-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Main Event - Tommy vs Ah Heng
- Thread starter rambo22
- Start date
Yes, but why he wait until now to make noise? This has been going on for years! 
do you agree what Tommy said is hard truth ?
Wow, I am impressed with Tommy. Whether he is gay or not is immaterial.
aiyah. he just contracted the liberal progressive disease rampant in seattle, sf, and nyc. he should cum to sf, stay for a while, see for himself, and get the facts right before sprouting nonsense. although pappies may have their own selfish agendas to not jump on the minimum wage bandwagon (now rebranded and bandied as "living wage" by uncle tommy), their sexploits of cheap foreign labor and local desperadoes' need for some incum, any incum to eek out less than subsistence living (while they pay themselves minimum wages in the millions) are well known. don't need to waste time to loliloso there. must look into consequences and results of minimum wage (some called it living wage) policies that are not only already in effect in progressive cities around the world but also amended to keep the minimum wage up every year in line with inflation and adjusted for cost of living increases. let me tell you what is happening in sillycon valley.
it started in sf and bled to other progressive cities in the bay area, but sf still takes the cake as her minimum wage value is the highest with aggressive increases every year. while sf increases minimum wage to $15 an hour in 2018, other major cities in the bay such as oakland increases slightly to $13.23 per hour and sj increases it to $13.50. smaller towns and cities such as san mateo, los altos, cupertino, and palo alto also follow the sj benchmark of $13.50. eventually majority of cities in the bay area will increase to $15 in 2019, including oakland and sj. what is happening in sf is a cat and mouse game of survival. small businesses and eateries are hiring less workers and or imposing less hours on workers already hired. and they expect workers to do more with less staff. together with rising rental cost, many shut their businesses as they cannot make a profit. they are also required to provide health care benefits to employees. the more crafty ones impose a compulsory 3% "service fee" increase on invoices and bills (service fee never existed in sf before). almost all eateries in sf impose a compulsory 18% minimum tip on your bill whether you like it or not. you don't need to calculate the tip now. it used to be a voluntary 15% minimum as courtesy. no more. they slap you with a minimum 18% in your total tab but encourage you to pay more at 20% or 25%. not sure if the tallied tip actually goes to the wait staff. many unscrupulous eatery management keep the tips for themselves as they are charged to your credit card, no two ways about it. you can't even give cash as tips these days as part of your bill. you can still give cash to service staff but over and on top of the bill. eateries that don't increase prices and service fees, for example franchise fast food joints that have to follow national pricing and billing standards, find it hard to compete in sf and they move to the fringes of sf, i.e. cities and towns neighboring sf such as san bruno, daly city, millbrae, south sf, san mateo that have a lower minimum wage. popular eateries with expensive menus and higher margins will continue to thrive as there are now more higher paid workers in the tech sector who have substantial disposable income for food and beverage. workers working in small businesses who earn minimum wages cannot compete for rent in sf, thus they commute long distances from outskirts of the bay area such as the far east bay and far south bay to get to work. when minimum wage in oakland and sj is on par with sf at $15 in 2019, these workers will quit their jobs in sf and look for equivalent jobs in oakland and sj. sf will be left without enough low ses workers, mostly due to high rent and long commute. an increase in minimum wage by another dollar will do jackshit to alleviate the shortage.
the sf city council cites rising cost of housing as main factor in raising minimum wage, but this hollow excuse is a circular argument spiraling like a cat chasing its own tail without a solution. by not only imposing minimum wage but also jacking it up every now and then to "keep up with cost of living", the city is applying knee jerk bandages to imaginary wounds without addressing root causes and real reasons of a triage patient bleeding to death. when a city faces success due to its location, weather, history, culture, beauty, and is besieged by hundreds of thousands of fresh faced cream of the crop tech workers descending from all over america, in fact the world, including europe, india and china and millions of tourists, it is bound to becum super expensive. much like any other super expensive cities: hk, nyc, london, tokyo, sg. the rich and highly paid will have no problems living there, but the poor and low incum will face headwinds and challenges everyday. to think that imposing a minimum wage and increasing it to adjust for cost of living will be a panacea and solve everything that is facing the poor and low incum is bordering on fantasy and foolhardiness at the same time. all it does is to mask the progressive liberal as a city council member as a do-gooder who's empathetic and caring of the downtrodden. and they will continue to get sympathy votes from those who freeload on city giveaways - druggies, homeless, bums, undocumented workers, poor and rich leeching on welfare, etc. (no wonder the city allows these losers to register to vote) - and not those who own properties, pay property taxes, start businesses, pay business taxes, and employ craftsmen, artists, and workers - city citizens who truly make a city great. meanwhile imposing the minimum wage a few years ago below $15 per hour and increasing it to $15 per hour this year do not solve any issues that they claim will do in their campaign slogans. it only kicks the can down the road and starts a cat and mouse game with businesses and workers. game over.
