Raise the Minimum Wage

Every time a Liberal starts on the "raise the minimum wage" rant, I ask.. if raising it to $15/hr is good.. wouldn't it be better to just demand that EVERYONE who has a job be paid $250,000 a year? That would solve all the problems, right?

Actually had a few of the liberal economic illiterates agree that such would be an even better idea. Originally Posted by RedLeg505

I call bullshit. Either that or your so-called liberal economic illiterates were simply responding to your stupidity with the stupidity it deserved.....and you believed them.

It's not surprising that those who are most boisterous when it comes to bitching about poor people are also the ones most intent on keeping them there.

That, and....

Simple fact, increasing minimum wages increases prices for goods and services; Originally Posted by I B Hankering

So you're admitting that you are benefiting financially off the backs of the poor.

Was thatEnglish, IBIdiot?

As I've said, I've done this debate many times before. For every pro raise you offer, I can offer a counter citation:

http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/...imum-wage-laws

http://money.cnn.com/interactive/pf/...m-wage/?iid=EL If raising the minimum wage is GOOD economically, then why is California with an $8.00 minimum wage not doing better with a lower unemployment rate than Texas with $7.25?

http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/12/news...age/index.html
From the CNN article "The last time lawmakers approved such a bill was in 2007, when they agreed to a three-step increase from $5.15 per hour to the current rate of $7.25 by July 2009." Care to guess what ELSE happened from 2007 when the bill was passed until 2009? Hmmmm? What happened to unemployment during that time? Not any of that was due to the increase in minimum wage? Where's your proof?

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-bl...g-minimum-wage
A quote from the above, citing Christina Romer, President Obama's previous Chairwoman on his Council of Economic Advisors "wrote last week that the economics of the minimum wage are complicated and the potential economic results are far from obvious. She also said that there are better ways of achieving more targeted relief for the working poor and better ways to have policy that is an incentive for businesses to create jobs."

Shall I continue? Originally Posted by RedLeg505

so that's your idea of debunking EPI ?

next contestant please.

LMAO ... if you only knew Originally Posted by CJ7

I think he meant ... successfully!

Not "run a business" into the ground.

From my perspective the quote from Romer is right on point, "the economics of the minimum wage are complicated and the potential economic results are far from obvious. She also said that there are better ways of achieving more targeted relief for the working poor and better ways to have policy that is an incentive for businesses to create jobs."

The problem with the righties on here is that they don't want a minimum wage, but they also are totally against doing anything in the way of targeted relief for the working poor. They seem to want a completely laizzes-faire society where it is OK to exploit others if it can be pulled off. Please correct me if I'm wrong and show us your brilliant ideas for having more equitable wages, especially for the working poor. Either that, or they seem to believe that the working poor deserve to be poor, often miserable and exploited and it is great that execs and owners get richer and richer in any way possible.

I merely think that the minimum wage ought to be high enough that if you work 40 hours a week at minimum wage you shouldn't make so little that you are considered below the poverty line. It is a red herring that the minimum wage is for teenagers to teach them how to work. Teenagers tend to go to school and work only part time. Many places have a lower wage that businesses can pay teenagers for a short period of time. I started working from age 12 by baby sitting, mowing lawns and selling lemonade and knew nothing about minimum wage, but worked my way above that quickly. I also think we should move the minimum wage up to that level in incremental steps and then index the minimum wage to inflation so we don't have to mess with this periodically. If there are other better ways to ensure those who work hard 40 hours a week have some dignity and self-sufficiency, then we ought to implement those as well. Now it is true that the the poverty line is significantly different in NYC from the Mississippi delta or Detroit, but I'm sure we can figure that out as well.

I think we should do this because we have a problem in the U.S. where stores like Walmart come in to small town America and put a lot of the local small businesses out of business and then hire fewer locals at worse wages which then means that many of them have to get public assistance and food stamps to make ends meet. In effect we are subsidizing the Walmarts to destroy functioning parts of our economy. Now I have started businesses (never one that pays minimum wages) and work in high tech, so I believe in creative destruction, but this is more like exploitive destruction.

I have been toying with some ideas where all business exemptions would be tied to the non-exec pay for their employees and the longevity and full time status of their jobs. If free enterprise, capitalism and business are so wonderful and innovative (and high wages and stable jobs are a good in society) then let's let's unleash some of that creativity and set the incentives so businesses can start to figure out how to achieve this (rather than incentives that are perverse for society and working people) and still make a good profit. I think probably most righties on here would agree we should not reward businesses for sending good jobs overseas and so I would hope they would agree that we should set incentives for businesses to raise wages and create stable full time jobs. Why not?

Oh, and until we do or those righties come up with some ideas of their own, I think we should raise the minimum wage to be a living wage.

