Bill O'Reilly: GOP Should 'Wise Up' and Raise Minimum Wage

[mystery-ak]

http://www.newsmax.com/PrintTemplate.aspx?nodeid=549853


Newsmax
Bill O'Reilly: GOP Should 'Wise Up' and Raise Minimum Wage
Wednesday, January 29, 2014 09:42 PM

By: Greg Richter

Fox News host Bill O'Reilly says the "pinheads" in the Republican Party should stop opposing the minimum wage.

"The Republican Party should really wise up and stop opposing raising the minimum wage. It should be 10 bucks an hour" to keep employers from exploiting workers, O'Reilly said Wednesday during his opening "Talking Points Memo" segment of his TV show.

O'Reilly said his proposed $10 an hour minimum wage would apply only to adults. Teenagers just beginning their careers should be paid on a lower scale, he said.



"The GOP needs to stop working against working people," O'Reilly said.

President Barack Obama announced in his State of the Union address Tuesday that he was raising the minimum wage for federal contractors to $10.10 an hour by executive order, and urged Congress to raise the federal wage level to the same amount from the current $7.25.

O'Reilly agreed, at least in concept.

"Come on, 10 bucks an hour? Babysitters get that," he said.

"This is a simple issue," he said, "Even the people at MSNBC can understand this. That's how simple it is."

Republican strategist Kate Obenshain did not agree, telling O'Reilly he's taking on the "imperialistic position."

O'Reilly countered he is taking the "working class position," having worked for minimum wage himself as a teenager.

Obenshain told him people will lose jobs and that the free market should decide wages, but O'Reilly wasn't buying it.

"It's just baloney. They're on the wrong side of it," he said of Republicans, who have fought Democratic attempts to raise the minimum wage.

"You're totally on the wrong side. You're the social engineer at this point," Obenshain said.

"If your guys keep doing this, the next election they'll win will be 80 years from now," O'Reilly said.

[Relic]

BOR should talk to some very small business owners and get their input.

BOR is a jackass, so this doesn't surprise me one bit. I'd wager BOR is touting the Obama line in advance of a very snuggly and warm pre Super Bowl interview.

[Politics4us]

They're asking for $15 an hr to work at McDonald's, so why would they be ok with $10 an hour?

[DCPatriot]

Ultimately, one way or another, the owner of the business...or the Board of Directors will try to recover the cost of the rising hourly labor rate through higher prices charged to their 'customer'...or running the business with less labor costs by shrinking the number of employees.

I can understand the thought process liberals adopt....their 'go to' reasoning is that the 'wealthy' business owner should be the FIRST one to get along in life with LESS net profits....so that "everybody has a fair share and fair shot".....but it's not that simple.

It's my contention that the vast majority of businesses are being run on "cruise control" until a Supreme Court ruling can be determined on the Constitutionality and enforcement of the Affordable Care Act.

They are sitting on literally TONS of cash $$$ rather than re-investing it in equipment and expansion.  We're now in our 5th year of dormant growth...despite the provided numbers released by the administration.


And one more thing....it's my position that when the Republicans win control of both the House and Senate, the monthly injection of $83 BILLION into Wall Street will suddenly dry up and we're going to see the GOP blamed for the drastic rise in interest rates, which will initiate another economic Armageddon.

[Bigun]

This sort of crap is EXACTLY why I cannot stand to watch O'Reily! He is completely full sheite on this and every honest economist on the planet knows it!

http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~dneumark/min_wage_review.pdf

[Politics4us]

It's my contention that the vast majority of businesses are being run on "cruise control" until a Supreme Court ruling can be determined on the Constitutionality and enforcement of the Affordable Care Act.

They are sitting on literally TONS of cash $$$ rather than re-investing it in equipment and expansion.  We're now in our 5th year of dormant growth...despite the provided numbers released by the administration.

What kind of businesses? Obamacare is hurting businesses, but consumers haven't spent as much the past five years.