it started in sf and bled to other progressive cities in the bay area, but sf still takes the cake as her minimum wage value is the highest with aggressive increases every year. while sf increases minimum wage to $15 an hour in 2018, other major cities in the bay such as oakland increases slightly to $13.23 per hour and sj increases it to $13.50. smaller towns and cities such as san mateo, los altos, cupertino, and palo alto also follow the sj benchmark of $13.50. eventually majority of cities in the bay area will increase to $15 in 2019, including oakland and sj. what is happening in sf is a cat and mouse game of survival. small businesses and eateries are hiring less workers and or imposing less hours on workers already hired. and they expect workers to do more with less staff. together with rising rental cost, many shut their businesses as they cannot make a profit. they are also required to provide health care benefits to employees. the more crafty ones impose a compulsory 3% "service fee" increase on invoices and bills (service fee never existed in sf before). almost all eateries in sf impose a compulsory 18% minimum tip on your bill whether you like it or not. you don't need to calculate the tip now. it used to be a voluntary 15% minimum as courtesy. no more. they slap you with a minimum 18% in your total tab but encourage you to pay more at 20% or 25%. not sure if the tallied tip actually goes to the wait staff. many unscrupulous eatery management keep the tips for themselves as they are charged to your credit card, no two ways about it. you can't even give cash as tips these days as part of your bill. you can still give cash to service staff but over and on top of the bill. eateries that don't increase prices and service fees, for example franchise fast food joints that have to follow national pricing and billing standards, find it hard to compete in sf and they move to the fringes of sf, i.e. cities and towns neighboring sf such as san bruno, daly city, millbrae, south sf, san mateo that have a lower minimum wage. popular eateries with expensive menus and higher margins will continue to thrive as there are now more higher paid workers in the tech sector who have substantial disposable income for food and beverage. workers working in small businesses who earn minimum wages cannot compete for rent in sf, thus they commute long distances from outskirts of the bay area such as the far east bay and far south bay to get to work. when minimum wage in oakland and sj is on par with sf at $15 in 2019, these workers will quit their jobs in sf and look for equivalent jobs in oakland and sj. sf will be left without enough low ses workers, mostly due to high rent and long commute. an increase in minimum wage by another dollar will do jackshit to alleviate the shortage.
the sf city council cites rising cost of housing as main factor in raising minimum wage, but this hollow excuse is a circular argument spiraling like a cat chasing its own tail without a solution. by not only imposing minimum wage but also jacking it up every now and then to "keep up with cost of living", the city is applying knee jerk bandages to imaginary wounds without addressing root causes and real reasons of a triage patient bleeding to death. when a city faces success due to its location, weather, history, culture, beauty, and is besieged by hundreds of thousands of fresh faced cream of the crop tech workers descending from all over america, in fact the world, including europe, india and china and millions of tourists, it is bound to becum super expensive. much like any other super expensive cities: hk, nyc, london, tokyo, sg. the rich and highly paid will have no problems living there, but the poor and low incum will face headwinds and challenges everyday. to think that imposing a minimum wage and increasing it to adjust for cost of living will be a panacea and solve everything that is facing the poor and low incum is bordering on fantasy and foolhardiness at the same time. all it does is to mask the progressive liberal as a city council member as a do-gooder who's empathetic and caring of the downtrodden. and they will continue to get sympathy votes from those who freeload on city giveaways - druggies, homeless, bums, undocumented workers, poor and rich leeching on welfare, etc. (no wonder the city allows these losers to register to vote) - and not those who own properties, pay property taxes, start businesses, pay business taxes, and employ craftsmen, artists, and workers - city citizens who truly make a city great. meanwhile imposing the minimum wage a few years ago below $15 per hour and increasing it to $15 per hour this year do not solve any issues that they claim will do in their campaign slogans. it only kicks the can down the road and starts a cat and mouse game with businesses and workers. game over.
