We also need to stop comparing the present-day USA to other countries that interfere with the economy as if the US doesn’t do that. Our government has been interfering for a long time. The fact that we have a minimum wage at all is already screwing things up. Any interference in the market screws it up and can only require further interference.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
We also need to stop comparing the present-day USA to other countries that interfere with the economy as if the US doesn’t do that. Our government has been interfering for a long time. The fact that we have a minimum wage at all is already screwing things up. Any interference in the market screws it up and can only require further interference.[/quote]
You buy that KOOL AID Huh 
I suppose if there were no minimum wage wages would magically be higher ?
I didn’t read the whole thread, but something else for you all to consider is that Australia have had a “booming mining period” recently and that may be the reason we had dodged the recession.
On the topic of minimal wage it is also important to note that in Australia we don’t tip at all. So a higher minimal wage is most probably required.
Disclaimer: I am not an economist.
tweet
[quote]theBird wrote:
I didn’t read the whole thread, but something else for you all to consider is that Australia have had a “booming mining period” recently and that may be the reason we had dodged the recession.
On the topic of minimal wage it is also important to note that in Australia we don’t tip at all. So a higher minimal wage is most probably required.
Disclaimer: I am not an economist.
tweet[/quote]
Don’t worry Bird, someone brought it up. It was just ignored.
An additional thought is that an unintended consequence of increasing minimum wage is an increase in both off shoring/outsourcing and a further increase in trade deficit. If we double the cost of minimum wage jobs companies will look to places like Southeast Asia for cheaper labor & goods. This will decrease the # of minimum wage jobs in America even further. On top of that companies will likely increase imports from countries like China at lower costs widening the gap between imports and exports.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]theBird wrote:
I didn’t read the whole thread, but something else for you all to consider is that Australia have had a “booming mining period” recently and that may be the reason we had dodged the recession.
On the topic of minimal wage it is also important to note that in Australia we don’t tip at all. So a higher minimal wage is most probably required.
Disclaimer: I am not an economist.
tweet[/quote]
Don’t worry Bird, someone brought it up. It was just ignored. [/quote]
The overall theory is that if you raise minimum wage you will destroy jobs. This is what we are told time and time again in this country. There is no stipulation for an increased economy. These fools on here would have the same argument if this was the 90’s and we had a boom in the tech sector. “Can’t raise the minimum wage because we will loose jobs”. And tipped employees are not the reason why the Aussie’s have a higher minimum wage and it really would have nothing to do with the argument anyway.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]theBird wrote:
I didn’t read the whole thread, but something else for you all to consider is that Australia have had a “booming mining period” recently and that may be the reason we had dodged the recession.
On the topic of minimal wage it is also important to note that in Australia we don’t tip at all. So a higher minimal wage is most probably required.
Disclaimer: I am not an economist.
tweet[/quote]
Don’t worry Bird, someone brought it up. It was just ignored. [/quote]
The overall theory is that if you raise minimum wage you will destroy jobs. This is what we are told time and time again in this country. There is no stipulation for an increased economy. These fools on here would have the same argument if this was the 90’s and we had a boom in the tech sector. “Can’t raise the minimum wage because we will loose jobs”. And tipped employees are not the reason why the Aussie’s have a higher minimum wage and it really would have nothing to do with the argument anyway.
[/quote]
How does a boom in the tech industry relate to minimum wage? Are guys in Silicon Valley making $7.25/hr?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]theBird wrote:
I didn’t read the whole thread, but something else for you all to consider is that Australia have had a “booming mining period” recently and that may be the reason we had dodged the recession.
On the topic of minimal wage it is also important to note that in Australia we don’t tip at all. So a higher minimal wage is most probably required.
Disclaimer: I am not an economist.
tweet[/quote]
Don’t worry Bird, someone brought it up. It was just ignored. [/quote]
The overall theory is that if you raise minimum wage you will destroy jobs. This is what we are told time and time again in this country. There is no stipulation for an increased economy. These fools on here would have the same argument if this was the 90’s and we had a boom in the tech sector. “Can’t raise the minimum wage because we will loose jobs”. And tipped employees are not the reason why the Aussie’s have a higher minimum wage and it really would have nothing to do with the argument anyway.
[/quote]
How does a boom in the tech industry relate to minimum wage? Are guys in Silicon Valley making $7.25/hr?
[/quote]
The same way a boom in the mining industry does…
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]theBird wrote:
I didn’t read the whole thread, but something else for you all to consider is that Australia have had a “booming mining period” recently and that may be the reason we had dodged the recession.
On the topic of minimal wage it is also important to note that in Australia we don’t tip at all. So a higher minimal wage is most probably required.
