Democrats should immediately confront the minimum wage rate.

[Crixus]

Democrats regained the congressional House. Now they should immediately confront the federal minimum wage rate issue.

I’m among those that advocate a minimum wage rate gradually increased to higher purchasing power and thereafter monitored and (when necessary to retain its targeted purchasing power), it should be updated prior to New Year’s date of the following year. In my opinion, annual increases of 12% until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power is reasonable.

It would be possible, but politically problematic for the Republican majority U.S. Senate not to pass an alternative bill responding to the Democratic House’s bill. Usually, there are differences between bills that may, (or may not) be reconciled by negotiators from each chamber. A bill sent to the president for his consideration must be passed by both houses with exactly the same drafted language. That usually requires both chambers to again vote and pass a draft of the bill that’s a mutually agreed upon update.

Possible House’s negotiating positions:

The Senate will be displeased by the concept of pegging the rate’s purchasing power.
The House’s alternative position could be, lose the purchasing power provision but give us 15% annual increase for 10 years.

The Senate may then find the purchasing power concept less objectionable but they're then displeased with the 12%.
The House’s alternative position could be, 8% increase every Labor Day until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power, but the rate’s additionally annually updates reflecting changes in the CPI-U will begin prior to the New Year’s day following the enactment day of the Bill.

I hope the Democratic negotiators would be polite and respectful beyond civility, but FIRM! they should not acquiesce or attempt to placate to the opposition. Democrats should be fully prepared to leave the negotiating table and permit the differences to be resolved by the 2020 general elections.

Respectfully, Supposn

You know, if that happens it will only hurt the illegals that work at McDonalds right? Been to anfastfoog joint lately? I went to Wendy’s in a dumpy part of town yesterday. Automation took care of most of my order. And it’s not just fast food either.


[VIDEO] Watch This Humanoid Construction Robot Hang Drywall





So the illegals have been stealing those jobs to. So what your wage hike does is moves all these jobs into being automated. Robots will work a 24 hour shot and not complain a bit. Then what?

 

[Andylusion]

Why not let people do their own thing? If I could do a job someone needs done for $5.50 an hour, why not allow me to bid the job at that rate?

Actually, when the federal minimum wage law was established in 1938, it was set at 25 cents an hour which is equivalent to $3.50 in todays dollars. So if people want to keep pace with the minimum wage, we need to lower it by several dollars.

Exactly. You can always tell when people are making an ideological point, because they pick a year like 1976 or some crazy year, when inflation was double digits, and for a few weeks, the minimum wage was high.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Democrats regained the congressional House. Now they should immediately confront the federal minimum wage rate issue.

I’m among those that advocate a minimum wage rate gradually increased to higher purchasing power and thereafter monitored and (when necessary to retain its targeted purchasing power), it should be updated prior to New Year’s date of the following year. In my opinion, annual increases of 12% until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power is reasonable.

It would be possible, but politically problematic for the Republican majority U.S. Senate not to pass an alternative bill responding to the Democratic House’s bill. Usually, there are differences between bills that may, (or may not) be reconciled by negotiators from each chamber. A bill sent to the president for his consideration must be passed by both houses with exactly the same drafted language. That usually requires both chambers to again vote and pass a draft of the bill that’s a mutually agreed upon update.

Possible House’s negotiating positions:

The Senate will be displeased by the concept of pegging the rate’s purchasing power.
The House’s alternative position could be, lose the purchasing power provision but give us 15% annual increase for 10 years.

The Senate may then find the purchasing power concept less objectionable but they're then displeased with the 12%.
The House’s alternative position could be, 8% increase every Labor Day until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power, but the rate’s additionally annually updates reflecting changes in the CPI-U will begin prior to the New Year’s day following the enactment day of the Bill.

I hope the Democratic negotiators would be polite and respectful beyond civility, but FIRM! they should not acquiesce or attempt to placate to the opposition. Democrats should be fully prepared to leave the negotiating table and permit the differences to be resolved by the 2020 general elections.

Respectfully, Supposn

They should set the minimum wage to $1,000,000 a year to make everyone a millionaire

 

[The Original Tree]

We could actually support a higher minimum wage, but you'd have to build the wall, and crack down on illegal immigration, rewrite immigration laws, so that people seeking minimum wage would not have their jobs taken by illegals willing to work for pennies on the dollar.

Also, a higher minimum wage can force companies to want consoles instead of cashiers.

Self Check Out Anyone?

The only way you stop that is to quit forcing such expensive regulations on employers.

