Salary idea from John Stewart. I appreciate you taking the time to view the content I uploaded If you want to, send a friend request my way. I accept them all!. Salary idea from John Stewart I appreciate you taking the time to view content uploaded If want send a friend request my way accept them all!
Upload
Login or register

Salary idea from John Stewart

 
Salary idea from John Stewart. I appreciate you taking the time to view the content I uploaded If you want to, send a friend request my way. I accept them all!.

I appreciate you taking the time to view the content I uploaded
If you want to, send a friend request my way. I accept them all!

July 29, 2013
whars. towa,. t/ titians (golfers? Why not "'" ise the
minimum. wage to a hundred thousand. dollars?
u xiii 1
u 5 at
vi/ Hy- NO irina, lair
...
+868
Views: 34571 Submitted: 07/20/2014
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (180)
[ 180 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
117 comments displayed.
#1 - evilhomer
Reply +174
(07/20/2014) [-]
>100,000$ minimum wage
#15 to #1 - thismustbeseen
Reply 0
(07/21/2014) [-]
You would laugh at that wouldn't you, Lex Luthor.
#8 to #1 - daddycool
Reply +5
(07/21/2014) [-]
Vote for me, I'll give you $1,000,000 and hour.
#6 - madcoww
Reply +17
(07/21/2014) [-]
>Remove minimum wage   
>It becomes cost effective to create marginal jobs   
>Jobs are created   
>Unemployment goes down   
>Supply of labor goes down   
>Demand for labor goes up   
>Increased demand in labor leads to better bargaining power of employees   
>Employees are able to demand higher wages   
ALSO   
>Remove minimum wage   
>Pay for marginal jobs decreases   
>Cost of products created by marginal jobs decreases   
>Cost of living goes down for everyone   
PROFIT
>Remove minimum wage
>It becomes cost effective to create marginal jobs
>Jobs are created
>Unemployment goes down
>Supply of labor goes down
>Demand for labor goes up
>Increased demand in labor leads to better bargaining power of employees
>Employees are able to demand higher wages
ALSO
>Remove minimum wage
>Pay for marginal jobs decreases
>Cost of products created by marginal jobs decreases
>Cost of living goes down for everyone
PROFIT
#138 to #6 - douthit
Reply -1
(07/21/2014) [-]
one million internets for you
#11 to #6 - anon
Reply 0
(07/21/2014) [-]
in a lot of places people wouldnt be able to demand higher wages because if they wont work at that wage someone else will. This would only really apply in highly populated areas where the demand for labor wont ever reach the same height as the rise in population.
#12 to #6 - bushingenna
Reply 0
(07/21/2014) [-]
cost of living going down the same rate as our pay doesn't make your lives better.
#16 to #12 - noblexfenrir
Reply 0
(07/21/2014) [-]
Only if you compare those two variables.

Removing the minimum wage (As Madcoww said) would remove the barrier to entry on lower skilled jobs that paid less than the previous wage. This usually results in many low skilled individuals being able to get jobs more effectively (mentally handicapped, high school students, etc.), many individuals who are generally supported by a larger household income, making theirs purely supplementary. Basically, it's a small economic booster for effectively no change in the cost of living.

Then you have businesses who now have the ability to absolutely maximize their earning potential. Many seeing exponential growth when a majority of their jobs are held by these lower skilled workers. This maximizes wealth not only for the large chains, but also the small businesses in a local area. Want to give small businesses the chance to compete with large retailers? Well this definitely aids in that goal.

Because of this large increase in earners in this lower wage bracket, you would see an even larger demand for either A.) Cheap entertaining goods and B.) Cheaper necessities.

All the minimum wage does is lock people out of the job market, and then tells the tax payers to foot their bill. I say equal opportunity for all workers and employers, no man should be forced to pay a wage he doesn't agree to and no man should be turned away because his potential employer was told not to hire someone with his skill level.
#60 to #16 - robinwilliamson
Reply 0
(07/21/2014) [-]
It appeared to me that there's a bell curve depending on how you raise the minimum wage.

www.businessinsider.com/if-your-minimum-wage-increase-doesnt-raise-unemployment-you-didnt-raise-the-minimum-wage-enough-2014-2
#170 to #60 - noblexfenrir
Reply 0
(07/21/2014) [-]
To a certain extent. The basic idea revolves that if the minimum wage is set at a price the market would have already agreed to concerning the average worker, then all it does is make it look like the minimum wage works when in actuality it's a mirage.

