If you want to destroy the economy. This is one major step in killing it. It's the Great Reset.

They just think we're as stupid as them.

More like - "We're smarter than you so PPPHHHHFFFTTTT!!!!!"

That's exactly what they think. We've always been able to see through their ultra thin facade, yet they always think and act like we are knuckle dragging Neanderthals.

Ah yes, Law Supply/Demand . . .the easiest of things to understand in economics. . .and the majority of the Left Side of the Political Fence still don't get it!

Yeah, liberals seems to be people who flunked economics.

You can hear Psaki say this here: https://rumble.com/vn2xnp-jen-psaki-says-companies-increasing-costs-due-to-tax-hikes-is-unfair-and-ab.html

Not just America,

WAIT...how about giving $2 Trillion dollars to our nation's wealthiest business owners under the disguise of "trickle down?"

Right you taxing us and us not standing for it is unfair…

They did, they just used it to fool people into giving up freedoms in exchange for power to the government. Psaki knows it.

Let's face it though - if you mandate pay increases the only way to keep products down is by putting a hold on prices.

If you place a hold on prices and then increase wages - people will actually get a pay raise and money will actually go to people at the bottom.

If you just raise wages with no price hold - we know exactly what happens... Inflation. So if they are trying to hold prices so that pay raises can mean something , I'm for it.

That's not how it works. People have to take pay cuts to cover the loss of profit and it sure isn't going to be the executives.

So a Shift Supervisor that makes. . .$20/hour through hard work, training, and a lot of responsibility and little room to screw up(especially at places like a gas station and the shift supervisor has to count the daily money and be very accurate) has to take a pay cut cause another employee is jealous of the Shift Supervisor because the employee won't make the effort of additional training or promotion opportunity that will result in a pay raise.

I know... That's what I'm saying... In order for mandatory min wage increases to work, you have to freeze prices.

That's not true either. There are CEO's who have cut their salary to $1 per year while their business recovered from a down turn.

I used to work for a company that was struggling. The upper management all took a 10% pay cut. Then in a few weeks there was a company wide 10% pay cut and upper management took another 15% pay cut at that time. Then a few weeks later I found myself looking for a job. I was young and it was earning just a few pennies per hour more than minimum wage so I wasn't too upset. I never looked into what happened to that company. I have no idea if they are still in business or not.

In most new start up businesses, the person who starts up the business will most of the time never take a salary until the company can afford to give him/her a salary. Employees will get paid long before the owner.

But if the execs can't freeze prices, they will cut employment of better paid but not top level people. Say like Managers or Regional Managers - then scale back hours - or even have every employee making more than min wage take a percentage pay cut.

CEO's get fired a lot of times by the board of directors. If a CEO isn't increasing the profits of the business, and especially if profits are down, then out the door that CEO goes. Board members might also get rid of other board members as well.

Positions at the top in publicly traded companies are not as secure as you think.

In a privately owned business the owner will always be the owner. If he causes the company to lose profits then his mistakes can cost him his job by way of the business shutting down. That happens a lot also. In partnerships one or more of the partners can buy out the ownership of the partner who is causing the problems for the business. But only if that partner sells out. Otherwise they are stuck with the guy until the business shuts down or falls apart.

EXACTLY. Glad to see you thinking like me for a change.

Well, there's only one CEO, but thousands of employees. $1 per hour is $40 more per week (assuming full time). There are 52 weeks in a year, so $2,080 dollars extra per employee, per year. Let's assume 5,000 employees per company (which is a gross underestimate). That's an extra $10,400,000 per year. And many are advocated for raises far in excess of $1 per hour.

And this is only the cost of an increase, not including the cost thier existing wages.

Kind of an old article but still seems crazy...

So, pay more, but can’t charge more. Sounds like a recipe for massive business failures.

It is especially when High Supply/Low Demand hits because consumers just aren't buying(Demand) and suppliers are sitting on a waste of time and money(Supply). People at some point became real stingy with their money(National Coin Shortage anyone?) Then there is/was Low Supply/High Demand(again, not good) with certain other products like computer parts for people that build their own computers at home. And things like Biden's Government just not backing off and letting people try to get back to work like before the shutdown.

