Mo Money Mo Problems. .. this was made by someone who doesn't understand how a minimum wage effects economies. Increasing minimum wage helps those with minimum wage jobs, but reduces th Money greed economy rich poor minimum wage
Click to expand


What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#260 - infinitereaper (12/13/2013) [+] (12 replies)
stickied by listerthepessimist
God I hate these posts.
Because I completely see the point, while the vast majority seem to be caught up in the delusion in the masses.
You ignorant little ***** are the exact reason the government and large entities get so powerful and influential in the first place.

First of all, the Federal Reserve is an independent entity. They hold complete influence via endless monetary. Then you have the outstanding deficiet (and debt) of the U.S. Then you have lobbying, the main source of which is, guess what? Monetary. Which goes full circle. Regulation. Control. Governing? YOu think the government runs the country? They just do the leg work, people with money, entities with money; they run the country. And everything is for the sake of profit.

Compare profit growth, inflation, and minimum wage. Guess which two have grown and which one hasn't?
Inflation and have profit have had gross increases, but minimum wage barely meets the standard. Then you have outsourcing and everything becomes a lot clearler.

The rich elite don't give a **** about you. They don't give a **** about you. They don't have to. See there are two ways to run an economy, with the current example being capitalism.

1. Manufacture goods/services, hire people, pay people, create goods and services, sell, make profit, grow bigger, hire and pay more people. Complete feedback loop: You make profit while giving people money to fund the economy which will increase the market size making you more profit giving people more money raising the slandered of living and basically making everything better. EVERYONE WINS.

2. Absolute profit. Outsource everything. Make everything as cheap as possible. Hire as few workers as possible. Pay as less as possible. Use the global economy to quickly, cheaply and efficiently make as much profit as possible. Feedback loop is nearly non existent. But this is easy... and so much money! How could I stop? This is the American way! I'm just successful! Look at all the lazies
#105 - invshika (12/13/2013) [-]
>people thinking minimum wage is arbitrary
#170 to #105 - agonix (12/13/2013) [-]
Go back to /pol/, fegit
User avatar #299 to #170 - invshika (12/13/2013) [-]
Go /pol/ to fegit, back
#373 to #299 - agonix (12/13/2013) [-]
Go fegit to back, /pol/
User avatar #410 to #373 - invshika (12/13/2013) [-]
Fegit back, /pol/ to
#429 to #410 - agonix (12/14/2013) [-]
Back /pol/ to fegit, go
User avatar #462 to #429 - invshika (12/14/2013) [-]
Back go fegit /pol/ to
#465 to #462 - agonix (12/16/2013) [-]
To /pol/ back fegit, go
User avatar #468 to #465 - invshika (12/16/2013) [-]
Go to /pol/, fegit back
#469 to #468 - agonix (12/17/2013) [-]
Fegit to /pol/, go back
User avatar #470 to #469 - invshika (12/17/2013) [-]
Go to /pol/, back fegit
User avatar #176 - Shitthatscrazy (12/13/2013) [-]
I'm probably going to get some seriously bad ranting here but i'm going to say this because this is the same thing as with Canada.

Fix the Income tax rates to better match the society.Not lower it or raise it but fix the scales of how incomes are taxed to better everyone.

People who work minimum wage and/or earn something like 25,000 or so a year should have income taxes reduced so they get more money off of what they earn.

People who earn pays that are way above basic needs like earning 100,000+ a year should be more heavily taxed, they already earn more than enough to afford a rather luxurious home and a new car easily with supporting a family with cash to spare.

Now i know you guys might be saying that it wouldn't be fair to punish the wealthy for warning their money but the taxes don't match the people right now.

For Canada at least there wasn't suppose to be an Income tax after the last world war because it was a funding measure to support it, unfortunately it has yet and probably will never be removed.

Also for those who might declare "Well then all those wealthy company people will just raise the prices on their products to match the new taxes". Well they probably might or probably might not because if the owners of these businesses want to be as greedy and bastardly as everyone think they are then it'll be put right out in the open for everyone. But they probably wont pull that because in the end they could lose more then they gain.

And btw this is'nt even remotely communism, its tax re-evaluation which could help north america's big "Capitalism Take over" .

At worst that could happen though is that big companies try to dodge the taxes by moving taxable assets out of the continent but then again, it might cost them more than what they gain.
User avatar #178 to #176 - Shitthatscrazy (12/13/2013) [-]
Another point to this is that it will also reduce the number of people needing to depend on welfare for support and in the end the government will have a big expense lessened considerably.
User avatar #267 to #178 - listerthepessimist (12/13/2013) [-]
not to mention the rise in income tax
User avatar #345 to #267 - Shitthatscrazy (12/13/2013) [-]
how would the income tax be raised if government would be getting more money?
User avatar #357 to #345 - listerthepessimist (12/13/2013) [-]
i was unclear, income tax revenue would rise, rather than the tax rate itself
User avatar #418 to #357 - Shitthatscrazy (12/13/2013) [-]
probably not. the shift of the taxes versus how much money is recieved from taxes should be about the same
User avatar #331 to #176 - durkadurka (12/13/2013) [-]
I have a better idea. We determine the average amount of money a person absolutely needs to survive. Then all income a person earns below this amount is tax-free. They need it to survive. Then all income above said number is taxed at a certain percentage, regardless of who you are. This sort of thing would be completely fair, would eliminate thousands of pages of tax codes (and therefore loopholes), and eliminate the need for 90% of the IRS.

