Raise Minimum Wage? Congress: No...WE need more money though

Dkellar

Dkellar

CAGiversary!
Feedback
11 (100%)
NEW YORK (CNN) -- Without much fanfare, the House of Representatives last week voted to give members of Congress yet another pay raise, as it has done almost every year for nearly a decade.

For some reason, our elected officials decided against holding a news conference. Maybe that's because they didn't want to draw attention to the fact that they raise their own salaries almost every year while refusing to raise the pay of our lowest-paid workers.

Corporate America, the Bush administration and the national economic orthodoxy with which they're in league have consistently argued against helping working men and women at the lowest end of the wage scale by raising the minimum wage. Big business groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce say it will harm the economy and eliminate jobs. As is so frequent with the faith-based economics that grips both political parties in Washington, such concerns have absolutely nothing to do with reality.

For example, it's impossible to deny the national minimum wage of $5.15 is not enough for a family to live above the poverty line. The annual salary for workers earning the national minimum wage still leaves a family of three about $6,000 short of the poverty threshold.

Raising the minimum wage to $7.50 would positively affect the lives of more than 8 million workers, including an estimated 760,000 single mothers and 1.8 million parents with children under 18. But even this 46 percent increase would get them only to the poverty line. Don't you think these families just might need that cost-of-living increase a bit more than our elected officials who are paid nearly $170,000 a year?

With no Congressional action on raising the minimum wage since 1997, inflation has eroded wages. The minimum wage in the 21st century is $2 lower in real dollars than it was four decades ago and now stands at its lowest level since 1955, according to the Economic Policy Institute and Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Also, since the last time Congress increased the minimum wage for our lowest-paid workers, buying power has fallen by 25 percent. Yet over that time our elected representatives have given themselves eight pay raises totaling more than 23 percent.

Raising the minimum wage isn't simply about the price of labor. It's also about our respect for labor. One of this country's greatest business innovators, Henry Ford, made history almost a century ago by raising the salaries of his production-line workers far beyond the prevailing wage. Ford not only paid his employees well enough to buy the products they built, but he kept his employees loyal and productive. That's also very good business.

The myth that raising the minimum wage will lead to job cuts is just that: a myth. In fact, research suggests just the opposite. According to the Fiscal Policy Institute, since 1998, states with higher minimum wages experienced better job growth than states paying only the federal minimum wage. Among small retail businesses in those higher minimum-wage states, job growth was double the rest of the country.

The House Appropriations Committee has passed a $2.10 increase as part of a spending bill, but the business lobby pressured the House leadership to hold up the measure.

"I think it's disgraceful that we waited nine years to do this," says Rep. David Obey, a Democrat from Wisconsin. "We have seen gas prices go up by 140 percent since the minimum wage was increased. We have seen home heating oil go up by 120 percent. We have seen health care go up by almost 45 percent."

This administration, our Republican-led Congress and the dominant corporate interests in this country want cheap labor. And to achieve that goal they're outsourcing middle-class jobs, importing illegal labor and cutting retirement and health-care benefits.

It's time for the federal government to reverse the trend, to at least substantially raise the minimum wage in this country, and by doing so express how much we value all working Americans.
Click to expand...

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/20/dobbs.june21/index.html


It was so much easier for Senate Republicans to kill both attempts by Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) to raise the minimum wage last year with no midterm elections looming right around the corner. With nothing more than their routine disregard for the poor as an excuse, the GOP leadership killed two bills offered by Kennedy in 2005 to raise a federal minimum wage that has remained the same for almost a decade.

This year it's tougher, because Republican Senators up for reelection may have to explain screwing working Americans in a more recent vote while, at the same time, managing to give themselves nine pay raises, totaling almost $32,000, in the same ten-year span.

So Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) has found a new way to pull his Simon Legree act and this time it takes the form of attaching a "poison pill" amendment to Kennedy's S.AMDT.4322, which would gradually raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour over the next two years.

A poison-pill is a procedural maneuver in which an onerous amendment is attached to a bill under consideration to force proponents of the original legislation to bail out and drop the whole issue. It's designed to either kill a bill entirely or create a situation that forces the other side into a negotiation to water down their original legislation to an unrecognizable point.

And the best way for a Religious Right go-to guy like Frist to do that -- and to poke a sharp stick in the eye of Senate Democrats -- is to attach an anti-abortion bill, that must be voted on before the minimum wage measure. Frist's S.AMDT.4323 would criminalize the transport of a minor across state lines to get an abortion and Democrats have to contend with that before they can get to the minimum wage issue.

Frist's intent is clear: To force red-state Democrats to vote "yea" on an anti-abortion bill -- or face the wrath of their conservative constituents this year -- which, if it passes, would then force all Democrats to vote against the minimum wage to nullify the anti-abortion part.

Have a headache yet? It's a disgusting thing to behold and another low for Republicans as they show they will stop at nothing to hold down wages on the people struggling most in our country.

