Eliminate Minimum Wage

[Supposn]

The contentions of post #62 cannot be proven to your satisfaction ... You cannot by your standards prove that anything within that post is invalid.

He may not be able to, but I can. And all one has to do is just look at a real world example, or several. Have you ever heard about the economy of American Samoa?

Amazon Tania, Samoa? Please explain.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Skull Pilot]

Logic, based on the fact that less than 3% of hourly wage earners make the federal minimum wage, would tell you that raising the minimum wage would not have much of an effect.

Skull Pilot, excluding jobs with tasks that require labor qualifications in short supply, the federal minimum wage rate affects ALL USA wage rates.

Do you care to prove that or is it opinion? If you are already making more than minimum wage then ans increase will not affect you.

Excerpted from post #141: “The minimum rate affects ALL wage and salary rates but it doesn’t affect them all equally. Its proportional effect is inversely to the differences between tasks’ pay scales and the minimum rate. Lesser paying jobs benefit proportionally more and higher paying jobs benefit proportionally less due to the minimum rate; but they do ALL benefit to some extent. …
… The minimum rate very much affects wage rates approaching the minimum rate. You incorrectly underestimate the minimum's affect upon the median and all lesser incomes. The minimum rate extremely affects, (I believe no less than) the least earning fifth of USA’s full time wage earners”.
//////////////////////////////////////

Just because you believe it does not make it true. I gave you stats from the Bureau of Labor

Half of all USA wage and salary employees earn no more than the median wage. That’s the definition of the median. I am not a statistician but I would suppose that the FMW significantly affects no less than 1/4 of our nation’s employees and it extremely affects no less than 1/5th of our nation’s employees.

Median and minimum are apples and oranges.

Yes that is a conclusion based upon a logical rational, but that 1/4 figure is a very low ball estimate. I’ll entertain any logical rational or statistics that you may believe can reasonably refute these conclusions.

So more opinion and no facts.

The point is not the proportion of USA employees or USA full time employees or the ages of employees that earn no more than the FMW. No one is questioning or concerned with the validity of your 3% statistic because it is inconsequential to the FMW rate’s aggregate effects upon the purchasing powers of USA’s employee earnings.

You have yet to even demonstrate how raising MW will increase 20% of the population's pay.

It’s contended that the FMW significantly affects the purchasing powers of more than 1/4 of all USA full time employees. Within those significantly affected employees are 1/5 of USA employees earnings that are EXTREMELY significantly affected. We are discussing FMW’s significant affect is upon in excess of a quarter of all USA full time employees.

Respectfully, Supposn

If you can't support your contention it is meaningless.

 

[editec]

I was very favorably impressed by what Greenspan within his book, “Age of Turbulence”. “Very favorably impressed” is of course code for “the author agrees with my contentions”.
[I’m no better than most others. We generally determine our political positions and then seek support and/or proof that support our positions. Also we generally lie to ourselves and claim that we are making our own OBJECTIVE determination. We ain’t all saints and we ain’t all that objective].

Allen Greenspan was first appointed as chairman of the Federal Reserve board under a conservative administration and he was reappointed to the chairmanship under both Republican and Democratic presidents. He was and generally remains perceived to be a conservative.

He wrote that when serving as the board’s chairman, he had confidence that the CEOs and CFOs of our nation’s greatest financial institutions were extremely knowledgeable and the best interests of their institutions were their primary concern. Furthermore these esteemed executives were not unpatriotic and fully appreciated that as their own best interests and those of their organizations were strongly linked to their nation’s economy’s best interests.

He saw no justification or need for government regulators to diligently regulate the financial industries.
After the great recession from which our nation and the remainder of the world’s economies have not yet recovered from, Greenspan’s opinion has transformed to become aligned with the economic and administrative concepts of those that I concur with.

Greenspan is now of the opinion that we are more likely to believe the concepts that our in our own best interests converge with, (if not completely share) what’s in the best interests of our enterprises and our nation. He now believes that ain’t necessarily so. He now believes that there is a necessary role for government’s enforced regulations and the lack of such checks upon commercial activity is detrimental to our nation’s economy.

I suppose some members might describe as an economic law that entrepreneurs are the best judges of their industries’ best interests and are by far are superior to governments’ ineffective interventions.
I and Allen Greenspan and many others believe that’s concepts rather than laws; those concepts are wrong; we believe the concepts of transparency, reasonable and diligently enforced government regulations to protect our society’s interests are superior to pure Laissez faire.

