Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The minimu wage should be set at a level where the state does not need to subsidise the wages of those in work. Corporate welfare should not come out of taxpayers pockets.
First off, if you subsidize the employee.... that isn't corporate welfare. The corporate was never obligated for anything, whether the tax payer is stupid enough to subsidize a someone or not.
Again, as has been proven MILLIONS OF TIMES.... if you raise the minimum wage, people lose jobs.
Walmart had an average of 330 people employed per store in 2006, when the minimum wage was $5.25.
By 2010, when the minimum wage was raised to $7.25, the average number of employees per store was down to 280.
50 less employed per store, is thousands on thousands of people unemployed. Those unemployed were collecting far more benefits, than they were when they were employed.
Which is better? Partial welfare while they are at least working a job? Or full welfare, with them unemployed?
No one is subsidizing Walmart. You are just flat out wrong.
The minimu wage should be set at a level where the state does not need to subsidise the wages of those in work. Corporate welfare should not come out of taxpayers pockets.
First off, if you subsidize the employee.... that isn't corporate welfare. The corporate was never obligated for anything, whether the tax payer is stupid enough to subsidize a someone or not.
Again, as has been proven MILLIONS OF TIMES.... if you raise the minimum wage, people lose jobs.
Walmart had an average of 330 people employed per store in 2006, when the minimum wage was $5.25.
By 2010, when the minimum wage was raised to $7.25, the average number of employees per store was down to 280.
50 less employed per store, is thousands on thousands of people unemployed. Those unemployed were collecting far more benefits, than they were when they were employed.
Which is better? Partial welfare while they are at least working a job? Or full welfare, with them unemployed?
No one is subsidizing Walmart. You are just flat out wrong.
What you are parroting is the corporate mantra. They will never pay a decent wage if the taxpayer chips in to help. every time the mnimum wage is raised we hear the same stuff. But here is the thing. You have a minimum wage that has been raised in the past. And yet you have record employment.
So how does that work ?
Fair and reasonable is the thing.The minimu wage should be set at a level where the state does not need to subsidise the wages of those in work. Corporate welfare should not come out of taxpayers pockets.
First off, if you subsidize the employee.... that isn't corporate welfare. The corporate was never obligated for anything, whether the tax payer is stupid enough to subsidize a someone or not.
Again, as has been proven MILLIONS OF TIMES.... if you raise the minimum wage, people lose jobs.
Walmart had an average of 330 people employed per store in 2006, when the minimum wage was $5.25.
By 2010, when the minimum wage was raised to $7.25, the average number of employees per store was down to 280.
50 less employed per store, is thousands on thousands of people unemployed. Those unemployed were collecting far more benefits, than they were when they were employed.
Which is better? Partial welfare while they are at least working a job? Or full welfare, with them unemployed?
No one is subsidizing Walmart. You are just flat out wrong.
What you are parroting is the corporate mantra. They will never pay a decent wage if the taxpayer chips in to help. every time the mnimum wage is raised we hear the same stuff. But here is the thing. You have a minimum wage that has been raised in the past. And yet you have record employment.
So how does that work ?
You have a minimum wage that has been raised in the past. And yet you have record employment.
So how does that work ?
We've raised it before, so why not raise it to $100/hour?
What could go wrong?
The minimu wage should be set at a level where the state does not need to subsidise the wages of those in work. Corporate welfare should not come out of taxpayers pockets.
First off, if you subsidize the employee.... that isn't corporate welfare. The corporate was never obligated for anything, whether the tax payer is stupid enough to subsidize a someone or not.
Again, as has been proven MILLIONS OF TIMES.... if you raise the minimum wage, people lose jobs.
Walmart had an average of 330 people employed per store in 2006, when the minimum wage was $5.25.
By 2010, when the minimum wage was raised to $7.25, the average number of employees per store was down to 280.
50 less employed per store, is thousands on thousands of people unemployed. Those unemployed were collecting far more benefits, than they were when they were employed.