The Swiss soundly rejected this living wage crap. I'm sure the majority of Sinkies would do the same if it was put to a vote.
An economy that is structured to pay anyone more than their market worth is simply not sustainable.
MINIMUM-WAGE SMARTNESS IN SWITZERLAND
by Jacob G. HornbergerApril 7, 2016
Two years ago, Swiss voters had a national referendum that would have set the nation’s minimum wage at $25 an hour, ten dollars more than what is being proposed in the United States. I’ll bet you’ll never guess how the referendum came out. It went down to defeat, big time. 76.3 percent of voters voted no to the referendum.
Why did Swiss citizens reject that very generous minimum-wage proposal? Was it because they don’t like money? Was it because they hate the poor? Wasn’t it because they believe in the employer exploitation of the worker? Or was it because they like subsistence wages?
Actually, it was none of the above. The Swiss rejected the proposal because they’re smart, at least when it comes to economic principles. Or to be more specific, the 76.3% who voted against the proposal are smart.
I’ve got another bet for you. I’ll bet you’ll never guess what the minimum wage currently is in Switzerland.
It’s a trick question. There is no minimum wage in Switzerland. You read that right: There is no state-mandated minimum wage in Switzerland. Wages are left entirely to the free market.
Like I say, the Swiss are smart.
Now, I can already hear what minimum-wage advocates are saying. “Jacob, if there’s no minimum wage in Switzerland, then that means that every wage earner is being paid no more than a subsistence wage. That’s what employers do when the government doesn’t force them to pay a minimum wage. Employers exploit their workers. They would never pay more than just a pittance. Those poor Swiss workers. They must be barely eking out a living.”
However, according to an article in USA Today about the defeat of the minimum-wage referendum, “90% of Swiss workers earn more than the proposed minimum and are already among the highest paid in the world.”
Whoops! There goes the exploitation and subsistence-wage theory. Imagine: In a nation in which the government isn’t forcing employers to pay any minimum wage whatsoever, employers are already paying more than $25 an hour.
Is that because Swiss employers are more benevolent than employers in other nations? Nope. It means that they are simply responding to the natural laws of supply and demand within their country. The supply of labor and the demand for labor — that is, the free market — set the price for labor in Switzerland.
Take a look at my recent article “Minimum Wage Ignorance,” where I pointed out what credible economists have been saying for decades: that a state-mandated minimum-wage law locks out of the labor market every person whose labor is valued by employers at less than the state-mandated minimum. Black teenagers, who suffer from a chronic unemployment rate of 40 percent, are one example. That’s because employers value their labor at less than the state-mandated minimum. So, they go unemployed, permanently.
Unfortunately, all too many Americans still just can’t get it. They can’t comprehend the reasoning as to why a minimum-wage law is so destructive, especially for the poor. The only thing that goes through their minds is that the government can make people better off by passing laws that regulate economic activity. Any critical analysis of that notion goes right over their heads.
But not the Swiss. Like I say, when it comes to economics, those people are smart. According to the USA Today article,
And they are not the only smart ones in Switzerland. The smart people also include the poor — that is, those who earn less than the $25 an hour that the referendum was calling for. The USA Today article stated:
Meanwhile, here in the United States, the move toward a $15 per hour minimum wage continues apace. It’s not very smart. In fact, it’s really dumb.
An economy that is structured to pay anyone more than their market worth is simply not sustainable.
MINIMUM-WAGE SMARTNESS IN SWITZERLAND
by Jacob G. HornbergerApril 7, 2016
Two years ago, Swiss voters had a national referendum that would have set the nation’s minimum wage at $25 an hour, ten dollars more than what is being proposed in the United States. I’ll bet you’ll never guess how the referendum came out. It went down to defeat, big time. 76.3 percent of voters voted no to the referendum.
Why did Swiss citizens reject that very generous minimum-wage proposal? Was it because they don’t like money? Was it because they hate the poor? Wasn’t it because they believe in the employer exploitation of the worker? Or was it because they like subsistence wages?
