President Obama Raising Minimum Wage
LOL

Jeffersonville, IN

#83 Apr 19, 2013
It will never make a long-term difference. Doesn't matter if it's $100/hr or a $1,000/hr. It still comes out the same in the end. Economics will seek, find, and set the equilibrium. In the short term, however, more jobs are lost, you end up begging for another higher minimum wage, now with less jobs. Since there are less jobs for that level the actual free market minimum is lower so it's more skewed and with hyper inflation. It's fairly simple but people just don't get it. Why don't you improve your skills and marketability, quit relying on the government, quit thinking everybody in business is rich, and raise your own minimum wage.

"Why don't Obama just give us...." Get real.
liv

Morehead, KY

#84 Apr 19, 2013
LOL wrote:
It will never make a long-term difference. Doesn't matter if it's $100/hr or a $1,000/hr. It still comes out the same in the end. Economics will seek, find, and set the equilibrium. In the short term, however, more jobs are lost, you end up begging for another higher minimum wage, now with less jobs. Since there are less jobs for that level the actual free market minimum is lower so it's more skewed and with hyper inflation. It's fairly simple but people just don't get it. Why don't you improve your skills and marketability, quit relying on the government, quit thinking everybody in business is rich, and raise your own minimum wage.
"Why don't Obama just give us...." Get real.
Obama is the welfare santa claus. Why work when you don't have to.
SpeakUp

Eustis, FL

#85 Apr 19, 2013
liv wrote:
Why don't Obama just give us a higher minimum wage that will actually make a difference. Nine dollars does not cut it in Obamas economy. Why not make it eighteen instead of nine. After you pay for gas to get to work and back there's not much left for anything else if you have a family.
You need to talk to the Republican Congress about that because they don't even want you to have $6 let alone $9 or $18. Go straight to the source that takes the fits everytime the term minimum wage is muttered. THAT would not be Obama.
SpeakUp

Eustis, FL

#86 Apr 19, 2013
LOL wrote:
<quoted text>
Due diligence is not a requirement for any idiot to buy stock. Money is the only requirement. However, a person will learn the hard way that due diligence is the only way to go if they ignore it. Account volume do not make market share. You need to do some homework. You really don't understand this.
I wasn't the one who said due diligence was. I guess you neglected to read? Maybe too, that's why you don't understand that numbers do count on Wall St. Account volume DOES = market share.

If there are 10 clients sitting in a room and 8 are mine. I have 80% volume. Where there are numbers, there is potential. If I have a client who has a $10M portfolio and I have all his money, there's little potential for further business. If I have a client with $100,000 portfolio, there's more potential for future business. Wall St. believes, if the numbers are there, the revenue will follow.

Wake up dork !
SpeakUp

Eustis, FL

#87 Apr 19, 2013
liv wrote:
<quoted text>
Obama is the welfare santa claus. Why work when you don't have to.
Then don't....and be a useless soul the rest of your life. The End. You have a choice...don't you? If you don't know what "choice" means, let me know.
LOL

London, KY

#88 Apr 19, 2013
SpeakUp wrote:
<quoted text>
I wasn't the one who said due diligence was. I guess you neglected to read? Maybe too, that's why you don't understand that numbers do count on Wall St. Account volume DOES = market share.
If there are 10 clients sitting in a room and 8 are mine. I have 80% volume. Where there are numbers, there is potential. If I have a client who has a $10M portfolio and I have all his money, there's little potential for further business. If I have a client with $100,000 portfolio, there's more potential for future business. Wall St. believes, if the numbers are there, the revenue will follow.
Wake up dork !
No, I read correctly. You asked if due diligence was a requirement for a novice, I simply answered due diligence is not a REQUIREMENT for buying anything. But it's the smart thing.

I think Wall Street is a little smarter than you give them credit for being. They may make people believe that volume equals market share but it doesn't. People buy stock without doing due diligence, get screwed, then want their money back from the bad men who lied to them. It's just too bad in my opinion. Do your homework or stay out of the market. TANSTAAFL is rule number one to anything we do.
LOL

London, KY

#89 Apr 19, 2013
SpeakUp wrote:
<quoted text>
You need to talk to the Republican Congress about that because they don't even want you to have $6 let alone $9 or $18. Go straight to the source that takes the fits everytime the term minimum wage is muttered. THAT would not be Obama.
I would say $0 would be the best minimum wage. Don't allow an artificial wage into the free market. The entire country, at least those who are willing to work to help themselves, would be better off. The market would set the wage and the minimum would be different everywhere.
SpeakUp

Eustis, FL

#90 Apr 20, 2013
LOL wrote:
<quoted text>
Would anybody buy stock based on the number of accounts without doing due diligence and looking at the financials? All kinds of idiots I guess.
I introduce to you a copy of YOUR post. My post was responding to yours. You have stated would anyone buy stock without doing due diligence. Below is my response to YOUR post above.
SpeakUp