Which is better? Partial welfare while they are at least working a job? Or full welfare, with them unemployed?
No one is subsidizing Walmart. You are just flat out wrong.
What you are parroting is the corporate mantra. They will never pay a decent wage if the taxpayer chips in to help. every time the mnimum wage is raised we hear the same stuff. But here is the thing. You have a minimum wage that has been raised in the past. And yet you have record employment.
So how does that work ?
Fair and reasonable is the thing.The minimu wage should be set at a level where the state does not need to subsidise the wages of those in work. Corporate welfare should not come out of taxpayers pockets.
First off, if you subsidize the employee.... that isn't corporate welfare. The corporate was never obligated for anything, whether the tax payer is stupid enough to subsidize a someone or not.
Again, as has been proven MILLIONS OF TIMES.... if you raise the minimum wage, people lose jobs.
Walmart had an average of 330 people employed per store in 2006, when the minimum wage was $5.25.
By 2010, when the minimum wage was raised to $7.25, the average number of employees per store was down to 280.
50 less employed per store, is thousands on thousands of people unemployed. Those unemployed were collecting far more benefits, than they were when they were employed.
Which is better? Partial welfare while they are at least working a job? Or full welfare, with them unemployed?
No one is subsidizing Walmart. You are just flat out wrong.
What you are parroting is the corporate mantra. They will never pay a decent wage if the taxpayer chips in to help. every time the mnimum wage is raised we hear the same stuff. But here is the thing. You have a minimum wage that has been raised in the past. And yet you have record employment.
So how does that work ?
You have a minimum wage that has been raised in the past. And yet you have record employment.
So how does that work ?
We've raised it before, so why not raise it to $100/hour?
What could go wrong?
Your anecdotal testimony does not trump my point. You have record employment despite having a minimum wage.The minimu wage should be set at a level where the state does not need to subsidise the wages of those in work. Corporate welfare should not come out of taxpayers pockets.
First off, if you subsidize the employee.... that isn't corporate welfare. The corporate was never obligated for anything, whether the tax payer is stupid enough to subsidize a someone or not.
Again, as has been proven MILLIONS OF TIMES.... if you raise the minimum wage, people lose jobs.
Walmart had an average of 330 people employed per store in 2006, when the minimum wage was $5.25.
By 2010, when the minimum wage was raised to $7.25, the average number of employees per store was down to 280.
50 less employed per store, is thousands on thousands of people unemployed. Those unemployed were collecting far more benefits, than they were when they were employed.
Which is better? Partial welfare while they are at least working a job? Or full welfare, with them unemployed?
No one is subsidizing Walmart. You are just flat out wrong.
What you are parroting is the corporate mantra. They will never pay a decent wage if the taxpayer chips in to help. every time the mnimum wage is raised we hear the same stuff. But here is the thing. You have a minimum wage that has been raised in the past. And yet you have record employment.
So how does that work ?
No, that's just a fact. Everything I said, was documented fact.
They do pay a decent wage.
I've worked mom&pop shops, and I've worked at large corporations.
If these companies are so terrible, let's ban them, and see how much better off you are at tiny shops.
Tiny companies not only pay minimum wage, but they also have almost no benefits whatsoever.
The last company I applied to work for, openly said they no longer provided any health insurance at all. This was after Obama Care was passed. Before that, everyone offered health insurance.
And not just health insurance either. I had a friend who worked for Walmart. She got into Walmarts tuition reimbursement program, and ended up getting a degree in civil engineering, while working at Walmart.
If she had been working at some small business, she could not have done any of that.
You people do not know what you are talking about.
Well in nearly 40 years of employment my estimation of my worth and my employers estimation were often at variance.Fair and reasonable is the thing.The minimu wage should be set at a level where the state does not need to subsidise the wages of those in work. Corporate welfare should not come out of taxpayers pockets.
First off, if you subsidize the employee.... that isn't corporate welfare. The corporate was never obligated for anything, whether the tax payer is stupid enough to subsidize a someone or not.
