Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 199): ...

You said a lot there, but I am not sure how it fits in here.

---

By the way, there are circumstances when employers actually are subsidized by governments - examples include TIF (Tax Increment Financing), where a businesses is given a break on property taxes to encourage building and operating a place of employment in an area which is economically-blighted; and wage-support subsidies, where employers are compensated for part of the wages of people they hire, people who would not have been hired but for the subsidy (example: recovering addicts, job-training program graduates, rehabilitating parolees, etc.). These are legitimate subsidies.

But welfare-recipients working for entry-level employers being paid entry-level wages - that ain't no subsidy.

Quoting sccutler (Reply 198): Ultimately, all you'll achieve is an increase in the cost of everything we needed, use and purchase, such that, while the numbers on the paychecks maybe larger, the quantity of "stuff" that can be purchased with the pay is no greater.

It is not that way in Washington state. We were just there this summer. In low cost Walla Walla, Washington, people were getting on just fine with the highest minimum wage in the nation. We ate at Del Taco several times and shopped at Wal-Mart and K-Mart on occasion. Gas was less than in California, tacos and burritos at Del Taco were about the same as in California, items in general were about the same price as in California. And their sales tax is about the same as California, also. The biggest difference is: Workers in Washington do not have to pay income tax.

We spent one night in high cost Seattle. Amazingly, everything was about the same price (gas, food, personal items) as in eastern Washington. The state had not descended into chaos as the right tells everyone will happen.

As far as the right thinking this is a Christian nation, just look at your politicians. From GWB to Palin to Bachmann to Perry to Mitt to Paul Ryan.... The Republicans with the good sense to stay away from that nonsense are the ones who are hated by the establishment and called RINOs.

Quoting sccutler (Reply 198): vast majority of government jobs, just like private sector jobs, require that the employee perform their job function ("work"), in order to earn a paycheck.

Like the do-nothing House who will still receive nearly $120,000 next year plus extensive benefits for working 119 days? What did we the people get for our money this year? Added $24 billion to the debt because of the tea led shut down and passage of bills naming various federal buildings. I wish I could have a job where I did that little work for that much pay and benefits!

Quoting Revelation (Reply 201): Seems appropriate to this thread:

So basically you are saying "Blame the parent, not the child" is inappropriate? What would you suggest, the reverse?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 203): So basically you are saying "Blame the parent, not the child" is inappropriate? What would you suggest, the reverse?

If a girl is raped and becomes pregnant, the right wing tea response is to let the baby be born, but not give the baby any assistance after it is born. Not just in cases of rape, but for all pregnancies.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 204): Blame people opposed to reproductive rights who are then unwilling to deal with the ramifications.

Of course, life is sacred, according to the religious right. After the fact, your cartoon said it all. You are on your own. You had a right to life, and also the right to go hungry, to earn peon wages, go without healthcare, and be exploited by the wealthy, and if you get screwed over by an accident, by slipshod products, and you try to sue the big bad corporation who injured you while working for them, they want the right to limit your damages. Nice people.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 201): Seems appropriate to this thread:

And the pro-choice side of the debate claims the baby is essentially a moocher, as they often call it, a "parasite". Therefore, the mother has the right to decide to no longer support the fetus if she wishes.

Welfare and abortion debates, solved.

[Edited 2013-11-03 10:22:38]

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 207): And the pro-choice side of the debate claims the baby is essentially a moocher, as they often call it, a "parasite".

The "pro-choice" side has never ever called a baby a moocher or parasite. The "pro-choice" side actually wants to have those services and contraception available. It is called "pro-choice" because people can choose to use those services or not.

I would be classified as "pro-choice" even though the though of ending a pregnancy just because it is an inconvenience is absurd to me. But, at the same time, that is less over a lifetime that will be paid by tax payers. And, if the same woman chooses to carry the pregnancy out and live off assistance, she is called all sorts of nasty names and looked down on and judged by the same people who though she did the right thing by not ending the pregnancy.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 208): The "pro-choice" side has never ever called a baby a moocher or parasite.

Maybe not officially, but many of it's supporters have - including in this website.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 208): It is called "pro-choice" because people can choose to use those services or not.

