grow, while increasing demand-side is more of an SJW agenda.

[Anonymous No.609038]

>>609037
yes it will increase prices.
But like i said in the initial post.
It will only be a 1% increase.

[Anonymous No.609044]

>>609038
Try understanding what you are replying to

[Anonymous No.609055]

>>609025
Ugh. Your replies are too euphoric for words.

Yes, if one party has 100,000x the economic influence and power, then yes, they might, just possibly, perhaps, have some power that the average wage earner does not. Especially if they use that power and influence to undermine organized labor, keep the door open for low cost immigrant labor, ruin and co-opt the civic life of the country etc.

My taxes do subsidize low wages. Without SNAP and other benefits, the minimum wage earners would be
>living in shanty towns and spreading disease
>drop out of the workforce to go hobo
>cause bread riots and rampant vagrancy

No, the employer shouldn't have to take care of their employees the way they do now. I wish we could reform all the bullshit and take unemployment insurance and healthcare overhead and payroll tax off the employer's plate. I wish we could roll all the shitty welfare programs into a negative income tax so that volunteering in your community or quietly playing vidya all day was more attractive than working at walmart.
>sincerely, a small business owner who wishes he could afford to hire people without being nickel and dimed to death because of some back scratching deals between the corporate socialists at the top.

[Anonymous No.609057]

>>609038
That doesn't include purchasing power.

[Anonymous No.609059]

>>609027
This article needs to be put in a pastebin.

[Anonymous No.609062]

>>604136
> wages go up, price of goods go up
> everybody happy

[Anonymous No.609076]

>>609055

>Ugh. Your replies are too euphoric for words.

And yet, here come the words.

>Yes, if one party has 100,000x the economic influence and power, then yes, they might, just possibly, perhaps, have some power that the average wage earner does not. Especially if they use that power and influence to undermine organized labor, keep the door open for low cost immigrant labor, ruin and co-opt the civic life of the country etc.

All of the options available for corporate America to suppress wages have analogues in the hands of the people, not least of which is the ballot. Walmart doesn't hold a gun to anyone's head telling them how to vote. The best thing about democracy is you get the government you deserve, right where you deserve to get it. I don't have any sympathy for the average American, he didn't need to be prompted to bend over and spread his cheeks, he did it of his own volition.

>My taxes do subsidize low wages. Without SNAP and other benefits, the minimum wage earners would be

What about the unemployed people? Wouldn't they be doing the same? Or do you have to wait to slum it up until you get a paycheck?

>No, the employer shouldn't have to take care of their employees the way they do now.

Make it happen, Cap'n. You have one vote.

Still missed my point, though.

>sincerely, a small business owner who wishes he could afford to hire people without being nickel and dimed to death because of some back scratching deals between the corporate socialists at the top.

I feel for you. I would gladly hire if it weren't more profitable for me to remain a one-man shop. I do what I can on the first Tuesday following a Monday in November, I post on my blog, but I can't fix stupid. So I do what's best for me and I don't let the feds make my business decisions for me. Vote with your wallet, they'll learn the hard way.

[Anonymous No.609090]

>>605952
>implying capitalism needs shills in a capitalist world
>implying the gimmedats aren't shilling

[Anonymous No.609094]

>>609076
Well I appreciate that we have some common ground. Forgive me for dropping le euphoric meme, it just seems you're arguing from inside a white room.

Walmart can speak with one voice, and has the money and organization to do so. American civic culture has been undermined (in some cases intentionally) to the point where people can't even wrap their heads around being a responsible member of a republic.
>SOMEONE should pass a law about this!!!
>Fox says the democrapps are the enemy!
>MSNBC says the conservatards are ruining the country!

>more profitable to remain a one man shop
Feels bad man. Meanwhile other people in my business dodge payroll tax and all the other government vig by classifying full time employees as "independent contractors".

[Anonymous No.609101]

>>608784
kek

[Anonymous No.609122]

>>608779
>>608791
>consumer spending (that is required for economic growth)
>a billionnaire isn't going to buy things for 1000x
>If there is no consuming, there is no production.
Are we back to "BOOST SPENDING"?

