Salary idea from John Stewart. I appreciate you taking the time to view the content I uploaded If you want to, send a friend request my way. I accept them all!.
x
Click to expand

Salary idea from John Stewart

Salary idea from John Stewart. I appreciate you taking the time to view the content I uploaded If you want to, send a friend request my way. I accept them all!.

I appreciate you taking the time to view the content I uploaded
If you want to, send a friend request my way. I accept them all!

July 29, 2013
whars. towa,. t/ titians (golfers? Why not "'" ise the
minimum. wage to a hundred thousand. dollars?
u xiii 1
u 5 at
vi/ Hy- NO irina, lair
...
  • Recommend tagsx
+868
Views: 34558
Favorited: 36
Submitted: 07/20/2014
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to joshlol submit to reddit

Comments(180):

[ 180 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#1 - evilhomer ONLINE (07/20/2014) [-]
>100,000$ minimum wage
#15 to #1 - thismustbeseen (07/21/2014) [-]
You would laugh at that wouldn't you, Lex Luthor.
#8 to #1 - daddycool (07/21/2014) [-]
Vote for me, I'll give you $1,000,000 and hour.
User avatar #75 to #22 - Daeiros (07/21/2014) [-]
I had 300 thumbs with this same picture when this same post was on the front page 2 weeks ago.
sorry for your luck bro

www.funnyjunk.com/Salary+idea+from+John+Stewart/funny-pictures/5212022/1#1
#116 to #22 - anon (07/21/2014) [-]
'07 was the best time for it.
#73 - wargeneralwest (07/21/2014) [-]
why not pay people in gum?
why not pay people in gum?
#83 - teranin ONLINE (07/21/2014) [-]
When people use the Argumentum ad absurdium logical fallacy and think they are making a good point
#79 - swedishassassin (07/21/2014) [-]
Since this is a repost, I'll repost exactly what I said in my previous comment towards this picture:   
   
A raise in the minimum wage is fine... at maximum $11. Any further, and you do break the wage system. Inflation demands a raise in minimum wage, but the (and I'm sorry for getting political) liberals take it to the over-extreme with $15 and refuse any reason to lower that price, which !! would!! lower the dollar and the wage-cost of those paid $18 and up per hour.    
Limbaugh is wrong to say no raise; he's just way too black an white. But those demanding 15 are delusional or completely ignorant of economics. Minimum wage was never meant to be a wage to raise a family with; that's why you see teenagers getting paid minimum. If your career puts you at minimum, you better be looking for a better job instead of asking for unstable wage increase.
Since this is a repost, I'll repost exactly what I said in my previous comment towards this picture:

A raise in the minimum wage is fine... at maximum $11. Any further, and you do break the wage system. Inflation demands a raise in minimum wage, but the (and I'm sorry for getting political) liberals take it to the over-extreme with $15 and refuse any reason to lower that price, which !! would!! lower the dollar and the wage-cost of those paid $18 and up per hour.
Limbaugh is wrong to say no raise; he's just way too black an white. But those demanding 15 are delusional or completely ignorant of economics. Minimum wage was never meant to be a wage to raise a family with; that's why you see teenagers getting paid minimum. If your career puts you at minimum, you better be looking for a better job instead of asking for unstable wage increase.
User avatar #126 to #79 - datpenis (07/21/2014) [-]
I'm sorry, but who are they talking about in the picture? Obama? $15 for minimum wage sounds like something to make sure the people won't get mad at a certain party and act as if they are better than the others. But in reality, they won't raise it to $15 and just use that as brownie points. Ahhh. Politics.
User avatar #157 to #126 - swedishassassin (07/21/2014) [-]
Well, I'd include Obama into this, but not the head honcho by any means. Let's just say that it's a group of leading Democratic officials and lobbyists that are pushing for the high increase.
User avatar #180 to #157 - datpenis (07/22/2014) [-]
So the bitch on the picture is just... some bitch on the picture?
User avatar #181 to #180 - swedishassassin (07/22/2014) [-]
Yeah, pretty much.
User avatar #81 to #79 - sirbrentcoe (07/21/2014) [-]
as with any negotiation tactic, you start higher than your actual goal, then work your day down to a happy medium. I agree 100%. Minimum wage needs to increase. But not to $15. You're not supposed to be able to support a family of 4 on a part-time job.
User avatar #156 to #81 - swedishassassin (07/21/2014) [-]
I agree with your price negotiation full-heartedly. Once again, I don't been to be so blatantly political, but the left has a very bad habit of leaving no room to budge, and then demonizing the other side because they won't agree to everything they put on the table without any wiggle room, and then claim that the other side isn't willing to compromise.
User avatar #158 to #156 - sirbrentcoe (07/21/2014) [-]
ah yes, the misdirection tactic. keep pointing out the negative aspect of the opposing side, and they will be identified as the aggressor. it's sad that our government has dematerialized into such a childish display of cock-measuring.
User avatar #159 to #158 - swedishassassin (07/21/2014) [-]
Yeah, and I'm not excluding the right from this annoying tactic either, for the record
User avatar #160 to #159 - sirbrentcoe (07/21/2014) [-]
no, it is well within their rights, but it detracts from the issues, and it becomes more about whos the victim, versus who has valid points backed by data and statistics.
User avatar #90 to #81 - mathmanchris ONLINE (07/21/2014) [-]
I agree on everything you said, but supporting a family of 4 with a part-time job? No way. Why should anyone work 40+ hours then?
User avatar #9 - anonemous (07/21/2014) [-]
Will work for unicorns....
#2 - realitycheck ONLINE (07/20/2014) [-]
indeed, why not? It would just play out the endgame faster.
You raise minimum wage, you just lower the number of employees and make it harder to get a new job.... and you raise the price of EVERYTHING YOU BUY, to boot.
$15 an hour burger flipper? Hope you like paying $10 for a McDouble.
User avatar #86 to #2 - besle (07/21/2014) [-]
Guess that's pretty much what happens here in Denmark. My hourly wage back when i worked at a Fastfood chain was 20 dollars an hour, but a whopper meal costs around 15 dollars or so.
User avatar #100 to #2 - fishandkids ONLINE (07/21/2014) [-]
In Norway Burgers at McDonald and burger king costs 2-4$
User avatar #4 to #2 - sirformidio (07/21/2014) [-]
For someone with the name "Realitycheck" you have a really loose grip on the way companies in America are run, don't you?
User avatar #44 to #2 - mrtwilightsparkle (07/21/2014) [-]
Fast food companies make such a huge profit, that raising wages would do hardly anything to food costs. In the Netherlands, Minimum wage is nearly $20 USD (I believe), but a Big Mac is only a quarter more.
#53 to #2 - anon (07/21/2014) [-]
implying burger flippers in Canada aren't making $15 an hour
implying our mcdoubles don't still cost $1