If the minimum wage is removed, you probably wouldn't see businesses forcing all employees to change their pay to $2-$3 an hour, you would most likely see wages roughly the same as you do now. The effect on workers is minor when the minimum wage is relatively low, it only drastically affects workers when it becomes so high that only medium and high level skills are now required, dropping a significant portion of people out of the job market. Right now all it does is hurt businesses who cannot maximize earning potential because they have to cross-train current employees to do jobs that could be more efficiently done by someone being paid a much lower wage.
#179 to #178 - noblexfenrir
Reply 0
(07/22/2014) [-]
If they believe that minimum wage was the cause of this fluctuation in job growth then yes. Hell, the article you provided specifically cites the economists mentioned for people to remember these numbers don't establish a cause and effect. Considering we are at a period when the economy is still recovering, sporadic growth in specific states is expected.

I also said that there is a specific tipping point when you pass what the market would have otherwise provided naturally. Choosing one in which you haven't yet hit that tipping point only forces other people out of the market who otherwise would be working.

So let's check out the first state on that list as an example shall we? Comparing their labour reports from 2013-2014 (To look at the variable we're discussing, the current economic and wage changes.) I can see the number of state and federal jobs have increased, while these add to the increase in employment they are hardly what I would call created jobs since they create no form of wealth whatsoever and thus are artificially created, bureaucratic positions. I can also see a large section of higher paid positions (Trade jobs, healthcare, manufacturing, transportation,etc.) have lowered, where the lower paid positions who generally higher more part time work than anywhere else increased significantly from fast food markets, department stores, etc etc.

We had the increased activity in the real estate market in Arizona (well before the increase in minimum wage) so that in itself draws large amounts of positions stemming from agents themselves to small businesses and larger ones cashing in on the momentum of occupancy. This therefor increased demand for construction and therefor increasing demand for labour in that field, people unaffected by the minimum wage who get paid very well, now spending that money in the local businesses, etc etc etc. Must I go on?

Economically the minimum wage is a negative. We shouldn't prop it against the advancement of other fields.
#20 to #6 - mckinkymcormic
Reply 0
(07/21/2014) [-]
that's a good idea, but as a minimum wage employee with his hours just cut due to over employment, i'd rather just lower minimum wage.
#47 to #6 - anon
Reply 0
(07/21/2014) [-]
>Supply for labor goes down
Well, according to history, thats wrong as ****. Back in the industrial age, employers could just pick and choose who wanted to work for the least, because SO many others needed the jobs.

>cost of living goes down for everyone.
Gee wee, go tell that to the average chinese worker, and ask them if thats worth it.
#48 to #47 - shadowgandalf
Reply 0
(07/21/2014) [-]
Fcking firefox didn't have me logged in
#68 to #6 - somefuckingguy ONLINE
Reply 0
(07/21/2014) [-]
Let's Drown Out... Castlevania Symphony Of The Night I know next to **** all on this subject but I saw a video where someone mentioned it for half a minute once
At about 18:55ish..
#72 to #6 - peanutbraddle
Reply +12
(07/21/2014) [-]
This guy's on to something, but getting rid of it entirely has been tested, and doesn't work (See Industrial Era). It was put there for a reason, and that reason was that most corporations could pay their workers pennies on the dollar for an honest day's work. Scratch could, replace with did, and you have yourself a bunch of people who need to have more than one job just to support their family.

Then there's a actual shortage of jobs, because a corporation can pay three people the amount of money that they would regularly pay one. Why does it do this? Because, the supply of labor doesn't go down. There's always going to be someone who will do a certain job for less of a wage.

This is all without even mentioning that a corporation's current Tax Rate is so much lower than it was in the Industrial Era that it's almost unreal.

If there are any contesting thoughts, feel free to voice them.
#76 to #72 - madcoww
Reply 0
(07/21/2014) [-]
I disagree with you about "the supply of labor doesn't go down." The reason it may appear that way is because we've suppressed labor so much including immigration restrictions. There is no end to the amount of work that can be done provided it is of some worth to someone. When people have a scarcity of purchasing power, they will budget accordingly and buy only what they need, but when they have an abundance, they will pay for good and services for the mere enjoyment.

When labor becomes cheaper, it becomes more cost effective to hire people than create/maintain machines. When labor becomes cheaper, there is less risk in starting a business.

Let's say there is an abundance of tomatoes. Farmers would sell them for less. Because they are cheaper, more people would buy them. This would continue until it balances the equilibrium of market value.
#99 to #76 - peanutbraddle
Reply +2
(07/21/2014) [-]
You seriously underestimate the amount of people that would need more than one job just to support their family. Especially when it comes to removing minimum wage completely, I've given you an example as to why this doesn't work. There isn't an argument against this, m8, History proves it to be wrong. Multiple times. Look to China, and see if their workers are doing well.

