Will increasing the minimum wage to $9/hr be a net positive?

That was my point Flyer, then as all the prices go up so does the wages for those that the higher paid positions to begin with, the min. wage person ends up with less buying power than if it was left alone.

lsayre wrote:Will increasing the minimum wage to $9 be a net positive

It is a positive for the government. As stated by others prices will increase on goods and the government cut (taxes collected) will increase. A win for big brother.

DieselBob wrote:

lsayre wrote:Will increasing the minimum wage to $9 be a net positive

It is a positive for the government. As stated by others prices will increase on goods and the government cut (taxes collected) will increase. A win for big brother.

To a point. Whether you agree with him or not, the "Laffer Curve" exists. You can raises taxes only to a certain point before revenue declines.

Maybe people don't want to pay $5 for a hamburger. If that's the case, then the $9/hr burger flipper job doesn't exist.

The entire sequester would have reduced last year’s deficit from $1.33 trillion to $1.24 trillion. Nonetheless, insists Obama, such a cut is intolerable. It has to be “balanced” — i.e., largely replaced — by yet more taxes. Which demonstrates that, for Obama, this is not about deficit reduction, which interests him not at all. The purpose is purely political: to complete his Election Day victory by breaking the Republican opposition.But he cannot win if nothing bad really happens. Indeed, he’d look both foolish for having cried wolf. Obama’s incentive to deliberately make the most painful and socially disruptive cuts possible (say, oh, releasing illegal immigrants from prison) is enormous. Psst, a 2011 Government Accountability Office report gave a sampling of the vastness of what could be cut, consolidated and rationalized in Washington: 44 overlapping job training programs, 18 for nutrition assistance, 82 (!) on teacher quality, 56 dealing with financial literacy, more than 20 for homelessness, etc. Total annual cost: $100 billion-$200 billion, about two to five times the entire domestic sequester.

As I said Sam, phkn clueless. I know - I blame Bush- yawn.

Your right again CN use the con method of not paying for anything, sooner or later the other party gets in & then it's their fault. Pay now or pay later bills still have to be paid, pretty good idea run up the debt, crash the economy & blame the new guy. And all that without ever calling or implying names, totally un-con like. http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/25/shared ... tlett.html
I might add first time in history that a war was entered into & fought without sacrifice except for those that fought, even Bush The First had to admit that he had to raise revenue to pay for war, read my lips.

But Sam, the new guy is doing the same thing even with the wars just about over.

The damage was already done, debt is money that's already spent. Why isn't Congress asking for cuts in the welfare costs or even requiring that they themselves take a pay cut? I know they put in a law that theirs won't be cut but if they could put it in they could take it out(if they could do something) hell give up their bottled water for a start.

franco b wrote:But Sam, the new guy is doing the same thing even with the wars just about over.

And he's growing the Federal deficit 3 times more rapidly to boot. A sitting President can't blame the previous administration forever. President Obama retained the fiscal moron Helicopter Ben Bernanke by choice. President Bush did not have anything to do with that.

The original question still remains unanswered. Will (and if so, how will) President Obama's pet program of raising the minimum legal wage to $9/hr. productively increase our GDP?

lsayre wrote:Will increasing the minimum wage to $9 be a net positive, or will it merely redistribute (rob) from those who have (and who also have the capacity to spend productively and create the means by which to produce goods and services and and thereby grow the economy honestly) and give to those who do not (have the ingenuity and real capacity to create new wealth)? How will President Obama's pet program of raising the minimum legal wage to $9/hr. productively increase our GDP (bring a net positive gain to the bottom line of the economy)?

Congratulations. That's the mother of all rhetorical questions!

rberq wrote: Congratulations. That's the mother of all rhetorical questions!

If you strained hard enough (disclaimer, don't bust a gut) you could potentially conceive of the first question as such, but it would be impossible to construe the second question as such (since it offers no potential solution to the question within itself, and it merely asks 'how?").

I thought I answered it in my first post here that I thought it was the wrong thing to do & therefore counter productive. After that everyone simply went after me rather than answer anything, if they don't have an opinion just stray away from the question as normally is done. There wouldn't even be a increase in tax revenue because the cost of Gov. also goes up & if more lose their jobs or the hours worked that's even less. It might give some that don't reason things out the illusion of being better off.

samhill wrote:That was my point Flyer, then as all the prices go up so does the wages for those that the higher paid positions to begin with, the min. wage person ends up with less buying power than if it was left alone.

I understood that. Min wage should be a starting wage. If you want more you earn it with experience and training. I am sure our government understands this more than us. LOL

Flyer5 wrote:Min wage should be a starting wage. If you want more you earn it with experience and training.

You're way too optimistic, and stuck in the mindset of 50 years ago. As jobs become scarcer and scarcer, then more and more higher-skilled workers get pushed down to the minimum (or minimal) wage categories, in spite of their experience and training. Witness recent posts by Kevin (KLook) who moved to Tennessee and finds that in spite of his expertise and high-quality work, he is getting offers of $12 an hour. We are ALL headed in that direction, where only the owners of the factories full of robots will make a good income, and without a much HIGHER minimum wage the middle class will cease to exist and the USA will look like North Korea.

rberq wrote:

Flyer5 wrote:Min wage should be a starting wage. If you want more you earn it with experience and training.

You're way too optimistic, and stuck in the mindset of 50 years ago. As jobs become scarcer and scarcer, then more and more higher-skilled workers get pushed down to the minimum (or minimal) wage categories, in spite of their experience and training. Witness recent posts by Kevin (KLook) who moved to Tennessee and finds that in spite of his expertise and high-quality work, he is getting offers of $12 an hour. We are ALL headed in that direction, where only the owners of the factories full of robots will make a good income, and without a much HIGHER minimum wage the middle class will cease to exist and the USA will look like North Korea.

I see this happening alot around my area

Witness recent posts by Kevin (KLook) who moved to Tennessee and finds that in spite of his expertise and high-quality work, he is getting offers of $12

Ah yes, I was offered that by sharks that thought I was in a corner. But with some patience and networking and putting my skills out there, I have found work for more then double that and that is starting out. That is the free market working, I had the choice of what I would take and when, some do not. Forcing a high minimum wage is wrong, and I also found out that the guy that offered me $12 with NO benefits was charging over $120! So, the money is there and it is up to the individual to make their mark and get it.