Respectfully, Supposn

Were you shocked when he confessed that he finally realized (when it starting looking like the USA could possibly pay off its national debts) that the USA needs to be in debt?

Were you as shocked by that admission as I was?

After all, this is the guy who claims to be a RANDIAN, right?

 

[dblack]

I was very favorably impressed by what Greenspan within his book, “Age of Turbulence”. “Very favorably impressed” is of course code for “the author agrees with my contentions”.
[I’m no better than most others. We generally determine our political positions and then seek support and/or proof that support our positions. Also we generally lie to ourselves and claim that we are making our own OBJECTIVE determination. We ain’t all saints and we ain’t all that objective].

Allen Greenspan was first appointed as chairman of the Federal Reserve board under a conservative administration and he was reappointed to the chairmanship under both Republican and Democratic presidents. He was and generally remains perceived to be a conservative.

He wrote that when serving as the board’s chairman, he had confidence that the CEOs and CFOs of our nation’s greatest financial institutions were extremely knowledgeable and the best interests of their institutions were their primary concern. Furthermore these esteemed executives were not unpatriotic and fully appreciated that as their own best interests and those of their organizations were strongly linked to their nation’s economy’s best interests.

He saw no justification or need for government regulators to diligently regulate the financial industries.
After the great recession from which our nation and the remainder of the world’s economies have not yet recovered from, Greenspan’s opinion has transformed to become aligned with the economic and administrative concepts of those that I concur with.

Greenspan is now of the opinion that we are more likely to believe the concepts that our in our own best interests converge with, (if not completely share) what’s in the best interests of our enterprises and our nation. He now believes that ain’t necessarily so. He now believes that there is a necessary role for government’s enforced regulations and the lack of such checks upon commercial activity is detrimental to our nation’s economy.

I suppose some members might describe as an economic law that entrepreneurs are the best judges of their industries’ best interests and are by far are superior to governments’ ineffective interventions.
I and Allen Greenspan and many others believe that’s concepts rather than laws; those concepts are wrong; we believe the concepts of transparency, reasonable and diligently enforced government regulations to protect our society’s interests are superior to pure Laissez faire.

Respectfully, Supposn

Were you shocked when he confessed that he finally realized (when it starting looking like the USA could possibly pay off its national debts) that the USA needs to be in debt?

Were you as shocked by that admission as I was?

I wasn't. Not after seeing the economic policies he presided over. Nor was I shocked when the bubble he helped create burst. It goes with the territory.

 

[The Rabbi]

Since that last post, my wages have risen. I now earn around $18.25 per hour.

Must suck, eh?

Being stuck in a dead end job at McDonald's? Yeah, that sucks all right.

Being stuck in North Dakota is a dead end life.

You'd know all about dead end lives, ya pathetic loser.

 

[Supposn]

Skull pilot, we’re at an impasse.
You do not accept anything axiomatic or logically rational as an acceptable argument.
Even if you were to do so, I doubt that we could agree to stipulate upon the same axiomatic or logically rational concepts.

We proponents of this and many more social study contentions cannot prove them to them to the standard of proof required by you and those agreeing with you.

On the other hand you and those agreeing with you cannot disprove them or prove any refuting concept to the standard you wish to hold us to.

Similarly no one can prove or disprove to your standard that 2 + 2 = 4. Do you contend because we’re unable to prove it, 2 + 2 doesn’t equal 4?

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Skull Pilot]

Skull pilot, we’re at an impasse.
You do not accept anything axiomatic or logically rational as an acceptable argument.
Even if you were to do so, I doubt that we could agree to stipulate upon the same axiomatic or logically rational concepts.

When those concepts exist as a mere abstraction no I don't accept them in lieu of facts.
You're the one who posed a hypothesis and now you have to prove it. You throw numbers around like 1/4 of workers or 20% of the population etc and it seems you just pull them out of thin air.

We proponents of this and many more social study contentions cannot prove them to them to the standard of proof required by you and those agreeing with you.

Unlike those with no standard of proof at all?

 

[Supposn]

Logic, based on the fact that less than 3% of hourly wage earners make the federal minimum wage, would tell you that raising the minimum wage would not have much of an effect.