And American Industrial era businesses had a Top Income Tax of 70%
I don't even ******* know what it is today, but it would pretty much just be a metric ******* of money, just sitting in a bank somewhere, collecting dust, when it could be used to lower out debt.. Which, I may add was going down at a pretty good rate until Reagan cut the Top Income Tax from 70, to 28 percent. Then we were Really ****** over, because for some odd reason, ******** seem to think that these corporations owe absolutely nothing to the government that has protected the West from Communism; an Ideology that would have most certainly destroyed all of the corporations in the world, had the US not done something against it.

When Labor becomes cheaper, small businesses can grow, and earn money, but it's gotten to the point where they won't stop growing, and they'll still be ******* over their workers when they've gotten to the point that they're contributing much less than they're consuming, and I think that's ******* ********.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, the minimum wage amount needs to be lowered by a tremendous amount. Try from it's current place, to say, Five Dollars an hour. That way, there's not much risk in hiring someone, and the people who actually know how to do something useful can get paid more for what they do.
And don't give me any of this "B-but, how am I supposed to support myself?" ********, people. If you're earning minimum wage, I don't see a reason as to why you should move away from home, you're not going to be earning enough to live on your own.
#91 to #6 - shinku
Reply 0
(07/21/2014) [-]
that will never happen because 90% of democrats have and will never take a government class or even know what they stand for in their political party.
#46 to #6 - Nutshell
Reply +1
(07/21/2014) [-]
>Employees are able to demand higher wages

Socialist!
#80 to #6 - misterfrog
Reply +2
(07/21/2014) [-]
This won't work in a global economy. Labor will just be transferred elsewhere.
Plus, those marginal jobs will earn workers next to nothing at all.
The demand for labor is also constantly decreasing, not increasing, because of technological advancements.
This basically worked in the 20th century, now it's severely outdated.
#103 to #6 - nigeltheoutlaw
Reply +2
(07/21/2014) [-]
See, I would think you were on to something, if the exact opposite hadn't happened in the past when we didn't have a minimum wage. You do know that this is why the minimum wage was instituted, right?
#128 to #6 - flnonymousseven ONLINE
Reply +3
(07/21/2014) [-]
> supply goes up
> demand goes up

do you even economics?
#101 to #6 - metalmind
Reply +4
(07/21/2014) [-]
Yeah right, because companies will pass on the savings to the customers.
You can see how well it works in China, and India.
#67 to #6 - Mahazama
Reply +7
(07/21/2014) [-]
Or....
>Remove minimum wage.
>Corporations run disenfranchised workers into the ground, pay them $2 an hour.
#77 to #67 - madcoww
Reply -4
(07/21/2014) [-]
Corporations can't do that without lowering their prices. Walmart competes with Target. Walmart must take as little profits as possible because they pass their savings onto the customer in order to get the customer's business. If they didn't, Target would and would get all the business. So, corporations just can't charge whatever they want and pay whatever they see fit. If they paid their employees too little, they would leave for better paying jobs? If there are no better paying jobs, your product (labor) is priced above the market value and needs to be lowered.
#93 to #77 - peterdivine ONLINE
Reply +2
(07/21/2014) [-]
Unless they all agree to price-fix.
#172 to #93 - madcoww
Reply 0
(07/22/2014) [-]
So long as they can corner the market. However, doing so encourages new competitors to join in because the profit ratios are too good to pass up. The moment you have one company who doesn't play by the rules of the price fixing, the monopoly breaks down. With the incentive a diverting a large amount of profits from big corporations, small companies will wreak havoc for the big corporations.
#173 to #172 - peterdivine ONLINE
Reply 0
(07/22/2014) [-]
The thing is, once you get to that level of organized crime, small companies can get completely rubbed out of the dirt with the amount of power larger companies have. How do you advertise your little coffee shop to appeal over the colossal presence and advertising of Starbucks, who have been the only known names in a province or county for years? How do you sell your homemade towels or foodstuffs or hammers against shops which can sell you EVERYTHING you want and need at once, like Home Depot or Wal-Mart?
#162 to #77 - Mahazama
Reply 0
(07/21/2014) [-]
The problem is that Walmart and Target have the potential to make a compromise, and collectively both lower their wages. If they both agree to lower their employees' wages, then they eliminate that problem completely.
#85 to #6 - sardukai
Reply -1
(07/21/2014) [-]
that's base economics m8, and you're right...
often the problem is that the new equilibrium between demand and supply of labor is lower overall. the government isn't stupid, and tries to create a balance between unemployment and proper wage.
#97 to #6 - terminalinfinity
Reply -2
(07/21/2014) [-]
Exactly. Its like people dont get: when the minimum wage goes up, jobs are lost and demand becomes weaker. Lower positions are fazed out. Eventually, because of inflation, it somewhat corrects because the market adjusts to the true value of the product or labor which is determined by the scarcity or ability to acquire. No amount of legislation will avert this simple economic fact. Some jobs, by the size of the potential labor pool, are not worth 10/hour. It sucks but hard work =/= more pay. If it did, every coal miner would be a millionare. Plus, these positions arent supposed to be living wage jobs. The whole concept is to get a job as a teen when you still have parental support, gradually move up into better jobs or positions with new skills and education. You're not supposed to stay at an entry level position and make 15/hour after a decade.