Incorrect. It's called pro-choice because its supporters believe it is the right of a woman to choose what happens to her own body.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 208): And, if the same woman chooses to carry the pregnancy out and live off assistance, she is called all sorts of nasty names and looked down on and judged by the same people who though she did the right thing by not ending the pregnancy.

Query: Is the latter (living off of assistance) a necessary successor to carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term?

Something to think about.

In any event, this has really gotten off the rails, hasn't it?

Quoting seb146 (Reply 202): It is not that way in Washington state. We were just there this summer. In low cost Walla Walla, Washington, people were getting on just fine with the highest minimum wage in the nation. We ate at Del Taco several times and shopped at Wal-Mart and K-Mart on occasion. Gas was less than in California, tacos and burritos at Del Taco were about the same as in California, items in general were about the same price as in California. And their sales tax is about the same as California, also. The biggest difference is: Workers in Washington do not have to pay income tax. We spent one night in high cost Seattle. Amazingly, everything was about the same price (gas, food, personal items) as in eastern Washington. The state had not descended into chaos as the right tells everyone will happen.

"Descended into chaos"? I've missed that prediction.

As for your observations above, they are logically disconnected from the discussion here. Can you discern why? The seeds of the answer are there.

---

In any event, I would strongly urge people who find the wages paid at any particular employer to be inadequate, to vigorously protest by not working there. There is, for example, a serious shortage of entry-level workers in the construction trades, and "minimum wage" is never uttered in the same sentence as "construction," at least, not around here.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 209): Maybe not officially, but many of it's supporters have - including in this website.

Where?

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 209): It's called pro-choice because its supporters believe it is the right of a woman to choose what happens to her own body.

That too.

Quoting sccutler (Reply 210): Is the latter (living off of assistance) a necessary successor to carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term?

According to the far tea right, yes. Yes it is.

Quoting sccutler (Reply 210): "Descended into chaos"? I've missed that prediction. As for your observations above, they are logically disconnected from the discussion here. Can you discern why? The seeds of the answer are there.

The far tea right keeps screaming how their Big Mac will cost $.50 more and they will not stand for it.

As far as your second question, a higher pay rate puts workers in a higher tax bracket. Why is that a problem? As one poster in this forum loves to point out (incorrectly): workers don't pay taxes. If someone is receiving a higher pay, they are bumped up to a higher tax bracket and paying more in taxes. Unlike one poster contends: people below her/him do not ever pay taxes.

------------

Related to this thread is an interesting video. Watch every second. I know most people will call BS and say it is nothing more than "liberal" hate speech, but do some research after watching.

http://utrend.tv/v/9-out-of-10-ameri...rong-about-this-mind-blowing-fact/

[Edited 2013-11-03 23:16:48]

Quoting seb146 (Reply 211): The far tea right keeps screaming how their Big Mac will cost $.50 more and they will not stand for it.

To be fair, the price will probably go up more than $.50, I'm almost sure of it. Go to Europe. It's a choice of having people have a job and them getting welfare while we pay for cheaper goods or having a living wage but buying more expensive goods. I don't think it's possible to have a living wage with the prices we have now, I'm all ears if anyone has a plan. Seems to fly in the face of basic math

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 212): To be fair, the price will probably go up more than $.50, I'm almost sure of it.

The problem isn't that it's burgers, it would be everything. And guess who would bear the brunt of it? Not the people shopping at Nordstrom, it would be the people shopping at Walmart.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 213): Anyhow, one of my FB buddies sends:

It that supposed to offend me or make me a liberal? All it does is make me want to make sure I can put myself in a position to be a CEO.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 213): Anyhow, one of my FB buddies sends:

It is amazing, you can see it, you know it is absurd, you know it is greed, you know it is an example of the corrupt corporate culture of the US, yet we have the defenders, we have the deniers, we have the worshipers of this corrupt system. It almost beyond belief to anyone who knows right and wrong at the most basic level.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 214): It that supposed to offend me or make me a liberal? All it does is make me want to make sure I can put myself in a position to be a CEO.

It could be argued that on average, you'll make less. I know you're all about taking the risk to make it big though. It's kind of like the lottery--on average you lose money, but you have the opportunity to strike big.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 212): I don't think it's possible to have a living wage with the prices we have now, I'm all ears if anyone has a plan.