"Too many hard-working people are living on the edge--just one serious illness, one pink slip away from bankruptcy," said Kennedy in arguing for his bill on the Senate floor. "For minimum wage workers, the American dream is even further from reality. Minimum wage workers are men and women of dignity. They care for their children and for young children in daycare centers. They care for senior citizens in nursing homes. They check out groceries in the supermarket. They clean our office buildings. But the minimum wage they receive no longer covers their bills. A minimum wage worker who works 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, earns just $10,700. That is almost $6,000 below the poverty line for a family of three."

The fact that at least 5.4 million more Americans, including one million children, have fallen into poverty since George W. Bush took office in 2000 seems to have no impact on Frist.

"We have agreed to set aside amendments so that the Senator from Massachusetts can offer an amendment on the minimum wage, and I second-degreed that amendment with a child custody protection amendment," said Frist. "Our discussions have led to the understanding that after we figure out how we are going to address both the minimum wage and child custody protection over the course of this afternoon or tonight or tomorrow, we will get around to having a vote on the minimum wage issue."

And, based on those ground rules, there's a very good chance that Kennedy and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) will decide to drop this incarnation of a minimum wage increase and fight that battle at a later date.

I would ask how Frist sleeps at night but, as a Republican, I'm sure he sleeps just fine.
Click to expand...

Source: http://www.alternet.org/blogs/echochamber/37922/#more
 
This just proves how moronic CCN is. They should take a basic economics class so they can learn that raising the minimum wage is a bad thing. There should be no minimum wage at all.
 
Wouldn't the cost of goods go up as well seeing that companies spend more money on the peons to harvest crops (let's just say) so the companies have to charge more to make up for the extra $2.35 they pay the workers? Or did I just blow your fucking mind? Also, it's entirely bullshit that congress is raising their own salaries again. As if they don't get enough shit for free.
 
[quote name='jagwire1141']Wouldn't the cost of goods go up as well seeing that companies spend more money on the peons to harvest crops (let's just say) so the companies have to charge more to make up for the extra $2.35 they pay the workers? Or did I just blow your fucking mind? Also, it's entirely bullshit that congress is raising their own salaries again. As if they don't get enough shit for free.[/quote]
That's what I was thinking, but with their examples (and others probably) of the cost of shit going up anyway minimum wage people are kinda fucked both ways if that happens.

The minimum wage has to go up with inflation and higher living costs or it's pretty useless (if that causes things to go up even more so people still can't afford shit then it's still useless).
 
The minimum wage doesn't hurt anything as long as it's below the equilibrium wage, which it seems to be, IIRC from my macro class.
 
These two issues should be separated.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but what is actually happening is Congress is NOT voting to block an automatic COLA (cost of living adjustment). The COLA happens every year since 1992, when Congress passed this bill.

Basically, it's a backdoor around the 27th Amendment that makes it illegal to raise the pay scale for the current term. That is to prevent congressmen from voting themselves a pay raise that they can benefit from in their current term.

It's disgraceful is what it is.


As for the minimum wage- basic economics will tell you the minimum wage is bad business. It does nothing other than price people out of jobs.

A real simple litmus test for it: why not raise the minimum wage to $150,000 dollars a year? Because it obviously wouldn't be an answer since it would cause prices of everything to inflate along with it (after of course companies had cut as many jobs as they could possibly get by doing).

It's a red herring of an argument used on people that don't use their brains to think. The biggest pushers of this minimum wage is the unions that base their pay scales off of what the gov't minimum wage is currently when negotiating contract rates.

Minimum wage jobs never were meant to support a family. They are for unskilled workers. Mostly being teenagers (needing experience to become a more valuable worker), seasoned citizens (looking to supplement SSI or pension income), or 2nd incomes to a household. If the head of a household is entirely unskilled-- it's not gov't or anyone else's job to care or fix it.
 
Penmyst couldn't have said it better. If everyone is making more at minimum wage, they really make the same. No one gains anything as the cost of paying the workers will be passed eventually to the consumer and hence inflation grows even higher.
 
Adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage is the lowest it's been since 1955, according to the article. No wonder why Americans won't work these jobs, and thus why we've been experiencing an exploding illegal immigration problem. If you don't support minimum wage, then you better support illegals.
 
Methinks penmyst is scared to consider equilibrium wage.

Boo! Scared ya, didn't I?

Of course, if the cost of goods has steadily increased year after year after year, then it's time something is done. Of course, we don't want to reign in hundreds-of-millions-of-dollar-bonuses-and-perks in order to make sure people can pay their bills. It's their fault they have a shitty job. The new America doesn't respect you, and the new America doesn't care if you can't survive in your blue-collar world. We want to make certain that we eliminate $100 million in tax revenue every year for the next decade by making sure all those poor children who receive inheritances over $4,000,000 aren't taxed 50% on everything over $4,000,000. Don't want to send them to the poorhouse, do ya?

Mean annual household income has remained steady for the past 16 years, in a constant dollar amount. This past christmas season saw *NEGATIVE* savings. We couldn't afford christmas, so America put it on the credit card. How do you resolve wanting to see the economy grow with the fact that we, as a nation, can't sustain continuous growth if it means that we must spend more this year (and again go into negative savings, since you don't want to increase wages) in order to grow the economy?