Eustis, FL

#91 Apr 20, 2013
SpeakUp wrote:
<quoted text>
Is due dilligence a requirement for novice stockholders? And you'd better do some more reading because YES, numbers are imperative on Wall St. It proves how much market share one has.
The above was MY response to YOUR post. YOU indicated the question would they buy without doing due diligence. My response was, is it a requirement? Of course it isn't. Duh
SpeakUp

Eustis, FL

#92 Apr 20, 2013
LOL wrote:
<quoted text>
I would say $0 would be the best minimum wage. Don't allow an artificial wage into the free market. The entire country, at least those who are willing to work to help themselves, would be better off. The market would set the wage and the minimum would be different everywhere.
I can only guess you're looking at it exclusively from an employer's standpoint, and, your favored political party.

If a minimum wage wasn't dictated, employer's would have everyone picking their cotton for free just as they did way back when. There wasn't a minimum wage then, thus why they got away with it. And they'd do the same thing today if they could get away with it. Your employer's market currently wouldn't be paying jack crap in your free market world, because they now expect workers to compete with Chinese wages, yet live in America and pay American prices for the cost of living. Who are you kidding? You'd better crawl out from under the rock you've been living in since the Civil War and get a grip is what you need to do.
SpeakUp

Eustis, FL

#93 Apr 20, 2013
LOL wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I read correctly. You asked if due diligence was a requirement for a novice, I simply answered due diligence is not a REQUIREMENT for buying anything. But it's the smart thing.
I think Wall Street is a little smarter than you give them credit for being. They may make people believe that volume equals market share but it doesn't. People buy stock without doing due diligence, get screwed, then want their money back from the bad men who lied to them. It's just too bad in my opinion. Do your homework or stay out of the market. TANSTAAFL is rule number one to anything we do.
And you actually think that common people with 401k plans across this country actually know the market? There's that little thing called trust, but of course, it's a dying art isn't it? Wall St. is smart, thus why they allow shareholders to be fed full of crap. Our original discussion was, do numbers = market share and yes they do. You are crowding in your view on Wall St. intelligence vs the common people. Different subject matter.

You're suppose to be able to trust your advisor. Isn't that what they get paid for? I thought so. They are paid to advise you what to buy, when to buy it, how much to buy and when to get in and out. Isn't that right? Well, lo and behold when it crashed around 2008, those intellects who get paid to advise, allowed far too many people to sit there and rot, and, lose everything they had because they just swore the market would turn around. And you want to blame the gift horse? Sad.

You can do all the analytics you choose, but that doesn't tell you squat these days. You know it. I know it.
LOL

London, KY

#94 Apr 20, 2013
No, account volume does not equal market share. Any fool should know that. But if people want to play the market they need to educate themselves on the rules. They wouldn't risk their money at bingo without knowing the rules. What makes them do it with real money? The information is there for them.

I guess you're supposed to be able to trust your adviser. I was actually taught a little differently. I was taught that your adviser may churn you account for fees. But I'm sure there's some respectable ones out there. Blue Sky laws, and every state has them, are supposed to protect you too, but I was taught they offer limited protection. In short, I was taught to do my homework. I'm my own adviser and I do read the prospectus. After all, it's not just a game of bingo.

I don't want to blame the gift horse. I never had one, and I didn't lose (selling short, look it up, but how would you know to do that). But that's what you say people should be able to do. Play the game, lose, then cry until the government gives them something. Sad.

Get real.
LOL

London, KY

#95 Apr 20, 2013
Oh, have you ever heard the term "risk and reward". The theory is the higher the risk, the higher the potential reward. Think of the lottery. Great risk, great potential reward. You don't hear people cry when they get the reward. Only when the lose. The best one I saw was one woman crying about losing here Florida condo because she trusted Madoff. No homework. I really felt sorry for her. She wanted government help. Probably got a little.
Ghostrider

London, KY

#96 Apr 22, 2013
SpeakUp wrote:
<quoted text>

And they'd do the same thing today if they could get away with it. Your employer's market currently wouldn't be paying jack crap in your free market world, because they now expect workers to compete with Chinese wages, yet live in America and pay American prices for the cost of living. Who are you kidding? You'd better crawl out from under the rock you've been living in since the Civil War and get a grip is what you need to do.
There's a good point, just off base. Nobody EXPECTS Americans to compete with Chinese wages, it's just the way things are. They have to in the global market. Raising the minimum wage creates a situation where the country raising it is less competitive. So, employers don't EXPECT people to compete with Chinese wages but live in American and pay American prices, but they do. The problem is that American lifestyle, American Prices, and American pay are not in line with the rest of the world in some areas. There has to be an adjustment and that adjustment will be down not up. Raising minimum wage costs jobs that will never return. But we as a country, either trying to help or win votes, keep making the same mistakes.
Ghostrider

London, KY

#97 Apr 22, 2013
Oh, and before you say that I too am looking at this from an employer perspective, let me say that I am an employer. However, nobody in my business makes minimum wage, and even the lowest level person will start at over double minimum. It's not because I'm benevolent, but I do have to compete. The skill level required by my business means I have to pay better than minimum wage to attract and keep employees.