Disclaimer: I am not an economist.
tweet[/quote]
Don’t worry Bird, someone brought it up. It was just ignored. [/quote]
The overall theory is that if you raise minimum wage you will destroy jobs. This is what we are told time and time again in this country. There is no stipulation for an increased economy. These fools on here would have the same argument if this was the 90’s and we had a boom in the tech sector. “Can’t raise the minimum wage because we will loose jobs”. And tipped employees are not the reason why the Aussie’s have a higher minimum wage and it really would have nothing to do with the argument anyway.
[/quote]
How does a boom in the tech industry relate to minimum wage? Are guys in Silicon Valley making $7.25/hr?
[/quote]
The same way a boom in the mining industry does…
[/quote]
And that would be?
Also, the mining bubble is a partial explanation as to how Australia was able to avoid recession. I doubt miners make minimum wage, well maybe in Australia they do.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Some of the cost will be passed on to the consumer and some ought to be passed on to McDonalds.[/quote]
That’s all I get. A one sentence answer.
So, some get’s passed to the consumer, which means cost of living goes up, which means_________?
So, some get’s paid by McDonald, which operates on a tight margin, which mean_________for the people employed?[/quote]
So some people will now have more money to spend which creates demand due to the increased spending which means_______________?[/quote]
They will spend more on the same goods they normally buy, ie a $2 hamburger that use to be $1.[/quote]
Wrong answer. It means they have more money to spend which creates demand which creates more jobs a side the right-wingers never mention.
[/quote]
Lol, okay Zep.
If that were true why not make minimum wage $100 an hour? That would give those making minimum wage more money to spend, which would increase demand, which would both grow the economy and increase job availability, right?
What you fail to consider is the VALUE of their dollar. It doesn’t matter if minimum wage is $1,000 an hour if milk cost $5,000 a gallon.
[/quote]
Yep. I challenged Dudley Do-Wrong awhile back to address my $48 an hour proposal. He picked up his toys, left the sandbox and went straight home.
Dudley, answer the fucking question: why shouldn’t we impose a $48 an hour minimum wage? It should do everything you’re insisting a higher minimum wage should do and more.
So why?[/quote]
Answered your dumb-ass question below to some person who was asking why don’t we offer$100/hr. No one is advocating for this ridiculous amount but you fail to answer why the Aussie’s can do it and we can’t?[/quote]
It’s not a dumbass question. $48 is a decent middle-class living wage not a “ridiculous amount.” It works out to just under $100k annually. Why would you oppose it? I’m offended.[/quote]
Since no one is advocating this it is a dumb-ass fantasy question. Why don’t you consider a minimum wage of $4/hr. since they will be able to hire more people? All people are saying is that if the Aussie’s can do it why can’t the states? 12/hr. is what the Aussie’s make when other factors are considered. Why can’t this be offered in the states?
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Some of the cost will be passed on to the consumer and some ought to be passed on to McDonalds.[/quote]
That’s all I get. A one sentence answer.
So, some get’s passed to the consumer, which means cost of living goes up, which means_________?
So, some get’s paid by McDonald, which operates on a tight margin, which mean_________for the people employed?[/quote]
So some people will now have more money to spend which creates demand due to the increased spending which means_______________?[/quote]
They will spend more on the same goods they normally buy, ie a $2 hamburger that use to be $1.[/quote]
Wrong answer. It means they have more money to spend which creates demand which creates more jobs a side the right-wingers never mention.
[/quote]
Lol, okay Zep.
If that were true why not make minimum wage $100 an hour? That would give those making minimum wage more money to spend, which would increase demand, which would both grow the economy and increase job availability, right?
What you fail to consider is the VALUE of their dollar. It doesn’t matter if minimum wage is $1,000 an hour if milk cost $5,000 a gallon.
[/quote]
Yep. I challenged Dudley Do-Wrong awhile back to address my $48 an hour proposal. He picked up his toys, left the sandbox and went straight home.
Dudley, answer the fucking question: why shouldn’t we impose a $48 an hour minimum wage? It should do everything you’re insisting a higher minimum wage should do and more.
So why?[/quote]
Answered your dumb-ass question below to some person who was asking why don’t we offer$100/hr. No one is advocating for this ridiculous amount but you fail to answer why the Aussie’s can do it and we can’t?[/quote]
It’s not a dumbass question. $48 is a decent middle-class living wage not a “ridiculous amount.” It works out to just under $100k annually. Why would you oppose it? I’m offended.[/quote]
Since no one is advocating this it is a dumb-ass fantasy question. Why don’t you consider a minimum wage of $4/hr. since they will be able to hire more people? All people are saying is that if the Aussie’s can do it why can’t the states? 12/hr. is what the Aussie’s make when other factors are considered. Why can’t this be offered in the states?[/quote]
Why should it be?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]theBird wrote:
I didn’t read the whole thread, but something else for you all to consider is that Australia have had a “booming mining period” recently and that may be the reason we had dodged the recession.
