Author Topic: The Minimum Wage debate  (Read 10048 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40263
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #35 on: February 01, 2014, 04:35:56 AM »
Yeah, in my experience the laziest people aren't the poor.  The laziest people are in middle and upper management.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 25581
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #36 on: February 01, 2014, 09:59:00 AM »
Yeah, in my experience the laziest people aren't the poor.  The laziest people are in middle and upper management.

That does seem to happen a lot, and the irony is that a lot of those people, from what I've seen, were hard workers when they were one of "the little people," but it's like, once they got promoted and became a boss of some kind, they saw it as their time to relax and take it easy, since, in their minds, they had paid their dues and now it was their time to watch others do the hard work.  It's like they say, shit flows downhill. :lol :lol

Offline j

  • Posts: 2793
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #37 on: February 01, 2014, 03:56:45 PM »
IMO, with a few exceptions, King Crimson has been generally right on in this thread, but I'll add a few thoughts:

1) First, I think raising the minimum wage essentially boils down to just a fruitless exercise in economic wheel-spinning, rather than the viable solution some claim it represents.

2) With regard to tipping, I agree with eric that a system in which employees are rewarded for better performance is generally preferable, however I disagree that the tipping culture in the states is necessarily the way to structure it.  Leaving performance-based compensation in such a setting to the customer seems dumb, particularly when it is meant to make up for a gap in pay.  Also, people often base their tips on all sorts of stupid things, many of which have nothing to do with the waiter.  If the establishment were the one incentivizing its employees to perform better, they could be evaluated more consistently under the premise that better service leads to better business, and shitty service leads to the opposite.  I have quite a few friends in the industry, the ones I've discussed this with seem divided or apathetic on the subject, possibly based on their specific workplace.

3) If the minimum wage were raised and applied to restaurant wait staff, does the new standard tip become zero, with a tip reserved only for service deemed outstanding by the customer?  I wonder if the workers would come out on top in such a scenario.

-J

Offline slycordinator

  • Posts: 1303
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #38 on: February 04, 2014, 01:44:07 PM »
If you're working for minimum wage, a commute like living outside of Seattle is going to really add up. Maybe you can find a job out in the suburbs, but maybe not. Do you really expect a bgurger flipper to commute every day for what might be as low as $8/hr?
1) The minimum wage in Washington is up to $9.32 and was $9.19 last year. So no one is making as low as $8.
2) Even at minimum, I've worked with plenty of people in Bellevue that commute from Renton. That's as far as going into Seattle. The ones that don't have cars take the buses. It's not super expensive.

Offline AngelBack

  • I'm officially a lard......
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 761
  • Gender: Male
  • Why you want beef with broccoli ?
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #39 on: February 05, 2014, 05:59:34 PM »
King Crim,

Your response was awesome other than the fact that it is totally based on feeling rather than fact and shows you have drank so much liberal dogma cool-aid that your regurgitation of socialist mantras is a little boring.  Minimum wage jobs are not the back bone of our economy, they are the leaves on a tree built by the true visionaries and builders of society.  NO ditch digger makes minimum wage, other than the "future democrat voters" invited by the left to illegally join our republic from the south.  NO poor person ever created a job, innovated industry or in any way enhanced society.  Yes the jobs serve a purpose, most of which is to get the lowest skilled, least qualified workers a chance to work their way up.

As for your comments about "where does the money come from".  You show a fundamental lack of understanding about societal economics and taxation.  Remember this, there is only ONE entity that EVER pays tax in this society.....the individual.  Whether thru taxation, or imbedded taxes or higher cost of goods/services.   All taxes and therefore all government expenditures are funded by individuals.

I have cleaned toilets...I have dined with CEO's of major corporations selling my company's transportation services....the principles are all the same.  You work hard, prove your worth and get rewarded.  Whether that is working for a 100MM contract or trying to get off bathroom duty at Taco Bell, it is all the same.  The class warfare argument is the intellectual equivalent of putting pictures of the Combo #1 on the Mcdonald's drive thru.  Let's dumb this down to the least common message that will get a reaction.

I have said this before and will say it again.  FOR THE MOST PART (not a generalization) let's take minimum wage laws to the logical conclusion.  If you took the entire wealth of the US and distributed it equally among all citizens, within 5 years the rich would be rich again and the poor would be poor again.  And that is because of the thought processes and work ethic of each.  For every "hard luck" story there are many more self made folks who were also dealt a shitty hand in life but chose to play anyway, and won. 

