I support 8.25/hour national minimum wage(house republicans do it!)

[Darkwind]

I support you surrendering all your wealth to pay for all the government support of all workers.

Why would I do that? I am not responsible for anyone else having a job.

You are responsible, because you vote for wages below poverty. That increases taxes & inflation on me due to increased government support of workers & more jobless on the dole. So all of you economic retards for sub poverty wages must give them all your wealth before you try to steal mine.

They don't, but you go ahead and believe that if you want.

 

[nitroz]

How does it grow the middle class allowing all the wealth to go to the top 1-2%? The workers the main drivers of productivity! Do you realize this?

The working class is America's Backbone.

 

[ScienceRocks]

How does it grow the middle class allowing all the wealth to go to the top 1-2%? The workers the main drivers of productivity! Do you realize this?

The working class is America's Backbone.

You're quite right on that. This is why they deserve to have enough to feed themselves every night.

I think it's fair at a time when the ceo's and board is taking most of the profit without second thought of the people that make it for them. A few days ago I was watching robert reich talking about how our workers pay wasn't keeping up with inflation. We're killing ourselves.

Not only that, ceo pay is where all the profit is going into.

 

[Grandma]

Originally Posted by tinydancer
I don't get it. If all one is capable of doing is saying "do you want fries with that" why should that person be paid $25 an hour?

That's mega-fail argument. Here's why:

If the minimum cost of living for a single person is $X, then that person should be paid $X. Otherwise, the taxpayers have to pay that person welfare benefits just to keep him alive, sheltered, and fed. Why should taxpayers foot the bill? Paying wages is the employer's job.

Capability and ineptitude go all the way up. There are some CEOs out there so fucking stupid that they can't run the businesses they own. Most of their employees know more about the job than they do. So maybe those CEOs should get paid $8.25/hour, hmm?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How does it grow the middle class allowing all the wealth to go to the top 1-2%? The workers the main drivers of productivity! Do you realize this?

The working class is America's Backbone.

You're quite right on that. This is why they deserve to have enough to feed themselves every night.

I think it's fair at a time when the ceo's and board is taking most of the profit without second thought of the people that make it for them. A few days ago I was watching robert reich talking about how our workers pay wasn't keeping up with inflation. We're killing ourselves.

Not only that, ceo pay is where all the profit is going into.

I think it's fair at a time when the ceo's and board is taking most of the profit

Give me a fucking break.

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1#reqid=9&step=3&isuri=1&903=58

Personal income in the first quarter was $14.4 trillion.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Originally Posted by tinydancer
I don't get it. If all one is capable of doing is saying "do you want fries with that" why should that person be paid $25 an hour?

That's mega-fail argument. Here's why:

If the minimum cost of living for a single person is $X, then that person should be paid $X. Otherwise, the taxpayers have to pay that person welfare benefits just to keep him alive, sheltered, and fed. Why should taxpayers foot the bill? Paying wages is the employer's job.

Capability and ineptitude go all the way up. There are some CEOs out there so fucking stupid that they can't run the businesses they own. Most of their employees know more about the job than they do. So maybe those CEOs should get paid $8.25/hour, hmm?

If the minimum cost of living for a single person is $X, then that person should be paid $X.

Talk about mega-fail. You should start a company and pay all the low skill workers enough to buy a nice house.

Otherwise, the taxpayers have to pay that person welfare benefits just to keep him alive,

What about teenagers living at home? Do they need to earn enough to buy a nice house?
Second earners working part-time need to buy their own nice house?
What's larger, welfare benefits or welfare benefits-$X?

Why should taxpayers foot the bill?

Good question. Let's cut welfare.

 

[kaz]

That's mega-fail argument. Here's why:

If the minimum cost of living for a single person is $X, then that person should be paid $X. Otherwise, the taxpayers have to pay that person welfare benefits just to keep him alive, sheltered, and fed. Why should taxpayers foot the bill? Paying wages is the employer's job.

I'm a business owner. My business is a services company, so most of my employees are well paid. I do have two employees who get government assistance. Here's the thing. I pay them both what they are worth to me, and I doubt either could get another job paying what I pay them.

So what would be your thought where we go from here?

1) I voluntarily raise their pay and pay them what they are not worth? This isn't going to happen.

