Show of HandsShow of Hands

think4yourself May 24th, 2017 4:29pm

Who benefits our country more, the person that says businesses should pay $15 per hour yet employs no one or the person that starts a business and pays people $10 per hour?

12 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

think4yourself Not a safe space
05/24/17 9:56 am

Talk is cheap. The doers are the ones helping the most.

Reply
evoecon nearest binary system
05/24/17 11:58 am

Sure. If the person's work is worth $15 per hour and not just an artificial wage rate created by government.

Reply
CoffeeNow Powderpuff Leftist
05/24/17 10:50 am

They should change their signs from "We want $15 an hour" to "Please hurry up and replace me with a robot"

Reply
Okie1967 Lets go brandon
05/24/17 9:44 am

We need rich people. They employ us and allow us to support our families. If we want more pay then we should get more training, education, and take steps for advancement. Minimum wage jobs are for the youth as starter jobs.........and for those who otherwise took no care to plan and prepare themselves for something better.

Reply
think4yourself Not a safe space
05/24/17 3:36 pm

Snowflake how many people do you employ and how much do you pay them?

Reply
think4yourself Not a safe space
05/24/17 3:37 pm

I disagree. When I was starting out I had a minimum wage job and I was happy to have it until I found a higher paying one.

Reply
snowflake2020 Florida State University
05/24/17 11:15 am

And those doers that are paying their employees $15+ an hour are really benefiting the country!

Reply
evoecon nearest binary system
05/24/17 4:22 pm

How does MIT's calculator prove that $15 per hour is a living wage? Try using your own words and not a link to something you Googled or a friend at school shared with you.

Reply
think4yourself Not a safe space
05/26/17 10:18 am

The person who came up with that calculator obviously doesn't know how to budget for necessities only.

Reply
think4yourself Not a safe space
05/26/17 10:22 am

Yes. Many people do what is considered impossible by them. They need to get out in the real world.

Reply
theNobamist Silicon Valley
05/26/17 1:05 am

Government is full of talkers.

Trump is a doer, and that's why they hate him and we β€οΈπŸ‘πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ

Reply
evoecon nearest binary system
05/26/17 9:49 am

So the federal minimum wage should be different based on county or city?

Reply
think4yourself Not a safe space
05/25/17 8:12 am

I need to talk to whoever made that calculator and explain to them how to budget

Reply
snowflake2020 Florida State University
05/24/17 12:16 pm

Because $15 an hour is an actual living wage.

Reply
evoecon nearest binary system
05/26/17 9:54 am

So, if the Federal is raise to $15 per hour and your county and Monet , Mo are below that, how is the State in control? And what effect would that have on prices and employment in those areas?

Reply
Kneske College Station, TX
05/25/17 7:34 pm

The government already makes businesses not want to provide a good of jobs, how would $15 help in any way?

Reply
EchoSeven
05/24/17 3:39 pm

Amen. Such a poignant, beautiful response it brought tears to my eyes. I swear the National Anthem was playing as I read it.

Reply
evoecon nearest binary system
05/26/17 10:11 am

Good to know that your increase in wages won't effect the supply or price. Production costs are really irrelevant? Plus, how does this benefit those people already making $10.15 per hour? If demand increases prior to supply, wouldn't the prices go up? Wouldn't that decrease the marginal propensity for those at $10.15 per hour? Wouldn't this effect be a drag on the economy?

snowflake2020 Florida State University
05/26/17 10:17 am

Production costs just aren't that big of a factor, at the end of the day a business man is going to price his business so he can receive the highest possible profit back. Those already making money over the minimum wage will see their wages go up for across the board. The economy is driven by the middle and lower classes so raising the minimum wage would be giving them the power to buy more goods and services, contribute more to the economy, pay more in taxes and become less dependent on government programs.

evoecon nearest binary system
05/26/17 10:22 am

Your first sentence contradicts itself. Globally, it is a very naive view of the understanding of production costs and wholesale pricing of goods.

The lower class above the new minimum wage would have a reduced propensity to consume as their net disposable income will not change as pricing does.

snowflake2020 Florida State University
05/26/17 10:34 am

Pricing and minimum wage don't increase proportionally. The lower class would definitely see more money in their pockets, this would lower income inequality that's currently dragging the economy and lowering our economic potential. And how am I contradicting myself? Perhaps the business owner isn't going to be making as much as he might be used to per product but that's not going to change the way he prices his goods. Let's say it costs $3 to make a burger with higher production costs. If a thousand more people are going to buy a $5 burger than a $10 burger then it would be in his best interest to sell it for $5. And with more people making more money, more people will be buying his burgers.

snowflake2020 Florida State University
05/26/17 9:26 am

Well according to MIT, a living wage in my county is $10.23 an hour, that's the bare minimum to pay for food, child care, medical, housing, transportation and taxes. What's not being included in the living wage calculator is car insurance, household bills such as phone, internet, cable bills etc as well as other daily expenses and rainy day funds. I said $15 is an actual living wage compared to the dismal $7.25 an hour in the US currently that we can all agree is impossible to live on by itself.

evoecon nearest binary system
05/26/17 12:10 pm

Have you ever priced a retail product? Much less the wholesale pricing which you are blowing right past. In addition, there are other alternatives to paying the higher wages. Your analysis presumes too many static aspects. Especially toward consumption but you allow for a broad based increase in wages to those above the new minimum wage. It seems to be a "rose colored glasses" view. Not realistic at all.

evoecon nearest binary system
05/24/17 11:57 am

Always better to be unemployed or underemployed at $15 per hour, then working at $10.

evoecon nearest binary system
05/26/17 9:44 am

So a person with no children still needs a $10.00 living wage in your county? What about a person in Monet, Missouri? What is their living wage?

think4yourself Not a safe space
05/25/17 8:08 am

Did you get it backwards? Seems they would say it would be better to be employed at $10 than unemployed at $15. Those two are heros of mine.

Wackacrat Harford County
05/25/17 2:48 am

So 2 birds in the bush is better than 1 in hand?

snowflake2020 Florida State University
05/26/17 9:52 am

No, the federal minimum wage should be a basic livable wage in this country (not $7.25) and it should be up to the states to raise it to meet their standards in that state.

evoecon nearest binary system
05/25/17 5:48 am

Think, I was paraphrasing Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell.

snowflake2020 Florida State University
05/26/17 10:02 am

If you want to know my personal strategy I would initially raise it to $10.10 an hour. That is at or just above the living wage in most counties across the country. The state would have the option of raising it higher (like California has). This would pump billions of dollars into the working class and allow more jobs to be created. Prices for goods are most affected by supply and demand rather than actual production costs. That's why we see $50 jeans being made for $2 and $5 cheeseburgers being made for less than a dollar...

snowflake2020 Florida State University
05/24/17 1:14 pm

The MIT living wage calculator says that a single person must earn $8.11/hour to afford the average housing, medical, food and transportation costs.