I don't understand why republicans reject both a minimum wage hike and welfare for the poor

[zeke]

Wrong, numbskull. You don't even understand why we went in.

Weasel, you get more fucking stupid daily. How do you do that? I know; practice practice practice.

 

[Slyhunter]

I don't understand why republicans reject both a minimum wage hike and welfare for the poor

They both cost money.

But do you have any proof that higher costs are more expensive?

Dude do you realize how stupid that statement was?

Read the thread instead of hopping in thinking you understand the conversation.

Why would he need proof that higher cost are more expensive. It's like a duh moment.

 

[Iceweasel]

I don't understand why republicans reject both a minimum wage hike and welfare for the poor

They both cost money.

But do you have any proof that higher costs are more expensive?

Dude do you realize how stupid that statement was?

Read the thread instead of hopping in thinking you understand the conversation.

Why would he need proof that higher cost are more expensive. It's like a duh moment.

Correct. If you actually read the thread you'd realize I was making fun of his repeated demands for proof that increased overhead would effect businesses.

 

[Slyhunter]

The question is to pay people enough so they can support themselves. Driving businesses into bankruptcy by trying to pay them too much is stupid. There is a middle answer.

No it isn't, moron. The subject is minimum wage, not the salary for a grown up raising a family. You don't know the difference because....well, you are minimum wage material.

Not everyone can be a rocket scientist and somebody has to take out the garbage.

I'm an ex-COBOL programmer who washed out for medical reasons. An Ex-bank courier who lost his job to the internet. Now delivers medicaid patients to their doctor appointments. The fact that I'm bi-polar doesn't change the fact that I have family to feed, rent to pay. Though I don't make minimum wage, I am a contractual employee. I make more money than anyone else in my household and only pay 1/3 of the bills and am just barely paying my share.

My nephew can't get a full time job because no employer is willing to pay for Obamacare to employ him full time. Obama care is why nobody works 40 hours a week any more. And even if he did work full time, there is no way in hell he could support himself on minimum wage. He works as a chef in a full scale restaurant, not McDonalds. And they still pay shit compare to what it costs to live. He also makes more than the minimum wage, and it's still not enough.

Nobody in my household makes minimum wage and we are barely making it. Yet you expect others to do so. It isn't only High school kids working those minimum wage jobs.

 

[The Rabbi]

If it only affects 3% of the population then what possible benefit could there be raising it?
Again, if 10/hr is good, why is 50/hr not better? You cannot answer this so you deflect. Because you are Billy Triple Fail.

The question is to pay people enough so they can support themselves. Driving businesses into bankruptcy by trying to pay them too much is stupid. There is a middle answer.

The middle answer is raising the minimum wage.

I was responding to why not $50.
It misses the point.

How does it miss the point? It is the point! If 10/hr is good because it gives low wage workers money to spend and takes them off gov't programs then 50/hr would give them even more money to spend. Think of the jobs created by all that spending!

It's the difference between reasonable accommodation, and unreasonable.

What do you mean "accomodation"? We're not talking about seating people in a restaurant. If 10/hr MW is goingt o bring all kinds of benefits then why wouldnt $50/hr? Or 40? Or 20? And how do you know?

 

[The Rabbi]

I have an idea: In the future any senator or representative who votes to send other folk's kids to fight and die in some god-for-saken desert 10,000 miles from home will be required to send one of their own family and pay a double tax rate for the rest of his life. That'll apply some brakes to this stupid warmongering crap which has been going on all my life.....'course I'm just 80.

Does that include drone strikes and proxy battles in places like Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan? You want obama to send his teenage girls to the front, Herr Goering?

I have news for you numbnuts! George W. Bush stirred up the entire middle east when he declared war on Saddam Hussein. Iraq had done nothing to America and had no part in 9/11. W. Bush was pissed about one thing...Saddam trying to assassinate Bush41 in Qatar circa 1993. Texas justice is expensive.....especially to everybody else except the Bushes.