2) Government forces me to raise their pay. I will fire them both, they aren't worth what it would cost for them to live without government assistance. If I paid more, I could expand both jobs and give them other tasks that the people I have doing them now can't do. I am OK with what they do for what I pay them.

3) You admit that maybe you don't know what you are talking about and it's better they have a job they can partially support themselves than they live entirely on government assistance.

What say you?

 

[KissMy]

That's mega-fail argument. Here's why:

If the minimum cost of living for a single person is $X, then that person should be paid $X. Otherwise, the taxpayers have to pay that person welfare benefits just to keep him alive, sheltered, and fed. Why should taxpayers foot the bill? Paying wages is the employer's job.

I'm a business owner. My business is a services company, so most of my employees are well paid. I do have two employees who get government assistance. Here's the thing. I pay them both what they are worth to me, and I doubt either could get another job paying what I pay them.

So what would be your thought where we go from here?

1) I voluntarily raise their pay and pay them what they are not worth? This isn't going to happen.

2) Government forces me to raise their pay. I will fire them both, they aren't worth what it would cost for them to live without government assistance. If I paid more, I could expand both jobs and give them other tasks that the people I have doing them now can't do. I am OK with what they do for what I pay them.

3) You admit that maybe you don't know what you are talking about and it's better they have a job they can partially support themselves than they live entirely on government assistance.

What say you?

You are a overpaid government contractor tax supported mooch. Nobody cares what you think. If the employees were costing you more than they are making you, you would have fired them already. The fact is they are making enough to support themselves but you want to steal that & make tax payers support them.

 

[kaz]

That's mega-fail argument. Here's why:

If the minimum cost of living for a single person is $X, then that person should be paid $X. Otherwise, the taxpayers have to pay that person welfare benefits just to keep him alive, sheltered, and fed. Why should taxpayers foot the bill? Paying wages is the employer's job.

I'm a business owner. My business is a services company, so most of my employees are well paid. I do have two employees who get government assistance. Here's the thing. I pay them both what they are worth to me, and I doubt either could get another job paying what I pay them.

So what would be your thought where we go from here?

1) I voluntarily raise their pay and pay them what they are not worth? This isn't going to happen.

2) Government forces me to raise their pay. I will fire them both, they aren't worth what it would cost for them to live without government assistance. If I paid more, I could expand both jobs and give them other tasks that the people I have doing them now can't do. I am OK with what they do for what I pay them.

3) You admit that maybe you don't know what you are talking about and it's better they have a job they can partially support themselves than they live entirely on government assistance.

What say you?

You are a overpaid government contractor tax supported mooch. Nobody cares what you think.

What does that mean?

If the employees were costing you more than they are making you, you would have fired them already. The fact is they are making enough to support themselves but you want to steal that & make tax payers support them.

Strawman, I said I am fine with what I'm paying them, they are worth that to me. I am not going to pay them more because they aren't worth more. If I paid more for those positions, I could hire better people and assign them more tasks that are beyond these two's capabilities.

What about answering the question instead of dodging it? They are worth what I pay them, they are not worth more. Should I pay them what I pay them and keep them or fire them and upgrade their positions with people worth what it costs to live?

The crap you spew while evading the real issue is how you rationalize your idiotic views.

 

[Conservative65]

I'd like to see it raised a dollar an hour till it reaches $15 an hour then automatically tie it to inflation

I'd like to see the no skilled son of a bitches that demand more for nothing earn their raise like those of us with skills have to do to get that amount.

 

[Conservative65]

That's mega-fail argument. Here's why:

If the minimum cost of living for a single person is $X, then that person should be paid $X. Otherwise, the taxpayers have to pay that person welfare benefits just to keep him alive, sheltered, and fed. Why should taxpayers foot the bill? Paying wages is the employer's job.

I'm a business owner. My business is a services company, so most of my employees are well paid. I do have two employees who get government assistance. Here's the thing. I pay them both what they are worth to me, and I doubt either could get another job paying what I pay them.

So what would be your thought where we go from here?

1) I voluntarily raise their pay and pay them what they are not worth? This isn't going to happen.

2) Government forces me to raise their pay. I will fire them both, they aren't worth what it would cost for them to live without government assistance. If I paid more, I could expand both jobs and give them other tasks that the people I have doing them now can't do. I am OK with what they do for what I pay them.

3) You admit that maybe you don't know what you are talking about and it's better they have a job they can partially support themselves than they live entirely on government assistance.