Again, as has been proven MILLIONS OF TIMES.... if you raise the minimum wage, people lose jobs.
Walmart had an average of 330 people employed per store in 2006, when the minimum wage was $5.25.
By 2010, when the minimum wage was raised to $7.25, the average number of employees per store was down to 280.
50 less employed per store, is thousands on thousands of people unemployed. Those unemployed were collecting far more benefits, than they were when they were employed.
Which is better? Partial welfare while they are at least working a job? Or full welfare, with them unemployed?
No one is subsidizing Walmart. You are just flat out wrong.
What you are parroting is the corporate mantra. They will never pay a decent wage if the taxpayer chips in to help. every time the mnimum wage is raised we hear the same stuff. But here is the thing. You have a minimum wage that has been raised in the past. And yet you have record employment.
So how does that work ?
You have a minimum wage that has been raised in the past. And yet you have record employment.
So how does that work ?
We've raised it before, so why not raise it to $100/hour?
What could go wrong?
Maybe just everyone decide for themselves what is fair and reasonable?
I didn't realize t he MW was broken.
Its been a decade or so since it was raised and I seem to be stumbling into articles about raising it again is all. I'm looking to streamline the process.
Do you not know what happened last time we raised the minimum wage? You know, the great recession?
Why would you want to streamline something that wrecked the economy, and drove million into unemployment? We just got back down to full employment, and you want to completely undo all of the recovery? Why?
IF you think the cause of the housing bubble was the hike I think you should be for my plan.
My idea is to prevent these knee jerk hikes and just make it a smooth percentage every year. Whatever the GDP or CPI or board of directors pay or whatever goes up minimum wage goes up. This way there are no surges based on the whims of whoever is in Congress trying to win reelection.
So that is partially good......
Agreed, that it is true that avoiding massive hikes, would avoid sudden drastic crashes in the economy. So that part is good.
However, the problem is, you still have not avoided the negative effects of the minimum wage. You may have avoided sudden shocks to the system, but you haven't dealt with the fact that the minimum wage is universally and unavoidably a negative.
This is where you keep trying to find a way to consume poison so that it does the least damage. But only true way to not have poison do damage, is to not take the poison.
You do realize that whole history of the minimum wage, was a history of trying to destroy people, in the name of racism.... right? I'm assuming you know this, because this is well known historical fact.
Only in our modern times, have we been ignorant as a society, to think the minimum wage somehow is a benefit to people. It isn't. It never was.
The history of the minimum wage, in this country, was to push people out of the labor market.
These Chinese people were coming to the US, and they were unskilled, but they were willing to work for whatever they could earn. The American Unions were getting ticked off because these Chinks were taking their jobs because they were willing to work for less money.
(to all you Chinese, I absolutely love Chinese people more than Americans usually. I am only using the slur to be accurate to the historical context)
So the American Unions started pushing to have a minimum wage. They knew that if employers have to pay the same amount of money for a Chinese, as an American, the employer will default to the more skilled and educated American. The reason employers hire less skilled or educated people, is because they can pay them lower wages. If you eliminate that ability, you eliminate their employment.
The racists policy worked perfectly. Chinese were drastically harmed by the policy.
By the way... nothing has changed. I was watching a news video from Europe about recent moves to increase the mininmum wage.
This young reporter girl, was interviewing a man from a union. It was either a Union in Germany, or a Union in Norway. I don't remember which. But the idiot American reporter was standing there "So you want to create a minimum wage law, so that people can earn a good living?" (this was before Germany had a minimum wage).
The Union guy goes.... "No. We want to keep these foreigners out of the work place".
This is one of the amazing things about Europe, is that they actually say what they believe, rather than putting on these lies that "It's so people have a better life"... no it is not. It's to keep other people from having jobs. That is the whole purpose.
Fair and reasonable is the thing.The minimu wage should be set at a level where the state does not need to subsidise the wages of those in work. Corporate welfare should not come out of taxpayers pockets.
