Bernie Sanders For President

[raw_thought]

So why do you think these jobs will disappear if a minimum wage was introduced?

The U.S. does have a minimum wage, but the people who want to increase it have absolutely no knowledge of economics. Labor is just like any other commodity or service. If the price goes up, there is a tendency to buy less of it or find a substitute at lower cost. If labor cost goes up, employers will hire fewer people, and restrict their hiring to people who are the most dependable and the most productive at the new minimum wage. This results in people who were hired at a lower minimum wage to be out of a job. Labor economics is so basic and logical that it is really hard to believe there is any controversy at all about the subject.

I think Bob is right. Ten years ago I had 10 people hired, seven years ago 6, four years ago 3, last year 1. Labor costs have become unbearable. At least in Italy. And, my opinion, this was due to the power of labor unions, which have locked down workers rights regardless of employers' borrowing capacity, as national workers contracts are compulsory, and you are forced to hire along with them, as well as you are a little artisan or you have a big industry. The downside of welfare policy.

In the USA labor unions have absolutely no power. We are the new Roman empire. Our people have nothing but our elite (400 Americans own half of my country's wealth.) have everything.

[artisticsolution]

The U.S. does have a minimum wage, but the people who want to increase it have absolutely no knowledge of economics. Labor is just like any other commodity or service. If the price goes up, there is a tendency to buy less of it or find a substitute at lower cost.

I am surprised that you are spitting out this old tired bullshit that you you have been taught, Bob 'the prophet'. Seems to me a 'prophet' is more of a leader not a follower?

It doesn't matter what the price...people will buy it if they have money. Hence all the rich fucks buying art and yachts and such. In fact, it is the costly things that people consider more worthwhile in life. Plain and simple economics...if people have money they will spend it.

So then, what do you think would make the economy boom...a few people who can buy a few things...or a shit load of people who can but a shit load of things? It just stand to reason that a billion people with money will keep shop owners in business more that a few hundred people...as the few hundred people, even if they wanted to, physically could not spread that much money around. Duh.

[raw_thought]

Food, clothing, transportation.... are labor intensive. Fabrege eggs, caviar....are less so. The minumum wage increases employment.more then welfare for the rich.

[bobevenson]

xxx

[bobevenson]

The U.S. does have a minimum wage, but the people who want to increase it have absolutely no knowledge of economics. Labor is just like any other commodity or service. If the price goes up, there is a tendency to buy less of it or find a substitute at lower cost.

I am surprised that you are spitting out this old tired bullshit that you you have been taught, Bob 'the prophet'.

You obviously know nothing about economics, so please stay away from the subject all together. I'm a divinely inspired prophet of all thing spiritual, political and economic, while you don't know shit from Shinola, my friend.

[bobevenson]

Food, clothing, transportation.... are labor intensive. Fabrege eggs, caviar....are less so. The minumum wage increases employment.more then welfare for the rich.

Look, pal, you are unable to add 1+1 and come up with 2, so discussing the subject with you is pointless.

[bobevenson]

Stop shouting you loon it adds nothing to your point. I use 125 font bold for legibility, and if you don't like it, that's too fucking bad!

The U.S. does have a minimum wage, but the people who want to increase it have absolutely no knowledge of economics. Labor is just like any other commodity or service. If the price goes up, there is a tendency to buy less of it or find a substitute at lower cost. ...

But this is my point, what do you think could be substitute for a job that qualifies as a minimum wage job?
If you have to pay a higher minimum wage for everybody, then you won't hire somebody who's worth less, and will probably fire those who are already your employees.

If labor cost goes up, employers will hire fewer people, and restrict their hiring to people who are the most dependable and the most productive at the new minimum wage. ...

Er!? You're saying employers employ undependable and unproductive people? Yes, and compensate that by paying a lower wage!

This results in people who were hired at a lower minimum wage to be out of a job. Labor economics is so basic and logical that it is really hard to believe there is any controversy at all about the subject.[/b][/size]

And yet in countries that have minimum wage jobs this doesn't appear to have happened?[/quote]
Look, what you're saying is senseless. It's like saying that in some countries 1+1=3.