From my perspective the quote from Romer is right on point, "the economics of the minimum wage are complicated and the potential economic results are far from obvious. She also said that there are better ways of achieving more targeted relief for the working poor and better ways to have policy that is an incentive for businesses to create jobs."

The problem with the righties on here is that they don't want a minimum wage, but they also are totally against doing anything in the way of targeted relief for the working poor. They seem to want a completely laizzes-faire society where it is OK to exploit others if it can be pulled off. Please correct me if I'm wrong and show us your brilliant ideas for having more equitable wages, especially for the working poor. Either that, or they seem to believe that the working poor deserve to be poor, often miserable and exploited and it is great that execs and owners get richer and richer in any way possible.

I merely think that the minimum wage ought to be high enough that if you work 40 hours a week at minimum wage you shouldn't make so little that you are considered below the poverty line. It is a red herring that the minimum wage is for teenagers to teach them how to work. Teenagers tend to go to school and work only part time. Many places have a lower wage that businesses can pay teenagers for a short period of time. I started working from age 12 by baby sitting, mowing lawns and selling lemonade and knew nothing about minimum wage, but worked my way above that quickly. I also think we should move the minimum wage up to that level in incremental steps and then index the minimum wage to inflation so we don't have to mess with this periodically. If there are other better ways to ensure those who work hard 40 hours a week have some dignity and self-sufficiency, then we ought to implement those as well. Now it is true that the the poverty line is significantly different in NYC from the Mississippi delta or Detroit, but I'm sure we can figure that out as well.

I think we should do this because we have a problem in the U.S. where stores like Walmart come in to small town America and put a lot of the local small businesses out of business and then hire fewer locals at worse wages which then means that many of them have to get public assistance and food stamps to make ends meet. In effect we are subsidizing the Walmarts to destroy functioning parts of our economy. Now I have started businesses (never one that pays minimum wages) and work in high tech, so I believe in creative destruction, but this is more like exploitive destruction.

I have been toying with some ideas where all business exemptions would be tied to the non-exec pay for their employees and the longevity and full time status of their jobs. If free enterprise, capitalism and business are so wonderful and innovative (and high wages and stable jobs are a good in society) then let's let's unleash some of that creativity and set the incentives so businesses can start to figure out how to achieve this (rather than incentives that are perverse for society and working people) and still make a good profit. I think probably most righties on here would agree we should not reward businesses for sending good jobs overseas and so I would hope they would agree that we should set incentives for businesses to raise wages and create stable full time jobs. Why not?

Oh, and until we do or those righties come up with some ideas of their own, I think we should raise the minimum wage to be a living wage. Originally Posted by austxjr

That will do the same thing that welfare is doing to the poor today, and it is key for the Dems to keep their voting base. Providing the poor just enough to get by on, depending on the govt and not improving themselves. The Dems have built this system to keep the poor enslaved starting with Johnson's state of the Union speech in 64, then reinforced by the teachers labor union dragging our school system down.
Being poor and a working a job for 8$ an hr or being on welfare should not comfortable. No one wants people to starve or die of exposer to the elements, but on the same hand I don't want them sitting back and saying this isn't so bad I can live like this.

So you're admitting that you are benefiting financially off the backs of the poor. Originally Posted by Doove

You're a doofus, Doofus, and you're wrong again. Just pointed out -- again -- that the lib-retard notion that the government can fabricate economic parity by mandating a minimum wage is puredee economic nonsense.

Great post, Austxjr.

The Dems have built this system to keep the poor enslaved Originally Posted by thisguy23

The Dems built capitalism? Wow! Who knew?

You're a doofus, Doofus, and you're wrong again. Just pointed out -- again -- that the lib-retard notion that the government can fabricate economic parity by mandating a minimum wage is puredee economic nonsense. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

No, what you pointed out is that poor people are needed so you can keep getting stuff cheap.

Increasing the federal minimum wage to $9.80 by July 1, 2014, would raise the wages of about 28 million workers, who would receive nearly $40 billion in additional wages over the phase-in period

remind everyone how injecting $40 billion into the economy is a bad thing ... people who need a $1.00 an hour raise will spend that $1.00 on items that keeps them alive, ie, food, clothing, shelter, gas etc

No, what you pointed out is that poor people are needed so you can keep getting stuff cheap. Originally Posted by Doove

You have no economic sense, Doofus. "Minimum wage" requirements "inflate" the "costs" of goods and services while having little to no impact on the true "value" of goods and services.

You have no economic sense, Doofus. "Minimum wage" requirements "inflate" the "costs" of goods and services while having little to no impact on the true "value" of goods and services. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

like the gallon of milk that used to cost $2.50 is now $4.00 because we didn't increase minimum wage ?

[QUOTE=Doove;1053749948]Great post, Austxjr.




The Dems built capitalism? Wow! Who knew?


