Senate Immigration Bill

[Black Bart]

Learned something new

Go to page one -- top right of page to "Display Mode" and click on that. I always run my display under the "Linear Mode" which displays the posts one after the other as they are posted. I just noticed that when I "Switch to Hybrid Mode," then the post that I just put up for jainen, which includes a quote from DaveO, follows DaveO's post rather than the last post in this thread (jainen's last one).

Switch your "Display Mode" to "Linear Mode" and I think my post will come up at the end of the thread right before yours (I hope).

Try that and post back. Thanks.

[jainen]

>>why you haven't confronted DaveO<<

Oh yeah, I saw that, and it was so full of xenophobic, class-baiting nonsense that I didn't know where to begin, and before I figgered it out you wangled me into that pledge about not posting other insulters or whatever.

The best I could say was that he obviously doesn't know what "begs the question" means and therefore might best not try to lay out a logical exposition. I was somewhat mollified that he abandoned logic completely by the final paragraph, throwing in some completely unsupported claims about hurting workers and denting immigrants.

After a whole page of slinging numbers, he wraps it up with a little scare about the illegals that a 40% raise (that was one former proposal for federal; the actual percentage raise we've been talking about for California is less than half that) would invite, not mentioning that it was 40% of last century's rate or the fact that Congress is not even considering it at present.

You know, Black Bart, that in spite of my personal opinions I have no objection to right wing politics as long as it is honest. It's a free country and everyone is entitled to express whatever. But really, you can't honestly argue that "hardly anyone works for minimum wage" and then a couple of inches later complain about so many billions of dollars. You can't say it doesn't help many families and then in the very next sentence dismiss the students and moonlighters it does help. (By the way, THAT is "begging the question.")

But my favorite bit is how he justifies a low minimum wage by pointing out that it can be suplemented with EIC--just an hour after ranting about the "self-appointed do-gooders" in that very regard. (I won't even begin on the right wing idea of "small and constitutionally restrained government" that's also in that post.)

[S T]

Hybrid Mode

That is what I was wondering, if the post was for Dave O or Jainen, post ended up under Dave O.

I usually keep mine under hybrid mode, so that is why I was asking,

If you go to hybrid then you can see the "tree" and where the posts go. So that is why I was confused. It has taken a little while to get the "hang" of it. But if I open the "hybrid" post, and click on the post I want to reply to and hit the "top" reply button, seems to put my reply right under that post. Did I explain that right, I am not sure!

Sandy

[Black Bart]

Default display?

Mine defaults to "hybrid" most the time. Does yours?

[S T]

Hybrid Display

Hey BB,
Yes default Hybrid, what is nice is you can go to the thread post and at the upper top of the screen, see all that posted. If it is a current post it will be displayed with a different "tag color" so you can just zip there instead of reading all of the posts. Hope I am describing it correctly.

Really useful on these "long" threads and sub posts.

Sandy

[Black Bart]

Knowing right from left

I feel the same way you do about politics -- nothing (left or right) is foreign to me if it's honest and reasonable. You seem to be a Lieberman Democrat and DaveO seems to be a reverse Lamont of the right. I don't agree with him that "hardly anyone works for minimum wage" because I happen to know many people who do just that, although I'm sure it's much more common here and in Snag's Tennessee than other more affluent states. Too, I thought Snag (and now you) had a good point in asking this paraphrased question "If nobody's working for minimum wage, then what's all the fuss about?" Dave said "we dodged that bullet." But what bullet? Also, about the EIC raising them out of poverty -- that would be assuming that most of them put the money in the bank and have it to spend reasonably over the remainder of the year along with their weekly wages. That generally doesn't happen -- it's usually spent within weeks for a large item (not that taxpayers should answer for poor judgment).

Food stamps are like California's blended "designer" gas; you can't use them in some cases -- they're not money. You can't buy toilet paper with them. As some outraged conservatives (me included) have noted, you can't buy dog food with them either, but you can buy a steak for the hound. I once ran across a food stamper joking about it with a cashier (don't know if he was serious) and having a good laugh -- I didn't think it was funny.

Still, I think the MW costs employers more than you think. For a one-horse AR operation, the rate is going up $1.10 in October. For one person that's $44 per week plus about $6 in payroll taxes or $50 a week and $200/$250 a month. That's not hay around here (a small office rents for about $300 per month). That's a real cost in the real world, no matter what the statistics "say" or what political leanings we might have. On the employee's side, lots of people here commute and the gas is killing them. It's $40-$50 a tank every time they fill up and some are making only $200 per week -- nobody affected by MW can afford a hybrid.

[S T]

More on MW

>>I know you are trying to make a point here, so would you like to give a few more clues?<<

The point I'm trying to make is about this statement: "If the Calif Minimum Wage Bill is put into effect though, it will hurt a lot of "small" business people."

