| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
Adam
F L I N T O I D
|
http://www.theoaklandpress.com/stories/041808/opi_20080418374.shtml
Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick was arraigned on criminal charges and will be asked some difficult questions about perjury, conspiracy, obstruction of justice.
In the midst of this media circus, voters shouldn't stop asking politicians to answer for the criminally bad state of Michigan's economy -- their minimum wage increases in recent years have killed jobs for those most in need of work.
Here's a puzzler to ask your representative that might get him to see the facts: What do Michigan, Ohio, and Rhode Island have in common? Answer: They all have a higher percentage of unionized workers than the national average, have dramatically increased the minimum wage between 2005 and 2008, and are in the top 10 for unemployment in 2008.
That's no coincidence. There's a twisted logic in unions pushing regulations, like the minimum wage, that strangle businesses and kill jobs.
Unions promote policies like minimum wage increases because it limits the alternatives to high-priced union labor. Of course, anti-growth policies eventually kill union jobs too, but politics is a short-sighted game. In states like Michigan, Ohio, and Rhode Island with unionization rates well above the national average, unions have been getting their way for decades.
States raised their minimum wage rates about 19 percent on average from 2005 to 2008. In Michigan, however, the minimum wage went up a stunning 40 percent in that time period.
Far from helping the poor, these regulations are hurting those most in need of work. The national unemployment rate is 4.8 percent, but Michigan's is 7.1. Ohio and Rhode Island are doing badly as well, hitting a 5.5 and 5.7 percent unemployment rate respectively this year.
Studies consistently show that minimum-wage increases lead to job losses, hitting those in need the hardest. A 2007 study from the University of California at Irvine showed that for every 10-percent increase in the minimum wage, employment drops 8 percent for high-school dropouts and 8.4 percent for African-American teens.
It's easy to see why. A full-time employee works around 2,000 hours a year. Let's say an employee being paid $6 an hour generates $7 of revenue an hour. That means the business makes $1 per hour.
Then the government says he has to be paid $8 an hour. If the business doesn't lay him off, it will lose $1 every hour instead of making $1 per hour; that's a $2,000 loss on every employee every year.
If the business employed 20 people, that would mean a loss of $40,000 a year. With losses like that, a business won't be in business very long. And if you think that price hikes are the answer you haven't been reading or watching the news.
Instead, a business has to hire fewer, more productive workers at a higher wage and that means low-skilled and new workers get pushed out of the workforce.
Michigan can't afford the costs imposed by labor unions. With the housing market in a slump, the economy hitting the skids, a credit crisis and the dollar in decline, the last thing Michigan needs is to be weighed down by anti-growth union policies that handcuff businesses and hurt the poor.
Policy approaches like the federal Earned Income Tax Credit reward work, help low-income workers, and don't kill jobs or businesses.
Mayor Kilpatrick is being forced to answer for his crimes. When are Michigan's politicians going to be brought held to account for their senseless job-killing?
Adam Schaeffer is an economic analyst at the Employment Policies Institute in Washington D.C. |
|
|
Sat Apr 19, 2008 10:22 am |
|
|
Public D
F L I N T O I D
|
http://www.tcf.org/list.asp?type=NC&pubid=1437
The Right to Work—and Earn Less
Beverly Goldberg, The Century Foundation, 11/10/2006
The power shift in Congress and the passage by six states of ballot measures raising minimum wage levels by $1 to $1.70 an hour and index them to inflation indicates that the time is right for American workers to push for changes in the anti-union attitudes that have dominated the halls of power in our nation’s capitol, making it harder and harder for workers to achieve and hold onto a middle-class life.
This anti-unionism runs so deep that it has even affected the Department of Labor, which was once a supporter of fair labor practices. As the Washington Post noted in March 2006, Lynn Gibson, a public affairs aide who was supposed to be focusing on alerting people to training opportunities, had sent out e-mails directing people to Unionfacts.com, an anti-union Web site. Moreover, the nonprofit Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics has revealed a relationship between Elaine Chao, head of the Department of Labor, and Rick Berman, an industry lobbyist and founder of Center for Union Facts, a virulently anti-union organization.
The pervasiveness of anti-unionism in the administration was also evident in the National Labor Relations Board ruling in early October, which reclassified millions of workers as supervisors, thereby making them ineligible for union membership. The board is composed of three Republicans and two Democrats, who strongly opposed the decision.