 

[Dragonlady]

I agree that they should confront the federal minimum wage rate. They should abolish it completely and let States do their own thing.

They won't but they should

Why not let people do their own thing? If I could do a job someone needs done for $5.50 an hour, why not allow me to bid the job at that rate?

.

Because neither you nor anyone else can live on $5.50 per hour and that means someone has to make up the difference. Employers are using the earned income credits, food stamps and Medicaid to subsidize the wages of their lowest paid workers, on the backs of the American middle class. This is why big corporations like Walmart are awash in cash.

All of these corporations are paying $20 million in more to their CEO's while the American public is being hosed for their workers' wages. This, more than any other factor is why worker wages lag so far behind wage increases for management and excutives. No other free world country has such an economically inefficient method and expensive method for low income workers. This breeds large government, and syphons away a huge amount of revenue for wages of those who process these applications and payments.

All of which is supported and maintained by Republicans who continually refuse to raise the minimum wage.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

... When wages increase, so do prices of goods and services. Do you really think the average voter wants to pay more for services and products?

Ray From Cleveland, the U.S. federal minimum wage rate is not among the primary causes of U.S. dollar’s reduced purchasing power. The minimum rate is much less a cause, and much more a victim of our currency inflation.

Our federal government through our congress and our president cannot compel individual states to increase their minimum rate beyond the federal minimum rate, but they can set the federal minimum higher for the purpose of preventing states within which employees' purchasing powers are the lowest, from continuing to undermine their own and the remainder of our nation’s employees and their families living standards.

A majority of USA’s voters favor increasing the federal minimum wage rate and thereafter retaining its purchasing power. A majority of USA voters did not prefer Donald Trump.

Respectfully, Supposn

In other words, the majority want to vote themselves a pay raise. Too bad that it will not increase their purchasing power because it is a dog chasing its tail.

 

[danielpalos]

Democrats regained the congressional House. Now they should immediately confront the federal minimum wage rate issue.

I’m among those that advocate a minimum wage rate gradually increased to higher purchasing power and thereafter monitored and (when necessary to retain its targeted purchasing power), it should be updated prior to New Year’s date of the following year. In my opinion, annual increases of 12% until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power is reasonable.

It would be possible, but politically problematic for the Republican majority U.S. Senate not to pass an alternative bill responding to the Democratic House’s bill. Usually, there are differences between bills that may, (or may not) be reconciled by negotiators from each chamber. A bill sent to the president for his consideration must be passed by both houses with exactly the same drafted language. That usually requires both chambers to again vote and pass a draft of the bill that’s a mutually agreed upon update.

Possible House’s negotiating positions:

The Senate will be displeased by the concept of pegging the rate’s purchasing power.
The House’s alternative position could be, lose the purchasing power provision but give us 15% annual increase for 10 years.

The Senate may then find the purchasing power concept less objectionable but they're then displeased with the 12%.
The House’s alternative position could be, 8% increase every Labor Day until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power, but the rate’s additionally annually updates reflecting changes in the CPI-U will begin prior to the New Year’s day following the enactment day of the Bill.

I hope the Democratic negotiators would be polite and respectful beyond civility, but FIRM! they should not acquiesce or attempt to placate to the opposition. Democrats should be fully prepared to leave the negotiating table and permit the differences to be resolved by the 2020 general elections.

Respectfully, Supposn

You realize that will never happen with high rates of immigration right? Besides, in 68 we were the only game in town. ILMAO @ 12% per year. Folks must really have it bad doing jobs we did as teenagers

Let's see, in 1984 I saved 12K to buy a house while living on my own. That was on $6 an hour. The house was 65K, but interest rates were 12ish. The rate today is 4-5ish, and the house is worth 170K. At the rate I was paying that 170K house would be worth approx. 80K today. Poor fellows, you can't buy a house today? Stop having kids and blowing your money on useless shit. Employers owe you a wage, and if the job doesn't pay enough then do something about it. A minimum wage is an entitlement. And incidentally, the wealth gap is primarily the work of progressive liberals.

The minimum wage is NOT an entitlement because you are not entitled to receive it. You invested nothing, so you should get nothing. Technically, it is government mandated welfare for those unable to earn a decent wage based on their abilities and experience.

the alternative is more expensive means testing.

 

[danielpalos]

Agreed that the Democrats should confront the minimum wage issue.

They should eliminate it immediately.

How much are we spending so the right wing can allege, gunboat diplomacy is Capitalism.

 

[danielpalos]

... When wages increase, so do prices of goods and services. Do you really think the average voter wants to pay more for services and products?