One consideration I haven't 100% gotten down is what to do about dependents. Obviously it costs more for a person to live with dependents, but we also can't create a system that lets a person "cheat" by having tons of children. So perhaps each dependent increases your tax-free income by a certain amount up to a certain number of dependents.

And now because the IRS suddenly has jack to do, we turn it into an organization that uncovers and eliminates waste and fraud in federal spending.
User avatar #346 to #331 - Shitthatscrazy (12/13/2013) [-]
exactly my point. i just was not as extreme in my opinion
User avatar #210 to #176 - biomedic (12/13/2013) [-]
That would never work. It encourages equality between rich and poor. Rich people don't like that.
User avatar #187 to #176 - manofbeardliness (12/13/2013) [-]
So what you're saying is that the people making 25k a year should be taxed less than their 15%, and the people making their 100k should be taxed more than their 28% bracket. The upper-middle and rich are already paying the highest of taxes, which in turn is eliminating their incentive to stimulate the economy. Also, the taxation on the rich only makes up about 7 or 8% of the income tax revenue. 80% of Federal revenue on income tax comes from the middle and lower-middle class. So if their taxes suddenly drop that means it's ******* up federal revenue; if you use higher taxes on the rich you're ******* up potential stimulation to the economy. The rich have money, therefor they need to spend it. Whether it's through creating jobs (venture capitalism), or just spending money, them being taxed up the ass is counteractive.

I agree that the tax system should be re-evaluated. It doesn't get adjusted to inflation and there are loopholes in what can be written off etc.

You can't simplify a complex system and think slightly lowering taxes for the poor and raising taxes for the wealthier will work. There are way too many variables that fit into this ************ of things. Wishful thinking will get you nowhere.
User avatar #189 to #187 - Shitthatscrazy (12/13/2013) [-]
whats a 2% change on both ends gonna hurt rich folks. it adds a couple extra hundred bucks to the people in the lower brackets but barely hurts the people in the 100k bracket at all
User avatar #191 to #189 - pebar ONLINE (12/13/2013) [-]
minimum wage is not a system of redistribution
User avatar #238 to #191 - Shitthatscrazy (12/13/2013) [-]
never said it was
User avatar #6 - pokemonstheshiz (12/12/2013) [-]
this was made by someone who doesn't understand how a minimum wage effects economies. Increasing minimum wage helps those with minimum wage jobs, but reduces the number of jobs available and hurts people with slightly higher paying jobs by driving prices up and hurting other's relative incomes
#182 to #6 - anon (12/13/2013) [-]
not that simple, you're ignoring 95% of external factors that a raise of minimum wage imply, which can lead to almost any situation. For example, it strongly depends on the coutry concerned, the unemployment rate, the economic growth, the trade balance...

economic science is different from other sciences as you can never have two exact same situations, so a same action can potentially have an infinity of possible results

sry for english not native
User avatar #184 to #6 - lamarisagoodname (12/13/2013) [-]
Well the cost of living is rising, who do we have to blame inflation on?
#205 to #6 - anon (12/13/2013) [-]
That is the standard simplistic macroeconomic theory but it is, in fact, false. This issue has been studied over and over in the real world and it has been shown that minimum wage laws do not negatively affect employment.
#206 to #6 - anon (12/13/2013) [-]
rich people don't make jobs, consumers make jobs and if there's more demand the companies need to match it with more employees to satisfy demand.
#199 to #6 - anon (12/13/2013) [-]
A little lazy to read the 22 posts to see if this was already said but here I go.
Raising the minimum wage will also increase the price of everything. A majority of businesses, including small businesses, will not want to get rid of their minimum wage employees because they need them. So they need to make up for their lost profit somewhere, and that would be in raising their prices. So the general outcome of raising minimum wage is going to be a combination of less jobs and higher prices for goods.
#124 to #6 - anon (12/13/2013) [-]
its meant to be a dig at who govt should be focusing their policies on i thought
#133 to #6 - anon (12/13/2013) [-]
yeah but in some countries minimum wage is simply not enough to live on at the moment, eg The UK, I'm so glad that I'm not on it
User avatar #347 to #6 - thereoncewasaman (12/13/2013) [-]
Raising the minimum wage would actually help the economy if it done right. Companies are not going to want their profits eaten into so they will be likely to hire less workers, s the government needs to come in and say "no you can't run a business by paying as few people as possible as little as possible". These corporations are making so much profit that they could easily raise the minimum wage out of their own pocket and not be hurt, the only effect it would have is that they would only have enough money to last 20 lifetimes instead of 25. Even if the consumer had to pay for the difference it would not be a large change to prices, and it would be offset by the fact that everyone would be making more money. The one effect raising minimum wage would have that would be difficult to compensate for would be that everyone who works at jobs that pay higher than minimum wage would need a wage increase as well to balance out. But that's still entirely possible if the corporations just take a chunk out of their profits. But they won't ever do that of their own good will. The corporations run the US and they are draining as much money out of it as possible, they don't give a **** about any of us. That's why they love it here so much; its the wild west of capitalism, they can do whatever the **** they want. The government has to step up and tell them that they can no longer harm our economy like they are. There are companies out there who already run like this; namely Costco and Trader Joes. Both of these businesses provide great products and service and also pay and treat their workers well and give them benefits. How do they do this? The top level people in these companies don't make as much money. They are still extremely wealthy, but not at the level of all the bloated greedy executives that run the largest corporations in the country. Anyone who says that its a bad thing to make sure everyone has a living wage and can survive is a scumbag.
#235 to #6 - tjflash (12/13/2013) [-]
Allow me to refer you to this. Now Tell me the wealth is even.
Allow me to refer you to this. Now Tell me the wealth is even.
User avatar #245 to #235 - pokemonstheshiz (12/13/2013) [-]
I never said it was even
User avatar #257 to #245 - tjflash (12/13/2013) [-]
The problem is that the average cost of living is $20,000 and at minimum wage, a full time worker makes $16,000. Minimum wage doesn't need to be $20, but it SHOULD be able to cover a mans cost of living at the least.
User avatar #169 to #6 - sealman (12/13/2013) [-]
While it is true that a rising real wage decreases employment, minimum wage is always defined in nominal terms. Thus, it possible for it often lag behind real price levels and actually bring the real wage down which can also hurt employment in reducing the supply of workers even in the presence of high demand (just do Keyensian cross). Currently, there is a plan for increasing the minimum wage after studies revealed that an increase in minimum wage would change employment(negatively) by less than 3%.
This discrepancy between price and wage is obvious for many living on minimum wage, which in NY is $7.25(around $8 everywhere else). That's about the cost of meal. For your average 40 hour week, some math later, we have $290. Now we subtract food, say $18 for three meals a day, then rent at around $300 a month($75 a week). Already, that's $165 a week, over half of that week's income, just on the most basic necessities, not wifi or insurance or taxes, etc. This eventually doubles back on the consumption side as very little of this income can be allocated to consumption(which drives over 60% of the US economy) and further hurts the slump. Now that's just some of the numbers and theory I got. Actually living through this is probably much harder, facing stress to balance work and leisure plus maybe student loans would probably require taking multiple minimum wage jobs, which reduces health and overall productivity.