Seriously, dude. I know you're a fucking Republican, but think through these things before you pull out some Walter Williams bushleague bullshit on us. Two people working full time (that's 40 hours per week, not Wal-Mart full time of 32 hours per) will pull in just under $21,000, *BEFORE* taxes. If you have food and rent (let's be conservative and say two people can survive on $100 of food per month, and put rent at $500/month, well below most actual costs), well, you've hit $7,200 for the year. That's before bus fare, insurance, hospital visits, and pharmaceuticals, and god forbid you have children, or an automobile, or a credit card (well, considering last christmas, I know you have one of those)! I dare you to break down that pre-tax $21,000 and tell me how it works for people.

I would demand that politicians look to institue a maximum wage (and I can't *WAIT* to read what you fuckers want to postulate about how only allowing so many millions upon millions of dollars per year would stifle entrepeneurship :roll: ), and, of course, follow that up with redistributing that wealth throw the employees of said company. If you don't want to do that, focus on offshore tax shelters these fuckers come up with, make them pay their fair share, and fund social services that way (we have to pay for their goddamned tanks and whatever they make a profit off of every time they send our neighbors to get killed). Of course, the politicians know who butters their bread, and it ain't the Wal-Mart greeter.

This reminds me of something I was thinking about that horseshit known as trickle-down economics the other day. The very same people who exalt this philosophy think trickle-up economics (redistribution of wealth) is the single dumbest, most horrific, socialist remedy conceivable. Nevertheless, trickle-down economics is nothing more than the very same philosophy (creating opportunities for the impoverished yet working members of our society), but trickle-down takes a detour through the wallets of the wealthy first and foremost. So, considering how much right-wingers love efficiency (it's cheaper!), I will invite them to rethink their philosophy on that draconian and proven inefficient model of wealth redistribution, known as supply-side (or trickle-down) economics. You can thank me later.
 
[quote name='SpazX']
The minimum wage has to go up with inflation and higher living costs or it's pretty useless [/QUOTE]
Exactly. What people aren't realizing is that once the minimum wage rises, everything on the market doesn't instantly inflate in price; it takes a few years for the price of things to catch up. Raising the minimum wage is necessary to keep the significance of having a minimum wage. We're overdue for an increase.
 
i see this raise as long over due, we need to catch up with the cost of living. the idea that prices will be raised is textbook, but in our current situation we as a nation seem to be in a state of stagflation.
 
Equilibrium wage is a fact, but so is price gouging. Increase the minimum wage, prices will soon follow, regardless of inflation -- regarding greed.

Once it goes up, and I guess it should, there will be a spike in prices. $4.00+ gasoline, here we come!
 
[quote name='Brak']Equilibrium wage is a fact, but so is price gouging. Increase the minimum wage, prices will soon follow, regardless of inflation -- regarding greed.

Once it goes up, and I guess it should, there will be a spike in prices. $4.00+ gasoline, here we come![/QUOTE]

See, I was never a fan of this line of thinking; the old "we know corporations screw us, and that true economic power lies in the hands of the few elites. We are powerless to do anything to stop them; nonetheless, I fully embrace an open-market, non-intrusive laissez-faire capitalism. In no way, shape, or form, should we do anything to prevent what we know will happen, and what we know is unfair, from happening."

That mentality deserves a big ol' raspberry. :razz:
 
[quote name='mykevermin']See, I was never a fan of this line of thinking; the old "we know corporations screw us, and that true economic power lies in the hands of the few elites. We are powerless to do anything to stop them; nonetheless, I fully embrace an open-market, non-intrusive laissez-faire capitalism. In no way, shape, or form, should we do anything to prevent what we know will happen, and what we know is unfair, from happening."

That mentality deserves a big ol' raspberry. :razz:[/QUOTE]
I didn't allude to that. I just alluded to the inevitable.
 
I can't believe CNN has the balls to call themselves a news source. I don't think I've ever read a more slanted article than that first one.
 
[quote name='AFStealth']I can't believe CNN has the balls to call themselves a news source. I don't think I've ever read a more slanted article than that first one.[/QUOTE]

That's not slant: that's just calling a motherfucking liar a motherfucking liar. Its a whole lot better than the standard 'unbiased' reporting: "The Democrats claim that 2+2=4. Republicans claim that 2+2=5. The world may never know the truth." Then 6 months later everyone is using "2+2=4.5", just because that's the accepted average.
 
[quote name='AFStealth']I can't believe CNN has the balls to call themselves a news source. I don't think I've ever read a more slanted article than that first one.[/QUOTE]

Check the link, it's a commentary piece. By economics expert Lou Dobbs. Perhaps he should take an economics course, maybe they'll use one of his own books as a text.

Minimum wage="We'd pay you less if we were legally allowed."
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Which *IS* that.[/QUOTE]
No.

Stating what's going to happen, in terms of pocket gouging, and stating my view on this country's market infrastructure (what it is; what it should be; how to change it) are two seperate things, which you tried melding together -- in addition to the fact that your post was, in essence, summing up my opinions - to which were never stated or alluded-to - to tell me what I thought about the issue.

Moreso, if there was some type of subconcious or intentional allusion, on my part, it is to raise the minimum wage, all the while doing something about corporate greed and price tampering -- not some type of defeatist attitude, by any means.
 