Ray From Cleveland, the U.S. federal minimum wage rate is not among the primary causes of U.S. dollar’s reduced purchasing power. The minimum rate is much less a cause, and much more a victim of our currency inflation.

Our federal government through our congress and our president cannot compel individual states to increase their minimum rate beyond the federal minimum rate, but they can set the federal minimum higher for the purpose of preventing states within which employees' purchasing powers are the lowest, from continuing to undermine their own and the remainder of our nation’s employees and their families living standards.

A majority of USA’s voters favor increasing the federal minimum wage rate and thereafter retaining its purchasing power. A majority of USA voters did not prefer Donald Trump.

Respectfully, Supposn

The primary cost factor of all products and services, is labor. Even if your specific product is 50% material cost, that is the cost to you, but the cost of that material, has labor costs wrapped into it. Meaning if I buy 1 ton of steel for $135, a chunk of that cost is labor. And a chunk of the cost of the raw iron ore used to make that steel is labor.

So my point is, to claim that driving up the cost of labor, does not have inflationary effects is completely illogical. Of course it does. It would be impossible for it not to have inflationary effects.

By what logic would you claim that you can drive up the cost of producing every product or service throughout the entire economy, and yet not cause an economy wide increase in prices? Explain that if you will. I'd love to hear the theory.

We know inflation will happen. It will be "positive" inflation instead of "negative" inflation like price inflation for fuel.

 

[Supposn]

The point you missed is that the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to create wage requirements. The Constitution was written to restrict the federal government--not empower it. And what the federal government was expected to do is written in the powers of Congress.

Ray From Cleveland, among the U.S. Constitution’s attributes, are both it’s flexibility to be modified and the restrictions that it originally place upon our government. Thus far, precedents have supported federal power and jurisdiction to regulate the minimum wage rate paid to U.S. employees. I understand the basis of your constitutional interpretations.

Judicial reviews are not based upon judges' desire, but rather they are guided by our currently existing constitution’s text, previous practices, and courts' judgments. I don’t perceive justifiable expectations of the courts eventually seeing things your way.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[dannyboys]

Democrats regained the congressional House. Now they should immediately confront the federal minimum wage rate issue.

I’m among those that advocate a minimum wage rate gradually increased to higher purchasing power and thereafter monitored and (when necessary to retain its targeted purchasing power), it should be updated prior to New Year’s date of the following year. In my opinion, annual increases of 12% until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power is reasonable.

It would be possible, but politically problematic for the Republican majority U.S. Senate not to pass an alternative bill responding to the Democratic House’s bill. Usually, there are differences between bills that may, (or may not) be reconciled by negotiators from each chamber. A bill sent to the president for his consideration must be passed by both houses with exactly the same drafted language. That usually requires both chambers to again vote and pass a draft of the bill that’s a mutually agreed upon update.

Possible House’s negotiating positions:

The Senate will be displeased by the concept of pegging the rate’s purchasing power.
The House’s alternative position could be, lose the purchasing power provision but give us 15% annual increase for 10 years.

The Senate may then find the purchasing power concept less objectionable but they're then displeased with the 12%.
The House’s alternative position could be, 8% increase every Labor Day until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power, but the rate’s additionally annually updates reflecting changes in the CPI-U will begin prior to the New Year’s day following the enactment day of the Bill.

I hope the Democratic negotiators would be polite and respectful beyond civility, but FIRM! they should not acquiesce or attempt to placate to the opposition. Democrats should be fully prepared to leave the negotiating table and permit the differences to be resolved by the 2020 general elections.

Respectfully, Supposn

Ask the city of Seattle how a minimum wage worked out for thousands of now closed business.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I agree that they should confront the federal minimum wage rate. They should abolish it completely and let States do their own thing.

They won't but they should

Why not let people do their own thing? If I could do a job someone needs done for $5.50 an hour, why not allow me to bid the job at that rate?

.

Because neither you nor anyone else can live on $5.50 per hour and that means someone has to make up the difference. Employers are using the earned income credits, food stamps and Medicaid to subsidize the wages of their lowest paid workers, on the backs of the American middle class. This is why big corporations like Walmart are awash in cash.

All of these corporations are paying $20 million in more to their CEO's while the American public is being hosed for their workers' wages. This, more than any other factor is why worker wages lag so far behind wage increases for management and excutives. No other free world country has such an economically inefficient method and expensive method for low income workers. This breeds large government, and syphons away a huge amount of revenue for wages of those who process these applications and payments.