First off, if you subsidize the employee.... that isn't corporate welfare. The corporate was never obligated for anything, whether the tax payer is stupid enough to subsidize a someone or not.
Again, as has been proven MILLIONS OF TIMES.... if you raise the minimum wage, people lose jobs.
Walmart had an average of 330 people employed per store in 2006, when the minimum wage was $5.25.
By 2010, when the minimum wage was raised to $7.25, the average number of employees per store was down to 280.
50 less employed per store, is thousands on thousands of people unemployed. Those unemployed were collecting far more benefits, than they were when they were employed.
Which is better? Partial welfare while they are at least working a job? Or full welfare, with them unemployed?
No one is subsidizing Walmart. You are just flat out wrong.
What you are parroting is the corporate mantra. They will never pay a decent wage if the taxpayer chips in to help. every time the mnimum wage is raised we hear the same stuff. But here is the thing. You have a minimum wage that has been raised in the past. And yet you have record employment.
So how does that work ?
You have a minimum wage that has been raised in the past. And yet you have record employment.
So how does that work ?
We've raised it before, so why not raise it to $100/hour?
What could go wrong?
For what ?Fair and reasonable is the thing.The minimu wage should be set at a level where the state does not need to subsidise the wages of those in work. Corporate welfare should not come out of taxpayers pockets.
First off, if you subsidize the employee.... that isn't corporate welfare. The corporate was never obligated for anything, whether the tax payer is stupid enough to subsidize a someone or not.
Again, as has been proven MILLIONS OF TIMES.... if you raise the minimum wage, people lose jobs.
Walmart had an average of 330 people employed per store in 2006, when the minimum wage was $5.25.
By 2010, when the minimum wage was raised to $7.25, the average number of employees per store was down to 280.
50 less employed per store, is thousands on thousands of people unemployed. Those unemployed were collecting far more benefits, than they were when they were employed.
Which is better? Partial welfare while they are at least working a job? Or full welfare, with them unemployed?
No one is subsidizing Walmart. You are just flat out wrong.
What you are parroting is the corporate mantra. They will never pay a decent wage if the taxpayer chips in to help. every time the mnimum wage is raised we hear the same stuff. But here is the thing. You have a minimum wage that has been raised in the past. And yet you have record employment.
So how does that work ?
You have a minimum wage that has been raised in the past. And yet you have record employment.
So how does that work ?
We've raised it before, so why not raise it to $100/hour?
What could go wrong?
$100/hour isn't fair and reasonable?
The minimu wage should be set at a level where the state does not need to subsidise the wages of those in work. Corporate welfare should not come out of taxpayers pockets.
Your anecdotal testimony does not trump my point. You have record employment despite having a minimum wage.The minimu wage should be set at a level where the state does not need to subsidise the wages of those in work. Corporate welfare should not come out of taxpayers pockets.
First off, if you subsidize the employee.... that isn't corporate welfare. The corporate was never obligated for anything, whether the tax payer is stupid enough to subsidize a someone or not.
Again, as has been proven MILLIONS OF TIMES.... if you raise the minimum wage, people lose jobs.
Walmart had an average of 330 people employed per store in 2006, when the minimum wage was $5.25.
By 2010, when the minimum wage was raised to $7.25, the average number of employees per store was down to 280.
50 less employed per store, is thousands on thousands of people unemployed. Those unemployed were collecting far more benefits, than they were when they were employed.
Which is better? Partial welfare while they are at least working a job? Or full welfare, with them unemployed?
No one is subsidizing Walmart. You are just flat out wrong.
What you are parroting is the corporate mantra. They will never pay a decent wage if the taxpayer chips in to help. every time the mnimum wage is raised we hear the same stuff. But here is the thing. You have a minimum wage that has been raised in the past. And yet you have record employment.
So how does that work ?
No, that's just a fact. Everything I said, was documented fact.
They do pay a decent wage.
I've worked mom&pop shops, and I've worked at large corporations.
If these companies are so terrible, let's ban them, and see how much better off you are at tiny shops.
