udx

I agree. It seems to me that there should be a formula to calculate a percentage, and a way to have it keep pace with the cost of living. However, this presents a conundrum as any change in wages affects the cost of living as this is passed back to the consumer. As far as what one's major was and how it affects unemployment, this might be surprising - if you want no unemployment, become an astronomer or archaeologist, or work in genetics, http://www.studentsreview.com/unemployment_by_major.php3 From how you interpret this dataset and coming up with the resulting conclusion, it looks like you do not know how to analyze data critically and hence susceptible to misleading statistic and propaganda (like saying how increase minimum wage actually make a difference). https://mises.org/library/yes-minimum-wages-still-increase-unemployment How can you come up with such misleading conclusion from this survey. The results from the survey is statistically insignificant in the majors you said have no unemployment. Only around 20 people responded to the survey of their employment status in astronomy, archeology and genetics. As with any voluntary survey, there is a high degree of selection bias, where only certain groups of people would respond. For example, only people who are employed may respond leading to false representation of the whole population. This survey is neither random nor representative of the market at large, it may at best represent how alumni at this particular school did, even then the sample size is way too small given the population it is trying to represent. To truly have no unemployment is to element minimum wage laws and have a sound money (eliminate Federal Reserve fiat currency), so everyone can get hired at their market rates. You want to increase unemployment?Increasing the minimum wage would get you there. I disagree that there should be minimum wage that adjust to cost of living. This is just crying for more government intervention and abuses. The real question people should be asking is what caused the cost of living to increase, the main culprit is the government and its monetary policy. It is nature of economy on fiat currency to increase cost of living at a faster rate than wages would grow. The government's rapid monetary expansion erodes everyone's spending power causing yesterday's minimum wage to be inadequate today. The government plays dirty, instead of reflecting how it is damaging people's standard of living, it turns around and demonize the business people, saying how they are not paying enough to keep up with standard of living. udx, I didn't interpret the data set, I simply shared what some of the reported results were. It is simply the results of those they received responses from. Lots of room for error. The point of it all is that things are not so black and white as some would make things appear here. The problem with all of this with the proposed minimum wage hike is that it will probably cause more problems than it solves. I think everyone is looking at the wrong problem here to begin with. Everyone is worried about what raising the minimum wage will do. Why is no one worried about our our of control debt, and the fact that there is virtually nothing to back it up? The feds have responded by continuing to lower interest rates to keep the economy from crashing around our heads - we are near the bottom. What happens when the interest rates can't be lowered anymore? You did interpret the data, when you said if we want no unemployment people should go into genetics, astronomy and archeology because of the survey results as if the results meant anything. Debt could not be controlled as long as the government as the power to inflate currency. You are not exactly right regarding there is nothing to back the debt up. The thing that is backing US currency up right now is oil, US military and natural resources in America (land), and the future labor of US tax payers.

I agree. It seems to me that there should be a formula to calculate a percentage, and a way to have it keep pace with the cost of living. However, this presents a conundrum as any change in wages affects the cost of living as this is passed back to the consumer. As far as what one's major was and how it affects unemployment, this might be surprising - if you want no unemployment, become an astronomer or archaeologist, or work in genetics, http://www.studentsreview.com/unemployment_by_major.php3 From how you interpret this dataset and coming up with the resulting conclusion, it looks like you do not know how to analyze data critically and hence susceptible to misleading statistic and propaganda (like saying how increase minimum wage actually make a difference). https://mises.org/library/yes-minimum-wages-still-increase-unemployment How can you come up with such misleading conclusion from this survey. The results from the survey is statistically insignificant in the majors you said have no unemployment. Only around 20 people responded to the survey of their employment status in astronomy, archeology and genetics. As with any voluntary survey, there is a high degree of selection bias, where only certain groups of people would respond. For example, only people who are employed may respond leading to false representation of the whole population. This survey is neither random nor representative of the market at large, it may at best represent how alumni at this particular school did, even then the sample size is way too small given the population it is trying to represent. To truly have no unemployment is to element minimum wage laws and have a sound money (eliminate Federal Reserve fiat currency), so everyone can get hired at their market rates. You want to increase unemployment?Increasing the minimum wage would get you there. I disagree that there should be minimum wage that adjust to cost of living. This is just crying for more government intervention and abuses. The real question people should be asking is what caused the cost of living to increase, the main culprit is the government and its monetary policy. It is nature of economy on fiat currency to increase cost of living at a faster rate than wages would grow. The government's rapid monetary expansion erodes everyone's spending power causing yesterday's minimum wage to be inadequate today. The government plays dirty, instead of reflecting how it is damaging people's standard of living, it turns around and demonize the business people, saying how they are not paying enough to keep up with standard of living.