All of which is supported and maintained by Republicans who continually refuse to raise the minimum wage.

You are trying to blame companies for something that's governments fault. Companies don't put people on welfare--government puts people on welfare.

Furthermore is the fact that people deliberately keep their income low to receive these taxpayer goodies. They work part-time in many cases so they don't lose their food stamps, welfare or HUD subsidy. I see it first hand all the time with our customers who use temporary services.

Lowlifes will live together so their combined income can afford them a roof over their heads. Food Stamps keeps them nice and fat, and they have all the time in the world to party whenever they want. Weekends mean nothing to them.

In essence, our government is encouraging people not to better themselves. They promote laziness and irresponsibility.

"If you pay people not to work, don't be too surprised when they don't."
Rush Limbaugh

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why not let people do their own thing? If I could do a job someone needs done for $5.50 an hour, why not allow me to bid the job at that rate?

Actually, when the federal minimum wage law was established in 1938, it was set at 25 cents an hour which is equivalent to $3.50 in todays dollars. So if people want to keep pace with the minimum wage, we need to lower it by several dollars.

Exactly. You can always tell when people are making an ideological point, because they pick a year like 1976 or some crazy year, when inflation was double digits, and for a few weeks, the minimum wage was high.

Just like they do to promote global warming.

 

[OKTexas]

Would you be so kind as to point out the clause in the Constitution that allows the feds to regulate local wages?.

Why not let people do their own thing? If I could do a job someone needs done for $5.50 an hour, why not allow me to bid the job at that rate?

So you expect me and others to pay for peoples ignorance. ...

OKTexas, I suppose Texas schools do sometimes discuss the United States Constitution. You’re pretending ignorance because you believe it suits your purposes? You were confused because you’re reading a transcript with the original 18th-century spelling of the words? The term “general welfare” is explicitly used within our U.S. Constitution’s preamble and within article 1, section 8.

No one forces you to accept and keep your wages. But if someone or some enterprise illegally directly or indirectly pays an employee less than the federal minimum wage rate, or in some manner effectively and illegally induces the employee to effectively surrender or give up portions of their legal earnings, that direct or indirect employer may be subject to the laws and regulations enforcing the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act. I do not “expect you to pay for others ignorance”; but if someone deliberately breaks the law, I expect them to pay for their own ignorance.

Respectfully, Supposn

If you actually bother to read the preamble, it say to PROMOTE the General Welfare, not provide. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, also known as the taxing and spending clause, which allows the government to raise funds to be expended on two spending categories, Common Defense and General Welfare. The remainder of Article 1, Section 8, which is all one sentence BTW, are know as the limiting clauses. They limit the spending to very specific items, known as the enumerated powers. No matter what unelected judges says, there are no implied powers in Article 1, Section 8, which is made clear in the 10th Amendment. So feel free to be comfortable with the bastardization of the supreme law of the land, I chose not to.

.

 

[Dragonlady]

We could actually support a higher minimum wage, but you'd have to build the wall, and crack down on illegal immigration, rewrite immigration laws, so that people seeking minimum wage would not have their jobs taken by illegals willing to work for pennies on the dollar.

Also, a higher minimum wage can force companies to want consoles instead of cashiers.

Self Check Out Anyone?

The only way you stop that is to quit forcing such expensive regulations on employers.

Then it's up to the public to stop shopping at these stores. It worked in forcing Walmart to pay better wages.

 

[Dragonlady]

... When wages increase, so do prices of goods and services. Do you really think the average voter wants to pay more for services and products?

Ray From Cleveland, the U.S. federal minimum wage rate is not among the primary causes of U.S. dollar’s reduced purchasing power. The minimum rate is much less a cause, and much more a victim of our currency inflation.

Our federal government through our congress and our president cannot compel individual states to increase their minimum rate beyond the federal minimum rate, but they can set the federal minimum higher for the purpose of preventing states within which employees' purchasing powers are the lowest, from continuing to undermine their own and the remainder of our nation’s employees and their families living standards.

A majority of USA’s voters favor increasing the federal minimum wage rate and thereafter retaining its purchasing power. A majority of USA voters did not prefer Donald Trump.

Respectfully, Supposn

In other words, the majority want to vote themselves a pay raise. Too bad that it will not increase their purchasing power because it is a dog chasing its tail.

Wrong. For every dollar you raise the minimum wage, the cost of making a hamburger goes up 10 cents. A $3 an hour raise for fast food workers would raise fast food costs by 30 cents. I'd pay 30 cents more for a hamburger if that meant that McDonald's paid their workers a living wage.

