Politics and Religion
Let me try logic AND data
Get rid of federal minimimum wage & unemployment standards or laws.
BTW, I predict that that the Tea party movement, which is a right-wing media & corporate created "fad", will eventually implode. ( how long that implosion will take is anyone's guess------ ) Why do I say that ? Take a gander at the link below---a movement cannot sustain itself when its candidates are ignorant & crazy. Call me irresponsible, call me a cab, but DON'T call me
an alarmist---------
-- Modified on 10/4/2010 1:14:28 PM
Related Link: Sharron Angle disses GOP & makes backroom deals
I just know the difference between correlation and causation in a complex system.
To demonstrate, allow me to ask two questions which I will answer.
1. Did lifespan in the U.S. increase between 1900 and 1950? Yes
2. Did the amount of lead paint present in buildings increase between 1900 and 1950? Yes
So shall I then conclude that lead paint increases lifespan?
Of course not. Other factors were at play.
Good luck talking to Willy about minimum wage across the board as he ignores the rules of Econ 101. To demonstrate, allow me to ask two questions which I will answer.
1. Did lifespan in the U.S. increase between 1900 and 1950? Yes
2. Did the amount of lead paint present in buildings increase between 1900 and 1950? Yes
So shall I then conclude that lead paint increases lifespan?
Of course not. Other factors were at play.
Let's look at minimum wage from an employer's perspective.
Pretend I hire someone to pick squash for me; and the value he produces for me is $8 for every hour that he works. But out of that $8 I have to pay $2 to comply with government paperwork requirements, and $1 for seed, materials, tools and other stuff that he uses. I'd like to profit from this by $1. That leaves $4. Well, the minimum wage is $6; but he isn't productive enough to justify that wage.
So I lay him off and hire an illegal immigrant for $3, and make $2 in profit. Nice! Or, maybe I look really carefully at methods and figure out a way to make him more productive; say by planting differently, using a different breed of squash, training him to more accurately identify which squash are ripe or purchasing a tool that allows him to pick faster. Pretend this raises my costs from $1 to $2, but allows him to produce $16 in value for me. So we subtract out $2 for government, $2 for my costs, $1 in profit for me and there is still room for a $6 minimum wage. Guess what I do? I lay off half of my workers because they are no longer needed due to improvements in methods that I had to make to offset the minimum wage.
Bottom line is that, as an employer, my employees must produce at least double in value what they are paid for them to be worth my while. If the minimum wage exceeds half of their value, I will either replace them with illegal immigrants, H1-B workers or automate their jobs away.
The minimum wage CAUSES unemployment.
Many years ago, I went to work as a bag boy at a supermarket. The store manager explained to me the rules. He explained I would get paid minimum wage, have a 15 minute break, and so forth -- and that these were all government requirements. I quickly realized that the government rules that many intend to place a bottom limit are often used to enforce a top limit.
It's kind of like hamburger. There are rules specifying the maximum fat content of hamburger. Well guess what? That gives the companies that make hamburger a license to make hamburger without even specifying on the package the amount of saturated fat, etc. in their product. Often, they mix in EXTRA fat, up to the government limit. It doesn't protect consumers at all.
The same ultimately happens with the minimum wage.
As for unemployment insurance -- I see it as bad policy with unintended consequences.
As an employer, when I hire somebody, I have to take into account ALL of their costs. Including government imposed costs for unemployment insurance. If I weren't giving the government that money, I could give it to people who work for me; and they could use it to better their lives.
In practice, I pay very little unemployment insurance. I pay the minimum. That's because I know that if I lay somebody off, my unemployment insurance rates will increase; so I always fire them for cause and when they scream and yell, I fight it every step of the way and have never lost.
Unemployment insurance costs basically make it worth my while to be an absolute asshole. They make it profitable. If I could just let somebody go without a black mark on their record without it hurting me; I would be inclined to do so when possible. But unemployment insurance actually PENALIZES me for being nice. So screw it -- when someone is not sufficiently productive to justify their wage and have me still make a profit, I terminate them for cause and fight it all the way. So not only do they not collect unemployment insurance benefits, they have trouble answering questions when applying for their next job.
If I didn't have the spectre of higher unemployment insurance costs hanging over my head; I would likely be able to take that money, set it aside, and even give anyone I let go a nice severance.
That's what I do for insurance. I set aside money in an account that covers the first $6k every year for each employee. The insurance kicks in after those costs are exhausted. As a result, health care coverage is pretty inexpensive.
