if liberals are against corporations, why do they propose a higher minimum wage?

You completely missed the point. The point was to point out how anti- competitive practices lead to wage deflation and how crony capitalism wreaks economic havoc and leads to a form of indentured slavery.

It is a complex problem and of course there are going to be individual examples of myopic idiocy that one can throw out that will be grey.

In general though, I claim mom and pop shops should be exempt because they are not really a contributor to the enslaving of the nation via nefarious practice.

I have no problem factoring in an individuals net wealth into the equation and in fact it makes sense to do so - at some point that this person themselves constitute something similar to a large corporation and so people in their employ should be making a 15/hour.

The main point however, was to outline what the boundaries might look like and give justification for those boundaries. In general, Corps (but perhaps not always) are different than individuals.

 

I notice you still did not address the simple point... do you change things you are for or against? so since you want to change this, you're against it, its okay...

I too can cite website that "prove" things too... how about the fact Immelt donated close to $500,000 to Obamas campaign? the $50,000 to republicans is insignificant...

http://www.chicagonow.com/publius-forum/2011/01/one-of-obamas-biggest-donors-now-his-economics-adviser/

look... all the big evil corporations liberals are against, donating to democrats... it just doesn't get any better!

P.S. have you listened to a speech by Bernie, he would seem to fit the "against big evil corporations" thing quite well... I mean he says all these campaign donors are something he is AGAINST... so is he for or AGAINST them donating? or using your logic, he's neither for or against, but wants to change their ability to donate right? LOL

 

I just think you're attempting to use the word corporation in a different way that what it legally refers to... but maybe thats just my "myopic idiocy" being technical... a mom-n-pop business is a corporation... however you keep saying I miss the point, but I provided and example that showed your generalization was an incorrect application and methodology to determine who or what should pay a certain wage... just because you dislike I challenged your notion, and showed it was flawed, does not mean you can't provide an example like you did where its a little more relevant, yet still misses the boat... but it goes to show, the way you attempted to "solve" it had "unintended consequences"... which is the spirit of what this entire thread is about... so I showed how your solution still had unintended consequences, another solution that fails...

 

Some on the left believe more in the coercive use of force of the State than simply resorting to sufficient socialism, to promote the general welfare of the United States; as declared in our social Contract and Constitution for our Republic.

- - - Updated - - -

I believe we should merely use the minimum wage to reserve the least efficient Labor from having to work to hard to become more efficient. There is should no "barriers to entry" for civil Persons in our Republic due to a simple lack of lucre under our form of Capitalism.

 

Darkbane, it's a lost cause to argue minimum wage. Most people are too ignorant to understand that a political party began the minimum wage issue in order to get more voters in the next election. The real problem is that same party has done a VERY poor job of creating the economic conditions that would bring about higher wages in the market place. As long as they refuse to make the conditions that benefit businesses then wages will be low, and/or companies will go out of business, or move out of the country and then everyone loses their job. Incredible stupidity.

Steve

 

You cherry picked on thing from a long post so that you could play "Devils Advocate" and ignored the main theme.

You now try and claim that that one cherry picked example shows an incorrect methodology (even after I corrected the methodology to include that example) while completely ignoring the main points of the post.

Now you want to drift into the semantics came by bickering over the definition of corporation when it is clear (after me using the word oligopoly numerous times and detailing specific ways in which they game the system) that was not referring to some mom and pop corp (like the one I own).

Did you have any more disingenuous nonsense to add ?

 

However, if Wal-mart is paying the new minimum wage, and Joe's discount store is paying less, there is no way Joe's can get decent employees.........

 

We could be lowering our Tax burden and some regulatory burden for the private sector by simply reserving labor at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage that merely clears our poverty guidelines. The legal and physical infrastructure already exists in our Union.

The concept of employment at will can be used as a more cost effective social safety net that is as easy and convenient for Labor as the concept of employment at will can make it.

 

You are assuming a really low unemployment rate. You are also assuming that younger workers can not fill the void.

Neither assumption is correct in general.

 

so what? short term structural unemployment can be expected when accomplished via policies Public.

In the long run, there should be an increase in demand due to more Labor being able to spend more money.

As a social safety net, that public policy is inadequate and should be upgraded for modern Information Age times.

Some on the left believe we should solve for the capital effects of a lack of income, via some form of income redistribution via public policy.

Since our representatives to Government take an oath of allegiance to our supreme laws of the land, we should strive for solving such social dilemmas through equal application of the law and lowering our Tax burden through efficiencies in fiscal policies.

 

Well one definition would be when corporate profit margins hit an all-time high while at the same time wages as a percent of the economy are at an all-time low.

There are several others but we can take it one at a time.

 

Are you familiar with the concept of employment at will?

 

You seriously need to take some business and economics courses. The democrat party is desperate for votes in the next election yet THEY are the problem.

Steve

 

no, since you seem to dislike my points... I will instead refer you to another valid and critical point someone below made in message 57 showing another "unintended consequence" of your decision to differentiate the two corporations...

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=452174&page=6&p=1066076812#post1066076812

 

The desire to increase profits while decreasing value. Or to sustain unrealistic economic conditions through lending and other artificial devices (or 'how to get blood from turnips').

There has been a process which was implemented to keep profits high while overall wages declined. Politicians, banks and big business all played into it. Very little is in private savings now, and personal debt is... decreasing but still higher than a strong economy should merit. Most people have less than three months expenses in savings. Not a pretty picture.

Of course there is personal responsibility in this, but social expectations from media and advertising have been extremely well coordinated to convince people that this style of life is normal. Today living within ones means usually means spending almost every penny, even for people most of us consider affluent.

 

simply claiming that is merely appealing to ignorance and an ad hominem by failing to provide a line of reasoning for your currently, unsubstantiated opinion.

Why do you believe we would be worse off with left wing Utopian fantasy that solves for simple poverty and capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States; than we would with right wing Orwellian fantasy that resorts to the coercive use of force of the State, at the Expense of Individual Liberty.

 

I was not but looked it up and am now. Care to elaborate ?

 

This does nothing to address any of the problems in this country. It doesn't even appear to be involved with the reality of our economy on any level.

Then again the same people who systematically destroyed the American education system are the same people who haven't wanted to raise the minimum wage despite productivity constantly rising along with the top 1%'s profits.

“...no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country.....By ‘business’ I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level — I mean the wages of decent living,”

Franklin D. Roosevelt

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

John Kenneth Galbraith

 

I responded to that post and it was found to be generally invalid

 

When will this nonsense end. Raising the minimum wage has virtually no effect on inflation. Please stop. The wage should be raised in response to inflation. Where are all the arguments against companies, such as mine, that give an annual COLA? I haven't seen one argument opposing COLAs. Why is that?

 

You aren't worth the effort to explain how business and economics works in today's economy because you are brainwashed to vote for a democrat in the next election.

Steve

 

Why would Trump do that? It's not worth his time, and as such, is a non-example.

 

Ideological extremists and corporate toadies oppose mainstream legislation in the public interest.

Even states with Republican governors and legislatures recognize the need for a minimum wage for their constituents.

 

I agree. And as I said in an earlier post, if a minimum wage is required it should be determined at the state level instead of the "one size fits all" federal government.

But the real problem IS the federal government doing things to harm the economy and businesses. If immigration (both legal and illegal) was reduced then that would be a good start toward increasing wages without resorting to MORE federal regulations screwing up the economy.

Steve

 

So then why all the kerfuffle about American industry and production moving off shore. It appears you agree with American jobs going to foreign workers.