 

[OKTexas]

I agree that they should confront the federal minimum wage rate. They should abolish it completely and let States do their own thing.

They won't but they should

Why not let people do their own thing? If I could do a job someone needs done for $5.50 an hour, why not allow me to bid the job at that rate?

.

Because neither you nor anyone else can live on $5.50 per hour and that means someone has to make up the difference. Employers are using the earned income credits, food stamps and Medicaid to subsidize the wages of their lowest paid workers, on the backs of the American middle class. This is why big corporations like Walmart are awash in cash.

All of these corporations are paying $20 million in more to their CEO's while the American public is being hosed for their workers' wages. This, more than any other factor is why worker wages lag so far behind wage increases for management and excutives. No other free world country has such an economically inefficient method and expensive method for low income workers. This breeds large government, and syphons away a huge amount of revenue for wages of those who process these applications and payments.

All of which is supported and maintained by Republicans who continually refuse to raise the minimum wage.

You're injecting criteria into the scenario that wasn't there originally. Who said it was a living wage, I just said if I can do it for less why shouldn't I be able to do it? Everyone have different circumstances, I might just be looking for something to keep myself busy that doesn't cost me money. $5.50 might be a break even proposition and I might be fine with that. Who the hell is the government to tell me I can't do it? Does that sound like liberty to you?

.

 

[danielpalos]

Democrats regained the congressional House. Now they should immediately confront the federal minimum wage rate issue.

I’m among those that advocate a minimum wage rate gradually increased to higher purchasing power and thereafter monitored and (when necessary to retain its targeted purchasing power), it should be updated prior to New Year’s date of the following year. In my opinion, annual increases of 12% until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power is reasonable.

It would be possible, but politically problematic for the Republican majority U.S. Senate not to pass an alternative bill responding to the Democratic House’s bill. Usually, there are differences between bills that may, (or may not) be reconciled by negotiators from each chamber. A bill sent to the president for his consideration must be passed by both houses with exactly the same drafted language. That usually requires both chambers to again vote and pass a draft of the bill that’s a mutually agreed upon update.

Possible House’s negotiating positions:

The Senate will be displeased by the concept of pegging the rate’s purchasing power.
The House’s alternative position could be, lose the purchasing power provision but give us 15% annual increase for 10 years.

The Senate may then find the purchasing power concept less objectionable but they're then displeased with the 12%.
The House’s alternative position could be, 8% increase every Labor Day until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power, but the rate’s additionally annually updates reflecting changes in the CPI-U will begin prior to the New Year’s day following the enactment day of the Bill.

I hope the Democratic negotiators would be polite and respectful beyond civility, but FIRM! they should not acquiesce or attempt to placate to the opposition. Democrats should be fully prepared to leave the negotiating table and permit the differences to be resolved by the 2020 general elections.

Respectfully, Supposn

Ask the city of Seattle how a minimum wage worked out for thousands of now closed business.

better than corporate raiding. and, higher paid labor will pay more in taxes and create more in demand, eventually. unemployment compensation should automatically stabilize that market phenomena in Labor's favor.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

... When wages increase, so do prices of goods and services. Do you really think the average voter wants to pay more for services and products?

Ray From Cleveland, the U.S. federal minimum wage rate is not among the primary causes of U.S. dollar’s reduced purchasing power. The minimum rate is much less a cause, and much more a victim of our currency inflation.

Our federal government through our congress and our president cannot compel individual states to increase their minimum rate beyond the federal minimum rate, but they can set the federal minimum higher for the purpose of preventing states within which employees' purchasing powers are the lowest, from continuing to undermine their own and the remainder of our nation’s employees and their families living standards.

A majority of USA’s voters favor increasing the federal minimum wage rate and thereafter retaining its purchasing power. A majority of USA voters did not prefer Donald Trump.

Respectfully, Supposn

In other words, the majority want to vote themselves a pay raise. Too bad that it will not increase their purchasing power because it is a dog chasing its tail.

Wrong. For every dollar you raise the minimum wage, the cost of making a hamburger goes up 10 cents. A $3 an hour raise for fast food workers would raise fast food costs by 30 cents. I'd pay 30 cents more for a hamburger if that meant that McDonald's paid their workers a living wage.

McDonald's workers do not need a living wage! They have no job skills required and the jobs are entry level, designed for high school students and retirees who want to make a little extra money. If you work at McDonald's and are trying to raise a family, you are a world class moron!

 

[danielpalos]

The higher minimum wage lowers our cost arising from social services, in the long run.