You are wrong. Read the US department of labor law. I did do my research, you are ignorant of labor wage laws. I stand by what I said, you are either deliberately lying or are ignorant, your choice. http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/q-a.htm An employer may pay a tipped employee not less than $2.13 an hour in direct wages if that amount plus the tips received equal at least the federal minimum wage, the employee retains all tips and the employee customarily and regularly receives more than $30 a month in tips. If an employee's tips combined with the employer's direct wages of at least $2.13 an hour do not equal the federal minimum hourly wage, the employer must make up the difference.

Many people can't get up and leave because of responsibilities. A friend of my daughter's, the one I have mentioned in another thread, is the oldest of 3 or 4 kids, and there are many issues going on among his siblings. His mother is very ill. His dad is making things hard on them, and even though the dad is no longer even with them, he arranges things to keep them destitute. My daughter's friend works 3 jobs to take care of his family, all low paying jobs because he has no other choice at the moment. He can't pick up and leave and go where the jobs might be for him. I think more sensitivity needs to be shown to people. Rather than think the worst of people, we are to think the best of others. Love Assumes the Best https://www.uu.edu/centers/rglee/fellows/fall01/hester.htm I am just as guilty as anyone else for not doing so. Forgive me. People do not get paid by their need in a job. They get paid according to what their skill is worth in the market. Arguing for higher wage/rises because of 'need' is the worst argument you could have with your employer. You tried that line with an employer and I can guarantee the employer would not be impressed. All these extraneous stories of employees should have no bearing on pay. I am sorry that this sounds cold, but a business isn't a charity, if individuals are really hurting they could plea their case at a charitable organization where circumstances matter. The argument should always be about how much value (contribution) one brings to the table for the employer that justify higher pay, and how much value the employer would lose if they lose you as an employee if you go to a employer that pays you what you are worth. If no other employer would pay you higher, than you are already being paid market rate if not higher then be content with where you are at or try to increase your value to the companies or others. And then we see such a huge disparity in wage for the exact same job across the country. Tipped servers are paid $9/hour in some parts of the country, and just over $2/hr in others. The job is exactly the same. That is not true, you should know this! If you did not, then you do not understand how the wage system works or you are intentionally spreading false information. By law employers are require to pay employees so that they average out to local minimum wage after tip is added to their base wage. Like we mention before, it is hard to find two jobs that are exactly the same in all aspects and nature, even if they are same pay differ due to local cost of living etc. I can guarantee you, nobody would really work at $2/hr on average. If I can legally pay people at $2/hr, I would start my own business right now. I can see a lot of business opportunities that would be profitable with labor at $2/hr rather than $8/hr. You see, lower minimum wage reduces barrier in starting a business, and higher minimum wage increases barrier of business. Increase the minimum wage too much, then only large corporations would remain competitive because of economy of scale. A lot of business you would never see in an area is because local minimum wage is too high. High minimum wages kill business in the concept stage.

Many people can't get up and leave because of responsibilities. A friend of my daughter's, the one I have mentioned in another thread, is the oldest of 3 or 4 kids, and there are many issues going on among his siblings. His mother is very ill. His dad is making things hard on them, and even though the dad is no longer even with them, he arranges things to keep them destitute. My daughter's friend works 3 jobs to take care of his family, all low paying jobs because he has no other choice at the moment. He can't pick up and leave and go where the jobs might be for him. I think more sensitivity needs to be shown to people. Rather than think the worst of people, we are to think the best of others. Love Assumes the Best https://www.uu.edu/centers/rglee/fellows/fall01/hester.htm I am just as guilty as anyone else for not doing so. Forgive me. People do not get paid by their need in a job. They get paid according to what their skill is worth in the market. Arguing for higher wage/rises because of 'need' is the worst argument you could have with your employer. You tried that line with an employer and I can guarantee the employer would not be impressed. All these extraneous stories of employees should have no bearing on pay. I am sorry that this sounds cold, but a business isn't a charity, if individuals are really hurting they could plea their case at a charitable organization where circumstances matter. The articles you posted "Love Assumes the Best" have no bearing on this topic at all. The argument should always be about how much value (contribution) one brings to the table for the employer that justify higher pay, and how much value the employer would lose if they lose you as an employee if you go to a employer that pays you what you are worth. If no other employer would pay you higher, than you are already being paid market rate if not higher then be content with where you are at or try to increase your value to the companies or others.

