Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Chat' started by f11111, Nov 15, 2004.
I don't think even Pat Buchanan would take this seriously....
Haha, yeah, it does. Sorry.
Republicans, fighting wars, trying to get rid of worlds problems (sometimes creating more problems)
Democrats, giving nuclear technology to North Korea.... you tell me how many lives must be lost before the Democrats need to get in your bad books. You want WW3?
Haha, yeah, I said so. Sorry.
Its a conundrum...
Let's have a go at #3 - specifically the minimum wage part - and leave the rest alone for now...
Let's say you are an employer. We'll use simple terms for ease of debate. You have 5 people on your workforce. These people all work for $5 an hour, and they work 10 hours a day. This means you pay your people $250 a day. This is fine with you because your average daily income is $260, and you still have a profit.
Now wait a minute... the government wants to raise minimum wage because "$5 an hour can't support jack sh*t"... so it's now $7 an hour. That means the employer's labor cost is now $350. With a profit of only $260, now he is introuble. What happens? Job cuts. 2 people would need to be cut to get under the cost of $250. So now, 3 people are better off, because they are making $7, but 2 people are far worse off, because now they have no income. The employer now can't produce what he used to be able to, because he only has 3 people working for him when he used to have 5. So... now his revenue is $225 instead of $250.
3 people have slightly more money, 2 people have drastically less money, and the business can't do as well.
Raising the minimum wage is a great idea.
It all depends on what the fixed costs of the company is.
And less workers decreased supply, which increses price. Therefore, their profits will go up, and they can hire back the workers they lost.
Your example is not the greatest though. Most companies that pay on an hourly wadge can afford the extra cost, because hourly labor is an inelastic service.
1) Hard to profit from higher prices when workers without jobs can't afford higher prices.
2) Inelsaticity has nothing to do with it.
Good lord, I dumbed it down. Of course it's over-simplified.
I'd like to further add that no one in their right mind is going argue that unemployment won't increase if the minimum wage goes up.
There will always be people to buy the good. The ammount of people who lose their jobs would be infitismal compared the the ammount of people in the market for the good. And inelasticity has everything to do with it, if a service is inelastic, then that service would not be forgone.
True, but income gains associated with rasing the minimum wadge would exceed income losses.
But if prices go up, then the cost of living goes up. Which is what happens everytime minimum wage is raised.
Oh man... Help me...
The elasticity of labor supply isn't what limits the numbers of jobs, it's DEMAND for those jobs. That's why elasticity has nothing to do with it. Stop trying to use fancy words to sound intelligent.
If the employers can't afford to employ people at the floor - minimum wage - then it doesn't matter where the elasticity curve is. Bottom line, the employers would cut jobs if minimum wage is raised.
But, as I said, income gains associated with rasing the minimum wadge would exceed income losses.
You aren't far from making a case for a flat tax, with no welfare or social government spending. You aren't far at all.
Not nessesarily true, as I already argued. It all depends on the individual company.
If that's actually true, then why don't we do it?
You said it's moot point for the companies, and it helps the people. So why not?
Seriously. If you want to say "overall income and money is greater", then you want no social spending whatsoever.
Ever seen what happens to a supply-demand graph when a sales tax is levied? Ever hear of "dead-weight loss"? It's the amount of total income that is removed from the economy when a tax is collected.
Because it will cause some unemployment.
That all depends on the elasticity of the good. Remember the failed yatch tax that Bush Sr. made? Sales of yatchs went down 90% in Florida, and 20,000 people lost their job. With Clinton in office, the tax was repealed. Bush thought that yatchs were inelastic goods, but, too bad for him, every indictaion would put yatchs as an elastic good. But tax on inelastic goods, such as cigarettes and alcahol, creates income for the government withough demand going down very much.
War- killing insane jerkoffswho kill innocent people
Oh and...as a Republican I'm a Hummer-driving, ozone-layer-burning, minority-lynching, gay-hating, Bible-thumping, camo-wearing, Confederate-flag-wearing, fascist, whiskey-sipping, warmongering, KKK-member backwoods rich white male nutcase who runs over homeless people, threatens Democrats with eternal damnation, hates Middle-Easterners, oppresses women, pollutes the world, steals Social Security from senior citizens, enslaves blacks, robs money from low-income single mothers, bombs ACLU offices, and is a member of an AK-armed militia somewhere in the Appalachian mountains while at the same time running a secret organization made up of key figures in the military-industrial complex that controls Washington and plots to take over the world.
-from FerrariAKL I think.
You are somewhat correct here (although there is no such thing as a perfectly inelastic good, which I am sure you know). The problem is, the number of goods that are elastic FAR outnumber the inelastic goods.
On top of that, as long as that demand curve has any sort of slope to it whatsoever (big or small), there will always be a net loss to society when a tax is placed on that good. I.E. - every time.
So, if you want to take the stance of what's best for us is whatever creates the most possible money for society as a whole, then welcome to capitalism. Not just any capitalism... but far right wing conservative nut-job capitalism.
no matter what you say about it, the minimum wage NEEDS to be raised. a 5.25 minimum right now is completely rediculous. it hasnt been upped in 9 freakin years, and at the US's inflation rate of 3% yearly, thats 27% lower thanw hat it should be. it would be at least 6.50 by now. it is NOT possible to live on current minimum wage. some weeks ill have like 24 or so hours on the clock at work and come off with like a 115 bucks. if you bump that to ful ltime, thats still only like 200 a week, which is NOT enough to live on. (not that i do, but minimum wage is pathetic right now)
tax breaks for the wealth dont stimulate the economy either, they just make it cheaper for the rich people, its like lowering the costs on a product, but not lowering the sale value.