They're all fair points, and all have equal success in making the ends meet, so long as the one attempting them isn't a failure in the attempt. Reducing expenses to meet the income is the easiest and simplest thing to do. It takes someone as stupid as a DemocRAT congressman to fail to do this.
It sounds easy, and I think it's easier the LESS you have. But once the middle class lifestyle is in reach, people will start calling the most absurd things 'essentials'. And this is the malaise of capitalism, and the reason it will eventually fail.
Thank you, Mr.Smith. Your non sequiturs are quite easy and convenient for my Cause since my bumper sticker philosophy already covers most the points and lines of reasoning, you have yet to travel at the rate you are going. But, don't worry; Will Robinson has the term Caveat Emptor down pat now regarding your diagnosing the Body politic in our modern times.
Simply complaining about productivity while exacerbating the problem through forms of Prohibition is not very convincing. Why haven't we corrected for laissez-fare Capitalism's laziness regarding full employment of resources in the market for labor?
Don't start with the insults Daniel. You well know I don't post non sequiturs even if they do not agree with your opinions. If you do you will go bye bye in the ether again.
Becuase real capitalists aren't stupid enough to pretend "full employment" is desirable or even obtainable. How about if you go away for a little while, and don't come back until you can define what a "job" really is. Here's a hint for you: Try to identify who is the real owner of any "jobs" that exist.
Solving for simple poverty when due to a lack of income that would otherwise be obtained from employment is more rational, as as choice and opportunity cost. Why do you believe "full employment" is undesirable and unobtainable in modern times. It doesn't require rocket science and we have already been to the moon and back.
More to the point, why are you going back to asking stupid questions which are irrelevant to the economy?
If the minimum wage is raised then businesses and companies who can't afford to pay the new wages will have to either fire some workers or raise the prices of their goods. Government should figure out a way to make a more business friendly environment and give incentives to businesses who give regular raises to their employees.
It isn't stupid or irrelevant to our economy. We are currently spending a lot of money on our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror. - - - Updated - - - Why wouldn't employers try to achieve gains from productivity instead of only labor reduction?
There will be few people fired, but prices will go up and the minimum wage will do little to help the unskilled worker.
All of which are important. They do! Totally irrelevant to our economy. Totally irrelevant question as there are always attempts to do just that.
Well to the question you asked me that relates back to the basic philosophy that you must spend money to make money and to make money you need increased productivity and output but if you have no real net income then your business will be stagnant and won't grow thus you won't be able to open new locations and create more jobs if you have roughly a 100% increase in the wages you have to pay min wage earners.
In other words, employers may be faced with a possibility of not being able to afford enough labor to stay in business unless gains in productivity may be achieved.
It somewhat goes back to marginal costs/revenues (http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/how-to-determine-marginal-cost-marginal-revenue-an.html). Marginal means 1 more, but the basic concept is the same. For a simplistic example for discussion purposes--Let's say you have 30 employees making Smevins Bobbleheads on which you make $100 profit per employee per week of $3,000.00. If you hire 30 more employees you may be able to increase that profit to $110.00 per employee or it may drop to $80 per employee. Maybe the drop is because the supply is already meeting demand; maybe it is because you crossed 50 employees and now have to provide them health insurance; maybe it is because of the cost of new machinery for the additional employees; maybe it is because you have to expand your building to house the new employees, etc. Likewise, your return on the investment may go up because there is huge demand for Smevins bobbleheads and you can raise your prices some or because with more materials you get a bigger discount or with more product shipped you get a better rate on shipping. Likewise reducing from 30 employees to 24 might give you a better return because some employees aren't as productive or with a day of 2 people working OT might be cheaper than 6 people working straight time. With management decision making, some might say, "Hey, $80x60 employees is more than $100X30 employees so it is a no brainer" while others might say that the return on investment is better on 30 employees than 60 employees so we will go with that and invest the additional capital in something different like the stockmarket, financing Smevins bobbleheads, or starting a company that makes Smevins golf balls that will return $150 per employee for the same extra 30 employees. There is no right answer. A lot depends on investment strategies, and what markets will bear.
Only if you omit the productivity potential and disparity between 30 personnel and 60 personnel. Shouldn't an employer who wants to better compete with better products at lower prices consider upgrading capital equipment to work with greater efficiency with fewer personnel?
I enjoyed reading what was almost a dissertation about why the minimum wage should be increased. It was written by a person who is in the top quintile of income in America. He observed that even though when minimum wage is raised, those receiving it get very little additional buying power because withing a relatively short time inflation eats up every gain those workers get. But every time the minimum wage is increased he gets an equal increase in income which amounts to many more dollars per year than the total minimum wage group get. I find that to be very unfortunate as did the person writing the article, but it personifies the actual situation perfectly. IOW, the rich get richer.
Why should my tax dollars go towards subsidizing corporations inability to provide their employees, many of whom are full time working adults and NOT teenagers as some have implied, a wage that takes care of basic survival needs without having to work two other jobs? Minimum wage is not a survival wage on one income alone, especially if you have children. Republicans, the ultimate welfare supporters. They unknowingly support welfare for the poor, and support corporate welfare.
That depends on where you live. Probably would take two if married. As a democrat I also support necessary individual or familial welfare, never corporate welfare.
I believe we should use Socialism to enable public sector competition in market for labor with the private sector.
What you believe and what is best are obviously two different things and socialism will only make our economy worse especially for the bottom half of our wage earners.
Would most everyone agree that most people will do whats best for them and their family? Using http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ to see how much inflation plays into this and minimum wage pay scale from U.S Dept of Labor http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/chart.htm In 1963, right before we got away from the gold standard and started using fiat money, minimum wage was $1.25 and has the buying power of $9.46 in 2014. Now lets say (using same tools) todays (2014) minimum wage of $07.25 is about same buying power $00.95 cents in 1963 In todays modern electronic world someone has LESS buying power than a worker in pre civil rights movement 1963. Why would a person give up free food, free insurance, free cell phone (its not a Obama phone they came out while Bush was in office, look it up), free money, free housing AND NO its not all ghettos I have seen some real nice apartments thanks to HUD, I seen a ambulance at my 36 year old neighbors so I went by after it left and asked if everything was ok. He said "Yea, wife had a headache and I didnt wanna pay for gas so we called a ambulance". True story, used a gov cell phone to call to use gov insurance. The reason why this is going on is WHY WORK AND HAVE A LOWER QUALITY OF LIFE when u can sit at home and live better with less worries. No boss, no rules, no working your life away. When you go in making $280 a week your Housing goes away, foodstamps goes away, insurance goes away, goes away. Now you have less for more stress My income averages right at 80k and work 60 hrs a week so I work but as I look at things I can see their point of view. Why work to be poor. You got the top people of companies making millions and and its a disgrace that you have to have a law to make them pay enough to feed a family much less buy a home. I got pride and can say I worked for everything I got but I see people living better than me sitting at home living off the goverment and going to the Dr once a month and selling there pills. Average McD worker is 28 yo and for every opening you have about 3 people applying. The disparity is a disgrace. If this wonderful country has made someone a millionare he/she/they should care enough about the system and country to offer someone else a chance to work for something not run overseas for a higher profit. Pay in fair share of taxes and offer your employee a decent wage . Dont get me wrong I cant stand people who mooch off the goverment almost as bad as I cant stand GREED. Pay fines or a decent wage depending on how your company does and get rid of EBT cards and bring back cheese lines