There are already FREE education in the US. It is call free Open online learning, quality college education for cheap to free. Using no access to education as an excuse is no longer an option. One must have adequate access to the internet. . . . . . Does every person in the united states have adequate access to the internet? Yes As of Mar 2014. 87% Population in USA have access to internet. It must've been higher now.

To be completely fair, if an employee wants a share of the profits then they should also be prepare to share in the losses. If they share in the profit and losses, they are no longer solely an employee but a shareholder of the company. It is unfair to the employer to have obligation to pay the employee a share of the profits in addition to what was promised, and not have employee share the losses as well. If the employer choose to share the profits, that is on the graces of the employer. The company like us, have good and bad seasons, and need to save profits for the bad days like how we have savings. Why don't anyone ever cry to support the company in sharing losses, but only cry to share profit, that sounds like employee greed to me! The employer pays a fair wage if the employer pays what was promised regardless of profit or loss of company. Employees does not put any capital at risk in the business, why should employee get anymore than what was promised?

There are already FREE education in the US. It is call free Open online learning, quality college education for cheap to free. Using no access to education as an excuse is no longer an option. One must have adequate access to the internet. . . . . . Does every person in the united states have adequate access to the internet? Most people have access to public library, yes? One can always make excuses why one cannot better him/herself, but the question one must answer is has every opportunity for self improvement been exhausted? Making up more excuses doesn't help improve life of anybody.

There are already FREE education in the US. It is call free Open online learning, quality college education for cheap to free. Using no access to education as an excuse is no longer an option.

Raising minimum wage so suddenly, would hurt the small business the most, Contribute to more higher percentage of big business in the economy. Small business do not have as much flexibility to adjust and absorb such a big shock change in expenses. Big businesses have lower cost of doing business because of economy of scale compare to small business, minimum wage laws would basically force these small businesses out of the market. When people talk about 'fair wage', most people only consider how it affects big businesses but does not consider how it affect the broader market and everyone in general. People take the mentality, all company make big profits all the time, they ought to 'share' that loot. The reason we have more and more big businesses and reduction of small business is caused by increased regulations and minimum wage laws.

I think we are going to be worse than we started in this economy and unemployment would go up. Increasing minimum wage would double the cost of labor for most lowly paid workers which many full time good paying jobs have been converted to. It would give more incentive for industries to find alternative ways to reduce the need for the workers that have inherent value of less than $15, for example with robots. If a person is labor value is only $8, a mandate of $15 minimum wage would just prevent the person who's only worth $8/hr from working, the employer would just use alternative ways to fill the gap. For example, it gives the employer more incentive to automate labor with computers and robots bring the cost of labor closer to what it cost to automate, and the employer would choose to automate and eliminate the job for a human. More jobs would be come extinct.

This solution has been implemented since beginning of welfare, it doesn't work and never will. Rise of minimum wage and 'need' to raise welfare is the effect of inflation caused by minimum wage hike. Welfare should never provide a means to make a living but only to survive, so people have a incentive to go beyond just surviving. Minimum wage, like any other forms of price controls have unintended adverse side affects. Most politicians don't know even the basics in how the economy or free market works, they just go for what sounds good, easy to sell to votes.

I believe it is part of prophesy. Eventually someone (Probably Iran) in the middle east would use a nuclear weapon on Mecca (Whore of babylon, city on seven hills), where she would burn with fire and tar (oil fields) viewable from merchants on the sea (red sea, most travelled trade route in mid east). Nobody would ever trade with Mecca in the future due to radiation.

when the control is started, using ai etc , you won't be offered a choice - obey whatever they say, or you cannot buy or sell anything - food, water, gas, house,land, boat, guitar, clothes, fruit, eggs, bread ,,,,, anything at all.... which in english, bior (believe it or not), means the motive is greed greed greed all the way along the choices made and structures/corporations/governments et al when the control is started, using ai etc , you won't be offered a choice - obey whatever they say, or you cannot buy or sell anything - food, water, gas, house,land, boat, guitar, clothes, fruit, eggs, bread ,,,,, anything at all.... which in english, bior (believe it or not), means the motive is greed greed greed all the way along the choices made and structures/corporations/governments et al Not really... we call it profit motive by increase in efficiency. Engineers always strive for efficiency and optimization. If we don't increase in efficiency 80% of us would still be farmers and we plant by hand. We wouldn't even have computers that you use to post on this forum today if you don't want increase technology to displace people's jobs... we would still have people putting punchcards in computers. New technology would always be develop people would always be displaced to do more sophisticated jobs.

When it comes to big corporate, it doesn't come to one or two cashiers, it is hundreds/thousands across hundreds of stores. That makes a huge difference. Corporation are by design to look after the best interest of their shareholders, it is always shareholders first.