Johnson's State of the Union speech was about Welfare not capitalism. What your doing is just another Lib tactic of trying to point to something else that has nothing to do with the conversation.

Better luck next time.

like the gallon of milk that used to cost $2.50 is now $4.00 because we didn't increase minimum wage ? Originally Posted by CJ7

Or gas, which goes up and down like a yo-yo.

Johnson's State of the Union speech was about Welfare not capitalism. What your doing is just another Lib tactic of trying to point to something else that has nothing to do with the conversation.

Better luck next time. Originally Posted by thisguy23

Sorry, i guess i mistook your point as your suggesting Dems are responsible for the system that leads to people being poor.

That would be capitalism. Sorry if i misunderstood what you were saying.

From my perspective the quote from Romer is right on point, "the economics of the minimum wage are complicated and the potential economic results are far from obvious. She also said that there are better ways of achieving more targeted relief for the working poor and better ways to have policy that is an incentive for businesses to create jobs."

The problem with the righties on here is that they don't want a minimum wage, but they also are totally against doing anything in the way of targeted relief for the working poor. They seem to want a completely laizzes-faire society where it is OK to exploit others if it can be pulled off. Please correct me if I'm wrong and show us your brilliant ideas for having more equitable wages, especially for the working poor. Either that, or they seem to believe that the working poor deserve to be poor, often miserable and exploited and it is great that execs and owners get richer and richer in any way possible.

I merely think that the minimum wage ought to be high enough that if you work 40 hours a week at minimum wage you shouldn't make so little that you are considered below the poverty line. It is a red herring that the minimum wage is for teenagers to teach them how to work. Teenagers tend to go to school and work only part time. Many places have a lower wage that businesses can pay teenagers for a short period of time. I started working from age 12 by baby sitting, mowing lawns and selling lemonade and knew nothing about minimum wage, but worked my way above that quickly. I also think we should move the minimum wage up to that level in incremental steps and then index the minimum wage to inflation so we don't have to mess with this periodically. If there are other better ways to ensure those who work hard 40 hours a week have some dignity and self-sufficiency, then we ought to implement those as well. Now it is true that the the poverty line is significantly different in NYC from the Mississippi delta or Detroit, but I'm sure we can figure that out as well.

I think we should do this because we have a problem in the U.S. where stores like Walmart come in to small town America and put a lot of the local small businesses out of business and then hire fewer locals at worse wages which then means that many of them have to get public assistance and food stamps to make ends meet. In effect we are subsidizing the Walmarts to destroy functioning parts of our economy. Now I have started businesses (never one that pays minimum wages) and work in high tech, so I believe in creative destruction, but this is more like exploitive destruction.

I have been toying with some ideas where all business exemptions would be tied to the non-exec pay for their employees and the longevity and full time status of their jobs. If free enterprise, capitalism and business are so wonderful and innovative (and high wages and stable jobs are a good in society) then let's let's unleash some of that creativity and set the incentives so businesses can start to figure out how to achieve this (rather than incentives that are perverse for society and working people) and still make a good profit. I think probably most righties on here would agree we should not reward businesses for sending good jobs overseas and so I would hope they would agree that we should set incentives for businesses to raise wages and create stable full time jobs. Why not?

Oh, and until we do or those righties come up with some ideas of their own, I think we should raise the minimum wage to be a living wage. Originally Posted by austxjr

Even though you support dick sucking faggots, you believe women should take the jobs that rightfully belong to men (see Fed Chairman), you probably support affirmative action and diversity, and you believe the government always has the answer, especially when it is liberal....in this limited instance you made a great post.
Regulating the economic portion of the economy is a legitimate government function, and even though fair minded conservatives would be right about laissez faire if it were in a system with honest, hard working, paternalistic white men (and a few of color) who love their wives and families and take care of them, we instead have many crooks and moral degenerates (I'm not talking about sex here, assholes) posing as businessmen in this country who cannot be trusted, so we need the traffic cops (limited government) to keep them in line.

People getting paid less than 15 dollars per hour without benefits are not being treated fairly and cannot support their family. If it means businesses that rely on cheap labor go out of business, tough shit, you exploitative mother fuckers.

Or gas, which goes up and down like a yo-yo.



Sorry, i guess i mistook your point as your suggesting Dems are responsible for the system that leads to people being poor.

That would be capitalism. Sorry if i misunderstood what you were saying. Originally Posted by Doove

Lets say I except that, which I don't, one would extrapolate that another form of govt is better for the poor. It's not socialism or communism, nothing leaves poor dead people in their wake like those two. Where capitalism has done more for freeing and feeding the world than any other system in the history of the planet, what system would you like to see in place.

Dems are responsible for the policies that have made a permanent underclass. With the unionized school system (50% graduate rate in NYC) and the welfare system as is, they have a voting base that has to vote for them or try to get a job they are not educated enough to get.