But that is what the tea freaks are doing. They keep repeating the lie that low taxes on the wealthy and huge corporations will put good paying jobs in the United States. We have had 30+ years of that and where are the good paying jobs? Watch that youtube video I posted a link for.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 175): In Rhode Island, the smallest state, with high costs of living, including tax burdens.

So that begs the question: if it's so financially infeasible to live in Rhode Island, why live in Rhode Island?

If people move away from RI because the pay isn't sustainable relative to the COL, then you'll quickly find that wages will increase. Northern Alberta is a great case study in this. McDonald's employees there make at least double what McDonald's employees make in most other provinces because people weren't willing to work such low paying jobs there, so they had to raise the wages out of necessity to attract labour.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 175): You will not own a house, you will rent.

Is owning a house the metric for success in life? A lot of people have no desire to own a house.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 177): Are you one of the Canadians that raids our Targets and Walmarts every weekend?

Not this guy. I lived 20 minutes from the US border for 5 years while I was in university and crossed the border maybe 2-3 times in that period. I honestly just couldn't be bothered to spend an hour at the border just to save a few bucks

But I do get a kick out of going to Walmart when I am in the States, it's a very different experience than visiting Walmart up here. I'll reserve further comment at the risk of offending anyone here  

Quoting seb146 (Reply 183): "IT'S OBAMA'S FAULT!!!" sound familiar?

If something is amiss with a business, the buck stops at the CEO. If something is amiss with the economy, the buck stops with the President.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 199): One has to admit, that corporations are people.

Only in the US, it seems. It sounds like you're against the notion, which I would entirely agree with. It's absurd that anybody would consider an entity to be anything close to a "person" beyond the purpose of legal action.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 199): Now if our blessed country was born on Christian Principles, as Republicans are so eager to point out, and they sure are.

Fixed that for you.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 207): as they often call it, a "parasite".

The smallest fraction of pro-choicers are that extreme. They represent the pro-choice side so much as the Tea Party represents the right wing. They're a disproportionately vocal minority within a larger group.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 213): Anyhow, one of my FB buddies sends:

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 215): It is amazing, you can see it, you know it is absurd, you know it is greed, you know it is an example of the corrupt corporate culture of the US, yet we have the defenders, we have the deniers, we have the worshipers of this corrupt system. It almost beyond belief to anyone who knows right and wrong at the most basic level.

Nothing like some skewed facts to go with my morning coffee.   I wonder what the source is for this data?

Well let's do our own math:

According to Social Security figures, the average person in the US earns $44,321.67. So using the ratio in your figure, we can calculate the average CEO pay to be $21,052,793.25. Pretty crazy, eh? But when we look at Salary.com's figure for the average American CEO pay, we see that it's only really $756,019. If we divide that number using the ratio you posted, then we can calculate the average worker to make only $1,591.62. The figure posted by your buddy completely ignores basic rules of statistics, not least of which is comparing data in relative terms.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/AWI.html
http://www1.salary.com/Chief-Executive-Officer-Salary.html

Another interesting article related to this topic: CEO vs. Average-Worker Pay: A Dumb Metric

[Edited 2013-11-05 06:44:52]

Quoting seb146 (Reply 211):

Quoting Revelation (Reply 213):

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0.../1082439/-The-fetus-is-a-parasite#


Then there's this, which is pretty interesting:

"Ultimately though, to have a "right to life" requires that one be an individual capable of living an independent existence. One must "get a life" before one has a "right to life." A fetus is not a separate individual—it lives inside a pregnant woman and depends on her for its growth. In fact, the biological definition of "parasite" fits the fetal mode of growth precisely, especially since pregnancy causes a major upset to a woman's body, just like a parasite does to its host. I'm not trying to disparage fetuses with the negative connotations of the word parasite; in fact, parasites and their hosts often enjoy mutually supportive relationships, and this obviously includes most pregnancies. However, the parasitic relationship of a fetus to a woman means that its continued existence requires her consent[11]—if she continues the pregnancy unwillingly, her rights and bodily integrity are violated."

http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-ca...ada.org/articles/fetusperson.shtml


And lots and lots more with a simple google search.

[Edited 2013-11-05 17:25:30]

Quoting Revelation (Reply 204): reproductive rights

Gag...

