OT: Minimum Wage Increase

[Thomas Rogers]

What R Shek said. An unconstrained market, labor wage, economy (whatever) tends to grow over the long term through organic grown and dynamics that feed into themselves. A system that has regulations and check valves cannot grow organically and with such dynamics and is plagued by stagnation and stalls.



TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

Like, say National-Right-To-Work and close the borders?

Nope!



Try a fair tax where everybody pays the same tax. Eliminate corporate tax's that remove the tax burdons off businesses. Eliminate witholding tax's that take away from our take home pay.



I know, I know. Too easy of a fix. Find other excuses.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

The only fair tax, IMHO, is a national sales tax. Consumption-based taxes incent saving, disincent overspending (living beyond one's means).

 

[Tom Schindler]

TJR,



That is exactly what I am talking about. Everyone pays the same. Live at the poverty level and you pay no tax's. Life like a normal person and pay your fair share. Make millions and live that way, you pay more, but we all pay the same tax.





Tom

 

[TomT]

Raising the minimum wage is just another ploy by the Democrats to win more votes. Even though it might have a negative impact (less jobs available) they figure most minimum wage earners are to stupid to notice.

A large part of minimum wage earners are high school and college kids working part time. Some will now be making more money but it's going to end up meaning less opportuntities.

 

[A K]

Got this from my tax law professor. Worth the read. Nothing we didn't know, or couldn't find out, but good to have it in one place.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Adam,



I tend to agree with that author regarding the Minimum Wage increase:



- This will hit younger, teen, part-time employees more than the FT working adults.



- It will hit small businesses mostly.



- Most small businesses won't go out of business because they compete mostly with other small business that will have to raise wages as well.



- Increased wage costs will be passed on to the consumer, but most won't flinch.



- The increased buying power of those that got the increase will offset any negative from those that "flinched" due to the higher prices.



Sure, there are a few small businesses here and there that will suffer, but for the most part, this will have all the impact of Y2K.



TJR

 

[Johnny O]

China is probably the most polluted country on earth. I propose a total ban on imports from any country with lower environmental and labor standards than ours. Greenies, back me up on this. If the EPA puts an industry out of business but said production moves elsewhere, then the net global pollution is the same if not worse. NIMBY anyone?

 

[Kevin Palmer]

By raising the minimum wage I think it will create false hopes.



For example.



Lets look at two companies that do the exact same job for the exact same cost.



Each has 7 employees and sells their bread for $1.09 a loaf.



So now they get a wage increase. One of two things WILL happen. The owner will pay the increase and raise the price of the bread to $1.39.



Or,,, in order to keep the bread at $1.09 you will have to let two employees go.



Further, the company that kept the employees on and absorbed the wage increase will sell less bread based on the bread being the exact same bread as the competition that is still selling bread at $1.09.



In a nutshell. Small companies will lose employees or will have to raise their prices. If they raise their prices they will be competing against those that did NOT raise the price.



I do think everyone deserve a fair wage, I just see this coming at a greater cost than most realize.

 

[Johnny O]

Right. So we all raise wages then cover the cost by raising prices, which then eats up your raise. I fail to see a net gain here.

If anything, this forces more jobs under the table and to illegals.

Quinn's First Law: Liberalism always generates the exact opposite of it's stated intent.

 

[Tom Schindler]

TJR,



You have not answered my question. Is it OK to break the law if it is benefitial or is it not OK to break the law at all?





Tom

 

[Richard L]

I believe everyone should be paid a fair salary, and that salary should be above maximum level for poverty, or to qualify for welfare, however I don't think that the Minimum Wage laws really solve that problem.



Increasing the Minimum Wage only results in higher prices and a higher cost of living, which negates any of the increase, and everybody pays more.



A better solution might be to raise the minimum income tax threshold so that people who are working for at or near minimum wage, and have more dependents to support, they should not have to pay taxes, or at least, far less taxes, and increase their take-home pay.



Increasing the Minimum Wage only improves the Goverments revenue at the expense of everybody, including those who work for minimum wage.



I have no problems with someone who has a large family to support, and is working at a minimum wage job, to not have to pay taxes, or even get some additional money back on their income taxes....It would be better to give that money back to them every pay-day instead of once a year. That is a lot better than paying them welfare for not working at all!



...Rich

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Sorry, Caymen, I missed that as a question, probably because you are misstating the point I have made in the past.



You stated/asked:

You have said before that hiring illegal aliens is good for Amewrica, now they are breaking the law? Those that are here illegally are being paid under the table. You said, in the past, that it is good for the economy.

No, I never said "it was good for America.", for that I am sure, as I try not to speak in such platitudes.



What I did do was CAUTION people. I cautioned people to consider that as we address the illegal immigration problem and the run-away costs of healthcare and education that most assume it causes, that we may not actually reduce those costs at all. And that more than likely any reductions in those costs would be smaller than the overall increased costs of goods and services.



Read into that what you want. I haven't considered whether or not I think illegals are good for the economy, overall. I tend to think that less regulation is a good thing, and I have said that here in this thread.



"Good for America" is too abstract a notion. I talked about one or two specific causes and effects. It's like "Buy American"...its a meaningless mantra that people spout that cannot really be defended or attacked.



Caymen then asks:

You have not answered my question. Is it OK to break the law if it is beneficial or is it not OK to break the law at all?