#rekt
User avatar #106 to #2 - nigeltheoutlaw (07/21/2014) [-]
Yeah, using the argumentum ad absurdium just makes you seem like you have no idea what you are talking about.
#144 to #2 - anon (07/21/2014) [-]
This weak ass argument has been so overused, it ridiculous. The cost of living continually increases while the income of families (not minimum wage) has actually decreased over time, if not stayed stagnant over the last 2-3 decades. The country hasn't seen this level of inequality since the 1920's, and spoiler alert, the 1920's don't end very well. This is the type of 			****		 I'd expect from Fox News, the place that fully supports cooperations taking as many tax breaks as they can get their hands on while keeping the lower and middle classes hovering near the poverty line.
This weak ass argument has been so overused, it ridiculous. The cost of living continually increases while the income of families (not minimum wage) has actually decreased over time, if not stayed stagnant over the last 2-3 decades. The country hasn't seen this level of inequality since the 1920's, and spoiler alert, the 1920's don't end very well. This is the type of **** I'd expect from Fox News, the place that fully supports cooperations taking as many tax breaks as they can get their hands on while keeping the lower and middle classes hovering near the poverty line.
#5 to #2 - anon (07/21/2014) [-]
Thats not how economies work.

The current minimum wage is no longer relevant because it hasn't been altered to keep up with the rate of inflation. This means that it isn't actually a 'living' wage. By raising the minimum wage, you won't get further inflation since it's simply bringing it inline with the rate we already have.

I wish people would make the effort to learn some basic economics before they respout Fox's ******** .
#7 to #5 - daddycool (07/21/2014) [-]
The minimum wage was never intended to be a "living wage." It's just an arbitrary distinction that the politicians can trot out every now and then to buy votes.
#18 to #5 - anon (07/21/2014) [-]
You realize inflation is increased by a large margin every time you raise minimum wage, right? Your reason for raising it is raising it.
#74 to #2 - thevoodoofrog (07/21/2014) [-]
In Australia, a job flipping burgers will net you anywhere from $15-25 an hour, and they prices of the food aren't that much higher than the states.

Even our ********** jobs (See: Apprenticeships) are paid at least $10 an hour. I don't know why Americans put up with that crap.
User avatar #54 to #2 - harryboom (07/21/2014) [-]
labor costs make up a small fraction of a companies spending, and only a fraction of that is made of people on minimum wage, a 25% increase in minimum wage does not lead to a 25% increase in costs. and if a company is already paying you minimum wage it means that the only thing stopping them from paying you less is the law, if they could get away with employing less people with the same output then they would be doing it already.
#137 - douthit (07/21/2014) [-]
Having a mandated minimum wage removes an essential cog from the machine that is the market. By creating a basement rate, you deny the unskilled and uneducated one of the few bargaining powers they have to gain employment--the ability to undercut others.
User avatar #142 to #137 - heartlessrobot (07/21/2014) [-]
And then everyone starts working for a penny a day, all the while prices continue to rise.
User avatar #147 to #142 - douthit (07/21/2014) [-]
In a free market, all human association is voluntary. When free of coercion, by logic we know that any relationship between two people is wanted.

Who are you or I to say that someone is working for too little or too much? If they and their employer enter into an agreement together, they're the only concerned parties. If an employer refuses to pay what workers want, then few or no workers will be employed there. The employer will either go out of business and likely be bought out by someone who will pay what workers want, or the employer will raise the wages they pay.
User avatar #148 to #147 - heartlessrobot (07/21/2014) [-]
If they aren't making enough to make rent, pay for food and bills, then they aren't making enough. We can't afford to lower wages unless we vastly lower the price of EVERYTHING.
User avatar #161 to #148 - douthit (07/21/2014) [-]
Eliminating force-backed government wage standards is a necessary part of returning to the free workings of the market. Not to mention the immorality of injecting a a violent centralization of political power between the otherwise free agreements of employers and employees. If I want to give a man $5 to shine my shoes and he agrees, that's the end of it. If he wants to pay me $5 to mow his lawn and I agree, that's the end of it. Someone forcing me or him to pay more than we want to is coercive extortion.
User avatar #98 - konradkurze (07/21/2014) [-]
this is kind of a moot argument.....

a large part of inflation is caused by having too much money in circulation....

when we had the gold standard....it was based on a limited supply basis and each coin was worth alot because there were only so many around....when paper money came into play it destroyed the limitation because when theres a lack of paper money, mints just print more and lower the value of money overall

raising the minimum wage wont help the problem, it just expands how much money exists and causes further inflation....what the system should do is cut back on how much money exists and thus increase how much its worth based on the old limited supply.....
kids, just ask your grandparents how much they could buy for a few dollars back in their day when there was less money around