TL;DR: There are pundits that confirm all of your worldviews.
User avatar #173 to #169 - coldhearthotcar (12/13/2013) [-]
I'm going to focus on McDonald's because they're the company making headlines with their employees asking for $15 an hour.
First and foremost, aside from the manager and semi managerial positions, McDonalds' wage plan is built for part-timers and students. Not people trying to make a full living off of this. If they raise the wages and start paying their employees more then they have to start charging more. If today a burger cost $1 and tomorrow it cost $2 then that money start loosing its value and we have inflation. What inflation essentially does in the short run is not only make it more difficult for people to get jobs, but also make it just as difficult for people with jobs to maintain their standard of living. Which in turn makes people be more greedy with their money because you now need more of it for stuff.
Don't want minimum wage? Don't take minimum wage and look for a better job.
User avatar #177 to #173 - sealman (12/13/2013) [-]
Wait, I don't follow your logic, and I don't think you understand every term here. First of all, minimum wage is set by the government as the floor wage such that employees can earn a living wage. Second, real wage is nominal wage divided by price level, the latter of which takes inflation into account since inflation is the difference in price level between periods. You seem to be trying to wrap a macro principle with a micro approach. It won't work because of scale, as minimum wage affects every single person in the nation and the labor market as a whole, while McDonalds is a corporation(albeit a large corporation) amongst many, with its own policies in dealing with private individuals.
#50 to #6 - anon (12/13/2013) [-]
what the comic is saying is that the heads of companies who receive hundreds of millions of dollars a year and then give themselves $6,000,000 christmas bonuses are hypocrites by saying that raising the minimum wage is greedy . If the CEO of FatCat Industries maybe takes a $10,000,000 dollar annual salary instead of $200,000,000 then the company can afford to pay all their employees more. People who can afford to help out and be charitable are mostly greedy.
#13 to #6 - anon (12/13/2013) [-]
Or by increasing minimum wage, you just increase a company's incentive to go wherever someone -else- is willing to work for less.
User avatar #14 to #13 - pokemonstheshiz (12/13/2013) [-]
that was included in "reduces the number of jobs available"
#96 to #14 - anon (12/13/2013) [-]
Nearly every job that can't be done within the US is already outsourced.
User avatar #16 to #6 - godtherapist (12/13/2013) [-]
Or, and I know this is a shocking idea. Companies could just eat the cost, instead of being greedy, like is supposed to happen.
User avatar #18 to #16 - pokemonstheshiz (12/13/2013) [-]
that'd be nice
However, most companies are funded by their stockholders, who aren't too happy when the prices go down.
#198 to #16 - anon (12/13/2013) [-]
Well, no, that's not how its supposed to happen. Companies, unlike cooperatives, exist to make profit. Eating costs in fact is not how a company or an economy is supposed to happen.
User avatar #200 to #198 - godtherapist (12/13/2013) [-]
Companies are supposed to crash and burn in a spectacular failure when their costs exceed their gains but the Government has decided to just bail out large companies time and time again because it's "good for the economy" except now we're stuck in a perpetual recession and unemployment keeps going up because these companies keep firing people to stay afloat.

Yes they ARE supposed to eat the difference.
User avatar #240 to #200 - msypsylon (12/13/2013) [-]
You're talking as if companies are governed by moral laws. If there is a way to improve their numbers they should do it. It's not a company's duty to keep the economy flowing. As anon said, it's ONLY objective is to make profit. Not to support you or your government or to create workplaces.
Also companies burning in a spectacular failure is worse for the economy than them firing some people.
User avatar #139 to #6 - jagarico (12/13/2013) [-]
except, you know, in many cases minimum wage increases don't lead to any significant layoffs. A lot of research suggests that in the medium to long term, there's no measurable increase in unemployment.

