Minimum wage rises, employment holds steady...

[Anonymous]

but income decreases. The best laid plans/expectations of government rarely succeeds as it projects.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-seattle-minimumwage-idUSKBN19H2MV

If you are going to have a minimum wage keep up with inflation. But you aren't going to help anyone by sitting on your bureaucratic ass for years then raising it over a few years to catch up.

[Anonymous]

Exactly. It's what conservatives have been saying....if you raise the minimum wage, there will be fewer jobs (or hours) to go around.

In the Seattle case, the employers cut hours. But when NYC raised the minimum to $15, the employees themselves asked their hours to be cut so they wouldn't make too much for government assistance (that they were on were before wages were raised). Apparently, they felt no stigma at all having to rely on taxpayer support, and when the opportunity came to be self-supporting, they decided they'd rather stay on the dole.

And that brings up a related topic. On another thread, liberals are complaining that WALMART pays so little that their employees get food stamps, and that the minimum should be raised. But who says the employees WANT to get off food stamps? Maybe they'd prefer to work less (for the same money) and still get food stamps, as what happened in NYC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Exactly. It's what conservatives have been saying....if you raise the minimum wage, there will be fewer jobs (or hours) to go around.

In the Seattle case, the employers cut hours. But when NYC raised the minimum to $15, the employees themselves asked their hours to be cut so they wouldn't make too much for government assistance (that they were on were before wages were raised). Apparently, they felt no stigma at all having to rely on taxpayer support, and when the opportunity came to be self-supporting, they decided they'd rather stay on the dole.

And that brings up a related topic. On another thread, liberals are complaining that WALMART pays so little that their employees get food stamps, and that the minimum should be raised. But who says the employees WANT to get off food stamps? Maybe they'd prefer to work less (for the same money) and still get food stamps, as what happened in NYC.

Why not keep up with inflation every year?

[Anonymous]

Isn't it nice that you live a comfortable enough life that you don't have to worry about living on that line?

And for what it is worth, most Walmart employees in this situation are retirees doing what they can to make ends meet before they meet their healthcare doom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:but income decreases. The best laid plans/expectations of government rarely succeeds as it projects.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-seattle-minimumwage-idUSKBN19H2MV

If you are going to have a minimum wage keep up with inflation. But you aren't going to help anyone by sitting on your bureaucratic ass for years then raising it over a few years to catch up.

the easiest way to raise the wages of low skilled workers is to limit the supply of low skilled workers. We can limit the supply by limiting immigration. It really is that easy. And it would help our country immensely. Nothing racist about it. just economics.

“The commission finds no national interest in continuing to import lesser skilled and unskilled workers to compete in the most vulnerable parts of our labor force. Many American workers do not have adequate job prospects. We should make their task easier to find employment, not harder.”

and

Today immigration is very starkly polarized, like everything else, Cannato says. Generally Democrats are “pro-immigration,” or in favor of large-scale immigration. On the other hand, many Republicans – not all – are in favor of some kind of restrictions.

http://www.texasstandard.org/stories/what-barbara-jordan-current-gop-rhetoric-have-in-common/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Exactly. It's what conservatives have been saying....if you raise the minimum wage, there will be fewer jobs (or hours) to go around.

In the Seattle case, the employers cut hours. But when NYC raised the minimum to $15, the employees themselves asked their hours to be cut so they wouldn't make too much for government assistance (that they were on were before wages were raised). Apparently, they felt no stigma at all having to rely on taxpayer support, and when the opportunity came to be self-supporting, they decided they'd rather stay on the dole.

And that brings up a related topic. On another thread, liberals are complaining that WALMART pays so little that their employees get food stamps, and that the minimum should be raised. But who says the employees WANT to get off food stamps? Maybe they'd prefer to work less (for the same money) and still get food stamps, as what happened in NYC.

Yes, it's all just that simple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Isn't it nice that you live a comfortable enough life that you don't have to worry about living on that line?

And for what it is worth, most Walmart employees in this situation are retirees doing what they can to make ends meet before they meet their healthcare doom.

What healthcare doom?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:but income decreases. The best laid plans/expectations of government rarely succeeds as it projects.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-seattle-minimumwage-idUSKBN19H2MV

If you are going to have a minimum wage keep up with inflation. But you aren't going to help anyone by sitting on your bureaucratic ass for years then raising it over a few years to catch up.

the easiest way to raise the wages of low skilled workers is to limit the supply of low skilled workers. We can limit the supply by limiting immigration. It really is that easy. And it would help our country immensely. Nothing racist about it. just economics.

“The commission finds no national interest in continuing to import lesser skilled and unskilled workers to compete in the most vulnerable parts of our labor force. Many American workers do not have adequate job prospects. We should make their task easier to find employment, not harder.”

and

Today immigration is very starkly polarized, like everything else, Cannato says. Generally Democrats are “pro-immigration,” or in favor of large-scale immigration. On the other hand, many Republicans – not all – are in favor of some kind of restrictions.

http://www.texasstandard.org/stories/what-barbara-jordan-current-gop-rhetoric-have-in-common/

OP here.

Sorry, but that is nonsense. Do you really believe Americans will fill those jobs in sufficient numbers? I don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:but income decreases. The best laid plans/expectations of government rarely succeeds as it projects.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-seattle-minimumwage-idUSKBN19H2MV

If you are going to have a minimum wage keep up with inflation. But you aren't going to help anyone by sitting on your bureaucratic ass for years then raising it over a few years to catch up.

the easiest way to raise the wages of low skilled workers is to limit the supply of low skilled workers. We can limit the supply by limiting immigration. It really is that easy. And it would help our country immensely. Nothing racist about it. just economics.