User avatar #105 to #98 - ChewyConor (07/21/2014) [-]
That's a basic summary of the problems of inflation and uncontrolled money printing but forgets the short term benefits of raising minimum wage, especially if minimum wage is less than the living cost. It also forgets the additional costs for today's society to run compared to 50 odd years ago. Spending on benefits, education, infrastructure, etc. is way higher as a proportion than it was then. So even if you could get way more for your dollar way back when, more money is required just to run the system, making inflation a necessity..
The entire financial system is squeezed tighter and tighter through the years because while a lot more money is in play, the overwhelming majority of it goes straight into the rich people's pockets and the poor don't get much richer. It's why the whole 1% argument has weight.
Unfortunately, an increase in minimum wage won't come from the 1% it'll more likely squeeze the middle range, but it's extremely difficult to take money from people with a lot of it.
User avatar #115 to #105 - konradkurze (07/21/2014) [-]
well thats another aspect of the problem

back under the gold standard.....the nobles may have been rich BUT they HAD to spend theor fortunes to keep coins in circulation for the commoners to have any for taxation

under the money system...the rich can safely hoard their wealth forever knowing the mints just print more money for the working class to have for taxing for the rich to get richer

and yes, the raises in minimum wage wont come from the rich..theyl come from a mix of printing more money. finding ways to cut costs here and there, maybe more illegal immigrants who work for less so theres money leftover to pay legal workers, and other *******

i can speak up on the cost cutting....my company used to provide full uniforms for the staff....then they just cut out uniform pants and told the staff we have to buy our own now.....and dress black pants arent cheap
User avatar #122 to #115 - ChewyConor (07/21/2014) [-]
I wish there was a way of legally implementing a 'use it or lose it' system for the extremely wealthy, just to avoid wealth hoarding. It's all well and good reinvesting into a business and having business capital but hoarding cash is just bad for everyone but the guy hoarding it.
Like a wealth cap of something like $100m or something (pulled that figure out of my ass, it might be way wrong), but anything over that amount must be recirculated into the economy through an external channel (i.e. not just through a sister company).
User avatar #125 to #122 - konradkurze (07/21/2014) [-]
well that would make perfect sense and keep money in circulation....the rich psychotically hoarding wealth so their grandkids will be rich like bill gates has plans set up for is ******* ...it just means more and more generations of people who will never work for or ear nthe money they have while the middle and lower classes suffer just to have roofs over their heads

User avatar #127 to #98 - Aethlius (07/21/2014) [-]
would it work if like money stopped existing and everyone only used electronic currency?
User avatar #129 to #127 - konradkurze (07/21/2014) [-]
not really....the printed money or electronic money system are more of less the same....endless supply of funds one way or another...the only difference being between printing it or programming it
#94 - konradkurze (07/21/2014) [-]
pay in cocaine?


KA KA KA KA KA YEAH!!!!!
#6 - madcoww (07/21/2014) [-]
>Remove minimum wage   
>It becomes cost effective to create marginal jobs   
>Jobs are created   
>Unemployment goes down   
>Supply of labor goes down   
>Demand for labor goes up   
>Increased demand in labor leads to better bargaining power of employees   
>Employees are able to demand higher wages   
ALSO   
>Remove minimum wage   
>Pay for marginal jobs decreases   
>Cost of products created by marginal jobs decreases   
>Cost of living goes down for everyone   
PROFIT
>Remove minimum wage
>It becomes cost effective to create marginal jobs
>Jobs are created
>Unemployment goes down
>Supply of labor goes down
>Demand for labor goes up
>Increased demand in labor leads to better bargaining power of employees
>Employees are able to demand higher wages
ALSO
>Remove minimum wage
>Pay for marginal jobs decreases
>Cost of products created by marginal jobs decreases
>Cost of living goes down for everyone
PROFIT
User avatar #20 to #6 - mckinkymcormic ONLINE (07/21/2014) [-]
that's a good idea, but as a minimum wage employee with his hours just cut due to over employment, i'd rather just lower minimum wage.
User avatar #68 to #6 - somefuckingguy ONLINE (07/21/2014) [-]
Let's Drown Out... Castlevania Symphony Of The Night I know next to **** all on this subject but I saw a video where someone mentioned it for half a minute once
At about 18:55ish..
User avatar #85 to #6 - sardukai (07/21/2014) [-]
that's base economics m8, and you're right...
often the problem is that the new equilibrium between demand and supply of labor is lower overall. the government isn't stupid, and tries to create a balance between unemployment and proper wage.
#87 to #6 - anon (07/21/2014) [-]
Real life doesn't work the same way as in the class room m8.
#97 to #6 - terminalinfinity ONLINE (07/21/2014) [-]
Exactly. Its like people dont get: when the minimum wage goes up, jobs are lost and demand becomes weaker. Lower positions are fazed out. Eventually, because of inflation, it somewhat corrects because the market adjusts to the true value of the product or labor which is determined by the scarcity or ability to acquire. No amount of legislation will avert this simple economic fact. Some jobs, by the size of the potential labor pool, are not worth 10/hour. It sucks but hard work =/= more pay. If it did, every coal miner would be a millionare. Plus, these positions arent supposed to be living wage jobs. The whole concept is to get a job as a teen when you still have parental support, gradually move up into better jobs or positions with new skills and education. You're not supposed to stay at an entry level position and make 15/hour after a decade.

Many young people should understand how hard it is to get even a basic job because nearly everyone wants some job experience. That's because at 7.90/hour, businesses want to maximize every position, especially in this saturated job market. If they could hire say, 15 year old for a store sweeper position at 5/hour (fair wage to just sweep floors), perhaps there would be more entry level positions
#138 to #6 - douthit (07/21/2014) [-]
one million internets for you
#19 to #6 - thatonecommunist ONLINE (07/21/2014) [-]
Yeah man, thats totally legit, thats why that **** works so ******* well in the 3rd world m8
User avatar #21 to #19 - noblexfenrir (07/21/2014) [-]
>Insert correlation=/causation rebuttal etc etc.

I hardly think many of the third worlds problems are because of a lack of a minimum wage. Nor would the implementation of one do very well when the very environment surrounding the concept of a third world area is inherently negative to a business.

Basically: If an area is **** , businesses will not flock there and businesses that are currently there are only there while it is profitable to a certain extent. Implement a minimum wage there and it will either not be enforced nor listened to, or the current businesses will leave.
#38 to #21 - thatonecommunist ONLINE (07/21/2014) [-]
But, what this would accomplish, is simply lining up rich peoples pockets even more, and thats kind of the problem?