Skull Pilot, excluding jobs with tasks that require labor qualifications in short supply, the federal minimum wage rate affects ALL USA wage rates.

Do you care to prove that or is it opinion? If you are already making more than minimum wage then ans increase will not affect you.

Just because you believe it does not make it true. I gave you stats from the Bureau of Labor.

Median and minimum are apples and oranges.

So more opinion and no facts.

You have yet to even demonstrate how raising MW will increase 20% of the population's pay.

If you can't support your contention it is meaningless.

Skull Pilot, excluding jobs with tasks that require labor qualifications in short supply, all USA employees’ earnings,(regardless of their amounts) were affected by the federal minimum wage rate.

We Have not (thus far) disagreed upon any historic statistics. The statistics are inconsequential if we cannot agree upon which are the causes and their effects.

We agree that the words “median” and “minimum” have different meanings but what’s your point for mentioning it?
The numbers of USA employees earning any specific amounts of annual incomes generally increase as lesser income amounts are specified. Half of USA’s employees earn no more than the median wage The FMW’s rate’s affect upon a job’s pay scale, (excluding jobs for which there is a shortage of labor), is inverse to the job’s pay scale. I make what I believe is a reasonably logical assumption that the FMW has a significant effect upon the lowest earning quarter of USA employees. (I believe that 25% to be a low ball proportion). The same logical argument leads me to the conclusion that the lowest earning fifth of USA’s employees are extremely and significantly affected by the FMW rate.

I stated reduction of the FMW rate’s purchasing powers would have some adverse effect upon all wage scales (excluding jobs for which there’s a labor shortage). Because the current FMW rate’s a finite amount, the rules of mathematics cause the proportional effect of the minimum rate to be inversely related to the jobs’ pay. This led to the statement that the fifth lowest earning employees are very significantly affected by any reduction of the FMW rate’s purchasing power.

I don’t think I stated, but it’s logical to conclude that increasing the purchasing power of the FMW would very significantly and particularly increase the purchasing power of the lowest earning fifth of USA employees.

If you cannot refute the contentions, and or support contrary contentions by your own standards of proof you require of them, then your refuting or contending by your own standards are meaningless.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[The Rabbi]

We proponents of this and many more social study contentions cannot prove them to them to the standard of proof required by you and those agreeing with you.

Unlike those with no standard of proof at all?

Or a standard of proof met with "studies say", or "I saw on the internet." Or "Scientists agree."

 

[dblack]

I find the argument over whether or not policies like MW laws have a positive or negative impact on the economy largely irrelevant. The question is whether our government should be monkeying with the economy in the first place. Wage and price controls are not compatible with a free society.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Skull Pilot, excluding jobs with tasks that require labor qualifications in short supply, the federal minimum wage rate affects ALL USA wage rates.

Do you care to prove that or is it opinion? If you are already making more than minimum wage then ans increase will not affect you.

Just because you believe it does not make it true. I gave you stats from the Bureau of Labor.

Median and minimum are apples and oranges.

So more opinion and no facts.

You have yet to even demonstrate how raising MW will increase 20% of the population's pay.

If you can't support your contention it is meaningless.

Skull Pilot, excluding jobs with tasks that require labor qualifications in short supply, all USA employees’ earnings,(regardless of their amounts) were affected by the federal minimum wage rate.

Proof? When i was making minimum wage and it went up from 2.65 to 2.90 I got a raise in pay and in the subsequent years when it went up i got a raise in pay as I was still a teenager and working a low skill job.

The mangers of that business did not see their pay increase. other hourly workers already making more than MW did not see their pay increase. Those two facts alone disprove your hypothesis that a raise in MW will affe3ct ALL jobs. It won't.

We Have not (thus far) disagreed upon any historic statistics. The statistics are inconsequential if we cannot agree upon which are the causes and their effects.

We agree that the words “median” and “minimum” have different meanings but what’s your point for mentioning it?

You're the one who brought up median income not me. It has nothing to do with minimum wage.

The numbers of USA employees earning any specific amounts of annual incomes generally increase as lesser income amounts are specified. Half of USA’s employees earn no more than the FMW.

So you are saying that 50% of all people working only earn the FMW of 7.25 an hour?