I fear that the new government requirements may raise the productivity threshold enough that I'll have to stop that practice and fire some more employees for cause.
On the other hand, incidentally, at the end of every year I give employees a bonus. I take a portion of the profit and divide it among the employees. You know what really sucks? Having to withhold taxes from that bonus. If I'm giving a bonus they fucking earned it; and to see parasitic government suck it away from them is disheartening.
Pretend I hire someone to pick squash for me; and the value he produces for me is $8 for every hour that he works. But out of that $8 I have to pay $2 to comply with government paperwork requirements, and $1 for seed, materials, tools and other stuff that he uses. I'd like to profit from this by $1. That leaves $4. Well, the minimum wage is $6; but he isn't productive enough to justify that wage.
So I lay him off and hire an illegal immigrant for $3, and make $2 in profit. Nice! Or, maybe I look really carefully at methods and figure out a way to make him more productive; say by planting differently, using a different breed of squash, training him to more accurately identify which squash are ripe or purchasing a tool that allows him to pick faster. Pretend this raises my costs from $1 to $2, but allows him to produce $16 in value for me. So we subtract out $2 for government, $2 for my costs, $1 in profit for me and there is still room for a $6 minimum wage. Guess what I do? I lay off half of my workers because they are no longer needed due to improvements in methods that I had to make to offset the minimum wage.
Bottom line is that, as an employer, my employees must produce at least double in value what they are paid for them to be worth my while. If the minimum wage exceeds half of their value, I will either replace them with illegal immigrants, H1-B workers or automate their jobs away.
The minimum wage CAUSES unemployment.
Many years ago, I went to work as a bag boy at a supermarket. The store manager explained to me the rules. He explained I would get paid minimum wage, have a 15 minute break, and so forth -- and that these were all government requirements. I quickly realized that the government rules that many intend to place a bottom limit are often used to enforce a top limit.
It's kind of like hamburger. There are rules specifying the maximum fat content of hamburger. Well guess what? That gives the companies that make hamburger a license to make hamburger without even specifying on the package the amount of saturated fat, etc. in their product. Often, they mix in EXTRA fat, up to the government limit. It doesn't protect consumers at all.
The same ultimately happens with the minimum wage.
As for unemployment insurance -- I see it as bad policy with unintended consequences.
As an employer, when I hire somebody, I have to take into account ALL of their costs. Including government imposed costs for unemployment insurance. If I weren't giving the government that money, I could give it to people who work for me; and they could use it to better their lives.
In practice, I pay very little unemployment insurance. I pay the minimum. That's because I know that if I lay somebody off, my unemployment insurance rates will increase; so I always fire them for cause and when they scream and yell, I fight it every step of the way and have never lost.
Unemployment insurance costs basically make it worth my while to be an absolute asshole. They make it profitable. If I could just let somebody go without a black mark on their record without it hurting me; I would be inclined to do so when possible. But unemployment insurance actually PENALIZES me for being nice. So screw it -- when someone is not sufficiently productive to justify their wage and have me still make a profit, I terminate them for cause and fight it all the way. So not only do they not collect unemployment insurance benefits, they have trouble answering questions when applying for their next job.
If I didn't have the spectre of higher unemployment insurance costs hanging over my head; I would likely be able to take that money, set it aside, and even give anyone I let go a nice severance.
That's what I do for insurance. I set aside money in an account that covers the first $6k every year for each employee. The insurance kicks in after those costs are exhausted. As a result, health care coverage is pretty inexpensive.
I fear that the new government requirements may raise the productivity threshold enough that I'll have to stop that practice and fire some more employees for cause.
On the other hand, incidentally, at the end of every year I give employees a bonus. I take a portion of the profit and divide it among the employees. You know what really sucks? Having to withhold taxes from that bonus. If I'm giving a bonus they fucking earned it; and to see parasitic government suck it away from them is disheartening.
Willy just thinks if you give everyone a dollar raise, everyone will have a $1.00 more purchasing power--its simple-
-- Modified on 10/5/2010 6:05:53 AM
in your blanket defense of teaparty candidates, when many of them are social conservative nutjobs ? & I know you DESPISE the social conservatives-----
Btw, I'm greatly pained by "bias" & "Axe to grind" labels affixed to me------GaG, when it comes to this board, I'm an "equal opportunity offender"----------
Lasty, if "baked" is so proud in his support of Joe Miller, why does he have to resort to a "chickenshit alias" ?
-- Modified on 10/5/2010 9:40:19 AM