Yes it does - just as raising minimum wage is

The entire idea of Minimum Wage Increases from the left leadership is that minimum wage employees will have "more money 💵💵💰💰" - essentially giving them a hand up.

I'm not against that idea - giving the bottom more money for their work is pretty darn humanitarian. However, with the structure we have in the United States - it's the opposite of humanitarian.

When min wage workers have to be paid more by mandate - the businesses pass that cost on to the consumers in the prices of their products. So the 6.49 Combo Meal at the drive thru ends up costing 8.99 instead. Any industry that sells products and services that use minimum wage employees will have an increase in price for the products and services.

If you look at the inflation of money in the US and products and services - the largest spikes in inflation almost always correlates to the minimum wage increase that was excised upon the population.

So instead of getting a hand up - the people at the bottom have relatively the same amount of wealth. But people that were better off but not rich - now have to pay more for their products and services, which makes them poorer than before, and that much less close to being well off.

Minimum Pay Wage increases hurt everyone BUT the rich.

Now that we've discussed min wage increases and what they do.... If you put a product and services price FREEZE in place for 2 years when doing a Min Pay Wage increase, it could actually be a hand up for the poor, not impact the middle class, and would take money out of the pockets of the rich and distribute that a bit to the bottom poorer people.

But like we discussed - businesses would cut pay or jobs to make up the difference...

Why is it that everybody complains about the effects of worker wages going up but no one complains that McDonald's CEO making $9000/hour might make the cost of burgers go up.

Because if you combined all the wages earned by all minimum wage earners at McDonalds that would total more than the salary of the CEO. The board of directors set the wages of the CEO based on what the company can afford and what they hope that CEO will do for the company. CEO's rarely cause the price of products to increase. Typically the salary will be less than they profits they hope to earn as a business. In other words they won't pay a CEO more than what he can increase the profits by.

Wow..what a bunch of BS. And stupidity too. of course they are not going to pay someone more than their expected profits. But how about only paying him $2 million and giving 1000 other people full-time with benefits. And then instead of the company making $250 million in profit, they use about a third of it to make another 5000 people full-time with benefits while giving $15/hour to the part-timers.

How about when Alice Walton receives her $8 Billion check from Trump's "trickle down" tax plan, she could invest in her people instead of keeping it and laying off 20,000 Sam's Club employees? Would that be ok? Or does that make me an evil person?

That's none of your business how they use their money. That is ONLY theirs and no one else's business.

If you want them to spend their money the way you want them to, then you can write them a letter. Out side of that you cannot and should not get involved in someone else's business.

We already do get involved. The IRS tells you what you have to pay in taxes. So they need to pay more than ZERO. And it is absolutely our business. When you abuse a labor force for so long, you need to answer to someone. When the government gives you $8 Billion that is supposed to trickle down to your people, and you keep it and then lay off 20,000 employees all while my tax dollars not only are being used to pay for her $8 billion welfare check but also to pay for the benefits of the people she laid off, it is 100% my business.
She needs to pay a price for that.

So the way to do that is to end her work force and stop all patronage to her business. Any ideas on how to do that? No? Well I agree. THAT is why it is a rigged economy. People have no choice but to accept her starvation wages. Her employees literally die from not being able to afford medical procedures while she buys another Money from the Louvre for $500 Million.

If that is your idea of proper American economics, then I say it has to change. And fortunately I am not alone. The ultra wealthy have gotten away with this for far too long.

Answer this maestro...do you think anyone could successfully open up a business to compete with Wal-Mart?

The correct solution is to abolish the progressive taxation scheme that idiot Woodrow Wilson forced on us in 1913. And at the same time abolish the IRS

So all of those people who earn $43,000 or less per year pay 3% of all revenue collected by the IRS. The top 10% of earners pay or people who earn $152,000 annually pay 71% of all revenue collected.

So if everyone who earns $152,000 or more per years pays 71% of all money collected by the IRS then who is it exactly is is not "paying their fair share"?

It must be the poor because they only pay 3% of all money collected. Someone must really put their foot down on the necks of the bottom 50% of the country who are poor. They just aren't paying their "fair share".

BTW the source for those numbers is the IRS.