Another example of anti-unionism is the right-to-work laws in twenty-two states. These laws make it illegal for businesses to deny a person employment because of membership or non-membership in a union, but at the same time, regulations mandate that when a company employs both union and nonunion members, the unions must represent nonmember employees (who do not pay the dues that go to the costs of union negotiations and services), even when it comes to expensive litigation against the company. By forcing unions to provide this benefit to nonunion members, right-to-work states discourage unions from even trying to organize in their jurisdictions.
The costs to workers of residing in right-to-work states is significant. In right-to-work states, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “an average worker earns about $7,131 a year less than workers in free bargaining states ($30,656 versus $37,787).” This is in line with another finding reported by the Center for Policy Alternatives: “Across the nation, union members earn $9,308 a year more than nonunion members ($41,652 versus $32,344).”
By preventing unionization, these states not only benefit businesses already in their borders but provide them with ammunition to tempt businesses to relocate. Looking at the Web sites of some cities in right-to-work states makes this absolutely clear. For example, the Charlotte [North Carolina] Regional Partnership, proclaims that “Boasting a population over 2.2 million, a regional unemployment rate around 4% and a workforce 1.2 million strong, the Charlotte Region offers a skilled, low-union labor force in both rural and urban settings. World-class companies such as Bank of America, Wachovia, Duke Energy, Goodrich, General Dynamics and Lowe's have benefited tremendously from the competitive regional workforce.” In the same vein, Stillwater, Oklahoma, points out that it is a particularly good place for businesses because “Oklahoma’s 15.9% unionization rate places it 33% lower than the national average. None of Stillwater’s manufacturing operations is organized.”
It is interesting that North Carolina ranks fortieth among states in median income and Oklahoma forty-third. In fact, when examining the Census Bureau’s chart of median household incomes over the years 2002–2004, one finds that only one of the ten top states is a right-to work state, and that one is Virginia, which is home to much of the aerospace industry, with its skilled workers, and which serves as the bedroom community for many employed by the federal government in nearby Washington, D.C. On the other hand, eighteen of the right-to-work states fall within the lowest half of the chart, with six of the bottom ten in income being right-to-work states.
In addition, as also noted by the Center for Policy Alternatives, “the rate of workplace deaths is 41 percent higher in states with Right-to-Work laws. And injured workers in those states have fewer benefits to help them recover physically and financially. In 1996, workers compensation benefits were 50 percent lower in Right-to-Work states than in free bargaining states.”
It clearly is in the best interests of workers to fight to repeal these laws. There have been some attempts to do so, most notably in Idaho and Oklahoma, but they have not succeeded. With growing public awareness of the increasing inequality in America and the indication that the populace is awake to the need for change, the time may be right for such a fight.
Beverly Goldberg, a Senior Fellow and Editor-at-Large at The Century Foundation, is the author of Age Works: What Corporate America Must Do to Survive the Graying of the Workforce(Free Press) and coauthor of Corporation on a Tightrope(Oxford University Press). |
|
|
|
Sun Apr 20, 2008 5:15 am |
|
|
Dave Starr
F L I N T O I D
|
| Today's Journal - couldn't find it online, but it's in print - reports on the impact of Granholm's new business tax. Bronner's tax went up 500%, another business reported a 1300% increase. That'll keep businesses in Michigan. |
_________________
I used to care, but I take a pill for that now.
Pushing buttons sure can be fun.
When a lion wants to go somewhere, he doesn’t worry about how many hyenas are in the way.
Paddle faster, I hear banjos. |
|
|
Sun Apr 20, 2008 7:13 am |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
| Tax your way to prosperity works every time its tried. |
|
|
|
Sun Apr 20, 2008 7:15 am |
|
|
FlintConservative
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
twotap schreef:
Tax your way to prosperity works every time its tried.
Or they're going to keep trying it until it works. |
|
|
|
Sun Apr 20, 2008 7:23 am |
|
|
Adam
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
Public D schreef:
http://www.tcf.org/list.asp?type=NC&pubid=1437
The Right to Work—and Earn Less
Beverly Goldberg, The Century Foundation, 11/10/2006
The power shift in Congress and the passage by six states of ballot measures raising minimum wage levels by $1 to $1.70 an hour and index them to inflation indicates that the time is right for American workers to push for changes in the anti-union attitudes that have dominated the halls of power in our nation’s capitol, making it harder and harder for workers to achieve and hold onto a middle-class life.