“The commission finds no national interest in continuing to import lesser skilled and unskilled workers to compete in the most vulnerable parts of our labor force. Many American workers do not have adequate job prospects. We should make their task easier to find employment, not harder.”

and

Today immigration is very starkly polarized, like everything else, Cannato says. Generally Democrats are “pro-immigration,” or in favor of large-scale immigration. On the other hand, many Republicans – not all – are in favor of some kind of restrictions.

http://www.texasstandard.org/stories/what-barbara-jordan-current-gop-rhetoric-have-in-common/

OP here.

Sorry, but that is nonsense. Do you really believe Americans will fill those jobs in sufficient numbers? I don't.

yes they will, or the business will go out of business.

What right does the government have to control markets?

What right do you have to mandate that workers be paid slave wages and conditions to pick your organic strawberriers?

[Anonymous]

At some point the question becomes whether corporations and employers are responsible for the well being of their employees. How much profit is enough when it comes at the expense of society? We are continually told that "job creators" need subsidies and tax breaks and concessions for the betterment of our general economy. Corporations are given BILLIONS in concessions and then, when asked to spare some of this largess for their employees at the bottom, they scrimp and cut hours, benefits, and other basics.

You can say, oh, but the free market! But the free market shouldn't include subsidies and tax breaks, then. At what point are corporations socially responsible and required to preserve hours and pay well - even if it means a slight hit to the bottom line (but still being profitable). That's the shame about Walmart. They screw their employees, they screw their suppliers, and all so they can be even richer than they already are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Why not keep up with inflation every year?

How about not causing heavy inflation in the first place. A little bit is natural.

But printing $$$ endlessly for every want and debasing the currency is what causes inflation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
OP here.

Sorry, but that is nonsense. Do you really believe Americans will fill those jobs in sufficient numbers? I don't.

yes they will, or the business will go out of business.

What right does the government have to control markets?

What right do you have to mandate that workers be paid slave wages and conditions to pick your organic strawberriers?

Oh, you're one of them.

Your wrong about Americans filling those jobs. Government isn't controlling markets by allowing immigration. And slave wages? Regardless of what I show there you won't think its high enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Why not keep up with inflation every year?

How about not causing heavy inflation in the first place. A little bit is natural.

But printing $$$ endlessly for every want and debasing the currency is what causes inflation.

OP here.

Have you ever lived during a time of high inflation? Haven't had really high inflation in 35 to 40 years.

How about Americans cut down their borrowing, credit cards anyone, to buy crap they don't need. Gotta trade up from that 55 inch to a curved 70 inch?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At some point the question becomes whether corporations and employers are responsible for the well being of their employees. How much profit is enough when it comes at the expense of society? We are continually told that "job creators" need subsidies and tax breaks and concessions for the betterment of our general economy. Corporations are given BILLIONS in concessions and then, when asked to spare some of this largess for their employees at the bottom, they scrimp and cut hours, benefits, and other basics.

You can say, oh, but the free market! But the free market shouldn't include subsidies and tax breaks, then. At what point are corporations socially responsible and required to preserve hours and pay well - even if it means a slight hit to the bottom line (but still being profitable). That's the shame about Walmart. They screw their employees, they screw their suppliers, and all so they can be even richer than they already are.

Not sure why you are harping on corporations. Most businesses affected, especially where there is an issue of profit margin, are small to mid sized businesses.

FWIW, many of those tax breaks etc. are given to entice employers to move from one state to another.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At some point the question becomes whether corporations and employers are responsible for the well being of their employees. How much profit is enough when it comes at the expense of society? We are continually told that "job creators" need subsidies and tax breaks and concessions for the betterment of our general economy. Corporations are given BILLIONS in concessions and then, when asked to spare some of this largess for their employees at the bottom, they scrimp and cut hours, benefits, and other basics.

You can say, oh, but the free market! But the free market shouldn't include subsidies and tax breaks, then. At what point are corporations socially responsible and required to preserve hours and pay well - even if it means a slight hit to the bottom line (but still being profitable). That's the shame about Walmart. They screw their employees, they screw their suppliers, and all so they can be even richer than they already are.

I agree with everything Norman Matloff writes. He hits the nail on the head. He points out how companies abuse the F-1/OPT program. so glad this is legal in our great country. where would the country be without Obama and Democrats increasing time limits and types of jobs for the F1/OPT visa. Subsidies of almost 10K per worker per year, companies do not pay taxes and the workers are obligated to stay at one company for many years. great for corporation, bad for other us workers.

http://hiref-1students.com/

David Swaim , top immigration lawyer, helping corporations take advantage of subsidies and tax breaks.

The important aspect of hiring F-1 students is that their commitment to a particular employer is dictated by the legal system as opposed to an agreement or contract. In fact, it is the international student who must remain committed to the employer, whereas the employer has no obligation whatsoever to initiate or continue the employment. Therefore, the student must be able to complete all of the steps necessary to become a permanent residence based upon the sponsorship of the employer, but the employer is free to terminate the relationship at any time for any lawful reason.

As mentioned on this website, the average F-1 student must remain with the employer for at least seven years and in many cases up to twelve years. In addition, the international employee is committed to the company since his or her ability to remain in the United States, especially after a certain point in the process, depends entirely on that employment.


Where are the Democrats that will fight for workers? Why are they hiding?