Nobody will ever be able to rise from the rags with this system, EVER.
User avatar #171 to #38 - noblexfenrir (07/21/2014) [-]
Why do you seem to have a problem with people making money? (Yes I saw your username, it's more of a rhetorical question but you can answer if you feel the need to.)

The only problem I have is when the rich can buy off government power, so to handle this the ability to trade this power and leverage should be removed.

Capitalism by itself is a system by which those with the ability to make money, do. It gives everyone an initial product, their labour, and allows them to sell it off.

I'm finding it hard to explain these concepts to someone who said that any Zeitgeist creation is legitimate but I digress. Explain to me why you find capitalism to be negative. (Capitalism in which cronyism is not a factor mind you, I'm assuming we both disagree with cronyism and the selling of government leverage.)
#174 to #171 - thatonecommunist ONLINE (07/22/2014) [-]
I have only watched zeitgeist moving forward.

I hear that the rest of them are garbage, and i'm down for that, they probably are.

My problem with capitalism lies in the abuse of other nations for profit, the abuse in all men for motives i deem purely evil.

For instance

A tobacco company is rewarded by an increase in sales.


Tobacco companies make money purely off of hurting people.

Not only is this viewed as acceptable in our system, but there are no downsides to those making money off of this in our system.
User avatar #175 to #174 - noblexfenrir (07/22/2014) [-]
They really are, is moving forward the one that talks about the banking system? I may be thinking of another one of them. Regardless they are horribly researched garbage basically I would think it's from /pol/ if there was a bit more jew blaming in them.

"For instance

A tobacco company is rewarded by an increase in sales.


Tobacco companies make money purely off of hurting people.

Not only is this viewed as acceptable in our system, but there are no downsides to those making money off of this in our system."


The reason there is no downside in this (Which I don't agree there is no downside, as a country we are propagating a substance that in the long-term is very damaging. I agree there is a downside, I disagree with the response after acknowledging it.) is because there is no force being conducted here. The tobacco company makes sales off of people who willingly buy their product, and nowadays noone can claim ignorance with the warning label even bigger than the companies logo ion some states.

It is perfectly acceptable to sell a product/service people are ready and willing to pay for.

Capitalism is a ideology where greed and abuse of human desire is a virtue. And to me it can't be any more beautiful.
#176 to #175 - thatonecommunist ONLINE (07/22/2014) [-]
Uh, moving forward is this one:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w

Also, keep in mind, the only thing i'm saying i agree 100% with, is the system they propose as an alternative.

as previously stated i don't really want to argue about **** on the internet, but, if you wanna look into the system they propose as an alternative, and give me some reasons as to why it wouldn't work, i'm down for that.

Also, just because people are willingly ruining their lives, doesn't mean they still should.

Addiction is a mental illness that tobacco companies abuse

period.
User avatar #177 to #176 - noblexfenrir (07/22/2014) [-]
Yeah, I've seen that before. The beginning is total ******** from my experience in microbiology and the historical aspects are ******** from what I know and can easily research about the subjects.

If you wouldn't mind giving me the main points of the system that would be great. The most important aspects you agree with. You did say you want resources distributed equally, which then drives me to ask what is an incentive for innovation and drive for personal growth is everyone receives equal rations?

"Also, just because people are willingly ruining their lives, doesn't mean they still should. "
And what makes you the authority to tell them they shouldn't have the freedom to choose how they live their lives?

"Addiction is a mental illness that tobacco companies abuse "
Just as most left leaning ideologies abuse individuals laziness and the fact that the world is not a pampering place to enforce their idea of a utopia. Something that is, in my opinion, impossible from their approach.
User avatar #39 to #38 - pheonixinstinct (07/21/2014) [-]
says the communist
#41 to #39 - thatonecommunist ONLINE (07/21/2014) [-]
I mean, i already hate capitalism, but this would be the worst kind of it.

**** , i hate currency as a whole at this point, its all unnecessary.
User avatar #131 to #41 - lean (07/21/2014) [-]
Would you like me to explain why currency exists? It has to do with not dragging a wagon full of chickens to town to exchange for a milk cow. It may not strictly be necessary, but it sure is convenient. Do you have a steady job, where you pay your bills then anything left over you give to those more needy than you? Or are you just a broke nobody who thinks communism is the answer because everyone should be equally as miserable as you economically and it chaps your ass to see someone else become successful. I agree that regulated "crony-capitalism" is corrupt and could use some cleanup, but the fundamental ideals behind open market capitalism is the soundest functioning economic system thus far conceived.
User avatar #92 to #41 - skypatrol ONLINE (07/21/2014) [-]
bro, youre just starting to sound like an anarchist.
User avatar #104 to #92 - nigeltheoutlaw (07/21/2014) [-]
Anarchists don't want government. He just said he doesn't like our current economic ideals.
User avatar #140 to #104 - skypatrol ONLINE (07/21/2014) [-]
He is saying that he hates currency as a whole.

I guess he could mean he wants a barter system - but thats one helluva leap backwards in time.
#154 to #140 - thatonecommunist ONLINE (07/21/2014) [-]
No, i want resources to be distributed based on the amount of resources the planet has.

For some reason people are blind to this as an alternative.
User avatar #155 to #154 - skypatrol ONLINE (07/21/2014) [-]
So people who work harder dont get any rewards?
#163 to #155 - thatonecommunist ONLINE (07/21/2014) [-]
Work can be for internal reasons, all work can be made volunteer work through mechanization.
User avatar #164 to #163 - skypatrol ONLINE (07/21/2014) [-]
So, don't pay people, just have machines do it?
You leave out one big aspect: People want to get paid.
How do you plan on brainwashing 6 million people?
#165 to #164 - thatonecommunist ONLINE (07/21/2014) [-]
What?

No, i mean, money is unnecessary when all resources are divided, and work is offloaded onto machines.