Many young people should understand how hard it is to get even a basic job because nearly everyone wants some job experience. That's because at 7.90/hour, businesses want to maximize every position, especially in this saturated job market. If they could hire say, 15 year old for a store sweeper position at 5/hour (fair wage to just sweep floors), perhaps there would be more entry level positions
#87 to #6 - anon
Reply 0
(07/21/2014) [-]
Real life doesn't work the same way as in the class room m8.
#19 to #6 - thatonecommunist
Reply +83
(07/21/2014) [-]
Yeah man, thats totally legit, thats why that **** works so ******* well in the 3rd world m8
#21 to #19 - noblexfenrir
Reply +3
(07/21/2014) [-]
>Insert correlation=/causation rebuttal etc etc.

I hardly think many of the third worlds problems are because of a lack of a minimum wage. Nor would the implementation of one do very well when the very environment surrounding the concept of a third world area is inherently negative to a business.

Basically: If an area is ****, businesses will not flock there and businesses that are currently there are only there while it is profitable to a certain extent. Implement a minimum wage there and it will either not be enforced nor listened to, or the current businesses will leave.
#38 to #21 - thatonecommunist
Reply +7
(07/21/2014) [-]
But, what this would accomplish, is simply lining up rich peoples pockets even more, and thats kind of the problem?

Nobody will ever be able to rise from the rags with this system, EVER.
#171 to #38 - noblexfenrir
Reply +1
(07/21/2014) [-]
Why do you seem to have a problem with people making money? (Yes I saw your username, it's more of a rhetorical question but you can answer if you feel the need to.)

The only problem I have is when the rich can buy off government power, so to handle this the ability to trade this power and leverage should be removed.

Capitalism by itself is a system by which those with the ability to make money, do. It gives everyone an initial product, their labour, and allows them to sell it off.

I'm finding it hard to explain these concepts to someone who said that any Zeitgeist creation is legitimate but I digress. Explain to me why you find capitalism to be negative. (Capitalism in which cronyism is not a factor mind you, I'm assuming we both disagree with cronyism and the selling of government leverage.)
#174 to #171 - thatonecommunist
Reply 0
(07/22/2014) [-]
I have only watched zeitgeist moving forward.

I hear that the rest of them are garbage, and i'm down for that, they probably are.

My problem with capitalism lies in the abuse of other nations for profit, the abuse in all men for motives i deem purely evil.

For instance

A tobacco company is rewarded by an increase in sales.


Tobacco companies make money purely off of hurting people.

Not only is this viewed as acceptable in our system, but there are no downsides to those making money off of this in our system.
#175 to #174 - noblexfenrir
Reply 0
(07/22/2014) [-]
They really are, is moving forward the one that talks about the banking system? I may be thinking of another one of them. Regardless they are horribly researched garbage basically I would think it's from /pol/ if there was a bit more jew blaming in them.

"For instance

A tobacco company is rewarded by an increase in sales.


Tobacco companies make money purely off of hurting people.

Not only is this viewed as acceptable in our system, but there are no downsides to those making money off of this in our system."


The reason there is no downside in this (Which I don't agree there is no downside, as a country we are propagating a substance that in the long-term is very damaging. I agree there is a downside, I disagree with the response after acknowledging it.) is because there is no force being conducted here. The tobacco company makes sales off of people who willingly buy their product, and nowadays noone can claim ignorance with the warning label even bigger than the companies logo ion some states.

It is perfectly acceptable to sell a product/service people are ready and willing to pay for.

Capitalism is a ideology where greed and abuse of human desire is a virtue. And to me it can't be any more beautiful.
#176 to #175 - thatonecommunist
Reply 0
(07/22/2014) [-]
Uh, moving forward is this one:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w

Also, keep in mind, the only thing i'm saying i agree 100% with, is the system they propose as an alternative.

as previously stated i don't really want to argue about **** on the internet, but, if you wanna look into the system they propose as an alternative, and give me some reasons as to why it wouldn't work, i'm down for that.

Also, just because people are willingly ruining their lives, doesn't mean they still should.

Addiction is a mental illness that tobacco companies abuse

period.
#177 to #176 - noblexfenrir
Reply 0
(07/22/2014) [-]
Yeah, I've seen that before. The beginning is total ******** from my experience in microbiology and the historical aspects are ******** from what I know and can easily research about the subjects.