Look at the bright side. Only 4500 young Americans were killed and another 35,000 seriously wounded...it could have been bad.

Oh! It wasn't just the Bushes wanting war in Iraq. Here's a letter from major Republicans to Bill Clinton dated 1998. They were champing at the bit then:

December 18, 1998


The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President
We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is
not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more
serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming
State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course
for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy
that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That
strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand
ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment
of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have
demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to
uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to
ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially
diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely,
experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological
weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter
many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets.
As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of
confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a
seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam
does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we
continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and
allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil
will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the
first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the
magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness
of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate.
The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or
threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake
military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein
and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a
strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts.
Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the
dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN
resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf.
In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in
the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of
mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security
interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future
at risk.
Sincerely,
Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick

Oh good gracy. Where do these pricks come from? This is a discussion of min wage, not fantasies about George W Bush lying us into war.
You are a total disgrace.

 

[The Rabbi]

The question is to pay people enough so they can support themselves. Driving businesses into bankruptcy by trying to pay them too much is stupid. There is a middle answer.

No it isn't, moron. The subject is minimum wage, not the salary for a grown up raising a family. You don't know the difference because....well, you are minimum wage material.

Not everyone can be a rocket scientist and somebody has to take out the garbage.

I'm an ex-COBOL programmer who washed out for medical reasons. An Ex-bank courier who lost his job to the internet. Now delivers medicaid patients to their doctor appointments. The fact that I'm bi-polar doesn't change the fact that I have family to feed, rent to pay. Though I don't make minimum wage, I am a contractual employee. I make more money than anyone else in my household and only pay 1/3 of the bills and am just barely paying my share.

My nephew can't get a full time job because no employer is willing to pay for Obamacare to employ him full time. Obama care is why nobody works 40 hours a week any more. And even if he did work full time, there is no way in hell he could support himself on minimum wage. He works as a chef in a full scale restaurant, not McDonalds. And they still pay shit compare to what it costs to live. He also makes more than the minimum wage, and it's still not enough.

Nobody in my household makes minimum wage and we are barely making it. Yet you expect others to do so. It isn't only High school kids working those minimum wage jobs.

Aha. Guess what. If the min wage goes up to 10/hr or whatever you'll probably get fired and replaced with someone more reliable.

 

[Slyhunter]

The question is to pay people enough so they can support themselves. Driving businesses into bankruptcy by trying to pay them too much is stupid. There is a middle answer.

The middle answer is raising the minimum wage.

I was responding to why not $50.
It misses the point.

How does it miss the point? It is the point! If 10/hr is good because it gives low wage workers money to spend and takes them off gov't programs then 50/hr would give them even more money to spend. Think of the jobs created by all that spending!

It's the difference between reasonable accommodation, and unreasonable.

What do you mean "accomodation"? We're not talking about seating people in a restaurant. If 10/hr MW is goingt o bring all kinds of benefits then why wouldnt $50/hr? Or 40? Or 20? And how do you know?

Benefits without outweighing the costs.
It is wrong to pay people so little they can't afford to live.
It is also wrong to pay people so much a company can't do business and remain profitable. So 50 an hour is outrageous.

To insure our local companies can compete in the world wide marketplace we should set tariffs on any country that doesn't pay an American living wage. Force prices to go up on luxuries so people who make those things can afford necessary items like food and lodgings.

Example, why is it I can buy a big screen tv for under $1000 and yet we can't pay Americans who make big screen tv's a living wage? Why is it we don't pay Americans to do so at all and import from other countries that don't pay an American living wage to make them. Why not raise tariffs until big screen tv's cost $5,000 or more to own so as to insure Americans can afford to buy bread, meat, and rent? Why are so many of our luxuries so cheap when so many of our items that are necessary to survive are comparably expensive? I want the price of our tv's to go up, I want low income people to be deprived of TV's if that means they don't have to be deprived of food as compensation.

