It's not so much that they're setting labor prices according to need, which is inherently bad. No, I want to know who decides someone else's need, and just what does that need entail. And why? Man has an instinctual desire to help his fellow man. Discounting nationalism and such, we always do. We don't need government to mandate it to us so that they may share in the swag and try to justify their omniscient existence.
Indeed their increased wages will, in a short period of time, allow them the same purchasing power prior to them being raised. Another point about minimum wage is that what Obama is doing in trying to raise it to 10.10 is to give his union cronies a nice raise also. Since the contracts of most unions such as AFL-CIO and SEIU have provisions in them, or in effect are indexed to the minimum wage, these workers will also see their wages increased.
Demands to increase MW always stop where only marginal workers are affected. Union employees are not affected (in terms of job loss) because they get the automatic raise and those larger companies can raise their prices only slightly to account for higher labor costs.. Smaller businesses that compete with union staffed companies cannot absorb the hit to labor costs as easily as the larger companies can. Thus, the effect of rising minimum wages is to drive smaller competitors out of business, and one can only wonder if that isn't the true motivation behind those claiming to help the poor.. It's not like Obama is a big fan of small business, especially if they believe that they built that business on their own.
Certainly if they have a gun to their head then it is a horse of a different color, and while I can't dispute it, all I can say at this point is that from what I've seen, and read to date, Crimea is majority Russian speaking and seemingly content to return to Russia, and if that is the case then they should vote accordingly. I simply have seen no signs of it, but that doesn't mean you aren't precisely correct. You know, earth worm farming is a highly lucrative business.
Exactly. Employers cannot pay an employee more than that employee's discounted marginal revenue product, or their contribution to the company's revenues. If an employee generates ten dollars of revenue for his employer every hour, the employer can only pay them ten dollars an hour. To pay them more than their marginal revenue product would amount to a net loss for the company.
Murray Rothbard said it well back in 1988: "If the minimum wage is raised from 3.35 to 4.55 an hour, the consequence is to disemploy, permanently, those who would have been hired at rates between these two rates. Since the demand curve for any sort of labor (as for any factor of production) is set by the perceived marginal productivity of that labor, this means that the people who will be disemployed and devastated by this prohibition will be precisely the "marginal" (lowest wage) workers, e.g. blacks and teenagers, the very workers whom the advocates of the minimum wage are claiming to foster and protect."
If the citizens of Crimea vote decidedly to be annexed to Russia, then so what? Doesn't the U.S. promote democracy, liberty and freedom for all around the globe? Do we know what is best for the people of Crimea, and if so, how do we know? Shouldn't the people of Crimea have the freedom to decide their own destiny, be it right or wrong in the eyes of the west? And while I question your assertion that a split Ukraine, where the western part aligns itself with the EU is of little value economically and geo-politically, why must there be value for us in those terms? Isn't this about people having the right to decide for themselves under which type of economic and political system they desire to live?
And what you have failed to acquire is a basic understanding of economics, free markets, the fact that labor is a commodity, the theory of commodity, and basic laws of supply and demand. My rejection of the minimum wage law is based on economical tenets, not social morality.
I don't fell [sic] to see your point of view. I see it for what it is. It is nothing but regurgitated Marxist bile where the evil capitalist entrepreneur, left to his own vices, will take advantage of the poor proletariat and lumpenproletariat in the name of profit (such a nasty word, right?). Therefore, according to you, it becomes necessary for the Federal government to step up to the plate and perform their number one job, which is to ensure that life is "fair" for everybody. It is up to the government to intercede in private sector markets and dictate prices that would normally be attained through supply and demand, and the workings of the free market. It is up to the government to coercively plunder one's personal property, and hand it over to another that is less fortunate in life, or is perhaps just shiftless.
Look, if you want to argue the utility of minimum wage laws, then try employing one of the many arguments for them that are grounded in economics. Instead of thinking about the minimum wage as the barest remuneration that a business must grant an employee, try thinking of it in terms of it being the lowest wage that a worker can sell his labor for- maybe that will make you feel better, or maybe not. Just spare me the Marxist refuse. Save it for your progressive buddies the next time you circle up.
Not good....had them about 14 years ago...destroyed some majestic longleafs...the whole county was over run with them due to drought they claimed...not much you can do about them either...pulp or poles?
Correct..the melt value of a physical bitcoin is "virtually" zero. They are made of brass. FWIW the 25 denomination has gold electro-plating.
While I am a staunch anti-minimum wage proponent (for too many reasons to go into here), it is important to understand that the minimum wage is not the poverty "level". In fact, there is no poverty "level" per se. The Federal government, through the Census Bureau, sets poverty "thresholds" for calculating poverty population statistics. The Federal government, through the Dept of HHS sets poverty "guidelines" for administrative purposes, such as eligibility for SNAP and other transfer payments.
For instance, the poverty guideline (2014) for a family of one is $11,670. It is $15,730 for a family of two, and $19,790 for a family of three. SNAP determines eligibility on 130% of Federal Poverty Guidelines. So that would be $14,940 ( $1245/mo) for a family of one, $20,172 ($1681/mo) for two and $25,392 or $2116 per month.Now, there are numerous deductions to the monthly income for rent, electricity, water, child support and a $152 standard deduction for a family of one to three. These deductions are, in part, what keep many from reaching the "welfare cliff," or that point where a person's wages and combined welfare benefits are at a point where getting a raise causes them economic harm.
A person working 40 hours per week at the Federal Minimum Wage of $7.25 for 52 weeks would gross $15,080 which is considerably higher than the Federal Poverty Guideline of $11,670. Now, if his wage rises to $10.10 then he would get $1750 per month pricing him out of SNAP, except that with the deductions the majority of minimum wage earners will be able to report an income of $1245/mo or less thereby keeping them enrolled in SNAP, and as such, avoiding the welfare cliff. Keep in mind that poverty guidelines increase each year.
One of the problems that progressives make with their misconceived philanthropy is assuming that most hourly wage earners make minimum wage, or are heads of households,when in fact only 2.1% of hourly wage workers make minimum wage and 55% of them are age 16-24.