Why would people want to get paid at that point? it would be unnecessary.
User avatar #166 to #165 - skypatrol ONLINE (07/21/2014) [-]
So how would people get food, housing, or clothing?
What motivation do the producers have to.. Produce anything?
And lets say they do make everything necessary - why would they give that to anyone else?
#167 to #166 - thatonecommunist ONLINE (07/21/2014) [-]
***** , i don't care that much about explaining my beliefs, but everything about them, for the most part, is held in "zeitgeist - moving forward" (2011)

so, i'm just going to point you towards that, i've been looking forward to seeing someone argue against it, i have yet to see anything really good.

All i have seen is "its childish, utopia's can't exist" but no reasons for why.
User avatar #168 to #167 - skypatrol ONLINE (07/21/2014) [-]
I'd love to live in a Utopia I really would!
But one day you have to face reality. Utopia's will never exist because humans are naturally greedy.
So yes, believing in a utopia is childish - because it shows that you haven't faced the reality that you would need to eliminate human nature from the equation.
#169 to #168 - thatonecommunist ONLINE (07/21/2014) [-]
Watch the movie before you judge the core concept, negro.

Humans can be as greedy as they want with the way that society works, it just won't accomplish anything.
User avatar #146 to #140 - nigeltheoutlaw (07/21/2014) [-]
I know what he is saying, but it does not make him an anarchist or sound like one.
#133 to #19 - anon (07/21/2014) [-]
Mfw Germany just installed a minimum wage a month ago.
#134 to #133 - meinneger (07/21/2014) [-]
That's good m8, minimum wage should be an institutions for countries that are well off. if you have the money to afford it, a minimum wage boosts the economy likes nothing else
User avatar #150 to #134 - traelos (07/21/2014) [-]
That's backwards boy-o.

Minimum wage works great for stopping sweatshops from making 9 year olds work 16 hours for a nickel.

However, minimum wage decreases the amount of available jobs and increases the cost of living.

I think we should abandon minimum wage and instead create a system of subsidized housing. Set it so that someone making $5 an hour pays the cost to keep the place running and charge people making less less and more more. That way you get a huge job market for unskilled laborers, drive down the costs of commodities and the people working there can still afford to live. Plus you can probably afford to set up some pretty decent apartments for it if you take the funding from welfare paying people to do nothing.
User avatar #130 to #19 - lean (07/21/2014) [-]
The third world countries have little in the way of industry and almost zero technology, that is why they are called third world. It has nothing to do with national wage laws.
The Dem. republic of the congo's GDP per capita is around $500 US per year. How do you set a minimum wage and expect the quality of living to improve?
User avatar #135 to #130 - nathanbiggs ONLINE (07/21/2014) [-]
>The third world countries have little in the way of industry and almost zero technology, that is why they are called third world
That's not how the term "third world" works.
User avatar #141 to #135 - lean (07/21/2014) [-]
The term arose from the cold war- referring to unaligned countries that for the most part started out as colonies. Most Third World countries were former colonies. Having gained independence many of these countries, especially smaller ones, were faced with the challenges of nation and institution-building on their own for the first time. Due to this common background, many of these nations were "developing" in economic terms for most of the 20th century, and many still are. This term, used today, generally denotes countries that have not developed to the same levels as OECD countries, and are thus in the process of developing,

It is a stereotyping and evolution of the term to refer to less developed countries, because as you know- the cold war ended. Many of the original "third world" either picked sides or made different allies, and have developed beyond the stereotypical simple trade economies. Also, several colonies from cold war era are no longer considered such and have been added to that particular bloc of countries. I think the PC crowd has lately started trending the term "majority world" for this countries because the majority of the world's population lives within them. Fun fact: all of these countries demand and receive western aid. I apologize and will use majority world terminology from now on.
#123 to #19 - anon (07/21/2014) [-]
Actually he is right, minimum wage and equal wage for equal work are oppressive. They keep the uneducated and generally poor strata of people down. Imagine if you were an employer. You have two candidates for the job. One is better qualified than the other, the only way for the second subject to get the job, is if hes willing to work for a cheaper price.
#113 to #19 - anon (07/21/2014) [-]
You're aware that various european contries dont have minimum wage...and I don't recall any of them being 3rd world countries...
#46 to #6 - Nutshell (07/21/2014) [-]
>Employees are able to demand higher wages

Socialist!
User avatar #80 to #6 - misterfrog (07/21/2014) [-]
This won't work in a global economy. Labor will just be transferred elsewhere.
Plus, those marginal jobs will earn workers next to nothing at all.
The demand for labor is also constantly decreasing, not increasing, because of technological advancements.
This basically worked in the 20th century, now it's severely outdated.
User avatar #103 to #6 - nigeltheoutlaw (07/21/2014) [-]
See, I would think you were on to something, if the exact opposite hadn't happened in the past when we didn't have a minimum wage. You do know that this is why the minimum wage was instituted, right?
User avatar #128 to #6 - flnonymousseven (07/21/2014) [-]
> supply goes up
> demand goes up

do you even economics?
User avatar #67 to #6 - Mahazama (07/21/2014) [-]
Or....
>Remove minimum wage.
>Corporations run disenfranchised workers into the ground, pay them $2 an hour.
User avatar #77 to #67 - madcoww (07/21/2014) [-]
Corporations can't do that without lowering their prices. Walmart competes with Target. Walmart must take as little profits as possible because they pass their savings onto the customer in order to get the customer's business. If they didn't, Target would and would get all the business. So, corporations just can't charge whatever they want and pay whatever they see fit. If they paid their employees too little, they would leave for better paying jobs? If there are no better paying jobs, your product (labor) is priced above the market value and needs to be lowered.
#93 to #77 - peterdivine (07/21/2014) [-]
Unless they all agree to price-fix.
User avatar #172 to #93 - madcoww (07/22/2014) [-]
So long as they can corner the market. However, doing so encourages new competitors to join in because the profit ratios are too good to pass up. The moment you have one company who doesn't play by the rules of the price fixing, the monopoly breaks down. With the incentive a diverting a large amount of profits from big corporations, small companies will wreak havoc for the big corporations.
#173 to #172 - peterdivine (07/22/2014) [-]
The thing is, once you get to that level of organized crime, small companies can get completely rubbed out of the dirt with the amount of power larger companies have. How do you advertise your little coffee shop to appeal over the colossal presence and advertising of Starbucks, who have been the only known names in a province or county for years? How do you sell your homemade towels or foodstuffs or hammers against shops which can sell you EVERYTHING you want and need at once, like Home Depot or Wal-Mart?
User avatar #162 to #77 - Mahazama (07/21/2014) [-]
The problem is that Walmart and Target have the potential to make a compromise, and collectively both lower their wages. If they both agree to lower their employees' wages, then they eliminate that problem completely.
User avatar #101 to #6 - metalmind (07/21/2014) [-]
Yeah right, because companies will pass on the savings to the customers.
You can see how well it works in China, and India.
#47 to #6 - anon (07/21/2014) [-]
>Supply for labor goes down
Well, according to history, thats wrong as **** . Back in the industrial age, employers could just pick and choose who wanted to work for the least, because SO many others needed the jobs.

