Finally, I can afford that new Kia.

Oh, fuck. Businesses across the country are now doomed to fail. Especially "mom and pop" businesses. This is a total, unmitigated, disaster.

"Wow, more Ramen noodles for me!!!"

montecare, they said what you said on the last increase, what happened back then. Maybe the same thing will happen now. really tough huh.

Lets just get into this cycle, lets see, Owner has to pay $5.85 now, that means they raise prices on items to offset the loss on the salaries, and everything eventually balances out.

Its basic economics. minimum wage is a bad thing...

Take out a loan, get an education and get a job that pays better than minimum wage. Payback the loan earn credit buy nice things get out of minimum wage lifecycle. HMMM but that would require people to work hard and earn what they get.. Not the liberal way...

right wingers have a strong need to show their ignorance, just read their posts. their party symbol should be the Ostrich, stinking head into sand especially on science issues. their views on minimun wage follow the same pattern.

Why are those who earn the minimum wage also the ones who post here most opposed to it????

"Take out a loan, get an education and get a job that pays better than minimum wage."

Wow, that's so simple. I wonder why all the poor people in the country haven't done this already?

Maybe because its just not as simple as it sounds. Because unfortunately its not that easy to just "take out a loan". Especially when the Administration has opposed increases in Federally subsidized student loans and Pell grants.

That sorta sounds a lot like the rationale for telling people who live in a drought/famine stricken part of the world to just pack up and move where there's more food and water.

Take out a loan, get an education and get a job that pays better than minimum wage. Payback the loan earn credit buy nice things get out of minimum wage lifecycle. HMMM but that would require people to work hard and earn what they get.. Not the liberal way...

Posted by armyof1 at 2007-07-24 03:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

Smarmy,

How is that a liberal thing?

You and your party need to get to gether and focus your hatred. It's spread all over the place.

First, it's "liberal Hollywood" right up until it's pointed out that the republicans are the ones who voted three Hoolywood actors into office. Then it was "liberal academia" which seems to go against your hate filled rant about people who make min wage.

Which is it?

The important thing to remember about minimum wage is that nobody with a family is actually living off it. Anyone with a dependent earning ~$5/hour is going to be eligible for numerous government services.

The question should really be why does the government have to subsidize the low wages of employers? I'd rather the local K-Mart or grocery store pay an extra couple bucks an hour, instead of expecting the taxpayer to make up the difference.

Maybe instead of raising the minimum wage, the IRS should send a bill to corporations that pay poverty-level wages to help offset the cost of providing social services to its employees?

"Its basic economics. minimum wage is a bad thing..."

Yeah, but only if you care about basic economics. The proponents of a minimum wage either don't understand economics, or they are willing to accept economic losses for the good of the herd.

"Take out a loan, get an education and get a job that pays better than minimum wage. Payback the loan earn credit buy nice things get out of minimum wage lifecycle. HMMM but that would require people to work hard and earn what they get.. Not the liberal way..."

It's not really the conservative way either. Most mainstream politicians are unwilling to hold their constituents responsible for their own well being. That, of course, would reduce their own power. Conservatives tend to be only slightly less intrusive in economics than liberals. (and by conservatives I mean mainstream republicans and by liberals I mean mainstream democrats) I think that even GWB supported an increase in the mimimum wage.

I think this will be an excellent opportunity to demonstrate to the less economically astute the affects of tampering with the market. In many ways the increase will be relatively transparent to consumers; businesses can cut costs in areas where consumers won't notice or won't care. In those cases where this can't be done, unemployment will increase. Unemployment increased by something like 18% in some labor heavy sectors following the wage increase of the early 1990's. There is little reason to think it won't happen again.

"Take out a loan"

YEAH!

How do you take out a loan when you don't even make enough to pay the interests on said loan?

20,000 at 5.5 with a 5.85 hourly income? You obviously didn't do the math before opening the cake hole!

Yes, its basic economics ------ basic for people who know elementary math! Fool!

But this is the part I like best!

"Payback the loan earn credit buy nice things get out of minimum wage lifecycle"
Like buying "nice things" on "credit" is sound fiscal advice!

"20,000 at 5.5 with a 5.85 hourly income?"

That's right. And if you think they loan money on what you MIGHT make when you finish school, you are sadly mistaken.

Army,

Take out a loan, get an education and get a job that pays better than minimum wage. Payback the loan earn credit buy nice things get out of minimum wage lifecycle. HMMM but that would require people to work hard and earn what they get..

This works great for a young, single American. There are plenty of other people in this country though. People who, for whatever reason (single parent, victem of natural disaster, child with medical condition insurance refuses to cover) work their asses off and have nothing to show for it. If Republicans want Democrats to stop raising minimum wage, they must pull their heads out of the sand and acknowledge that such people exist. They must bring ideas to the table that will help these Americans.

Remember when the Republicans were in control of everything, and all the Democrats could do is say "your ideas suck?" And when the Republicans said "well why don't you bring some ideas of your own to the table?" Same thing.

If everyone who worked hard pulled ahead of everyone who didn't, I would have agreed with your post 100%. Sadly, that is only part of the bigger picture.

Maybe instead of raising the minimum wage, the IRS should send a bill to corporations that pay poverty-level wages to help offset the cost of providing social services to its employees?

If I own a resturant and I hire a dishwasher who is in a band, then you want me to pay an additional "bill" on top of my FICA, unemployment, and Work comp that I already pay to employ this person??

Sorry, I don't feel like I owe that to anybody.

"Wow, that's so simple. I wonder why all the poor people in the country haven't done this already?"

For some people the cost and effort involved in acquiring skills training is not worth the payoff. I could have gone to medical school, and been guarunteed a high income. For me, that would be too much ass pain. I prefer the job I have, even though it pays far less.

"Maybe because its just not as simple as it sounds."

Actually, it is. It would be almost effortless for you to drive down to UTSA and apply for financial aid, and unless you have rich parents, you're gonna get approved. if you're poor, they might just give it to you straight out. The thing is, you have to wanna do it. That's the hard part.

"The question should really be why does the government have to subsidize the low wages of employers? I'd rather the local K-Mart or grocery store pay an extra couple bucks an hour, instead of expecting the taxpayer to make up the difference."

When society demands a minimum wage, it should be society that provides it. There is no value added to K-Mart by forcing them to pay a min wage. Instead, that increased value is realized by society as a whole, through the warm fuzzy they get from higher incomes. Of course I don't get a warm fuzzy from that. I could care less. All I get is higher prices or reduced variety.

"Maybe instead of raising the minimum wage, the IRS should send a bill to corporations that pay poverty-level wages to help offset the cost of providing social services to its employees?"

Or maybe the government should let the terms of the sale of labor be a private matter, between employer and employee.

Unemployment increased by something like 18% in some labor heavy sectors following the wage increase of the early 1990's

YEAH!

You know what this means!

Time for those people in labor heavy sectors to take out a loan, get an education and get a job that pays better. Payback the loan earn credit buy nice things get out of minimum wage lifecycle.
Posted by armyof1 at 2007-07-24 03:49 PM

It's like the Fake Plastic Duct Tape you know!

Great point Commonsense,

The tagline from the Right is, "Get an education, get a better job". But do they really believe it?

They hate public schools and want to shut them down, knowing full well it will deny education to the poorest who need it most, and who can't afford to take out a loan to send their kids to college AND a private grammar school.

They hate colleges and universities, those hotbeds of liberalism, for committing the sin of teaching independent thought.

They support the outsourcing of high skill, high technology jobs that require an education.
If we weren't outsourcing every job that isn't bolted down, I might believe the spin about studying your way into a better job. But it's no longer the case. All the degrees in the world can't land you a job that's in China or India.

They support the constant influx of illiterate, uneducated illegals, proving that an educated work force is that last thing they want.

And one only need look at our CEOs to realize that education is not how one advances in the business world anymore.

I could run my company a hundred times better than our idiot CEO. But I'm not an alcoholic fratboy brown-noser, and I don't golf, so I'm not qualified for management.

""Maybe instead of raising the minimum wage, the IRS should send a bill to corporations that pay poverty-level wages to help offset the cost of providing social services to its employees?""

That's a pretty good idea. It makes more sense than subsidizing the worker from tax dollars.

""If I own a resturant and I hire a dishwasher who is in a band, then you want me to pay an additional "bill" on top of my FICA, unemployment, and Work comp that I already pay to employ this person?? ""

What difference does it make if the dishwasher is in a band??? I don't understand your point. Thing is you are receiving labor which is worth more than you are paying because without the government subsidy in medical benefits, etc. that min. wage employees get they would not be able to work for you and would probably just be homeless.

"Its basic economics. minimum wage is a bad thing..."

But it has worked for about 75 years. It works all over the world.
I think this your post is just a repitition of a talking point repeated so many times that that no one questions it.

"20,000 at 5.5 with a 5.85 hourly income? You obviously didn't do the math before opening the cake hole!"

And you might want to follow your own advice...

The average income for a college graduate is about twice that of a high school graduate. $45k vs. $28k iirc. The info is readily available on the web.

If you are going to make min wage in your post-college career, you might want to consider the value of NOT getting a degree. Of course most college grads, and even most high school grads, make far more than min wage. According to the BLS, there are only something like 550,000 adults in the US that rely on the min wage as a single income.

"If Republicans want Democrats to stop raising minimum wage, they must pull their heads out of the sand and acknowledge that such people exist. They must bring ideas to the table that will help these Americans."

At the end of the day, it must be those people that take responsiblity for improving their position. In all honesty, what more could the government do. The less fortunate are already very heavily catered to once they decide they want to go to college, probably to a fault. After all, once they have a degree, they would be just as capable of paying off a student loan as anyone. If you have any suggestions on how to make them want to go to college, I'd like to hear them...

"The tagline from the Right is, "Get an education, get a better job". But do they really believe it?"

Have you ever heard Rush say "scientist?"

"Or maybe the government should let the terms of the sale of labor be a private matter, between employer and employee."

As a general rule, it is. However, one role of the government is to protect the weak from being taken advantage of by the strong. Employment laws are intended to provide some basic standards of decency to avoid the exploitation of people.

I find it ironic that the very people who would argue that this should be a private transaction would also fight against the right of the employees to band together in unions to help level the playing field somewhat.

The minimum wage increase isn't really much of an increase and it doesn't actually keep pace with inflation. If I remember right, when I was working summer jobs in 1980 to get through college, the min wage was $3.35. To keep up with the CPI it would have to be $8.47 this year.

Thing is you are receiving labor which is worth more than you are paying...

Says who??? How do you know what anybody's labor is worth???

I pointed out the dishwasher being in a band to establish that this guy is where he is because of his choices....he isn't disabled or retarded or anything like that. He is just like a million other bums who choose their life. I'm not classifying everyone in the minimum wage pool like that. I was addressing the assertion of asking businesses who pay minimum wage to pay additional costs because it isn't enough.

How in the hell does anybody know that?

"I pointed out the dishwasher being in a band to establish that this guy is where he is because of his choices....he isn't disabled or retarded or anything like that. He is just like a million other bums who choose their life."

So being in a band means that someone is a bum....

That makes sense.