I'm pro-choice, but "rights" have nothing to do with it.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 220): http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0.../1082439/-The-fetus-is-a-parasite# There's this, which is pretty interesting: "Ultimately though, to have a "right to life" requires that one be an individual capable of living an independent existence. One must "get a life" before one has a "right to life." A fetus is not a separate individual—it lives inside a pregnant woman and depends on her for its growth. In fact, the biological definition of "parasite" fits the fetal mode of growth precisely, especially since pregnancy causes a major upset to a woman's body, just like a parasite does to its host. I'm not trying to disparage fetuses with the negative connotations of the word parasite; in fact, parasites and their hosts often enjoy mutually supportive relationships, and this obviously includes most pregnancies. However, the parasitic relationship of a fetus to a woman means that its continued existence requires her consent[11]—if she continues the pregnancy unwillingly, her rights and bodily integrity are violated."

If we use the Daily Kos' logic, any person who is perpetually on welfare is also a parasite, and thus has no right to life.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 217): It could be argued that on average, you'll make less. I know you're all about taking the risk to make it big though. It's kind of like the lottery--on average you lose money, but you have the opportunity to strike big.

I kind of doubt that. I already make more than average, and plenty of my coworkers drive nice cars and send their kids to private schools.

Besides, all those big companies with highly paid CEOs also have a boatload of other well compensated executives.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 219): Is owning a house the metric for success in life?

Yes. How do you think 2008 happened?

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 219): But I do get a kick out of going to Walmart when I am in the States, it's a very different experience than visiting Walmart up here.

Canadian Walmarts sound much nicer. No useless employees with IQs in the high single digits bothering you every five seconds.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 219): So that begs the question: if it's so financially infeasible to live in Rhode Island, why live in Rhode Island?

I am one who is close to my family and friends. I do not make friends easily, in fact I do not want to.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 219): Is owning a house the metric for success in life? A lot of people have no desire to own a house.

I agree.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 219): Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 199):One has to admit, that corporations are people.Only in the US, it seems. It sounds like you're against the notion, which I would entirely agree with. It's absurd that anybody would consider an entity to be anything close to a "person" beyond the purpose of legal action.

I most certainly agree with you. a preposterous idea.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 222): Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 217): It could be argued that on average, you'll make less. I know you're all about taking the risk to make it big though. It's kind of like the lottery--on average you lose money, but you have the opportunity to strike big. I kind of doubt that. I already make more than average, and plenty of my coworkers drive nice cars and send their kids to private schools. Besides, all those big companies with highly paid CEOs also have a boatload of other well compensated executives.

That is a completely anecdotal account, though the way I worded it, I can see why you got the wrong idea. It's the thinking that on average, you'll make more in that kind of economy than you would in a similar economy to ours. There is obviously a lot that goes into it so just comparing US to whatever country isn't isolating the variables we are talking about.

I feel ya though, it's not too hard to make more than the average American based off where we were born. Count your blessings/karma/luck/whatever you believe in

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 224): That is a completely anecdotal account, though the way I worded it, I can see why you got the wrong idea. It's the thinking that on average, you'll make more in that kind of economy than you would in a similar economy to ours. There is obviously a lot that goes into it so just comparing US to whatever country isn't isolating the variables we are talking about.

Some Scandinavian countries make more than the US, but in addition to being more heavily taxed, also pay far more for pretty much everything.

I have no interest in the floor. What I care about is having the highest ceiling.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 144): Everything is linked to where he got them. He gives you all the tools you need to verify it on your own.

I heard the show enough times until I figured out his angle. It's a standard monologue format. Limbaugh confuses and plies his listeners with faux discussion. But really, it rhythmically hits the same talking points over and over. If he talked about Martians being responsible, his dittoheads would believe it.

Like, "Obama: what did he know, and when did he know it?" That insinuates something scandalous. It is a manufactured question built by craftsmen.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 214): The problem isn't that it's burgers, it would be everything. And guess who would bear the brunt of it? Not the people shopping at Nordstrom, it would be the people shopping at Walmart.

That's correct; a high min wage would smash the employment of the lowest rung workers. It would also smash affordability of the goods and services they need.

The people eating at McD's are generally not high income people. The rich guy at Nordstrom isn't paying for these min wage created goods. He buys better goods. So he isn't paying a cent for high min wage. Other than the fact a given carwash or restaurant or store sees its profits go down. The real brunt of this is still on poor people.

People who can command $15.00 per hour already make that much.