Although I appreciate the effort you are putting into understanding it, this is not a true statement. I'm trying to point out that it is political rhetoric and is not supported with real data.

Retail wages are a significant but far from primary element of the price of goods. In your own example they are only about 1/6, and minimum wage is even less than that, and the increase in minimum wage is way down the list. As you mention, the price of gas and a whole lot of other factors count for much more.

We see from inflation rates that even with this belated pay raise, the minimum wage is actually going DOWN in terms of purchasing power. The shopkeeper is raising his prices and NOT passing the extra income on to his employees. In a sense he is exploiting his workers by using the pay raise as an excuse for a much larger price increase! So how he is he hurt by the minimum wage?

As a small business person and being involved with small business clients, I can see where the minimum wage bill if passed in Calif will have some impact on marginal small business owners. Again I don't disagree with the bill, these are merely observations about some of the "small" business economy in So Calif.

Again, where does "data" come from. All kinds of reports can be made and some never really address the real issues. One of the thoughts that I have often had is how accurate is the unemployment data. My feeling is that the "data" is only collected from the actual unemployment roles, they neglect to include the "people" that have dropped off of the roles due to benefits expiring, maybe don't count the self employed or independent contractors,(that don't qualify for UI) etc.

I am not a statistician, but I worked some figures today, but then a thought occured to me. You wanted gross sales numbers on a retail business with COG, which would be fine, except that if you compare to a service business that has no COG, it would distort the "wages" percentage. For retail with COG I am thinking that you have to arrive at the Net Gross Sales after COG to arrive at a true "Wage Cost".

You also state that if a business owner were to raise their prices for sales items, that amount is not being passed on to the employee. I believe I have a a difference of opinion. It would be because of the increase in minimum wage being paid to an employee that the business owner would raise their "per item sales prices" in order to absorb the added cost of wages, payroll tax, work comp, etc. The employee is receiving the additional amount in their wages. The business owner is simply trying to maintain their bottom line net profit.

If you were targeting another reason for raising prices such as utility cost that statement might have some merit. Sales price increase as a result of utility cost or gas costs, maybe yes are NOT getting passed through to the employee wage, just the business owner trying to maintain their net profit and possibly having a better "bottom line"

S

[jainen]

lower than they would be

I've been trying to stick to the example that you gave of the candy bar in a store. It's harder to understand the effect of wage increases in a service business, because instead of inventory you have machinery and equipment, or else the low wage is simply a base for tips or commissions.

The candy bar was going up in price 13%, which was blamed on a higher minimum wage. But that was four times the increase in the minimum wage itself, using your figures for the store's overhead. That means only one fourth of the price hike actually goes to the employees. Wages are pushing prices a little higher, but not nearly as much as other expenses. If you want to solve the problem of inflation, there's a whole lot of better places to look. Minimum wage hasn't gone up in four years, so the fact is that minimum wage holds inflation in check, which means it keeps the owner's expenses DOWN. Not down to zero, but lower than they would be.

[DaveO]

Oh, Jainen I’m fully aware of what “Begging the Question” is. If the Question is, “What is the true minimum wage?” Nearly any answer is bound to be a fallacy. My piece was in direct response to an article in another journal that kept trotting out the “family of three” who would live in poverty if the MW isn’t raised. I sought to connect MW and income. (Apologies for not editing it for relevance) A minimum wage is a cost borne by the businessperson. Society, through elected representatives has decided for him what his labor costs should be and it’s up to him to decide how he will cover that. He can forsake some of his own income or he can raise his prices (if the market will bear it). EITC, welfare, food stamps etc., are costs borne by taxpayers at large. Is it the responsibility of society to lift people out of poverty or is it the individual’s responsibility? As long as the government is handing out free money do you think the end of the line will ever be in sight?

And as far as my comments about immigration being a scare, well maybe so. What force do you think keeps real wages low? Here in Nebraska the labor end of the construction industry relies heavily on illegal labor. Not to say much of that labor is working at MW, I think $7 to $9 per hour is more typical but that’s a far ways from the $15 to $20 that the union laborers were used to. Maybe illegal workers aren’t a problem in your neck of the woods or perhaps you’re not concerned about the issue. I certainly don’t begrudge them the desire to come here and work to better themselves and give their children a better future. I’m very worried about the porosity of our borders and the “look the other way” attitude the politicians and law enforcement seem to have. Liberals, (and I’m not calling anyone names here) are quick to condemn Wal-Mart because they believe they don’t pay well but are happy to have their new home built by illegal aliens because it saves them a few grand. Never mind that (at least here) Wal-Mart starts workers at $7.50 and it’s far more likely that the little mom and pop store is paying MW.

(I won't even begin on the right wing idea of "small and constitutionally restrained government" that's also in that post.)