Why does a watch, which last years, cost less than a meal which last a day? Why does a tv go for so little when rent is so high? Time to make the luxuries more expensive and the necessities less expensive.

You do that through tariffs on items we don't need. You do that through not taxing the things we do need.

 

[The Rabbi]

The middle answer is raising the minimum wage.

I was responding to why not $50.
It misses the point.

How does it miss the point? It is the point! If 10/hr is good because it gives low wage workers money to spend and takes them off gov't programs then 50/hr would give them even more money to spend. Think of the jobs created by all that spending!

It's the difference between reasonable accommodation, and unreasonable.

What do you mean "accomodation"? We're not talking about seating people in a restaurant. If 10/hr MW is goingt o bring all kinds of benefits then why wouldnt $50/hr? Or 40? Or 20? And how do you know?

Benefits without outweighing the costs.
It is wrong to pay people so little they can't afford to live.
It is also wrong to pay people so much a company can't do business and remain profitable. So 50 an hour is outrageous.

To insure our local companies can compete in the world wide marketplace we should set tariffs on any country that doesn't pay an American living wage. Force prices to go up on luxuries so people who make those things can afford necessary items like food and lodgings.

Example, why is it I can buy a big screen tv for under $1000 and yet we can't pay Americans who make big screen tv's a living wage? Why is it we don't pay Americans to do so at all and import from other countries that don't pay an American living wage to make them. Why not raise tariffs until big screen tv's cost $5,000 or more to own so as to insure Americans can afford to buy bread, meat, and rent? Why are so many of our luxuries so cheap when so many of our items that are necessary to survive are comparably expensive? I want the price of our tv's to go up, I want low income people to be deprived of TV's if that means they don't have to be deprived of food as compensation.

Why does a watch, which last years, cost less than a meal which last a day? Why does a tv go for so little when rent is so high? Time to make the luxuries more expensive and the necessities less expensive.

You do that through tariffs on items we don't need. You do that through not taxing the things we do need.

I realze I'm not dealing with PhD material here but anyway.
Why is it wrong to pay people what they agree to be paid? Why isnt it wrong to dictate what sort of arrangement two people can have? Why isnt it wrong to discriminate against people whose job skills warrant only $5/hr and so are priced out of the market?
Do you think no businesses are affected when MW goes to 10/hr?
And your tariff idea is the dumbest thing since Smoot-Hawley.

 

[saveliberty]

So, when wal- Mart announced pay increases, they are causing inflation?

I find it amusing you think Walmart has no expectations of higher productivity for those increases. They will do more with less employees.

 

[Slyhunter]

I was responding to why not $50.
It misses the point.

How does it miss the point? It is the point! If 10/hr is good because it gives low wage workers money to spend and takes them off gov't programs then 50/hr would give them even more money to spend. Think of the jobs created by all that spending!

It's the difference between reasonable accommodation, and unreasonable.

What do you mean "accomodation"? We're not talking about seating people in a restaurant. If 10/hr MW is goingt o bring all kinds of benefits then why wouldnt $50/hr? Or 40? Or 20? And how do you know?

Benefits without outweighing the costs.
It is wrong to pay people so little they can't afford to live.
It is also wrong to pay people so much a company can't do business and remain profitable. So 50 an hour is outrageous.

To insure our local companies can compete in the world wide marketplace we should set tariffs on any country that doesn't pay an American living wage. Force prices to go up on luxuries so people who make those things can afford necessary items like food and lodgings.

Example, why is it I can buy a big screen tv for under $1000 and yet we can't pay Americans who make big screen tv's a living wage? Why is it we don't pay Americans to do so at all and import from other countries that don't pay an American living wage to make them. Why not raise tariffs until big screen tv's cost $5,000 or more to own so as to insure Americans can afford to buy bread, meat, and rent? Why are so many of our luxuries so cheap when so many of our items that are necessary to survive are comparably expensive? I want the price of our tv's to go up, I want low income people to be deprived of TV's if that means they don't have to be deprived of food as compensation.