All your arguments have been encapsulated in liberal social policies for 50 years with no positive results, only a generation that is further dependent on government.  The focus on individual responsibility is the reason the US grew from a band of freedom fighters to the greatest nation on earth in a century and a half.  But, while well intentioned, the efforts to prop up the weak, by and large has been a complete failure in this country.   Maybe you would like Greece better, they seem further down the road of "collective good" than the US. 
Until you struggle through the dark, you'll never know that you're alive.

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3246
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #40 on: February 06, 2014, 04:21:40 AM »
King Crim,

Your response was awesome other than the fact that it is totally based on feeling rather than fact and shows you have drank so much liberal dogma cool-aid that your regurgitation of socialist mantras is a little boring.  Minimum wage jobs are not the back bone of our economy, they are the leaves on a tree built by the true visionaries and builders of society.  NO ditch digger makes minimum wage, other than the "future democrat voters" invited by the left to illegally join our republic from the south.  NO poor person ever created a job, innovated industry or in any way enhanced society.  Yes the jobs serve a purpose, most of which is to get the lowest skilled, least qualified workers a chance to work their way up.

As for your comments about "where does the money come from".  You show a fundamental lack of understanding about societal economics and taxation.  Remember this, there is only ONE entity that EVER pays tax in this society.....the individual.  Whether thru taxation, or imbedded taxes or higher cost of goods/services.   All taxes and therefore all government expenditures are funded by individuals.

I have cleaned toilets...I have dined with CEO's of major corporations selling my company's transportation services....the principles are all the same.  You work hard, prove your worth and get rewarded.  Whether that is working for a 100MM contract or trying to get off bathroom duty at Taco Bell, it is all the same.  The class warfare argument is the intellectual equivalent of putting pictures of the Combo #1 on the Mcdonald's drive thru.  Let's dumb this down to the least common message that will get a reaction.

I have said this before and will say it again.  FOR THE MOST PART (not a generalization) let's take minimum wage laws to the logical conclusion.  If you took the entire wealth of the US and distributed it equally among all citizens, within 5 years the rich would be rich again and the poor would be poor again.  And that is because of the thought processes and work ethic of each.  For every "hard luck" story there are many more self made folks who were also dealt a shitty hand in life but chose to play anyway, and won. 

All your arguments have been encapsulated in liberal social policies for 50 years with no positive results, only a generation that is further dependent on government.  The focus on individual responsibility is the reason the US grew from a band of freedom fighters to the greatest nation on earth in a century and a half.  But, while well intentioned, the efforts to prop up the weak, by and large has been a complete failure in this country.   Maybe you would like Greece better, they seem further down the road of "collective good" than the US.

No offense, but you are operating on a false premise....one that says the intent, or "logical conclusion", of minimum wage is to distribute wealth.  I think it may be you that has a "fundamental lack of understanding" of economics and wealth.   
« Last Edit: February 06, 2014, 04:42:48 AM by eric42434224 »
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline AngelBack

  • I'm officially a lard......
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 761
  • Gender: Male
  • Why you want beef with broccoli ?
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #41 on: February 06, 2014, 07:11:15 AM »
Eric, you are right, it is not redistribution of wealth.  It is more appropriately called "forced income sharing".  Any time government seeks to legislate the transfer of my money to someone else, either thru taxation and social programs or minimum wage laws, it is the same.  Geez, even Chic-fila starts their employees above minimum where I live.  Is it really that hard for a person to make themselves of more value to an employer than the lowest legally allowable wage?  And if that is all you can muster at the time, do it, work hard, arrive early, leave late, offer to work extra shifts, make positive suggestions to your boss, keep a good attitude, go the extra mile, etc....as an employer, I am going to reward that person and seek to keep them in my organization, for the companies good.
Until you struggle through the dark, you'll never know that you're alive.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #42 on: February 06, 2014, 07:50:01 AM »
The biggest problem with that is it has absolutely no universal power; I.e. It cannot apply to everyone if everyone did the same thing. So in other words, it doesn't make good economic policy.

The thing I find about conservatives, is they seem to ignore or not even acknowledge the field of macroeconomics. They only consider microeconomics.