This anti-unionism runs so deep that it has even affected the Department of Labor, which was once a supporter of fair labor practices. As the Washington Post noted in March 2006, Lynn Gibson, a public affairs aide who was supposed to be focusing on alerting people to training opportunities, had sent out e-mails directing people to Unionfacts.com, an anti-union Web site. Moreover, the nonprofit Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics has revealed a relationship between Elaine Chao, head of the Department of Labor, and Rick Berman, an industry lobbyist and founder of Center for Union Facts, a virulently anti-union organization.
The pervasiveness of anti-unionism in the administration was also evident in the National Labor Relations Board ruling in early October, which reclassified millions of workers as supervisors, thereby making them ineligible for union membership. The board is composed of three Republicans and two Democrats, who strongly opposed the decision.
Another example of anti-unionism is the right-to-work laws in twenty-two states. These laws make it illegal for businesses to deny a person employment because of membership or non-membership in a union, but at the same time, regulations mandate that when a company employs both union and nonunion members, the unions must represent nonmember employees (who do not pay the dues that go to the costs of union negotiations and services), even when it comes to expensive litigation against the company. By forcing unions to provide this benefit to nonunion members, right-to-work states discourage unions from even trying to organize in their jurisdictions.
The costs to workers of residing in right-to-work states is significant. In right-to-work states, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “an average worker earns about $7,131 a year less than workers in free bargaining states ($30,656 versus $37,787).” This is in line with another finding reported by the Center for Policy Alternatives: “Across the nation, union members earn $9,308 a year more than nonunion members ($41,652 versus $32,344).”
By preventing unionization, these states not only benefit businesses already in their borders but provide them with ammunition to tempt businesses to relocate. Looking at the Web sites of some cities in right-to-work states makes this absolutely clear. For example, the Charlotte [North Carolina] Regional Partnership, proclaims that “Boasting a population over 2.2 million, a regional unemployment rate around 4% and a workforce 1.2 million strong, the Charlotte Region offers a skilled, low-union labor force in both rural and urban settings. World-class companies such as Bank of America, Wachovia, Duke Energy, Goodrich, General Dynamics and Lowe's have benefited tremendously from the competitive regional workforce.” In the same vein, Stillwater, Oklahoma, points out that it is a particularly good place for businesses because “Oklahoma’s 15.9% unionization rate places it 33% lower than the national average. None of Stillwater’s manufacturing operations is organized.”
It is interesting that North Carolina ranks fortieth among states in median income and Oklahoma forty-third. In fact, when examining the Census Bureau’s chart of median household incomes over the years 2002–2004, one finds that only one of the ten top states is a right-to work state, and that one is Virginia, which is home to much of the aerospace industry, with its skilled workers, and which serves as the bedroom community for many employed by the federal government in nearby Washington, D.C. On the other hand, eighteen of the right-to-work states fall within the lowest half of the chart, with six of the bottom ten in income being right-to-work states.
In addition, as also noted by the Center for Policy Alternatives, “the rate of workplace deaths is 41 percent higher in states with Right-to-Work laws. And injured workers in those states have fewer benefits to help them recover physically and financially. In 1996, workers compensation benefits were 50 percent lower in Right-to-Work states than in free bargaining states.”
It clearly is in the best interests of workers to fight to repeal these laws. There have been some attempts to do so, most notably in Idaho and Oklahoma, but they have not succeeded. With growing public awareness of the increasing inequality in America and the indication that the populace is awake to the need for change, the time may be right for such a fight.
Beverly Goldberg, a Senior Fellow and Editor-at-Large at The Century Foundation, is the author of Age Works: What Corporate America Must Do to Survive the Graying of the Workforce(Free Press) and coauthor of Corporation on a Tightrope(Oxford University Press).
I think there's about 50,000 people in Genesee county that wouldn't mind "only" earning 32,344.
We do need to be concerned with workplace safety and I don't think Michigan should sell out it's union workers but we do need to be more competitive because although Michigan may not like greedy corporations, greedy corporations do provide jobs and they are going to states where they can earn more money. |
|
|
|
Sun Apr 20, 2008 12:51 pm |
|
|
Ted Jankowski
F L I N T O I D
|
I think most just don't get it.
First off there is nothing to prove that lower minimum wage equates to lower unemployment. Washington DC in 2003 voted to raise theirs ot the highest in the nation. There were decries of loss of business. Washington DC now has one of the lowest unemployment rates. Wow! That really hurt them. Seatle the same way.
Anyway. The bottom line. China is about to loose a bunch of jobs because they raised their minimum wage from 39 cents an hour to 50 cents an hour. Guess What. India can do the same thing cheaper. I guess China's economy is going to run into the ground now because they raised their minimum wage to 50 cents an hour. The whole country is going to fall apart now. Is anyone picking up on this??? How does our 7.5 an hour relate?
