OK, since we're going off into hyperbole here.

You Libtards are taking us down the road to totalitarianism where the government gets to decide the price of everything, and the value of all things, including people.

The first rule is, YOU CAN'T FIX STUPID! The best you can do is make STUPID shut up with a baseball bat.

The second rule is, Companies and People act in their own self-interest at all times.

The third rule is, Government will act in such a way as to increase it's own influence and/or control over anything and everything. After all it's a given situation that bureaucracies relentlessly expand, and cost more and more of a load on the working people's taxes.

I just hope that everyone wakes up in time to prevent the slide into another dark ages.

If recent actions by the Bureau of Land Management are any indication, then we're likely too late. Not that state and local governments are much better in the US, but the Federal Government has far and away exceeded its authority. It may well be too late to stop the corrective action that is needed in the US. If that is the case, then I hope we can at least mitigate the corrective action to a Constitutional Convention...even if it means an amendment that breaks the US up into two or more nations. The US Federal Government is behaving as if the people are not sovereign in the US and that's intolerable.

Well said, Cerbz and Angel1 :-D

another high quality cerberus political post

sad thing is that the retarded AT conservatives are correct here, even if they are unable to articulate their position properly

OMG
What a bunch of idiots! I didn't even bother to read the whole thread, just the first half of the first page and the last few posts. Although there are a few people who can see the devastation this would cause, it seems many here (entitlement generation maybe?) are oblivious to the way the economy works. Wake up dummies!!!!!

There are people out there who have been working for 10-15 years, or more, to work their way up from a MINIMUM WAGE job to a $15.00 hr job. Their employers will not double their wages if the MINIMUM WAGE is doubled. In fact their wages will likely remain the same or show only a token increase. These people have worked for years to become more valuable to the companies they work for and to increase their standard of living.

The MINIMUM WAGE is in effect to put a floor on wages for ENTRY LEVEL jobs. When you enter the workforce you are not worth as much as someone with 10-20 years of experience. No matter how much you increase the MINIMUM WAGE it will always be POVERTY LEVEL!!!!!!! The jobs that pay MINIMUM WAGE will NEVER pay a "living wage". They are the jobs that will ALWAYS define poverty. Someone will always be on the bottom of the wage ladder. Increasing the MINIMUM WAGE effectively puts people who have worked for many many years back to entry level pay (poverty level). Every increase in the MINIMUM WAGE shrinks the MIDDLE CLASS more and more.

BTW, when I was a kid we had ABC, NBC, CBS & PBS. Black and white TV's usually about 19 inch. We knew 3 families that had a whopping 25 inch color TV. They were considered well off. Those same 3 families were the only ones with Air conditioning. Carpet? Only "rich" people had that! Telephones were considered an extravagance. ......... So when I hear some whiny little punk who puts in 28 hrs a week at McDonald's complaining that he can't afford to rent an apartment, pay his Verizon bill, run the AC when it's 75 degrees outside, pay the cable bill (with internet) so they can play X-box on their 52 inch color widescreen TV I can only think to myself is that someone needs to drop then on a deserted island so they can find out how good they really have it!

On the first page QZ argued that "Doubling the price of someone working at McDonalds doesn't mean the price of the raw food,rent or utilities rise either. ". How wrong you are QZ. When I was a teen the MINIMUM WAGE was 2.65 hr. You could buy a combo meal for around $2.50. When I got married MINIMUM WAGE was $5.65 hr and a combo meal was about $5.00. Now MINIMUM WAGE is at $7.25 and a combo meal is going to cost nearly $7.00.

Each sector of the economy effects the other sectors. When the farmer has to pay more for that combo meal for lunch he feels he needs to make a little more to compensate for the increase of his cost of living. That, in turn, makes the price of groceries rise. Now the grocer is feeling the effects from two sides. First he has to pay his employees more, then he hast to pay more for the goods he needs to sell to remain in business. So he must increase the price of everything he sells to maintain his standard of living. Now the landlord has to pay more for his combo meal and for his groceries so he, naturally, will increase the rent on the places he owns. Then comes the utilities. MINIMUM WAGE workers are involved in producing our utilities so it is inevitable that the price of utilities goes up.