If you wouldn't mind giving me the main points of the system that would be great. The most important aspects you agree with. You did say you want resources distributed equally, which then drives me to ask what is an incentive for innovation and drive for personal growth is everyone receives equal rations?

"Also, just because people are willingly ruining their lives, doesn't mean they still should. "
And what makes you the authority to tell them they shouldn't have the freedom to choose how they live their lives?

"Addiction is a mental illness that tobacco companies abuse "
Just as most left leaning ideologies abuse individuals laziness and the fact that the world is not a pampering place to enforce their idea of a utopia. Something that is, in my opinion, impossible from their approach.
#39 to #38 - pheonixinstinct
Reply -11
(07/21/2014) [-]
says the communist
#41 to #39 - thatonecommunist
Reply -2
(07/21/2014) [-]
I mean, i already hate capitalism, but this would be the worst kind of it.

****, i hate currency as a whole at this point, its all unnecessary.
#131 to #41 - lean
Reply +1
(07/21/2014) [-]
Would you like me to explain why currency exists? It has to do with not dragging a wagon full of chickens to town to exchange for a milk cow. It may not strictly be necessary, but it sure is convenient. Do you have a steady job, where you pay your bills then anything left over you give to those more needy than you? Or are you just a broke nobody who thinks communism is the answer because everyone should be equally as miserable as you economically and it chaps your ass to see someone else become successful. I agree that regulated "crony-capitalism" is corrupt and could use some cleanup, but the fundamental ideals behind open market capitalism is the soundest functioning economic system thus far conceived.
#92 to #41 - skypatrol
Reply 0
(07/21/2014) [-]
bro, youre just starting to sound like an anarchist.
#104 to #92 - nigeltheoutlaw
Reply +1
(07/21/2014) [-]
Anarchists don't want government. He just said he doesn't like our current economic ideals.
#140 to #104 - skypatrol
Reply 0
(07/21/2014) [-]
He is saying that he hates currency as a whole.

I guess he could mean he wants a barter system - but thats one helluva leap backwards in time.
#154 to #140 - thatonecommunist
Reply 0
(07/21/2014) [-]
No, i want resources to be distributed based on the amount of resources the planet has.

For some reason people are blind to this as an alternative.
#155 to #154 - skypatrol
Reply 0
(07/21/2014) [-]
So people who work harder dont get any rewards?
#163 to #155 - thatonecommunist
Reply 0
(07/21/2014) [-]
Work can be for internal reasons, all work can be made volunteer work through mechanization.
#164 to #163 - skypatrol
Reply 0
(07/21/2014) [-]
So, don't pay people, just have machines do it?
You leave out one big aspect: People want to get paid.
How do you plan on brainwashing 6 million people?
#165 to #164 - thatonecommunist
Reply 0
(07/21/2014) [-]
What?

No, i mean, money is unnecessary when all resources are divided, and work is offloaded onto machines.

Why would people want to get paid at that point? it would be unnecessary.
#166 to #165 - skypatrol
Reply 0
(07/21/2014) [-]
So how would people get food, housing, or clothing?
What motivation do the producers have to.. Produce anything?
And lets say they do make everything necessary - why would they give that to anyone else?
#167 to #166 - thatonecommunist
Reply 0
(07/21/2014) [-]
*****, i don't care that much about explaining my beliefs, but everything about them, for the most part, is held in "zeitgeist - moving forward" (2011)

so, i'm just going to point you towards that, i've been looking forward to seeing someone argue against it, i have yet to see anything really good.

All i have seen is "its childish, utopia's can't exist" but no reasons for why.
#168 to #167 - skypatrol
Reply 0
(07/21/2014) [-]
I'd love to live in a Utopia I really would!
But one day you have to face reality. Utopia's will never exist because humans are naturally greedy.
So yes, believing in a utopia is childish - because it shows that you haven't faced the reality that you would need to eliminate human nature from the equation.
#169 to #168 - thatonecommunist
Reply 0
(07/21/2014) [-]
Watch the movie before you judge the core concept, negro.

Humans can be as greedy as they want with the way that society works, it just won't accomplish anything.
#146 to #140 - nigeltheoutlaw
Reply 0
(07/21/2014) [-]
I know what he is saying, but it does not make him an anarchist or sound like one.
#133 to #19 - anon
Reply 0
(07/21/2014) [-]
Mfw Germany just installed a minimum wage a month ago.
#134 to #133 - meinneger
Reply -2
(07/21/2014) [-]
That's good m8, minimum wage should be an institutions for countries that are well off. if you have the money to afford it, a minimum wage boosts the economy likes nothing else
#150 to #134 - traelos
Reply +3
(07/21/2014) [-]
That's backwards boy-o.

Minimum wage works great for stopping sweatshops from making 9 year olds work 16 hours for a nickel.

However, minimum wage decreases the amount of available jobs and increases the cost of living.