[quote name='AYATOLA']i see this raise as long over due, we need to catch up with the cost of living. the idea that prices will be raised is textbook, but in our current situation we as a nation seem to be in a state of stagflation.[/QUOTE]

Main Entry: stag·fla·tion
Pronunciation: "stag-'flA-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: blend of stagnation and inflation
: persistent inflation combined with stagnant consumer demand and relatively high unemployment

This doesn't fit the current low-inflation, high-demand and low-unemployment situation we are in right now, not by a long shot.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Main Entry: stag·fla·tion
Pronunciation: "stag-'flA-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: blend of stagnation and inflation
: persistent inflation combined with stagnant consumer demand and relatively high unemployment

This doesn't fit the current low-inflation, high-demand and low-unemployment situation we are in right now, not by a long shot.[/quote]

here's mine

[quote name='Wikipedia.com']As of 2004 and 2005, global stagflation may be making a comeback with the price of oil well over $50 a barrel, the US Federal Reserve incrementally increasing interest rates, and employment rates stagnant. Monetarists and Keynesian economics continue to have difficulty explaining the phenomena.[/quote]

let's break it down some more

"Stag" refers to a sluggish economy with job shortages and little income growth, while “Flation” signifies rapidly rising prices.

middle class on decline...................check
loss US middle class jobs................check
increase in cost of living..................check
little income growth.........................check (otherwise wouldn't be postin)
sluggish economy............................no the economy is booming

booming? Yeah, GDP is through the roof
but what about GNP (Gross national product), um its down but if you count american jobs as GDP (gross domestic product) were just that much better off right?

I'll let the reader decide If you own stock and have a "good" job then I am an assclown. If you have noticed it getting just a little more expensive to live (being a college student I do feel this) then your probably say A fucking MEN
 
[quote name='AYATOLA']"Stag" refers to a sluggish economy with job shortages and little income growth, while “Flation” signifies rapidly rising prices.[/QUOTE]

But the facts reveal we are in a growing economy with very low unemployment...
 
[quote name='elprincipe']But the facts reveal we are in a growing economy with very low unemployment...[/quote]

right when were are loosing a middle class and Fat Burger and other min. wage paying jobs are created the economy is growing while the pay is goin down the crapper
 
Can't any of you political goons ever make a point WITHOUT coming off like an egotistical prick? Every little comment has to be followed up with "I just blew your mind" or "Ooooh, that thought scares ya, doesn't it?" We get it, you pay attention in your college classes that mommy and daddy paid for, so why should you even care about the minimum wage? Maybe you should turn off your $800 laptop, with your $300 iPod hooked into it, and go ask someone who actually MAKES MINIUMUM WAGE how hard it is these days. And don't give me this bull$hit about prices being raised if you raise minimum wage. Are gas prices and heating bills gonna skyrocket because all those poorly paid oil rig workers are making $7 an hour? Oh yeah, those workers DON'T make minimum wage!
 
[quote name='VanillaGorilla']Can't any of you political goons ever make a point WITHOUT coming off like an egotistical prick? Every little comment has to be followed up with "I just blew your mind" or "Ooooh, that thought scares ya, doesn't it?" We get it, you pay attention in your college classes that mommy and daddy paid for, so why should you even care about the minimum wage? Maybe you should turn off your $800 laptop, with your $300 iPod hooked into it, and go ask someone who actually MAKES MINIUMUM WAGE how hard it is these days. And don't give me this bull$hit about prices being raised if you raise minimum wage. Are gas prices and heating bills gonna skyrocket because all those poorly paid oil rig workers are making $7 an hour? Oh yeah, those workers DON'T make minimum wage![/quote]

That's a great point.

I'm sure anyone on minimum wage is a much better expert on US Fiscal Policy than any of the econ dept collegiate intelligentsia, let alone the college educated yuppies on this board. They should have just replaced Greenspan with average Joe Flippinburger!
 
[quote name='VanillaGorilla'] Are gas prices and heating bills gonna skyrocket because all those poorly paid oil rig workers are making $7 an hour? Oh yeah, those workers DON'T make minimum wage![/quote]
:roll:

Who does make minimum wage? The guy pumping the gas. The guy stocking the groceries. The guy sweeping the factory. The guy picking the food.

There are millions of jobs at every point of the spectrum making minimum wage.

Say one WalMart employes 50 people that make minimum wage. At 32 hours a week, a $2 raise would cost that store $1600 a week. Do you think they're going to offset that by cutting 1600 out of the manager's salary? Oh, how about diping into the CEOs Xmillion dollar bonus? No, they're going to A) fire off 14 people to keep the labor the same, B) raise prices to compenstate or C) a combination of the two.

Factor in that there are thousands of Walmarts and they all employ HUNDREDS of people each instead of 50 and that Walmart is just ONE CHAIN... Can you see how this creates a bit of an issue?

Sure, if the execs weren't making 10million a year and instead redistributed it to the employees we wouldn't have a problem. However, we'd be rather pre occupied by the pigs flying over a frozen hell.
 