What we need to do is CREATE MORE JOBS that can pay a wage greater than the MINIMUM WAGE. Increasing the MINIMUM WAGE shrinks the MIDDLE CLASS! Creating jobs that are capable of paying more than the MINIMUM WAGE will without a doubt grow the MIDDLE CLASS!!!!

We need to widen the ladder going up so that you can climb, not chop the ladder down to where inexperienced people are paid as much as those with much more experience. You (people entering the work force) must show their value. They are not ENTITLED to have a equivalent lifestyle as someone who has done the work and EARNED their lifestyle. The only thing they DESERVE is a CHANCE to become better off.

wow.. so many people simply echoing media talking points.. *shakes head*.

There is evidence that raising minimum wage increases structural unemployment but not for the reasons stated above.

You can argue both sides using correct economics rather than fear mongering and hearsay.

Jobs shipped over seas? That's a trade and foreign relations issue.

More luxuries so the definition of poverty is different? That isn't supporting your point regarding labor laws. In western Europe in the 14th century there were NO labor laws (really) and even then the richest were starving. In the 16th century there was a great growth in the middle class and wealth. Nor real change in labor laws between the two eras there. Arguing that poverty isn't poverty by a different era's standards is a non-sequiteur and detracts from your argument. It's also a media talking point.

I'll help you out here: note that the arguments for/against are based on economic and social reasoning:
Con (for minimum wage).
There is evidence that structural unemployment increased when the minimum wage was raised in real terms.
There is evidence that raising minimum wage can force stagflation (inflation without real growth) in certain cases.
It can also increase the demand for illegal labor and hence lead to other abuses.

Pro:

increasing wages increases demand for goods which increases prices thus prompting to increase wages. This is called economic growth. Arguably this can help in some circumstances

guaranteeing a minimum standard of living via wages avoids paying social costs either through government programs, crime, or prisons.

labor is not a large % of COGS for most areas where most minimum wage workers work so the impact to them would be minimal. Industries where a high portion of COGS is labor tend not to pay their workers minimum wage (this has nothing to do with laws, just the nature of the industry and the relative supply of skills required).

Note that all of the above is situation dependant. Without going into detail: in reality there are instances where the best thing to do is to raise minimum wage and others where it would be counterproductive. Blindly following an ideology regardless of situation or your surroundings is bad mmmk... you know: what is the definition of insanity ect?

Also you don't live in a bubble and the world is not out to get you so stop being afraid of your neighbors... especially since violent crime is at an all time low.


ps. The argument: "I worked hard with no help from anyone and made it so no one else should get help" is destructive and hateful. Better conservative argument: the community/neighbors should help rather than government.

martian
And the truth shall set you free.

get rid of wages entirely. machines do 99% of the work nowadays anyway. pay everybody because they have the ability to push a button. that way there will be somebody left on standby to turn off the bloody machines.

yes

No, what is really hateful is for you to expect me to make your lifestyle better at the cost of my lifestyle simply because you exist.

Better Socialist argument;
there isn't one.

Except for that whole part about being able to 'DO' engineering.

My wife is an engineer, but because she works in a factory setting, she does not have to have a PE, it has not impacted her income or employability in the least.

I can call myself the gynecologist to the stars, but the fact that I could not tell a cervix from a cervasa if my life depended on it would probably limit my income potential. I work in a profession that has licensing in most but not all states, and has only had licensing for about the period of time covering my career. I have not noticed a significant difference in my earnings working in states with or without geologist licensing.



What you are suggesting sir is nothing less than brilliant. We shall call it SkyNet and it shall revolutionize mankind. Approve.

You guys keep asserting this, but this is generally only true for huge businesses. Small businesses, which make up a majority of the workforce, tend to run with much higher labor costs, particularly the ones with more employees earning at or close to the minimum wage. These are also the businesses running on the smallest margins. Do you see how this is a terrible combination, and would have immediate and seriously negative effects on these businesses?

I've done and posted the math several times, as has SAM_DANGER, and we have both been ignored so I will not spout the numbers out again where they won't be read and/or responded to. Suffice it to say that we independently came up with very similar numbers for difference businesses, and the results would be catastrophic for small businesses in the most literal sense of the term.