I know let's cut out our minimum wage altogether and just match China's Minimum wage. We could all afford to work for 50 cents an hour and business and unemployment would drop drastically! Just think. On 50 cents an hour you could work a whole week and not have enough to buy gas for your car. Let alone beable to buy one, or pay for a house payment.
Maybe we can open up state and federal land and we can build cardboard houses to live in.
These business groups make up these studies to prove their unprovable view point. When you actually look at the results of every city and state where "Right to Work" laws have come in. It has actually hurt their economies. THen the Minimum wage increases have not caused companies to fold! Those areas actually started getting better workers. Willing to work for the bare minimum higher wages. Imagine that? |
|
|
|
Sun Apr 20, 2008 2:07 pm |
|
|
Adam
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
Ted Jankowski schreef:
I think most just don't get it.
First off there is nothing to prove that lower minimum wage equates to lower unemployment. Washington DC in 2003 voted to raise theirs ot the highest in the nation. There were decries of loss of business. Washington DC now has one of the lowest unemployment rates. Wow! That really hurt them. Seatle the same way.
Anyway. The bottom line. China is about to loose a bunch of jobs because they raised their minimum wage from 39 cents an hour to 50 cents an hour. Guess What. India can do the same thing cheaper. I guess China's economy is going to run into the ground now because they raised their minimum wage to 50 cents an hour. The whole country is going to fall apart now. Is anyone picking up on this??? How does our 7.5 an hour relate?
I know let's cut out our minimum wage altogether and just match China's Minimum wage. We could all afford to work for 50 cents an hour and business and unemployment would drop drastically! Just think. On 50 cents an hour you could work a whole week and not have enough to buy gas for your car. Let alone beable to buy one, or pay for a house payment.
Maybe we can open up state and federal land and we can build cardboard houses to live in.
These business groups make up these studies to prove their unprovable view point. When you actually look at the results of every city and state where "Right to Work" laws have come in. It has actually hurt their economies. THen the Minimum wage increases have not caused companies to fold! Those areas actually started getting better workers. Willing to work for the bare minimum higher wages. Imagine that?
.
http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s190/s190h.html
Even with their meager salaries the chinese are saving more money than Americans and helping to support the federal reserve debt system.
If we eliminated our minimum wage laws completely economics would still exist. I doubt very few people would be willing to work for 50 cents an hour.
http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm I think Texas as an example is doing much better than Michigan with lower unemployment, people moving in, jobs being created, no income tax and no minimum wage law and they are even a right to work state. http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm. Many Michigan residents are moving to Michigan and Florida as well as every other state because we do not have the jobs. I'm a big fan of results and our high taxes and high regulations are not bringing results to Michigan. |
|
|
|
Sun Apr 20, 2008 3:29 pm |
|
|
Public D
F L I N T O I D
|
|
|
Thu May 22, 2008 3:16 pm |
|
|
Adam Ford
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
Public D schreef:
Adam, note slide 18 here:
http://www.compete.org/images/uploads/File/PDF%20Files/Mid-MichiganRegionalInnovationAssessmentPresentation5-18-07.pdf
Middle of the pack here too:
http://www.milkeninstitute.org/pdf/2007CostofDoingBusiness.pdf
Cracked the top ten here:
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fsb/fsb_beststates/2006/full_list/index.html
Ask yourself: Why are these tax fanatics wasting Michigan's time, money and reputation painting our strengths as weaknesses? Is that good for Michigan's economy? Or is it good for their own interests?
The First Article was from May 18th 2007. In October we made Michigan a little less business friendly. The second article is from 2006. I think we still may be supposedly in the middle of the pack but I don't think the middle of the pack is good enough. We might be able to get by being in the top ten but I would like to shoot for #1. Our state is also somewhat segregated. Conservative Grand Rapids and Oakland County are doing pretty well but I don't think Genesee County is doing O.K. and Flint itself is in horrible shape. We will see how 2008 #'s come in but I wouldn't be surprised if we are in the bottom 25.
If you were to argue Flint is business friendly I would have to disagree. Flint will grant tax breaks like pretty much every other city in the United States but we are very restrictive on ordinances and we have very high crime, high taxes and we even have an income tax. We have thousands of desperate people willing to work for minimum wage dirt cheap real estate and we are still only average? We should be at least 25% below the national average. Flint could probably have some of the highest business growth in the nation insteadd of below average if we ran things right. |
|
|
|
Thu May 22, 2008 6:32 pm |
|
|
Ryan Eashoo
F L I N T O I D
|
I totally agree with you about this Ted, some people just don't get it!!
quote:
Ted Jankowski schreef:
I think most just don't get it.