[quote name='VanillaGorilla']Can't any of you political goons ever make a point WITHOUT coming off like an egotistical prick? Every little comment has to be followed up with "I just blew your mind" or "Ooooh, that thought scares ya, doesn't it?" We get it, you pay attention in your college classes that mommy and daddy paid for, so why should you even care about the minimum wage? Maybe you should turn off your $800 laptop, with your $300 iPod hooked into it, and go ask someone who actually MAKES MINIUMUM WAGE how hard it is these days. And don't give me this bull$hit about prices being raised if you raise minimum wage. Are gas prices and heating bills gonna skyrocket because all those poorly paid oil rig workers are making $7 an hour? Oh yeah, those workers DON'T make minimum wage![/QUOTE]

Jesus H Christ, kid. You wet the bed again this morning?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Jesus H Christ, kid. You wet the bed again this morning?[/quote]

You know, myke, there is a middleground between braindead and brilliant when it comes to replies, right? :lol:
 
I live in Washington State and i believe that we have the highest minimum wage in the country which is $7.63 an hour.
Things are going great up here!


It's absurd that they haven't raised the minimum wage since 1997.
 
[quote name='Kayden']:roll:

Who does make minimum wage? The guy pumping the gas. The guy stocking the groceries. The guy sweeping the factory. The guy picking the food.

There are millions of jobs at every point of the spectrum making minimum wage.

Say one WalMart employes 50 people that make minimum wage. At 32 hours a week, a $2 raise would cost that store $1600 a week. Do you think they're going to offset that by cutting 1600 out of the manager's salary? Oh, how about diping into the CEOs Xmillion dollar bonus? No, they're going to A) fire off 14 people to keep the labor the same, B) raise prices to compenstate or C) a combination of the two.

Factor in that there are thousands of Walmarts and they all employ HUNDREDS of people each instead of 50 and that Walmart is just ONE CHAIN... Can you see how this creates a bit of an issue?

Sure, if the execs weren't making 10million a year and instead redistributed it to the employees we wouldn't have a problem. However, we'd be rather pre occupied by the pigs flying over a frozen hell.[/QUOTE]

As it's already been said, as long as the minimum wage is below or at the equlibrium wage, none of that matters, as everything will equal out eventually.
 
[quote name='evanft']As it's already been said, as long as the minimum wage is below or at the equlibrium wage, none of that matters, as everything will equal out eventually.[/quote]

You think a stagering loss of profit will have zero impact? :roll:
 
[quote name='Kayden']You think a stagering loss of profit will have zero impact? :roll:[/QUOTE]

You used a single store to try and demonstrate a macroeconomic concept. An increase in the minimum wage, as long as that increase keeps the wage at or below equilibrium, would not effect the economy in a negative way. The supply of labor at that wage would still be below or at demand.
 
The real problem with a gov't mandated minimum wage is that it is price fixing.

And just as price fixing never helps, but rather exacerbates the problems it's supposed to fix-- so too does mandating a minimum wage.

See, if your work is only of a value of lets say $2.00 per hour (remember the guy that use to pump your gas and check your oil?) then as an employer I'm willing to pay you $2.00 an hour give or take.

Now, if I am forced to instead pay you $5.00 per hour- I'm losing $3.00 per hour having you as an employee. I have one of two choices, either force you to do more work (thereby raising your production value to my company) or I have to fire you and make it up somewhere else( most likely by making one of my other employees do your job, or in the case of gas station attendants, making the public do the job you used to do for themselves).

Yes, it's a rudimentary example. But that is pretty much how it goes in the real world.

Therefore, the minimum wage doesn't really do all that much to help the lowest level workers.

And as Kayden points out, it might seem a small raise if you look at it in the terms of one employee. But imagine how many low-skilled workers many companies around the country employ. Walmart being a good example. They may have thousands upon thousands of minimum wagers. Those costs add up in a hurry and they have to make them up somewhere. Usually by eliminating some minimum wage jobs (gee, that wage hike really helped THAT guy), forcing employees to do more work than before (to offset cost:value), raising prices, or some combination of those 3.

As for oil rig workers or any of the other millions of blue collar jobs "not making minimum wage"-- many are union jobs that are connected to the minimum wage and therefore when the minimum wage is hiked so are their respective pay scales. That costs a lot of money to industries across the board. And translates to the same malaise as the Walmarts, resulting in inflation.

And the blue collar jobs that aren't union, but are higher than minimum wage- it's usually because those jobs require some kinds of extraordinary circumstances that set them apart from the usual low skill job (min. wage). Such as danger, long times away from family, extremely long hours, etc.

I started my working life out in minimum wage jobs. I barely finished 9th grade of highschool and have no further education. I don't work minimum wage jobs now, but that's because I have worked to improve my skills and now earn a much better salary. So I have been in the situation of trying to make ends meet with a min. wage job and I forced myself to find a way to rise above that.

I truly feel empathy for people that are in a position of having to try and support a family on min. wage. But that doesn't mean I believe it is in any way the job of gov't house to do anything about it. Mostly because I believe it is immoral to take one man's money to pay for another man's life, but also because gov't house does nothing but muddy the waters for the economy and cause unintended side effects through thier bumbling supposition that they know what's best for the economy better than the private companies that are the real engines of the economy.

.
 
http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/issueguides_minwage_minwage

Let's stop talking in hypotheticals.