Wow! When did the thoughts of Jefferson and Adams become right wing? Limited government, personal and economic freedom were issues in the hearts of most of the founders. You may have heard the old line about Personal Freedom and Individual Responsibility being flip sides of the same coin? Don’t you think government programs that strip people, even slightly, of their responsibility by giving economic rewards for irresponsible behavior are somewhat to blame for the poverty problem? Maybe the inflation and currency devaluation that resulted from a “printing press solution” to every social problem have something to do with it?

Lastly, if the chronically unemployed person can’t find anyone willing to employ them at $5.15 what will the result be at $7.25?

[jainen]

more compassion

That's well-spoken. You pose a lot of questions in a way that sort of implies your own answer. It would be better to open your mind to new answers, in my opinion, but I do take back my accusation that you don't understand how begging the question works.

Santa Cruz is the third oldest city in California, a Mexican enclave since the 1700's. The minimum wage for work related to a public contract here is $13.56, and our economy is pretty good. It's based on agriculture and tourism, both dependent on immigrant labor.

You are welcome to your opinions. Some of them agree with public policy and some do not. The only one I really challenge is that welfare programs are "economic rewards for irresponsible behavior." You need to get some more facts on that one, or at least more compassion.

[DaveO]

"Santa Cruz is the third oldest city in California, a Mexican enclave since the 1700's. The minimum wage for work related to a public contract here is $13.56, and our economy is pretty good. It's based on agriculture and tourism, both dependent on immigrant labor."

I assume this was a living wage ordinance. What happened after it was passed, did the city have to pony up more money for contracts? A LW ordinance was passed here a couple of years ago. The local Humane Society declined to renew on the cities terms so there will be no place for strays to be impounded next year and fees for the city parking garages have jumped. Other than that I don't know what effects it has had good or bad. Everyone I know with city contracts already paid more than the LW.

My take on the abuse of the EITC and other social programs is from my own experience. One season with a well known national firm I won't name was an eye opening experience for me. A couple would come in and barter the children back and forth between their returns to maximize their refunds, all the while swearing they were the only wager earner in the home and provided all the support.

The tax system will only work when the tax payers respect it and report in an honest manner with due regard to the rules. Having a system so easily gamed at so little risk and at such high reward for the EITC group doesn't bode well for the future in my opinion. The money is too often seen as entitlement and they see nothing wrong in gaming the system. I have seen a few get caught as I'm sure everyone on the board has, with painful and long lasting results.

As an aside, I want you and the other regular posters to know I value and respect your insight and opinions. This board is a valuable resource. Having stepped into the political ring once before I'm never afraid of a good debate. Heck I don't agree with my closest friends on half the issues of the day.

[veritas]

Ok let's assume there must be a minimum wage. Why then set the wage at $8.00 per hour. I think we all agree that it is not close to a living wage. Why not make it $14.00 per hour? Or whatever it takes. What is the point of 8.00 per hour?

One thing that has not been mentioned is when the minimum wage goes up everybody else needs a bump. I like to call it the trickle up theory. So in effect the wealthy are going to see an increase also. It's kind of fun to picture isn't it? The rich tricke on the poor and the poor returns the favor.

[Black Bart]

Gentlemen, you may each retire to

As long as the government is handing out free money do you think the end of the line will ever be in sight?

(at least here) Wal-Mart starts workers at $7.50 and it’s far more likely that the little mom and pop store is paying MW.

a neutral corner and we will declare the match a draw. Well-done, both.

About the two quotes above, those are true. Re Wal-Mart wages: we have a small shop and pay our part-time worker $6.00 per hour (minimum wage is $5.15). Wal-Mart starts at around $7.50 here and that's higher than most of the local mom and pop shops pay.

As to the free money not ending, that one is pretty well self-evident. On the subject though, since it doesn't look like EIC is going away, I wonder what effect it would have if a small business (schedule C) were allowed a similar credit for opening and/or operating a small business?

I've heard that small business employs most of the people in this country, but the mortality rate of new businesses is over 50%. If that's true, I'd like to see an EIC for them. Lots of my small Cs complain that, while they're killing themselves working and employing other people with little reward, they owe lots of SS at year-end while their employees are being paid $4,300 for just staying alive and producing little except kids. Of course fraud would be rampant -- people would be opening lemonade stands and claiming to be "in business" to qualify. Still, I think it would boost employment and help the economy in the long run.

[jainen]

common cause

>>the mortality rate of new businesses is over 50%.... I'd like to see an EIC for them<<

The most common cause of small business failure is under-capitalization. They can't afford a good location, or advertising, or qualified advisors. Don't you know the government has tons of cold cash for them? Most of it they have to pay back, but at subsidized rates worth tens of thousands of dollars per year. You can read all about it here <www.sba.gov>.

[S T]

Sba

J- One of my clients has an SBA loan and it is hidden with tons of extra fees and prepay penalties. Not a cheap source no matter how they advertise it.

Sandy