"Basic economics" doesn't exist as described in this thread. In the absence of regulation, coalitions will form in an attempt to fix the market in 100% of cases. To pretend that the free market would not be "tampered" with in the absence of government regulation betrays an incredibily naive outlook. I find it funny that folks would talk down to others about "basic economics" while showing complete ignorance of history and human nature.

"Time for those people in labor heavy sectors to take out a loan, get an education and get a job that pays better. Payback the loan earn credit buy nice things get out of minimum wage lifecycle."

Had they had a skill in the first place, they wouldn't have been laid off.

"I could run my company a hundred times better than our idiot CEO. But I'm not an alcoholic fratboy brown-noser, and I don't golf, so I'm not qualified for management."

Spoken like someone that lacks the first clue on how to run a business. Exactly where did you get your undregraduate degree from? What about your MBA? I suspect you have neither. I suspect that your "alcoholic, frat boy brown-noser" boss has at least one. Maybe both. Furthermore, if you don't like your job, then quit. Go do something else. Start your own business, one free of brown nosing alcoholics.

"Thing is you are receiving labor which is worth more than you are paying because without the government subsidy in medical benefits, etc. that min. wage employees get they would not be able to work for you and would probably just be homeless."

I never recieved any subsidies as a minimum wage earner. Still kickin!

Okay, I'm sorry, I forgot I was talking to a bunch of pansies who can't have dialogue if someone gets offended.

Gee, again, sorry. I'll make sure I dont' get offended next time someone here calls my priest a pedophile or me a Christofacist or something like that.

pussys.

Norm,

I don't even know where to start.....


They hate public schools and want to shut them down, knowing full well it will deny education to the poorest who need it most, and who can't afford to take out a loan to send their kids to college AND a private grammar school.


Actually, what Conservatives such as myself support is complete privatization of education with a full voucher system. That way, shitty schools go under and better schools take their place as they compete for voucher dollars. This is a gross simplification, but disdain for public schools has nothing to do with disdain for education.


They hate colleges and universities, those hotbeds of liberalism, for committing the sin of teaching independent thought.


Wrong. The hatred of colleges and universities occurs when (I am not saying this happens accross the board) they discourage independent thought and instead attempt to indoctrinate students into their political worldview.


They support the outsourcing of high skill, high technology jobs that require an education.
If we weren't outsourcing every job that isn't bolted down, I might believe the spin about studying your way into a better job. But it's no longer the case. All the degrees in the world can't land you a job that's in China or India.


IMO, globalization is a good thing, in the long-run. Competition for labor is no different than competing for sales. If we allow ourselves to become non-competitive via draconian legislation we are signing our own economic death knell in the long-run.


They support the constant influx of illiterate, uneducated illegals, proving that an educated work force is that last thing they want.

The Left/Democrats are just as guilty as the Right/Republicans in this regard. It's just that the Left has different reasons than the right for favoring an influx of illegals.



I could run my company a hundred times better than our idiot CEO. But I'm not an alcoholic fratboy brown-noser, and I don't golf, so I'm not qualified for management.


Anecdotal evidence doesn't prove shit. Believe it or not, running a company is not an easy task.

If the poor need a loan for education, they should just borrow against their trust fund. That's the Republican way.

By the way, I'm not against a minimum wage in case you were wondering.

However, it won't make a difference to anybody getting a wage increase with this.

Hey, the min wage in England is only 5.15
(oh, wait... that's not dollars)

Eberly,

pussys.

I'm offended. It's pussies.

Eberly --

I wasn't offended...

I just thought it was strange and ridiculous to assert that someone who's a musician is naturally a bum.

I could run my company a hundred times better than our idiot CEO. But I'm not an alcoholic fratboy brown-noser, and I don't golf, so I'm not qualified for management.

speaks volumes doesn't it?

"As a general rule, it is. However, one role of the government is to protect the weak from being taken advantage of by the strong. Employment laws are intended to provide some basic standards of decency to avoid the exploitation of people."

So then the government should step in and prevent the unions from being able to force employers to pay $30 an hour for unskilled labor in a market where the actual value is far less?

"I find it ironic that the very people who would argue that this should be a private transaction would also fight against the right of the employees to band together in unions to help level the playing field somewhat."

I find it ironic that the very people that argue for a minimum wage would also support the ability of the union to expolit employers by forcing them to pay far more than market value for labor. Once again, in the absence of government intervention, unions would be able to try and get whatever wages they could, and employers would be free to offer wages they were willing to pay.

"Says who??? How do you know what anybody's labor is worth???"

Opportunity cost. The minimum value of labor is the amount it would earn by taking advantage of it's next best opportunity. For example, if someone is willing to pay me $5 an hour, that's the value of my labor. It remains $5 an hour until someone is WILLING to pay me more, or is no longer WILLING to pay me $5 an hour.

In a competitive market, labor behaves as a commodity at any given time. That means it's value is based on relative supply and demand. Unskilled labor earns low a low wage because pretty much everyone is qualified to be an unskilled laborer. There is a huge surplus.

If I own a resturant and I hire a dishwasher who is in a band, then you want me to pay an additional "bill" on top of my FICA, unemployment, and Work comp that I already pay to employ this person??

Business created the downward spiral we're in, and they're the ones who have to reverse it.
If companies didn't layoff massive number of workers at each little dip in quarterly earnings, then maybe companies wouldn't have to pay unemployment taxes?

If companies provided decent wages and bennefits and pensions, all in the private sector, then we wouldn't need medicare, medicade and social security, would we??

But companies DIDN'T provide those things, so government stepped in to fill the void.

Don't you get it Eberly? You pay all those taxes on the wages of the dishwasher because you aren't paying him enough. If you paid him more, you wouldn't have to pay the taxes to the government.

People need health care. So for every worker that is paid minimum wage without bennefits, you've got to pay medicare.
Old retired people need money to live. So for every company that cancels a pension, they're going to pay more into social security.

For all the talk about privatizing social security, why do companies keep raiding the pension funds and then begging Big Government to bail them out??

Or maybe the government should let the terms of the sale of labor be a private matter, between employer and employee.
Posted by madbomber at 2007-07-24 04:19 PM


YEAH!

Save my buying power ---- put your kid to work today (vs. school)!

Then say:

"Take out a loan, get an education and get a job that pays better than minimum wage. Payback the loan earn credit buy nice things get out of minimum wage lifecycle."

It's the systemic Fake Plastic line!


And yes mad, everything is a choice and there is no such thing as circumstance and everyone who didn't go to college didn't want to!


I must add however that I think it's perfectly acceptable that you take your kids out of school and send them to work at the closest coal mine you can find!

I just thought it was strange and ridiculous to assert that someone who's a musician is naturally a bum.

Fair enough. However, I'm talking about the ones who are dishwashers. Still predjudice but I think you get my point.

In any case, who here can say what that guy's labor is worth. Once again, I think we fail to recognize (whether we like it or not) that labor is a commodity.

Here's the problem:

1. These jobs need to be filled
2. The employers' business model, for the most part, depend on low wages
3. The employees making these minimum wages aren't making enough to live properly.


You're screwed no matter which way you look at it. Either you jack up minimum wages, lose jobs/business/etc. or you have tons of people continuing to live below the poverty line.

"To pretend that the free market would not be "tampered" with in the absence of government regulation betrays an incredibily naive outlook."

That's exactly right, Sully.

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.
--Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

If companies provided decent wages and bennefits and pensions, all in the private sector, then we wouldn't need medicare, medicade and social security, would we??

No! wrong!! Don't YOU get it Norm?? You have allowed yourself to be conviced that you and everybody else in this country are OWED those things as a matter of entitlement. We didn't have any of those things not all that long ago. Now you and everybody else is shackled to the notion that you are owed that. You can blame the govt for that........not businesses.

With that said, I'm not saying those above things are bad but rather understand that because we have all of that (and the govt would never stop providing all of those services)...we have to pay for it.

Businesses could start paying $30/hr for dishwashers and the govt wouldn't pull any of those services off the table for a minute.

You're screwed no matter which way you look at it. Either you jack up minimum wages, lose jobs/business/etc. or you have tons of people continuing to live below the poverty line.

Excellent point. Add to that the fact that I can't make people stop being poor. If the dishwasher who is 21 and smokes pot and IS IN A BAND and doesn't give a shit about anything else........I can't make him stop his behavior......but I won't concede that his labor is worth more than what it is.

Big Mac, fries n a coke = 5.85

Good job Dems.

"I can't make him stop his behavior......but I won't concede that his labor is worth more than what it is."

No, but you also can't run your business without people like that. Of course better quality workers are usually more expensive...

No! wrong!! Don't YOU get it Norm?? You have allowed yourself to be conviced that you and everybody else in this country are OWED those things as a matter of entitlement. We didn't have any of those things not all that long ago.

You're right Eberly. We didn't have those things all that long ago. We had the squalor and abject poverty of Dickensonian England.
Shall we return to debtor's prisons?

But I believe America changed that with some silly notions about Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Eberly, what happens if your minimum wage dishwasher slips on some grease and breaks his leg?
Should he just curl up in a corner and die, so you can hire another street musician?

Or is he ENTITLED medical care? If so, who pays? Does the restaurant pay through a medical benefit? Or does the government pay, funded by medicare taxes?

You can blab all you want about people not being OWED anything.
But unless you're prepared to watch a man with a broken leg starve to death, unless you're that twisted, then you must admit that he is OWED medical care to get back on his feet.

So if you don't believe that the value of his labor is worth a medical benefit, if you won't pay it, then you agree by default then to pay the government tax for government run healthcare.


We can then move on to the matter of his wages, the prevailing rent of the area, and section 8 housing if you like...

Do away with the ever ascending poverty line . liz edwards wants you to pay 10.00 for a tangerine . Milk is now over 5.00 a gallon . Lib who are the fools ? You are hypocrits . How long before you worthless commie assclowns will want the rest of us to pick up the tab for the poor's carbon footprints ?

Get a clue you morons .

There is a simple solution for business owners who will suffer due to the increase in minimum wages: they should take out a loan, get a better education and start a business who's profits/existence is not dependent on underpaying their employees.

"liz edwards wants you to pay 10.00 for a tangerine."

Really? Cite please....

"Milk is now over 5.00 a gallon . "

And yet the administration is claiming that inflation is running somewhere in the 3 - 4% range... I kind of doubt it, really.

Eberly, what happens if your minimum wage dishwasher slips on some grease and breaks his leg?
Should he just curl up in a corner and die, so you can hire another street musician?

No. Work comp is a good thing.


Or is he ENTITLED medical care? If so, who pays? Does the restaurant pay through a medical benefit? Or does the government pay, funded by medicare taxes?

He isn't entitled to it. I see the argument here all the time about how much better and more efficient the govt is at providing healthcare than the private sector so it much be cheaper for the govt to do it than the private sector through insurance so my answer would be medicare.

You can blab all you want about people not being OWED anything.
But unless you're prepared to watch a man with a broken leg starve to death, unless you're that twisted, then you must admit that he is OWED medical care to get back on his feet.

Blabbing?? He isn't owed it...neither are you. show me otherwise. Where are broken leg victims starving to death? Are they not allowed into hospitals for treatment?