I hesitate to bring up Ronald Reagan not only because he's a polarizing figure, but also because I myself have serious problems with a lot of the policies he enacted. However, there is a quote from him which is so truly apt to describe what I believe is going on in this thread:

“It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.”

You guys say that the free market guys in this thread are the ones bringing up talking points, when your own statistics have so clearly been spoon-fed to you from sources with an agenda. The numbers I cited earlier in the thread were straight from state.gov.

Don't forget what is included in the statistics.

For example, McDonald's is included in Small Business statistics, to a degree. Why?

"More than 75 percent of McDonald's restaurants are owned by individuals. In the United States, 13,000 McDonald's restaurants are operated by a combined 2,400 individual owners, 40 percent of which are women or minorities."

If we assume ~6 employees at each of those, that is 78,000 employees at "U.S. small businesses" which are, in fact, McDonalds.

Many fast food chains operate individual franchises this way. Subway is another big one.

Here's more from the Small Business Association: http://www.sba.gov/...tent/franchise-businesses

Here's the top 10: http://www.entrepreneur.com/franchise500/index.html

I'm only pointing this out because a lot of folks tend to think of a "small business" as some Joe America with an idea to start his own company and build it up. That exists too, but lots of companies take advantage of Small Business benefits through franchise models.

The profitability of a franchise is important not only to the "small business owner" of that franchise, but also to the franchisor (McDonald's) who is extracting profit from those franchisees through licensing, revenue sharing and other revenue models.

This is relevant because who gets "squeezed" on margins is not just the small business owner in these cases.

No point discussing finances with liberals, its like talking to a 16 year old girl after she got dumped at prom for aanother easier to into panties chick....hmmm....that actually might be easier and she eventually will understand hehe.

Arguing that poverty isn't poverty by a different era's standards is a non-sequiteur and detracts from your argument.

It seems to be a dichotomy doesn't it, the different era comparison of living standards, but the lesson of it still stands the test of validity, Martian.

Given the standards of living in previous times, vs. modern times, we have a lot more food for people right now, and the government is in the activity of paying farmers to NOT grow food so that the supply goes down, the demand goes up, prices go up, taxes are based on percentages of sales, and the government makes more money, the people lose more money on two fronts, paying their taxes, and buying the now high priced food.

If the government would remove itself from being in everybodies business we'd have a lot faster rate of improvement in everything since there wouldn't be such a load on the economy paying for The legislative staffers, the federal employees to make good on these laws that the legislators have passed, and an administration bent on having control over all resources to make sure the money and the vacations keep happening.

WTF? It's still valid because had the same type of situations occurred then, the same economic result would occur, there would be just more privation than there was. All of it still relative. Can you see the parallel?

j

The compassion in this thread...I'm glad I don't have to rely on any of you for help...

That's the point, Tellarion, people need to at least cart their own loads. If you want to sit on your ass and do nothing all day then party all night, and live off the public dole, that's just wrong, but that is what a socialist government does.

Egalitarianism NEVER works. Instead of raising everyone up to a high level, it lowers everyone to the lowest common denominator.

There is NO incentive to work when you can have all your needs met by the state. The guy that works winds up paying for it all so there is an active deterrent to wanting to work and pay for a bunch of freeloaders. Follow that?

What needs to happen is the government needs to encourage more people to start working at something, whether it's making their own company, or working for someone else by making it not profitable to sit on your ass. You do that by having policies that prohibit people from living off the taxpayers for years upon years where they then become a whole society of people doing the same thing.

Double posted this, so I over wrote this one. :)

Some people think compassion is voting for the government to spend other people's money to help still other people.

True compassion is seen in disaster recovery when strangers buy bottled water and distribute it to people in need, when they help sort through the wrecked belongings of families for precious memories, and all the other things people do in disasters to lift their neighbors up. True compassion is seen in the St. Jude's Dream Home Giveaway fundraiser that takes place in local areas all over the US to help pay the bills at St. Jude's Children's Research Hospital. True compassion is seen in people donating their change to Children's Miracle Network Hospitals, the Red Cross, Salvation Army, etc. True compassion is giving of yourself to help others.