Hypothetically, Godzilla could still attack Tokyo. Does the data support it? You talk a good game, penmyst, but nowhere do I see any inkling of data that backs up your assertions.

Moreover, as we're seeing even greater increases the already overwhelmingly lopsided pay gap between CEOs and workers, coupled with negative savings (something you've ignored again), we're in a dreadful state economically.

Now, as for "taking another man's money," since that's all dressed up in assumptions (that one person has rightful claim to that money as owner), why don't you go read Marx's "Capital?" If you can stomach theory, which, given the tenuous nature of your posts, I'm sure you can, then this ought to be a breeze. You act as if it's exploitative and taking of the person's property if you take money from them. What is it, then, if you allocate another man's labor into products for your own betterment? If you charge for that product, and pay yourself more for owning that item, and the worker less, are you not engaging in the precisely same form of exploitation that you claim to despise so much? Or is it more palatable if it's exploitation from one man on another, rather than from the state? As if the state was a consistently cynical and sinister power, and the power excised by the capitalist benign and kind? To believe in such absolutes is an absurdity.
 
[quote name='VanillaGorilla']Can't any of you political goons ever make a point WITHOUT coming off like an egotistical prick? Every little comment has to be followed up with "I just blew your mind" or "Ooooh, that thought scares ya, doesn't it?" We get it, you pay attention in your college classes that mommy and daddy paid for, so why should you even care about the minimum wage? [/quote]
I don't think I make wiseass remarks but as for my classes, I guess the fact that I work and have student loans counts for nothing. Why do I pay attention is class because I pay the bill neither my mom nor my dad.

I work for chase bank and the starting pay is a $9.00 per hour for a teller and I don't believe you need a HS diploma to apply. All you have to do is a few simple math and "personality" tests along the way and you'll get called in for an interview.
Chase also has a program that allows you to "borrow" money from chase to pay tuition and you'll not have to pay it back if you work for chase 2 yrs after you graduate.

So I would suggest that you wipe those tears and look for a good job with a good company because it will not fall in your lap.

Note to all: in Houston I know for a fact that almost all branches are looking for tellers due to being understaffed so get out there and apply.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/issueguides_minwage_minwage

Let's stop talking in hypotheticals.

Hypothetically, Godzilla could still attack Tokyo. Does the data support it? You talk a good game, penmyst, but nowhere do I see any inkling of data that backs up your assertions.

Moreover, as we're seeing even greater increases the already overwhelmingly lopsided pay gap between CEOs and workers, coupled with negative savings (something you've ignored again), we're in a dreadful state economically.

Now, as for "taking another man's money," since that's all dressed up in assumptions (that one person has rightful claim to that money as owner), why don't you go read Marx's "Capital?" If you can stomach theory, which, given the tenuous nature of your posts, I'm sure you can, then this ought to be a breeze. You act as if it's exploitative and taking of the person's property if you take money from them. What is it, then, if you allocate another man's labor into products for your own betterment? If you charge for that product, and pay yourself more for owning that item, and the worker less, are you not engaging in the precisely same form of exploitation that you claim to despise so much? Or is it more palatable if it's exploitation from one man on another, rather than from the state? As if the state was a consistently cynical and sinister power, and the power excised by the capitalist benign and kind? To believe in such absolutes is an absurdity.[/QUOTE]

I'm so happy you aren't afraid to show your true colors, myke. Better red than dead, eh comrade?

Your problem is that you cling to your favorite communist "theories" as if they are laws, or akin to scientific connotations of "theory" (as in the theory of gravity) as if they have observable bases in reality and not arbitrary social constructs with a jigger of exploitation for effect.

Your worker gets compensated according to a fair market wage. If he doesn't like the wage he can "shop" the market for a better one. He has the freedom to enter into a contract for with whomever will compensate him most fairly. If he doesn't have a marketable skill, why should he be compensated at a greater rate than his skills are worth? Because of your version of what makes fair? All hail myke - the emperor of fair !

You are misguided about human nature as much as you are ignorant of the taxes on a married couple with dependants making 21k a year. They don't pay taxes. In fact, they receive what's called an earned income tax credit. But then, nothing is fair enough for people like you until all those rich robber barons are stripped of their ill gotten wealth extracted from the sweat, blood, and exploitation of the poor, hapless worker - too ignorant and unable to better his own existence without the help and the strong arm of the politboro.
 
[quote name='AYATOLA']I don't think I make wiseass remarks but as for my classes, I guess the fact that I work and have student loans counts for nothing. Why do I pay attention is class because I pay the bill neither my mom nor my dad.

I work for chase bank and the starting pay is a $9.00 per hour for a teller and I don't believe you need a HS diploma to apply. All you have to do is a few simple math and "personality" tests along the way and you'll get called in for an interview.
Chase also has a program that allows you to "borrow" money from chase to pay tuition and you'll not have to pay it back if you work for chase 2 yrs after you graduate.

So I would suggest that you wipe those tears and look for a good job with a good company because it will not fall in your lap.

Note to all: in Houston I know for a fact that almost all branches are looking for tellers due to being understaffed so get out there and apply.[/QUOTE]

Wow, that's a nice job. What kind of benefits do you get?
 