Actually, upon review, I don't see that you asked that question before. But, I will answer it now.



It's never right to break a law. Sure, we can come up with examples that allow us to rationalize the breaking of a low (speeding in your car while taking someone to the hospital), but that's not the point. The point is laws are to be followed.



However, laws and regulations that unfairly limit and remove choices for people and for companies I believe are harmful in the long run and should be repealed. There are ways to get them repealed, but breaking them isn't one of them. Laws change all the time.



We have laws on the books against paying people under the table (which is the loophole that people use for min wage and for illegal immigrants), and as I have said many times before if we really wanted to get tough on the problem, we really only need to start prosecuting businesses. It would be quite easy with forensic accounting. Since most of the guilty businesses are "small businesses" and there really is no such thing as a "small business lobby", I have to assume the only reason there isn't a crackdown is because you, and I (we the people), don't want one. Why is that?



TJR

 

[Jeffrey Travis]

TJR - Ah, Country Sweet Chicken and Ribs.



If it was not Nick's for a 'garbage plate' after a night of drinking, it was Country Sweet for a 'wing and mac snack'.



You can order some sauce, as well as other Rochester specialities, from https://www.nystyledeli.com/cgi-bin/deli/index.html



I would give six bucks and my left nut to get Zweigle hot dogs down here in the ATL.



JT#14

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Thanks Travis. Last time I was in Rochester I had Nicks, Tom Whals, and Country Sweet...and I was only their two days!

 

[Jeffrey Travis]

Tom Wahls is nothing - try Charlie's in Webster.

 

[A K]

It's never right to break a law. Sure, we can come up with examples that allow us to rationalize the breaking of a low (speeding in your car while taking someone to the hospital), but that's not the point. The point is laws are to be followed.

History disagrees. In 1967, 16 states had antimiscegenation laws. Those states never would have repealed them by legislative action. A court could not touch the law without an actual case or controversy. Therefore, the law had to be broken and the breakers punished before there was jurisdiction. Additionally, consider sodomy laws and the slow push for homosexual (or generally, alternative lifestyle) equal rights. New Jersey's Supreme Court recently addressed civil unions, something the legislature likely would be afraid to touch.



While antimiscegenation laws are the third cousin removed from the brother-in-law of business laws, I just wanted to reel in the overgeneralization that "breaking laws are not the way to get them repealed."



We cannot assume that state legislatures (and the federal legislature) are rational creatures, and are always willing to mend their legislative mistakes. Often mending is political suicide, or at the least, removes dirt from under a politician's political foundation. Breaking a law to challenge a law infuses the population with the legislative power they delegated to their assemblies. When used for the purpose of seeking change, it is, arguably, the most personal form of democratic action.

 

[Tom Schindler]

TJR,



You said, in the past, that paying people under the table was beneficial because it keeps the price of some of our goods down. By saying that, you agree that sometimes breaking the law is acceptable, IF there is a benefit by doing so.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen, I never said that exactly. You made a value judgement at the end of your statement when you said that it meant that "sometimes breaking the law is acceptable."



I never said that. I cautioned people that IF the reason they don't like illegals is because they feel they are costing them money for A and B, then be careful, because removing them from the equation may have the same people paying more for C, possibly more than the savings on A and B combined.



I gave a caution given many people's motivation.



I didn't make a comment on whether or not I thought illegals and their being paid under the table was wrong.



As a matter of course, and now that you seem to be asking, I actually do NOT think anyone should be breaking the law in this regard, and that everyone should be paying above the table. It's really easy to make that happen, but as I said in my past post, we seem as a country of voters to not really want that (part of my cautionary I guess).



Even better, and again, as I have said, I think that the law should be removed, that income tax should be abolished and we should go with a fair tax.



So, my cautionary and my desire, don't equate me to saying that I think people should break the law. They are just commentary on the current status and what could happen in trying to address one symptom of the problem.



Put another way, I am NOT pro-illegal alien and working under the table, but I am ANTI-people who think there is a quick, pat-answer to the problems of rising healthcare and education (as many of those see the illegals as the scapegoat).



TJR

 

[Ryan Schaecher]

Try a fair tax where everybody pays the same tax. Eliminate corporate tax's that remove the tax burdons off businesses. Eliminate witholding tax's that take away from our take home pay.

I would also agree to this point. This would have a much more beneficial effect on all parties than any raise in minimum wage would have.

New Jersey's Supreme Court recently addressed civil unions, something the legislature likely would be afraid to to

Which is why the judges have been castigated as being activist. Instead of interpreting law, and deciding weither or not the defendants were guilty according to existing law, they created law by judicial fiat, overriding the legistlature and giving the "underlings" in the legislature a certain time frame to make a law that backed up the judges ruleing. New Jersey is setup the same way as the federal government, three branches, all being equal. Recent trends in the Judical system has made the judges more powerful than all other branches combined and second only to God himself (which many judges would also like to see come to an end...).



It seems pretty clear that around 75% of the respondants to this post have been anti-minimum wage increase, with most of the 75% being in agreement that something should be done about the taxes paid instead. This is important to note as all the respondants have diverse backgrounds (some liberal, some conservative, some fence-riders, some Union, some Anti-Union, some pro-business, some not-so-much). This is probably a pretty close cross section of America and show that the politicians are playing to the small crowds in an effort to pick up singular votes at the expense of hundreds of others.... when will they learn?