I love the self checkout.But those self checkouts have not replaced the clerks. They have reduce the need for number of clerks needed at the checkout though, hence reduced the collective hours of work available for that type of job.

Be careful what you wish for. Usually low oil prices foreshadow economic recession. I believe global financial collapse is due within a year.

Yes,but look at all those who lose their job. Yes,but look at all those who lose their job. You one of those that think advance in technology that cause replacement of jobs a bad thing? Advance in technology that makes processes more efficient aways replace workers, freeing them up to do something else more meaningful, which increases living standard for everyone. I would rather hire a machine that is 1000x more productive than the a worker and pay the worker to be retrained to do something else and still end up on top.

I am all for restaurants without waiter/waitress...then we don't have to pay the tip.

It saddens me that some Christians think we can do whatever we want to the environment without repercussions because God is in control. I do understand that politicians often and do use tragedies such as environmental disasters as a power grabbing tool, but that is no excuse to completely disregard environmental issues. UDX Christians know the outcome of all things... it is written down for us clearly and decisively. There will be no surprises and the Word is sufficient to give peace to all areas of life now and what will be. Love, Steven Like I said, the very sentiment you espouse is no excuse to be irresponsible and do whatever you feel like. It is no excuse to do nothing, just like it is no excuse to not do anything for God's kingdom just because we know it would turn out alright at the end. By this bad logic, you can argue that nobody would have to preach the gospel, because somehow it would preach itself because the outcome is already written 'clearly' and 'decisively'. Had we completely disregard environmental problem, such as treating waste water, dumping toxins into lake and oceans, release of radioactive waste, recycling, because God would somehow take care of it, we would be living in a far more polluted environment and unpleasant environment than we are now.

Ah I see, so you don't believe in 7 day creation. Let see how long it takes until some passionate people pounce you for that. You assume much and understand little, uncertain. I DO believe in a seven day Creation. I also believe our species was the last created by God, just as Genesis tells us. As for being pounced on well....I've been pounced on before. Still kickin', my friend. Where did the Bible mention the mass extinction you talk about within that 7 day creation? From your own words you said 99% species died before humans were created? Massive extinction in a 7 day period is sure pretty significant, and would've been talked about. That is not me assuming, that is you making self contradictions to your own belief.

Ah I see, so you don't believe in 7 day creation. Let see how long it takes until some passionate people pounce you for that.

Like I said, I do acknowledge that some of these environmental movement certainly are hijacked by special interested, certainly they would use any movement to gain political control, even Christian ones. But to reject all environmental movement because of some aspects of it being tainted is pretty prejudiced view. People like you have a lot of baggage and can't discuss topic on its own and have to bring in killing unborn babies into this. You are committing the ecological fallacy by saying that all people who strive to protect the environment don't see any problem killing unborn babies. Those two don't even connect.

You have a basic understanding of how to refute a viewpoint. You also have a mindset that pretty much precludes the Truth. Yes, man has affected the environment. No, we are not the cause of extinctions and major global climate change. To assume that you have to have a grossly inflated view of man's importance and a lack of understanding of who is truly in control. In essence, your view elevates man to the level of an idol. God is the only one in control of the planet, my friend. Just a small factoid to consider: 99% of all species that have ever lived are extinct. Most became that way before man was created. That should tell you something. I have a viewpoint that preclude truth? Really now, what makes you think your 'truth' is the truth and if I don't accept it I am opposed to truth. Please show evidence to support your point instead of stereotyping people. Now please answer this. I thought you believe in 7day creation. How can 99% of all species that ever lived become extinct before man was created? Also, I know there are people that believe that there were no death before man sinned, if that is true, how does 99% of all species die before man was created. You really ought to get your story straight. If you believe in 7 day creation you are living in a lot of contradictions. I'm not even talking about man caused climate change, you guys love to group everyone who have different view than you into a single group you think you know so well. So I guess you believe man never hunted Sharks, Whales and Rhinos and plenty of others into extinction? It is actually pretty easy to cause mass extinction, you can see how fragile the environment is by dumping toxins into lakes and ponds, and see how many organisms actually survive. That is extinction on a small scale, now apply the same methods to our oceans.

A faulty assumption on your part. You may not think that way, but I'm sure you are not the only one who heard some people say along the lines of. "Humans have no impact on the 'climate' because God is in control of the climate".... regardless of what your position regarding climate change is...this type of statement supports the impression it have on people that some Christians think humans have no impact on environment because God is in control, all reason go out of window when people hold that kind of view.