2020 Field
- Thread starter sturg33
- Start date
sturg33
I
lol do we need to spell out the math for you guys?
Let's pay more per hour, but give less hours = less employment.
true min wage = $0.
Bernie is, as usual, so so stupid when it comes to math. He didn't want to pay his people his stupid wage. Now that he realizes he kinda has to, he's going to cut their hours.
That's how it works. Every study on the minimum wage shows this.
But it's not good for the feelings, so...
They just don't understand. The only way to raise total wages for employees is by creating wealth. You create wealth by allowing individuals to make smart decisions with their own money.
acesfull86
Well-known member
"It does bother me that people are going outside of the process and going to the media," he [Bernie] said. "That is really not acceptable. It is really not what labor negotiations are about, and it's improper."
And yet he, as a 3rd party with no stake in the game, never has an issue injecting himself into the process of other organizations
sturg33
I
I don't think there is a bigger hypocrite out there
goldfly
<B>if my thought dreams could be seen</B>
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
But, er, every study on minimum wage does not say that. As a lot of states and municipalities have raised minimum wages in the last few years, there’s more and better data on the subject.
And I’m really not sure that working fewer hours for the same net pay is really some kind of burn. Actually, it seems like a win. Given the same net pay, I’d rather work 38 hours than 43.
sturg33
I
If Bernies central tennent that these people need a wage hike in order to survive, how does not increasing their net pay accomplish this?
Also. Why wasn't Bernie paying them $15 before his staff demanded it and the media got wind of it?
This guy demands every single company do this bit when it's his money? Oh... well that's different of course
I'm not necessarily for universal healthcare, but I think people exaggerate the cost. You're already paying, on average about $500/month on a family plan. The universal plan would replace that cost, and it's possible it could even reduce for some families. For instance, in Canada, the average cost for a family making 60k a year is about 5,000/year (based on numbers from a 2016 report). That same family would likely pay more for health insurance in the US, based on the national average.
Exactly. More time with your family and you get the same pay? Sign me up. Also, would allow some families to save money on child care in such a scenario.
I haven't been for a minimum wage hike, but a raise countered by less hours is the best argument I've seen for it.
I just posted this, but more pay for less hours means it's easier to work 2 jobs if needed. Also saves on the price of child care. Allows them more time to pursue a degree or certification that they may not have otherwise had time for.
Thats not the cost for those that have employer sponsored plans.
Explain please.
acesfull86
Well-known member
The costs manifest themselves in many ways. A cut back in hours, fewer fringe benefits, slower growth in new hires, possible layoffs.
The point is that there are always costs and trade offs of some kind, but one side of the debate wants to hijack it and ascribe moral superiority to their position.
Whats to explain? Employer sponsored plans are significantly cheaper than independently purchased insurance.