>cost of living goes down for everyone.
Gee wee, go tell that to the average chinese worker, and ask them if thats worth it.
#48 to #47 - shadowgandalf (07/21/2014) [-]
Fcking firefox didn't have me logged in
User avatar #12 to #6 - bushingenna (07/21/2014) [-]
cost of living going down the same rate as our pay doesn't make your lives better.
User avatar #16 to #12 - noblexfenrir (07/21/2014) [-]
Only if you compare those two variables.

Removing the minimum wage (As Madcoww said) would remove the barrier to entry on lower skilled jobs that paid less than the previous wage. This usually results in many low skilled individuals being able to get jobs more effectively (mentally handicapped, high school students, etc.), many individuals who are generally supported by a larger household income, making theirs purely supplementary. Basically, it's a small economic booster for effectively no change in the cost of living.

Then you have businesses who now have the ability to absolutely maximize their earning potential. Many seeing exponential growth when a majority of their jobs are held by these lower skilled workers. This maximizes wealth not only for the large chains, but also the small businesses in a local area. Want to give small businesses the chance to compete with large retailers? Well this definitely aids in that goal.

Because of this large increase in earners in this lower wage bracket, you would see an even larger demand for either A.) Cheap entertaining goods and B.) Cheaper necessities.

All the minimum wage does is lock people out of the job market, and then tells the tax payers to foot their bill. I say equal opportunity for all workers and employers, no man should be forced to pay a wage he doesn't agree to and no man should be turned away because his potential employer was told not to hire someone with his skill level.
User avatar #60 to #16 - robinwilliamson (07/21/2014) [-]
It appeared to me that there's a bell curve depending on how you raise the minimum wage.

www.businessinsider.com/if-your-minimum-wage-increase-doesnt-raise-unemployment-you-didnt-raise-the-minimum-wage-enough-2014-2
User avatar #170 to #60 - noblexfenrir (07/21/2014) [-]
To a certain extent. The basic idea revolves that if the minimum wage is set at a price the market would have already agreed to concerning the average worker, then all it does is make it look like the minimum wage works when in actuality it's a mirage.

If the minimum wage is removed, you probably wouldn't see businesses forcing all employees to change their pay to $2-$3 an hour, you would most likely see wages roughly the same as you do now. The effect on workers is minor when the minimum wage is relatively low, it only drastically affects workers when it becomes so high that only medium and high level skills are now required, dropping a significant portion of people out of the job market. Right now all it does is hurt businesses who cannot maximize earning potential because they have to cross-train current employees to do jobs that could be more efficiently done by someone being paid a much lower wage.
User avatar #179 to #178 - noblexfenrir (07/22/2014) [-]
If they believe that minimum wage was the cause of this fluctuation in job growth then yes. Hell, the article you provided specifically cites the economists mentioned for people to remember these numbers don't establish a cause and effect. Considering we are at a period when the economy is still recovering, sporadic growth in specific states is expected.

I also said that there is a specific tipping point when you pass what the market would have otherwise provided naturally. Choosing one in which you haven't yet hit that tipping point only forces other people out of the market who otherwise would be working.

So let's check out the first state on that list as an example shall we? Comparing their labour reports from 2013-2014 (To look at the variable we're discussing, the current economic and wage changes.) I can see the number of state and federal jobs have increased, while these add to the increase in employment they are hardly what I would call created jobs since they create no form of wealth whatsoever and thus are artificially created, bureaucratic positions. I can also see a large section of higher paid positions (Trade jobs, healthcare, manufacturing, transportation,etc.) have lowered, where the lower paid positions who generally higher more part time work than anywhere else increased significantly from fast food markets, department stores, etc etc.

We had the increased activity in the real estate market in Arizona (well before the increase in minimum wage) so that in itself draws large amounts of positions stemming from agents themselves to small businesses and larger ones cashing in on the momentum of occupancy. This therefor increased demand for construction and therefor increasing demand for labour in that field, people unaffected by the minimum wage who get paid very well, now spending that money in the local businesses, etc etc etc. Must I go on?

Economically the minimum wage is a negative. We shouldn't prop it against the advancement of other fields.
#11 to #6 - anon (07/21/2014) [-]
in a lot of places people wouldnt be able to demand higher wages because if they wont work at that wage someone else will. This would only really apply in highly populated areas where the demand for labor wont ever reach the same height as the rise in population.
User avatar #91 to #6 - shinku (07/21/2014) [-]
that will never happen because 90% of democrats have and will never take a government class or even know what they stand for in their political party.
User avatar #72 to #6 - peanutbraddle (07/21/2014) [-]
This guy's on to something, but getting rid of it entirely has been tested, and doesn't work (See Industrial Era). It was put there for a reason, and that reason was that most corporations could pay their workers pennies on the dollar for an honest day's work. Scratch could, replace with did, and you have yourself a bunch of people who need to have more than one job just to support their family.

Then there's a actual shortage of jobs, because a corporation can pay three people the amount of money that they would regularly pay one. Why does it do this? Because, the supply of labor doesn't go down. There's always going to be someone who will do a certain job for less of a wage.

This is all without even mentioning that a corporation's current Tax Rate is so much lower than it was in the Industrial Era that it's almost unreal.

