Quote from: Supposn on April 01, 2014, 08:58:25 PMI've been barred from few political forums.  I appreciate that it less occurs in conservative rather than liberal forums.  For all of their liberality, they're less tolerant of different opinions or logical conclusions. 

As a libertarian, I can certainly agree this is true.  It's certainly a credit to a liberal that you recognize it, liberals seldom do.  They believe intolerance is only when liberal views are in any way limited.

Quote from: Supposn on April 01, 2014, 08:58:25 PMYour conclusion that I'm a socialist is nonsense

Is it?  Think about it, you think that it's a right of government to step between a worker and a job and determine whether ... government ... thinks the wage is acceptable.  You actually believe government with the force of guns should prevent people not worth an arbitrary wage from getting a job.  How could you describe anyone who believes in that absolute power over employers and citizens other than "socialist?"

I will get back to more of your points. 

Supposn - so let's say an employer is willing to hire "Steve" for $5 an hour, and Steve wants to take the job.   However, government comes in with guns on your behalf because you believe you make better choices in Steve's life than he does and prevents Steve from taking the job.  In your mind, what happens now?

A) The employer says gosh, shucks, I tried, but I'll pay Steve $7.25 an hour since that's what Supposn says he's worth.  I would have (twirls his mustache with his finger), but I tried.  For this to work, do you really believe workers are like socket wrenches?  They are all the same?  Or do you realize they are different?  Which means...

B) The employer doesn't hire Steve.  He hires Fred who is worth $7.25 an hour since he is forced to pay that.  Steve was worth $5 to him, but not $7.25.

C) The employer will figure out an alternative such as hiring Steve, but only part time and firing him immediately if there are any issues, hire fewer Steves, look to ways to automate and streamline and not hire anyone, outsource the work...

Answer:  Either B or C is correct, both will be done by different employers.  What they will not do is "A."  Which means you prevented Steve from getting a job.  Can you give an actual content answer to this point?

Kaz, your narration within post #46 concerns are limited to Steve and his prospective employer.  The nation's entire population and economy are or should be governments' concern.

When the federal minimum wage rate is permitted to lag behind the U.S. dollar's purchasing power, our nation's rate of poverty and our median wage's purchasing power are reduced more than otherwise.

The federal minimum wage rates affect is not limited to only those wage rates subject to the laws or to only those earning the specific minimum rate.  The FMW rate does not affect all wage scales equally but it does affect ALL USA wage scales.

My observation is the extent of the FMW's effect upon wage scales is inversely related to aggregate individual USA wage scales' amounts and its function is to decrease the negotiating disadvantage of lower income job applicants and employees.
Only those that do not care to look and consider, or believe enterprises should be of greater, and people of lesser government concern, would perceive or believe otherwise.

Beyond wages that were legally mandated to be increased, I have additionally perceived this minimum wage rates' bolstering of other wage scales being generally adopted by even the smallest of commercial enterprises.  I was born over 77 years ago.
Due to the FMW laws, no wage scale is reduced and none is legally mandated to be increased beyond that rate.
Mandated economic regulations similar to health and safety mandated government regulations are enacted for the population's net benefit.  If an enterprise cannot comply with those regulations and remain viable, it is to the sovereignty's net benefit that those enterprises are permitted to perish.

Unlike some extremists that believe they're promoting conservative principles, I believe that people rather than enterprises should be government's greater priority of concerns.
   
Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Kaz on April 07, 2014, 07:58:30 AM
Supposn - so let's say an employer is willing to hire "Steve" for $5 an hour, and Steve wants to take the job.   However, government comes in with guns on your behalf because you believe you make better choices in Steve's life than he does and prevents Steve from taking the job.  In your mind, what happens now?

A) The employer says gosh, shucks, I tried, but I'll pay Steve $7.25 an hour since that's what Supposn says he's worth.  I would have (twirls his mustache with his finger), but I tried.  For this to work, do you really believe workers are like socket wrenches?  They are all the same?  Or do you realize they are different?  Which means...

B) The employer doesn't hire Steve.  He hires Fred who is worth $7.25 an hour since he is forced to pay that.  Steve was worth $5 to him, but not $7.25.

C) The employer will figure out an alternative such as hiring Steve, but only part time and firing him immediately if there are any issues, hire fewer Steves, look to ways to automate and streamline and not hire anyone, outsource the work...

Answer:  Either B or C is correct, both will be done by different employers.  What they will not do is "A."  Which means you prevented Steve from getting a job.  Can you give an actual content answer to this point?

Kaz, actually in many instances employers do choose your Alterative (A)).
I'm very much aware of employers who are paying more than the $7.25/Hr. federal minimum wage for tasks that they do not believe justify the minimum rate.

For example consider those cleaning toilets.  Regardless of employers' opinions regarding the cost of having their toilets cleaned under federal minimum wage laws, we all in aggregate pay the price because the alternative of dirty toilets are more costly and/or less profitable and/or unacceptable.