Sure, you can argue that these articles are opinions and the research is wrong, and I'm sure if you search you can find research that says the opposite. But that leads to my next point, which is that economics is an imperfect science- you can never confidently say that A will cause B, since all cases are different. Therefore, I think you are wrong to be so sure that minimum wage increases will lead to layoffs.

Also as a side note, if the minimum wage is too low, the government is effectively subsidizing the minimum wage workers. For example, many walmart workers get paid so little that they have to live on government benefits. This means that walmart gets away with paying workers so little only because the government helps to pay for the costs of living for these poor workers. This is unfair to businesses that pay good wage and to all who pay taxes. The only solution to this is to raise minimum wages to a point where people can actually live without government aid. Yes, companies can probably afford this- look at cities and states that have high minimum wages. They don't necessarily have rampant unemployment. The solution might not work as well as we hope, but it's the only we got, other than, say, instituting communism, but that has it's own set of problems.

User avatar #138 to #6 - thatbrevitything (12/13/2013) [-]
This liberal theory has been invalidated by reality. Without minimum wage you can't have an healthy economy. The claim that raising the minimum wage would decrease the job offer isn't true, aswell as saying that lowering the minimum wage would increase the job offer.
In order to have jobs you need to have growth, you can't lower unemployment without growth.
#273 to #6 - anon (12/13/2013) [-]
what do tyou know another funnyjunkie talking out of his ass without presenting facts or evidence. I really do wish you people would just sit the **** down and shut the **** up.
User avatar #125 to #6 - rhetoricalfunny (12/13/2013) [-]
Isn't that when people can't afford to hire many workers because of the high minimum wage?
User avatar #213 to #6 - hellsjester (12/13/2013) [-]
or .... here's a thought. or they could just ******* give up some of their money and help fix the problem so minimum wage and stay the same. ******* tax cut assholes
#80 to #6 - anticitezenone ONLINE (12/13/2013) [-]
And also that the rich people dont burn their money so they know what's good and bad for the economy
#130 to #80 - toensix (12/13/2013) [-]
That pic.
That pic.
User avatar #212 to #6 - tonyxx (12/13/2013) [-]
The US dollar is woth less than it was 30 years ago, buth Minum wage hasn't changed since 1981, how is that fair?
User avatar #59 to #6 - thisisspartah ONLINE (12/13/2013) [-]
but what about the fact people would be earning more money thus spending more and creating jobs?
#192 to #59 - adamks (12/13/2013) [-]
Yeah why don't we just print out a lot of money to give to poor people so they can spend and totally help the economy?
#275 to #192 - anon (12/13/2013) [-]
printing money and handing it out might make that economy have more money but doing so lessens the value of the dolla in respects to other countries worsening overseas transactions
User avatar #291 to #275 - xdeathspawnx (12/13/2013) [-]
he was being sarcastic...
#208 to #192 - anon (12/13/2013) [-]
That actually works very well as long as there is slack productive capacity in the economy. We should have been doing this for the last 5 years or so, until inflation returns to AT LEAST 2% annually.
#174 to #59 - Sampsy (12/13/2013) [-]
It is outweighed by the fact that there are less people earning that increased wage.

If a firms wage budget is fixed it means wage up = workers down. Wages up means less profitability. You now have less workers for the same wage bill. Now labour abroad is relatively cheaper and more jobs shift away from the home economy. The higher the minimum wage, the worse the effect gets. It is a much better idea to better educate your labour force so they are productive enough to earn above the minimum wage without the need for legislation.

As to whether CEOs being paid huge amounts is greedy or not. I'd say perhaps it is but that's no different to sports or music starts earnings. They may also be heavily involved with charity so you can't blanket say anybody with a large wage is greedy.

Is a huge wage fair? Most of the time, yes. Minimum wage workers don't earn much for themselves because they don't earn much for the firm and there is a huge pool of people who can replace them. High paid workers earn a lot as they are very productive and there is a much smaller pool of potential replacements. Bitch about bankers pay all you like, but that $100,000 bonus was likely because they earned millions for the bank that year. Being paid huge amounts while losing money is a problem but the worker won't last long at a firm if they are doing that.
#211 to #174 - tonyxx has deleted their comment [-]
#419 to #59 - chipacobra (12/14/2013) [-]
my point exactly, the new deal that got the US out of the depression was the same idea, hell. halfing the defemce budget for public works projects would easily create jobs to get the economy rolling. but there's just one problem, no congress would pass it.
User avatar #310 to #59 - durkadurka (12/13/2013) [-]
Let's say you work at McDonalds. Suppose your wage suddenly doubled. It seems great at first, but then you realize that McDonalds' expenditures just shot up, and now they're not making money (or nearly as much as they were). So now McDonalds has to double the prices of their food. You're now making more but you're also paying more, and so in the end the whole thing is just a wash.

Or perhaps McDonalds fires you because they can only pay for half as many workers now.

And then if you're a middle class person who didn't just get their salary doubled, you're now getting ****** because every costs more and you're not making any more money.

Obviously this is more complex, but that's the gist of it. The money has to come from somewhere, and these businesses are just going to say "okay, we won't make as much money anymore."

User avatar #355 to #310 - thereoncewasaman (12/13/2013) [-]
Actually, the math has been done and if minimum wage went up to around $12 then the price of a mcdouble would only increase about a dollar. Everyone elses wages would then need to be increased (not necessarily doubled though) to compensate for that, but all of these huge companies can afford to do it. Besides, why is it a bad thing that the top level people in mcdonalds wouldn't be making as much money. The CEO of mcdonalds makes about 514 times more money per year than someone who works there for $8 an hour at full time. And that person is living just above or at the poverty line. That is a complete lack of empathy on anyones part, it just demonstrates the problems that unchecked capitalism has.
User avatar #360 to #355 - durkadurka (12/13/2013) [-]
Well we don't have unchecked capitalism. We have crony capitalism, where the government is on the same team as the heads of corporations.

