magika said:If I remember correctly, there have been multiple threads about this, especially when the new law with increases was being voted on. The pro minimum wage crowd will claim all those against it as being haters of the poor, the anti-minimum wage crowd will claim that by being against the minimum wage they are helping the poor because in the market their wages would be higher. We'll go in circles on this for about 20 pages before everyone is done, and in the end neither side will have changed the opinion of anyone.How would that be different than any other thread on government policy?

These same arguments come up every time there's a minimum wage increase. You'd think that by now people would have figured out that life will go on, but no, this time the sky really is falling. As it will be again in a few years.

geebeebee said:staci86 said:The other 85% will pick up the tab by paying for unemployment, food stamps, and section 8.You obviously don't understand unemployment insurance. You "pay" for unemployment insurance by being employed, and you collect if you become unemployed, like car or homeowner's insurance, which you pay premiums for, and then collect if needed. I know that, to you, everything is a burdensome social program (well, for people that currently work), but you're barking up the wrong tree here.You obviously dont understand unemployment insurance.

The EMPLOYER pays premiums to cover unemployment claims, and the rate is based on the employer's claim history (my rate has increased from 1.825% to 6.125%, just because a single employee was too lazy to find another job each of the past two winters when my biz is closed. I also have to pay premiums based on the wages of students, who are ineligible to even claim benefits). Along with social security, workers comp, disability, and other required 'insurances', unemployment adds 25% to an employers payroll costs.

The employee pays nothing for the benefits.

Glitch99 said:geebeebee said:staci86 said:The other 85% will pick up the tab by paying for unemployment, food stamps, and section 8.You obviously don't understand unemployment insurance. You "pay" for unemployment insurance by being employed, and you collect if you become unemployed, like car or homeowner's insurance, which you pay premiums for, and then collect if needed. I know that, to you, everything is a burdensome social program (well, for people that currently work), but you're barking up the wrong tree here.You obviously dont understand unemployment insurance.

The EMPLOYER pays premiums to cover unemployment claims, and the rate is based on the employer's claim history (my rate has increased from 1.825% to 6.125%, just because a single employee has claimed unemployment for 5 months each of the past two winters. I also have to pay premiums based on the wages of students, who are ineligible to even claim benefits). Along with social security, workers comp, disability, and other required 'insurances', unemployment adds 25% to an employers payroll costs.

The employee pays nothing for the benefits.That's exactly what I said in the follow-up post. The employer pays for the benefits. That's why I put "pays" in quotation marks. The employee gets covered by simply working.

geebeebee said:Much ado about nothing. You said the 85% pay the unemployment insurance. Since you've gotten stuck being incorrect, you're trying to wriggle out. Firstly, the employer pays the insurance, so the 85% isn't accurate. You can say what you want about the companies "lowering" wages to make up for this, but I've never heard of it. Nice try, though. I'll give you a break, though. When you work, you'll understand this stuff.
You have no idea how business works. Successful businesses pass these taxes on to their employees and customers. If the business cannot cover its costs, then it ceases to exist.

A successful business is limited in how much money is available for paying employees. When the employee budget stays constant, increased taxes reduce employee compensation. If the employee budget must expand, then the business must raise its prices. When all businesses are hit with the same taxes, they all raise their prices in concert, and the consumer gets stuck with the bill.

Money cannot be created out of thin air (unless you're the Federal Reserve). Just because employers remit unemployment insurance taxes to the appropriate government agency does not mean that employees and consumers do not pay for the cost of that tax. You can hide behind your linguistic technicalities, but it still doesn't change the driving economic forces. Using your logic, employees do not make FICA contributions either, as their employers typically withhold this from their pay and remit it to the IRS. Do you honestly expect us to believe that workers only truly pay taxes on their net income?

You need to quit with the personal attacks. I work, have worked for the past eight years, and have several new people lay their entire financial life out for my inspection every week.

geebeebee said:LOL. Again, with the Heritage Foundation. Iraq will be a slam-dunk, I tell you. The Heritage Foundation says so. And they aren't bought-and-sold by big biz at all, no...
Nice job on the selective quoting.

If you don't like the analysis from the Heritage Foundation, you can read the MSNBC link right below it, which outlines the same basic points.

Of course, that would interfere with your posting strategy of selectively quoting small portions of posts to further your inane straw man attacks.

Glitch99 said:Obviously the less enlightened consumers out there dont care that a "business" is not a cash cow to be soaked at will while never drying up.

Just because you own a business doesnt make you "rich"; most small business owners are just trying to earn a living themselves, and every required wage increase only takes money out of their pocket to redistribute to those who dont want to put in the additional effort necessary to actually earn it.
Precisely.

These changes also encourage more under-the-table jobs and misclassification of employees as independent contractors. By the time that the Federal taxes, State taxes, city taxes, property taxes, income taxes, employment taxes, sales taxes, unemployment insurance, workman's comp, business licenses, occupational licenses, lawyers, accountants, and insurers are all paid, there is often very little left for the struggling small business owner who took risks, worked hard, and chose to follow the rules.

And people wonder why so many "businesses" have become nothing more than a scheduler and paymaster recruiting a crew of guys outside Home Depot, and paying them cash at the end of the day.

Here's a good one:
Bureaucrat Scuffs Dream of Homeless Shoe Shiner

Here we have a homeless man who tried to work his way out of poverty instead of taking a handout, and a bureaucrat armed with onerous business regulations and fees shut him down. Now, instead of saving his money to rent an apartment, he is saving it to pay the city.

