More Americans Die of Poverty than Terrorism

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by da.most

You have atttended too many angry black men rallies.

Minimum wage does not deny anyone the opportunity to get an education. The real problem is your people don't care about education and they usually quit school.


If we did away with minimum wage do you think your opportunities will increase? If so then how?

That's the definition of iroooooony.

[DrPhil]

It isn't just ironic on da.most's part.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by da.most

Why would someone take a low paying job when they can collect more in welfare and sit home?

Um no shit? The truth is though, most jobs pay more then welfare does.

[Tulip86]

Isn't that the whole idea?
Welfare is supposed to be the absolute last option (although I know for some it's an easy out). That's is why minimun wage also works... at least (a lot of) people will take working over welfare because they can make more money

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

Um no shit? The truth is though, most jobs pay more then welfare does.

Thats why I disagree with the idea of (more) welfare as a solution to poverty. Jobs that pay a livable wage is the only real solution to poverty.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Exactly. If jobs were required to pay a true living wage, the economy would probably be in much better shape.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

Exactly. If jobs were required to pay a true living wage, the economy would probably be in much better shape.

How is this?

(and more importantly, of what moral standing do you have to tell someone what they should do with the produce of their labors?)

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

Exactly. If jobs were required to pay a true living wage, the economy would probably be in much better shape.

Honestly, the prices of everything would just skyrocket and the people being paid the lowest amount would still be relatively poor.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Honestly, the prices of everything would just skyrocket and the people being paid the lowest amount would still be relatively poor.

Yes.

There are essentially three options for a firm when wage floors are above market equilibrium.

1.) Raise prices on goods, thus negating most gains by minimum wage workers.
2.) Cut employees which may further marginalize the poor.
3.) Take a cut in profits.

While many will say that these corporations should simply cut profits (no matter how illogical it may be) this may be absolutely dangerous for small firms who operate on razor thin profits.

If they're small enough, it may be impossible to cut employees. If the marketplace is competitive enough, raising the prices will mean a lack of buyers for products thus destroying the business. And if profits are razor-thin, well it won't be too long till they're under.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

Yes.

There are essentially three options for a firm when wage floors are above market equilibrium.

1.) Raise prices on goods, thus negating most gains by minimum wage workers.
2.) Cut employees which may further marginalize the poor.
3.) Take a cut in profits.

While many will say that these corporations should simply cut profits (no matter how illogical it may be) this may be absolutely dangerous for small firms who operate on razor thin profits.

If they're small enough, it may be impossible to cut employees. If the marketplace is competitive enough, raising the prices will mean a lack of buyers for products thus destroying the business. And if profits are razor-thin, well it won't be too long till they're under.

Just to add on before we pile onto corporate profits, CEO pay or whatever other irrelevant stuff comes out . . . cutting profits has other massive problems, including less incentive (or ability) to reinvest in the corporation or new/more efficient products, considerably less incentive to innovate or invent (since you won't make money), reduced market fluidity for employees (which restricts their power in the marketplace), and a markedly increased incentive to move operations overseas.

Profit drives the train - it's important to have restrictions on market-warping forces like monopoly, but other types of profit restrictions are generally very bad for everyone.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by da.most

their care breaks down.

attidude

LMAO

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by da.most

No it would not. Many companies would go under.

It only works if the workers produce enough to actually merit the true living wage.

That is one of the reasons many companies do not hire blacks. They don't show up for work every Monday and Friday. Every Monday their kid is sick and every Friday their care breaks down.

The first Monday you hire them they don't show. On Tuesday they show up an hour late and spend half the day on the phone with one of their many baby mommas or baby daddies. On Wednesday they start asking or as they say AXing about getting paid. Thursday they leave early. Friday they don't show up. Saturday is their day off but they show up an hour early looking for their check. Typical.

The next Monday it starts all over. Tuesday you sit them down and tell them their performance needs to improve and they give you attidude like, "I aint yo slave." You are thinking, "no chit, slaves actually work and they don't get paid."

Don't you have some interracial porn to watch?

[KSig RC]

It's pretty exciting that every thread turns "Racist Douche" at the end. The Godwin's Law of Greekchat.

[knight_shadow]

Damn, MM. That's a terrible attidude to have.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

It's pretty exciting that every thread turns "Racist Douche" at the end. The Godwin's Law of Greekchat.

I'm surprised this incarnation is still around.