The consequences of permitting our minimum rate's purchasing power to decrease (has always been to a grater extent than otherwise), greater poverty, lesser median wage's purchasing power and lesser economic well being.

If we were to eliminate the FMW laws and not replace them with something that would perform their function in a superior manner, it would be to our nation's net social and economic detriment.

I'm among the proponents of the FMW rate being annually adjusted to stay abreast with the cost/price index.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on April 11, 2014, 01:13:50 PM
Kaz, your narration within post #46 concerns are limited to Steve and his prospective employer.  The nation's entire population and economy are or should be governments' concern.

When the federal minimum wage rate is permitted to lag behind the U.S. dollar's purchasing power, our nation's rate of poverty and our median wage's purchasing power are reduced more than otherwise.

The federal minimum wage rates affect is not limited to only those wage rates subject to the laws or to only those earning the specific minimum rate.  The FMW rate does not affect all wage scales equally but it does affect ALL USA wage scales.

My observation is the extent of the FMW's effect upon wage scales is inversely related to aggregate individual USA wage scales' amounts and its function is to decrease the negotiating disadvantage of lower income job applicants and employees.
Only those that do not care to look and consider, or believe enterprises should be of greater, and people of lesser government concern, would perceive or believe otherwise.

Beyond wages that were legally mandated to be increased, I have additionally perceived this minimum wage rates' bolstering of other wage scales being generally adopted by even the smallest of commercial enterprises.  I was born over 77 years ago.
Due to the FMW laws, no wage scale is reduced and none is legally mandated to be increased beyond that rate.
Mandated economic regulations similar to health and safety mandated government regulations are enacted for the population's net benefit.  If an enterprise cannot comply with those regulations and remain viable, it is to the sovereignty's net benefit that those enterprises are permitted to perish.

Unlike some extremists that believe they're promoting conservative principles, I believe that people rather than enterprises should be government's greater priority of concerns.
   
Respectfully, Supposn

"When the federal minimum wage rate is permitted to lag behind the U.S. dollar's purchasing power, our nation's rate of poverty and our median wage's purchasing power are reduced more than otherwise."

The above sentence indicates a true lack of understanding of the issue. When the minimum wage is raised it is a wash on purchasing power as prices will increase accordingly by businesses to offset their increased costs. Also, it causes a drop in employment due to increased costs. Clearly those people who lose jobs or don't get hired because of the increased minimum wage certainly have their purchasing power decreased.

Quote from: supsalemgr on April 11, 2014, 02:27:22 PM
"When the federal minimum wage rate is permitted to lag behind the U.S. dollar's purchasing power, our nation's rate of poverty and our median wage's purchasing power are reduced more than otherwise."

The above sentence indicates a true lack of understanding of the issue. When the minimum wage is raised it is a wash on purchasing power as prices will increase accordingly ... ".

SupSaleMgr, your post ignores some obvious logical truths.

To some extent some portion of a product's increased price maybe attributable to other than increased direct and/or indirect labor costs.
The minimum wage rate does not affect all wage rates equally; it affects lesser wage rates more and greater wage rates less.

To the extent that aggregate product price increases are not entirely due to wage rates and they are not entirely due to the increased lower wage rates, and they are not entirely due to the increase of the federal minimum wage rate, the proportional increases of aggregate product prices attributable to increases of the federal minimum wage are proportionally less than the increase of the minimum wage.

Your statement "When the minimum wage is raised it is a wash on purchasing power as prices will increase accordingly" is incorrect.  It logically is not "a wash".

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on April 11, 2014, 08:30:34 PM
SupSaleMgr, your post ignores some obvious logical truths.

To some extent some portion of a product's increased price maybe attributable to other than increased direct and/or indirect labor costs.
The minimum wage rate does not affect all wage rates equally; it affects lesser wage rates more and greater wage rates less.

To the extent that aggregate product price increases are not entirely due to wage rates and they are not entirely due to the increased lower wage rates, and they are not entirely due to the increase of the federal minimum wage rate, the proportional increases of aggregate product prices attributable to increases of the federal minimum wage are proportionally less than the increase of the minimum wage.

Your statement "When the minimum wage is raised it is a wash on purchasing power as prices will increase accordingly" is incorrect.  It logically is not "a wash".

Respectfully, Supposn

One more post where you don't make a serious point, you're gone.  This is a real topic, and if you don't have the intellect to discuss it, then you are of no value.

Quote from: taxed on April 11, 2014, 08:33:59 PM
One more post where you don't make a serious point, you're gone.  This is a real topic, and if you don't have the intellect to discuss it, then you are of no value.

Don't you love when these idiots that have absolutely no business experience, let alone ever worked with payroll, try and tell us business owners/experts how the economy works?
Damn this shit pisses me off, he hasn't a fuckin clue what he's yammering on about.