What say you?

You are a overpaid government contractor tax supported mooch. Nobody cares what you think. If the employees were costing you more than they are making you, you would have fired them already. The fact is they are making enough to support themselves but you want to steal that & make tax payers support them.

I don't know what you do but whatever it is, you're paid to much if you make a penny an hour.

 

[SwimExpert]

We're the wealthiest nation on earth, but yet we're losing our middle class so fast it is down right scary.

Minimum wage increases won't save the middle class. Upper management will simply increase prices, eroding the middle class even farther.

 

[turtledude]

The current national minimum wage is 7.25/hour. I am asking the house republicans to put forward a bill to raise that a full dollar to 8.25/hour for the federal minimum wage. I am NOT talking about 10.10/hour that the democrats want. I am talking about getting caught up a little with the times.

Can we do this? We're the wealthiest nation on earth, but yet we're losing our middle class so fast it is down right scary.

I support actually enforcing the constitution and the Tenth amendment and telling the federal government it has no proper power to set a national minimum wage.

 

[jon_berzerk]

We're the wealthiest nation on earth, but yet we're losing our middle class so fast it is down right scary.

Minimum wage increases won't save the middle class. Upper management will simply increase prices, eroding the middle class even farther.

no matter what it still will be the minimum wage

 

[ScienceRocks]

I still support the minimum wage! 8.25/hour is fair as any less you can't live on it.

I'd raise it even higher for big corporations that are able to afford it. Maybe 10/hour for corps that are making more than a billion per year.

I maybe a social convervative, but I can't stand losertrians. They're as bad as the far left.

 

[LoneLaugher]

The current national minimum wage is 7.25/hour. I am asking the house republicans to put forward a bill to raise that a full dollar to 8.25/hour for the federal minimum wage. I am NOT talking about 10.10/hour that the democrats want. I am talking about getting caught up a little with the times.

Can we do this? We're the wealthiest nation on earth, but yet we're losing our middle class so fast it is down right scary.

Just abandon this idea, please. You aren't serious if you aren't talking about AT LEAST. $10.10.

You are not a populist, Matthew. In order to be a populist, you have to have high regard for the entire populace.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

$9? Why not make it $25? Or $35?

Don't you CARE about people?

Hey Matthew. You think the above comment is what passes for intelligent debate on this subject in our wonderful Congress?

This is all the tea party has...The top 400 people in this country make as much as the other half of America. During the past 15 years this has become a major problem as it just grows as the worker gets fucked.

Think this is fair tea partiers?

Look at all the welfare we have to give to walmart workers to see that this isn't working.

Deport 10 million illegals and WalMart might have to raise wages to hire enough workers.
Git 'er done!!!

What about Hyatt??

1. The average entry-level Hyatt employee starts out near minimum wage. Experienced front desk agents may earn upwards of $12.00 in hourly pay. Servers with Hyatt hotels earn an average of $6.00 per hour, plus tips. Cooks often make as much as $13.00 an hour.

 

[blackhawk]

The current national minimum wage is 7.25/hour. I am asking the house republicans to put forward a bill to raise that a full dollar to 8.25/hour for the federal minimum wage. I am NOT talking about 10.10/hour that the democrats want. I am talking about getting caught up a little with the times.

Can we do this? We're the wealthiest nation on earth, but yet we're losing our middle class so fast it is down right scary.

I would support that very reasonable to me.

 

[Kosh]

I still support the minimum wage! 8.25/hour is fair as any less you can't live on it.

I'd raise it even higher for big corporations that are able to afford it. Maybe 10/hour for corps that are making more than a billion per year.

I maybe a social convervative, but I can't stand losertrians. They're as bad as the far left.

You are far left!

 

[thereisnospoon]

The current national minimum wage is 7.25/hour. I am asking the house republicans to put forward a bill to raise that a full dollar to 8.25/hour for the federal minimum wage. I am NOT talking about 10.10/hour that the democrats want. I am talking about getting caught up a little with the times.

Can we do this? We're the wealthiest nation on earth, but yet we're losing our middle class so fast it is down right scary.

The middle class argument doesn't wash. Neither does the min wage argument. There are well documented numbers by all kinds of sources which tell the real story. That is a very small percentage of workers, most of whom are part time, are paid at or below min wage.