People will purchase products that are of the right quality and cost, if they have stopped doing so it is because quality is too low or costs are too high, even during the great depression apparent "underconsumption" was due to inefficient/wasteful production which in turn was supported by low rates during the 20s until the bubble burst. The costs were too high because millions lost their jobs, but this wasn't the failure of the market. If you want to know what the market was doing back then you need to look at folk like Jesse Livermore who took advantage of the disruption and also helped burst the bubble earlier so it didn't get any larger.

[Anonymous No.609126]

>>609094

>Well I appreciate that we have some common ground.

Entrepreneurialism is a dying art, for the same reasons this country is going to shit.

>Forgive me for dropping le euphoric meme, it just seems you're arguing from inside a white room.

I'm not trying to sound smarter or more enlightened than anyone else, because I'm not. It's not even an intelligence issue, it's just a widespread lack of even a modicum of initiative: initiative to seek out good representatives for government, initiative to better one's position, initiative to take any action to improve the human condition other than tweeting or crying to power-hungry populists.

Any person with half a brain could take simple steps to opt out of the machine (I could write a whole post on this), but they don't, because it's easier to just go through the motions and whine to mommy government anytime they don't get their way, cf. >>604136.

>Walmart can speak with one voice, and has the money and organization to do so. American civic culture has been undermined (in some cases intentionally) to the point where people can't even wrap their heads around being a responsible member of a republic.

The bottom line is that it's up to the people to act in their interests. As I said, it's not even an intelligence issue. If they're smart enough to type #OWS into their iPhones they're smart enough to maintain the Republic. The problem is they don't want to, and as a result they get what they deserve.

>Feels bad man. Meanwhile other people in my business dodge payroll tax and all the other government vig by classifying full time employees as "independent contractors".

I've long since abandoned business ethics re: the state. I would never deliberately try to screw clients over, same with employees if I had them, but I do everything practical to minimize my tax burden. Fuck 'em.

[Anonymous No.609152]

>>609126
Even mediocre to good representatives have to focus on campaign fundraising to the detriment of good governance. Campaign finance reform would go a long ways towards cutting the leash that the .01% have on the republic.

It might still be one man = one vote, but more dollars buys attention. Practising good participatory government over 3xxmillion people is farcical anyways... which is why we used to leave so much up to state governments...

re: business ethics, I'm more concerned about fines and prison for tax evasion. I can't afford years of tax court and I don't have a cousin named Maury.

[Anonymous No.609191]

>>609152

>Even mediocre to good representatives have to focus on campaign fundraising to the detriment of good governance. [...] It might still be one man = one vote, but more dollars buys attention.

I hear a lot of people say things like this as if they were infallible laws, which only hold true because the same people perpetuate them by giving in to them.

All you can do is the political equivalent of the Serenity Prayer: you choose the best man for the job, not the best fundraiser, not the one most likely to win, and then you trust others to do the same while focusing your efforts on the assumption they won't. That means pushing for small government and keeping your head down otherwise. Another topic I would write a whole post on.

>Campaign finance reform would go a long ways towards cutting the leash that the .01% have on the republic.

Campaign finance reform only cements the status quo. Think about it. Politicians aren't going to write laws that cut off their personal gravy trains; if they had the integrity to do that we wouldn't need reform in the first place. Don't give them any more power. Take all the campaign finance laws away, see if that leash doesn't get a hell of a lot longer once incumbents realize they can't shut challengers out of the system.

As a general rule if you hear a topic that gets significant attention among either of the two parties and the media you should do the exact opposite of what they want.

>Practising good participatory government over 3xxmillion people is farcical anyways... which is why we used to leave so much up to state governments...

Now we're talking.

>re: business ethics, I'm more concerned about fines and prison for tax evasion.

I meant legally. But there are ways to opt out of the system, even in this surveillance state.

[Anonymous No.609211]

>>604842
This. But /pol/ will never accept it.

[Anonymous No.609230]

>>609211

Most people that are arguing against raising the minimum wage don't believe the minimum wage should exist at all. If you are employing people at the current minimum wage then you don't highly value their skills - if they start to cost more then chances are you'll just fire some of them.

The only sensible reason I can think of for having a high minimum wage would be to push for more technological innovation / automation in the country.