They hate public schools and want to shut them down, knowing full well it will deny education to the poorest who need it most.
- Norm

---------

On this subject you are an idiot Norm.

Norm,

don't misunderstand me. I'm open to a healthcare system by which everyone is provided healthcare. the time and energy spent on this as a political issue would be avoided and by setting that issue aside we would probably save money.

The fact of the matter is that the US' current ass-backward way of viewing economic realities inhibits our ability to prosper in the emerging global economies. Our political and business leaders have no problem whatsoever utilizing the socialized construct of foreign nations to supplant US workers from their jobs due to the fact that many nations absorb the escalating costs of healthcare instead of forcing them upon the businessmen instead.

These arguments are counterproductive to the fact that the rest of the world is setting the conditions which America must learn to compete in regards to providing both living wages and affordable conditions for those not in the top 1/2% of earners.

The old foundation has crumbled into dust and all people want to argue about is whether the inherent costs to every society should be borne by those with the greatest ability of using the people's labor for their own wealth creation or whether these things must be added to the burden of those merely trying to survive. Great choice all around, isn't it?

Do we owe it to other people not to beat them to a pulp and take their shit?

Maybe we should just go to having no laws so we can live in a totally natural, free market state.

And we'll see how long the "tough love" crowd is able to hang onto their stuff.

Our political and business leaders have no problem whatsoever utilizing the socialized construct of foreign nations to supplant US workers from their jobs due to the fact that many nations absorb the escalating costs of healthcare instead of forcing them upon the businessmen instead.

Tony, surely you aren't making the argument that if we imposed a national health care plan that the "supplanting" of US jobs would stop are you????

You'll have to convice me of that because I think that would solve that problem at all.

There is a simple solution for business owners who will suffer due to the increase in minimum wages:

You're not getting it.

Its not the businesses who suffer.

Its the people who's labor-worth is at the bottom of the barrel who will.

Which are the very group of people who are supposed to be "helped" by economically illiterate pieces of legislation like this.

But who cares?

Just so long as every one has a warm n' fuzzy about raising the minimum wage.

You'll have to convice me of that because I think that would solve that problem at all.

Sorry, terrible wording. I don't think a national health care plan would do anything to stop the exporting of jobs in this country. In fact, I think it might possible get worse.

gotta go...

Do we owe it to other people not to beat them to a pulp and take their shit?

Maybe we should just go to having no laws so we can live in a totally natural, free market state.

And we'll see how long the "tough love" crowd is able to hang onto their stuff.

And perhaps those with the most "stuff" should be levied a "protection tax" on all property exceeding the national median since the more they have, the more protection they need. Shouldn't the costs of incarcerating all our criminals be borne by those receiving the greatest benefit from their isolation which costs greater than $25,000 per prisoner per year? They certainly won't be looking for me if they're trying to fund their criminal enterprises. Can't get blood from a turnip....

Tony - Of course the haves benefit from police protection more than the have nots. Same thing with fire departments, the federal highway system, the FAA, the SEC, every trade organization and treaty the US is a part of, etc. etc. etc. etc.

But we are supposed to believe that the poor, who also pay taxes for all this shit, are the biggest beneficiaries of the federal government and the way it interferes with natural human behavior?

Tony, surely you aren't making the argument that if we imposed a national health care plan that the "supplanting" of US jobs would stop are you????

You'll have to convice me of that because I think that would solve that problem at all.

I'm assuming you meant "wouldn't", not would. I'm for a single payer, national insurance plan which hopefully would eliminate much of the inefficiencies we see today in our delivery system. The entire issue needs to be tackled by everyone from all sides of this battle so that a consensus can be worked out for the best possible outcome.

We already know how to cut healthcare costs dramatically but all anyone does is talk about it. With a national plan, the emphasis can be put upon preventative healthcare and taken off catastrophic healthcare like it should be. The Emergency Rooms should not have taken the place of primary care physicians. We're paying far too much that need not be paid at all if we shift priorities to where they should be.

What if it were as simple as having a roving physician visit every single public school on a rotating basis? Why don't we start thinking outside the box for solutions instead of finding reasons not to blow up our current monstrosity?

On this subject you are an idiot Norm.

No, I'm not. The plan is to shut down public schools and hand out vouchers. The vouchers are to enable competition. Students will move to the "better" schools, causing the shitty schools to close, as JeffJ said.

This will lead to a capacity shortage in the school system. There will either be horendous overcrowding, or supply and demand will kick in and the tuition of the "better" schools will go up. The vouchers will no longer cover the cost of schooling.

The rich will pay the difference, while the poor are forced to withdraw their children.
Budget "Wal-mart" type private schools will then apear to cover the excess demand, but the quality of education will be the same as the quality of Wal-mart merchandise.

Nothing will change, the poor will still go to shitty schools.

But we are supposed to believe that the poor, who also pay taxes for all this shit, are the biggest beneficiaries of the federal government and the way it interferes with natural human behavior?

Of course not! Who the hell set up our government in the first place, poor working people? Our government has always been a vehicle for the enrichment of the ownership class and it always will be. I just wish that they would stop denying the obvious and realize that we're all in this together so they'll stop trying to justify screwing the little guy in the process of their endless quest toward obscene wealth creation.

Its not the businesses who suffer.

Its the people who's labor-worth is at the bottom of the barrel who will.


Pinche, are you seriously going to try to argue that a minimum wage increase hurts those that receive the minimum wage? I'd love to see wht salient points you will make to back that turd up.

Minmum wage should be a living wage.

If it aint you got serious problems.

First minimum wage hike in a while and by the time it gets here it's already not enuff.

Spud luffs listening to Mao spin his shit about this is gonna impact negatively on the low earners. Presumably by having the COLA go up in direct response to the measure. Spud's heard that shit before.

Wrong answer but thanx fer playin'.

Be Well.

"YEAH!

How do you take out a loan when you don't even make enough to pay the interests on said loan?"

Student loans don't need to be paid until after you have completed your education. There's also a grace period. Presumably, you'd be making more than minimum wage after getting the education, and you'll be able to pay the interest. What a stupid fucking comment that was.

I had to make interest payments on my student loans before graduating. 9.5% in 1983.

Did you borrow from a private company, or the government? Either way, that is not the standard practice in today's market.
I have been taking out student loans for 6 years and haven't paid or been charged a dime. Were you a full-time student?

And yet the administration is claiming that inflation is running somewhere in the 3 - 4% range... I kind of doubt it, really.

Those numbers haven't been real fer a while now.

There methodology is based on the notion that it's better fer those numbers to reflect well on government rather than reflect reality.

Be Well.

"The fact of the matter is that the US' current ass-backward way of viewing economic realities inhibits our ability to prosper in the emerging global economies."

Minimum wage is part of that ass-backwardness.

At the end of the day, there are two types of people that support the minimum wage: there are those that do so because they don't think it will have a negative impact on the economy, meaning a decrease in actual wealth or wealth creation (i.e. an economic loss), and those that feel a decrease in wealth is acceptable if it is beneficial to society. Of course what is beneficial to society is largely subjective, while economic losses are not.

The reason that jobs are being offshored is that the cost of domestic labor is greater than the value it provides to the firm. In the long run this creates an unsustainable paradigm. Rational consumers will attempt to derive the most value from their assets. Of two undifferentiated products of equal quality, a rational consumer will choose the one that costs less. Consumers of labor are no different, and in many cases, overseas labor is actually superior to domestic labor.

To say that the government should force firms to keep jobs in the US would be to say that government should force consumers to pay higher prices for everyday goods. Someone has to cover these wages, an in many cases consumers are unwilling and capital is unable. Most companies with high profit margins already pay premium wages. It may be your opinion that MicroSoft or Cisco needs to pay their employees $200k a year instead of just $100...they could probably afford it.

Maybe instead of raising the minimum wage, the IRS should send a bill to corporations that pay poverty-level wages to help offset the cost of providing social services to its employees?

Posted by katieberry
* * * *

The IRS already does. It's called the income tax. Maybe you've heard of it.

"Those numbers haven't been real fer a while now.

There methodology is based on the notion that it's better fer those numbers to reflect well on government rather than reflect reality"

Spud...

Agreed. They are also trying to avoid COLI's as well. I was doing some looking into the issue lately and with energy costs up some 30% from last year and food running a good 10 - 20% ... I'm wondering if the true inflation rate isn't in the double digits.

The reason that jobs are being offshored is that the cost of domestic labor is greater than the value it provides to the firm. In the long run this creates an unsustainable paradigm. Rational consumers will attempt to derive the most value from their assets. Of two undifferentiated products of equal quality, a rational consumer will choose the one that costs less. Consumers of labor are no different, and in many cases, overseas labor is actually superior to domestic labor.

Try and sell that drivel to an unemployed American whose job was outsourced to a country which pays its workers nickels on the dollar compared to America. Ask any American consumer if they are willing to pay more for "Made in America" goods and services than they will for Chinese slave labor produced crap.

You've created a strawman argument to prove your already conceded point. The price of labor has decreased because the standard of living in the major producing countries paled in comparison to our own, so business does what it needs to do to increase its stock prices and cut its production costs by moving overseas for cheaper labor. At the same time, our government provides many of these businesses with tax breaks on their profits, while this very corporate orthodoxy lies at the core of our decreasing middle class while the shortfall is made up by inflation's bracket creep and the AMT hitting the same middle class disproportionately.

And why have the income levels of the top sliver of our population been 6 times greater than that for the working classes? Its that damn increase in minimum wage, isn't it?

"But we are supposed to believe that the poor, who also pay taxes for all this shit, are the biggest beneficiaries of the federal government and the way it interferes with natural human behavior?"

The bottom 50% of income earners pay 3.3% of the total tax burden.

Minmum wage should be a living wage.

Why? Why do you assume that? Highschoolers working at a gas station should be making enough to live on their own, raise a family, provide healthcare etc....?

The IRS already does. It's called the income tax. Maybe you've heard of it.

I'm not claiming to know how to get there. I don't even know if we can get there anymore.

But the world I would like to live in is one where we recognized the true costs of our societey and paid for them up front.

If every company and business had to pay a true living wage, then yes, every product and service would cost more.

But then we wouldn't need to pay income taxes, and everyone would have more money to spend.

Basically the way it stands right now, the only reason I don't pay $10 for a happy meal at McDonalds is that I pay 38% of my income in taxes.

Wouldn't it just make more sense to not pay an income tax, and simply pay the $10 the happy meal ACTUALLY costs, if you want it?

RIR, you do realize that your income taxes subsidize the ability of everyone around you to pay less for things than what the actually cost, don't you?

I borrowed from a S&L and the loan programs are probably different now. That was during Reagan.

Why? Why do you assume that? Highschoolers working at a gas station should be making enough to live on their own, raise a family, provide healthcare etc....?

You keep forgetting that everything has a cost. If highschoolers were paid more, they could save for college, work to put themselves through college, which is basically impossible now.
If they earned enough to cover their own healthcare, they wouldn't need to be on their parent's healthcare.