If we raised the minimum wage, any company that hires mostly minimum wage employees will raise their prices on their goods. And of course, the goods they sell tend to be the cheap inexpensive things the poor rely on in the first place. But now everyone one else in the middle class has to start making more money or become poor. So now every good and service the middle class help produce or provide becomes more expensive.

A minimum wage increase means almost nothing when everything you have to pay for is suddenly more expensive. The only unaffected people will be the rich.
User avatar #368 to #360 - thereoncewasaman (12/13/2013) [-]
Not true though, the increase in minimum wage would cause prices to go up, but the prices of products would increase less than the wages, so overall consumers would have more purchasing power than before. The middle class would need to make more money as well and that is a problem where there isn't one great solution, however its absurd to say that it would be bad to give people a living wage because it will be difficult to balance it out across all incomes. There is a solution and people much smarter than I are probably working on it now but I can say that the income inequality in the US has reached criminal proportions and something needs to be done or our economy is going to tank. Consumption is 2/3rd's of our GDP and right now consumers have no income to spend, they are barely scraping by. With an increase in wages everyone would be more comfortable and there would be enough disposable income to drive consumption back up. Guess what goes up when consumption goes up? Production. So by giving people more money businesses will be selling more products, which will encourage them to hire more workers to keep pace, which will give more people jobs, which will introduce more consumption to the economy.
#63 - lazorman (12/13/2013) [-]
how's 8th grade?
#374 to #63 - anon (12/13/2013) [-]
OP is in eighth grade for actually giving a 			****		 about something? just because he hasn't succumbed to the cold embrace of being a an apathetic bastard like you hardly means he is in primary school.
OP is in eighth grade for actually giving a **** about something? just because he hasn't succumbed to the cold embrace of being a an apathetic bastard like you hardly means he is in primary school.
#276 - swedishassassin (12/13/2013) [-]
Alright, if you believe this is what's happening and this is the only reason we don't want to raise the minimum wage, you've successfully absorbed all propaganda and don't understand economics.

Those CEOs couldn't give 2 ***** about the raise, since the profit loss would hit their UNLIQUIDATED assets [the fact they own the business, and we really like to include this when calling them the 1%, though without it it would be more like the 12%, which is a really high number compared to any other time in history].
When you raise the minimum wage, it affects everyone close to that wage, even above. Your raise results in one of two things; the price of the product goes up, nullifying your 'raise', or you or your fellow worker gets fired, with no ability to whine about 'discrimination'. Now everyone else with a wage above minimum is actually making a little less, because of price-raising.
People, minimum wage isn't meant to give you a living salary; it's meant to prevent working abuse. The whole raise is a bunch of two-bit politicians who want a good voter-turnout. Stop being so accepting of this crap, from either side.
User avatar #308 to #276 - xdeathspawnx (12/13/2013) [-]
It seems that the majority of the people on this site have no knowledge of even basic economics or how supply and demand works. They say they want the minimum wage raised because it sounds good to them, but have no idea the repercussions it will have to the economy and unemployment rate. They don't understand that not everyone can just get paid more, someone has to lose their job to help pay for the pay raise of a couple of others.
#249 - anon (12/13/2013) [-]
15 dollar min wage?
Enjoy your 10 dollar candy bars.
User avatar #251 to #249 - listerthepessimist (12/13/2013) [-]
I hate candy
#264 to #249 - thegreenbutton (12/13/2013) [-]
implying I buy candy
User avatar #236 - analbuttfuck (12/13/2013) [-]
Raising minimum wage would just lead to mass unemployment, and only cyclical employment so people can be hired for the lowest amount of money possible.
Companies aren't dependent on workers any where as much as workers being dependent on companies.
People always need jobs, if one person wont work for a certain amount of money, it is more than easy to find someone who will.
#196 - dwarfman (12/13/2013) [-]
In defense of OP, The glorious faggot he may be I don't think this is aimed at the professionals. If you're a lawyer, doctor, accountant, engineer, etc you're going to hit the $100k mark 10 years into your career. Invest right and you'll die rich. What this seems to be referring to is the ultra rich which come in a few flavors: Geniuses (Gates), Trust fund babies (Majority), Hedgefund managers (Tanked the Economy), CEOs (Overpaid twats). To me this isn't taking a stab at dudes like gates or the professionals that made it big. Those dudes add value to society, and got rich doing so. It's going after the trust fund babies, the hedgefund scamers, and the CEOs. All of those dudes are not paid based off the value they create, but either through subversion, luck, or rigging the vote (CEO's salaries are voted on). So stop with the "OP is a liberal/8th grade/socialist". I don't think the McDicks dudes deserve $15 an hour but a raise to the minimum wage would be good for society. Let's kick it up $1 per hour give the college kids some more pocket change.

tl;dr Stop fighting amongst yourselves while the ultra rich keep dicking us all

D'Argos 100% unrelated in anyway.
#247 to #196 - listerthepessimist Comment deleted by listerthepessimist [-]
User avatar #248 to #196 - listerthepessimist (12/13/2013) [-]
Well put good sir

I posted it because I like the artwork
User avatar #386 to #248 - dwarfman (12/13/2013) [-]
Farscape is far too under appreciated.
#135 - I Am Monkey (12/13/2013) [-]
This post completely misunderstands the issue of minimum wage. Nobody's saying they shouldn't raise it because it's "greedy". They're saying that if you raise it, it will become even harder for entry-level employees to get hired. For example: If minimum wage is $7, you're hiring the best you can get for $7. There are other places that pay $10 and get more qualified workers who are not willing to work for $7. If you raise the minimum wage to $10, then then the $7 workers will have to compete with the $10 workers and they're going to lose out.

