Current Events > Missouri will lower St. Louis' minimum wage in August, from $10 to $7.70

(+) Yeah! (+)

I'll just leave this here


---

Thank god I don't live in the U.S. Keeps getting worse by the day.
---

reeekt posted...

They will be able to hire more people and the economy will reflect this by reducing local prices of goods. C'mon.

looool

Imagine banking on the goodwill of capitalism.
---

mfw big government forces wage reductions
---

NewportBox100s posted...

It's only $7.25 here in GA, and has been for years. Deal with it, liberals. It was only $5.50 when I got my first job at 16... still managed to buy a PS3, 360, Wii, and 32 inch HDTV making that money... took me 4 months.. I was ballin'.. cause this was 2007...

Shit like this is easy to say when you leach off your parents for everything else in life
---

Alucard188 posted...

looool

Imagine banking on the goodwill of capitalism.

Yeah, that system that has produced the highest standard of living the world has ever seen. Fuck capitalism!
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Alucard188 posted...

looool

Imagine banking on the goodwill of capitalism.

Yeah, that system that has produced the highest standard of living the world has ever seen. Fuck capitalism!

I love capitalism but I also hate the unacceptable levels of poverty in this country. Don't you?
---

Mal_Fet posted...

I'll just leave this here

Does this picture depict minimum wage as at or above poverty level? Assuming that that's what the water level is.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

I'll just leave this here

The latter is how it works presently with our current minimum wage, since those people can't afford to live. Like, is this comic serious??
---

meralonne posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Alucard188 posted...

looool

Imagine banking on the goodwill of capitalism.

Yeah, that system that has produced the highest standard of living the world has ever seen. Fuck capitalism!

I love capitalism but I also hate the unacceptable levels of poverty in this country. Don't you?

He doesn't. Poor people just aren't pulling their bootstraps hard enough, and thus deserve to die.
---

SGT_Conti posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

I'll just leave this here

Does this picture depict minimum wage as at or above poverty level? Assuming that that's what the water level is.

And in this analogy are the people bowls of skittles or houses without insurance

I always get mixed around with these comparisons
---

meralonne posted...

Definitely cheaper, since you can spread out those employees' hours. That way, you can work them all for less than the minimum number of hours necessary to give them healthcare.

Win win!

Five employees working 29 hours means you can hire a sixth employee now.

Mal_Fet posted...

I'll just leave this here

Closer to the truth:
http://granitegrok.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Minimum-wage-ladder-rungs.jpg

Questionmarktarius posted...

meralonne posted...

Definitely cheaper, since you can spread out those employees' hours. That way, you can work them all for less than the minimum number of hours necessary to give them healthcare.

Win win!

Five employees working 29 hours means you can hire a sixth employee now.

Excellent! Now we have six workers with no healthcare. Glorious!
---

meralonne posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Alucard188 posted...

looool

Imagine banking on the goodwill of capitalism.

Yeah, that system that has produced the highest standard of living the world has ever seen. Fuck capitalism!

I love capitalism but I also hate the unacceptable levels of poverty in this country. Don't you?

Yes, which is why minimum wage laws should go.

Seriously, did none of you learn anything from Seattle
---

meralonne posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

meralonne posted...

Definitely cheaper, since you can spread out those employees' hours. That way, you can work them all for less than the minimum number of hours necessary to give them healthcare.

Win win!

Five employees working 29 hours means you can hire a sixth employee now.

Excellent! Now we have six workers with no healthcare. Glorious!

Or, you could have three employees at $10/hr or so with benefits, and three other guys completely unemployed.

meralonne posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

meralonne posted...

Definitely cheaper, since you can spread out those employees' hours. That way, you can work them all for less than the minimum number of hours necessary to give them healthcare.

Win win!

Five employees working 29 hours means you can hire a sixth employee now.

Excellent! Now we have six workers with no healthcare. Glorious!

I'll take this to mean you'd rather have the sixth guy be jobless and on the street?
---

reeekt posted...

They will be able to hire more people and the economy will reflect this by reducing local prices of goods. C'mon.