[Anonymous No.609431]

>>609230
This. Minimum wage is the worst possible way to solve the problem. I'd rather double welfare spending for crying out loud. Dems just cram it down people's throats like it's the only way because it makes unions happy.

[Anonymous No.609463]

>>604136
That documentary was full of shit, it might force scorched earth capitalism based business to rethink their methods (here's looking at you, walmart) but any increase in the price of goods would be companies taking the piss.

More to the point, if your business takes more than 40 hours of someone elses life away a week but can't pay them enough to live on it needs to just die already.

[Anonymous No.609706]

>>609463
>More to the point, if your business takes more than 40 hours of someone elses life away a week but can't pay them enough to live on it needs to just die already.
Not every minimum wage worker is living paycheck to paycheck. Some are just looking for experience.

[Anonymous No.609715]

>>608560
a rich guy investing his money that gives these bug companies more capital to use in operations is much better for the larger economy than some dude making a one time purchase of a computer that will be obsolete in 3 years.

[Anonymous No.609719]

>>604347
>live in the hood
>have to live off of mcdonalds dollar menu
>cant have kids or any dependents

Lets be real, nobody can live off of minimum wage and lets face it, there will always be people in these jobs who cant get out, stop telling them that they need to move up.

[Anonymous No.610160]

>>609463

"enough to live on it" is entirely subjective.

People's lives are made better by the existence of these shitty paid jobs, which is why people take them. If the companies providing these shitty jobs were to "die" then these people wouldn't even have the shitty job - they'd have nothing and be far worse off.

[Anonymous No.610191]

>>609719

In many areas they can. People aren't supposed to make minimum wage their entire lives.

There are many many ways to better your situation. A bunch don't require money, but they all require effort.

People that are 'stuck' in these types of jobs may have issues that we could examine individually, but they are not the responsibility of the employer. (and it could be argued, society in general)

[Anonymous No.610205]

>>609719
Why can't they "get out"?

>don't have kids
>go to college
inb4 hurr debt
If you're poor the government will pay for your school.

Source: I'm an amerifat and my family was "low Income" but still very far above minimum wage and the government paid for my entire tuition +5k a year. I also worked.

[Anonymous No.610220]

>>610205
>+5k a year
how the fuck are people getting this? my estimated family contribution was low enough that my expected need was about 3k higher than the cost of tuition and all the fees, but i got just enough from FAFSA to cover the tuition and fees and had about $200 left over for books.

[Anonymous No.610272]

Wouldn't it be too expensive to keep those employees around if the minimum wage increase?

[Anonymous No.610279]

>>610272
Most minimum wage employees aren't even worth minimum wage. At the end of the day places operating on such slim margins will probably just make less people do more work.

[Anonymous No.610291]

>>610279
I get that and that leads up to the next point I would make. Apart from automation, VISA workers, and outsourcing, wouldn't this create more unemployment in the States, and wouldn't it make it HARDER for anyone to get any work experience at all if they never work before?

[Anonymous No.610298]

Why do people in this country have such a damn phobia of living at home
I have a good friend from mexico who rags about this all the time, over there people live at home until they get in a serious relationship. Of course if you have no monetary need to do this theres no reason, but trying to live alone in a single apartment off minimum wage yields a way lower quality of life than living with family and pooling money.
Which is made even more ridiculous by the fact that raising the minimum wage wont fix the actual poverty problem, which is in the rural areas where a low minimum wage isnt the problem.
All that said, I do think the minimum wage should change with inflation just like the retirement age should shift with life expectancy. I can't really see an argument for having a minimum wage not increase as the value of that wage decreases

[Anonymous No.610327]

>>610298

I've never understood it. I mean, I think women tend to prefer men that have their own place because they feel like that man is more "grown up"; the thing is though when that guy is struggling to take her out to mcdonald's he won't seem so crash hot.

I lived with my parents until I was 27 and paid them a small amount of board. If you're going to be giving someone money for a place it might as well be someone you like -- plus, I managed to save up an unbelievable amount of money in this time (I was only spending 20% of my salary each month).

[Anonymous No.610333]

>>610298
Because living alone symbolizes having grown up. Independence signals being an adult. That's branding, sure, but it's a thing.