I think we should abandon minimum wage and instead create a system of subsidized housing. Set it so that someone making $5 an hour pays the cost to keep the place running and charge people making less less and more more. That way you get a huge job market for unskilled laborers, drive down the costs of commodities and the people working there can still afford to live. Plus you can probably afford to set up some pretty decent apartments for it if you take the funding from welfare paying people to do nothing.
#130 to #19 - lean
Reply 0
(07/21/2014) [-]
The third world countries have little in the way of industry and almost zero technology, that is why they are called third world. It has nothing to do with national wage laws.
The Dem. republic of the congo's GDP per capita is around $500 US per year. How do you set a minimum wage and expect the quality of living to improve?
#135 to #130 - nathanbiggs
Reply -1
(07/21/2014) [-]
>The third world countries have little in the way of industry and almost zero technology, that is why they are called third world
That's not how the term "third world" works.
#141 to #135 - lean
Reply +1
(07/21/2014) [-]
The term arose from the cold war- referring to unaligned countries that for the most part started out as colonies. Most Third World countries were former colonies. Having gained independence many of these countries, especially smaller ones, were faced with the challenges of nation and institution-building on their own for the first time. Due to this common background, many of these nations were "developing" in economic terms for most of the 20th century, and many still are. This term, used today, generally denotes countries that have not developed to the same levels as OECD countries, and are thus in the process of developing,

It is a stereotyping and evolution of the term to refer to less developed countries, because as you know- the cold war ended. Many of the original "third world" either picked sides or made different allies, and have developed beyond the stereotypical simple trade economies. Also, several colonies from cold war era are no longer considered such and have been added to that particular bloc of countries. I think the PC crowd has lately started trending the term "majority world" for this countries because the majority of the world's population lives within them. Fun fact: all of these countries demand and receive western aid. I apologize and will use majority world terminology from now on.
#123 to #19 - anon
Reply 0
(07/21/2014) [-]
Actually he is right, minimum wage and equal wage for equal work are oppressive. They keep the uneducated and generally poor strata of people down. Imagine if you were an employer. You have two candidates for the job. One is better qualified than the other, the only way for the second subject to get the job, is if hes willing to work for a cheaper price.
#113 to #19 - anon
Reply 0
(07/21/2014) [-]
You're aware that various european contries dont have minimum wage...and I don't recall any of them being 3rd world countries...
#22 - runescapewasgood ONLINE
Reply +27
(07/21/2014) [-]
#75 to #22 - Daeiros
Reply 0
(07/21/2014) [-]
I had 300 thumbs with this same picture when this same post was on the front page 2 weeks ago.
sorry for your luck bro

www.funnyjunk.com/Salary+idea+from+John+Stewart/funny-pictures/5212022/1#1
#116 to #22 - anon
Reply 0
(07/21/2014) [-]
'07 was the best time for it.
#2 - realitycheck
Reply +13
(07/20/2014) [-]
indeed, why not? It would just play out the endgame faster.
You raise minimum wage, you just lower the number of employees and make it harder to get a new job.... and you raise the price of EVERYTHING YOU BUY, to boot.
$15 an hour burger flipper? Hope you like paying $10 for a McDouble.
#5 to #2 - anon
Reply 0
(07/21/2014) [-]
Thats not how economies work.

The current minimum wage is no longer relevant because it hasn't been altered to keep up with the rate of inflation. This means that it isn't actually a 'living' wage. By raising the minimum wage, you won't get further inflation since it's simply bringing it inline with the rate we already have.

I wish people would make the effort to learn some basic economics before they respout Fox's ********.
#18 to #5 - anon
Reply 0
(07/21/2014) [-]
You realize inflation is increased by a large margin every time you raise minimum wage, right? Your reason for raising it is raising it.
#7 to #5 - daddycool
Reply -1
(07/21/2014) [-]
The minimum wage was never intended to be a "living wage." It's just an arbitrary distinction that the politicians can trot out every now and then to buy votes.
#53 to #2 - anon
Reply 0
(07/21/2014) [-]
implying burger flippers in Canada aren't making $15 an hour
implying our mcdoubles don't still cost $1