Lmao
---

Mal_Fet posted...

meralonne posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Alucard188 posted...

looool

Imagine banking on the goodwill of capitalism.

Yeah, that system that has produced the highest standard of living the world has ever seen. Fuck capitalism!

I love capitalism but I also hate the unacceptable levels of poverty in this country. Don't you?

Yes, which is why minimum wage laws should go.

While we're at it, perhaps we should abolish the five day work week? I mean, the peasants don't need weekends, they should be working! Or are you going to convince us how effective trickle-down economics are?
---

meralonne posted...

While we're at it, perhaps we should abolish the five day work week? I mean, the peasants don't need weekends, they should be working! Or are you going to convince us how effective trickle-down economics are?

Well, if you mandate benefits at 30 hours anyway, that's a non-issue.

Businesses aren't going to magically hire more people just because wages are cheaper. They hire more people because there is a need for more labor. If they can get away with five employees and the cost of wages suddenly goes down. They aren't going to magically hire a sixth. The work is getting done by five. If anything, they'll have to cut employees, because people are making less money and therefore have to cut spending thus generating less capital for the business. That's how hyperdeflation works.
---

yoshifan1 posted...

Businesses aren't going to magically hire more people just because wages are cheaper.

Of course not, but there's a sort of magical range between "another worker would be useful" and "another worker would cost me too much". If an expected increase in productivity justifies another worker at the expected increase in payroll, it's more likely to happen than not.

The inverse is also true.

Also. "More jobs more productivity!"...what jobs that pay at or near minimum wage are most common for someone who is middle to working class and either uneducated or can't find a job in their field?

Food service, retail or labor (construction or factory)

If a place like Wal Mart or McDonalds added jobs for "productivity" do you think they'd keep everything the same? Of course not. They'd use those extra jobs to try and keep hours level. Here in Cali many places consider Full Time 28-40 hours. Now imagine you work full time, average 35 hours and make 10 an hour. Your store or restaurant added some jobs. Now your making nearly 3 dollars less and your hours hover in the 28-30 range because of those extra jobs added. The cut in hours for most jobs might not be a huge deal. I mean it's still bad but when your pay is cut as well it's going to hurt you a lot more.

Construction and Factory jobs commonly pay above the minimum wage as it is so I don't see how it would even affect those areas and those are the areas that need the "productivity" most.

Minimum wage in Cali right now is 10 bucks. A few years ago Amazon brought a warehouse to my town. At the time minimum was around 9. They started at 13.50. It's been doing so well that they not only opened a second warehouse last year they also recently hired over 100 people. A wage drop in Cali wouldn't affect any of that.

Ultimately more jobs are good, but when it ends up hurting others in the process it isn't the best way to create those jobs. As I said above someone supporting a family just fine at 10 dollars on 35 hours could see their pay and hours both cut...and now they aren't living so well.

Questionmarktarius posted...

meralonne posted...

While we're at it, perhaps we should abolish the five day work week? I mean, the peasants don't need weekends, they should be working! Or are you going to convince us how effective trickle-down economics are?

Well, if you mandate benefits at 30 hours anyway, that's a non-issue.

Work 'em 4 hours a day, 7 days a week. Pay 'em $2 an hour. No healthcare expenses, annoying as fuck schedules, but hey... business is booming!
---

meralonne posted...

While we're at it, perhaps we should abolish the five day work week? I mean, the peasants don't need weekends, they should be working! Or are you going to convince us how effective trickle-down economics are?

People always knock the pro-business policies Reagan implemented yet they all seem to forget that the Reagan years (along with the first years of Clinton) were the most economically stable of any modern president, lmao.

But yeah, if one of your concerns now is that employers aren't giving people enough hours, maybe you shouldn't endorse policies that disincentive them from giving employees more hours.
---

My concern is that workers will not have crucial healthcare benefits. That is all. Because I have empathy for poor people who are working. Sorry if that makes me some kind of bleeding heart.
---

meralonne posted...

My concern is that workers will not have crucial healthcare benefits.