AT gold right there LOL :-D

Reading discussions on finance and real estate leads me to believe thatfinancial ignorance is wide spread regardless of political ideology. sadly. our kids are generally not taught basic finance.
Cerberus: now you are making a valid point. but that is re govt intervention not wages per se. poverty is relative. so are a lot of things like freedom and what conservatism and socialism are perceived to mean.
I love how certain posters jump to the conclusion that because I dislike their arguments or think they lack merit means I think what they are arguing for lacks merit.
I also take for granted that I live somewhere where 30% of the voters swing between parties and people will vote one way locally and a different way nationally.

People vote different on a state and national level because they view states as different governmental body than the feds.

The central government has perverted our education system so badly that we have multiple generations that simply have no idea about our country's history or basic knowledge on finance. (By design) but they load up on green science and "new math"

Sure, it cant be put on schools to teach them everything. Parents are to bear a large part of that responsibility but the parents that are seeing theri kids become parents now had their minds in oher places when they were youths.

It is actually a bit refreshing to see people pulling kids out of public schools and a push for fringe candidates on both sodes of the aisle. It shows that people are waking up to the sick fleecing hat has been going on for decades and it is very evident by the extreme infighting in both parties in DC that they see it too.

I can only hope it is not too late.

As far as compassion, i wil find the numbers when i get homw but i think it is something like 3:1 that conservatives give to charity over liberals. Ill cite it later.

This country is by far the most charitable in the world and that is on a community level as well as national. Liberal or conservative when people are in need in the communities we band together. What is happening in washington is they are trying to break that unity on the fundamental levels. It will be interesting to see if they are successful. November will be telling.

hehe

These people aren't making $8/hr to begin with. If they're servers they're making like $3/hr and the rest is paid for on tips. Does translating any of these numbers vs. a minimum wage increase even make sense? How do you calculate that? After tips, these people may ALREADY be making $15/hr, which means there would be NO increased expenses needed at all for a lot of these workers. Which means Sam's math is meaningless.

blid, it's pretty clear from both SAM and I's examples that we are talking about an increase from around $8-$10/hr to $15. However, just for fun, let's take tips into account. Straight from bls.gov:



So the math would be virtually identical.

Or, on the right, you just call it the PATRIOT Act.

Sorry, but are you talking about the USA? Because the "central government" here has no control over curriculum.

right.... and it is law that US citizens must file a federal income tax return and pay taxes on wages....

64% of US citizens do not make enough money to be able to pay income tax. we must raise the minimum wage of housewives and children so that they may feel that they are significantly contributing financially to this country. would help them feel better about being the bloody slacktard inept bozos that they are.

not required to file if you just spend other people's money. only have to file if you start getting richer.

martian, Freedom can never be relative, nor can Liberty, or Ethics, or Morality. These are absolutes in the world. You either have it or you don't.

There is no gray area here.

"martian, Freedom can never be relative, nor can Liberty, or Ethics, or Morality. These are absolutes in the world. You either have it or you don't."

That's an interesting philosophical viewpoint.
Freedom is relative. No one is 100% free to do anything they want (without consequence). BUt on the other hand we all have free will and are free to do whatever we want (or at least try to) but there could be consequences (ie I cant just buy a gun and start shooting random people without repercussions).

Ethics/Morality: what that means has changed over time. All societies have ethics/morality as it's a cornerstone for maintaining a civilization. However what that is is not universal and has shifted over time.

In my grandparents generation, inter-religious marriage was considered taboo. In my parents generation, inter-racial dating/marriage was considered taboo. In my younger days gay marriage was considered taboo (and it still is to some extent) but popular opinion is slowly changing on that. (This is just an example, not trying to start a debate on this particular issue).
Also:
In my great-grandparents generation, having sex in front of your kids was not seen as a big deal (lived in a one-room crap-shack). Now you would be hauled off to jail for doing that.

The idea of privacy didn't exist until the 20th century. It seems that it's going to cease to exist at the rate we are going now...

When I was a teen, the minimum wage was $5.90; now it's $9.95; the price of goods&services has *not* doubled; it was about $6-7 I'd guess for a combo meal back then, and is about $8 now probably.