Actually, it was none of the above. The Swiss rejected the proposal because they’re smart, at least when it comes to economic principles. Or to be more specific, the 76.3% who voted against the proposal are smart.
I’ve got another bet for you. I’ll bet you’ll never guess what the minimum wage currently is in Switzerland.
It’s a trick question. There is no minimum wage in Switzerland. You read that right: There is no state-mandated minimum wage in Switzerland. Wages are left entirely to the free market.
Like I say, the Swiss are smart.
Now, I can already hear what minimum-wage advocates are saying. “Jacob, if there’s no minimum wage in Switzerland, then that means that every wage earner is being paid no more than a subsistence wage. That’s what employers do when the government doesn’t force them to pay a minimum wage. Employers exploit their workers. They would never pay more than just a pittance. Those poor Swiss workers. They must be barely eking out a living.”
However, according to an article in USA Today about the defeat of the minimum-wage referendum, “90% of Swiss workers earn more than the proposed minimum and are already among the highest paid in the world.”
Whoops! There goes the exploitation and subsistence-wage theory. Imagine: In a nation in which the government isn’t forcing employers to pay any minimum wage whatsoever, employers are already paying more than $25 an hour.
Is that because Swiss employers are more benevolent than employers in other nations? Nope. It means that they are simply responding to the natural laws of supply and demand within their country. The supply of labor and the demand for labor — that is, the free market — set the price for labor in Switzerland.
Take a look at my recent article “Minimum Wage Ignorance,” where I pointed out what credible economists have been saying for decades: that a state-mandated minimum-wage law locks out of the labor market every person whose labor is valued by employers at less than the state-mandated minimum. Black teenagers, who suffer from a chronic unemployment rate of 40 percent, are one example. That’s because employers value their labor at less than the state-mandated minimum. So, they go unemployed, permanently.
Unfortunately, all too many Americans still just can’t get it. They can’t comprehend the reasoning as to why a minimum-wage law is so destructive, especially for the poor. The only thing that goes through their minds is that the government can make people better off by passing laws that regulate economic activity. Any critical analysis of that notion goes right over their heads.
But not the Swiss. Like I say, when it comes to economics, those people are smart. According to the USA Today article,
The Swiss Business Federation, Economiesuisse, said the results show that the Swiss people wouldn’t tolerate government intervention in a free-market economy. “We were able to show that the initiative hurts low-paid workers in particular, the group’s president, Heinz Karrer, told the website.
Switzerland also has some smart public officials. Take a look at what Swiss Economics Minister Johann Schneider-Ammann said: “If jobs are being cut, the weakest suffer most.”And they are not the only smart ones in Switzerland. The smart people also include the poor — that is, those who earn less than the $25 an hour that the referendum was calling for. The USA Today article stated:
Some workers who make less than $25 an hour had opposed the referendum. Luisa Almeida is an immigrant from Portugal who works in Switzerland as a housekeeper and nanny. Almeida’s earnings of $3,250 a month are below the proposed minimum wage but still much more than she’d make in Portugal. Still, she did not support the referendum. “If my employer had to pay me more money, he wouldn’t be able to keep me on and I’d lose the job,” she told USA TODAY days before the vote.
That’s impressive! When those at the bottom of the economic ladder can see how a state-mandated minimum wage is contrary to their best interests, that reflects an enlightened or smart citizenry.Meanwhile, here in the United States, the move toward a $15 per hour minimum wage continues apace. It’s not very smart. In fact, it’s really dumb.
MINIMUM WAGE IGNORANCE
by Jacob G. Hornberger March 30, 2016
It is absolutely amazing to me that so many people still don’t get it on the minimum wage. How is it really possible for any intelligent person to genuinely believe that all a government has to do to relieve poverty is enact a law? If that’s’ the case, why is there still poverty in the world? The fact that so many people really believe this myth is proof positive that the sooner the government gets out of the education business (e.g., public schooling), the better off everyone will be.
California is raising the minimum wage from $10 an hour to $15 an hour. Not surprisingly, the statist establishment, liberals and conservatives alike, is going gaga over the idea. The statists are saying that raising the minimum wage will help those at the bottom of the economic ladder — that is, low-income earners.