And lastly, min wage laws hurt rural communities, whose wages aren't directly comparable to core urban wages. Min wage should be keyed to rural needs (but not to illegal workers, mind you).

Quoting Flighty (Reply 226): I heard the show enough times until I figured out his angle. It's a standard monologue format. Limbaugh confuses and plies his listeners with faux discussion. But really, it rhythmically hits the same talking points over and over. If he talked about Martians being responsible, his dittoheads would believe it.

He has such a negative, facetious attitude IMO, and he'll rile the crowd up and says things easily verifiable, yes. Very easy to go on the internet and see that the source exists and then most people just stop there. If you read rebuttals to that position you might see that what he is saying isn't 100% true or all the truth, or that the angle he approached it at was way too cynical, but all that tosh is just a liberal response full of propaganda, of course.

I'm less right leaning than I used to be, but there was a time where I was fairly right of center (but not far right) and I'd actually be closer to Democrats than some of the clowns on the far right and when I'd debate people I was called a socialist liberal and was told I was brainwashed by the monolithic mainstream liberal media. It's insane. Some of the elements in the GOP/TP are absolutely ridiculous

Quoting Flighty (Reply 226): That's correct; a high min wage would smash the employment of the lowest rung workers. It would also smash affordability of the goods and services they need.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/11/06/news...-wage-seatac-new-jersey/index.html



It seems the people have spoken in these two places about low wages. I notice one place is in Gov. Christies home state.

[Edited 2013-11-06 18:16:59]

Quoting Flighty (Reply 226): min wage laws hurt rural communities, whose wages aren't directly comparable to core urban wages. Min wage should be keyed to rural needs

Again: Washington state has the highest minimum wage in the nation. I spent over a week there this summer. Prices for everything in the rural (ALW) part of the state were the same or lower than Seattle or Vancouver. That is: rent, food, gas. Oregon has a high minimum wage, too. Prices in rural Oregon were the same or lower than Washington and the same or lower than PDX.

Your point?

If you think you can have it your way and build your double Whopper with bacon & cheese, you didn't build that!
You probably had a great teacher somewhere in your life that turned you on to that incredible tasting Whopper. Someone build roads & bridges to get you to that Burger King.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 83): You mainly lose wage relative to the bottom. It would suck making twice as much as minimum wage and all of the sudden making only a buck or two more. You mention you'd be a good candidate for a raise and I agree, I was just wondering if that happened in other countries? I'd hate to see the most unskilled workers making as much as someone that is somewhat skilled. Maybe I'm not making my question clear enough, because your answers seem to skip around what I'm looking for

France is a good example of this. The minimum wage grows as fast as inflation, and politicians often give a "bonus" to it so over time it has grown quite a bit faster than inflation. Consequence, about 17% of the salaried people earn it. It has its upsides and downsides, but no politician would be crazy enough to propose to reduce it ! Instead they try to push higher salaries up but it's not working that well, so there are other "solutions", like tax loopholes for overtime or incentives for companies to give shares or dividends to their employees tax free. Dassault for example gives a huge bonus to employees, top to bottom, in good years.

If you earn twice the minimum wage, you're in the top 20% of income in France ! I didn't think it was that striking, my parents are easily in the 10% top earners while very middle class. There is much less income inequality than in most countries.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 229): Again: Washington state has the highest minimum wage in the nation. I spent over a week there this summer. Prices for everything in the rural (ALW) part of the state were the same or lower than Seattle or Vancouver. That is: rent, food, gas. Oregon has a high minimum wage, too. Prices in rural Oregon were the same or lower than Washington and the same or lower than PDX

My point is you will see unemployment. Rural Oregon is more or less an economic catastrophe. Coos Bay? The entire state is wobbly. As it normally is.

Washington state does better. But its rural areas are still slammed by (in my view) structural obstacles. Most rural counties are above 10% unemployment. So, a $15 minimum wage there would probably fully depopulate the rural areas. Government benefits would be the only option to survive, for most people.

http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2013...yment-rate-low-in-washingtons.html

Quoting Aesma (Reply 231): There is much less income inequality than in most countries.

To that Sir, I say Vive La France.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 231): If you earn twice the minimum wage, you're in the top 20% of income in France !

That's ridiculous. French people are paying way too much for all sorts of labor.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 231): There is much less income inequality than in most countries.