Why does a watch, which last years, cost less than a meal which last a day? Why does a tv go for so little when rent is so high? Time to make the luxuries more expensive and the necessities less expensive.

You do that through tariffs on items we don't need. You do that through not taxing the things we do need.

I realze I'm not dealing with PhD material here but anyway.
Why is it wrong to pay people what they agree to be paid? Why isnt it wrong to dictate what sort of arrangement two people can have? Why isnt it wrong to discriminate against people whose job skills warrant only $5/hr and so are priced out of the market?
Do you think no businesses are affected when MW goes to 10/hr?
And your tariff idea is the dumbest thing since Smoot-Hawley.

When being priced out of the market means you starve to death, that's when.

What is wrong with charging more for luxuries so that people can afford necessities?

 

[RKMBrown]

Believe it or not, both the left and the right want to end welfare for the poor. The left just has a realistic and humane way of doing it.

$153 billion of public assistance is spent on people because of their low wage jobs. 18 million people make less than $10.10 per hour. How many more do you think make less than $15? If the minimum was raised to $10.10, republicans are to stupid/immature to realize that far less people would be eligible for programs like food stamps. It would dramatically fix the fucking problem of the poor on welfare!

Like it or not, $15 as a minimum wage would be a base wage kept up with the rate of inflation. The last time someone could live comfortably off 10.10 per hour was the fucking 60s. Since the recession, low wage jobs out number higher wage jobs. That means MILLIONS OF PEOPLE have no choice but to accept low wage jobs.

As long as it was gradually raised over a couple of years, the initial cost to the market would be minimized. Prices would go up, but not nearly enough to offset the consumer spending power created by it. Consumer spending would boom. The market would begin to create jobs. Way more than the jobs that would have been scrapped initially. Prices would also go down.

Look the only reason most (not all) CEOs are against raising wages is because it just easier to for them to keep the ridiculous money they make rather than invest in a strong labor force. The average CEO makes over 300x what the average worker makes. Sure we can all agree CEOs deserve a wealthy life for all their hard work, but do you really think they deserve 300x more?

Hell no.

You're a moron. The rich are against hand-out programs, you MORON. They are against hand-out programs because HAND UP PROGRAMS WORK BETTER. The rich give to the poor without being FORCED TO DO SO IN THE FORM OF HAND-OUTS taken by FORCE THROUGH TAXES, ya moron.

 

[Slyhunter]

Believe it or not, both the left and the right want to end welfare for the poor. The left just has a realistic and humane way of doing it.

$153 billion of public assistance is spent on people because of their low wage jobs. 18 million people make less than $10.10 per hour. How many more do you think make less than $15? If the minimum was raised to $10.10, republicans are to stupid/immature to realize that far less people would be eligible for programs like food stamps. It would dramatically fix the fucking problem of the poor on welfare!

Like it or not, $15 as a minimum wage would be a base wage kept up with the rate of inflation. The last time someone could live comfortably off 10.10 per hour was the fucking 60s. Since the recession, low wage jobs out number higher wage jobs. That means MILLIONS OF PEOPLE have no choice but to accept low wage jobs.

As long as it was gradually raised over a couple of years, the initial cost to the market would be minimized. Prices would go up, but not nearly enough to offset the consumer spending power created by it. Consumer spending would boom. The market would begin to create jobs. Way more than the jobs that would have been scrapped initially. Prices would also go down.

Look the only reason most (not all) CEOs are against raising wages is because it just easier to for them to keep the ridiculous money they make rather than invest in a strong labor force. The average CEO makes over 300x what the average worker makes. Sure we can all agree CEOs deserve a wealthy life for all their hard work, but do you really think they deserve 300x more?

Hell no.