That’s just sheer economic nonsense. In fact, the minimum wage is a direct attack against the very people who are purportedly helped by it — the poor — those who earn low incomes.
Businesses are in business to make a profit. They know that if they sustain losses, they will go out of business. Since they want to stay in business, they do their best to earn profits and avoid losses.
Let’s assume that a business has an annual payroll totaling $1,000,000 and annual gross revenues of $500,000. Do you see the problem? The business is incurring a sizable loss. If things stay that way for long, the business will go out of business.
There is always a maximum amount of payroll that any business is willing to pay in order to make a profit. If payroll starts to exceed that amount, whatever it might be, the business will lay off one or more workers in order to continue making a profit and to stay in business.
This is what statists just don’t get. They see a business and automatically assume that it can increase its payroll expense regardless.
Let’s make the analysis simpler. Let’s narrow it down to two people — the employer and the worker. If the state enacts a law requiring the employer to pay its workers $15 an hour, the employer will ask himself a very simple question: Is this worker worth $15 an hour to me? If he concludes that the worker is worth more than $15 to him, he will hire him. If he concludes that he is worth less than $15 an hour to him, he won’t hire him.
If the worker is already hired, the same questioning process takes place. If the employer decides that the worker isn’t worth $15 to him, he lays him off.
If a business wants to remain in business, why in the world would it hire someone that is losing it money? That is, why hire a person whose worth is $13 an hour when the law requires the employer to pay him $15 an hour? By hiring the worker, the employer loses $2 an hour every single day.
Therefore, the principle is very simple to understand: Once California’s minimum-wage law is enacted, every single person whose labor is valued by employers at less than $15 an hour is not going to be hired. If he already is hired, he’s going to be laid off.
The principle is no different at $10 an hour. Everyone whose labor is valued at less than $10 an hour goes unemployed.
Would you like a good example of this phenomenon? Black teenagers, especially those who come from poor or low-income families. They are among the most prominent victims of minimum-wage laws. They have a chronic, permanent, ongoing unemployment rate of around 30 percent. That is a very high rate of unemployment.
Statist experts scratch their heads in befuddlement over the chronic unemployment rate among black teenagers. They conduct studies. They hold meetings to analyze the problem. They just can’t figure out why there is such a permanent rate of unemployment among black teenagers.
Needless to say, they summarily dismiss the notion that their beloved minimum-wage law is the cause. That would mean questioning one of their favorite welfare-state programs.
But the minimum wage is the cause of the chronic high unemployment rate among black teenagers. A black teenager walks into a business and asks for a job. The employer conducts his interview and concludes that prospective worker isn’t worth $10 an hour to him. That is, if he hires the teenager, he’s going to lose money. He’s in the business to make a profit, not sustain losses. He decides to not hire the worker. Every other employer makes the same decision.
Suppose, however, that the black teenager says, “I’ll work for $5 an hour.” Now, the employer thinks, “This kid isn’t worth $10 to me but he is worth $7 to me. I can make $2 an hour profit off of him.” The employer decides to hire the teenager … but then remembers that the state’s minimum-wage law makes it illegal for him to do so.
Owing to misguided statist benevolence, the teenager remains without a job — a job where he could learn skills, a work ethic, how to deal with customers, how to make a profit, and other aspects of the business world. Instead, he goes unemployed and most likely ends up in the drug trade, owing to the enormous profits that the U.S. government has produced in this sector of the economy with its drug war. He also likely ends up in a state or federal penitentiary for drug-war violations. At his sentencing hearing, the judge will undoubtedly chastise him for not having gotten an honest job before imposing a 20 or 30 year jail sentence on him.
Here’s an interesting question: Why does California stop at $15 an hour? Why not $50 an hour? $100 an hour? If $15 an hour helps the poor, wouldn’t $100 an hour help them even more?
Again, the analysis is the same: Employers will hire only those people whose labor is valued at $100 or more. Everyone else will go unemployed. Of course, the employment rate would be much higher with a $100 an hour minimum wage than with a $15 or $10 minimum wage.