You want an example?
I know a kid who at 17 got a girl pregnant. Instead of getting an abortion, they kept the baby and got married. His family had to be supported NOW, not 4 years from now, so he put off college plans and got a job in a gas station, and did what little night school he could afford.

He would have gotten a higher paying job in a factory, like my dad did, but those are in China now.

So yes, in real world America there are many times where a highschooler, or recent grad, is working in a gas station supporting a family and can't simply go off to college.

Or should they have gotten the abortion?

"Pinche, are you seriously going to try to argue that a minimum wage increase hurts those that receive the minimum wage? I'd love to see wht salient points you will make to back that turd up."

Increases in the minimum wage result in an increase in labor costs for some industries. This means that firms in these industries will be forced to do more with less. if you don't think this is true, evaluate your own personal situation and how it has changed due to a 400% increase since 2000.

"I had to make interest payments on my student loans before graduating. 9.5% in 1983."

You can now defer it until graduation if you choose. In fact, you can even defer payments, or at least I was able to.

"Try and sell that drivel to an unemployed American whose job was outsourced to a country which pays its workers nickels on the dollar compared to America."

Maybe that worker should try and sell the American people that they should be paying five to six times the market rate for unskilled labor, just so that labor doesn't have to increase his or her value to society internally.

"The price of labor has decreased because the standard of living in the major producing countries paled in comparison to our own, so business does what it needs to do to increase its stock prices and cut its production costs by moving overseas for cheaper labor."

India is one of the more popular places to offshore labor to; both skilled and unskilled. one of the reasons is that an Indian worker earning $11,000 US per year lives a very upper-middle class lifestyle. To hire a similar employee in Manhattan would cost $80,000, with no additional benefit.

Labor pries haven't gone down a bit. What's happened is that the markets have opened up, and US labor no longer enjoys a protected status. Now they have to be competitive, and that means basically that they have to survive in the developed world when their skill set is that of someone from a developing country.

"And why have the income levels of the top sliver of our population been 6 times greater than that for the working classes? Its that damn increase in minimum wage, isn't it?"

The working class, and even the middle class to some degree, worked in industries reliant on unskilled labor. A factory worker in 1970 could easily reach middle class status. That's not the case anymore. The demand is for skilled employees. that's why the real wages of college grads have increased significantly, while the wages of high school grads have increased far less. In 1970 a college grad made about 5% more than a HS grad. Today it is almost double. This divergence in wage is due almost solely to demand, combined with an economy in transition from being production based to being service based.

Why? Why do you assume that? Highschoolers working at a gas station should be making enough to live on their own, raise a family, provide healthcare etc....?

Anyone who works full time should be able to live on their own on that money.

Not all minimum wage earners fit yer high school student scenario. In fact, altogether too many people are trying to raise families on one or two minimum wage jobs.

This tired old saw is at least as annoying to Spud as the crap about how all rich folks "worked hard and earned their money".

Most rich folk made their money the old fashioned way they inherited it.

As the blog-god sez "they were born on third base and they act like they just hit a triple"

Please tell Spud all about how Dumbya has worked hard all his life and earned his money.

Spud needs a larf.

On to DCinMa's postage...

avoid COLI's as well.
"

Agreed, they treat COLI like E-coli.

I'm wondering if the true inflation rate isn't in the double digits

Double digits sounds more realistic than the numbers currently given, that's fer sure.

Be Well.

"Or should they have gotten the abortion?"

That would be there decision to make, but they shouldn't expect the rest of the country to support their little mishap.

Anyway, that's not an isolated case. My ex's mother did all four years in college with two kids, and completed her MBA while pregnant with the third. She came from a single parent family, and relied on scholarships and aid to get by. If nothing else, your friend could join the military and get an enormous benefit package.

"Not all minimum wage earners fit yer high school student scenario. In fact, altogether too many people are trying to raise families on one or two minimum wage jobs."

The bureau of labor statistics estimates the number of people relaint on a minimum wage job as a single income to be 550,000. That's less than two in every thousand people in the US.

"Most rich folk made their money the old fashioned way they inherited it."

Most rich people earned their money, although rich is a subjective term. Only about 10% of millionaires in the US inherited their money. there's a book profiling the "average" millionaire. It's called "The Millionaire Next Door."

"The bottom 50% of income earners pay 3.3% of the total tax burden."

The bottom 50% of earners includes people who's earnings are zero. Great stat.

My point was that low income working families who don't receive assistance pay taxes for services from which the rich and corporations derive most of the benefit. But dishonest people will pretend the government is set up to make life easier for the poor.

"The bottom 50% of income earners pay 3.3% of the total tax burden."

That's nonsense. As usual, conservatives leave out the words "federal income" tax burden.

If nothing else, your friend could join the military and get an enormous benefit package.

So instead of paying more for gas, what the gas actually costs in real world terms, so gas stations can pay their workers a living wage...

You want to pay massive federal taxes so that the military can hand out enormous benefit packages?????

Whatever man, it's not the way I would do it, but hey, free country....

"The bottom 50% of earners includes people who's earnings are zero. Great stat."

The lower 50% earns 13.5% of income, but only pay 3.3%

"My point was that low income working families who don't receive assistance pay taxes for services from which the rich and corporations derive most of the benefit."

And rich folks pay tax to support services they will never use.

"That's nonsense. As usual, conservatives leave out the words "federal income" tax burden."

that's because state income tax is varible

"that's because state income tax is varible"

Irrelevant. You leaving out regressive taxes such as payroll, sales, and excise taxes.

"And rich folks pay tax to support services they will never use."

The rich derive much greater benefits from the government than the poor. To pretend otherwise is to be willfully stupid.

Yet the wealthy and their apologists continually whine about having to pay more for services that make it possible for them to be rich. And on those occasions where the government is not acting specifically in their favor, they whine about "tampering". Government "tampering" makes wealth possible in the first place.

"Government "tampering" makes wealth possible in the first place."

Actually, that's wrong. There would wealth without government but the skill sets necessary to aquire it would be entirely different. That is why people with the skill sets favored by our system should be happy to pay for the system and should understand why throwing a few crumbs around is a very good idea.

This means that firms in these industries will be forced to do more with less. if you don't think this is true, evaluate your own personal situation and how it has changed due to a 400% increase since 2000.

Posted by madbomber


I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.
If you would like, we could continue our argument on this issue from a few months ago, when the increase in minimun wage first came up. I believe at that point you were pushing the notion that increases in minimum wage increased inflation and that only teenagers worked for minimum wage. I remember replying to those discredited talking points with hard data (I guess a new concept for you) and then you just disappeared....

Now I can get that new Ferrari I have always wanted for the last 40 years.

If we would get rid of about 20 million illegals, the market place would have the minimum wage a lot higher than that.

Reilly's getting a raise. He should be very happy.

Conservatives have been whining about the minimum wage since it was first devised and somehow, amazingly, our economy has survived and grown continuously. Fact is, there are people, for whatever reason, who are in positions where their employer can choose to pay them less and there is nothing they can do about it. In those cases the minimum wage helps...a little, in almost all other cases, where the employee isn't trapped in some way, he/she is already earning more than the minimum wage. For those that need it we should not be such a selfish nation that we whine about this tiny extra amount of income which may enable them to actually eat.

My point was that low income working families who don't receive assistance pay taxes for services from which the rich and corporations derive most of the benefit

Tell me about it. Pay my taxes and the one time in my life I could have used a handout I was ridiculed by the HHS employee who "helped" me.

Lesson for all don't grow up to be working class, go for dirt poor or fabulously wealthy.

For those that need it we should not be such a selfish nation that we whine about this tiny extra amount of income which may enable them to actually eat.

My only beef with the min wage is the last time it went up I was working at a job making 6.25 an hour 2.10 over the min wage at the time. Then it jumped to 5.25, did I get a raise? Nope cost of living went up but I did not see a penny thanks to the wage increase. The people who are hurt by raiseing min wage are the people who have worked hard to get ahead but have not gotten very far ahead. Suddenly they find their hard work and effort yanked away from them as they are reset back to the bottom.

Ask anyone who made 5.95 yesterday what they think about the increase.

Wow, a whole 70 cents an hour more. Maybe I can now afford to quit the second job.

I get the feeling that the Congress-critters raise the minimum wage to just below where it doesn't affect anybody. It looks good to economic illiterates who think they are doing something about inflation and it doesn't upset their corporate benefactors.

It seems to me that the social Darwinists who still argue against a minimum wage as a life-sustaining wage have forfeited the right to call themselves human or religious. Good Gawd Above! herm

If every company and business had to pay a true living wage, then yes, every product and service would cost more.

But then we wouldn't need to pay income taxes, and everyone would have more money to spend.

Basically the way it stands right now, the only reason I don't pay $10 for a happy meal at McDonalds is that I pay 38% of my income in taxes.

Wouldn't it just make more sense to not pay an income tax, and simply pay the $10 the happy meal ACTUALLY costs, if you want it?

RIR, you do realize that your income taxes subsidize the ability of everyone around you to pay less for things than what the actually cost, don't you?

Posted by Norm_
* * * * *

I don't know what you're talking about. How would paying $10 for a Happy Meal pay for the National Park Service? Or an aircraft carrier? Or the interstate highway system? If you're suggesting that millions of Americans would get off the dole and into jobs if American corporations were less niggardly with pay, you might have a point. But all you've really done is kill off about a hundred billion in welfare spending. You've still got another $2.8 trillion worth of federal government spending that has to come from somewhere.

"Irrelevant. You leaving out regressive taxes such as payroll, sales, and excise taxes."

Could you explain how this burden affects taxpayers in Alaska, Florida, South Dakota, Texas, Washington and Wyoming? What about in New Hampshire and Tennessee? wI'm curious how tax in these states adversely affects the working class.

"I believe at that point you were pushing the notion that increases in minimum wage increased inflation and that only teenagers worked for minimum wage. I remember replying to those discredited talking points with hard data (I guess a new concept for you) and then you just disappeared...."

First: The BLS recently reported that it estimated about 550,000 working adults earned minimum wage. Once more, that is less than two in every 2000 workers. Do you dispute that? if so, what are the numbers you have?

Second: An increase in circulating cash is one of the primary causes of inflation. We saw that in 2000 when the tech rush drove up salaries across the board. Ff you recall, one of things I posted was that if the minimum wage earner DID NOT spend the $.70 difference, there would be no change in inflation, and in reality, the tiny number of minimum wage earners would be unlikely to affect a noticeable change in inflation. A change would however be noticed if the government decided to imposing the so-called living wage, which most estimate to be about $12 an hour. At that wage rate you would definitely see an increase in inflation, and enormous increases in unemployment.

This is pretty basic stuff, I'd love an explanation of any disagreement you might have.

"Fact is, there are people, for whatever reason, who are in positions where their employer can choose to pay them less and there is nothing they can do about it."

There is a virtually unlimited number of options these people could take to improve their financial position. Can they not go to college, or get technical training? Of course they can. Maybe they don't know how, or need someone to hold their hand. That's OK. I'd be glad to help. if they just don't want to, they're own their own as far as I'm concerned.

Mad-
re: A change would however be noticed if the government decided to imposing the so-called living wage, which most estimate to be about $12 an hour.