But that means minimum wage has, in our case, probably kept up with inflation.

In your case it hasn't, and that means that the minimum wage needs to increase *more quickly*.

qzjul, when you speak of raising the minimum wage, you see the people who will "benefit" from the higher minimum wage. I see the people who will be fired because their employers can no longer afford them. I see the people who don't get hired because a small business can't afford to give them the entry level position. I see the "beneficiaries" who see their cost of living increase to the point that they have received no benefit at all. Because I see the people who are victimized by increasing the minimum wage, I see it as an attack on those people.

Take off your blinders. Let's talk about how the business environment can create a greater demand for employees. Let's talk about how we can make it easier for people to opt out of working for anyone other than themselves. Let's talk about how we can create an environment in which some current minimum wage jobs become higher paying jobs because that's what it takes for businesses to find employees for those positions. Guess how many people get hurt when we create an environment that increases the maximum wage...none.

Except this view has been proven, in all *actual* historical increases, to be wrong! Observe: http://www.cepr.net/...ions/min-wage-2013-02.pdf

I'll even c/p the Executive Summary for you:

Also, for those "free market" people out there:

Yes, I know all about public goods and the tragedy of the commons. I haven't seen anyone arguing for freeloading and egalitarianism in this thread. You guys are derailing what others have said and pushing your own extreme ideals. Wanting to raise minimum wage is not saying we should all live equally and rely exclusively on the government.

You know what I haven't seen mentioned so far? The inconvenient fact that the happiest countries in the world tend to have very strong and/or 'socialist' governments. I would love to see some of you argue with a Dane about how they are just freeloaders and they don't deserve to be happy :)

Let's face it, the situation is the us is pretty damn fluffty, and we all spend our time blaming each other instead of fixing anything.

The whole idea of community service and charity has a completely different meaning in many cultures. In Confucian cultures, the community as a whole doesn't need to step in the help out because your family and neighbors should be taking care of that already... Supporting complete strangers is a very Christian thing.

Not to mention, in many countries the government is expected to take care of such things, and there is less need for charitable organizations to fill in the gaps in the social safety net. So pointing out that Americans are so charitable doesn't mean much when taken in context...

It does when the argument is made that we dont take care of each other when its needed...

If scandanavia is so awesome and happy, and USA is so fluffty, why do you live in US?

Doesn't he live in Japan now? heh

I pay taxes in the us but I don't even live there anymore...you're welcome...

"Let's talk about how the business environment can create a greater demand for employees"
Sure. Do you believe in supply side or demand side economics?:P

"Let's talk about how we can make it easier for people to opt out of working for anyone other than themselves."

It's actually plenty easy. It just depends on what your expectations are and how much stability you want in your life. I don't think it's necessary that the vast majority of the population should be doing that though. Even in the post-industrial age it's beneficial to have assembly plants/ mass production. imo we need more of everything.


"Let's talk about how we can create an environment in which some current minimum wage jobs become higher paying jobs because that's what it takes for businesses to find employees for those position"
That's the best solution. However that would involve some form of protectionism to work I think. Alternatively it requires war or a plague :P

why would we stop at $15?

why not really make things better for minimum wage earners and make it $25?

I vote we lock the two biggest tards on this thread - blid and cerberus - in a room together and let them fight over some hemp bracelets and an autographed picture of the Koch brothers.

How about stop food stamps and free housing to illegal aliens.

Raise min wage

you are a fkn moron.

How profound.

I think mandating a higher wage in the usa is ridiculous. I dont like taking my hard earned money and giving it to anyone. I couldnt give two fluffs about anyones happiness or am i delusional enough to believe everyone being equal will bring peace and joy across the world.
Doesnt sit well thinking some fluff has a smile on his / her face cause they got a cut of money i gave blood for. If that make me insensitive, uncaring, obtuse or an asshole i can live with that community assessment.

Except, instead of subsidizing the workers, which you're already doing through foodstamps, you're really subsidizing the EMPLOYERS, who are getting a free ride off the enabling of chaep labour.

It's basically corporate welfare having minimum wage as low as it is, with all the other social programs to back it up.