We see this phenomenon in Puerto Rico, an island that belongs to the United States. It has a much lower standard of living than the states of the United States. And yet, as a colonial possession of the United States, it is required to comply with U.S. minimum-wage laws. Since its standard of living is so much lower, imposing a $10 minimum wage on Puerto Rico is like imposing a $100 minimum wage on the United States. So, not surprisingly Puerto Rico has a chronic, permanent unemployment rate of 12 percent. That’s because there are lots of people in Puerto Rico whose labor is valued at less than the established minimum.
If there were no minimum-wage laws, everyone who wanted to work would be able to find it. That’s the way the laws of supply and demand work in an unhampered market economy. Unfortunately, there are still to many people in the world who honestly believe that public officials can repeal the laws of supply and demand. And the people who pay the biggest price for that myth are the poor — those at the bottom of the economic ladder.
by Jacob G. Hornberger March 30, 2016
It is absolutely amazing to me that so many people still don’t get it on the minimum wage. How is it really possible for any intelligent person to genuinely believe that all a government has to do to relieve poverty is enact a law? If that’s’ the case, why is there still poverty in the world? The fact that so many people really believe this myth is proof positive that the sooner the government gets out of the education business (e.g., public schooling), the better off everyone will be.
California is raising the minimum wage from $10 an hour to $15 an hour. Not surprisingly, the statist establishment, liberals and conservatives alike, is going gaga over the idea. The statists are saying that raising the minimum wage will help those at the bottom of the economic ladder — that is, low-income earners.
That’s just sheer economic nonsense. In fact, the minimum wage is a direct attack against the very people who are purportedly helped by it — the poor — those who earn low incomes.
Businesses are in business to make a profit. They know that if they sustain losses, they will go out of business. Since they want to stay in business, they do their best to earn profits and avoid losses.
Let’s assume that a business has an annual payroll totaling $1,000,000 and annual gross revenues of $500,000. Do you see the problem? The business is incurring a sizable loss. If things stay that way for long, the business will go out of business.
There is always a maximum amount of payroll that any business is willing to pay in order to make a profit. If payroll starts to exceed that amount, whatever it might be, the business will lay off one or more workers in order to continue making a profit and to stay in business.
This is what statists just don’t get. They see a business and automatically assume that it can increase its payroll expense regardless.
Let’s make the analysis simpler. Let’s narrow it down to two people — the employer and the worker. If the state enacts a law requiring the employer to pay its workers $15 an hour, the employer will ask himself a very simple question: Is this worker worth $15 an hour to me? If he concludes that the worker is worth more than $15 to him, he will hire him. If he concludes that he is worth less than $15 an hour to him, he won’t hire him.
If the worker is already hired, the same questioning process takes place. If the employer decides that the worker isn’t worth $15 to him, he lays him off.
If a business wants to remain in business, why in the world would it hire someone that is losing it money? That is, why hire a person whose worth is $13 an hour when the law requires the employer to pay him $15 an hour? By hiring the worker, the employer loses $2 an hour every single day.
Therefore, the principle is very simple to understand: Once California’s minimum-wage law is enacted, every single person whose labor is valued by employers at less than $15 an hour is not going to be hired. If he already is hired, he’s going to be laid off.
The principle is no different at $10 an hour. Everyone whose labor is valued at less than $10 an hour goes unemployed.
Would you like a good example of this phenomenon? Black teenagers, especially those who come from poor or low-income families. They are among the most prominent victims of minimum-wage laws. They have a chronic, permanent, ongoing unemployment rate of around 30 percent. That is a very high rate of unemployment.
Statist experts scratch their heads in befuddlement over the chronic unemployment rate among black teenagers. They conduct studies. They hold meetings to analyze the problem. They just can’t figure out why there is such a permanent rate of unemployment among black teenagers.
Needless to say, they summarily dismiss the notion that their beloved minimum-wage law is the cause. That would mean questioning one of their favorite welfare-state programs.
But the minimum wage is the cause of the chronic high unemployment rate among black teenagers. A black teenager walks into a business and asks for a job. The employer conducts his interview and concludes that prospective worker isn’t worth $10 an hour to him. That is, if he hires the teenager, he’s going to lose money. He’s in the business to make a profit, not sustain losses. He decides to not hire the worker. Every other employer makes the same decision.
Suppose, however, that the black teenager says, “I’ll work for $5 an hour.” Now, the employer thinks, “This kid isn’t worth $10 to me but he is worth $7 to me. I can make $2 an hour profit off of him.” The employer decides to hire the teenager … but then remembers that the state’s minimum-wage law makes it illegal for him to do so.