Yeah, that's gonna happen, LOL.

At that wage rate you would definitely see an increase in inflation, and enormous increases in unemployment.

I don't believe anyone is seriously discussing a min. wage of $12/hr, dude.

BTW, this is crap: "The bottom 50% of income earners pay 3.3% of the total tax burden".
,and you know it.

This is funny, too: "..one of things I posted was that if the minimum wage earner DID NOT spend the $.70 difference...

Yes, I suppose the "minimum wage earner" would invest that bonus in tax-sheltered accounts...LOL!

Mad-
re: There is a virtually unlimited number of options these people could take to improve their financial position. Can they not go to college, or get technical training? Of course they can. Maybe they don't know how, or need someone to hold their hand. That's OK. I'd be glad to help. if they just don't want to, they're own their own as far as I'm concerned.

Then who will clean your toilets at Wal-Mart for an unlivable wage? (That's the crux, isn't it?)
Your position is pretty clear, dude: You have yours, and some people don't deserve a living wage.

I wish you would just say it and dispense with the bullshit.

If nothing else, your friend could join the military and get an enormous benefit package.

How kind of you, MAD.

I would assume that fighting the wars you support is beneath your pay grade. But doesn't this upset the free market of blood?

Or does my comment imply a desire to tamper with the natural order of the market?

Spud,


Anyone who works full time should be able to live on their own on that money.


In an idealistic sense, I agree.

However, economic realities don't play out as we don't live in an ideal world, and never will.


In short, an accross-the-board living wage only works in a Communist country, and we know all-too-well the long-term viability of Communism on any society larger than a small village.

Actually, what Conservatives such as myself support is complete privatization of education with a full voucher system. That way, shitty schools go under and better schools take their place as they compete for voucher dollars. This is a gross simplification, but disdain for public schools has nothing to do with disdain for education.

You are so very RIGHT... your disdain for public schools has to do with the reality that a solid majority of teachers vote Democratic...

In a similar vein you can't allow Mexicans to be naturalized because they have every reason to vote Democratic...

The important thing to remember about minimum wage is that nobody with a family is actually living off it.

Posted by katieberry at 2007-07-24 04:06 PM | Rep

Really? And your basis for this hypothesis is based on what empirical data?

Your statement is correct though. No one can afford to live on the minimum wage. When I was working a min wage job while in college I worked with a married couple who had to work TWO minimum wage jobs each to support their family.

According to Armyof1 one of them could have quit one, maybe both of their jobs and go back to school to learn a new skill. Of course in the years that that would take they could just live in the dark and not eat.

Furthermore, this family had three children that were not very well supervised due to their work schedules. The teenage daughter ended up pregnant. Ahhhhh the circle of life continues.

All these assholes that cry about the minimum wage being increased should try and live on it for a while.

Lets just get into this cycle, lets see, Owner has to pay $5.85 now, that means they raise prices on items to offset the loss on the salaries, and everything eventually balances out.

Its basic economics. minimum wage is a bad thing...


Posted by armyof1 at 2007-07-24 03:49 PM | Reply

OH MY GOD! THE SKY IS FALLING! Corporate America has to raise wages on jobs that it cannot ship to China! OH MY GOD! THE WORLD IS GONNA END!

Hey I don't hear you bitching about every time a CEO gets a multi million dollar pay raise decided by members of his own social circle. Why the hypocrisy?

Wow, a whole 70 cents an hour more. Maybe I can now afford to quit the second job.

Posted by linkay at 2007-07-24 08:40 PM | Reply

Make sure you direct that extra $28 a week in a nice emerging market growth fund.

Ok I think I have it figured out.

Inflation is out of controll. We all know that. Now congress comes out and increases min wage. Basic economics say increasing the min wage will increase price pressure. So now the gov. can point to the higher min wage as the cause of inflation and keep everyones eye off the federal reserve and rampant government debt which causes far more inflation than a small increase in min wage will.

It's even interesting that the increase is about 13% which is about what I would guess real inflation is at. Hmmmm....

Jimmy but min wage works work at least 2 jobs so thats $56 bucks, I think I'll take 30% for a 529, 10% for each kid. Then I'll take 50% for a 401K and the remaining 20% I'll put in a HSA to help cover medical cost.

That way the government doesn't get a dime of my extra $56 bucks a week.

workers

""Can they not go to college, or get technical training?""

There are millions of people not intellectually capable of doing anything except the most basic types of jobs. You can pretend they are just lazy or whatever but that is pure bull shit.
They deserve to eat and have a roof over their heads if they are willing to work full time. It never ceased to amaze me at how mean spirited so many Americans are.

There are a virtually unlimited number of options these people could take to improve their financial position.
Posted by madbomber at 2007-07-24 11:24 PM

YEAH!

Of course one of those options consists of a business owner who can't absorb 70 cents an hour for their employees ------- find another business (cause they suck)!

"Yeah, that's gonna happen, LOL."

Let's hope not.

"I don't believe anyone is seriously discussing a min. wage of $12/hr, dude."

Correct, but it was being discussed a while back, in a related topic, and Darth Cheney wanted to continue that discussion.

"BTW, this is crap: "The bottom 50% of income earners pay 3.3% of the total tax burden". ,and you know it."

The bottom 50% of income earners cover 3.3% of the total federal income tax burdern. These numbers come directly from the IRS. If you want to dispute them, feel free to do so.

Or they could bury it in their back yard, hide it behind a rock...whatever.

"You have yours, and some people don't deserve a living wage."

My position is that I EARN mine, and am not willing to use mine to support those that choose not to support themselves. I think that's quite fair, considering all the time, energy, and money I have spent getting skills training.

"I would assume that fighting the wars you support is beneath your pay grade. But doesn't this upset the free market of blood?"

You mean the wars I fight, me flying bombers and all? Is that what you mean?

The military benefits package is part of the compensation willingly agreed upon y employer and employee.

"My position is that I EARN mine, and am not willing to use mine to support those that choose not to support themselves."

You wouldn't be able to "earn" or keep "yours" without living in a society that makes it possible. You can pretend that your wealth was created in a vacuum but nobody else is buying it.

You can be as indignant as you want about not wanting to pay your fair share or not wanting others to have theirs but it isn't a logical arguement. It is babyish.

I went to school, I learned some skills, I earn a living wage and guess what...I still don't hate poor folks who don't have what I have and I don't mind giving them a little help through minimum wages, food stamps, etc. because....because....I'm not an asshole.
It really comes down to a personality disorder that makes some folks nasty, selfish assholes. Simple as that.
No sense complicating it. I know people like MADBOMBER, in person they are just as distasteful as they are on line.

Just how long does someone stay on minimum wage? When I was young it was $1.25, but even inexperienced at 18 was able to get a job for $2.50 an hour (1968). After 90 days received a 15 cent raise (decent in that day and age). I did have friends who started at jobs for the $1.25, but they too got raises in a few months - you've got to be a real loser to remain at the minimum.

Also, add me as one who has never known someone trying to raise a family on the minimum raise - I dare say it's probably quite rare.

My position is that I EARN mine, and am not willing to use mine to support those that choose not to support themselves.

YEAH!

Are you talking about people who work everyday or welfare recipients? Its sounds like you have confused the two!

Anyway, I need renters, I need people to keep my properties up, I need people to clean my toilets, cut my grass, fix my fences, and generally do shit I don't want to do!


See, cause without them ---- my (and yours) "way of life" isn't possible fool!



But in an effort to enlighten some, here is a scenario maybe you can grasp:

Billy Bob Madbomber is in school, meets a girl, marries her and starts a family.
Bobby Sue Madbomber, Billy Bobs wife, is a stay at home wife and is in full baby production mode (per the advice of John Gibson and the great "Christian" defenders) and Billy Bob works on for an oil company. Six years transpire.
Billy Bob makes a decent living and they acquire the basics of American life (i.e. a mortgage, car loan(s), insurance etc, etc).

Bobby sue, having spent her time since high school doing nothing but baby talk and diaper changes, has no marketable skill and only has a high school diploma!

Billy Bob, in a horrible work related accident gets cut in half, he is only 26.
Needless to say, the five kids and Bobby Sue have no way of maintaining, and since Bobby Sue has no work experience is relegated to minimum wage jobs.

What I want you to explain to all of us "liberals" here is how this scenario fits into you're:

"My position is that I EARN mine, and am not willing to use mine to support those that choose not to support themselves."

Then tell us how the wingding insistence that women stay at home, (you know the hated career feminazis) equates to "choose not to support themselves" when it's exactly what the religious extremists running this country advocate!

See, the above scenario play out everyday in this country, be it young families, old ladies (whose spouses illness decimates their savings) or whatever!
Now I know how you Fake Plastic Sons of Bitchs always like to pretend there is no circumstance and that every issue in everyone's lives are the direct result of "bad decisions" they have made (except when it's a Bush decision --- then its everyone else's fault when it doesn't work out) but come on, you couldn't be more contradictive to your "family values" drivel by denying "families" the ability to make a living wage which I add is crucial to pulling ones self up by their own bootstraps (once a conservative principle)!!

First, I run a mom and pop, and I pay all of my people far better than a living wage. This will affect corp. more than anyone else, as they have more "investors", that they HAVE to pay, or their investment value falls.
Second, if an employee is injured on my jobsite, most especially if the risks are inherant to their positions, it is my obligation to ensure they recieve what they should. Most W.C. programs are administered by business leaders of corp. that have a vested interest in NOT providing the appropriate level of care and compensation to someone hurt,and or injured in some fashion.
Third, there is no such thing as 'unskilled" labor, as most every job one could imagine, requires more on-the-job training than education. Soley relying on an educational background, as is the rule today, is foolish and short-sighted.

It's even interesting that the increase is about 13% which is about what I would guess real inflation is at. Hmmmm....

Posted by TaoWarrior at 2007-07-25 08:06 AM | Reply

Sure when you factor in the cost of oil and gas which the government "conveniently" leaves out of the inflation number. I guess they beleive that since their fat asses are chaueffered around no one in the nation pays to put gas in their own car any longer.

It was just a matter of time that a 90-100% increase in the cost of oil and gas made it into consumer goods. 13% is just the tip of the iceberg. I mean you cannot expect CEO's to live on less than a few million per year now can you? I mean they would be slumming it.

Gitmboy,

Hush your mouth!

You obviously missed your "business orientation" class..... here's a recap....

1. Pay workers the lowest wage they will accept. If you can find "undocumented" workers do it on the down-low, cry ignorance if caught and then blame it on the "jobs Americans don't want to do."

2. Treat employees as commodities. Who the hell cares if it gives them meaning to life. You want only cheap productives workers. If someone is sick give them the heave ho toot sweet.

3. Offer middle of the road benefits. Nothing too good. Nothing too bad. If you can hire "undocumented workers" you can give them zero benefits other than not calling INS if they bitch.

4. Pay yourself a massive salary with a company Mercedes, boat and annual paid "informational seminar" vacations in such places as the Bahamas and Hawaii. After all you earned it. The workers are lucky to have a job.

GITMBOY is a communist.

"They deserve to eat and have a roof over their heads if they are willing to work full time. It never ceased to amaze me at how mean spirited so many Americans are."