Pic semi-related.
The only picture I have about greed.
#153 to #135 - angelusprimus (12/13/2013) [-]
Not all jobs are created equal. In USA we might not have as big unemployment as we did, but most jobs that get created this days are very low paying jobs with no benefits and low job security.
So if you raised the money gain on the most secure jobs in USA, service jobs that can't be replaced by robots unlike production, creation of jobs would slow down, but jobs created would be middle class not poor people jobs.
When minimum wage was established in USA it was equivalent to 17 dollars an hour today. And it did create a dip in job creation. Shortly. And then it proceeded with largest expansion of US economy. Because people who have money spend the money. And countries with strong middle class are rich countries.
#165 to #153 - anon (12/13/2013) [-]
Yes because that period of economic expansion is attributed to the establishment of minimum wage and not say "World War 2". Really?
#168 to #165 - angelusprimus (12/13/2013) [-]
That period of expansion is attributed to over 2000 factors.
That period of growth of middle class, drastic lowering of poverty and growth of percentage of wealth in middle class hands is attributed mainly to minimum wage and early unions (which have very little to do with ****** up unions today)
Creation of all the new jobs in post ww2 wouldn't do much if those weren't GOOD jobs.
Employment in early 1900's was just as high, but most jobs at the time were bare minimum in wages, no job security and crap like being paid in company script.
One of largest economic pushers at the time was incredible growth of real estate industry. And how did that happen? Because so many people suddenly had enough money to buy real estate.
So yeah, minimum wage laws, along with other laws that benefited the working middle class was main driver of economic expansion.
User avatar #181 to #168 - Sethorein ONLINE (12/13/2013) [-]
That was an oddly specific threshold of factors you established. Over 2000... Almost want to see a book titled "the 2000+ factors that lead to the post WWII era economic boom"
#341 to #181 - angelusprimus (12/13/2013) [-]
Lol not specific.
I picked it up from my history teacher. Whenever something really complex was tried to be pulled down to one simple reason he would say "There is always over 2000 reasons why a huge change comes, never take the easy answer."
But someone COULD write a book like that. America's meteoric rise was so complex and so lucky and took so many factors fitting in just so, you could almost believe in manifest destiny.
#159 - gjah (12/13/2013) [-]
I'm a student of Economy and minimum wage is bad, M'kay?

Without minimum wage, balance point between supply of labour and demand is at £ 3.8 (blue line). With market balance, we only have voluntarily unemployed. Voluntarily unemployed are those who only wish to work for higher salary, as they value themself higher than market balance point.
But with minimum wage, we get whole bunch of people who wish to work for £4.2, but they can't because there is not enough demand for labour at £4.2, so we got whole bunch of people who are involuntarily unemployed (difference between demand and supply for labour at £4.2.

Minimum wage is kill for economy
User avatar #227 to #159 - undeadwill (12/13/2013) [-]
I'd work really cheap if I could just so I'd have a job and a bit of spending money.
User avatar #186 to #159 - theimmortalbeaver (12/13/2013) [-]
I'm constantly amazed that more people don't understand this. It doesn't even have anything to do with political stances or personal beliefs. On a basic, logical level, minimum wage is a horrid idea that screws up economies. It's like people just want it to work, and they think that if they believe hard enough it will.
User avatar #172 to #159 - LaBarata (12/13/2013) [-]
If I'm not mstaken, minimum wage was created in the 20s or 30s as 'How much can someone who's working support a family on' or something to that extent.
User avatar #180 to #172 - Sethorein ONLINE (12/13/2013) [-]
"Work to support a family"

If you're working unskilled labour to support a family all on your own you're definitely doing something wrong...
User avatar #194 to #180 - LaBarata (12/13/2013) [-]
I know, but keep in mind that this was the 20s/30s, when auto work/factory work was what a massive amount of people did for a living. That's when it was designed.
#262 to #159 - anon (12/13/2013) [-]
I'm nearly finished my degree in Econ / Maths. That model you're using is only useful when the economy is in equilibrium where the marginal product of labour is equal to the wage rate; in other words, only when markets are perfectly competitive. Since, for the most part, people are paid below their marginal product of labour (since, otherwise, economic profits across all firms would be 0), increasing the minimum wage doesn't represent a deviation from equilibrium. Don't use that model to describe real-world phenomena.
#283 - twofreegerbils (12/13/2013) [-]
Want to **** up unemployment rates even more? Raise the minimum wage.

This is the reason why I hate political comics as a rule.
#280 - pollepolle (12/13/2013) [-]
As far as I'm aware, raising the minimum wage leads to unemployment on an aggregate level
User avatar #352 to #280 - gorgannan **User deleted account** (12/13/2013) [-]
Doesn't have to.
#414 - anon (12/13/2013) [-]
*economic post makes it to frontpage*

*everyone on funnyjunk suddenly expert economist*
#415 to #414 - anon (12/13/2013) [-]
Milton Friedman on Minimum Wage >expert economist
User avatar #378 to #376 - listerthepessimist (12/13/2013) [-]
Beautiful, isn't it?
#370 - brettyoke (12/13/2013) [-]
>implying that working your way to the top and earning more money is hurting the economy.