Owing to misguided statist benevolence, the teenager remains without a job — a job where he could learn skills, a work ethic, how to deal with customers, how to make a profit, and other aspects of the business world. Instead, he goes unemployed and most likely ends up in the drug trade, owing to the enormous profits that the U.S. government has produced in this sector of the economy with its drug war. He also likely ends up in a state or federal penitentiary for drug-war violations. At his sentencing hearing, the judge will undoubtedly chastise him for not having gotten an honest job before imposing a 20 or 30 year jail sentence on him.
Here’s an interesting question: Why does California stop at $15 an hour? Why not $50 an hour? $100 an hour? If $15 an hour helps the poor, wouldn’t $100 an hour help them even more?
Again, the analysis is the same: Employers will hire only those people whose labor is valued at $100 or more. Everyone else will go unemployed. Of course, the employment rate would be much higher with a $100 an hour minimum wage than with a $15 or $10 minimum wage.
We see this phenomenon in Puerto Rico, an island that belongs to the United States. It has a much lower standard of living than the states of the United States. And yet, as a colonial possession of the United States, it is required to comply with U.S. minimum-wage laws. Since its standard of living is so much lower, imposing a $10 minimum wage on Puerto Rico is like imposing a $100 minimum wage on the United States. So, not surprisingly Puerto Rico has a chronic, permanent unemployment rate of 12 percent. That’s because there are lots of people in Puerto Rico whose labor is valued at less than the established minimum.
If there were no minimum-wage laws, everyone who wanted to work would be able to find it. That’s the way the laws of supply and demand work in an unhampered market economy. Unfortunately, there are still to many people in the world who honestly believe that public officials can repeal the laws of supply and demand. And the people who pay the biggest price for that myth are the poor — those at the bottom of the economic ladder.
You want to rid minimum wage, close your borders. Then supply and demand can function properly. The Swiss don't let in loads of Ah Nehs who are willing for low wages.
There isn't enough industry in Puerto Rico; that's why unemployment is high. Nothing to do with min wage.
Higher minimum wage has not killed jobs.
This is not really what I like to do first thing in the morning.
It has been stated many times by diehard libertarians like eatshitanddie that minimum wage distorts the market and locks out unskilled, unproductive workers out of the labour market, making situations dire for people in this group. However libertarians are also naive to believe free markets and the invisible hand would provide vulnerable people with a livable wage without government intervention. Cheery picking Switzerland as an example is simply disingenuous.
Singapore is small enough that very targeted intervention programmes could help to these groups achieve a liveable wage without mandating a minimum wage. That depends very strongly on the skills and motivations of the bureaucrats leading the project, and with a Neo-liberal shill and sorry state of a man as head of government for over a decade and his influence felt for twice as long, I don’t believe such characters are abundant in a system where no blame culture is the norm and public policy risks are actively transferred to the private sector. Think NEA social enterprise fiasco recently.
It has been stated many times by diehard libertarians like eatshitanddie that minimum wage distorts the market and locks out unskilled, unproductive workers out of the labour market, making situations dire for people in this group. However libertarians are also naive to believe free markets and the invisible hand would provide vulnerable people with a livable wage without government intervention. Cheery picking Switzerland as an example is simply disingenuous.
Singapore is small enough that very targeted intervention programmes could help to these groups achieve a liveable wage without mandating a minimum wage. That depends very strongly on the skills and motivations of the bureaucrats leading the project, and with a Neo-liberal shill and sorry state of a man as head of government for over a decade and his influence felt for twice as long, I don’t believe such characters are abundant in a system where no blame culture is the norm and public policy risks are actively transferred to the private sector. Think NEA social enterprise fiasco recently.
Repeating a mantra does not make it true.
Besides closed borders don't stop jobs going overseas. I don't hire a single Kiwi for any task I need done. It's done overseas at a rate the market supports.
Have you asked yourself why there isn't enough industry.
If Singapore had imposed a minimum wage back in the 60s there wouldn't have been enough industry either. The MNCs flooded in because people like myself were willing to work at a quarter the wage that my counterparts were being paid in the US.