Can they come live with you?

You do know that you could provide them a tent and two MREs a day and meet those requirements, correct? In fact, there is a lot of surplus housing in the US that could be used as well. It's also not that hard to live on what nature provides, hunting and gathering. Of course that lifestyle would be far harder for most people.

"You wouldn't be able to "earn" or keep "yours" without living in a society that makes it possible. You can pretend that your wealth was created in a vacuum but nobody else is buying it."

I work for the government, and they have the right to terminate my employment at any time. At that point I would be forced to sell my labor to some other consumer, at a wage rate commensurate with my skill level. Statistically, I would make more working in the civillian sector than in the military, although the work would be much less exciting.

But I wholeheartedly agree with your statement on wealth creation, although I am a bit surprised to hear it from you. Wealth is neither created, nor distributed in a vaccum. Wealth is formed when goods or services are created which are deemed valuable by society. These goods and services are then exchanged with consumers for cash or other assets. Bill Gates didn't get rich because he stole anything from anybody, he got rich because he created a marketable product for which there was high demand. Wal Mart isn't successful becuase they pay low wages, they are successful because they are able to offer lower prices to consumers. At the end of the day, any power a corporation has is derived from its consumer base. Wal Mart has very low profit margins. If society did not want them around, six months of revenues in the red would cause them to begin shrinking operations on a large scale.

"I went to school, I learned some skills, I earn a living wage and guess what...I still don't hate poor folks who don't have what I have and I don't mind giving them a little help through minimum wages, food stamps, etc. because....because....I'm not an asshole."

Well, yeah, Danni, you are an asshole, for no other reason that you think you have the right to tell me how to allocate my assets. How would you feel if I suggested that the government take your money to ensure that each investor earned a minimum return? Would you call that fair?

"Are you talking about people who work everyday or welfare recipients? Its sounds like you have confused the two!"

When the government forces an employer to pay more than minimum wage, that wage is not entirely earned. The worker that earned $5.15 last week and now makes $5.85 is subsidized by at least $.70, and maybe more. Of course since that subsidy is not being provided by the government, it is coming out of the pockets of investors and other employees that have earned it.

"Anyway, I need renters, I need people to keep my properties up, I need people to clean my toilets, cut my grass, fix my fences, and generally do shit I don't want to do!"

Then it's a good thing we have so many underachievers! My Denali aint gonna wash itself now, is it!

"See, cause without them ---- my (and yours) "way of life" isn't possible fool!"

Actually, I do wash my own car, and mow my own, do my own dishes, paint my own house, etc. Like I said earlier, I am a fully qualified unskilled laborer.

"Needless to say, the five kids and Bobby Sue have no way of maintaining, and since Bobby Sue has no work experience is relegated to minimum wage jobs."

Bobby Sue shoulda done gone to college, then she woulda been able to earn a livin' for hersef and her yung'uns. Fortunately Billy Bob had a killer life insurance policy, so Bobby Sue can sit around on a tropical island molesting the cabana boys while the kids travel around europe.

"Then tell us how the wingding insistence that women stay at home, (you know the hated career feminazis) equates to "choose not to support themselves" when it's exactly what the religious extremists running this country advocate!"

Who gives a shit what the bible thumpers advocate. if your wife wants to stay home, let her. If not, that's fine to. I wouldn't spend a whole lot of time trying to please people that think the earth is 4000 years old and that someday they are going to live in the sky with their invisible friend. That's my sugestion anyway...

Last thing, take your pill.

Talk about dumb blondes in movies, and some blondes would say that they shouldn't portray blondes as dumb in movies.

So, how do you stop it? Well, it's been said that if blonde actresses would refuse to take movie parts that portray them as dumb, the movie industry would stop making dumb parts.

However, there will be at least one blonde that will take the part because it's the only job they can get.

Same deal.

""I work for the government, and they have the right to terminate my employment at any time.""

ARe you civil service???
Then that statement isn't even really true.
Talk about hypcrisy. You work for the government and whine about some poor slob getting a raise in the minimum wage. I bet your co-workers think you are an asshole too.
I bet you don't tip when you go to a restaurant either. Hey, they get paid by the owner all they deserve...right???
Hey, why should we give our soldiers a raise when they volunteered and agreed to work for the amount they already receive.
How's that cost of living raise you get automatically...huh????
Like I said....you are a fucking asshole.

"But I wholeheartedly agree with your statement on wealth creation, although I am a bit surprised to hear it from you. Wealth is neither created, nor distributed in a vaccum. Wealth is formed when goods or services are created which are deemed valuable by society."

And some of our societal values are reflected in the idea of a minimum wage. Why pretend that our sense of right and wrong - or what should and should not be allowed - is unrelated to the opportinity for someone like Bill Gates to become very wealthy in this country?

There are plenty of places that don't have a minimum wage. There are plenty of places where Bill Gates wouldn't survive much longer than a week. As much as you'd like to seperate our values from economics, they can never be seperate.

When the government forces an employer to pay more than minimum wage, that wage is not entirely earned.

YEAH!
Who is doing that? Who "forces an employer to pay more than minimum wage"?


"Then it's a good thing we have so many underachievers! My Denali aint gonna wash itself now, is it!"

Then says

"Actually, I do wash my own car, and mow my own, do my own dishes, paint my own house, etc. Like I said earlier, I am a fully qualified unskilled laborer"

YEAH! And apparently you think your free time is only worth 5.85! Me personally, if im a workin' (or playing) --- my time is worth a hell of a lot more than that! But then again I don't see how an increase of pennies is going to affect me financially in anyway and I am not hysterical about what someone else, less fortunate than I, is going to get paid to do the shit I don't want to do (because I am busy making real money, not this couch change you seem total obsessed about)!
As a matter of fact, I can now raise my rent(s)! Its a good thing --- for me!

I sure hope you don't consider yourself republican because you are just embarrassing!

"Bobby Sue shoulda done gone to college, then she woulda been able to earn a livin' for hersef and her yung'uns"

YEAH!
Your right --- she should have gotten an abortion and told Billybob to take a hike --- but that's contrary to the "other" advice already pontificated by the same folks who blame all of societies ills on women and their desire for equality (or control over their own bodies for that matter)! See, who then is going to populate America with little white jesus warriors if all the faminazis and abortionists are getting edumacated?

All of this does makes me wonder though.
Are you in such a miserable financial state that an increase of $85 bucks a week for those below your "standard" is going to break your bank?

Burger Joint pays more than minimum and has for years

"Also, add me as one who has never known someone trying to raise a family on the minimum raise - I dare say it's probably quite rare.

Posted by MSgt"

The key words is 'someone' and 'trying'.

When a high school graduate is receiving more than the future minimum wage now, that is, graduated in June and it is now July, there really is a question about the workforce that can't find the job this kid did.

"You are so very RIGHT... your disdain for public schools has to do with the reality that a solid majority of teachers vote Democratic... "
--YOMELIB

So THAT's why our students do so poorly compared to the rest of the world!

"My only beef with the min wage is the last time it went up I was working at a job making 6.25 an hour 2.10 over the min wage at the time. Then it jumped to 5.25, did I get a raise? Nope cost of living went up but I did not see a penny thanks to the wage increase. The people who are hurt by raiseing min wage are the people who have worked hard to get ahead but have not gotten very far ahead. Suddenly they find their hard work and effort yanked away from them as they are reset back to the bottom.

Ask anyone who made 5.95 yesterday what they think about the increase."
--TAOWARRIOR

Good point. Doesn't this min. wage increase directly hurt those making barely above min. wage? I imagine (I could be wrong) that there are more people making just over min. wage than rock bottom min. wage.

"ARe you civil service???"

Military

"Talk about hypcrisy. You work for the government and whine about some poor slob getting a raise in the minimum wage."

New Enlisted troops make far less than minimum wage, and the job they do is far more imprtant than your average min wage earner. Regardless, the new enlsitee comes in knowing the details of the contract, and he makes the decsion to join, voluntarily. In return the government provides renumeration in the form of the agreed upon benefits. In reality, the military could recruit it's officers and enlsited troops from the welfare lines and pay far less. the problem is you get what you pay for. Do you really want some high school dropout flying bombers over your house? probably not.

"I bet you don't tip when you go to a restaurant either. Hey, they get paid by the owner all they deserve...right???"

I worked in bars all through college. I made $2.15 an hour plus tips. (2003) On average, I made about $10/hr after tax. My personal tipping policy was 20%, alhtough I admit that I don't always pay that anymore. having kids has forced me to become less firvilous with my finances.


"I bet your co-workers think you are an asshole too."

What does this have to do with anything?

"And some of our societal values are reflected in the idea of a minimum wage."

I agree 100%. If society wanted to pas a law requiring a $20 minimum wage, it would be on the rest of us to live with it or fuck off. There is a problem with this logic however. redistribution necassarily targets one group of people for the sole benefit of another. if you take my $10 coersively and give it to someone else, it doesn't provide me any benefit at all. This creates a paradigm very similar to slavery, where the output of one's own labor is legally and forcefully taken for the benefit of another. The only difference is that (presumably) you could leave if such a thing happened in the US.

In short, if you are support the will of society over the good of the individual, you have to be willing to accept thigs like slavery and theocracy, or whatever the will of society may be. By putting individual freedom first and foremost, these issues never become problematic.

"As much as you'd like to seperate our values from economics, they can never be seperate."

I agree and disagree. Increasing the minimum wage is a social issue that has negative economic ramifications. For some, this neagtive affect is worth to. For others, it's not.

"YEAH!
Who is doing that? Who "forces an employer to pay more than minimum wage"? "

My bad. What I meant was forced to pay more than market rate for labor.

"I sure hope you don't consider yourself republican because you are just embarrassing!"

I'm very much a libertarian, perhaps even an anarcho-capitalist.

"Are you in such a miserable financial state that an increase of $85 bucks a week for those below your "standard" is going to break your bank?"

yes, I am. $85 a week is what I spend for one kid on formula and diapers. How about this, you can cover it for both of us, since you have so much extra.

""Good point. Doesn't this min. wage increase directly hurt those making barely above min. wage? I imagine (I could be wrong) that there are more people making just over min. wage than rock bottom min. wage.""

Or it could help them because someone earning over the min. now has the option of going to work for any other employer for the minimum...thus his present employer, if he wants to keep him as an employee, will have to give him a pay raise, once again, above the minimum.

Redneckville,

Your Bobby Sue example really has nothing to do with the min wage question.

Not saying we don't need to help out Bobby Sue but sending her off to mop floors for min. is not going to help her. Providing programs to help educate her, providing mortage assistance, day care assistance so she can go to classes these are the things Bobby Sue needs not a higher min. All a higher min does for Bobby Sue is that she can keep strugling to keep afloat all while sinking farther.

Danni,

Or it could help them because someone earning over the min. now has the option of going to work for any other employer for the minimum...thus his present employer, if he wants to keep him as an employee, will have to give him a pay raise, once again, above the minimum.

That is true if the ammount they are making is right at the new min however if it is above the new min then they just got screwed.