If there are any contesting thoughts, feel free to voice them.
User avatar #76 to #72 - madcoww (07/21/2014) [-]
I disagree with you about "the supply of labor doesn't go down." The reason it may appear that way is because we've suppressed labor so much including immigration restrictions. There is no end to the amount of work that can be done provided it is of some worth to someone. When people have a scarcity of purchasing power, they will budget accordingly and buy only what they need, but when they have an abundance, they will pay for good and services for the mere enjoyment.

When labor becomes cheaper, it becomes more cost effective to hire people than create/maintain machines. When labor becomes cheaper, there is less risk in starting a business.

Let's say there is an abundance of tomatoes. Farmers would sell them for less. Because they are cheaper, more people would buy them. This would continue until it balances the equilibrium of market value.
#99 to #76 - peanutbraddle (07/21/2014) [-]
You seriously underestimate the amount of people that would need more than one job just to support their family. Especially when it comes to removing minimum wage completely, I've given you an example as to why this doesn't work. There isn't an argument against this, m8, History proves it to be wrong. Multiple times. Look to China, and see if their workers are doing well.

And American Industrial era businesses had a Top Income Tax of 70%
I don't even ******* know what it is today, but it would pretty much just be a metric ******* of money, just sitting in a bank somewhere, collecting dust, when it could be used to lower out debt.. Which, I may add was going down at a pretty good rate until Reagan cut the Top Income Tax from 70, to 28 percent. Then we were Really ****** over, because for some odd reason, ******** seem to think that these corporations owe absolutely nothing to the government that has protected the West from Communism; an Ideology that would have most certainly destroyed all of the corporations in the world, had the US not done something against it.

When Labor becomes cheaper, small businesses can grow, and earn money, but it's gotten to the point where they won't stop growing, and they'll still be ******* over their workers when they've gotten to the point that they're contributing much less than they're consuming, and I think that's ******* ******** .

I don't necessarily disagree with you, the minimum wage amount needs to be lowered by a tremendous amount. Try from it's current place, to say, Five Dollars an hour. That way, there's not much risk in hiring someone, and the people who actually know how to do something useful can get paid more for what they do.
And don't give me any of this "B-but, how am I supposed to support myself?" ******** , people. If you're earning minimum wage, I don't see a reason as to why you should move away from home, you're not going to be earning enough to live on your own.
#71 - Gute (07/21/2014) [-]
As an Econ major, I've been taught that the amount of people working at the minimum wage, in America,
> Insert yugioh abridged pic
is such a low percentage of the working class,
> like .5% or 5%
> inb4 that's a big difference
that, barring anything major, changing the minimum wage either way wouldn't have significant effects either way.
This being said, because we are just coming out of a recession and still have an unhealthy workforce participation rate, I tend to lean towards not raising the rate.
Because I'm still in the early stages of getting my degree , if anyone with an actual Econ degree and/or relevant experience can contradict or provide more info please do.
User avatar #108 to #71 - ChewyConor (07/21/2014) [-]
The crux of the matter is whether minimum wage is less than the living cost.
It's ridiculous to have people in full time employment who have less money than they need to live off.
#151 to #108 - Gute (07/21/2014) [-]
True, but only very rarily are people working full time at minimum wage, who are no longer entry level employees or who are dependent upon them selves. Minimum wage is usually reserved for entry level employes.

*re-replying due to some autocorrect fails*
0
#149 to #108 - Gute has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #65 - robinwilliamson (07/21/2014) [-]
Appropriate raises of minimum wage don't decrease jobs (largely influenced by concurrent inflation levels)
www.businessinsider.com/if-your-minimum-wage-increase-doesnt-raise-unemployment-you-didnt-raise-the-minimum-wage-enough-2014-2
13 States give empirical data to support that
www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/07/19/332879409/states-that-raised-minimum-wage-see-faster-job-growth-report-says

As for inflation, that's a little too complicated to think about in today's economy, but is generally a very short-sighted argument, as the issue of inflation can be tackled by many other policies, such as national debt, foreign trade, and income inequality (which had been amplified by 1980 by Supreme Court cases saying corporations are people and can spend money in politics so wolf-pac.com everybody).

#45 - biscuitsunited (07/21/2014) [-]
Raising the minimum wage has some very strong implications.

1.It raises the costs of things, if lets say the minimum wage is 3& now, but they raised it to 10&, to make up for this loss in profit prices would rise.

2.Inflation, if things go up in cost then the value of money goes down, your savings will be worth less.

3.the job market. If its too expensive to hire companies simply won't. reducing the already finite job market.

4.If poor people have money then they will start an uprising, replace the monarchy with republic and the natural order of things will be removed. last point is jk but you get the idea
User avatar #55 to #45 - harryboom (07/21/2014) [-]
labor costs make up a small fraction of a companies spending, and only a fraction of that is made of people on minimum wage, a 25% increase in minimum wage does not lead to a 25% increase in costs. increasing wages does not cause in equal change in the value of money.