What does that have to do with minimum wage
---

Mal_Fet posted...

meralonne posted...

My concern is that workers will not have crucial healthcare benefits.

What does that have to do with minimum wage

A very strong correlation.
If all the work you can get is minimum wage, regardless of what that minimum wage is, you almost certainly aren't getting 30 hours (thus benefits).

Mal_Fet posted...

meralonne posted...

My concern is that workers will not have crucial healthcare benefits.

What does that have to do with minimum wage

The cut to minimum wage will allow business to hire one or more additional workers so they can spread the hours out for less full Time employees to receive benefits
---

itachi15243 posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

meralonne posted...

My concern is that workers will not have crucial healthcare benefits.

What does that have to do with minimum wage

The cut to minimum wage will allow business to hire one or more additional workers so they can spread the hours out for less full Time employees to receive benefits

You act as if "you have to offer benefits to anyone working 30 hours or more" didn't instantly become "everyone works 29 hours now".

The new minimum wage would put single people working full time in an income bracket qualifying them for medicaid <$19.127 for single households, so healthcare wouldn't be an issue.
---

Kazi1212 posted...

NewportBox100s posted...

It's only $7.25 here in GA, and has been for years. Deal with it, liberals. It was only $5.50 when I got my first job at 16... still managed to buy a PS3, 360, Wii, and 32 inch HDTV making that money... took me 4 months.. I was ballin'.. cause this was 2007...

Yea it's not like you didn't pay for own rent or anything

Of course not. XD
---

NewportBox100s posted...

Kazi1212 posted...

NewportBox100s posted...

It's only $7.25 here in GA, and has been for years. Deal with it, liberals. It was only $5.50 when I got my first job at 16... still managed to buy a PS3, 360, Wii, and 32 inch HDTV making that money... took me 4 months.. I was ballin'.. cause this was 2007...

Yea it's not like you didn't pay for own rent or anything

Of course not. XD

The collapse of the extended family is a far bigger issue than minimum wage.
$7.50 x 29 x 52 = $22620, which would be vaguely workable if "grandma daycare" was still a thing.

Maybe... polygamy is the solution here?

TheVipaGTS posted...

NewportBox100s posted...

It's only $7.25 here in GA, and has been for years. Deal with it, liberals. It was only $5.50 when I got my first job at 16... still managed to buy a PS3, 360, Wii, and 32 inch HDTV making that money... took me 4 months.. I was ballin'.. cause this was 2007...

As you lived at home, didn't have any kids, didn't pay rent, didn't have to pay for electricity so you could use those things. Good job man!

This

God I fucking miss those days. I could go out and buy the PS4 Pro I want right now but I have these stupid fucking bills to pay god damn it fuck adulthood
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

NewportBox100s posted...

Kazi1212 posted...

NewportBox100s posted...

It's only $7.25 here in GA, and has been for years. Deal with it, liberals. It was only $5.50 when I got my first job at 16... still managed to buy a PS3, 360, Wii, and 32 inch HDTV making that money... took me 4 months.. I was ballin'.. cause this was 2007...

Yea it's not like you didn't pay for own rent or anything

Of course not. XD

The collapse of the extended family is a far bigger issue than minimum wage.
$7.50 x 29 x 52 = $22620, which would be vaguely workable if "grandma daycare" was still a thing.

Maybe... polygamy is the solution here?

How would that effect taxes?
---

KStateKing17 posted...

How would that effect taxes?

uh... theoretically infinite joint filing?

Republicans are so anti american its crazy

Questionmarktarius posted...

If all the work you can get is minimum wage, regardless of what that minimum wage is, you almost certainly aren't getting 30 hours (thus benefits).

That's the ACA's fault, not the fault of "low" minimum wages.

itachi15243 posted...

The cut to minimum wage will allow business to hire one or more additional workers so they can spread the hours out for less full Time employees to receive benefits

So you really would prefer the last guy is on the street? Gosh, you're such a fucking humanitarian.