[quote name='bmulligan']I'm so happy you aren't afraid to show your true colors, myke. Better red than dead, eh comrade?

Your problem is that you cling to your favorite communist "theories" as if they are laws, or akin to scientific connotations of "theory" (as in the theory of gravity) as if they have observable bases in reality and not arbitrary social constructs with a jigger of exploitation for effect.[/quote]

That's a misinterpretation of what I said. I consider you to be one of the few people here that has fleeting moments of intelligence (and that goes for those I agree and disagree with), so I'm not certain how you think I believe of it as law. I'm merely pointing out that penmyst's assumption of the rights and claims of ownership to capital resources in a capitalist relationship is up for debate. It's isn't inherently the money of the capitalist, and it isn't inherently the money of the worker. There are philosophies that try to make both points, that's all I was saying. "Law." Blow it out your ass.

Your worker gets compensated according to a fair market wage. If he doesn't like the wage he can "shop" the market for a better one. He has the freedom to enter into a contract for with whomever will compensate him most fairly. If he doesn't have a marketable skill, why should he be compensated at a greater rate than his skills are worth? Because of your version of what makes fair? All hail myke - the emperor of fair !
Click to expand...

Your hyperbole would make Ann Coulter's adam's apple swell with pride. A worker has the freedom to choose amongst a series of owners. In so doing, he has already entered into a lopsided relationship economically, as the only resources he has control of are the skills he possesses. The resources the capitalist has, well, include everything else. The imbalance in negotiating this relationship is inherent in the sense that the capitalist merely provides the worker an opportunity to make money for them. The more successful the relationship is for both worker and capitalist, the more unequal they become from each other. The wealth and resources of the capitalist increase exponentially larger than that of the worker, even as the worker believes himself to be doing the very best thing for him. This is the order of any capitalist-worker relationship. This is philosophy (not LAW, since it seems I have to spell it out for the dense), of course, and thus oversimplifies things a bit, but no more than your condensed Adam Smith in the quote above.

Inequality is inherent in capitalism, at least as it is intended to work. You may not have a problem with it. That's fine. But, don't come in here and act like owners and workers alike have equal leverage in economic relationships and negotiations; especially if you're not a fan of unions. You know that owners have more power than workers, and for some reason think that's just peachy. You don't mind exploitation if you can afford cable television, do you?

You are misguided about human nature as much as you are ignorant of the taxes on a married couple with dependants making 21k a year. They don't pay taxes. In fact, they receive what's called an earned income tax credit. But then, nothing is fair enough for people like you until all those rich robber barons are stripped of their ill gotten wealth extracted from the sweat, blood, and exploitation of the poor, hapless worker - too ignorant and unable to better his own existence without the help and the strong arm of the politboro.
Click to expand...

The fuck is 'human nature,' and what can you do to prove it to me? "human nature" is the last vestige of the bullshitter.
 
[quote name='evanft']Wow, that's a nice job. What kind of benefits do you get?[/quote]
med is available, but kind of pricey, the dental is good, 401(k) which is pointless but "sounds good". & I already mentioned the college thing.

oh 100% free accounts ( free online banking with any account, free checks with any account, fee waived on Travler cheque orders and money orders), and a lower APR with you chase credit card. I'm 20 and mine is 11.49% not too bad in my opinion for a 20 yr old that is.
 
[quote name='AYATOLA']med is available, but kind of pricey, the dental is good, 401(k) which is pointless but "sounds good". & I already mentioned the college thing.

oh 100% free accounts ( free online banking with any account, free checks with any account, fee waived on Travler cheque orders and money orders), and a lower APR with you chase credit card. I'm 20 and mine is 11.49% not too bad in my opinion for a 20 yr old that is.[/QUOTE]

Nice. Get an IRA.
 
Screw rasing the minimum wage. Even if you raise it, it is still the MINIMUM.


Overhaul the income tax system (I don't know if the flat-tax is the right idea but do SOMETHING), stop taking as much from people's paychecks as they do now. Also, make the government spend more efficently.
 
I know all you supply side economics people hate raising the minimum wage, but heres my problem. When you give more money to the top 1 percent, they might invest more and might "trickle" down the cash. This could help companies but it mainly helps themselves. When you give more money to the bottom 30% of America they will spend more on everyday products. The buying power of the bottom 99% is greater than that of the top 1%. Even though the 1% has more money, they will never buy as much as anyone else. Until our government gets back to helping its people with health care, education, afterschool programs, low income housing and other things of that nature, people at the bottom of the economy need more cash, and most likely the only way they will get more cash in an increase in their min wage at a national level.
 
How about we just get rid of social services all together? That way we don't have to drag the stupid and lazy and those that actually work wont be taxed to death. Its one thing to help a guy when he lost his job. However, theres no excuse for a cow-bitch of a whore with 7 kids running around living off the government. No free education or any sort of healthcare for illegals.

Canada has the same policies in place. You can't even go into the hospital unless you've been a working citizen for 90 days. People not born in Mexico can't hold any sort of government position in Mexico. How much would they bitch if we did the same thing? :whistle2:k

We're one of the most liberal-giving-bendover-backwards-to-kiss-your-cant-speak-English-ass countries in existance, and all our giving has done is left people standing around with their grubby palms out asking for more.