[Relic]

And one more thing....it's my position that when the Republicans win control of both the House and Senate...

Not to worry. That's about as likely as me winning the lottery.

[Bigun]

Ultimately, one way or another, the owner of the business...or the Board of Directors will try to recover the cost of the rising hourly labor rate through higher prices charged to their 'customer'...or running the business with less labor costs by shrinking the number of employees.

I can understand the thought process liberals adopt....their 'go to' reasoning is that the 'wealthy' business owner should be the FIRST one to get along in life with LESS net profits....so that "everybody has a fair share and fair shot".....but it's not that simple.

It's my contention that the vast majority of businesses are being run on "cruise control" until a Supreme Court ruling can be determined on the Constitutionality and enforcement of the Affordable Care Act.

They are sitting on literally TONS of cash $$$ rather than re-investing it in equipment and expansion.  We're now in our 5th year of dormant growth...despite the provided numbers released by the administration.


And one more thing....it's my position that when the Republicans win control of both the House and Senate, the monthly injection of $83 BILLION into Wall Street will suddenly dry up and we're going to see the GOP blamed for the drastic rise in interest rates, which will initiate another economic Armageddon.

Right on! ANY cost to a business, from the light bill to a tax, can accrue to any one, or any combination of, only three possible places

1. The can be passed on to customers hidden in the price of the good or service being produced

2. The can reduce the wages and benefits of workers engaged in the production of the good or service produced

3. The can reduce the ROI of the stakeholders in the business

In all cases and regardless of the distribution between the above three possibilities costs ultimately accrue to some individual and not the business itself!

[Lipstick on a Hillary]

BOR should talk to some very small business owners and get their input.

BOR is a jackass, so this doesn't surprise me one bit. I'd wager BOR is touting the Obama line in advance of a very snuggly and warm pre Super Bowl interview.

 

[DCPatriot]

What kind of businesses? Obamacare is hurting businesses, but consumers haven't spent as much the past five years.

All types of businesses.  Single Proprietorship, Partnerships, Corporations.  If it's not the ACA, it's burdening regulations suddenly thought necessary to "protect".

1) Over 92 million people have left the workforce since 2008.  These are people that were either self-employed contractors who are NOT eligible for monthly unemployment bennies, or those whose checks have run out.  They are used in any calculations in determining the unemployment rate.

2) Those that have been fortunate to accept/find work have seen their hours cut down to less than 30 hr per week in order for the employer to 'escape' liability to provide health insurance.

[happyg]

Forcing higher wages on employers while they are already laying off is ridiculous. These people need jobs right now, not politicians telling them how much they are worth.

[Bigun]

Forcing higher wages on employers while they are already laying off is ridiculous. These people need jobs right now, not politicians telling them how much they are worth.

This has been studied to death and there is a strong consensus among economists that the minimum wage is racist in nature (and I do not throw that word around lightly), it destroys jobs, and it is destructive to the lives of millions of people. The case can easily be made but not in sound bites, and we don't have the attention span for that anymore. Doesn't mean it's not true.

[DCPatriot]

This has been studied to death and there is a strong consensus among economists that the minimum wage is racist in nature (and I do not throw that word around lightly), it destroys jobs, and it is destructive to the lives of millions of people. The case can easily be made but not in sound bites, and we don't have the attention span for that anymore. Doesn't mean it's not true.

Rush just announced today that the unemployment rate among black youth in Chicago is over 90%!

Dems have run Chicago since Jesus was a lad.

[happyg]

O'Reilly is totally wrong. Aside from the obvious, why would a lazy person, who quit school, can't speak proper English, and has no experience whatsoever, deserve $10.50 per hour? These are the kinds of people who work for a few weeks, get bored, and move on. It is very expensive to train new people, and that's all the small businesses would get done doing.