TheMeliorist said:geebeebee said:So, do YOU do this? Unless that's the case, yours is the classic "it's easy being poor" excuse for being against even the most minor of assistance to the poor, WORKING people of the country. It's actually pretty demeaning to say that a single working mom with two or three kids could make it on $5 an hour, from your shoes. It's none of your business but I really appreciate being able to call your bluff. Yes (not counting student loan payments, which shouldn't apply to minimum wage earners) I do live very comfortably on less than $800/mo and work 60+ hours/wk. I'm considering moving into a house with a friend to shave off another $250/mo (I don't need the pools, gyms, tennis courts, etc my apartment complex provides). And I've been "1 ft 4 h0ml3s" or however you text it these days if that means anything to you. Oh, and I never said anything about single working moms with three kids (much less handicapped octuplets), but then I shouldn't have to.That's good, and why I asked. However, there is a big difference, security-wise, between HAVING to live on $5 an hour and choosing to. I know of very few minimum wage jobs that provide insurance. Do you include decent insurance in your $800/month, or does your job provide it? I just don't buy your 90% can live on $800 figure, including food, utilities, insurance, transportation, etc., if you are living in any decently-sized metropolitan area, at least one that is even reasonably safe.

To declare that you're not talking about a potential family on that; well, that's just not being realistic. Hey, it's great you can do it, but do you really think comparing a college-educated single person (with what I'm assuming is a decent job) with a typical person facing a minimum-wage job a fair comparison? I don't, because a typical person making minimum wage isn't equipped with the same potential to earn as you are, and have any of the safety nets you have.

For as much as everyone here gripes about deadbeats, it's amazing how little support is given to those that do actually try to work to get by. I thought people here liked those that tried to be responsible. By paying people a fair wage, it would encourage work, and make social programs less attractive.

staci86 said:

If a change in the minimum wage changes the supply/demand balance, then wages will adjust accordingly.

How does that affect the people who have already followed the path of the previous supply/demand balance before a massive shift due to an increase in minimum wage? For example, if someone "reads" the supply/demand curve and decides to continue with HS, and College, and in their last semester of college, the minimum wage law increases to be $30/hour, the same as a skilled college grad was a week before. I can logically see that college grad be cheated and demand a raise above $30/hour equal to what the unskilled dropout got.

tripleB said:I can logically see that college grad be cheated and demand a raise above $30/hour equal to what the unskilled dropout got. They can definitely demand it and in most cases will be headed out the door to what they think are greener pastures. A year later and knee deep in cow pies (unemployed and debt mounting) their expectations may return to reality.

geebeebee said:I would love to see you take that concept to Costco, for example. They would scoff at your textbook, old-school definitions of employees, much like equipment and supplies.
They would, would they?

geebeebee said:They are largely comprised of "non-skilled" workers and are extremely successful.

If Costco it hit with an increase in unemployment insurance premiums, who ends up paying for it?

geebeebee said:"Successful" companies: A)won't have constant layoffs, thus they won't have to pay higher and higher unemployment taxes.
Successful companies eliminate lousy employees. Should they be hit with higher taxes for expecting employees to actually do their jobs?

Successful companies also thrive in spite of high rates of turnover not related to the management of the business itself. Certain businesses, and businesses in certain locations, typically employ a highly transient workforce. In other cases, seasonal businesses, or limited-purpose entities, expect layoffs as part of their business model.

You can't define success as hiring and keeping the same people for years and years, without regard to competence or circumstances specific to each business.

geebeebee said:You see, not everyone pays the same. Just like bad drivers pay higher insurance, bad companies that constantly lay off pay higher unemployment insurance;
Only some states levy punitive rates against businesses not meeting strict quotas.

Some states have chosen to retain liquid labor markets, and avoid perverse incentives which keep sub-par employees juiced in.

geebeebee said:B)will gladly pay people minimum-wage or higher, even if it goes up, because they hire good people, train them well, and want people happy.
Other businesses operate on thinner margins, and can't afford to pay a "happy" premium to their employees. Their choice is between paying the going rate for unskilled labor, and expecting employees to do their jobs, or eliminating some jobs altogether.

geebeebee said:Some would argue that it's even more important to keep lower-wage people happy than higher-wage ones, because it's harder to find good people for lower-wage jobs, while a lot of people clamor for $100K ones.
That is complete nonsense. Highly-paid employees have some combination of skill, qualifications, personality, attitude, and connections which is in demand, and short in supply. If it were easy to find people to fill $100k/year positions, then those positions would quickly cease to exist as the masses apply for them.

That $100k/year employee probably has the savings and credit to move across the country to find better employment. The $7/hr janitor doesn't, and wouldn't, and can easily be replaced with another unskilled worker, or felon on work release.

geebeebee said:
Therefore, as in your example, "successful" companies will NOT see a significant rise in their insurance, and won't need to "trickle-down" the costs to employee and customer. Thanks for the business lesson, for someone that knows nothing about business, though.
Unemployment insurance premiums are set by statute, not the success of the business.

geebeebee said:
On Heritage, if I used the left-wing equivalent of it for my citations, I would get called on it every single time, I guarantee it. I'm just keeping it fair -- anything they produce has to be taken with a grain of salt. It's not a straw man when I'm pointing out that you're using a biased source that enters a study looking for the result they want -- that's not research, it's politics.
Everything that everyone produces must be taken with a grain of salt. There is no such thing as an unbiased source. Certianly, MSNBC, which is a pillar of left-wing journalism, can't be trusted either. Lately, they have been so biased as to actually be pumping up the interests of their parent company. That isn't journalism, that is political pandering, and borderline market manipulation.

The problems with the BLS numbers are widely documented. Choose whatever source you like. The estimates may vary slightly, but the underlying faults with the official statistics are widely known.

I included the MSNBC link for a reason, but you don't seem to admit it exists.