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3246
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #43 on: February 06, 2014, 10:29:53 AM »
Eric, you are right, it is not redistribution of wealth.  It is more appropriately called "forced income sharing".  Any time government seeks to legislate the transfer of my money to someone else, either thru taxation and social programs or minimum wage laws, it is the same.  Geez, even Chic-fila starts their employees above minimum where I live.  Is it really that hard for a person to make themselves of more value to an employer than the lowest legally allowable wage?  And if that is all you can muster at the time, do it, work hard, arrive early, leave late, offer to work extra shifts, make positive suggestions to your boss, keep a good attitude, go the extra mile, etc....as an employer, I am going to reward that person and seek to keep them in my organization, for the companies good.

No, it is not forced income sharing either.  Stop trying so hard to make it something it isnt.  As a supposed benevolent society, there needs to be certain protections in place for our citizens.  One of those is a minimum wage so employers do not expolit workers, and so a minimum standard of living can be attained.  That is its true purpose....it really is that simple.  Does it accomplish that lofty goal?  That is another question.
One of your problems with this topic is that you see wealth as a zero sum game.  Creating a higher floor for some does not create a lower ceiling for others.  Will some people and businesses be affected by a higher minimum?  Of course.  You should give them the same advice you espouse above....deal with the circumstances, adjust, and overcome.  I think having a minimum level of protection for our society is worth it.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2014, 10:37:21 AM by eric42434224 »
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #44 on: February 06, 2014, 10:50:51 AM »
 What should be added, IMO, is that not payng a livable wage is also a redistribution of wealth, but one that funnels it to the top.

Offline AngelBack

  • I'm officially a lard......
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 761
  • Gender: Male
  • Why you want beef with broccoli ?
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #45 on: February 06, 2014, 02:30:46 PM »
I understand some see this as a macro-economic issue.  But the only entity large enough to manipulate economic forces on that level is your imperial federal gov't.  And they have tried and failed (see Great Society, war on poverty, etc..)  If history teaches us anything it is that we never learn from history.

The zero sum equation has absolutely nothing to do with principles of individualism and self reliance.  Economies are a moving target and always will be.  Allowing market forces to control compensation, while not a perfect system, is far better than whatever is second.  And allowing the gov't to dip into your pocket by driving up the price of pop-tarts in order to prop up an individual who has no marketable skills or no desire to acquire them has always failed in whatever incarnation it takes and always will.  In fact, government mandated income sharing is making the US weaker by further ingraining the entitlement mentality and teaching some that they just can't make it without big brother. 

And I am not a conservative, just believe in fiscal common sense.  Nothing should be illegal for any individual as long as it does not infringe on anyone else's rights.  And as long as I don't have to pay taxes for the clean up of the mess some peoples lives would be under this type society.
Until you struggle through the dark, you'll never know that you're alive.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #46 on: February 06, 2014, 02:51:17 PM »
This government was established to address issues that only it could solve. That's why it was created. Because it wasn't strong enough beforehand to adequately deal with the issues people had. And this is circa 1787, with 13 colonies, a population smaller than New York City.

This government was established to promote the common good and the general welfare of this country. There are things it can do to attain that goal. One of them is taxation, and it has been further amended, apropro the rules, to include income tax. It was given pretty board authority to promote the general welfare, it simply has to be necessary and proper. Hardly something specific. Luckily, since we elect people to office to represent our views, we all get to define what necessariness and propriety are.

Offline Jaffa

  • Just Jaffa
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4588
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #47 on: February 06, 2014, 03:04:46 PM »
AngelBack, it seems to me that you are dodging one of the fundamental points being made by The King in Crimson and others.  You say that the primary purpose of minimum wage jobs is to get the lowest skilled, least qualified workers a chance to work their way up.  I'm not going to argue with that point - in some ways it makes sense to me, in others I disagree with it, but I'm largely willing to accept it. 

What I will say is this: while the lowest skilled, least qualified workers are starting at the bottom and working their way up, should they be able to make a decent living wage?  Because that, I think, is the fundamental issue here.  Nobody's asking for waiters and ditch diggers to make as much money as CEOs of Fortune 500 companies.  From what I can tell, all people are asking for is for minimum wage to go up as the cost of living goes up, and I don't think anything you're saying really addresses that. 
« Last Edit: February 06, 2014, 03:48:36 PM by Jaffa »
Sincerely,
Jaffa

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4835
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #48 on: February 06, 2014, 04:31:09 PM »
Luckily, since we elect people to office to represent our views, we all get to define what necessariness and propriety are.

Were you able to type that with a straight face?  :biggrin:
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #49 on: February 06, 2014, 07:54:39 PM »
It's still something we do. I never said we do it well, or that we're doing it well, but it's within our power.