[Arising_uk]

I use 125 font bold for legibility, and if you don't like it, that's too fucking bad!

And in red now.

You saying your eyesight going the way your memory has?

If you have to pay a higher minimum wage for everybody, then you won't hire somebody who's worth less, and will probably fire those who are already your employees.

You didn't answer, what could substitute for these jobs?

Yes, and compensate that by paying a lower wage!

And soon be out of business.

Look, what you're saying is senseless. It's like saying that in some countries 1+1=3.

But what happens if the jobs have no substitute? Which given the nature of minimum wage jobs is likely.

[bobevenson]

Why do I keep playing your little ring-around-the-rosie game? Oh, I know, it must be because deep inside, I'm the world's No. 1 masochist! Well, to alleviate the pain that I apparently relish, I'll go over things again. If an employer has to pay an employee $20.00 per hour, he obviously will not hire somebody who's only worth $10.00 per hour. Of course, that's common sense, which apparently is something you have in short supply since you refuse to accept the logical conclusion. So what is the employer going to do? He can expand the duties of other employees who are worth $20.00 per hour, he can possibly eliminate some jobs, he can make employees work longer and harder, or he can try to figure out other ways to get the job done. But I guarantee you he's not going to pay employees more than they're worth. That road only leads to bankruptcy.

[David Handeye]

Why do I keep playing your little ring-around-the-rosie game? Oh, I know, it must be because deep inside, I'm the world's No. 1 masochist!

hahahaha, no, because finally you are a good boy
and yes, you are right, that road only leads to bankruptcy.

[Dalek Prime]

Why do I keep playing your little ring-around-the-rosie game? Oh, I know, it must be because deep inside, I'm the world's No. 1 masochist! Well, to alleviate the pain that I apparently relish, I'll go over things again. If an employer has to pay an employee $20.00 per hour, he obviously will not hire somebody who's only worth $10.00 per hour. Of course, that's common sense, which apparently is something you have in short supply since you refuse to accept the logical conclusion. So what is the employer going to do? He can expand the duties of other employees who are worth $20.00 per hour, he can possibly eliminate some jobs, he can make employees work longer and harder, or he can try to figure out other ways to get the job done. But I guarantee you he's not going to pay employees more than they're worth. That road only leads to bankruptcy.

And who is worth only $10 an hour Bob? Why should anyone work to live in poverty? Because that is what $10 an hour is; poverty. But fine, pay them ten. But give them all full benefits. Too many employers are skimping on both benefits and wages, and sometimes even hours per week.

[David Handeye]

And who is worth only $10 an hour Bob?

I am. I guess you never were an employer. Sometimes I am forced to work for 10 € per hour, in other jobs I work for 40 € per hour, and I balance out. This is business, today.

[Arising_uk]

Still shouting bob!?

Why do I keep playing your little ring-around-the-rosie game? Oh, I know, it must be because deep inside, I'm the world's No. 1 masochist! Well, to alleviate the pain that I apparently relish, I'll go over things again. If an employer has to pay an employee $20.00 per hour, he obviously will not hire somebody who's only worth $10.00 per hour. Of course, that's common sense, which apparently is something you have in short supply since you refuse to accept the logical conclusion. So what is the employer going to do? He can expand the duties of other employees who are worth $20.00 per hour, he can possibly eliminate some jobs, he can make employees work longer and harder, or he can try to figure out other ways to get the job done. But I guarantee you he's not going to pay employees more than they're worth. That road only leads to bankruptcy.

This is the problem with economic theory bob as the evidence is not fully in on this subject and by-and-large in countries where a minimum wage has been introduced what you say has not occurred. Guess what the employers have actually done.

[Arising_uk]

... The downside of welfare policy.

But the unions have nothing to do with welfare policy?

[David Handeye]

... The downside of welfare policy.

But the unions have nothing to do with welfare policy?

yes that's the point! damned unions, we are in deepest shit for the damned italian unions of shit. damn