Raising the minimum wage would certainly increase the demands for higher salary from my labor force and, in order to remain competitive, I would have to raise their wages. Not that I mind, my type of business isn't going anywhere, and I'll pass on to customers, who will pass it on to their customers and so on. Eventually, you get back to square one.

It rolls down hill and if you're at the bottom, it's going to hit you the hardest.
Business

Melvin, KY

#98 Apr 22, 2013
Ghostrider wrote:
Oh, and before you say that I too am looking at this from an employer perspective, let me say that I am an employer. However, nobody in my business makes minimum wage, and even the lowest level person will start at over double minimum. It's not because I'm benevolent, but I do have to compete. The skill level required by my business means I have to pay better than minimum wage to attract and keep employees.
Raising the minimum wage would certainly increase the demands for higher salary from my labor force and, in order to remain competitive, I would have to raise their wages. Not that I mind, my type of business isn't going anywhere, and I'll pass on to customers, who will pass it on to their customers and so on. Eventually, you get back to square one.
It rolls down hill and if you're at the bottom, it's going to hit you the hardest.
My point exactly!! I don't think a lot of people get this!
Historian

Madisonville, KY

#99 Apr 22, 2013
The President does not have the authority to raise the minimum wage. Only Congress can do that. So even if President Obama asks for it to be raised it won't happen because Rand Paul, Mitch McConnell, and all the rest of the Senators and Representatives that toe the Koch brothers line will not allow it.
man

Morehead, KY

#100 Apr 22, 2013
Historian wrote:
The President does not have the authority to raise the minimum wage. Only Congress can do that. So even if President Obama asks for it to be raised it won't happen because Rand Paul, Mitch McConnell, and all the rest of the Senators and Representatives that toe the Koch brothers line will not allow it.
Shushhhhh. Don't tell Speakup that Obama can't raise minimum wage. She thinks.........

Just fyi though the senate is controlled by democrats that toe the Obama line. Obama could get anything he wants from the senate if he "really" wanted it.
If Obama cared about workers he would try to create some jobs so they could have one again. I guess it's much more important to legalize illegal aliens than it is to help an american citizen.
LOL

London, KY

#101 Apr 22, 2013
SpeakUp wrote:
<quoted text>
I can only guess you're looking at it exclusively from an employer's standpoint, and, your favored political party.
Actually neither, although I realize that Democrats typically like to win the hearts and minds of those who do not understand, and Republicans generally have a better understanding of economics.

I simply look at it from an academic and historical point of view. Raising minimum wage is always a bad idea. Let the market take care of it. Labor is just another commodity and should sell like any commodity, which of course is price based and nothing else. Now labor does break down into several commodity classes and each would be affected differently in the market. For example you can't buy a ton of diamonds for the same price as a ton of gravel, but each is a commodity.

I pulled through a fast food drive through today and the girl at the window had problem counting $4.32 change even though the cash register was telling her what the change should be. Is that commodity worth a more than current minimum wage? I really doubt that commodity is worth minimum wage.
Historian

Madisonville, KY

#102 Apr 22, 2013
man wrote:
<quoted text>
Shushhhhh. Don't tell Speakup that Obama can't raise minimum wage. She thinks.........
Just fyi though the senate is controlled by democrats that toe the Obama line. Obama could get anything he wants from the senate if he "really" wanted it.
If Obama cared about workers he would try to create some jobs so they could have one again. I guess it's much more important to legalize illegal aliens than it is to help an american citizen.
Just having a simple majority of senators does not give the Democrats control of the senate. It takes a supermajority of (I think) 60 of 100 senators to break a filabuster and bring a bill to a vote. As it now stands any Republican senator who wants to filibuster and block a vote can do so unless some of his Republican colleagues vote with the Democrats to end the filibuster.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Keavy Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Crooked Creek dosen't have a homeowner's assoc... (Dec '10) 1 hr Fees 9
News Bible study rules for public schools proposed (Feb '10) 1 hr ChromiuMan 161,215
Hell on hawk creek 1 hr Hello 2
Police searching pond on New Salem (CJ PITT) (Aug '09) 2 hr Curious 33
Any place in Laurel Co. to Sale Aluminum cans? 2 hr Ann 4
A question about Walmart drug tests? (Jun '11) 2 hr Smart 24
Reward 2 hr Bodean 1

Keavy Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Keavy Mortgages