Offline Orthogonal

  • Posts: 916
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #50 on: February 07, 2014, 01:19:56 AM »
What I will say is this: while the lowest skilled, least qualified workers are starting at the bottom and working their way up, should they be able to make a decent living wage?  Because that, I think, is the fundamental issue here.  Nobody's asking for waiters and ditch diggers to make as much money as CEOs of Fortune 500 companies.  From what I can tell, all people are asking for is for minimum wage to go up as the cost of living goes up, and I don't think anything you're saying really addresses that.

What is a "livable wage" and who defines what that is? This issue can't be viewed in a vacuum, there are many other contributing factors. The rise in cost of living is due to inflation which is directly caused by the Federal Reserve and their monetary policy. This is a primary factor which exacerbates the low income earner's problems. Also, why is an adult working at minimum wage in the first place,? Education? Training? Experience? Economic downturn? Some factors are under their control and others are not, but typically, any component that is outside their control can usually be traced back to some prior government intervention,regulation, policy or law.

To get wages to rise on the whole, the market needs low unemployment such that demand for labor begins to outstrip supply and bidding for labor goes up. That means we need more job creation and less regulation and taxes so companies can expand or entrepreneurs startup and create those jobs.

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3246
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #51 on: February 07, 2014, 07:13:08 AM »
When has "the market", with no government intervention, ever protected workers and determined/guaranteed a minimum/living wage?
I can cite numerous instances where no government protection resulted in exactly the opposite.
Your faith in the "market", while at times my be warranted, goes way too far.  Only the naive would think the market is the end all answer.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2014, 09:40:36 AM by eric42434224 »
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline soundgarden

  • Posts: 912
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #52 on: February 07, 2014, 09:23:08 AM »
When has "the market", with no government organization, ever protected workers and determined/guaranteed a minimum/living wage?
I can cite numerous instances where no government protection resulted in exactly the opposite.
Your faith in the "market", while at times my be warranted, goes way to far.  Only the naive would think the market is the end all answer.

Ill go a step further and state that it is precisely the failures of the market in protecting the citizens rights and maintaining fairness and competition that led to government intervention.  Why are anti-trust laws in place if not for competition-destroying practices?  Why is the EPA around if not for the market's inability to protect people's drinking water?

Libertarian views seem to always be that the government steps in the market because, well for naught...as if they just are bullies without reason.  Libertarians seem to never ask why the government is stepping in.

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4835
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #53 on: February 07, 2014, 09:45:29 AM »
What is a "livable wage" and who defines what that is?

Without getting in to the rest of the post, this is an important issue.
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #54 on: February 07, 2014, 10:45:45 AM »
I would say Being able to house, feed, clothe and otherwise fundamentally take care of yourself, assuming full time work (30 hrs a week). There are plenty of cost indexes to choose from.

And not all of that needs to be set in stone. But when someone is working and is still reliant upon outside assistance, it is a negative factor on society and the economy.

Offline j

  • Posts: 2793
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #55 on: February 07, 2014, 01:52:33 PM »
I would say Being able to house, feed, clothe and otherwise fundamentally take care of yourself, assuming full time work (30 hrs a week).

I don't really disagree with you at all, just think this might be an oversimplification.  For example, to what standard of living is each person entitled?  Is a $200/month crack den apartment and ramen for every meal sufficient?  And without invasively monitoring people's spending habits (which I actually think could be acceptable for those on gov't assistance, but not otherwise), there's really no way to differentiate between somebody who probably makes just enough to get a decent place and feed their family but is either ignorant or chooses not to, and somebody who is as thrifty as possible.

Also, if this is the goal, shouldn't minimum wage be determined at the local level to correspond with regional cost of living?

-J

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #56 on: February 07, 2014, 02:59:03 PM »
I would say Being able to house, feed, clothe and otherwise fundamentally take care of yourself, assuming full time work (30 hrs a week).

I don't really disagree with you at all, just think this might be an oversimplification.  For example, to what standard of living is each person entitled?  Is a $200/month crack den apartment and ramen for every meal sufficient?  And without invasively monitoring people's spending habits (which I actually think could be acceptable for those on gov't assistance, but not otherwise), there's really no way to differentiate between somebody who probably makes just enough to get a decent place and feed their family but is either ignorant or chooses not to, and somebody who is as thrifty as possible.

I'm not necessarily saying that someone, in particular, needs to have all those things; simply that the money they are paid for the work that they do is enough to support themselves, should they be responsible.