#rekt
#86 to #2 - besle
Reply 0
(07/21/2014) [-]
Guess that's pretty much what happens here in Denmark. My hourly wage back when i worked at a Fastfood chain was 20 dollars an hour, but a whopper meal costs around 15 dollars or so.
#100 to #2 - fishandkids ONLINE
Reply 0
(07/21/2014) [-]
In Norway Burgers at McDonald and burger king costs 2-4$
#144 to #2 - anon
Reply 0
(07/21/2014) [-]
This weak ass argument has been so overused, it ridiculous. The cost of living continually increases while the income of families (not minimum wage) has actually decreased over time, if not stayed stagnant over the last 2-3 decades. The country hasn't seen this level of inequality since the 1920's, and spoiler alert, the 1920's don't end very well. This is the type of **** I'd expect from Fox News, the place that fully supports cooperations taking as many tax breaks as they can get their hands on while keeping the lower and middle classes hovering near the poverty line.
This weak ass argument has been so overused, it ridiculous. The cost of living continually increases while the income of families (not minimum wage) has actually decreased over time, if not stayed stagnant over the last 2-3 decades. The country hasn't seen this level of inequality since the 1920's, and spoiler alert, the 1920's don't end very well. This is the type of **** I'd expect from Fox News, the place that fully supports cooperations taking as many tax breaks as they can get their hands on while keeping the lower and middle classes hovering near the poverty line.
#4 to #2 - sirformidio
Reply +1
(07/21/2014) [-]
For someone with the name "Realitycheck" you have a really loose grip on the way companies in America are run, don't you?
#44 to #2 - mrtwilightsparkle
Reply +1
(07/21/2014) [-]
Fast food companies make such a huge profit, that raising wages would do hardly anything to food costs. In the Netherlands, Minimum wage is nearly $20 USD (I believe), but a Big Mac is only a quarter more.
#106 to #2 - nigeltheoutlaw
Reply +2
(07/21/2014) [-]
Yeah, using the argumentum ad absurdium just makes you seem like you have no idea what you are talking about.
#74 to #2 - thevoodoofrog
Reply +3
(07/21/2014) [-]
In Australia, a job flipping burgers will net you anywhere from $15-25 an hour, and they prices of the food aren't that much higher than the states.

Even our ********** jobs (See: Apprenticeships) are paid at least $10 an hour. I don't know why Americans put up with that crap.
#54 to #2 - harryboom
Reply +5
(07/21/2014) [-]
labor costs make up a small fraction of a companies spending, and only a fraction of that is made of people on minimum wage, a 25% increase in minimum wage does not lead to a 25% increase in costs. and if a company is already paying you minimum wage it means that the only thing stopping them from paying you less is the law, if they could get away with employing less people with the same output then they would be doing it already.
#73 - wargeneralwest
Reply +9
(07/21/2014) [-]
why not pay people in gum?
why not pay people in gum?
#83 - teranin ONLINE
Reply +7
(07/21/2014) [-]
When people use the Argumentum ad absurdium logical fallacy and think they are making a good point
#23 - katarinaismywaifu
Reply -11
(07/21/2014) [-]
Nice repost you ******* piece of ****.Women deserve to be paid more than men too btw ******* queer
#24 to #23 - asheskirata
Reply 0
(07/21/2014) [-]
I see you play League, but you're still a faggot.
#52 to #24 - zarcos
Reply +1
(07/21/2014) [-]
>implying playing League makes you cool
#25 to #24 - katarinaismywaifu
Reply -2
(07/21/2014) [-]
Eat my dick fag
#26 to #25 - asheskirata
Reply +2
(07/21/2014) [-]
Bring me a magnifying glass, cunt
#27 to #26 - katarinaismywaifu
Reply -2
(07/21/2014) [-]
Its in yo mommas dick lol so u better get a rocketship shes so fat aha
#28 to #27 - asheskirata
Reply +1
(07/21/2014) [-]
O dayum, that **** cray, I was just on top of yo mama and I couldn't see mine
#30 to #28 - katarinaismywaifu
Reply -2
(07/21/2014) [-]
bwahahaha yo momma pussys wet ****** **** dick fag
#31 to #30 - asheskirata
Reply +6
(07/21/2014) [-]
See, we were having fun, but now it's gone too far. I'm sorry, friend, but you've lost your touch.
#32 to #31 - katarinaismywaifu
Reply -2
(07/21/2014) [-]
No
#33 to #32 - asheskirata
Reply +2
(07/21/2014) [-]
Yes
#34 to #33 - katarinaismywaifu
Reply -2
(07/21/2014) [-]
Im trying to get level -400
#35 to #34 - asheskirata
Reply +2
(07/21/2014) [-]
I can see that, lol, I was just having some fun with you
#36 to #35 - katarinaismywaifu
Reply -2
(07/21/2014) [-]
I love you too m8
#37 to #36 - asheskirata
Reply +1
(07/21/2014) [-]
<3 u bby
#50 to #23 - zarcos
Reply 0
(07/21/2014) [-]
Women make more money than men if you control for parenthood.
#102 to #23 - metalmind
Reply 0
(07/21/2014) [-]
Hahaha.
By the way, the pay gap is a myth.
For the same job, with the same experience, women and men get paid the same in the USA and Germany.
#79 - swedishassassin
Reply +3
(07/21/2014) [-]
Since this is a repost, I'll repost exactly what I said in my previous comment towards this picture:   
   