On the topic of minimal wage it is also important to note that in Australia we don’t tip at all. So a higher minimal wage is most probably required.
Disclaimer: I am not an economist.
tweet[/quote]
Don’t worry Bird, someone brought it up. It was just ignored. [/quote]
The overall theory is that if you raise minimum wage you will destroy jobs. This is what we are told time and time again in this country. There is no stipulation for an increased economy. These fools on here would have the same argument if this was the 90’s and we had a boom in the tech sector. “Can’t raise the minimum wage because we will loose jobs”. And tipped employees are not the reason why the Aussie’s have a higher minimum wage and it really would have nothing to do with the argument anyway.
[/quote]
How does a boom in the tech industry relate to minimum wage? Are guys in Silicon Valley making $7.25/hr?
[/quote]
The same way a boom in the mining industry does…
[/quote]
And that would be? [/quote]
The mining boom is a defense as to why the Aussie’s were able to steer clear of the recession and to why the higher wage can be paid.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]theBird wrote:
I didn’t read the whole thread, but something else for you all to consider is that Australia have had a “booming mining period” recently and that may be the reason we had dodged the recession.
On the topic of minimal wage it is also important to note that in Australia we don’t tip at all. So a higher minimal wage is most probably required.
Disclaimer: I am not an economist.
tweet[/quote]
Don’t worry Bird, someone brought it up. It was just ignored. [/quote]
The overall theory is that if you raise minimum wage you will destroy jobs. This is what we are told time and time again in this country. There is no stipulation for an increased economy. These fools on here would have the same argument if this was the 90’s and we had a boom in the tech sector. “Can’t raise the minimum wage because we will loose jobs”. And tipped employees are not the reason why the Aussie’s have a higher minimum wage and it really would have nothing to do with the argument anyway.
[/quote]
How does a boom in the tech industry relate to minimum wage? Are guys in Silicon Valley making $7.25/hr?
[/quote]
The same way a boom in the mining industry does…
[/quote]
And that would be? [/quote]
The mining boom is a defense as to why the Aussie’s were able to steer clear of the recession and to why the higher wage can be paid.[/quote]
It is a defense as to how they avoided the recession.
It does not explain how thay can pay a $16 minimum wage. Do miners make minimum wage? If they do, what happens when the boom ends?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Some of the cost will be passed on to the consumer and some ought to be passed on to McDonalds.[/quote]
That’s all I get. A one sentence answer.
So, some get’s passed to the consumer, which means cost of living goes up, which means_________?
So, some get’s paid by McDonald, which operates on a tight margin, which mean_________for the people employed?[/quote]
So some people will now have more money to spend which creates demand due to the increased spending which means_______________?[/quote]
They will spend more on the same goods they normally buy, ie a $2 hamburger that use to be $1.[/quote]
Wrong answer. It means they have more money to spend which creates demand which creates more jobs a side the right-wingers never mention.
[/quote]
Lol, okay Zep.
If that were true why not make minimum wage $100 an hour? That would give those making minimum wage more money to spend, which would increase demand, which would both grow the economy and increase job availability, right?
What you fail to consider is the VALUE of their dollar. It doesn’t matter if minimum wage is $1,000 an hour if milk cost $5,000 a gallon.
[/quote]
Yep. I challenged Dudley Do-Wrong awhile back to address my $48 an hour proposal. He picked up his toys, left the sandbox and went straight home.
Dudley, answer the fucking question: why shouldn’t we impose a $48 an hour minimum wage? It should do everything you’re insisting a higher minimum wage should do and more.
So why?[/quote]
Answered your dumb-ass question below to some person who was asking why don’t we offer$100/hr. No one is advocating for this ridiculous amount but you fail to answer why the Aussie’s can do it and we can’t?[/quote]
It’s not a dumbass question. $48 is a decent middle-class living wage not a “ridiculous amount.” It works out to just under $100k annually. Why would you oppose it? I’m offended.[/quote]
Since no one is advocating this it is a dumb-ass fantasy question. Why don’t you consider a minimum wage of $4/hr. since they will be able to hire more people? All people are saying is that if the Aussie’s can do it why can’t the states? 12/hr. is what the Aussie’s make when other factors are considered. Why can’t this be offered in the states?[/quote]
Why should it be?[/quote]
Why should the CEO in this country make 500 times the amount of it’s average worker. Why shouldn’t wage be tied with productivity? People ought to be paid a wage where their life is made more comfortable and they do not have to worry about putting food on the table and being forced into bankruptcy because they get sick.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]theBird wrote:
I didn’t read the whole thread, but something else for you all to consider is that Australia have had a “booming mining period” recently and that may be the reason we had dodged the recession.