Oh, and I'd say no to the ramen. Why? Becuase if all you can afford to eat is ramen, your diet is going to be horrible, you're going to become unhealthy develop issues, which then the rest of a humane society has to pay for.

There will always be some grey area in all of this, and some things we just have to sorta choose and decide. I just don't think it's terribly hard to get close enough, quantifiably, to improve things from the situation as of now.


Quote
Also, if this is the goal, shouldn't minimum wage be determined at the local level to correspond with regional cost of living?

-J

Yes. It makes no sense to have the same minimume wage in Missoula, MT as New York City. I think the fact that the Federal Government has to try and step in is more a reflection of the states and localities not doing their job. I would just say that it is the Federal Government that ends up covering the costs of low-income workers through food stamps and other programs, so as it's currently structured, it has the most money incentive.

Offline TheVoxyn

  • "The X makes it sound cool"
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4696
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #57 on: February 07, 2014, 07:51:47 PM »
Even as an economist who is primarily in favor of the free market, arguments against a decent minimum wage still don't sit well with me. It might be because of the welfare state in which I was raised (The Netherlands) but not having a decent minimal wage is something I associate with a a bad society. There is no way anyone can convince my that the (way too) large portion of poor people in the US are poor because they are 'lazy'. Sure there are lazy bastards, like in every society, however most western societies do not have the poverty level that is reminiscent of a third world country.

Online orcus116

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 9291
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #58 on: February 08, 2014, 09:45:23 AM »
I wonder how many of these people live above their means.

Offline lordxizor

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2476
  • Gender: Male
  • and that is the truth.
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #59 on: February 08, 2014, 12:03:10 PM »
Try living below your means when you make $20k a year.

I get your point. Many people prioritize having a smart phone and cable over smarter spending or saving choices, but even if they were to cut back to the bare bones essentials, people making only minimum wage can have a hard time making ends meet.

Offline slycordinator

  • Posts: 1303
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #60 on: February 08, 2014, 02:23:40 PM »
So if the ACA more or less mandates that 30 hours be full time (since they must give you full-time health benefits if you work more than 30), does that mean that people will start getting overtime if they get more than 30 hours? Because every state I know of mandates overtime only when you go over 40.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #61 on: February 08, 2014, 03:38:04 PM »
30hrs / week has been the standard for full-time benefits for some time now, the ACA doesn't change anything about that. It just makes health care a required full-time benefit, for companies with more than 50 employee's.

40 hrs/week is just the full-time max without getting overtime. Nothing in the ACA will change that, or does anything to the way in which the work week is considered.

Least, that's how I understand it.

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40263
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #62 on: February 09, 2014, 05:46:45 PM »
^You are right.^
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline slycordinator

  • Posts: 1303
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #63 on: February 10, 2014, 01:16:14 AM »
The Department of Labor says that the determination as to who is/isn't full-time is determined by the employer (and not set in the FLSA, for instance) and from what I read, the general consensus has been in the US that it is 35 hours or more, but the ACA defines it at 30. But also, any other benefits the employer gives that aren't mandated by law won't necessarily be given at 30-hours because the ACA only defines FT for the purpose of the medical benefit in particular.

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4835
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #64 on: June 02, 2014, 07:44:23 PM »
seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2023753163_wagevotexml.html

Goodbye small businesses in Seattle, it has been great knowing you. Actually, goodbye to some of the employees where I work too for that matter. And goodbye to me doing any business in Seattle.
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Online orcus116

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 9291
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #65 on: June 02, 2014, 08:10:54 PM »
It will be interesting to see the fallout from this, but it's not an immediate jump to $15.

Offline jammindude

  • Posts: 7886
  • Gender: Male
    • The Jammin Dude Show
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #66 on: June 02, 2014, 09:28:42 PM »
This is another click bait.

When I heard that it had passed and read the headline, I was shocked. When I read the details, I laughed my butt off. In the time allowed, did they really think it wasn't going to eventually get there anyway?
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - http://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude

Offline soundgarden

  • Posts: 912
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #67 on: June 03, 2014, 12:28:15 PM »
Minimum wage has been raised so many times in history yet small businesses still exist.

http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/chart.htm

Why will an increase now after all those times be any different? 

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19113
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #68 on: June 04, 2014, 06:53:02 AM »
What is a "livable wage" and who defines what that is?

Without getting in to the rest of the post, this is an important issue.

Livable wage is one in which a family doesn't die and children don't get sick without government assistance.