Like I said originaly that is exactly the same position I was in. I went from 2.10 over min to 1.00 over min. Belive me when I found that I was not getting a raise I did look for another job. Nope a job worth 6.25 an hour was still only worth 6.25 an hour.

I never really gave a damn about the min wage until then. Like someone else pointed out 3 months after taking my first job I was making .25 more than min 6 months later .25 more than that and 6 more months later .35 more. I was 15 and 16 during that time. Then I hit the ceiling and found that I could get no more raises. I quit and was rehired at .25 more and was once again eligible for raises. (don't ask me it was a stupid policy where you could only make x% more than you were hired at)

Who are these people that can only make min as full grown adults? By 18 I was already making $1.35 more than min and that was part time unskilled job.

"Take a loan get into debt... stay in debt... get a slave job...work to pay off said debt...rinse and repeat"
--DONNERBOY

Glad I did too. I applied for student loans, went to a respected university, became skilled and graduated, after which I got a good paying (and enjoyable) job with good benefits. Paying off the loans takes up only a very small percentage of my monthly income. I guess that is good Republican think!

"may lose your job AND that all important Health Care that you only have if you are EMPLOYED..."
--DONNERBOY

Possibly, but then again I save some of my money for possibilities like that, and since I went to college and became skilled, I can apply for other jobs. Again, good Republican think.

""Who are these people that can only make min as full grown adults?"

They are the dishwashers, and busboys, and lots of other folks who serve us daily, usually cheerfully, usually glad that they have a job they can do. Possibly less intelligent than average but still good hard working people who deal with inflation yet have been receiving the same minimum wage for about 10 years. OK, most folks can move up, but there are many, many people who simply can't. Don't we want them to have food and a roof??? Are we such a selfish society that we don't care about the "least among us?"
This whole argument really, finally comes down to what kind of society we want. I don't want a society that ignores those who try their best yet can't make enough to eat and live. But hey, that's just me.

Madbomber - The government redistributes resources in many ways. Minimum wage is amoung the minority that favors the little guy.

And comparing it to slavery is a dramatic.

Look at all the arguing here. Min wage jobs are for your summer off jobs, your 16-20 year olds. If raising the min wage is gonna help so much, last I checked, you really can't live on $5.85. Of course, there are alternatives, like going to school, doing well in school, staying out of trouble, going to college, getting a degree, and getting a nice job out of college, maybe even grad school!!!! Its easy, I've done it. And now I make a very good living. But I see that to many here can't just get by on hard work, they want gov't to bail them out. Hence the difference between consevatives, and liberals.

Posted by danni at 2007-07-25 02:21 PM

Danni, cmon. "OK, most folks can move up, but there are many, many people who simply can't."

BULLSHIT. Hard work ALWAYS pays off. If you are a busboy or dishwasher for 10 years, who's fault is that????

Its easy, I've done it. And now I make a very good living.

YEAH!

Your making such a good living that you're scared a 70 cent wage increase is going to hurt your bottom line?! Yup ---- makes perfect sense you get all foamy in the mouth over it!

Anyway, if what you proclaim is the case, then that 70 extra cents an hour are simply going to be spent on I Tunes, video games and tennis shoes.

So it brings us back to the question: What's your problem, its going to feed the economy and spur consumption in the end!

This whole argument really, finally comes down to what kind of society we want. I don't want a society that ignores those who try their best yet can't make enough to eat and live. But hey, that's just me.

Danni, I commend you for boiling the entire minimum wage issue down to where it belongs........a moral issue. Nothing else. You make the only relevant point on this as it is difficult (perhaps impossible) for someone on minimum wage to survive very well.

However, despite your moral objection (and I certainly do respect that) labor is a commodity.

Anyway, if what you proclaim is the case, then that 70 extra cents an hour are simply going to be spent on I Tunes, video games and tennis shoes.

Oh, so you are saying that if a minimum wage person was to get a $.70 raise then it would be spent on I Tunes, video games and tennis shoes. Perhaps beer, lottery tickets and tobacco????

Just playing devils advocate.

Redneck,
Where did I say I was scared of a 70 cent increase? Oh, I didn't. Putting words in my mouth, a usual happening here at the "retort".

Yes, since most min wage jobs affect only those in certain age groups, they will be spent on Itunes, beer, vid games etc. What, do you think they will save the money? Were you ever young once? Are a few more shoe or Ipod sale gonna "spur" the economy? Yeah in dreamland.

The point is Redneck, 70 Cents isn't going to do squat. It will give those working a few extra bucks. The more you make, the more gov't takes.

Hard work is a good alternative to a wage increase. Oh, sorry.

"labor is a commodity."

So, apparently, is dignity.

A hard day's work should bring an honest day's wage.

Dan,
Wow, I agree with you. Scary.

A hard day's work should bring an honest day's wage.

Careful Danforth....don't get biblical on us. The left will trounce your ass for it.

"The point is Redneck, 70 Cents isn't going to do squat."

You're joking, right?

Think of your salary. Now, give yourself a 7-week bonus.

Do squat?

"don't get biblical on us."

Oops...is that biblical?

The minimum wage in Mexico is about $4.56 a day. Figure an 8-hour day, at $4.56 a day in Mexico, works out to about $0.56 per hour. If we want to stop the influx of illegal Mexicanos into our land, we need to make sure the minimum wage on the good side of the border is less than the minimum wage on the bad side of the border. Why not surprise them and lower the minimum wage in the US to $0.47 an hour?

Does anyone else remember the days back when someone could have a good paying, blue collar job that lead to a middle class lifestyle--All without going to college and only working 40/hours a week?

I wonder how many members of our Greatest Generation would have wound up mopping floors for $8.00/hr if they were born just a few decades later.

Why is it that people who are supposedly for "Family Values" the same ones who are against a decent wage or health care for working families at the bottom?

"Why not surprise them and lower the minimum wage in the US to $0.47 an hour?"

Yup. That'll solve all of our problems, by golly.

Dan,
No, I'm not joking.

Hard work is a good alternative to a wage increase. Oh, sorry.

Posted by FormerLib at 2007-07-25 02:54 PM | Reply

So minimum wage jobs are not hard work?

Yup. That'll solve all of our problems, by golly.



I'm glad you see the brilliant simplicity of the argument. Now, if the minimum wage in Mexico rises, the minimum wage in the US will rise, too. If the minimum wage in Mexico fals, the minimum wage in the Us falls, too. I call it the Chimichanga Curve. No matter what they do about the mimimum wage in Mexico, the US will remain behind the Chimichanga Curve.

What about the Mexicans, you ask? They'll stay in Mexico, where God meant them to be.

Its easy, I've done it.

they want gov't to bail them out. Hence the difference between consevatives, and liberals.

Posted by FormerLib at 2007-07-25 02:39 PM | Reply

Like all those hard werking airline ceo's that came crying to the government after 9/11 for billions in bail outs?

I am happy that you found going to college easy. However, there are many many that do not. I personally have seen some silver spoon children coast through college while some very smart and bright individuals drop out because they could not afford it. What do you say to someone who cannot afford college but has the ambition and desire and the intellegence to do so?

What do you say to someone who cannot afford college but has the ambition and desire and the intellegence to do so?


You'd better start digging ditches, you worthless fuck. If you had any gumption, you'd be able to afford college.

labor is a commodity.

Posted by eberly at 2007-07-25 02:50 PM | Reply

Treating labor as a commodity is immoral. Past generations knew this. They knew that a partnership existed between workers and owners, not a commodity to be exploited. Unfortunately the greed of capitalism has corrupted corporate america.

Like all those hard werking airline ceo's that came crying to the government after 9/11 for billions in bail outs?


Those lazy airline CEO's are all liberals, Jimmy.

""However, despite your moral objection (and I certainly do respect that) labor is a commodity.""

I agree, obviously. However, a base price for that commodity, especially since this effects less than one million workers, really does no harm to the economy yet may make some slight difference in the lives of those who depend on minimum wage jobs.

The Mexican minimum wage brings up another topic...globalization...that is exactly what we should be demanding...foreign minimum wages to rise if they expect to export to the US, not overnight to match ours but over a period of years a systematic raising that would eventually create middle classes in those countries instead of just destroying ours. The question is really if there are enough resources to go around and how they should be distributed. I think minimum wages force the investor class to earn a little less and allows the working class to earn a little more...in a transaction...to be competitive only a certain price can be effective, the percent distributed to labor needs to rise in most countries.

You'd better start digging ditches, you worthless fuck.

Posted by JeffJ at 2007-07-25 03:38 PM | Reply

Well that just boils down the conservative arguement to its core position now doesn't it?

What do you say to someone who cannot afford college but has the ambition and desire and the intellegence to do so?

I'll tell them that they won't have to work for minimum wage if they truly posses "ambition, desire and intelligence" regardless of whether or not they go to college.

What is your point?

Well that just boils down the conservative arguement to its core position now doesn't it?

Posted by JimmyWallback

It does for me.

I've got mine, so the hell with all of you!

Treating labor as a commodity is immoral. Past generations knew this.

I understand what you are saying. However, recognize the slippery slope you are standing on. Why don't we pay brain surgeons the same as dishwashers?

People are poor because they are lazy and stupid. Period.

Now, if the minimum wage in Mexico rises, the minimum wage in the US will rise, too. If the minimum wage in Mexico fals, the minimum wage in the Us falls, too"

YEAH!

So why don't you just call it Mexico and be done with it!

What about the Mexicans, you ask? They'll stay in Mexico, where God meant them to be.

Posted by phogbound at 2007-07-25 03:32 PM

YEAH!

Except for those Mexicans God put into North America before the Crackers showed up!

And god must have a mean sense of humor since he named several states and hundreds of cities/towns with Spanish names. That must really piss you off!

Alright, I'll do you all a favor and will desist my trolling on this thread.

"I am happy that you found going to college easy. However, there are many many that do not. I personally have seen some silver spoon children coast through college while some very smart and bright individuals drop out because they could not afford it." Posted by JimmyWallback

Puuhhleeezzze. Student loans, grants, scholarships, hell, play a sport..... will all help those who can't "afford" college. Plus there are PLENTY of good schools which don't cost an arm or a leg, especially in-state schoools. Its a mindset. I have friends that make an OK living now, that didn't go to college, but they all say, "man I should have stayed in school", and they didn't drop out because they couldn't afford it, its because they never went ot class, decided POT was more fun than school projects, and so on. College IS affordable, but since you have your mind made up, I can see where you are coming from.

I'll tell them that they won't have to work for minimum wage if they truly posses "ambition, desire and intelligence" regardless of whether or not they go to college.

YEAH!

As long as they don't end up employed by some sanctimonious, intellectually dishonest, morally bankrupt puke whose only interest is not rewarding hard work but getting a fast buck!

But hey, you must remember all this "hard work" advice is coming from people who still claim Bush is a "hard werker"!

""People are poor because they are lazy and stupid. Period""

And, those born stupid should not have enough to eat or a place to live.
Yay America!

Stupidity is not a crime unless it occupies the White House.

"Why don't we pay brain surgeons the same as dishwashers?
Posted by eberly

Not all dropped dinner plates break.

I know of two cases locally where trademen were fired recently and replaced with (2) Mexicans for around the minimum wage.