Also, knowing that you'll be judged in your daily behaviour puts stress on you, having no "downtime" from this really sucks.

[Anonymous No.610433]

>>610272
If the business is doing so badly that it cannot afford to pay people decent wages, then yeah.
Similarly, the abolition of slavery was obviously a heavy blow to businesses that only managed to remain profitable because of slave labour.

[Anonymous No.610478]

>>610433

The difference is that no one is better off being a slave but people are better off with a minimum wage job than with no job. If certain businesses are no longer profitable when you raise the minimum wage then those businesses will no longer be able to employ people, leading to increased unemployment.

[Anonymous No.610489]

>>610433

>If the business is doing so badly that it cannot afford to pay people decent wages, then yeah.

There seem to be an awful lot of people who are experts on how businesses they don't own are run, or to what extent wages they don't earn are "decent".

It's a good thing we have all of you to operate everyone else's businesses and determine everyone else's living situations by fiat or else we'd clearly have no idea what to do.

Thanks Mom!

[Anonymous No.610510]

The economist for the Clinton administration Robert Reich, argues it should be raised to $15 an hour.
Although I think thats too high, I think raising it to $10.10 is reasonable.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GOqtl53V3JI

[Anonymous No.610540]

>>610510

Those "low paid workers who want full time work but can't get it" that he speaks of are exactly the sort of people hurt by the minimum wage. They might be able to get more hours but instead they can't because of the minimum wage pricing them out.

[Anonymous No.610626]

>>604136
What happens to the teenager who wants to make extra spending money with no skills?

He doesn't get a job because the minimum allowed is greater than the value of his labor. You want to do this to help a fuck up who at the age of 35 has never got a job that paid more than the minimum. Work harder.

[Anonymous No.610692]

>>610478
>The difference is that no one is better off being a slave but people are better off with a minimum wage job than with no job.

That's not really a big difference at all.

In both cases there is a choice between obedient and unquestioning servitude to a wealthy master - and being left in a ditch, free to fend for yourself - however in environment where every piece of land belongs to someone and there is no game to hunt or freely available fruit to forage. Leaving crime, begging... or both.

[Anonymous No.611138]

>>610692

It's a huge difference.

>In both cases there is a choice between obedient and unquestioning servitude to a wealthy master - and being left in a ditch, free to fend for yourself

As a slave even if you had the skills/ability to get yourself a well paying job you wouldn't be able to. All the benefits of your skills would go to your master.

As an employee if you have the skills/ability to get a better paying job elsewhere then you can either negotiate with your boss or simply leave him for the other employer so that you can enjoy a higher standard of living.

[Anonymous No.611502]

>>611138
Yes, you're right. However under this assumption it's unlikely you were doing minimum wage job in first place.
Let me correct myself then: If you do not have skills that would set you apart from the mass of unskilled labour, the difference between employee and slave is not big.

[Anonymous No.611880]

I could really care less what some greasy minimum wage slaves are making. If you want more money maybe you should have payed more attention in high school.

[Anonymous No.612832]

>>608564
Glad to see the universal income brought up. Is there anyone who doesn't like the idea?

[Anonymous No.612862]

>>612832

Yes. People who are opposed to any redistribution, for starters.
Also people who would point out that some people have disabilities that make their life objectively more expensive and any welfare/redistribution scheme should take this into account.

I'd like to see it implemented somewhere and see how it would work, but there are so many things that could go wrong with it. For instance I'm convinced that it would lead to a surge in inflation and hard to predict restructuring in real economy. So far that would not necessarily have to be a bad thing. But then there would be demand to have this income indexed by consumer prices, which would lead to hyperinflation.
It would be a politically extremely ambitious issue, and very dangerous one.

[Anonymous No.612877]

>>612862

>But then there would be demand to have this income indexed by consumer prices, which would lead to hyperinflation.

It would probably work better if it were tied to the poverty level, which is a little more insulated from prices than the CPI. May turn that hyperinflation into just really big inflation, I don't know. It would also be a challenge to keep bureaucrats from manipulating that number when convenient for political benefit.

