Impending Minimum Wage hike causing restaurants to close

[lilpixieofterror]

you think this real estate is yours?

you don't know history...

Let's see... in capitalism a person (such as myself), who didn't grow up rich. Has the opportunity to do better than their parents did (at their age) and can move up the ladder in their careers and social standing. In socialism, unless you are part of the hand full of rich elites, you're suck doing whatever the government tells you to do, while you wait in lines for your loaf of bread. In the US, one of the richest men, of the 19th century, (Andrew Carnegie) came from a poor family where he worked in a factory, 6 days a week (12 hours a day), earning 1.20 a week when he was 13. In socialism, he would of likely lived and died poor, and the steel industry likely wouldn't be what it is today. What system benefits more people? The system where one can do better than their parents (or even their younger selves) or the one that guarantees that you stay poor and on government assistance; for the rest of your days?

[lilpixieofterror]

You were one of the onese arguing that the top executives were making too much profit and it should be taken from them. That is capping their income.

Well of course they are, so Sam thinks he has the right to take money from one group of people and hand it to another group of people. Wait... we already are doing that and we still have quite a few poor people, so we need even more money to take from the rich to give to the poor and the cycle continues, until there's no more rich people to take money from and everybody is equally poor.

[lilpixieofterror]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]4715[/ATTACH]

Of course, the funny thing is the government has been encouraging us all to get more fuel efficient cars and this naturally results in less gas sold and less gas tax revenue taken in. So when that happens and we get more fuel efficient cars... they complain they are not getting enough revenue and find other ways to take your money from you. Yep, government logic, well at work.

[jordanriver]

Can you actually name 5 people, that you know, that work 2 or 3 jobs, to make ends meet? I only know of one person that did that (and I have a pretty large extended family). I do know a few people that worked 2 jobs, but didn't work 2 jobs to make ends meet, but because they wanted to buy new toys.

You can't? (name 5 people I describe)

Lets see...
Brother-in-Law, Sister-in-Law, cousins (well ok, the cousins are in Cleveland so I can't really count that), couple of neighbors, (and I'm not counting the ones I know who can make ends meet with their one good job, but are just trying to get ahead),

...oh, and a few of the people working under me.

...then a few I've met at factories my crew goes to, they asked me if we had openings, (they got buried under medical bills)

...but ok

...I will concede that I may just live "in a bubble" and what I see is unusual.

I won't really know if what I see is the norm or the exception unless we get a chance to vote in a Direct Democracy, and if my choice is outnumbered...
...then I'll know its only my experience

[Truthseeker]

Nobody operates in a largely laissez faire environment, nor is one desirable.

Black markets do operate all around the world. Their existence does mean people want them, despite your disapproval. Consider the failure of the War on Drugs.

The problem isn't with the inability to see the big picture, but with muddying the lines between economy, sociology and morality. Communists don't understand economics but have all sorts of sociological and moral proclamations to make. Keynesians and austrians think what is morally right just so happens to coincide perfectly with what is economically sound. Neither keynesians nor austrians understand human behavior in the slightest.

You clearly do not understand Austrian economics. It's quite applicable to an economy consisting of nobody but real Christians (to be sure it probably will be only hypothetical in the foreseeable future). Contrary to what you think, Austrian economics is based on human nature.

[Truthseeker]

Darth Executor, there are too many posts to wade through this thread. As much as I want to continue to discuss Austrian economics, I'm going to unsubscribe now.

[jordanriver]

Let's see... in capitalism a person (such as myself), who didn't grow up rich. Has the opportunity to do better than their parents did (at their age) and can move up the ladder in their careers and social standing. In socialism, unless you are part of the hand full of rich elites, you're suck doing whatever the government tells you to do, while you wait in lines for your loaf of bread. In the US, one of the richest men, of the 19th century, (Andrew Carnegie) came from a poor family where he worked in a factory, 6 days a week (12 hours a day), earning 1.20 a week when he was 13. In socialism, he would of likely lived and died poor, and the steel industry likely wouldn't be what it is today. What system benefits more people? The system where one can do better than their parents (or even their younger selves) or the one that guarantees that you stay poor and on government assistance; for the rest of your days?

sounds like a pretty good system.