You're a moron. The rich are against hand-out programs, you MORON. They are against hand-out programs because HAND UP PROGRAMS WORK BETTER. The rich give to the poor without being FORCED TO DO SO IN THE FORM OF HAND-OUTS taken by FORCE THROUGH TAXES, ya moron.

Which hand-up programs exist that the rich fund?

Hand-up program would have to feed those who can't feed themselves while helping them get jobs that will allow themselves to feed themselves. Kinda what welfare and unemployment is supposed to do. And the jobs that allow people to feed themselves won't exist if they can pay below a living wage and allow the government to subsidize the rest via welfare.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I was responding to why not $50.
It misses the point.

How does it miss the point? It is the point! If 10/hr is good because it gives low wage workers money to spend and takes them off gov't programs then 50/hr would give them even more money to spend. Think of the jobs created by all that spending!

It's the difference between reasonable accommodation, and unreasonable.

What do you mean "accomodation"? We're not talking about seating people in a restaurant. If 10/hr MW is goingt o bring all kinds of benefits then why wouldnt $50/hr? Or 40? Or 20? And how do you know?

Benefits without outweighing the costs.
It is wrong to pay people so little they can't afford to live.
It is also wrong to pay people so much a company can't do business and remain profitable. So 50 an hour is outrageous.

To insure our local companies can compete in the world wide marketplace we should set tariffs on any country that doesn't pay an American living wage. Force prices to go up on luxuries so people who make those things can afford necessary items like food and lodgings.

Example, why is it I can buy a big screen tv for under $1000 and yet we can't pay Americans who make big screen tv's a living wage? Why is it we don't pay Americans to do so at all and import from other countries that don't pay an American living wage to make them. Why not raise tariffs until big screen tv's cost $5,000 or more to own so as to insure Americans can afford to buy bread, meat, and rent? Why are so many of our luxuries so cheap when so many of our items that are necessary to survive are comparably expensive? I want the price of our tv's to go up, I want low income people to be deprived of TV's if that means they don't have to be deprived of food as compensation.

Why does a watch, which last years, cost less than a meal which last a day? Why does a tv go for so little when rent is so high? Time to make the luxuries more expensive and the necessities less expensive.

You do that through tariffs on items we don't need. You do that through not taxing the things we do need.

I realze I'm not dealing with PhD material here but anyway.
Why is it wrong to pay people what they agree to be paid? Why isnt it wrong to dictate what sort of arrangement two people can have? Why isnt it wrong to discriminate against people whose job skills warrant only $5/hr and so are priced out of the market?
Do you think no businesses are affected when MW goes to 10/hr?
And your tariff idea is the dumbest thing since Smoot-Hawley.

"I realze I'm not dealing with PhD material here but anyway."

Ya don't say.
Tell us Dr. Dumble,
How have businesses been hurt historically
by MW increases? How many are lost each time?

 

[RKMBrown]

Believe it or not, both the left and the right want to end welfare for the poor. The left just has a realistic and humane way of doing it.

$153 billion of public assistance is spent on people because of their low wage jobs. 18 million people make less than $10.10 per hour. How many more do you think make less than $15? If the minimum was raised to $10.10, republicans are to stupid/immature to realize that far less people would be eligible for programs like food stamps. It would dramatically fix the fucking problem of the poor on welfare!

Like it or not, $15 as a minimum wage would be a base wage kept up with the rate of inflation. The last time someone could live comfortably off 10.10 per hour was the fucking 60s. Since the recession, low wage jobs out number higher wage jobs. That means MILLIONS OF PEOPLE have no choice but to accept low wage jobs.

As long as it was gradually raised over a couple of years, the initial cost to the market would be minimized. Prices would go up, but not nearly enough to offset the consumer spending power created by it. Consumer spending would boom. The market would begin to create jobs. Way more than the jobs that would have been scrapped initially. Prices would also go down.

Look the only reason most (not all) CEOs are against raising wages is because it just easier to for them to keep the ridiculous money they make rather than invest in a strong labor force. The average CEO makes over 300x what the average worker makes. Sure we can all agree CEOs deserve a wealthy life for all their hard work, but do you really think they deserve 300x more?