and as counter intuitive it may sound a higher minimum wage does lead to more jobs www.philly.com/philly/business/20140719_ap_d105c49adc9846e6a086df3903ee82e5.html?c=r
#61 to #45 - anon (07/21/2014) [-]
The consumer base is currently needing a bit of a boost in spending, we need the extra money right now.
#132 - supercondor (07/21/2014) [-]
I've worked at several fast food restaurants and other minimum wage jobs, when this whole raise wages for Wendy's employees to $15. i think that's way to much for the work they do i was working all through high school and while im in college, i know not everyone has an option for school but i have to friends who are making it through because they work hard. one friend got a job in a factory that trained him to operate a forklift for free, that raises the base pay in most places to $20-25 an hour, and alot of places will offer this. another friend who joined the military. im not saying enlist but if you want to make more then minimum wage you better ******* work for it.
#153 to #132 - hellboundstrength (07/21/2014) [-]
i'm a bagboy at a hotel i get paid $2.25 per BAG(post taxes.. i would be getting payed 4.50 if there were no deductions), now lemme explain my job so you know how overpaid i am : i don't have shifts, i get called in when a bus arrives now for me and i take the bags to their rooms that takes about 1-1.5 hours then in the next morning i take the bags down to the bus that takes about 45mins-1 hour there's at least 1 bus a day and many times i get 7-10 buses a week and each bus has about 30-50 bags give or take, so per bus i can make anywhere from $67.5-$112.5 A BUS. now per WEEK that's about $472.5-$1125 a WEEK and I only worked for 6-25 hours a week and i get paid every TWO weeks just like most jobs so my paycheck is anywhere between $944-$2250 for only about 2 HOURS OF WORK A DAY.  mfw my friends have to work for a whole month at a minumum paying job for alot of 8 hour shifts  just to get $2000( oh and i get tips ALOT of tips)
i'm a bagboy at a hotel i get paid $2.25 per BAG(post taxes.. i would be getting payed 4.50 if there were no deductions), now lemme explain my job so you know how overpaid i am : i don't have shifts, i get called in when a bus arrives now for me and i take the bags to their rooms that takes about 1-1.5 hours then in the next morning i take the bags down to the bus that takes about 45mins-1 hour there's at least 1 bus a day and many times i get 7-10 buses a week and each bus has about 30-50 bags give or take, so per bus i can make anywhere from $67.5-$112.5 A BUS. now per WEEK that's about $472.5-$1125 a WEEK and I only worked for 6-25 hours a week and i get paid every TWO weeks just like most jobs so my paycheck is anywhere between $944-$2250 for only about 2 HOURS OF WORK A DAY. mfw my friends have to work for a whole month at a minumum paying job for alot of 8 hour shifts just to get $2000( oh and i get tips ALOT of tips)
#17 - anon (07/21/2014) [-]
Stewart **** his pants screaming about how stupid this woman was, but she is right.
If raising the minimum wage actually did anything to help people then the eventual achievement of 100K a person an hour would make the whole world incredible. When in reality every time we raise the wage at all makes the whole market more expensive and all saved money worth less.
tl;dr: Jon Stewart doesn't know **** about simple economics.
#57 to #17 - historyexplained (07/21/2014) [-]
Your analysis is bad and you should feel bad. An exampel of some one who raised wages with succes you can look Henry Ford up. Henry Ford paid his workers so they themselfs might one day be able to buy the very same cars Henry Ford made and they helped produce. This create a cicle that helped Henry ford selling more cars then he would have if he lowed his workers wage. Higher wages = higher Purchasing power.
User avatar #96 to #57 - economic (07/21/2014) [-]
They had closed boarders then and most of the work wasn't done by robots.
#3 - thechosentroll (07/21/2014) [-]
Is this bitch serious? This isn't even economics 101. This is economics 100.
Is this bitch serious? This isn't even economics 101. This is economics 100.
User avatar #49 - zarcos (07/21/2014) [-]
Raising minimum wage does nothing but **** over the middle class even more...inflation you ******* libtards.....look it up.
#58 to #49 - historyexplained (07/21/2014) [-]
Yeah look it up please the answer will surprise you zarcos.
User avatar #59 to #58 - DeathOne ONLINE (07/21/2014) [-]
I never really understood what inflation actually is... you seem to know tho, care to explain?
#63 to #59 - anon (07/21/2014) [-]
If the value of the dollar is worth less, like having a ton of money without being set to the market (because it's paper), and you inflate the number of dollars and costs are up to try to make up for it, but it's not a healthy sign for the economy because your dollar is weak.
#62 to #59 - historyexplained (07/21/2014) [-]
inflation is increase in the gerneral price of goods. Inflation usally raise wtih 0 til 2 % each year depending on what country you live in. The importance of inflation vary on who you ask. Some economist would say that keeping inflation down is the most important others would argue that other areas of the economy is more important to focus on.
User avatar #64 to #62 - DeathOne ONLINE (07/21/2014) [-]
Thanks for the info!
User avatar #66 to #49 - Mahazama (07/21/2014) [-]
That immature "libtard" ******** just put a giant hole in your credibility.

At least be civil.
User avatar #23 - katarinaismywaifu (07/21/2014) [-]
Nice repost you ******* piece of **** .Women deserve to be paid more than men too btw ******* queer
User avatar #50 to #23 - zarcos (07/21/2014) [-]
Women make more money than men if you control for parenthood.
User avatar #102 to #23 - metalmind (07/21/2014) [-]
Hahaha.
By the way, the pay gap is a myth.
For the same job, with the same experience, women and men get paid the same in the USA and Germany.
User avatar #24 to #23 - asheskirata (07/21/2014) [-]
I see you play League, but you're still a faggot.
User avatar #52 to #24 - zarcos (07/21/2014) [-]
>implying playing League makes you cool
User avatar #25 to #24 - katarinaismywaifu (07/21/2014) [-]
Eat my dick fag
User avatar #26 to #25 - asheskirata (07/21/2014) [-]
Bring me a magnifying glass, cunt
User avatar #27 to #26 - katarinaismywaifu (07/21/2014) [-]
Its in yo mommas dick lol so u better get a rocketship shes so fat aha
User avatar #28 to #27 - asheskirata (07/21/2014) [-]
O dayum, that **** cray, I was just on top of yo mama and I couldn't see mine
User avatar #30 to #28 - katarinaismywaifu (07/21/2014) [-]
bwahahaha yo momma pussys wet ****** **** dick fag
User avatar #31 to #30 - asheskirata (07/21/2014) [-]
See, we were having fun, but now it's gone too far. I'm sorry, friend, but you've lost your touch.
User avatar #33 to #32 - asheskirata (07/21/2014) [-]
Yes
User avatar #34 to #33 - katarinaismywaifu (07/21/2014) [-]
Im trying to get level -400
User avatar #35 to #34 - asheskirata (07/21/2014) [-]
I can see that, lol, I was just having some fun with you
User avatar #36 to #35 - katarinaismywaifu (07/21/2014) [-]
I love you too m8
User avatar #37 to #36 - asheskirata (07/21/2014) [-]
<3 u bby
[ 180 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)