I did the math some time ago and providing all households in the US with an amount equal to their corresponding poverty level would require something like 55% of federal tax receipts. Granted the money not spent on the current litany of entitlements could go to this purpose, but it is still a lot of money to move (assuming one doesn't simply print T-bills with no regard for long-term solvency as we do today).

Still, I think it's the best solution, far and away better than any other system for social security involving wealth redistribution. Combining it with a flat income tax would result in probably the most equal yet lightweight and feasible system we could implement and would also remove much of the class warfare humdrum politicians use as leverage.

[Anonymous No.612891]

>>604136
>knowing that employees are being compensated fairly.
>fairly

I've been working minimum wage for 7 years and I currently make $10 an hour. I will not receive a cost of living increase if minimum wage increases. In three years, everyone could be making what I earned over 7 and I'd have nothing but higher expenses. Who exactly am I supposed to sympathize with here?

[Anonymous No.612893]

>>604136
>id be willing to pay that knowing that employees are being compensated fairly.

Then prove it: donate your money to a charity that helps poor people.

Oh what's that? You don't want to be charitable with your own money, you just want to force other people to give away their money instead?

Well fuck you.

[Anonymous No.612896]

>>606556
>Whereas rich people would just squirrel it away in savings

Confirmed for not understanding the economy.

[Anonymous No.612925]

>>612877
does that mean one could pay for 1/2 the poverty level with 27% of tax receipts?

[Anonymous No.612987]

>>604176
Fun fact: One of the nation's first major legislative pay floors was put forth to protect unskilled white unionized labors from competition from blacks and immigrants

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis%E2%80%93Bacon_Act

[Anonymous No.613785]

>>612925

>does that mean one could pay for 1/2 the poverty level with 27% of tax receipts?

I have some more time now, so let's do the math.

In 2013, the population of the United States was 316.1 million, in 122.4 million households, averaging 2.6 persons per household.

Also in 2013, the ASPE poverty level for a two-person household was $15,510; for three-person households, $19,530. Weighting this for 2.6 people yields $17,850.

So $17,850 per household, multiplied by 122.4 million households, equals $2.186 trillion. That's $2,186,000,000,000.

Total receipts in 2013? $2.902 trillion. I thought I was nuts, but total expenditures were $3.803 trillion, of which $2.186 trillion is 57%. I was wrong, it was expenditures, not receipts.

But here's the kicker.

Guess what the total means-tested programs spending in 2013 [among 72 (!) programs] was?

$2.3 trillion, more than the above estimate for a UBI and enough to give every person in the US over $7,000.

Did you get your $7,000? I didn't.

Sounds like some people are getting a hell of a lot more than the poverty level.

[Anonymous No.613872]

>>610626
Dude you are a sly mother fucker and need to shut it. I am 23 I worked for HSBC's risk and fraud operations for 2 year's. I worked at two sheet metal fabricators and have been working as a bricklayer for the past 3 year's. Trust me people do work fucking hard. Sometimes things are completely out of your hands.

Nepitism and other many factors come to my mind. You also have ot consider that the elderly are getting back into the work force is on the rise yet alone more are not even leaving the work force.So you find guy's whom have been in the union for 45+ year's and are so fucking entrenched into their jobs that the younger generation cannot get ahead. I also when to college for CJ. I ended up hating the life style that became part of those I had to study and work with.

Hurr move to the jobs. Some faggots argue this as well. Do you have any idea what that costs. If you do not have enough money to even gain any type of upward mobility in your area how the fuck are you gonna get it from moving. The costs are very high.

[Anonymous No.613884]

>>608564
Yeah well you know mother fuckers are gonna argue with incentives for life kinda bullshit or try and defend why they need a 5 bedroom home when its 3 people living in it.

[Anonymous No.613889]

>>612896
how do you think the rich get rich by loopholes and honeypots. Sure they may use it so they can get into a lower tax bracket but that would become nothing more than a loophole. as you see large companys making dosh and walking to the bank laughing with that 0 in paided taxs.

[Anonymous No.613893]

>>613785
>2.6
whos that .6 lol sorry just being a dick..I always find it funny when they do these kinda numbers but I understand it works. Just always giggle in back of my head.