Look at animals in a zoo. The ones born in capitivity can't survive in the real world. The same thing happens with people. All these people subsiding on government money would be up shit creek without their handouts. They have no idea how to provide for themselves- or worse yet- know they don't have to and the government (we) will pick up the tab.

Social services are a great idea- on paper. Just like Socialism. Unfortunately, the human element fucks it up for everyone.

[quote name='Ikohn4ever']I know all you supply side economics people hate raising the minimum wage, but heres my problem. When you give more money to the top 1 percent, they might invest more and might "trickle" down the cash. This could help companies but it mainly helps themselves. When you give more money to the bottom 30% of America they will spend more on everyday products. The buying power of the bottom 99% is greater than that of the top 1%. Even though the 1% has more money, they will never buy as much as anyone else. Until our government gets back to helping its people with health care, education, afterschool programs, low income housing and other things of that nature, people at the bottom of the economy need more cash, and most likely the only way they will get more cash in an increase in their min wage at a national level.[/quote]
 
[quote name='Kayden']How about we just get rid of social services all together? That way we don't have to drag the stupid and lazy and those that actually work wont be taxed to death. Its one thing to help a guy when he lost his job. However, theres no excuse for a cow-bitch of a whore with 7 kids running around living off the government. No free education or any sort of healthcare for illegals.

Canada has the same policies in place. You can't even go into the hospital unless you've been a working citizen for 90 days. People not born in Mexico can't hold any sort of government position in Mexico. How much would they bitch if we did the same thing? :whistle2:k

We're one of the most liberal-giving-bendover-backwards-to-kiss-your-cant-speak-English-ass countries in existance, and all our giving has done is left people standing around with their grubby palms out asking for more.

Look at animals in a zoo. The ones born in capitivity can't survive in the real world. The same thing happens with people. All these people subsiding on government money would be up shit creek without their handouts. They have no idea how to provide for themselves- or worse yet- know they don't have to and the government (we) will pick up the tab.

Social services are a great idea- on paper. Just like Socialism. Unfortunately, the human element fucks it up for everyone.[/QUOTE]

Can you show me the data on welfare that proves how long people cling to it? Even after the imposition of term limits 10 years ago by Clinton's reform bill?

Can you show me the data on how much money this costs the American taxpayers annualy? Care to compare that to the cost of the damn-near fully privatized military system? Our prison system?

Can you do anything other than cite largely-mythological "welfare queen" creatures so as to falsely discern between "deserving" and "undeserving" citizens? Can you do anything but make it a minority issue (since you had to throw in "can't-speak-English)? A gender issue (since we know only women are responsible for having children, as evidenced by your "cow-whore" argument)?

In other words, in all your vitriol, what have you to prove your case, other than hypothetical anecdotes conjured, not from reality, but from the stereotypes in your mind, to emotively bring people in to your women-and-minority-and-immigrant hate festival?

Take a fucking powder. Rub one off. Have a stiff drink (I know it's still early). But get off your high horse of righteousness when you're nothing but full of shit.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']I know all you supply side economics people hate raising the minimum wage, but heres my problem. When you give more money to the top 1 percent, they might invest more and might "trickle" down the cash. This could help companies but it mainly helps themselves. .[/QUOTE]

also if you (not Ikohn but the same folks) buy the old"If you raise the minimum wage, there will be less jobs" line of reasoning then wouldn't the same be true for the outrageous *bonuses" that CEO are getting?

Or are you going to suggest that "the market" knows the different between more money spent on regular folks and more money spent of CEOs.
 
When it gets right down to it, no matter how many facts you prove or sources you cite, this is still just idealistic arguing on a message board, and subsequently, just maturbation.

[quote name='mykevermin']Can you show me the data on welfare that proves how long people cling to it? Even after the imposition of term limits 10 years ago by Clinton's reform bill?

Can you show me the data on how much money this costs the American taxpayers annualy? Care to compare that to the cost of the damn-near fully privatized military system? Our prison system?

Can you do anything other than cite largely-mythological "welfare queen" creatures so as to falsely discern between "deserving" and "undeserving" citizens? Can you do anything but make it a minority issue (since you had to throw in "can't-speak-English)? A gender issue (since we know only women are responsible for having children, as evidenced by your "cow-whore" argument)?

In other words, in all your vitriol, what have you to prove your case, other than hypothetical anecdotes conjured, not from reality, but from the stereotypes in your mind, to emotively bring people in to your women-and-minority-and-immigrant hate festival?

Take a fucking powder. Rub one off. Have a stiff drink (I know it's still early). But get off your high horse of righteousness when you're nothing but full of shit.[/quote]
 
[quote name='Kayden']When it gets right down to it, no matter how many facts you prove or sources you cite, this is still just idealistic arguing on a message board, and subsequently, just maturbation.[/QUOte]

I think someone just got a special delivery, hand delivered.

yourass2.jpg
 
It's touching to see that some (mostly BMuls) still believe the old 'Horatio Alger, dust to diamonds' mythology.

I also used to think it was plausible (in middle school mind you), so for me it's a nostalgia trip back to a simpler time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top