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.
What are you talking about? The government is ran by the people.Because that's a wage way out of whack to anyone who understands basic economics? You clearly don't. A standard of living is enough to afford an apartment without it taking more then 40% of your income, not having to rely on food stamps..Your entire argument is juvenile, the minimum wage is meant to ensure a basic standard of living for working people, no one wants to raise it to such an unreasonable Amount, however, it does need to keep up with the cost of living.
What's unreasonable about $100 hr.? Why is that unreasonable? Stop pretending it is juvenile and answer my questions. What is a basic standard of living? Is it the same for a high school kid living at home as it is for a single mother of three? We've had the minimum wage for 82 years and it doesn't seem to be able to keep up with the cost of living. Maybe if we raise it to $100 hr. that won't be a problem, right? I would think $100 hr. could meet the cost of living for just about everyone, don't you agree?
What do you mean "out of whack?" I think $100 hr. is adequate to provide a quality lifestyle to most anyone. You wouldn't need food stamps or have to worry about an apartment with that kind of money. Your standard of living would be excellent.
I don't work much now but back when I did work, my time and talent was worth $100 hr. If I couldn't make that it wasn't worth me doing. I didn't worry about how much I needed to make so that 40% of my income went to housing. I also didn't worry much about economics, it seemed to keep working just fine. So why are you so opposed to my idea of people making $100 hr.?
David is like government, just reasonable, damn it. They know what's best for us. I'm not sure why if they have the best, most reasonable answers, then why do they need to enforce their decisions with guns? That one is a poser
You know nothing about me, first of all, and second of all, no one is using the free money argument, wages need to adjust to the cost of living or people have to rely on food stamps/etc..See the issue here is that you have hired people. David has not. He has only worked for others (maybe). So he thinks, hey free money! Instead of doing this crummy job for 7/hr he can do it for 10/hr!Yes, 10.10 is a good start.
You mean because employer will pay someone worth $7 an hour $10, we wouldn't find a worker worth $10 if we have to pay that.
You are extremely naive. Basic logic tells you that the minimum wage would never work. All you do is deny any job to the people who need it the most.
It's the inevitable result of someone, you, being generous with someone else's money
But you and I know that if I have to pay top wage I'm gong to hire top people, not some guy who may or may not showup on time.
Typical Christian.What are you talking about? The government is ran by the people.Because that's a wage way out of whack to anyone who understands basic economics? You clearly don't. A standard of living is enough to afford an apartment without it taking more then 40% of your income, not having to rely on food stamps..
What do you mean "out of whack?" I think $100 hr. is adequate to provide a quality lifestyle to most anyone. You wouldn't need food stamps or have to worry about an apartment with that kind of money. Your standard of living would be excellent.
I don't work much now but back when I did work, my time and talent was worth $100 hr. If I couldn't make that it wasn't worth me doing. I didn't worry about how much I needed to make so that 40% of my income went to housing. I also didn't worry much about economics, it seemed to keep working just fine. So why are you so opposed to my idea of people making $100 hr.?
David is like government, just reasonable, damn it. They know what's best for us. I'm not sure why if they have the best, most reasonable answers, then why do they need to enforce their decisions with guns? That one is a poser
Shut the hell up, statist puke. You're a lemming and should be culled from the population, but sadly will probably live till you're a hundred.
People aren't paid what they need, they are paid what they are worth. And worth is set by free markets. No one takes a job if they can get a better one. They take the best job they can get.
What are you on about now? There are good and bad leaders, but we saw what happened when the MW didn't exist, some leaders of these businesses didn't pay out to there employees what they need to live a basic life.No one is saying they're all evil or greedy. They probably wouldn't even have to take it out of their bonuses.I just did.You still didn't answer the question.
It's a yes or no question. Do you believe the evil, greedy, corrupt rich guys at the top of the corporate ladder are simply going to volunteer to take the increase out of their own paychecks? Yes, or no?