Tiny companies not only pay minimum wage, but they also have almost no benefits whatsoever.
The last company I applied to work for, openly said they no longer provided any health insurance at all. This was after Obama Care was passed. Before that, everyone offered health insurance.
And not just health insurance either. I had a friend who worked for Walmart. She got into Walmarts tuition reimbursement program, and ended up getting a degree in civil engineering, while working at Walmart.
If she had been working at some small business, she could not have done any of that.
You people do not know what you are talking about.
I would agree that Walmart are not all bad. They trade in the UK and I have friends that work for them. They do some good things but not many.
We had your argument in the UK. Minimum wage would cause unemployment. This didnt happen.
Zero hours contracts and the gig economy are the other things we have imported from the US. These are ticking bombs as folk are unable t save for pensions or get credit,buy houses and so on.
So the kid who works on zero hours and is financially not viable will eventually turn to the state to support him when he cant work.
Meanwhile his parasite employers count their billions. It is so very wrong.
For what ?Fair and reasonable is the thing.First off, if you subsidize the employee.... that isn't corporate welfare. The corporate was never obligated for anything, whether the tax payer is stupid enough to subsidize a someone or not.
Again, as has been proven MILLIONS OF TIMES.... if you raise the minimum wage, people lose jobs.
Walmart had an average of 330 people employed per store in 2006, when the minimum wage was $5.25.
By 2010, when the minimum wage was raised to $7.25, the average number of employees per store was down to 280.
50 less employed per store, is thousands on thousands of people unemployed. Those unemployed were collecting far more benefits, than they were when they were employed.
Which is better? Partial welfare while they are at least working a job? Or full welfare, with them unemployed?
No one is subsidizing Walmart. You are just flat out wrong.
What you are parroting is the corporate mantra. They will never pay a decent wage if the taxpayer chips in to help. every time the mnimum wage is raised we hear the same stuff. But here is the thing. You have a minimum wage that has been raised in the past. And yet you have record employment.
So how does that work ?
You have a minimum wage that has been raised in the past. And yet you have record employment.
So how does that work ?
We've raised it before, so why not raise it to $100/hour?
What could go wrong?
$100/hour isn't fair and reasonable?
I think most youngsters would expect to rough it. We all probably did it. But now we do it with government subsidies protecting the profits of the corporations.The minimu wage should be set at a level where the state does not need to subsidise the wages of those in work. Corporate welfare should not come out of taxpayers pockets.
I don't even think I'd go that far. I think folks on the minimum wage should expect to have to live with other people and have a pretty tight budget. Nothing wrong with renting a room in your buddy's place.
Now I also hope if I ever find myself groveling my way back to McDonalds and taking back ANY job they can offer me I can prove my worth and run the place or at least get raises in a month then eventually find something better, and the same for most other people there.
Come back when you want to talk to adults.For what ?Fair and reasonable is the thing.What you are parroting is the corporate mantra. They will never pay a decent wage if the taxpayer chips in to help. every time the mnimum wage is raised we hear the same stuff. But here is the thing. You have a minimum wage that has been raised in the past. And yet you have record employment.
So how does that work ?
You have a minimum wage that has been raised in the past. And yet you have record employment.
So how does that work ?
We've raised it before, so why not raise it to $100/hour?
What could go wrong?
$100/hour isn't fair and reasonable?
For minimum wage work.
But at the very least I would expect a full time job to feed, clothe and house the worker.
Come back when you want to talk to adults.For what ?Fair and reasonable is the thing.You have a minimum wage that has been raised in the past. And yet you have record employment.
So how does that work ?
We've raised it before, so why not raise it to $100/hour?
What could go wrong?
$100/hour isn't fair and reasonable?
For minimum wage work.
Its a race to the bottom. why do we need a minimum wage ? Because scumbag emplyers would pay nothing if they could.But at the very least I would expect a full time job to feed, clothe and house the worker.
Why should every job pay the amount that you think you need? Why can't other people take jobs that don't pay that much?
