Discussion for article #228246
> dismissed raising the minimum wage as a âwedge issueâ by President Barack Obamaâs administration that actually wouldnât help people and instead is just a âpetty, short-sighted type of little issue.â
Must be nice to live a life where simple things like food and shelter, and whether you can provide them for yourself is a petty issue.
Extend her logic. Why have a minimum wage? The factory that employs 500 people and pays them $10.00 an hour could employ 1000 at $5.00 an hour, right? Hell, letâs pay them $2.50 per hour and employ 2000!! What, they canât afford rent and groceries at that wage? Well, the factory cafeteria can dish out gruel and stale bread. Then a tent city can be erected on the company softball diamond! There, the food and rent issue is put to rest! I swear, liberals just donât get itâŚ
Thatâs why she is a rising star among Conservative Republicans. Sheâs mean and wrong.
Of course a livable minimum wage is âmeaninglessâ to a 30-something year-old-person who lives with her parents and hasnât supported herself with a a full-time job in years.
For someone that lives at home with her parents and gives Harp lessons parttime, it is easy to call a hike in the minimum wage petty- sheâs not worried about rent, utilities, food or clothing. Sheâs single with no kids, so she doesnât have to worry about caring for someone else. Sheâs being cared for by her parents.
I have always hated the expression âthe real worldâ, but Miss Garcia lives a very pampered lifestyle that allows her to think that a living wage is a petty issue.
It is good to be the Princess.
âOut of touch with realityâ
A prerequisite for GOP outreach to and recruitment of women voters and candidates.
A bitch-Princess who is cared for and provided for by her parents is giving us a lecture on how the minimum wage issue petty and it doesnât need to be raised?
Fuck her and the horse she rode in on.
Perhaps Ms. Garcia can explain how an increased wage is âtriteâ and âpettyâ for the employee recieving the wage, but a huge burden for the employer providing the wage?
My 25 year old daughter, who is starting a better job next week, was stuck in a minimum wage job for the past year. Ms. Garcia should try living on $7.25 an hour and no benefits.
By the way, my daughter has a young son. She is entitled to a significant child care tax credit. In short, all of us tax payers are subsidizing her cheapskate employer.
Still lives in her momâs house but is quick to disparage an effort that would improve the lives of millions including hers. She probably does not earn enough to support herself and rent her own place and here she is telling everyone that increasing the minimum wage is meaningless. Talk about hypocrisy.
Their whole argument is ridiculous, always has been, always will be. There is no evidence to support those employers who will be âliterallyâ laying off employees - other than simple cruelty. There is absolutely no economic argument to support it.
But thatâs really what these Tea Party maroons count on; a populace who really doesnât understand economics, the tax code, or the difference between profit and the cost of doing business.
As is always the caseâŚthereâs just no âthereâ there.
The TEDoPhile blurtsâŚ
Dumb, greedy pols being elected by dumber voters is an intended consequence .
It is all about jobs, not propaganda about jobs. Jobs are created or destroyed in one way and one way only. If the demand for the goods and services produced by employees goes up, jobs are created. If the demand goes down jobs are lost. For example, an employer judges the demand for its goods and services to require 30 employees to meet demand. The employer will not hire 31 employees because the employer would produce more than they can sell and lose money. They will not hire 29 employees because they would not produce enough to sell and would lose business. The only way that the employer would hire more people would be if the demand for good and services produced by employees increased. That is true no mater where the demand comes from, if they are building auto parts the demand is from the private sector, if it is military tank parts the demand is from the government sector. Yes, government demand for goods and services creates jobs the same as demand from the private sector or even the demand for exports.
If you increase the cost of wages by increasing the minimum wage the employer still needs 30 employees to meet the demand for goods and services and will not fire anyone. What the increase will do is to decrease the part of the profit that goes to the employer. Some employers will always say that it will cost jobs as it takes money out of their pockets, what else would you expect them to say. The other impact of a wage increase is to increase the job base. Higher wages cause more employees to compete for the higher paying jobs, lower wages would cause employees to drop out of the job market. In the case of the minimum wage since there is not a lower wage to rise from the increase in the job base would be minor.
There could be impacts on marginal business going out of business but it is funny that when marginal businesses go under due to competition from more efficient and effective businesses or mergers costing jobs that is a good thing, it is only bad when the result is more of the business profit has to go to the employees. The wage increase could also stimulate the demand for good and services as it is going to people who will spend it. In general any job loses are offset by increased demand which is why the net effect on the economy is not significant. But the wage increase does have a significant effect on the lives of the employees who get it.
Cutting or increasing taxes, or regulations likewise will not stimulate job growth as they also do not increase the demand for good and services produced by employees, despite Republican propaganda to the contrary . Cutting taxes or regulations will increase the profit going to employers. While the employer could share the reduced costs with employees, employers in general want to maximize the profits going to themselves.
We have a funny view of who should get the profits from a business. Republicans emphasize job creators. However, employers need employees to produce goods and services. Without employees there is no business and without employers there is no business. How much of the profit should go to employees and how much should go to employers has always been an issues as both want as much of it as they can get. Most employers view employees as just a cost of doing business unless the employer cannot find the employees to do the work and the business starts losing money. .
âTrite?â She better get a better grip on language if she expects to move beyond the NH Legislature, which, by the way, is the second-largest in the country, which is why it has more than its fair share of dipshits. There is no way she can oust a solid legislator like Annie Kuster.
Hmmm Kochâs Tea Party recruiters must be using a Palin look alike strategy. This woman and Monica Wehby (Kochâs choice in Ore) have similar hair styles and coloring.
What she really means is that a minimum wage hike wouldnât help anyone she knows.
Could not agree more, sir.
Just because sheâs a woman, the GOP thought theyâd be seen as on the side of womenâs issuesâŚuntil this princess opened her mouth and shoved her Prada shoes in to the hilt.