You can't even answer a simple question, because you realize it blows your entire argument to shit. If they're not evil and greedy, then your entire argument falls apart. The would be paying better wages all on their own accord, simply because they believe in doing so, much like Costco. On the other hand, if they are evil and greedy, they'll respond to a minimum wage increase by raising prices, among other things, must like Walmart.
You would have been better off to simply have admitted your error instead of the tap-dance routine you tried to pull.
What the heck? The MW fear mingering fails.You know nothing about me, first of all, and second of all, no one is using the free money argument, wages need to adjust to the cost of living or people have to rely on food stamps/etc..See the issue here is that you have hired people. David has not. He has only worked for others (maybe). So he thinks, hey free money! Instead of doing this crummy job for 7/hr he can do it for 10/hr!Yes, 10.10 is a good start.
You mean because employer will pay someone worth $7 an hour $10, we wouldn't find a worker worth $10 if we have to pay that.
You are extremely naive. Basic logic tells you that the minimum wage would never work. All you do is deny any job to the people who need it the most.
It's the inevitable result of someone, you, being generous with someone else's money
But you and I know that if I have to pay top wage I'm gong to hire top people, not some guy who may or may not showup on time.
So how do you get them off food stamps by denying them any job exactly, Holmes?
As for having hired people, if you had you would realize that you can't hire anyone for less than they are worth, so you proved it yourself
People aren't paid what they need, they are paid what they are worth. And worth is set by free markets. No one takes a job if they can get a better one. They take the best job they can get.
This is only partially true. Simple enough, but the reality is more nuanced. People don't get paid what they are "worth," they get paid what they settle for. Wages are not the only factor that goes into a job decision. There are a great many things that can factor in.
What the heck? The MW fear mingering fails.You know nothing about me, first of all, and second of all, no one is using the free money argument, wages need to adjust to the cost of living or people have to rely on food stamps/etc..See the issue here is that you have hired people. David has not. He has only worked for others (maybe). So he thinks, hey free money! Instead of doing this crummy job for 7/hr he can do it for 10/hr!Yes, 10.10 is a good start.
You mean because employer will pay someone worth $7 an hour $10, we wouldn't find a worker worth $10 if we have to pay that.
You are extremely naive. Basic logic tells you that the minimum wage would never work. All you do is deny any job to the people who need it the most.
It's the inevitable result of someone, you, being generous with someone else's money
But you and I know that if I have to pay top wage I'm gong to hire top people, not some guy who may or may not showup on time.
So how do you get them off food stamps by denying them any job exactly, Holmes?
As for having hired people, if you had you would realize that you can't hire anyone for less than they are worth, so you proved it yourself
Wow, you are a clown, you're right about thatWhat are you on about now? There are good and bad leaders, but we saw what happened when the MW didn't exist, some leaders of these businesses didn't pay out to there employees what they need to live a basic life.
No one takes a job when they can get a better one.
No one takes a job when they can get a better one.
Define "better."
What are you on about now? There are good and bad leaders, but we saw what happened when the MW didn't exist, some leaders of these businesses didn't pay out to there employees what they need to live a basic life.
The minimum wage has existed for nearly 100 years. You're comparing two entirely different times. The economics were different, the cultural values were different. Back then, there were no child labor laws either. Do you really think that repealing child labor laws today would bring back the days of Oliver Twist? Of course not. Today's society would never tolerate it, regardless.
Funny, that's what I say whenever idiots like you shriek that people are going to starve and die if we don't give them more for not doing anything of note.What the heck? The MW fear mingering fails.You know nothing about me, first of all, and second of all, no one is using the free money argument, wages need to adjust to the cost of living or people have to rely on food stamps/etc..See the issue here is that you have hired people. David has not. He has only worked for others (maybe). So he thinks, hey free money! Instead of doing this crummy job for 7/hr he can do it for 10/hr!Yes, 10.10 is a good start.
You mean because employer will pay someone worth $7 an hour $10, we wouldn't find a worker worth $10 if we have to pay that.
You are extremely naive. Basic logic tells you that the minimum wage would never work. All you do is deny any job to the people who need it the most.