On the topic of minimal wage it is also important to note that in Australia we don’t tip at all. So a higher minimal wage is most probably required.
Disclaimer: I am not an economist.
tweet[/quote]
Don’t worry Bird, someone brought it up. It was just ignored. [/quote]
The overall theory is that if you raise minimum wage you will destroy jobs. This is what we are told time and time again in this country. There is no stipulation for an increased economy. These fools on here would have the same argument if this was the 90’s and we had a boom in the tech sector. “Can’t raise the minimum wage because we will loose jobs”. And tipped employees are not the reason why the Aussie’s have a higher minimum wage and it really would have nothing to do with the argument anyway.
[/quote]
How does a boom in the tech industry relate to minimum wage? Are guys in Silicon Valley making $7.25/hr?
[/quote]
The same way a boom in the mining industry does…
[/quote]
And that would be? [/quote]
The mining boom is a defense as to why the Aussie’s were able to steer clear of the recession and to why the higher wage can be paid.[/quote]
It is a defense as to how they avoided the recession.
It does not explain how thay can pay a $16 minimum wage. Do miners make minimum wage? If they do, what happens when the boom ends? [/quote]
It has been used as a defense for both on this thread. I do not know what miners in Australia make but I’d wager it is above minimum wage.
You explain to me how Australia can pay higher wages than the U.S. and not have a net loss in jobs? They are proving it can be done as they are doing it.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
All people are saying is that if the Aussie’s can do it why can’t the states? [/quote]
Post after post answering this question and you continue to ignore that and just keep asking it over and over.
lol
Also, loose v lose.
Big pants fit loose, and you lose games.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Some of the cost will be passed on to the consumer and some ought to be passed on to McDonalds.[/quote]
That’s all I get. A one sentence answer.
So, some get’s passed to the consumer, which means cost of living goes up, which means_________?
So, some get’s paid by McDonald, which operates on a tight margin, which mean_________for the people employed?[/quote]
So some people will now have more money to spend which creates demand due to the increased spending which means_______________?[/quote]
They will spend more on the same goods they normally buy, ie a $2 hamburger that use to be $1.[/quote]
Wrong answer. It means they have more money to spend which creates demand which creates more jobs a side the right-wingers never mention.
[/quote]
Lol, okay Zep.
If that were true why not make minimum wage $100 an hour? That would give those making minimum wage more money to spend, which would increase demand, which would both grow the economy and increase job availability, right?
What you fail to consider is the VALUE of their dollar. It doesn’t matter if minimum wage is $1,000 an hour if milk cost $5,000 a gallon.
[/quote]
Yep. I challenged Dudley Do-Wrong awhile back to address my $48 an hour proposal. He picked up his toys, left the sandbox and went straight home.
Dudley, answer the fucking question: why shouldn’t we impose a $48 an hour minimum wage? It should do everything you’re insisting a higher minimum wage should do and more.
So why?[/quote]
Answered your dumb-ass question below to some person who was asking why don’t we offer$100/hr. No one is advocating for this ridiculous amount but you fail to answer why the Aussie’s can do it and we can’t?[/quote]
It’s not a dumbass question. $48 is a decent middle-class living wage not a “ridiculous amount.” It works out to just under $100k annually. Why would you oppose it? I’m offended.[/quote]
Since no one is advocating this it is a dumb-ass fantasy question. Why don’t you consider a minimum wage of $4/hr. since they will be able to hire more people? All people are saying is that if the Aussie’s can do it why can’t the states? 12/hr. is what the Aussie’s make when other factors are considered. Why can’t this be offered in the states?[/quote]
Why should it be?[/quote]
Why should the CEO in this country make 500 times the amount of it’s average worker. Why shouldn’t wage be tied with productivity? People ought to be paid a wage where their life is made more comfortable and they do not have to worry about putting food on the table and being forced into bankruptcy because they get sick.[/quote]
A CEO is 100x more valuable than the average (read replaceable) employee. It’s harsh, but true. Which is why his/her value is far greater.
It’s been established folks can live off minimum wage. It’s not pretty, but it can be done. Earn a better living, novel concept I know.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Why should the CEO in this country make 500 times the amount of it’s average worker.[/quote]
Because they do a job take requires 500 time more the skill, knowledge and intuition than the average worker.
It is.
Hey, I agree. Except I think people should earn this wage, not have it handed to them from the government. Because in order for the government to hand it to them, they have to steal it from someone else.