And do not even get me started on how absolutely repulsive the idea of paying a "fair share" is. What is "fair" about any part of it? And since when is it ANYONE's responsibility to be forced to "share" any part of their earnings? The government didn't earn that money. All they do is steal is from us by force.

Your thinking is completely backwards based on who this nation was founded and existed prior to 1913. It is not our responsibility to force someone to give up what belongs to them just because some early 20th Marxist says so.

Of course I pay my taxes because I fear what this government would do to me if I did not.

"When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty". Our government no longer fears the people.

Which provides more value to the company, the CEO or the zombie flipping burgers? Are those figures base salary, or total compensation? You do understand that, right?

Actually both and that's what many people(especially liberals) don't get. Burger flippers make sure the food is properly cooked and prepared. The CEO makes sure the whole company doesn't fall into some kind of chaos and collapse. However there is one minute difference - the burger flipper is only responsible to the customer at hand, co-workers, and shift manager. . .a CEO is responsible for every single employee PLUS whatever external businesses are required to keep the whole thing going like the power companies that keep the lights on the business buildings.

I understand that American Capitalism allows people make billions by taking advantage of all resources unchecked. That includes the work force.

Do you want to take a guess at the percentage of Wal-Mart workers that are actually full-time and qualify for benefits? The number is very low.....and that is by design.

Then you can tell me what Alice Walton did with her $8 BIllion "trickle down" welfare check from Trump's 2017 Tax Scam. Hint...she kept it and used it for stock buybacks the same week she laid off 20,000 Sam's Club employees leaving over 3000 people without health insurance. But don't worry. Our tax dollars helped those people get state-subsidized coverage. Wal-Mart sure knows their strategy. Hoooray for Capitalism.

Kudos for continuing to support the billionaires and our rigged economy. My friend works 2 jobs and can't afford his rent, car payment, insurance, and prescriptions, but thank god the stock market is up. Let's keep working hard to stop the wealthy from paying any taxes. Good boy.

We have laws and stuff that are supposed to prevent the kind of exploitation whether it's paying employee way under the accepted legal amount or someone high up committing insider trading. . .the problem is that the government that once said they'd take care of corrupt business owners, whether big or small business, aren't doing their damn job! Of course if the government actually cracked down they'd end up exposing their own culpability in the business corruption!

"accepted legal amount." LMAO. And who sets that? Min wage hasn't changed in 25 years. But company profits have increased by 1000+ percent.

But I agree that government is culpable.

Actions have consequences, same as life choices have consequences.

You mean actions and life choices like giving Trillions to the wealthy? Lying about an election? Inciting a violent insurrection or taking part in it?
I appreciate your Hitler quote, but that has nothing to do with anything I mentioned. Typical racist Trumper response.

You could t be more wrong about everything you think

And you couldn't be more wrong about supporting the billionaires over the middle class. We don't all start out on an even playing field. The economy is so rigged, that you have to be ultra-wealthy yourself, brainwashed by the Murdoch Propaganda Machine, or a paid shill to not understand it.

Can you explain why in 2017 United Airlines took their $8 Billion "trickle down" check, gave their executives bonuses, spent the rest on stock buybacks, and then 3 years later threatened the Federal government that if they didn't get billions in bail-out money, there would be massive layoffs?
Please explain it. And please explain my inquiry about Alice Walton.
Thank you.

If businesses had no expenses other than payroll that might work. But all businesses have to buy resources from other businesses and many times they buy those resources on credit. Not to mention the standard overhead costs of paying utility bills.

So in your scenario if you put a hold on prices and raised wages business can no longer afford to buy resources and/or pay utilities. Some larger corporations that have higher profit margins could be able to afford that situation for a while before they start going out backwards. But most businesses don't have high profit margins, especially in the restaurant business where a lot of minimum wage employees work.

If you impose your idea on them they they will all close their doors and shut down the business.

You think businesses are an endless supply of money and everyone who runs a business is rich beyond their wildest dreams. Some CEO's are rich but there are a whole lot that you never hear of that live on a more normal wage. They may be well off but they would not be considered rich (except by Democrats when they want to raise taxes but then the Democrats think everyone who earns a paycheck is rice and they raise taxes on everyone while telling you it is only on the rich).

Basically if your plan is to cause everyone to lose their jobs and businesses to shut down then your idea will work great.