Also, your example isn't at all how employment works. You would not hire a new person to gain zero productivity. There are way more considerations to employing someone than just health insurance.
---

No I wouldn't prefer the last guy is on the street. I also don't support all of them potentially having to struggle because they make less every week. "all 5 are struggling to pay rent and buy food with their new paychecks. But that's ok since they're all doing it together"...tells me it's a bad plan. How about 4 workers who can live comfortably and we come up with another plan to help the 5th guy instead of just putting all 5 in a lower bracket?

"More people, less hours" is not a result of minimum wage.

Questionmarktarius posted...

"More people, less hours" is not a result of minimum wage. The 29-hour workweek is entirely the fault of the ACA.

And? Many people agree with that. Myself included. We're looking for ways to make health care better so things like that don't happen. How are you using that as a counter to the fact that lower wages will make it easier for employers to do that?

TheVipaGTS posted...

How are you using that as a counter to the fact that lower wages will make it easier for employers to do that?

If anything, a higher pay floor would make the "club 29" that much larger.

TheVipaGTS posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

"More people, less hours" is not a result of minimum wage. The 29-hour workweek is entirely the fault of the ACA.

And? Many people agree with that. Myself included. We're looking for ways to make health care better so things like that don't happen. How are you using that as a counter to the fact that lower wages will make it easier for employers to do that?

How about we get rid of the ACA so that employers have greater incentive to give people more hours?
---

Mal_Fet posted...

TheVipaGTS posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

"More people, less hours" is not a result of minimum wage. The 29-hour workweek is entirely the fault of the ACA.

And? Many people agree with that. Myself included. We're looking for ways to make health care better so things like that don't happen. How are you using that as a counter to the fact that lower wages will make it easier for employers to do that?

How about we get rid of the ACA so that employers have greater incentive to give people more hours?

republican's are trying to fix it, but they face opposition.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

TheVipaGTS posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

"More people, less hours" is not a result of minimum wage. The 29-hour workweek is entirely the fault of the ACA.

And? Many people agree with that. Myself included. We're looking for ways to make health care better so things like that don't happen. How are you using that as a counter to the fact that lower wages will make it easier for employers to do that?

How about we get rid of the ACA so that employers have greater incentive to give people more hours?

Again people on both sides know it needs to be fixed. You don't have to get rid of it to fix key elements of it. That still doesn't answer how it's a counter to this topic. You seem upset that employers do it yet support something that makes it easier for them to do it. And they'll still do it even if health care isn't an issue anymore.

kingdrake2 posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

TheVipaGTS posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

"More people, less hours" is not a result of minimum wage. The 29-hour workweek is entirely the fault of the ACA.

And? Many people agree with that. Myself included. We're looking for ways to make health care better so things like that don't happen. How are you using that as a counter to the fact that lower wages will make it easier for employers to do that?

How about we get rid of the ACA so that employers have greater incentive to give people more hours?

republican's are trying to fix it, but they face opposition.

What opposistion they have control of the house and senate its other republicans being obstructionist assholes

Halo478 posted...

Republicans are so anti american its crazy

---

TheVipaGTS posted...

Again people on both sides know it needs to be fixed.

By "fix" you mean to stop forcing employers to dish out a ton of benefits based on how many hours an employee works, right?
---

Mal_Fet posted...

TheVipaGTS posted...

Again people on both sides know it needs to be fixed.

By "fix" you mean to stop forcing employers to dish out a ton of benefits based on how many hours an employee works, right?

I don't see how that fits this argument. Let's say we do fix it and that happens. Hey employers you're off the hook! You think employers who took advantage of such a low wage will suddenly raise everyone's hours? lol

Questionmarktarius posted...

This is just a bad idea, and far too heavy-handed.
If a city wants to set an unsustainable wage floor by itself, go ahead and let it.

This, tbh. A city's voters should be free to fuck themselves over by requesting a higher minimum wage. There's no requirement that people should learn from Seattle.
---

TheVipaGTS posted...

You think employers who took advantage of such a low wage will suddenly raise everyone's hours?

Yes, because that "sixth guy" we've been arguing about all night has become redundant.