It's the inevitable result of someone, you, being generous with someone else's money
But you and I know that if I have to pay top wage I'm gong to hire top people, not some guy who may or may not showup on time.
So how do you get them off food stamps by denying them any job exactly, Holmes?
As for having hired people, if you had you would realize that you can't hire anyone for less than they are worth, so you proved it yourself
Yeah, I loved them 50 hour work weeks being paid 1 dollar an hour.. LOL.
You prove my argument and then dismiss it. You're grossly incompetent as a debater.Yeah, to what, 9$? Companies would never raise wages if your argument had bearing.As usual you are factually wrong.No, they wouldn't. Maybe in some areas with high costs of living.. Then again, I know managers at restaurants relying on food stamps.. Wages haven't been rising..If minimum wage were increased then Walmart employees wouldn't need to be on welfare.
Yes they would.
WalMart raised wages recently. And then last week announced they were cutting hours because higher wage costs were hurting profitability.
Artificially raising wages ends up hurting the very people it supposedly was helping.
I know I nailed my description of you perfectly.You know nothing about me, first of all, and second of all, no one is using the free money argument, wages need to adjust to the cost of living or people have to rely on food stamps/etc..See the issue here is that you have hired people. David has not. He has only worked for others (maybe). So he thinks, hey free money! Instead of doing this crummy job for 7/hr he can do it for 10/hr!Yes, 10.10 is a good start.
You mean because employer will pay someone worth $7 an hour $10, we wouldn't find a worker worth $10 if we have to pay that.
You are extremely naive. Basic logic tells you that the minimum wage would never work. All you do is deny any job to the people who need it the most.
It's the inevitable result of someone, you, being generous with someone else's money
But you and I know that if I have to pay top wage I'm gong to hire top people, not some guy who may or may not showup on time.
Dont be silly. You've never worked for 50 hours a week.Yeah, I loved them 50 hour work weeks being paid 1 dollar an hour.. LOL.And those same people "worth" $7 were worth 2 dollars at one point.. Should we have never raised the minimum wage when the cost of living spiraled?Yes, 10.10 is a good start.
You mean because employer will pay someone worth $7 an hour $10, we wouldn't find a worker worth $10 if we have to pay that.
You are extremely naive. Basic logic tells you that the minimum wage would never work. All you do is deny any job to the people who need it the most.
It's the inevitable result of someone, you, being generous with someone else's money
There should be no minimum wage. It's a hurdle, not a tide. Here's the inside scoop, Holmes. People aren't paid what they need, they are paid what they are worth. And worth is set by free markets. No one takes a job if they can get a better one. They take the best job they can get. Ditto for employers, we hire the best employee we can for what we are paying. Who'd a thunk, huh?
You are so arrogant, you think someone who is willing to accept a job for a certain wage isn't smart enough to decline it on their own, they need you to step in and do it for them. How do you get your head through doorways?
That is the essence of Euro-socialism. They pay subsidies to "save jobs". But those jobs are unproductive and they are saved only at the expense of future jobs not yet created. That is why Euros in their 50s have decent jobs while their 20something kids still live at home.I wonder if the people who want to limit a company's profitability are also willing to limit its risk. IOW, if it's incumbent on a successful company to pay high wages and taxes, society should also be willing to prop it up when profits decline.
Yeah, to what, 9$? Companies would never raise wages if your argument had bearing.
What are you on about now? There are good and bad leaders, but we saw what happened when the MW didn't exist, some leaders of these businesses didn't pay out to there employees what they need to live a basic life.
The minimum wage has existed for nearly 100 years. You're comparing two entirely different times. The economics were different, the cultural values were different. Back then, there were no child labor laws either. Do you really think that repealing child labor laws today would bring back the days of Oliver Twist? Of course not. Today's society would never tolerate it, regardless.
One thing that hasn't changed is it doesn't work, and never did. It's a feel good liberal policy to make liberals feel good about yourselves at the expense of others, like the rest of your policies