As long as they don't end up employed by some sanctimonious, intellectually dishonest, morally bankrupt puke whose only interest is not rewarding hard work but getting a fast buck!

Jesus Christ, you are one blind and angry wacko!


But hey, you must remember all this "hard work" advice is coming from people who still claim Bush is a "hard werker"!

I don't know where you get this (big surprise) but any POTUS works a lot harder than you ever have.

Not all dropped dinner plates break

Exactly. It appears as though we have no problem seeing labor as a commidity when it involves higher incomes (doctor vs insurance agent) but we refer to it as "immoral" when it applies to the lowest wage earners.

"...It appears as though we have no problem seeing labor as a commidity when it involves higher incomes (doctor vs insurance agent)...."

I know a lot of insurance brokers who make a LOT more than most doctors do...

"but we refer to it as "immoral" when it applies to the lowest wage earners."

Sure. That's as it should be. Once an honest day's hard work doesn't equal survival, you've got problems, and it's more than just moral ones. Civilized society has a vested interest in it's workers being able to subsist, and ideally, propagate while they're doing it. We've lowered the general standard of living for those on the bottom half, and those at the top have witnessed an explosion in mega-million dollar homes. Good or bad for the society as a whole? And should we continue and exacerbate that trend, by, say, eliminating the Estate Tax?

People who oppose the increase in the minimum wage are ideological assholes. There is no justification for making working class Americans labor for below slave wages. Wages so low that they cannot afford to support a family unless the wife works full time, the kids work after school and have no chance of going to college. End of discussion.

I support the minimum wage increase for moral reasons. I don't think it will make any significant difference to 95% of those on minimum wage as far as quality of life goes.

"kids work and have no chance of going to college"??? What does that mean? If a kid has a job then they can't go to college?

" I don't think it will make any significant difference to 95% of those on minimum wage as far as quality of life goes. "

Eb...you, of all people...you're joking, right?

Take your annual salary. Multiply it by 13.5%; that's your increase. Would a 13.5% raise change anything?

I know 16 year olds that bus tables at restaurants and take home $500 a week in cash. Minimum Wage is not really low, because most waiters/waitresses work for $2.35 plus tips.... if they actually get tips. If someones life evolves around this minimum wage, they need to learn about ambition and determination, or live a pathetic life being unmotivated and lazy. THEIR CHOICE!

Troter: What about stupid people. Those unable, due to the lack of gifts God naturally endowed them with, to excel. So you believe those people should all be condemned to poverty or work for slave wages? How progressive of you. Sooner or later it will dawn on you patroninzing rightwing pinheads that ambition and determination can only get a person so far. For every one example of a person lifting themselves up by their own bootstraps, there are twenty more people swirling at the edge financial survival.

White Trash Rednecks feel they must dump on someone, anyone, worse off than they are. In trailer courts where they lack even food until the next relief check comes, their villains are not the power structure but the poor bastards who lack even a trailer and must survive on the street. This applies also to racial groups that no longer occupy the bottom rung of the socio-economic ladder. herm

Take your annual salary. Multiply it by 13.5%; that's your increase. Would a 13.5% raise change anything?

For me .....yes. For a minimum wage earner.....no. You are applying math but no logic. Math doesn't help those folks and neither will $.70 an hour.

"For me .....yes. For a minimum wage earner.....no. "

What are you talking about?!? They will see a 13.5% increase in their annual income. That's equivalent to 7 weeks pay. Of course it will make a difference: inflation in their neighborhoods will not go up 13.5%, not overnight. Sure your dollar amounts are larger, and may mean an extra car or a boat. But since you brought up math, let's look there:

40 hrs/wk x 5.15/hr = $206 gross pay/wk

FICA tax = 7.65, State/Local (est) 2.35, total 10%

206 x 90% = $185.40 take-home per week under the old pay.

New pay: $210.60/wk, over $25 more. If all you're pulling down after taxes is $185, an extra $25 is HUGE.

"I agree, obviously. However, a base price for that commodity, especially since this effects less than one million workers, really does no harm to the economy yet may make some slight difference in the lives of those who depend on minimum wage jobs."

Fair enough. How do you feel about establishing minimum prices for all commodities? My parents raise dry edible beans, and it would sure help them out a lot if the government set a minimum price on DEBs. What about establishing a minimum return on investment? That way it could be assured that investors earned a decent return for the use of their assets? of course all of this is going to affect a rise in consumer prices, so how are we going to protect them?

"Sure. That's as it should be. Once an honest day's hard work doesn't equal survival, you've got problems, and it's more than just moral ones."

What a steaming pile of hogshit.

First of all, you can't call it "an honest days work" at all when the wage rate being paid is being dictated by the federal government. Second of all, I don't think you want to get started on survival. I suspect that your average minimum wage earner would quickly die off if forced into a real "survival" situation. If they are able to live off the land, then why wouldn't they forego the minimum wage job and do so. There are still millions and millions of square miles of BLM land that people could live off of if they chose to do so.

"Civilized society has a vested interest in it's workers being able to subsist, and ideally, propagate while they're doing it."

Civilized society has a vested interest in being productive and self-sufficient, with each individual being an asset instead of a liability; and when the government has to force employers to pay you a certain amount, you are a liability and the result is an economic loss.

In reality, I don't care about the workers that are unwilling to see to their own well-being. That's their choice as free individuals as far as I'm concerned. They are free to change at any time.

"First of all, you can't call it "an honest days work" at all when the wage rate being paid is being dictated by the federal government"

The government has experience with history before minimum wage. You should read it sometime, along with economic theory which includes the consumer side of the equation as well.

And by "survival", I mean within the society, not dropped in the middle of a cornfield. Sheesh.

a right wing aquaintance's son had a nice paying job as a web page programmer. he was very proud of his son until the job was outsourced to India. Now he needs help as the only jobs avaiable in his area are low paying. it's sad but I love the irony as his past comments were the same as many of the righties here. the son's house will soon be repossesed. I wonder if he still loves Rush (rather still loves to hate with Rush)

ONNA I am sure that if you spoke to them they will have made up some rationalization that preserves their belief in their idols. Those type of people are so hard headed that it takes some really hard blows for them to actually feel anything. I find a baseball bat is pretty effective.

"The government has experience with history before minimum wage. You should read it sometime, along with economic theory which includes the consumer side of the equation as well."

The consumer side is the only side I care about. The one thing that every one of us has in common is that we are consumers. mini mum wage rates hurt everyone. they hurt consumers who now have to pay more for their goods and services. They hurt labor by affecting meritorious distribution, and they hurt capital be forcing firms to do more with less.

You can't trick the markets, and any arbitrary change will be reflected in output, whether that change is $.70 or $7.00. At some point the increases will drive firms to utilize automation, or keep the most efficient percentage of their workforce, etc. At the end of the day, employers WILL NOT keep employees that are worth less that what they are paid. At the same time it might be that the higher cost wouldn't affect demand, in which case there would be no value in letting any workers go.

"And by "survival", I mean within the society, not dropped in the middle of a cornfield. Sheesh."

So then you don't really mean "survival," you mean being able to afford a private domicile, air conditioning, cable TV, etc. Those things really aren't necessary for survival, you know.

Madbomber sez:

"The consumer side is the only side I care about."

Then why did your economic theory only cover the suppliers?

"mini mum wage rates hurt everyone. they hurt consumers who now have to pay more for their goods and services. They hurt labor by affecting meritorious distribution, and they hurt capital be forcing firms to do more with less."

Now include inflation and productivity, and restate your aguments in a non-static world. Something, say, an Econ 102 student would have to do.

"You can't trick the markets, and any arbitrary change will be reflected in output, whether that change is $.70 or $7.00."

Is that why the Dow has been on a continual uptick lately? You'd think, if your theory was true, stocks would be plummeting.

"At some point the increases will drive firms to utilize automation, or keep the most efficient percentage of their workforce, etc. At the end of the day, employers WILL NOT keep employees that are worth less that what they are paid. At the same time it might be that the higher cost wouldn't affect demand, in which case there would be no value in letting any workers go."

Your theory, ambiguous as it is, might hold an ounce of water if data didn't show us the quality of life is better in areas with higher minimum wages.

""Is that why the Dow has been on a continual uptick lately?""

ER....yestereday it fell over 200 points.
The real estate market is in the toilet.
Foreclosures are way, way up.

The Bush economy was based on equity spending which is now dried up. Watch as things go south and you nit wits will blame it on the minimum wage increase.

Funny but sad.

Just heard market down over 100 points this a.m. Uh-oh!

Republicans and Democrats have their mascots (Elephand and Donkey) the right wingers also have a mascot, the Ostrich. That's so they can stick their heads in the sand when reality approaches.

"Then why did your economic theory only cover the suppliers?"

Supply side economics is a misnomer, since supply is what determined demand. It's interesting though that you bring up inflation, since to some degree inflation is a function of supply and demand.

One of the causes of inflation is an increase in cash in circulation without an increase in wealth. Increasing the minimum wage would most likely cause an increase in inflation. During the last minimum wage increase, 1990-1991, inflation increased by several points, the highest since 1980.

You also mention productivity. As you may or may not know, labor productivity has been increasing. labor productivity is defined as the total output divided by the amount of labor used in production. The problem is, this increase in labor productivity is not dude to labor, it's due to technology...it's due to capital. For exmaple, employee W works for company X operating machine Y producing article Z. In an effort to improve efficiency, X decides to upgrade machine Y so that it produces 20 articles per hour instead of 5. As part of the upgrade, machine Y is automated to require less labor input.

So here is the net result: labor input is quadrupled, while labor inputs are actually reduced. What allowed this increase was the injection of additional capital, and it is capital that should benefit from it.

In short, productivity numbers are somewhat misleading. Especially in manufacturing, most increased in productivity are not due to increased employee skill, but to technology. This productivity is reflected by higher wages for skilled employees, the enigineers that design the eqipment, the programmers that make it work, etc, but it wouldn't likely be passed on to the line operator UNLESS the operation required a higher skill level. There's no reason to expect it would be.

We can really get into the dynamics of the economy if you'd like, it would be a fun discussion.

"Your theory, ambiguous as it is, might hold an ounce of water if data didn't show us the quality of life is better in areas with higher minimum wages."

Like where? Sweden, where economic growth has been utterly stagnant since the 1970's?

You may prefer a socialized system. That's your right. I just don't feel that society has the right to tell me how I can worship, where I can live, what I can say, or how much of my money I can keep. You seriously can't claim that mys standard of living would be increased, if 75% of my income is confiscated by the state.

BTW, Sweden is changing. They now have lower corporate taxes that the US, in order to draw in new MNC's. They finally realized they can not achieve economic growth while catering to the minimally productive class.

Its basic economics. minimum wage is a bad thing...

Take out a loan, get an education and get a job that pays better than minimum wage. Payback the loan earn credit buy nice things get out of minimum wage lifecycle. HMMM but that would require people to work hard and earn what they get.. Not the liberal way...

Posted by armyof1


Leave the thinking to the adults..you can go masturbate to some animal planet show.

More money for the negroes? I'll pass on this one.