[Anonymous No.614010]

>>613872
Here are some of my favorites

>Why don't you make friends and have connection? Your STEM degree is worthless because you don't have friends
>Stop making excuses, anon. I got a job in your age and it pay for everything
>You're just lazy, anon. You sit around in your computer all day.

[Anonymous No.614402]

>>613785
> Also in 2013, the ASPE poverty level for a two-person household was $15,510; for three-person households, $19,530. Weighting this for 2.6 people yields $17,850.

Didn't it ever occur to you that $19,530 per year is a laughably low poverty line in the most densely populated portions of the U.S. (the coasts)? You could give everyone that and they would still be poor in most areas. Living in a single family home in CA, for example, can easily cost $35-50k, and that's just for mortgage/rent, food/supplies, and utilities...it doesn't include miscellaneous expenses for children activities at school, that time that your car needs a new alternator, etc.

Additionally, the 2.3 trillion spent on 72 programs don't all go to poverty. Most of that money goes toward SS, Medicare, Defense, and VA spending. The amount actually spent on poverty handouts is miniscule compared to the overall federal budget.

So yea, your 'math' is overly simplistic.

[Anonymous No.615188]

>>614402

>Didn't it ever occur to you that $19,530 per year is a laughably low poverty line in the most densely populated portions of the U.S. (the coasts)?

I dunno. Did it ever occur to you that the ASPE takes the "most densely populated portions of the U.S." into account when developing a metric meant to apply to them as much as any other area, perhaps by, I don't know, using a weighted average of the contiguous 48 states?

aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/faq.cfm

>Additionally, the 2.3 trillion spent on 72 programs don't all go to poverty.

Really? No kidding? I didn't say it went to poverty, I said it went to means-tested programs, the objective of which is to redistribute tax revenue (nominally, as a significant portion is deficit spending) from wealthier individuals to poorer individuals, based on a determination of their need. In fact the math shows it can't possibly all go to alleviate poverty proper.

The point that sailed so gracefully over your head was that, for all the effort the feds go to in their legions of programs to redistribute wealth, they could spend less on a more equitable system that achieves the same goals while eliminating politically-driven class warfare and gaming the system.

I used the ASPE poverty numbers to show that on the aggregate a US citizen could live off the UBI, your laughably presumptuous hypothetical expenses included in the calculations of that figure.

>So yea, your 'math' is overly simplistic.

To simple minds, perhaps. What do you want? A term paper telling you the US moves a shitload of money around for no good reason?

[Sage No.615357]

>>606271
Wait what? You think businesses can magically through magic powers make costs disappear? I must admit. You'd be a pretty terrific businessperson if you could make 2+2=5 but as I've yet to even hear of someone who is THAT fantastic at business (apparently) we're just going to be stuck with the same old businessmen who run businesses on boring old math.

Employees are a cost. If you pay them more then the total cost it takes to produce whatever good or service your company does goes up. You cannot disappear those costs through being a "better" business.

[Anonymous No.615363]

>>615357

>Wait what?

Nothing better than people who have never owned, operated, or taken any position of responsibility in a business telling those who have how terrible they must be for not being able to defy the most basic laws of economics to accommodate the former group's demands.

[Anonymous No.615429]

>>613893
Are you simple?

[Anonymous No.616469]

>>604220
>Which brings forward a question: wouldn't universal basic income along with no minimum wage be a better solution?

literally nobody would work shit jobs anymore.
labor cost for everything would skyrocket.
prices for everything would skyrocket.
suddenly everything is too expensive and the basic income doesnt feed people anymore. so you'll have to raise it, and the cycle repeats. welcome to hardcore inflation.

[Anonymous No.616488]

I'm the acne riddled teen in pic related and the only people living on these wages are illigal or stupid (or both). I'm making more than my supervisors simply using my "spending money" to run a business and buy stocks.

[Anonymous No.616894]

>>615188
You obviously don't know what 'means test' means. The rest of your post is inane dribble.

[Anonymous No.617057]

>>616894

>You obviously don't know what 'means test' means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_test

Why don't you tell me how this is incompatible with what I said.

>The rest of your post is inane dribble.

Too inane to rebut, apparently.