I think the worst part about this whole ordeal is that no politician will admit that the low paying jobs is the new middle class. We can no longer address this as raising the wages of the lowest paying jobs in the country, but rather raising the wage of the most common jobs in the country. All this filler talk about job creation is complete bullshit for the most part. I hate the argument people my age (and adults) make, saying things like "well just start a business", "go get an education", "go get a valuable skill", etc... 1) It's not that easy. 2) Most of their parents fell into the category of having no real skills, but luckily for them there were factories that had lots of buttons they could push while still earning a pension. Between globalization, robotics, and other efficiency increases through technology, we've made the jobs that paid livable wages obsolete. Unless CEOs suddenly decide to take businesses back to the stone age, we will never see those jobs again. And that process is still occurring. Regardless of whether or not wages increase at fast food establishments and in retail locations, I'd bet my testicles that at least 50% (that's low balling it) of those positions will be automated before I die.

There is way more to this debate than just the wage. Other things that need to be discussed;
1) Having too many children
2) Having too many children too early
3) A society that is obsessed with spending money they don't have
4) A congress that has no interest in serving the people
5) A population that is convinced that the lack of jobs is somehow all Obama's fault
6) The fact that the six Waltons (Walmart is the largest employer in the US) have more wealth than the bottom 35% of people in this country.

That last one says it all. And the fact that people can't see that as an issue really boggles my mind. I understand the whole free market argument, but c'mon. What we are witnessing is the closest thing we can get to slavery in our society.


But it is a touchy subject for just this reason. I worked at a family owned grocery store as a cook for eight years. They have four locations. A minimum wage increase to $10 would be an extra $1.2 million dollars a year for the owner of that company. I can understand why people would be opposed to it. But my brain tells me to think about the greater good. What's more important? The 300 employees that work for that guy, or the 2.2 million people who work at Walmart?
« Last Edit: June 04, 2014, 08:51:01 AM by Chino »

Offline Tick

  • Cleavage is a drug! Dracula is a junkie
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 9182
  • Gender: Male
  • We will, we will, Trump you, boom boom, clap!
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #69 on: June 04, 2014, 07:44:12 AM »
What is a "livable wage" and who defines what that is?

Without getting in to the rest of the post, this is an important issue.

Livable wage is one in which a family doesn't die and children don't get sick without government assistance.



I think the worst part about this whole ordeal is that no politician will admit that the low paying jobs is the new middle class. We can no longer address this as raising the wages of the lowest paying jobs in the country, but rather raising the wage of the most common jobs in the country. All this filler talk about job creation is complete bullshit for the most part. I hate the argument people my age (and adults) make, saying things like "well just start a business", "go get an education", "go get a valuable skill", etc... 1) It's not that easy. 2) Most of their parents fell into the category of having no real skills, but luckily for them there were factories that had lots of buttons they could push while still earning a pension. Between globalization, robotics, and other efficiency increases through technology, we've made the jobs that paid livable wages obsolete. Unless CEOs suddenly decide to take businesses back to the stone age, we will never see those jobs again. And that process is still occurring. Regardless of whether or not wages increase at fast food establishments and in retail locations, I'd bet my testicles that at least 50% (that's low balling it) of those positions will be automated before I die.

There is way more to this debate than just the wage. Other things that need to be discussed;
1) Having too many children
2) Having too many children too early
3) A society that is obsessed with spending money they don't have
4) A congress that has no interest in serving the people
5) A population that is convinced that the lack of jobs is somehow all some how Obama's fault
6) The fact that the six Waltons (Walmart is the largest employer in the US) have more wealth than the bottom 35% of people in this country.

That last one says it all. And the fact that people can't see that as an issue really boggles my mind. I understand the whole free market argument, but c'mon. What we are witnessing is the closest thing we can get to slavery in our society.


But it is a touchy subject for just this reason. I worked at a family owned grocery store as a cook for eight years. They have four locations. A minimum wage increase to $10 would be an extra $1.2 million dollars a year for the owner of that company. I can understand why people would be opposed to it. But my brain tells me to think about the greater good. What's more important? The 300 employees that work for that guy to make more money, or the 2.2 million people who work at Walmart?
Very well thought out, Chino! I agree with the majority of it.
On the last paragraph I guess the question is does the extra 1.2 mil force the business to close its doors? Walmart can survive, but many small business owners will drop like flies, unfortunately.
Yup. Tick is dead on.  She's not your type.  Move on.   Tick is Obi Wan Kenobi