Hell no.

You're a moron. The rich are against hand-out programs, you MORON. They are against hand-out programs because HAND UP PROGRAMS WORK BETTER. The rich give to the poor without being FORCED TO DO SO IN THE FORM OF HAND-OUTS taken by FORCE THROUGH TAXES, ya moron.

Which hand-up programs exist that the rich fund?

Hand-up program would have to feed those who can't feed themselves while helping them get jobs that will allow themselves to feed themselves. Kinda what welfare and unemployment is supposed to do. And the jobs that allow people to feed themselves won't exist if they can pay below a living wage and allow the government to subsidize the rest via welfare.

Hand up programs, not in any particular order:

1. Habitat for Humanity.
2. Missions, mostly Church Based, some others exist. These also include food banks.
3. Caring Place.
4. YMCA.
5. Salvation Army.
6. Shriner's hospitals for children.

Compare the above to Federal and State Welfare programs and our Unemployment System that pay people NOT TO WORK. Those government programs are hand-out programs that are not oriented to help people but rather just give them money for being willing to maintain the hardship of not earning more than 30hrs at minimum wage.

 

[SAYIT]

How does it miss the point? It is the point! If 10/hr is good because it gives low wage workers money to spend and takes them off gov't programs then 50/hr would give them even more money to spend. Think of the jobs created by all that spending!

It's the difference between reasonable accommodation, and unreasonable.

What do you mean "accomodation"? We're not talking about seating people in a restaurant. If 10/hr MW is goingt o bring all kinds of benefits then why wouldnt $50/hr? Or 40? Or 20? And how do you know?

Benefits without outweighing the costs.
It is wrong to pay people so little they can't afford to live.
It is also wrong to pay people so much a company can't do business and remain profitable. So 50 an hour is outrageous.

To insure our local companies can compete in the world wide marketplace we should set tariffs on any country that doesn't pay an American living wage. Force prices to go up on luxuries so people who make those things can afford necessary items like food and lodgings.

Example, why is it I can buy a big screen tv for under $1000 and yet we can't pay Americans who make big screen tv's a living wage? Why is it we don't pay Americans to do so at all and import from other countries that don't pay an American living wage to make them. Why not raise tariffs until big screen tv's cost $5,000 or more to own so as to insure Americans can afford to buy bread, meat, and rent? Why are so many of our luxuries so cheap when so many of our items that are necessary to survive are comparably expensive? I want the price of our tv's to go up, I want low income people to be deprived of TV's if that means they don't have to be deprived of food as compensation.

Why does a watch, which last years, cost less than a meal which last a day? Why does a tv go for so little when rent is so high? Time to make the luxuries more expensive and the necessities less expensive.

You do that through tariffs on items we don't need. You do that through not taxing the things we do need.

I realze I'm not dealing with PhD material here but anyway.
Why is it wrong to pay people what they agree to be paid? Why isnt it wrong to dictate what sort of arrangement two people can have? Why isnt it wrong to discriminate against people whose job skills warrant only $5/hr and so are priced out of the market?
Do you think no businesses are affected when MW goes to 10/hr?
And your tariff idea is the dumbest thing since Smoot-Hawley.

"I realze I'm not dealing with PhD material here but anyway."

Ya don't say.
Tell us Dr. Dumble,
How have businesses been hurt historically
by MW increases? How many are lost each time?

Are you still carrying the torch for an increase in federal gov't mandated MW despite the fact that only a few million Americans earn $7.25 (the majority of whom are between 16 and 24 years of age), that the labor market self-adjusts (many of our largest retailers are voluntarily raising wages) and that the real agenda of the MW war is to increase union wages, not improve the lives of MW earners? Once more for the terminally dense: we don't need federal meddling in the labor wage market.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

How do we reconcile this information with what the Cons are arguing?
How do states with higher MW compare with states at the Fed rate? How could they possibly compete if what the Cons say is true?

