By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Chicago politicians want to make our minimum wage 10 dollars an hour!

Max King of the Wild said:

Marks said:
Lol between Chicago's ridiculous gun control (or lack thereof) and now this...I'd hate to be an inner city Chicago citizen. No jobs and higher crime are in Chicago's future :S




Thumbs up for this my man. It's almost comical how useless police are at actually preventing crime and saving lives. Like I'm not insulting policemen here, just the police system in general. 



Around the Network

Yay!!! Another raise in the base cost of goods and services and higher unemployment numbers for the unskilled and minorities! I know I'm excited! How about you?

 

 

 

... People are so stupid. The MW is a lie, if minimum wages worked why not make it $30/hr.? That at least is a "living" wage. Or how about $100/hr.?



Marks said:
Max King of the Wild said:

 

Marks said:
Lol between Chicago's ridiculous gun control (or lack thereof) and now this...I'd hate to be an inner city Chicago citizen. No jobs and higher crime are in Chicago's future :S

 


Thumbs up for this my man. It's almost comical how useless police are at actually preventing crime and saving lives. Like I'm not insulting policemen here, just the police system in general. 

Yeah, Chicago is all kinds of screwed up right now. Their police force is thined out way too much due to the high violence yet city officials are still claiming to have plans in dealing with it and that they can handle it.



Max King of the Wild said:

Yeah, Chicago is all kinds of screwed up right now. Their police force is thined out way too much due to the high violence yet city officials are still claiming to have plans in dealing with it and that they can handle it.

Every single day I have some new reason to be glad not to live there anymore.



Aielyn said:
badgenome said:
Aielyn said:

It's better that the people who are working make enough money from their work to live on.

And how much money it takes for a wage to be livable it determined by the economy. Whatever moderate impact a small raise might have on the life of someone who makes minimum wage will be offset by the rise in the cost of living that results from the rise of the cost of labor. You can't simply legislate everyone out of wage slavery.

Aielyn said:

The suggestion that a company will be unable to employ as many people if they're forced to pay $10 an hour is just absurd. If companies do lay people off because of the raise in the minimum wage, then the fault lies with those companies - either their business model relies on paying peanuts to workers, or their business is poorly structured to begin with, or they're just plain greedy.

No one suggested that a company will be absolutely unable to employ as many people. Although some are bound to be unable to do so, it doesn't really matter which of the reasons you listed (or didn't list) are at play. It's merely a fact of life that unemployment will go up and it will be even harder for younger, less experienced workers to find jobs than it already is, and crying about greed isn't going to change this simple fact.

Aielyn said:

Also keep in mind that, by raising the minimum wage, you increase the ability of such employees to pay for things that aren't utter necessities, thus boosting the economy further, resulting in greater revenue, which enables companies to employ more workers.

You also destroy earning power by making things cost more, so how much of an economic boost there really is is, at the very least, highly debatable. Especially since most people already make more than minimum wage, so they won't be getting a raise even as you're now driving up the cost of living.

Aielyn said:

The black-and-white attitude of so many people to such complex issues bugs the hell out of me. The world isn't so black-and-white, so linear. There is an optimum minimum wage value - it's some value that will maximise the results for everyone. Set it lower, and companies might be able to hire more workers, but those workers will be worse off, dragging down the economy. Set it higher, and it starts to negatively impact companies' bottom lines even after factoring in economic impacts.

And who decides that $10/hour or whatever is "optimal"? As always, the market decides this stuff way better than politicians, who are always hellbent on trying to fit a round peg into a square hole for political gain and/or to fit their ignorant worldviews.

You seem to think strong economy = higher prices. It doesn't have to work that way.

In a lot of cases, the limiting factor isn't supply, but demand. If more people have more disposable income, it allows them to buy more things, which increases demand for those things, which in many cases simply means more profit due to more sales for the company that makes those things. And if demand increases, companies can either increase supply or increase price. Increasing price will of course price out the very people that were able to afford it anyway, so increasing supply enables them to meet the demand and make the same profit. And to increase supply, they need to hire more people.

As for the idea that the market is a better way to determine this stuff - don't make me laugh. You clearly don't comprehend economics even to a mild degree if you think that the employment market is one that works well in that way. There is always more supply than demand in the employment market - you'll never have zero unemployment. As a result, companies are at the advantage, able to lower pay further and further. Since the difference between paying people just enough to survive and paying people less than enough to survive is zero as far as demand is concerned, and people being paid less need more hours to survive, the result is actually LESS employment.

The market is in no way a good method of controlling this sort of thing. Ever heard of the Prisoner's Dilemma? It applies in economics constantly - the optimal value isn't found, the nash equilibrium is found. And in most cases, unless you apply restrictions, the nash equilibrium is very different from the optimum. In the case of Prisoner's Dilemma, despite the fact that both prisoners cooperating is the optimal result, each prisoner gets a better result by defecting, and the result is one that is less optimal for both.

The government plays the role of the regulator. They provide ways to circumvent these sorts of problems. The minimum wage is one such control - in this case, a minimum wage set around the real optimum will provide the best net result for everybody, for multiple reasons.