....saaay, what percentage of able-bodied males during the 2nd half of the 19th century turned out to be 'Andrew Carnegies'?
....here in America (the land of opportunity) that is.

[Jedidiah]

Sure they do!! This is a soft tyranny of a government. The voters are relatively powerless and their "elected representatives" rarely care what their constituency wants.

Sad but true.

[Pinoy]

I just have question: Is the "on the job training" subject to minimum wage? Or how about "trainee"?

As a side note: Doctor and nurses have "residency" which do not pay a dime or minimal pay. (Is residency?)

[Sam]

I just have question: Is the "on the job training" subject to minimum wage? Or how about "trainee"?

As a side note: Doctor and nurses have "residency" which do not pay a dime or minimal pay. (Is residency?)

Medical residents get paid (~$50k/year average, I think).

[Sparko]

...oh, and a few of the people working under me.

Hmm, why aren't you helping them by paying them a livable wage? You should donate part of your paycheck and get others to help and give it to the ones who need it as a "tip" to bring up their wages. Or add a service charge to the work your company provides and pay them out of that. Sure, it might make the company you work for less competitive and you might lose some customers, but at least you would be actually doing what you have been proposing in this thread.

I will gladly refund your tweb donation to you to help you get started. let me know.

Or maybe you want to hold on to your own money and give them money from someone else's pockets?

[Sparko]

sounds like a pretty good system.

....saaay, what percentage of able-bodied males during the 2nd half of the 19th century turned out to be 'Andrew Carnegies'?
....here in America (the land of opportunity) that is.

I can tell you this, the USA has the largest number of millionaires in the world. 3.44 Million. And the largest middle class. All due to capitalism.


I have been meaning to ask you something. You mentioned you are a supervisor for a contractor. Did you start out as such? Or were you hired on as a low-end worker and were promoted to your present position and salary because of hard work?

[Sam]

I can tell you this, the USA has the largest number of millionaires in the world. 3.44 Million. And the largest middle class. All due to capitalism.


I have been meaning to ask you something. You mentioned you are a supervisor for a contractor. Did you start out as such? Or were you hired on as a low-end worker and were promoted to your present position and salary because of hard work?

China's middle class already exceeds the entire population of the United States, if I remember right. By 2030, China's middle class population is expected to be close to 1.5 billion people, according to 2011 estimates.

[Sparko]

China's middle class already exceeds the entire population of the United States, if I remember right. By 2030, China's middle class population is expected to be close to 1.5 billion people, according to 2011 estimates.

Yeah because
1. They have the largest population on earth. Period.
2. They have been pretty much going capitalist and allowing businesses to actually make profit and pay workers. I see the downfall of the communist government soon in China.
3. They reincorporated Hong Kong into China, where a lot of the captialist businesses were and that started the ball rolling.

By the way it's ironic you are quoting from a capitalist magazine. Also the link you provided doesn't say what you claim. It is about Russian trade. Maybe you posted the wrong link?

[Sam]

Yeah because
1. They have the largest population on earth. Period.
2. They have been pretty much going capitalist and allowing businesses to actually make profit and pay workers. I see the downfall of the communist government soon in China.
3. They reincorporated Hong Kong into China, where a lot of the captialist businesses were and that started the ball rolling.

By the way it's ironic you are quoting from a capitalist magazine. Also the link you provided doesn't say what you claim. It is about Russian trade. Maybe you posted the wrong link?

It's the wrong link but it goes to the right article for me; "Within A Generation, China Middle Class Four Times Larger Than America's," Forbes, 09/05/2011, if you're interested in lookin' at it.

It's not ironic to be quoting a capitalist magazine since no one here has argued against capitalism. Forbes is not a "capitalism unrestrained" sort of magazine, of course, which puts it a bit at odds with some of the more fringe-right groups.

But if the point was that America's economic policy generates the highest ratio of middle-class:general population ratio, that hasn't been shown. If the point was that America has "the largest middle class," that's not factual. jordanriver's point seems to be that America's economic policy creates a few very well-offs at the expense of many "have-nots" and such a system is undesirable. One doesn't have to be a communist to agree: American society between WW II and the 1970s reflected this opinion to a large extent.