2014 Job Creation Faster in States that Raised the Minimum Wage
2014 Job Creation Faster in States that Raised the Minimum Wage CEPR Blog

 

[Hutch Starskey]

It's the difference between reasonable accommodation, and unreasonable.

What do you mean "accomodation"? We're not talking about seating people in a restaurant. If 10/hr MW is goingt o bring all kinds of benefits then why wouldnt $50/hr? Or 40? Or 20? And how do you know?

Benefits without outweighing the costs.
It is wrong to pay people so little they can't afford to live.
It is also wrong to pay people so much a company can't do business and remain profitable. So 50 an hour is outrageous.

To insure our local companies can compete in the world wide marketplace we should set tariffs on any country that doesn't pay an American living wage. Force prices to go up on luxuries so people who make those things can afford necessary items like food and lodgings.

Example, why is it I can buy a big screen tv for under $1000 and yet we can't pay Americans who make big screen tv's a living wage? Why is it we don't pay Americans to do so at all and import from other countries that don't pay an American living wage to make them. Why not raise tariffs until big screen tv's cost $5,000 or more to own so as to insure Americans can afford to buy bread, meat, and rent? Why are so many of our luxuries so cheap when so many of our items that are necessary to survive are comparably expensive? I want the price of our tv's to go up, I want low income people to be deprived of TV's if that means they don't have to be deprived of food as compensation.

Why does a watch, which last years, cost less than a meal which last a day? Why does a tv go for so little when rent is so high? Time to make the luxuries more expensive and the necessities less expensive.

You do that through tariffs on items we don't need. You do that through not taxing the things we do need.

I realze I'm not dealing with PhD material here but anyway.
Why is it wrong to pay people what they agree to be paid? Why isnt it wrong to dictate what sort of arrangement two people can have? Why isnt it wrong to discriminate against people whose job skills warrant only $5/hr and so are priced out of the market?
Do you think no businesses are affected when MW goes to 10/hr?
And your tariff idea is the dumbest thing since Smoot-Hawley.

"I realze I'm not dealing with PhD material here but anyway."

Ya don't say.
Tell us Dr. Dumble,
How have businesses been hurt historically
by MW increases? How many are lost each time?

Are you still carrying the torch for an increase in federal gov't mandated MW despite the fact that only a few million Americans earn $7.25 (the majority of whom are between 16 and 24 years of age), that the labor market self-adjusts (many of our largest retailers are voluntarily raising wages) and that the real agenda of the MW war is to increase union wages, not improve the lives of MW earners? Once more for the terminally dense: we don't need federal meddling in the labor wage market.

If it's only a "few million", then why do you care?
How about state meddling? Nearly half the states already have a higher MW. How do you think they are faring?

 

[RKMBrown]

How do we reconcile this information with what the Cons are arguing?
How do states with higher MW compare with states at the Fed rate? How could they possibly compete if what the Cons say is true?

2014 Job Creation Faster in States that Raised the Minimum Wage
2014 Job Creation Faster in States that Raised the Minimum Wage CEPR Blog

Cost of living is much lower in TX than say California. Labor jobs in tx pay 3 times minimum wage (ENTRY LEVEL.) The only people getting minimum wage in TX are the people doing jobs that are not worth more than the minimum wage.

 

[SAYIT]

How do we reconcile this information with what the Cons are arguing?
How do states with higher MW compare with states at the Fed rate? How could they possibly compete if what the Cons say is true?
2014 Job Creation Faster in States that Raised the Minimum Wage
2014 Job Creation Faster in States that Raised the Minimum Wage CEPR Blog

The point is clearly that federal meddling is unnecessary. States in which, for whatever reasons, higher wages have lead to greater job creation (and could it not be argued that greater demand for labor forced the wage hikes?) did not require the feds MW to accomplish higher wages.