And you think that's a good thing!?

Quoting Aesma (Reply 231): There is much less income inequality than in most countries.

I know one thing, the sovereign nation of France has the right to pass wage laws, create income equality anyway they see fit. Why is anyone who is not a citizen of France entitled to tell you in France how to run your country and how they should treat their fellow citizens? They are not entitled obviously.

[Edited 2013-11-11 18:39:45]

http://money.msn.com/investing/post-...-more-tone-deaf-advice-for-workers



Rather than start a new thread, I thought I would add this article about the advice from McDonalds to their employees. Also Walmart is mentioned. Simply an amazing case of stupidity by two of our favorite corporations who treat their people so well. It is free advice also.   

Quoting Flighty (Reply 232): My point is you will see unemployment. Rural Oregon is more or less an economic catastrophe. Coos Bay? The entire state is wobbly. As it normally is.Washington state does better. But its rural areas are still slammed by (in my view) structural obstacles. Most rural counties are above 10% unemployment. So, a $15 minimum wage there would probably fully depopulate the rural areas. Government benefits would be the only option to survive, for most people

Part of the reason they have high unemployment is no one is willing to start businesses there. Not because no one has money but because the population can only sustain so much.

The town I grew up in, for example. Pendleton. K-Mart was a main stay for us. Until Wal-Mart moved in. When there are only 18,000 in the town and people are used to driving an hour to the nearest mall, there is not room for both. Eventually, K-Mart closed. It was not only because of Sears decisions, but because people genuinely did not shop there. Horizon quit flying there because they were phasing out the Metroliners and Dash 8-100s but also because who flies to Pendleton? Anyone in Pendleton just drives to either Pasco or Portland if they need to fly somewhere. Mini-marts (liquor stores in California) 7-11 opened two. They both closed because there were established local mini-marts. Even most of them are no more. The list goes on.

Businesses do not close solely because of the wage.

As far as "government benefits" (I would assume you are talking about food stamps and unemployment) those are finite resources. There actually are jobs in rural areas. Jobs where no skill is needed or required. People end up taking those jobs out of duress (no more unemployment/food stamps). Why don't they take those jobs in the first place? They think "something better will come along". Like there is some 'job fairy" out there or something.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 234): And you think that's a good thing!?

It's a very good thing for 80% of the population.

Quoting Philby (Reply 238): It's a very good thing for 80% of the population.

Except that 1) It rips off the top 20% of the population by overtaxing and depressing their pay and 2) Everyone pays more for everything. Higher minimum wage sounds great until you realize that most of the people making that wage see it evaporate because they have to absorb the additional cost for everyone else's higher minimum wage.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 239): Except that 1) It rips off the top 20% of the population by overtaxing and depressing their pay

I trust you can explain how a minimum wage is overtaxing high earners (unlkess you are talking about servants wages). I'm missing the link.

French income tax is way lower than in the UK and executive salaries are comparable. (There keep appearing proposals to limit top salaries on the grounds that excessive executive salaries are detrimental to the economy and depress pay for the majority. It never gets anywhere.)

The French place different values on (their interpretation of) quality of life than the US does. This leads to a different pay scaling.
Compared to the UK which has a more US approach to life
Housing and wine are approx 50% of the cost in the UK.
Electrical goods are about 20-30% more expensive.
Fuel is cheaper in France but this is more marked for diesel fuel - in the UK Diesel is more expensive than petrol. In France it's the inverse.
Lunch breaks are longer. (within a certain international company official UK lunch=45mins, official french lunch=1hr30)
French generally have more days holiday but make up for it with higher basic weekly hours. Coming in on Saturday often leads to an extra days holiday and not overtime pay.
French income tax at the average engineers salary is about 40% what it is in the UK but social security costs are about 150% of UK.
The cost of living index puts France and the UK about equal. It's just that the components are not equal.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 239): Higher minimum wage sounds great until you realize that most of the people making that wage see it evaporate because they have to absorb the additional cost for everyone else's higher minimum wage.

You know there are countries out there that have done the things we talk about and it doesn't go as you say. At least look at what really happens when these measures go in place and disagree with that, not something made up. Higher minimum wage does tend to increase the standard of living for the lower classes at the expense of the upper classes (society becomes more level.) I can definitely see your objection to that but it's completely different than the made up scenarios you keep mentioning

France has a higher minimum wage than the UK. $22k vs $19k PA.

