Businesses Brace For $15 Minimum Wage In SeaTac, WA

Starting Jan. 1, the minimum wage will increase to $15 in SeaTac, WA. In response to the increase, owners of businesses are using phrases such as "making some serious cuts", "reducing employee hours", "reducing benefits", and "eliminating some positions".

In spite of all this, Occupy-organizer, Trotskyist, Marxist, socialist City Councilwoman Kshama Sawant of Seattle, WA plans on making Seattle the next city to raise the minimum wage to $15.

OK, we get it. Socialists can get a PhD in economics, but still not understand how businesses work. Markets will determine wages as opposed to artificial wage points. After all, why draw the artificial line at $15? Why not $20? How about $25? Do I hear $30?

Why not raise the minimum wage to $100 per hour? Hamburger-flippers everywhere will be living high on the hog then. They'll be able to afford a Manhattan apartment AND a Ferrari.

See? It's so easy. Economic inequality can be wiped out simply by raising the minimum wage. Is $100 not enough? OK, raise it to $200. Hamburger-flippers need yachts, too.

 

Show me one study that proves increasing the mimimum wage is bad for the economy. Don't worry, there is no credible study out there that will prove this lie. Why you Right-wing shills always come down against the American worker is beyond me. Trickle down has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be one huge lie. All the minimum wage lies that have been spewed endlessly have all been disproven and you still prostrate yourselves to all the lies over and over. Your opinion is noted and rejected. Move on.

 

Don't worry. I won't expect you to "recognize" any opinion contradictory to your mantra.

http://www.heritage.org/research/re...mum-wage-hike-would-hurt-jobs-and-the-economy
http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/frie...cle_c654c9f1-b2bb-5a3a-8308-f85575d539e7.html

 

So, are you saying that if raising the minimum wage isn't bad for the economy then it must, conversely, be good for the economy? If that's the case, why stop at $15? Do you think the higher the minimum wage, the better the economy? If so, how high should it go? Should there be an artificial limit and, if so, at what point and why?

 

Actually, it could have a neutral effect or just a negligible effect or help the economy. Handing huge tax breaks to the wealthy sure hasn't helped has it? Hum? Let me remind you that we are just beginning to come out of the deepest recession since the Great Depression and that was after 2, count 'em, 2 huge tax breaks to the wealthy. Obviously people working 40-50 hours a week and still making poverty wages and being subsidized by the tax payers is just fine with you and your shill class for the wealthy. I think people that work hard deserve a living wage and you obviously don't. That is the difference between you and I.

 

And then we have actual facts....

View attachment 2190

 

Here is a fact (and not one of your twisted facts) where the minimum wage realy cost people jobs.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/12/04/wal-mart-opens-d-c-stores-after-wage-fight/

For my own info,just what is 1/Se supposed to represent?

 

When I think about the impact of an increased minimum wage, I don't think about the "wealthy" or the big corporations as much as the local, small business owners I know. These are the people working hard & struggling to turn a profit and risking everything they have on a daily basis. I was just discussing this issue with my buddy who recently opened a deli....with all the costs associated with the start-up, he probably won't turn a profit for a while. He hires all his labor at minimum wage but gives raises/bonuses based on performance. He says if he's forced to pay an inflated wage he would employ fewer people & do away with the performance based incentives. His fear in this is that rather than retaining good help, employees will become comfortable at the increased pay level & performance will suffer.

 

Moron! Only businesses with a half a million dollars in annual sales have to pay minimum wage.

 

Would you care to reference your source, please.

BTW,

http://www.minimum-wage.org/min-wage-exemptions.asp

 

No, the difference between you and I is that I can do the math. Wage increases mean that the price of products will increase. That's economics, plain and simple. Prices increase to the point where a raise in minimum wage becomes negligible and necessitate yet another increase simply to keep up with the cost of goods and services. Do you have difficulty understanding that? It's quite basic, actually. I realize that you don't have faith in a free market system or capitalism, but they really do work.

So, back to my earlier question, how high (or low) do you think the minimum wage should be? Please explain your reasoning.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/09/01/the-absurdity-of-a-15-minimum-wage/

 

That is what I suspected. No backup. Try this. Prove me wrong, if you can because it is just my recollection. Any business is subjected to the federal minimum wage if they deal in interstate commerce (with the exceptions noted above). However, you can have $100B in sales so long as it is all intrastate commerce and not be subjected to the federal minimum wage

 

Also note that half a million dollars in annual sales only equates to $41600 a month.

 

Rand Paul just makes it up...Like most Republicans

Rand Paul’s Marshall McLuhan Moment

01/02/14 10:30 AM—Updated 01/02/14 10:43 AM
By Steve Benen
There’s a scene in “Annie Hall” in which Woody Allen starts lecturing some loudmouth in a movie-theater line about how little he knows about Marshall McLuhan. When the guy protests, Allen brings the actual McLuhan over. “You know nothing of my work,” the scholar says.

In politics, these McLuhan Moments pop up from time to time. When Mitt Romney cited Jared Diamond as support for his views on international affairs, for example, Diamond responded soon after, explaining that Romney had no idea what he’s talking about.

This week, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) had a McLuhan Moment of his own. The Republican senator continues to argue that extending federal unemployment benefits to jobless Americans would be bad for those already struggling, and cited economist Rand Ghayad to bolster his claim.

Ghayad didn’t literally say, “You know nothing of my work,” but he came awfully close.

So why does [the senator] want to end unemployment benefits for people who have been out of work for 6 months or longer? Well, Paul cites my work on long-term unemployment as a justification – which surprised me, because it implies **the opposite** of what he says it does.

Now, we clearly have a long-term unemployment problem. The question is why. Paul says it’s all about incentives. He thinks extending unemployment benefits does a “disservice” to the unemployed by encouraging them to stay unemployed for too long. And as a “big-hearted” member of a party that cares about the jobless, he wants to protect them from making such mistakes – by cutting their benefits, of course.

But Paul misreads my work to try to back up his argument.​

Ghayad’s piece in The Atlantic fleshes out the details nicely, but the bottom line remains the same: what Rand Paul considers proof that backs up his argument on the merits is actually evidence of how wrong he is. Ghayad added that good policy “requires more than a cursory or selective reading of the research.”

Imagine that.

There’s a superficiality that seems to dominate Rand Paul’s understanding of current events and policy debates. It’s not an appealing quality in an ambitious senator.

 

Look! Moron Joe lost another argument so he goes off on a tangent!

 

So who decides who lost an argument and who won? YOU? How nice for you.

 

Wasn't a tough call!

 

What is wrong moron? You really cannot admit you were wrong, can you? Funny, but that trait seems to run along with liberalism.

 

But YOU decided that YOU won? Or did you poll the other parrots? Either way, all 3 of you can pat yourselves on the back while rolling around on the floor at your next circle jerk.
Eeeww! There is an image I didn't need in my head.