Quote from: Solar on April 11, 2014, 08:39:50 PM
Don't you love when these idiots that have absolutely no business experience, let alone ever worked with payroll, try and tell us business owners/experts how the economy works?
Damn this shit pisses me off, he hasn't a fuckin clue what he's yammering on about.

He has no respect for labor, and not even remotely close on being able to comprehend basic economics.  Humans wanting to exchange with other humans is as basic as eating and breathing.  No wonder they have no clue.

Quote from: Solar on April 11, 2014, 08:39:50 PM
Don't you love when these idiots that have absolutely no business experience, let alone ever worked with payroll, try and tell us business owners/experts how the economy works?
Damn this shit pisses me off, he hasn't a fuckin clue what he's yammering on about.

I believe it is called hollow head syndrome. 

Quote from: taxed on April 11, 2014, 08:58:32 PM
He has no respect for labor, and not even remotely close on being able to comprehend basic economics.  Humans wanting to exchange with other humans is as basic as eating and breathing.  No wonder they have no clue.

They think the govt is some magical beast that can micromanage the economy.
Yeah, that and Unicorn farts are a cure for cancer.

Quote from: Solar on April 11, 2014, 09:15:30 PM
They think the govt is some magical beast that can micromanage the economy.
Yeah, that and Unicorn farts are a cure for cancer.

Only a stupid moron can clutch to a fallacy that just raising wages boosts an economy.  Labor is a cost of doing business, and a supply of a skill set has value to someone with the demand for that labor, and has money willing to trade for it.  How hard is that to grasp?  I really get annoyed at these morons because I see them preaching their stupidity to younger people who may not have the life skills yet, much like Marxist professors do to their students, because their idiocy is slapped down by the skilled producers who know better.

Quote from: taxed on April 11, 2014, 09:44:04 PM
Only a stupid moron can clutch to a fallacy that just raising wages boosts an economy.  Labor is a cost of doing business, and a supply of a skill set has value to someone with the demand for that labor, and has money willing to trade for it.  How hard is that to grasp?  I really get annoyed at these morons because I see them preaching their stupidity to younger people who may not have the life skills yet, much like Marxist professors do to their students, because their idiocy is slapped down by the skilled producers who know better.

They believe Keynes ideas of a National Socialists micromanagement of economies, in that govt spending in a down turned economy will lead to recovery, or simply raising the wage of the lowest paid employee across the board has no ripple effect in the economy in the negative.
After all, it's only a few dollars per hour. Times a million, and these idiots only think of their local 7-11 employee, rather than an entire Nation that will have to deal with the rubber band effect on the economy, or the poor kid looking to enter the job mkt, that can't find work because no one wants to pay an unskilled laborer $20 an hour only to find out he's not fitted for that particular job.

I digress, how is it Keynes is even taken seriously, when he never once took into consideration debt, when making his stupid claims?
If his idea applied in the real world of govt deficit spending in a recession, claiming to effect an economy in the positive, why then didn't it work the same during good times?
Answer, it doesn't, which is why we have a severe deficit and a bubble economy on the verge of implosion.

Point is, these people think govt is the end all to everything, and that business is evil and needs reigned in or it might actually work.

Quote from: Solar on April 11, 2014, 08:39:50 PM
Don't you love when these idiots that have absolutely no business experience, let alone ever worked with payroll, try and tell us business owners/experts how the economy works?
Damn this shit pisses me off, he hasn't a fuckin clue what he's yammering on about.

Yep, employees are socket wrenches, one is interchangeable with another.   Employers just pay more if it's in government's interest.  Oh, and he's not a socialist.

I'm an employer, have bought 5 businesses over the last five years.  I spun two back off and merged the other three.  What he as "observed" is based on the Marxist fantasy land in his and his Marxist Democrat bretheren's heads.   I read all his spiels, and I can't find anything to state because it's all just delusional.

Everyone is best served by a free market other than government and those government provides direct power to because onlly government can use force to compel people or companies to make choices that are not in their best interest.

Quote from: Kaz on April 12, 2014, 07:28:59 AM
Yep, employees are socket wrenches, one is interchangeable with another.   Employers just pay more if it's in government's interest.  Oh, and he's not a socialist.

I'm an employer, have bought 5 businesses over the last five years.  I spun two back off and merged the other three.  What he as "observed" is based on the Marxist fantasy land in his and his Marxist Democrat bretheren's heads.   I read all his spiels, and I can't find anything to state because it's all just delusional.

Everyone is best served by a free market other than government and those government provides direct power to because onlly government can use force to compel people or companies to make choices that are not in their best interest.

Correct, he is touting Marxist ideals, I was just trying to be polite.

Like you, I too have been in business nearly all my working life having started and sold several over the decades, and every time govt interfered and raised the min wage, I had to let someone go.
The end result was devastating towards production as a whole, not to mention the loss of jobs around the country.
One thing I've learned in all those years, was that it was better to create a company that didn't require hiring employees, which allowed me an early retirement more than 15 years ago.