First off there is nothing to prove that lower minimum wage equates to lower unemployment. Washington DC in 2003 voted to raise theirs ot the highest in the nation. There were decries of loss of business. Washington DC now has one of the lowest unemployment rates. Wow! That really hurt them. Seatle the same way.
Anyway. The bottom line. China is about to loose a bunch of jobs because they raised their minimum wage from 39 cents an hour to 50 cents an hour. Guess What. India can do the same thing cheaper. I guess China's economy is going to run into the ground now because they raised their minimum wage to 50 cents an hour. The whole country is going to fall apart now. Is anyone picking up on this??? How does our 7.5 an hour relate?
I know let's cut out our minimum wage altogether and just match China's Minimum wage. We could all afford to work for 50 cents an hour and business and unemployment would drop drastically! Just think. On 50 cents an hour you could work a whole week and not have enough to buy gas for your car. Let alone beable to buy one, or pay for a house payment.
Maybe we can open up state and federal land and we can build cardboard houses to live in.
These business groups make up these studies to prove their unprovable view point. When you actually look at the results of every city and state where "Right to Work" laws have come in. It has actually hurt their economies. THen the Minimum wage increases have not caused companies to fold! Those areas actually started getting better workers. Willing to work for the bare minimum higher wages. Imagine that?
|
_________________
Flint Michigan Resident, Tax Payer, Flint Nutt - Local REALTOR - Activist. www.FlintTown.com |
|
|
Thu May 22, 2008 6:38 pm |
|
|
Adam Ford
F L I N T O I D
|
http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s190/s190h.html
Do Minimum Wage Increases Trigger Recessions or Prolong Depressions?
Minimum wage increases introduce wage shocks into the overall economy. The impact of such disturbances is illustrated by recent business cycles.
The 1990-91 Recession. In 1989 the American economy was prosperous and was enjoying the longest peacetime expansion in American history. The expansion continued into 1990, with unemployment rates staying remarkably stable at about 5.3 percent. Yet labor markets began to weaken significantly in the second quarter of 1990. It is not a coincidence that the minimum wage was raised by 45 cents (more than 13 percent) on the first day of that quarter. Figure X shows that while more than 800,000 jobs were created in the civilian economy in the six months prior to the minimum wage increase, over 350,000 jobs were lost in the first six months afterward.
Within three months of the wage increase, the unemployment rate began rising from the 5.3 percent level, reaching an average of nearly 6.5 percent in the first quarter of 1991. Natural market forces were ready to start lowering unemployment, but they were thwarted by a second 45-cent increase in the wage, to $4.25, in April of 1991. Rather than falling, as often happens a year after a recession begins, the unemployment rate continued to rise, reaching 7.0 percent by the end of the year.
The 27 percent rise in the minimum wage had a general wage-increasing impact, since an increase in the minimum wage increases the demand for skilled and semiskilled workers who indirectly compete against unskilled labor. Compensation per hour in the business sector, which had risen at a 3.5 percent annual rate in 1989, rose at an extraordinary 8.4 percent annual rate in the second quarter of 1990, the biggest increase in many years.34 This wage shock priced many workers out of the market and led to the end of the great job explosion of the Reagan era. By early 1991, the annual rate of compensation increases had fallen to below 3 percent on an annual basis, and the market was showing signs of adjusting to the wage shock of April 1990. However, in the second quarter of 1991 compensation increases rose to 4.6 percent on an annual basis, almost certainly a consequence of the April 1991 increase in the minimum wage from $3.80 to $4.25. This led to a further delay in job recovery.
The 1974-75 Recession. The 1990-91 recession is not unique in being at least partially triggered by a minimum wage shock. A good case can be made that both the short 1979-80 downturn and the recession beginning in late 1981 were exacerbated by minimum wage increases in 1979, 1980 and 1981.35 However, other factors were at work and inflation made this period somewhat atypical. Perhaps a better example is the 1974-75 downturn, which clearly was affected by minimum wage increases.