Wat about Tommy being a closet faggot or faggot supporter.? Is tat a hard truth? N Tommy is part of the establishment n now criticises it..how come the change of heart?
do you agree what Tommy said is hard truth ?
PAP LEEders demanded and subsequentLEE give themselves increased monetary payments
The arrogant $$$elf-$$$erving LEEches do it for themselves.
The unscrupulous $$$elf-$$$erving eLEEtes refuse to do it for the insignificant others.
PAP LEEders only CARE for THEMSELVES but not for the people.
The arrogant $$$elf-$$$erving LEEches do it for themselves.
The unscrupulous $$$elf-$$$erving eLEEtes refuse to do it for the insignificant others.
PAP LEEders only CARE for THEMSELVES but not for the people.
there's also the very large fringe group of undocumented and illegal immigrants who would take on any job at many times below minimum wage. any labor law doesn't apply to them as they are shinobis and ninjas working in the shadows in the underground economy. private employers in cities where minimum wage is enacted are turning to this very large pool of labor, and have been doing it with a surging economy. i pay my gardener $69 to mow my lawn, and he and his wife will do it in 23 minutes - more than minimum wage even for 2. if i pick up an amigo who waits for hours at the parking lot of the nearest home depot for hourly jobs he would come with me for $6.9 an hour. i hand him my grass trimmer, leaf blower, and hedge cutter he can finish the yard work in 1 hour. meanwhile i use dirty minutes, oops 30 minutes out of that hour i save, for my haircut with miss saigon plus a gratuitous neck and head massage and cursory hydrotherapy with no happy ending. and i would pay her $11 as advertised plus tip of $2. she gets paid more than minimum wage but her advertised $11 per haircut plus tips will not cover her rent, utilities, water, supplies, shampoo, towels, sharpening cost of scissors. she needs to charge $23 per cut or hope for more aunties who need $69 styling and dyeing to make a profit. very market driven you see. if she increases cut fee to $23, all men who enjoys miss saigon, her sexy figure and dainty fingers (but not her voice and language) will bail and jump over to miss tijuana who is uncertified and undocumented but gives a decent haircut for $6.9 from her old thrice-pre-owned ford expedition. with cat and mouse and illegals the market, under or over, will sought itself out, and minimum wage will get bypassed and becum irrelevant.This is not really what I like to do first thing in the morning.
It has been stated many times by diehard libertarians like eatshitanddie that minimum wage distorts the market and locks out unskilled, unproductive workers out of the labour market, making situations dire for people in this group. However libertarians are also naive to believe free markets and the invisible hand would provide vulnerable people with a livable wage without government intervention. Cheery picking Switzerland as an example is simply disingenuous.
Singapore is small enough that very targeted intervention programmes could help to these groups achieve a liveable wage without mandating a minimum wage. That depends very strongly on the skills and motivations of the bureaucrats leading the project, and with a Neo-liberal shill and sorry state of a man as head of government for over a decade and his influence felt for twice as long, I don’t believe such characters are abundant in a system where no blame culture is the norm and public policy risks are actively transferred to the private sector. Think NEA social enterprise fiasco recently.
Employees change jobs. Why?
People change. Why?
Experience it, analyse it, then decide and act.
The White is not trueLEE white and pure on the inside.
Rejection could be for various reasons.
It could be because the $25 set was perceived as being 'above minimum'.
LOL... US move toward a $15 per home minimum wage is ridiculed by you as not smart-DUMB.
Boss SAM is betterer than Uncle SAM...LOL
What happened to the 'AngMoh is the BEST?'
companies and businesses hire those who qualify and fit their needs, and they earn many times way more than minimum wage. those jobs that require skills, knowledge, experience, and attitude are immune from minimum wage. minimum wage are meant for those who can't be hired in mainstream jobs that pay more than $69k per year. with sanctuary city laws illegals can work for cash without the need to file tax returns thus they compete for these jobs with druggies, ex-cons, niggers, gangbangers, etc. niggers with no qualifications but with a rich history of crime, family violence, and arrests are almost always avoided by employers. higher minimum wage kills many of these jobs as employers would rather hire college grads with liberal arts, psychology, and social studies degrees willing to work smarter, carry a conversation, and do the work of 3 illegals or 2 useless legal workers with poor work attitudes.
Similar threads
