i think everyone is missing the point.

CITY BACKED DEVELOPMENTS means the city gives money incentives and breaks to their rich cronies to buy build and rent large developments like the kingsbridge armory, then while fat cats make millions in profits, theres no requirement to pay more than slave wages for a small # of low paying jobs in some project that bloomturds pals make billions of dollars.

and as we all know theres no kingsbridge armory project now, and the fat cats say see now you have no jobs to show for all that effort to get a "living" wage.

If you artificially raise the lowest wage, then eventually the cost of items will increase to match and nobody increased their economic status. Nobody wants to work at McDonalds - that is why they get paid shit and if everyone had the ABILITY to become lawyers and doctors, then those professions wouldn't make as much.

Can you liberal dopes not see this?

Maybe a link from "Duck Tales" will help.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_LWQQrpSc4

Shhhh.

It not the effect that a policy that is important, it is the warm feeling it gives liberals.

Listen, you dumbass wannabe capitalist. If you knew anything about the high chair economics you spout off you would understand that COSTS INCREASE NO MATTER WHAT THE MINIMIUM WAGE IS and that MINIMUM WAGE IS MORE REACTIONARY THAN CAUSE.

So make the minimum wage $100/hr.

You would want that - the only way you'd be able to deserve a job that makes that much is if the gov't does it for you.

If you pay people more (for no reason), rent, food prices and other people's wages will increase, putting minimum wagers right back where they started being able to afford the same amount of stuff (at a "living wage").

Every tweak will be dealt with through the market, command economies don't work.

However if you pay people more because of reality, consumers simply don't take on as much credit to finance necessary costs and American's continue to hunt for good prices when they make their purchases. If we lived in some magical fantasy land of monopolies and rampant price fixing, bastardized Chi-school high-chair economics like yours might be more relevant.

"Every tweak will be dealt with through the market"

and there's the nut! try thinking for yourself Ayn.

Either you can afford to be in business or you can't.

Labor has almost always been the highest cost to an individual business.

If business costs are a "burden", go broke an let a better business fill your niche. Most businesses ALREADY pay most workers more than living wage.

Hey conservative sociopaths: A living wage increases investment opportunity, allows you to take competence for granted while hiring, and decreases the amount of broke foot-traffic/advertising consumers who pass up your business every day.

"allows you to take competence for granted while hiring"

How would that work?

Do you know any small business owners?

Ask them if they like taking chances on people who come from lousy schools or look like they haven't had access to good health and hygiene.

Childcare, appearance, transportation, grammar, all manner of measures of competency which people tend to take for granted if they arn't careful.

But with a "living wage", they would still have the same lousy applicants applying for the same lousy job, only the pay would be higher. The higher wage might attract some higher-calibar candidates, but it wouldn't exclude the lousy ones. So anyone who would "take competence for granted" is a mug.

So what's your point? Those less fortunate than you and don't have the luxury of sitting in front of a computer having pseudo-political discussions about being holier than thou like you do are not eligible for any assistance? Just admit that fact and we can move on with our lives.

So what's your point? Those less fortunate than you and don't have the luxury of sitting in front of a computer having pseudo-political discussions about being holier than thou like you do are not eligible for any assistance? Just admit that fact and we can move on with our lives.

Again: No that's not my point. Please point me towards anything I've ever said that made you believe that was my opinion. Yet again, your post falls into the pattern I mentioned above - you take my comment, wildly misinterpret is (including ascribing me with an assumed opinion), and then argue back against the assumed opinion.

I never stated, or implied, any opinion on whether "the less fortunate" are "eligible for assistance."

My point, in it's simple terms, was that simply offering a higher wage does not mean you can "take competence for granted while hiring."

Imagine a simple situation - imagine you are hiring for burger-flippers, at a low wage of $x per hour. You will attract a range of applicants (some competent, some not), and you will put them through some form of interview/selection process to determine which of the candidates is most competent/suitable for the job.

Now imagine you were to advertize the same position at a "living wage" of $y per hour. You will attract more applicants: the same pool who would have applied for the job at $x per hr, plus several more who would be attracted by the higher wage. You will still need to conduct an interview/selection process to determine who is best suited to the job. Just because you have offered a higher salary does not mean you can "take competence for granted when hiring."

Seriously, if you don't believe me, set up a small business and see how long you last if you "take competence for granted."

Again, what is your point? So you made an obvious assumption about hiring practices. Big deal - I'll let you know when Stern begins hiring teachers to teach 'small business'. Obvious assumption is obvious.

What does this have to do with the need for a standardized and agile living wage? Since when is compensating labor for products considered 'burdens'. Like others have said; if business in 2010 America is too burdensome for you, step aside.

Really I can only assume you're trolling to try and provoke internet arguments. Seriously, my point is so crystal clear that I don't understand how anyone can misconstrue it. Think of it as follows:

(1) Random Transplant said that offering a higher wage would allow businesses to "take competence for granted when hiring".

(2) I asked how this is so.

(3) No-one has explained how this is so.

So my question still stands - how or why would a business ever "take competence for granted"? They would be fools for doing so, unless you and RandomTransplant have a different understanding of this phrase than I do.

So I will say it again, as simply as I can - no matter how high a salary is offered, I don't think any sensible business owner could "take competence for granted". If you can explain why this is not so, please do...

Dogboy, acting confused isn't a way to win arguments. I

Higher wages lead to increased job preparation through time.

Taking compentency for granted happens every day - "do you have a degree? from where?".

I'm not acting confused, I'm just questioning some of the things you say.

In particular, I want to know how paying somebody more will necessarily increase their "job preparation." And regardless, even if it were true, I'm not sure if this is a reason for government-mandated wage levels (since if it were true, the employer would offer higher wages out of self-interest).

And I still disagree that anyone "takes competence for granted."

Taking compentency for granted happens every day - "do you have a degree? from where?".

Asking someone what degree they have and where they got it is only a part of assessing someone's competency. I doubt there is any company anywhere that would give jobs soleley on that criteria - everyone has interviews, assesment centers, tests etc to try and establish a person's competency.

...And yes, the correlation between wealth and job preparedness that we've seen all through human history will apply if you increase the wealth of the lowest earning families.

Time + investment = business profit.