Note that Australia has a minimum wage 50% higher than the one being discussed here. Unemployment in America is 7.6%, Australia's is 5.4%. Note that Australia also has much more generous unemployment benefits (which require you to continue looking for a job) that don't expire after a certain amount of time, so it's not because fewer people stay in the job market.

Wow 5.4%!!!! That's an amazing number isn't it!?? Well it is until you look at the actual participation rate which sits at a solid 65%. In real numbers that is around 7.7 million out of 22+ million Adult Aussies not working!!! Thats a real unemployment rate of oh about 35%! While that is slightly better than the US (by like 1.2%) it still isn't something you should really be bragging about. So your politicians meddling in the organic economy works about as well as ours does. Which is to say it doesn't work... AT ALL! 

The minimum wage is a feel good measure that, forces companies to hire fewer workers, raise the prices of goods and services and does nothing to fix living standards etc. In fact it has been the reason we here in America see much higher unemployment and more poverty for most minorities, who historically have been willing to work for less. If governments would butt the hell out of the organic economy and let it work like it is supposed to things would be much better. All this price fixing, minimum wages, carving out of territories etc. is why people cannot find work.



Around the Network

You lot complain about the minimum wage, but how would you like to slave around for your favourite corporations for 12 hours a day and get maybe $1 at the end of it all? The bigger companies at least are just very greedy, they moan about the minimum wage and having to give benefits like health insurance, but it's too benefit you the worker. A higher minimum wage is a terrible excuse to lay off workers, especially when you make massive profits like many companies do. Unfortunately these greedy bastards use stuff like the minimum wage as an excuse to outsource there work to India and China, shame on them! Obviously, it's harder on smaller business but still.



Xbox Series, PS5 and Switch (+ Many Retro Consoles)

'When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the people's stick'- Mikhail Bakunin

Prediction: Switch 2 will outsell the PS5 by 2030

the2real4mafol said:
You lot complain about the minimum wage, but how would you like to slave around for your favourite corporations for 12 hours a day and get maybe $1 at the end of it all? The bigger companies at least are just very greedy, they moan about the minimum wage and having to give benefits like health insurance, but it's too benefit you the worker. A higher minimum wage is a terrible excuse to lay off workers, especially when you make massive profits like many companies do. Unfortunately these greedy bastards use stuff like the minimum wage as an excuse to outsource there work to India and China, shame on them! Obviously, it's harder on smaller business but still.

Well I do work 12 hours a day (I'm a nurse for a corporate health network) and when I was in the military I worked probably 12-14 hours a day and when you figured it out to hourly wages it was very low (less than minimum wage) and I lived just fine. If I am not paid what I need or am worth I take my talents else where.  I know I don't need any union or government to argue for my worth. In fact I believe I am more skilled and worth more pay than many of those with whom I am employed and should be allowed to negotiate for my pay. Unfortunately due to union rules etc. I can't even negotiate for my pay. I MUST take the pay rate assigned to me (secondary/tertiary consequence of unionization).

If you think greed has nothing to do with the minimum wage on the part of politicians and the labor force you are mistaken. Greed is universal my friend. So that is a wash. What it comes down to is the unintended consequences of actions with thought. Most people only think of the primary consequence of an action in the case of minimum wage it would be on the surface higher pay for the worker. Well "that's the point" you'll say. But when you look at secondary and even tertiary effects you see that the minimum wage causes higher prices and fewer workers hired. And it doesn't stop there.

If your costs went up and you weren't expecting an up-tick in extra income how would you manage? You would cut costs. You'd fire the gardener, or the nanny, shut off your gamefly account or trim back your grocery bill. All of those actions cut the income of other people. So with your POV you are being greedy since you are now cutting the income of others. Don't you see the relationship? Its the same for businesses, large and small.

Labor is the single largest cost of ANY business. Medical benefits is right up there and then there are the other costs involved. Then there is the cost of marketing, advertising, navigating regulations and compliance etc. etc. etc. For many businesses yes a slight raise in labor costs can have a large effect on business. I'm not saying companies are benevolent because they aren't they want your money and they want you to spend it on them. But to say only they are capable of greed is ignorant.

You have a simplistic view of business (probably because you don't understand it) in that you believe they have massive profits. Yes many large corporations DO have a lot of money. They have a lot of money because they supply goods and services that a lot of people use or consume. Most of them operate of very thin profit margins however. Not to mention many of these companies need to amass large amounts of capital to be able to weather down years and/or increased costs etc. Look at SONY for an example if they didn't have a lot of capital how could they continue to run after losing billions? Most companies would fold after losing just thousands. Which leads to fewer jobs.



All raising the minimum wage does is raise the cost of employment for businesses. When the cost of employment goes up, so too does the cost of everything we buy. Its common sense, really. If a bag of chips cost you 1/100th of your paycheck now while working minimum wage, it will most likely cost you 1/100th of your paycheck after the change in minimum wage, since the bag of chips will just cost more.



Money can't buy happiness. Just video games, which make me happy.