These are the people that provide jobs and start businesses. The people striking for better wages are hurting the economy in two ways:
1) The strikes stall business
2) If they win, a minimum wage increase hurts everyone, including them. To compensate for higher minimum wage, companies selling basic manufactured goods have to raise prices to make up the difference, which in turn causes the people receiving the new minimum wage to pay more, which in turn puts them in as bad (if not worse) of a situation as before they started they're strikes out of ignorance.
User avatar #329 - nickrocks (12/13/2013) [-]
I always believed that jobs that offer minimum wage are mostly jobs that don't require too many skills. If you want a job in which you earn a living, you should learn a skill that people will pay you money to do. Once you become good at this skill, then you go out and try to get a job in which the skill is applied. The people who work at the fast food places shouldn't be complaining about how little they are being paid, because they are being paid for doing a job that doesn't require real skill.
User avatar #422 to #329 - hoponthefeelstrain (12/14/2013) [-]
unless you've worked fast food, dont say how easy it is. I've worked fast food, at a daycare and at a nail salon and fast food was the hardest thing I ever had to do. At all times I'd have to be doing the jobs of 2-3 people, it's hot, customers want their food within .34 seconds of them ordering it, It's really busy and crowded and ******* tiring. I wont go on a rant because I've already said it before, but I didn't last a month, my coworkers who've made it. I have so much respect for them.
User avatar #457 to #422 - nickrocks (12/14/2013) [-]
I see what you are saying, but you kind of misinterpreted what I said. What I mean was that fast food places don't require any long term CAREER skills. Sure fast food is hard to deal with, I've worked at a McDonalds for about 2 years straight, and hated it. I'm just saying that careers like Server Administration or Welding require long term career skills. So jobs like that are harder than the fast food industry in MANY ways.
User avatar #348 to #329 - gorgannan **User deleted account** (12/13/2013) [-]
The point of minimum wage jobs is just that. And they suck. You can't complain though because there are always willing to work for less than you.
User avatar #290 - claudius (12/13/2013) [-]
They say in America a CEO earns 475 times more than his average worker. Sure, he may work hard but could you honestly tell me he works 475 times harder to earn what he earns?
User avatar #311 to #290 - pebar ONLINE (12/13/2013) [-]
hard work =/= value
User avatar #363 to #311 - claudius (12/13/2013) [-]
And without the workers the company would be nothing. So how do you truly measure value?
#367 to #363 - pebar ONLINE (12/13/2013) [-]
Labor is a commodity just like any other
User avatar #351 to #311 - gorgannan **User deleted account** (12/13/2013) [-]
Value=\= you did all that.

If you're a CEO, chances are you didn't work your way up. You were always above people. The chances that you go from an abusive ****** family to CEO is low. That's why they're the BIG success stories.
User avatar #366 to #351 - pebar ONLINE (12/13/2013) [-]
Not being born with the same opportunities as other people does not change the fact that CEOs have skills that are more valuable
User avatar #417 to #366 - gorgannan **User deleted account** (12/13/2013) [-]
I could learn how to be a CEO with just as much effort as many other jobs. You just can't. Like getting a good job without college. You can do on the job training and be just as qualified, that just isn't how things work.
User avatar #229 - xxiixx (12/13/2013) [-]
If raising minimum wage is so easily a solution, why don't we make minimum wage 100k a year for everyone? Then everyone will be rich. Nothing could possibly go wrong.
User avatar #99 - gammajk ONLINE (12/13/2013) [-]
If you aren't producing $15 worth of work per hour, your work is not worth $15 per hour.
#106 to #99 - Nohelpforu (12/13/2013) [-]
So if the dollar suddenly became worth half as much as it is now, you would say minimum wage earners would half to live off of essentially the same pay for twice the living expenses? Cause the States min wage hasnt gone up since 83 and thats exactly what happened.
User avatar #108 to #106 - gammajk ONLINE (12/13/2013) [-]
Don't work minimum wage jobs if you have too high of living expenses. Simple.
User avatar #466 to #108 - nicolae (12/16/2013) [-]
I work in Romania and i win 500 euro/month and i have months in summer with 1000.I am a plummer and i work all day, if you want to work you make money everywere in the world
User avatar #115 to #99 - konradkurze (12/13/2013) [-]
well who are you to judge whats 'worth' a pay rate of $15 an hour

some employers have their staff busting their balls and underpay them while other employers let their employees do **** all and pay them pretty well
User avatar #117 to #115 - gammajk ONLINE (12/13/2013) [-]
>whats 'worth' a pay rate of $15 an hour
If your work nets an output of $15 in profits for the company per hour, then your work is worth $15 per hour.
>some employers have their staff busting their balls and underpay them while other employers let their employees do **** all and pay them pretty well
Working at McDonalds is not "busting your balls".
User avatar #118 to #117 - konradkurze (12/13/2013) [-]
the amount of orders a staff member can fill at Mcd's in an hour, and given the **** they serve costs dirt and makes good profits means the staff deserve something better than dirt pay
User avatar #132 to #118 - gammajk ONLINE (12/13/2013) [-]
Why? Do you understand exactly how many people McDonald's employs, let alone independent contractors like the factories that provide the food, the construction workers that build the places, all the equipment, etc.... They all need to get paid too, and their work is of far higher expertise than the average McDonald's worker.