On May 1, 1974, the minimum wage was increased for the first time in over six years. The increase was a very steep 25 percent, as the wage went from $1.60 to $2.00 per hour. Special minimum wages then in effect for some employees who had begun to be covered after 1966 (e.g., farm workers) were increased roughly proportionately. The unemployment impact was almost immediate, as Figure XI shows. In the four months prior to the enactment of the minimum wage, the unemployment rate was virtually constant at around 5 percent. In the month the minimum wage increase was enacted, the unemployment rate began to rise. By the end of the year, the unemployment rate was at 7.2 percent.36
Compounding the problem, on January 1, 1975, the minimum wage rose another 5 percent, and proportionately more for workers temporarily covered by lower federal minimum wages. The unemployment rate soared in January 1975, and by spring of that year was nearing 9 percent. In the year between the first quarter of 1973 and the first quarter of 1974, compensation of all workers in the private economy had risen 7.3 percent. In the next six months, the annualized rate of increase in compensation rose to about 12 percent. A wage explosion occurred. A sharp slowdown in the rate of compensation increase that normally would have occurred was delayed by the further 1975 wage increase. Again, low-skilled labor was priced out of the market.
The Great Depression: Wage Increases Under the NIRA
. A powerful example of the impact of the minimum wage comes from the pre-Fair Labor Standards Act portion of the 1930s. In fact, instead of describing the early 1930s as the Great Depression, we could describe them as a period of high wages and low employment.37 Much of the public policy analysis of the time focused on the importance of maintaining purchasing power by keeping wage rates high.38 Herbert Hoover argued vigorously against any reduction in money wages at the outset of the Great Depression. At the conclusion of its renowned "first hundred days," Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal made a strong commitment to the same principle. The National Industrial Recovery Act, passed in June 1933, required that a minimum wage be included in any industrial code. As it evolved, the actual minimum wage was generally about 40 cents an hour.39 This was remarkable, since a 40-cent-an-hour minimum wage represented more than 90 percent of the average hourly wage.40 The impact on wage rates was dramatic, driving them upward by almost 20 percent in the last half of 1933.41 The timing of this surge was unfortunate. From March to July, the unemployment rate had fallen by a full 5 percentage points, indicating that an economic recovery had begun.42
These data understate the impact of the codes on employment. In addition to the minimum wage provisions, the codes contained maximum hours requirements. They generally were set at 40 hours per week, below the average workweek of the time.43 Consequently, as unemployment rates stopped declining, the average workweek fell by 13 percent between June and December 1933.44 Over the next 15 months, unemployment rose slightly, standing at 23.5 percent in October 1934. The following year saw a slight improvement, but unemployment still measured nearly 22 percent in October 1935. By this time, the National Industrial Recovery Act had passed from the scene, having been declared unconstitutional earlier in the year by the Supreme Court. In the absence of the act's minimum wage provisions, employment conditions improved dramatically. By May of 1937, the unemployment rate had fallen to almost 12 percent. Again, all the evidence points to the same conclusion: If we introduce a wage shock in the form of a hike in the minimum wage, unemployment rises; if we allow the minimum wage to fall from the effects of inflation or court rulings, unemployment falls.45 |
|
|
|
Thu May 22, 2008 7:08 pm |
|
|
Public D
F L I N T O I D
|
|
|
Fri May 23, 2008 8:47 am |
|
|
Adam Ford
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
Public D schreef:
The point is, tax fanatics need only an inch to whine for miles – no matter the reality. They do it for a simple, obvious and effective reason: nobody like taxes. And that's a snitch to paint as a heroic, noble fight waged on behalf of all hardworking citizens (unless you make minimum wage) . . . so vote for me. Right, Adam?
If you reduce the government there are less government employees that businesses and hardworking citizens need to support. If the government didn't steal from minimum wage earners they might not need the raise minimum wage as much. If the government didn't pilfer off businesses as much they should be able to charge lower prices which would make things easier on low income and all americans. I think It's ludicrus that middle class families down should have to pay income tax and if we really ran things right I don't think anyone would need to pay income tax.
With high taxes helping to create a high cost of living for Americans I can see where liberals would want to raise wages to combat the high cost of living.
The minimum wage does help prevent "greedy" people like myself from "taking advantage" of workers. Without the minimum wage law I might be tempted to hire someone even with my salary that is reduced by the government.
I think it would be better for the government to raise people's salaries by not stealing from them before we look at trying to increase them.
I know a guy who was a manager at MCDonald's making pretty decent money. When the minimum wage was passed they conveniently found a reason to fire him even though he was a very good employee. This would have helped offset the minimum wage increase McDonald's had to pay. |
|
|
|
Fri May 23, 2008 9:12 am |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