Minimum wage workers account for 4.7 percent of hourly paid workers in 2012 : The Editor’s Desk : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Minimum wage workers account for 4.7 percent of hourly paid workers in 2012

Gee 4.7% is a lot closer to my quoted 3% than your 50% (and I just noticed the 3% was from several years ago)

You spout this stuff and you just want people to believe you?

 

[bronko]

The minimum wage punishes the poor and the young entering the working force. Now we have young kids hanging out outside on drugs, playing videogames all day or they are studding for an expensive useless collage degree instead of entering the working force and getting some experience and real knowledge of production for couple box/hour helping out trade workers and the service industry.

 

[Supposn]

...
... Median and minimum are apples and oranges. ...

Skull Pilot, excluding jobs with tasks that require labor qualifications in short supply, all USA employees’ earnings,(regardless of their amounts) were affected by the federal minimum wage rate. ... We agree that the words “median” and “minimum” have different meanings but what’s your point for mentioning it?

[TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR within post #268: i wrote "FMW" when it should have been "median wage"].

The numbers of USA employees earning any specific amounts of annual incomes generally increase as lesser income amounts are specified. Half of USA’s employees earn no more than the MEDIAN WAGE.

.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Skull Pilot]

...
... Median and minimum are apples and oranges. ...

Skull Pilot, excluding jobs with tasks that require labor qualifications in short supply, all USA employees’ earnings,(regardless of their amounts) were affected by the federal minimum wage rate. ... We agree that the words “median” and “minimum” have different meanings but what’s your point for mentioning it?

[TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR within post #268: i wrote "FMW" when it should have been "median wage"].

The numbers of USA employees earning any specific amounts of annual incomes generally increase as lesser income amounts are specified. Half of USA’s employees earn no more than the MEDIAN WAGE.

.

Respectfully, Supposn

So what about the median wage?

Using the median income to support raise in the minimum wage is meaningless because no matter what the MW is half of all people will earn less than the median income.

 

[ELITEofWarman8]

If they all went to get better jobs, who would do theirs? It's nothing but an arrogant disregard for others to characterize anyone who works for minimum wage as a welfare leech. Thanks for reminding me why we need those laws and why I'll never vote Republican.

You have fallen onto the liberal trap that stealing from hard working people and giving it to the lazy will help America. Why is this so hard for liberals to see are they really that stupid?

Just because someone works for minimum wage doesn't mean they're lazy. What I'm not falling for is your crap.

I agree.


I don't know what the big deal is about MW.

 

[The Rabbi]

You have fallen onto the liberal trap that stealing from hard working people and giving it to the lazy will help America. Why is this so hard for liberals to see are they really that stupid?

Just because someone works for minimum wage doesn't mean they're lazy. What I'm not falling for is your crap.

I agree.


I don't know what the big deal is about MW.

It prices beginning labor out of the market. It is an unwarranted intrusion on employer-employee relations. It increases unemployment. It increases the deficit. Its ill effects fall hardest on the neediest, like black teenagers and older retired people looking for work.
Want me to go on?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You have fallen onto the liberal trap that stealing from hard working people and giving it to the lazy will help America. Why is this so hard for liberals to see are they really that stupid?

Just because someone works for minimum wage doesn't mean they're lazy. What I'm not falling for is your crap.

I agree.


I don't know what the big deal is about MW.

That's because there is no 'big deal.'

It's all partisan, it violates conservative fiscal dogma, dogma completely devoid of facts.

 

[dblack]

Just because someone works for minimum wage doesn't mean they're lazy. What I'm not falling for is your crap.

I agree.


I don't know what the big deal is about MW.

That's because there is no 'big deal.'

It's all partisan, it violates conservative fiscal dogma, dogma completely devoid of facts.

Oh bull. 'Facts' have no bearing on the debate. It's a matter of opinion and ideology. The question is whether we believe government should be used to dictate personal economic decisions or not.

 

[The Rabbi]

Just because someone works for minimum wage doesn't mean they're lazy. What I'm not falling for is your crap.

I agree.


I don't know what the big deal is about MW.

That's because there is no 'big deal.'

It's all partisan, it violates conservative fiscal dogma, dogma completely devoid of facts.

Other than the entire science of economics, you might be right.

 

[Supposn]

So what about the median wage?

Using the median income to support raise in the minimum wage is meaningless because no matter what the MW is half of all people will earn less than the median income.

Skull pilot, what did you mean by “Using the median income to support raise in the minimum wage”?

Respectfully, Supposn