The Thailand expat forum for Travel, Lifestyle and Fun.

stroller

Slightly off-topic, but it's a general problem in the industrialised nations. Local small and medium sized companies have had a hard time for some time, and it seems to be getting worse.
And the middle-class small-scale enterpreneurs resent it, it's not necessarily greed. Employers taking a caring role for employees in small family-like run businesses are becoming the exception (my father was another example, there were times he earned less than some of his employees).

man with no head

That's if you consider the Federal MW. Look at WA and OR, for example. Much higher than the Federal MW, and, frankly I think it should be up to the states to have this kind of flexibility.

Consider also that raising the MW causes prices to increase at places with relatively low margin. Grocery stores, fast food, gas stations, and so on. You think the employers are just going to absorp the difference? No, it will get passed on through higher prices. And, if people at the low end get mandatory wage increases then those higher up will want them as well. Is it fair for a person making $10 an hour not to get an increase while a person lower down get an automatic 10% increase due to a new law?

That's not always the case. Service that is valuable but has plenty of competition will always have low value. House cleaning, floor cleaning, washing cars, mowing lawns, the list is endless. A company that provides such services has to have low prices to compete.

Don't forget the bigger the corporation the easier it is simply to move manufacturing overseas because the cost of transport via ship is so low that even with shipping factored in the overall cost is much lower than to produce it domestically. Wal-Mart is a good example of this.

Even within the same country a factory has to have a good location near cheap raw materials, good transportation hubs, and cheap labor. All things equal would it be cheaper to run a factory in downtown Manhattan or the middle of Kansas?

I believe increases in the EIC are a better way to tackle the problem because it targets the people who need it the most instead of a blanket band-aid that causes prices to increase for everyone. Adjustments to the EIC cost less and harm the economy less than mandatory price fixing of resources (which is what MW laws do). I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a MW but let the states handle the increases.

man with no head

I think greed is about the worst of human traits.

Sometimes I wonder: if I were a scientist and discovered a gene that would either switch off cancer or eliminate the traits of greed: what would I choose? I think eliminating greed would be far better for mankind than eliminating cancer.

Storekeeper

"Remember the folks who said the tax cuts would 'blow a hole in the deficit?' Well, revenues as a share of the economy are now expected to rise this year to 18.3%, slightly above the modern historical average of 18.2%. The remaining budget deficit of a little under $300 billion will be about 2.3% of GDP, which is smaller than in 17 of the previous 25 years. Throw in the surpluses rolling into the states, and the overall U.S. 'fiscal deficit' is now economically trivial. This would all seem to be good news, but some folks are never happy. The same crowd that said the tax cuts wouldn't work, and predicted fiscal doom, are now harrumphing that the revenues reflect a windfall for 'the rich.' We suppose that's right if by rich they mean the millions of Americans moving into higher tax brackets because their paychecks are increasing. Individual income tax payments are up 14.1% this year, and 'nonwithheld' individual tax payments (reflecting capital gains, among other things) are up 20%. Because of the tax cuts, the still highly progressive U.S. tax code is soaking the rich. Since when do liberals object to a windfall for the government?... As for the 2003 tax cuts, the current revenue boom is one more argument for making them permanent. They are now set to expire in 2010, and, even if they are extended, federal revenues will continue to climb as a share of GDP as more taxpayers earn higher incomes and move into higher tax brackets. If liberal Democrats are really determined to soak the rich-and we don't doubt it for a second-they'll also vote to make the tax cuts permanent."

OpinionJournal - Featured Article

__________________
"England forever; the USA one day longer"
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Storekeeper

Democrats Clueless About The Economy

By Matt Margolis

Low unemployment, a shrinking deficit, increased tax revenues, higher profits, record homeownership, increased worker confidence... According to Democrats like Hillary Clinton, these are examples of "President Bush and the Republicans of making a mess of the economy."

Milkman

^ Storekeeper, it's apparent that you're a troll who can mostly cut-and-paste.

stroller

When you talk about the "liberals", do you mean "Democrats" as in the US-party, or do just enjoy throwing around labels and generalisations?

Storekeeper

All you do is attack the opinions of people you don't agree with. It doesn't matter if it's in my own words or cut and paste. You have you're own history of being a troll. How many nicks do you have by the way ?

I've been wondering why you always immediately log off after every post you make ? It's becasue even in this forum you're a mulitple nick troll.

off girlie man.

Storekeeper

If you would have read the cut-n-paste you would have had your answer in the last line. But no ... you wanted to waste not only your time but mine.

stroller

The last line in the cut&paste doesn't explain your use of the term 'liberal', which seems to be one of your favorites to throw about when attempting to diffuse or divert.

Storekeeper

I consistently use liberal in the same way ... ALWAYS. You just don't like it ... so you DIVERT a reasonable post by focusing on my use of the term liberal. You're sounding more and more like Milkman.

stroller

Yeah, you always use it in an undefined way, and in a derogatory sense.
Am I a "liberal" in your eyes, for example, and is Mhz one as well?

ChiangMai noon

I haven't been in this thread since about the 8th post.
Anyone possibly summarise it for me.
I have a biting headache and feel unable to read through 200 plus posts.
Thanks.

Storekeeper

You're much more liberal than I am. Milkdud is much more conservative than I am. In regards to the singular subject of war in iraq and fighting terrorism ... yes, you are a liberal.

ChiangMai noon

ok, so this thread seems to have little to do with the US and its relative economic strength, might participate in it now.

stroller

The topic has digressed, that's partly my fault - sorry.
I'll shut up now.

But the thread has done well, staying on topic for 21 pages.

Milkman

These issues are not about liberalism, whether one support these issues or not.

man with no head

The strongest economy in the world is having issues generating wage growth for those with 4 year degrees: flat or negative growth from 2000-2004.

Storekeeper

The salary example of the guy in your link example is 77K which puts him well above the median average and doesn't even take into account the cost of living wherever it is he lives. And why does the guy deserve a raise just because he recently completed his degree ? Maybe his work effort doesn't warrant a pay raise. Both of us should be careful not to over-simplify the arguement.

man with no head