[Oceander]

Depending on the level the minimum wage is set at, it has some benefits as well as the oft-described detriments.  One clear benefit is that it puts a little more equality into the employee's and the employer's bargaining positions because many of those who only qualify for the jobs where minimum wage makes a difference are at a more than normal disadvantage when it comes to negotiating with an employer for a job.  Second, it removes one of the big transactional costs (using the economics term of art) involved in the low-skill employment arena because it makes the issue of compensation largely irrelevant; instead, any potential negotiation takes on other, smaller issues that don't absorb nearly as much time and attention as negotiating over compensation would take.

[DCPatriot]

Depending on the level the minimum wage is set at, it has some benefits as well as the oft-described detriments.  One clear benefit is that it puts a little more equality into the employee's and the employer's bargaining positions because many of those who only qualify for the jobs where minimum wage makes a difference are at a more than normal disadvantage when it comes to negotiating with an employer for a job.  Second, it removes one of the big transactional costs (using the economics term of art) involved in the low-skill employment arena because it makes the issue of compensation largely irrelevant; instead, any potential negotiation takes on other, smaller issues that don't absorb nearly as much time and attention as negotiating over compensation would take.

What 'negotiations' or bargaining positions?

There aren't any negotiations with minimum wage earners... some couldn't even spell the word.

At least not in the typical small business environment.

[Rapunzel]

This sort of crap is EXACTLY why I cannot stand to watch O'Reily! He is completely full sheite on this and every honest economist on the planet knows it!

http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~dneumark/min_wage_review.pdf

Don't watch him these days and don't miss him, either.  The man is 1000% clueless when it comes to economics... remember all his oil company profit tirades? 

[Rapunzel]

Depending on the level the minimum wage is set at, it has some benefits as well as the oft-described detriments.  One clear benefit is that it puts a little more equality into the employee's and the employer's bargaining positions because many of those who only qualify for the jobs where minimum wage makes a difference are at a more than normal disadvantage when it comes to negotiating with an employer for a job.  Second, it removes one of the big transactional costs (using the economics term of art) involved in the low-skill employment arena because it makes the issue of compensation largely irrelevant; instead, any potential negotiation takes on other, smaller issues that don't absorb nearly as much time and attention as negotiating over compensation would take.

The level of compensation is far from irrelevant.  Raising the pay grade also means higher hidden taxes (employer FICA, etc.) and benefits.  Perhaps large corporations can absorb this, but most small business owners cannot and stay in business - of course small business owners can raise their prices, but at a certain point the people they are selling to will go to companies who offshore for cheaper labor and the small business will fold.  Most restaurants run on an already small profit margin - raise wages and then raise prices = fewer people can afford to eat out at your restaurant and you fold.   Higher min wage means higher wages across the board and will lead to either more offshoring of jobs or automation and even higher real unemployment as a result.

[happyg]

The level of compensation is far from irrelevant.  Raising the pay grade also means higher hidden taxes (employer FICA, etc.) and benefits.  Perhaps large corporations can absorb this, but most small business owners cannot and stay in business - of course small business owners can raise their prices, but at a certain point the people they are selling to will go to companies who offshore for cheaper labor and the small business will fold.  Most restaurants run on an already small profit margin - raise wages and then raise prices = fewer people can afford to eat out at your restaurant and you fold.   Higher min wage means higher wages across the board and will lead to either more offshoring of jobs or automation and even higher real unemployment as a result.

Those receiving the raises will notice their food stamps and other benefits being lowered. They might not be eligible for Medicaid, as well.

[Oceander]

What 'negotiations' or bargaining positions?

There aren't any negotiations with minimum wage earners... some couldn't even spell the word.

At least not in the typical small business environment.

Which is the whole point of having a basic minimum wage that sets a floor below which there is no going.  Absent that floor, you either have a lot of people who are bamboozled into indentured servitude, or you have even more aggressive unionization.  I prefer the minimum wage - provided the level is really a minimum and not some stupid liberals' idea of a "living wage" - whatever that means - to either of those scenarios.

[olde north church]

Populism baby, it's what's for dinner!