A raise in the minimum wage is fine... at maximum $11. Any further, and you do break the wage system. Inflation demands a raise in minimum wage, but the (and I'm sorry for getting political) liberals take it to the over-extreme with $15 and refuse any reason to lower that price, which !! would!! lower the dollar and the wage-cost of those paid $18 and up per hour.    
Limbaugh is wrong to say no raise; he's just way too black an white. But those demanding 15 are delusional or completely ignorant of economics. Minimum wage was never meant to be a wage to raise a family with; that's why you see teenagers getting paid minimum. If your career puts you at minimum, you better be looking for a better job instead of asking for unstable wage increase.
Since this is a repost, I'll repost exactly what I said in my previous comment towards this picture:

A raise in the minimum wage is fine... at maximum $11. Any further, and you do break the wage system. Inflation demands a raise in minimum wage, but the (and I'm sorry for getting political) liberals take it to the over-extreme with $15 and refuse any reason to lower that price, which !! would!! lower the dollar and the wage-cost of those paid $18 and up per hour.
Limbaugh is wrong to say no raise; he's just way too black an white. But those demanding 15 are delusional or completely ignorant of economics. Minimum wage was never meant to be a wage to raise a family with; that's why you see teenagers getting paid minimum. If your career puts you at minimum, you better be looking for a better job instead of asking for unstable wage increase.
#126 to #79 - datpenis
Reply 0
(07/21/2014) [-]
I'm sorry, but who are they talking about in the picture? Obama? $15 for minimum wage sounds like something to make sure the people won't get mad at a certain party and act as if they are better than the others. But in reality, they won't raise it to $15 and just use that as brownie points. Ahhh. Politics.
#157 to #126 - swedishassassin
Reply 0
(07/21/2014) [-]
Well, I'd include Obama into this, but not the head honcho by any means. Let's just say that it's a group of leading Democratic officials and lobbyists that are pushing for the high increase.
#180 to #157 - datpenis
Reply 0
(07/22/2014) [-]
So the bitch on the picture is just... some bitch on the picture?
#181 to #180 - swedishassassin
Reply +1
(07/22/2014) [-]
Yeah, pretty much.
#81 to #79 - sirbrentcoe
Reply +1
(07/21/2014) [-]
as with any negotiation tactic, you start higher than your actual goal, then work your day down to a happy medium. I agree 100%. Minimum wage needs to increase. But not to $15. You're not supposed to be able to support a family of 4 on a part-time job.
#156 to #81 - swedishassassin
Reply +1
(07/21/2014) [-]
I agree with your price negotiation full-heartedly. Once again, I don't been to be so blatantly political, but the left has a very bad habit of leaving no room to budge, and then demonizing the other side because they won't agree to everything they put on the table without any wiggle room, and then claim that the other side isn't willing to compromise.
#158 to #156 - sirbrentcoe
Reply +1
(07/21/2014) [-]
ah yes, the misdirection tactic. keep pointing out the negative aspect of the opposing side, and they will be identified as the aggressor. it's sad that our government has dematerialized into such a childish display of cock-measuring.
#159 to #158 - swedishassassin
Reply +1
(07/21/2014) [-]
Yeah, and I'm not excluding the right from this annoying tactic either, for the record
#160 to #159 - sirbrentcoe
Reply +1
(07/21/2014) [-]
no, it is well within their rights, but it detracts from the issues, and it becomes more about whos the victim, versus who has valid points backed by data and statistics.
#90 to #81 - mathmanchris
Reply +1
(07/21/2014) [-]
I agree on everything you said, but supporting a family of 4 with a part-time job? No way. Why should anyone work 40+ hours then?
#17 - anon
Reply 0
(07/21/2014) [-]
Stewart **** his pants screaming about how stupid this woman was, but she is right.
If raising the minimum wage actually did anything to help people then the eventual achievement of 100K a person an hour would make the whole world incredible. When in reality every time we raise the wage at all makes the whole market more expensive and all saved money worth less.
tl;dr: Jon Stewart doesn't know **** about simple economics.
#57 to #17 - historyexplained
Reply +3
(07/21/2014) [-]
Your analysis is bad and you should feel bad. An exampel of some one who raised wages with succes you can look Henry Ford up. Henry Ford paid his workers so they themselfs might one day be able to buy the very same cars Henry Ford made and they helped produce. This create a cicle that helped Henry ford selling more cars then he would have if he lowed his workers wage. Higher wages = higher Purchasing power.
#96 to #57 - economic
Reply -1
(07/21/2014) [-]
They had closed boarders then and most of the work wasn't done by robots.
#9 - anonemous
Reply +3
(07/21/2014) [-]
Will work for unicorns....