-CraZed- said:
the2real4mafol said:
You lot complain about the minimum wage, but how would you like to slave around for your favourite corporations for 12 hours a day and get maybe $1 at the end of it all? The bigger companies at least are just very greedy, they moan about the minimum wage and having to give benefits like health insurance, but it's too benefit you the worker. A higher minimum wage is a terrible excuse to lay off workers, especially when you make massive profits like many companies do. Unfortunately these greedy bastards use stuff like the minimum wage as an excuse to outsource there work to India and China, shame on them! Obviously, it's harder on smaller business but still.

Well I do work 12 hours a day (I'm a nurse for a corporate health network) and when I was in the military I worked probably 12-14 hours a day and when you figured it out to hourly wages it was very low (less than minimum wage) and I lived just fine. If I am not paid what I need or am worth I take my talents else where.  I know I don't need any union or government to argue for my worth. In fact I believe I am more skilled and worth more pay than many of those with whom I am employed and should be allowed to negotiate for my pay. Unfortunately due to union rules etc. I can't even negotiate for my pay. I MUST take the pay rate assigned to me (secondary/tertiary consequence of unionization).

If you think greed has nothing to do with the minimum wage on the part of politicians and the labor force you are mistaken. Greed is universal my friend. So that is a wash. What it comes down to is the unintended consequences of actions with thought. Most people only think of the primary consequence of an action in the case of minimum wage it would be on the surface higher pay for the worker. Well "that's the point" you'll say. But when you look at secondary and even tertiary effects you see that the minimum wage causes higher prices and fewer workers hired. And it doesn't stop there.

If your costs went up and you weren't expecting an up-tick in extra income how would you manage? You would cut costs. You'd fire the gardener, or the nanny, shut off your gamefly account or trim back your grocery bill. All of those actions cut the income of other people. So with your POV you are being greedy since you are now cutting the income of others. Don't you see the relationship? Its the same for businesses, large and small.

Labor is the single largest cost of ANY business. Medical benefits is right up there and then there are the other costs involved. Then there is the cost of marketing, advertising, navigating regulations and compliance etc. etc. etc. For many businesses yes a slight raise in labor costs can have a large effect on business. I'm not saying companies are benevolent because they aren't they want your money and they want you to spend it on them. But to say only they are capable of greed is ignorant.

You have a simplistic view of business (probably because you don't understand it) in that you believe they have massive profits. Yes many large corporations DO have a lot of money. They have a lot of money because they supply goods and services that a lot of people use or consume. Most of them operate of very thin profit margins however. Not to mention many of these companies need to amass large amounts of capital to be able to weather down years and/or increased costs etc. Look at SONY for an example if they didn't have a lot of capital how could they continue to run after losing billions? Most companies would fold after losing just thousands. Which leads to fewer jobs.

I just don't like how workers are exploited in developing countries. They risk there lives to work in filthy workhouses and factories to make goods for us, that we want, but don't need. And then all they get for there efforts is barely enough money to feed and cloth there own families in there little shacks. A completely free market damages (India proves it, with it's massive slums) society as wealth disparity increases and poverty increases, some regulations are needed to ensure workers can get a half decent wage and work in a safe environment and actually reasonable working hours (8 hours a day) to give them and their families a decent chance at success in life. Poverty is a trap and the free market does nothing to help fix that problem. And you expect to individually negiotiate your salary? good luck with that!

Without a minimum wage, business' pay as little as they like to maximise profits at the expense of everyone else. Obviously, with increases in the minimum wage there is a risk that inflation becomes higher, but surely if people have a liveable wage, they can buy more which will help the economy anyway. And as for worker benefits, in a country where everything is privatised, you seriously need these benefits. Stuff like private healthcare is very expensive, companies can afford to cover it. Government is just trying to have a minimum quality of life for it's citizens, although this has failed since the economy went stale and unemployment went up.

I admit sony is doing badly, but that's more to do with there bad business decisions over the years than increasing labour costs. I'm sure any other company, like Nike could make it's trainers in America or europe and it would still have profits, albeit less.

But If you think that government involvement should be minimal in the economy, then at least look at the German mittelstand model before dismissing it.

http://www.economist.com/news/business/21564898-envy-germany%E2%80%99s-medium-sized-family-firms-sparks-desire-emulate-them



Xbox Series, PS5 and Switch (+ Many Retro Consoles)

'When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the people's stick'- Mikhail Bakunin

Prediction: Switch 2 will outsell the PS5 by 2030

Baalzamon said:

All raising the minimum wage does is raise the cost of employment for businesses. When the cost of employment goes up, so too does the cost of everything we buy. Its common sense, really. If a bag of chips cost you 1/100th of your paycheck now while working minimum wage, it will most likely cost you 1/100th of your paycheck after the change in minimum wage, since the bag of chips will just cost more.

What if inflation is higher than the wages increases in the first place? Which is often the case



Xbox Series, PS5 and Switch (+ Many Retro Consoles)

'When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the people's stick'- Mikhail Bakunin

Prediction: Switch 2 will outsell the PS5 by 2030