France also has 10.9 unemployment vs 7.6 in the UK.

Go figure.

Not that that matters, the UK will be back in recession in a few years when the latest housing bubble bursts, along with the QE addicted US. No idea about France.

Let's reassess when sustainable economies emerge.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 241): You know there are countries out there that have done the things we talk about and it doesn't go as you say. At least look at what really happens when these measures go in place and disagree with that, not something made up. Higher minimum wage does tend to increase the standard of living for the lower classes at the expense of the upper classes (society becomes more level.) I can definitely see your objection to that but it's completely different than the made up scenarios you keep mentioning

The Brazilian government has an institute that tracks various statistics and does studies on the country. It determined that most of minimum wage increases was eaten up by a rise in the cost of services. It did not even look at the job-destruction caused by these increases.

Now, if you don't want to believe the above happens, then look at the following definition, which comes from one of the left's favorite economist:

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/wage-push-inflation.asp

Bottom line, you cannot possibly improve an economy or standard of living by ordering an increase in pay. The idea is totally ludicrous. If it was possible there would be no more poverty in this planet. It's 200% wishful thinking.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 243):

And that's why Scandinavian countries are collapsing right now? After all, they have higher minimum wage

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that raising minimum wage and just that alone will bring about utopia and equality. I'm just arguing against what BMI is saying

Quoting Philby (Reply 240): I trust you can explain how a minimum wage is overtaxing high earners

Part of how they level income is by taxing high earners at excessive levels.

Quoting Philby (Reply 240): The French place different values on (their interpretation of) quality of life than the US does.

Yeah we know, the French don't like to work.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 241): You know there are countries out there that have done the things we talk about and it doesn't go as you say.

Sure it does. Have you seen how much more expensive virtually everything in Europe is?

What's worse, is that raising minimum wage hurts the lower classes more than others since they consume the most cheap labor. Workers at Nordstrom probably wouldn't get a raise, but workers at Walmart would.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 242): France also has 10.9 unemployment vs 7.6 in the UK.

But, does unemployment pay better in France?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 245): Sure it does. Have you seen how much more expensive virtually everything in Europe is? What's worse, is that raising minimum wage hurts the lower classes more than others since they consume the most cheap labor. Workers at Nordstrom probably wouldn't get a raise, but workers at Walmart would.

Yes, I've been there many times. Talk to the Europeans on this very board, too. It's dramatically different than what we have here and minimum wage isn't the only factor that goes into it. The whole point is the society is more level. I know you disagree with that kind of society but that's how it is. They have less disposable income, they need less, and the lower classes seem to be better off.

That's all I'm saying, I know you disagree with the principles of it, but it's not like we'd spiral out of control

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 246): The whole point is the society is more level.

That's a dumb point. Economic equality sucks. Having it means everyone is mediocre. You don't want to be economically equal, you want to be economically superior.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 246): They have less disposable income, they need less,

That's an interesting point to make considering that, when you really get to the core of it, disposable income equals freedom.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 247): That's a dumb point. Economic equality sucks. Having it means everyone is mediocre. You don't want to be economically equal, you want to be economically superior.

Hmmmm....

Through the 1970s, people who worked did well. The rich did well too. When Clinton helped tax the rich and cut taxes for the poor, everyone did well.

But, that's dumb, right?

Also, the right-wing bastions actually take more from the federal government in "entitlements" (food stamps, medicade) than Democratic lead states. So, your right-wing ideal is costing us in the evil real world, more money.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 248): Through the 1970s, people who worked did well. The rich did well too.

You're really going to cite the 1970s' economy as something to be emulated?

Quoting seb146 (Reply 248): When Clinton helped tax the rich and cut taxes for the poor, everyone did well.

Taxes are only ever a parasitic effect on the economy. The economy never succeeds because of taxes, only despite them. If you want to look at the 1990s, the tech boom is the reason times were good, not tax rates.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 248): Also, the right-wing bastions actually take more from the federal government in "entitlements" (food stamps, medicade) than Democratic lead states.

They're not getting money because they're right wing, they're getting money because they're dumb, uneducated hillbillies. I don't want to pay for those fools either, but you should note that they screw basic things together just as well as more expensive union members.