Explain to me why they deserve $15 an hour instead of $10 an hour.
User avatar #136 to #132 - konradkurze (12/13/2013) [-]
well, take a look at how pretty impossible it is to live on minimum wage unless you either live in super ****** places or try and find trustworthy people to flat with and split the bills

Mcd's makes ********* of money but underpays its ******* super underpays its people and even bitched they'd close stores down if they were forced to pay livable wages to employees

its not really about if people are 'worth' certain pay rates, they're more about offering low pay and grabbing those desperate enough to work on it
User avatar #142 to #136 - tkfourtwoone (12/13/2013) [-]
Would you pay your gardener with $15/hour?

...yeah, didn't think so.

P.S.: From what I gathered, it's rather easy to live with minimum wage in the US (provided you don't live in an expensive city like NY) if you don't foolishly waste your money...
...since, you know, you have lower prices that 2nd world countries like mine (where minimum wage is around 250-300 dollars, but the prices are almost as high as the rest of the EU)
User avatar #145 to #142 - konradkurze (12/13/2013) [-]
i know people through the usa who work on minimum wage and have to work 14-15 hours a day over 2 jobs to live

usa isnt the paradise it pretends to be and its getting worse

btw where are you, hungary?
User avatar #147 to #145 - tkfourtwoone (12/13/2013) [-]

So I know from pure example just how much communism and/or idiotic socialism (there's the "smart" socialism, available in the Scandinavian states) can **** up the economy.
We never really had actual capitalism, yet everybody rants about it (not only here, of course), wants it gone and considers that capitalism has met its end, when actually (if you look at China, for instance), it's never been more powerful, since globalization and Internet have stepped up the game big time.
User avatar #155 to #147 - konradkurze (12/13/2013) [-]
country sucks.....join germanys team...prosper,... russians get mad....romania hates germany and loves big red bear......big red bear dies, romania declares its hate for russia.....goes right back to sucking

yeah china is on the rise because its on a system of underpaying its people and making them live in **** and be happy just to have work, so is it any surprise usa does a 'nicer' version of that
User avatar #160 to #155 - tkfourtwoone (12/13/2013) [-]
"romania hates germany and loves big red bear"

Oh you got it so wrong there...

Even OUR version of "dear leader" (Nicolae Ceausescu, arguably one of the most famous dictators of the latter half of the 20th century) basically gave the middle finger to Russia's Khrushcev policies and opened up lots of diplomatic doors with the Western world.
But still, except for those who are over 50 and are idiotic communism nostalgiaists, we have a rather long and sharp tooth against communism.
User avatar #161 to #160 - konradkurze (12/13/2013) [-]
i was making a dig at how romania was germanys little bitch and loving it, but when the russians invaded romania they kissed ass so hard saying the russians were 'liberators from the nazis' and played nice during the occupation....but as soon as the ussr died romanians couldnt stop ************ russia

yeah the oldies look back and romanticize how it used to be but in their generation, yeah hard work and having so much provided by the state was better than people having to work like **** for it

look at the have to pay out of the ass for real education, while in russia scholing is paid for by the state, you pretty much stay in school and learn forever as long as you have someone to give you home and food
User avatar #163 to #161 - tkfourtwoone (12/13/2013) [-]
Actually we were one of the few not-completely-arian allies that were rather respected by Hitler.
Still, we were used as cannon fodder when Germany invaded Russia. So no wonder we had no option but to give up and betray Germany, faced against complete annihilation and annexation.

And no one in the Central-East Europe thought of the Red Army as "liberators". That's what they called (and still call) themselves, "freeing Europe from fascist tyranny"

About being Germany's little bitch... not really, but truth be told at least 1/3 of Germany's petrol needs were fulfilled by our refineries (which the US and the rest of the Allies tried to bomb **** out of them, to little avail).

NOBODY in their right mind would have chosen the Russian communists over what we had then (we still have a saying "<<Der, die das>>, still better than <<Davai ceas *watch*>>")
User avatar #164 to #163 - konradkurze (12/13/2013) [-]
well of course noone actually thought of russians as liberators they all just called them that to play nice with the russians and seem welcoming rather than resisting the angry soldiers

still have to look more into germany's policy about romania but hitler sure hated all the gypsies you have, and would have raised questions about all those 'romanians' who had stong TURK blood in their familes
but yeah, romania made a good little petrol pump to help germany...

would have liked to have seen romania restored to glory. maybe turn it into a greater Transylvania and drop the roman part....
id rather have romania speaking its own instead of german or russian
User avatar #166 to #164 - tkfourtwoone (12/13/2013) [-]
Well we never really were forced into speaking either German or Russian. We pretty much kept our language.

As for the locals with "Turkish" blood in them... hey, Romanians are basically mongrels between Dacs & Romans (the initial blend), Slavs, Germanic tribes, Huns, Tartars, a little bit of Ottomans, Hungarian tribes, Armenians... we aren't exactly a "pure" race.

Still, despite the appearances, most Jews & Gipsies weren't sent to Germany's death camps, but were deported elswehere (basically saving them from certain death).

P.S. Do you think there was anybody left to oppose the Red Army, after our main forces were frozen and slaughtered at the Russian gates?...
User avatar #167 to #166 - konradkurze (12/13/2013) [-]
wouldnt have mattered if romania had its full the time the russians got through ukraine, the big red bear had 100x the manpower, all those men would have died anyway
could be said having less fighting force inside romania made the russians less violent by having less reason to fight there....

Leave a comment
 Friends (0)