Rise of Minimum wage?

[PLAYER57832]

You're witty, though not a lot of boys working in coal pits these days. Coal is evil anyway - we've learned that, right, what with the carbon and all? ...

Diamonds have a lot of carbon.....can we ban them too? It would definitely save money.

Shouldn't all hate diamonds? Since it is a tightly controlled market that with inflated costs and quantity available, or something?


--Andy

Actually, yes, but for other reasons... like the serious problems with the production end of the industry.

Since diamond are not being burned, are in fact a very stable form of carbon, the emission aspect is not much of a problem, though.

[Lootifer]

Unionized workers of any color tend to make quite a bit more than their non-union counterparts. Why did you bring up black union members specifically? Is the difference greatest among them?

Let me explain what I mean by "deserve". Those who went to college and studied something salable are more likely to earn more than those who go to university to study "the Classics", Art History, Graphic Design, etc... They made the choice of their major and so deserve the rewards that later came with it. Those who make the decision to push on through grad school will earn yet more (again, with a salable field of study).

Similarly, a high school dropout who later pursues his GED has the ability to earn more than one who does not. He will (statistically) earn the rewards for his efforts. Those who choose to attend a trade school of some kind will vastly improve their earning potential.

As for unions, seeking employment with a unionized company is also a choice, and one reaps the rewards for that choice. I meant no attack on unions in this thread, as much as I despise what they do to companies and to people.

Player's about to show up and talk about mothers, victims of corporate greed, working 2 jobs for minimum wage to feed four kids, etc... Well, in most cases her circumstances will be the result of her own decisions (possible exception being the death of primary breadwinner), and so she will "get what she deserves". She didn't pursue further education and she couldn't keep her knees together, so now she's saddled with 4 children who need her support... and the best she can do is manual labor someplace, or working as a waitress, or both. She gets what she deserves.

Opportunity exists for everyone. Those opportunities will not be equal - some inner city kid who grows up on welfare assistance with parents who would rather drink, smoke and watch TV than work, is unlikely to see the same array of opportunities as a kid who grows up with money, granted. But the choices that kid makes within his own world will determine what he deserves.

Am I clear?

Atta boy. Keep up that good ole attitude that stifiles culture/art/philosophy as you chow down your doritos while watching keeping up with the kardashians.

Oh thats right, i forgot, in this magic fairy land we will support all the arts and cultural aspects out of the shear generosity of those who "made it". My bad...

[Night Strike]

BUT... given that he has over 30 years as a volunteer firefighter and that I have volunteered in floods, hurricanes and teaching first aid/CPR for free, I don't consider that a horrible taking of other people's money. I and my husband EACH contribute far more to this country than most people. (and that is without getting into numerous other things we do.. such as my husband spending many, many hours coaching and being an unofficial social worker to many young men in this community)

So let me get this straight.....because you and your husband have supposedly chosen to volunteer SOOOOO much, you now claim the right to demand through the government that other people give you money to support you? I thought volunteering meant that you gave up of your time and/or money, not something that gives you a blank check for future payments.

[Nobunaga]

Unionized workers of any color tend to make quite a bit more than their non-union counterparts. Why did you bring up black union members specifically? Is the difference greatest among them?

Let me explain what I mean by "deserve". Those who went to college and studied something salable are more likely to earn more than those who go to university to study "the Classics", Art History, Graphic Design, etc... They made the choice of their major and so deserve the rewards that later came with it. Those who make the decision to push on through grad school will earn yet more (again, with a salable field of study).

Similarly, a high school dropout who later pursues his GED has the ability to earn more than one who does not. He will (statistically) earn the rewards for his efforts. Those who choose to attend a trade school of some kind will vastly improve their earning potential.

As for unions, seeking employment with a unionized company is also a choice, and one reaps the rewards for that choice. I meant no attack on unions in this thread, as much as I despise what they do to companies and to people.

Player's about to show up and talk about mothers, victims of corporate greed, working 2 jobs for minimum wage to feed four kids, etc... Well, in most cases her circumstances will be the result of her own decisions (possible exception being the death of primary breadwinner), and so she will "get what she deserves". She didn't pursue further education and she couldn't keep her knees together, so now she's saddled with 4 children who need her support... and the best she can do is manual labor someplace, or working as a waitress, or both. She gets what she deserves.

Opportunity exists for everyone. Those opportunities will not be equal - some inner city kid who grows up on welfare assistance with parents who would rather drink, smoke and watch TV than work, is unlikely to see the same array of opportunities as a kid who grows up with money, granted. But the choices that kid makes within his own world will determine what he deserves.

Am I clear?

Atta boy. Keep up that good ole attitude that stifiles culture/art/philosophy as you chow down your doritos while watching keeping up with the kardashians.

Oh thats right, i forgot, in this magic fairy land we will support all the arts and cultural aspects out of the shear generosity of those who "made it". My bad...

I don't see any connection. Explain, please.

I don't often eat Doritos and I don't know what the kardashians is/are. Should I feel insulted?

[Nobunaga]

Blah..blah..blah..blah...When you dismiss everyone who doesn't get a degree as a "failure" you dismiss a lot of knowledge, pretend that there is not a massive amount of work out there that needs doing but for which there is no or are few handy degrees. If you want to make that abundantly clear, then just go spend some time on a farm.. except, oh yeah.. you seem to think food just comes magically into your basket or that some kind of economic trick is all that is necessary to make sure that acres and acres of farmland every year stay in production instead of being polluted, dried up or turned into development.

Where did I dismiss those without degrees as failures? Are you projecting again? They're going to make less money, on average quite a bit less... but nowhere did I dismiss them as failures. You want me to think that way, to help you believe what you want to believe, but sorry, that's not my opinion.

I grew up working on farms, actually.

[Serbia]

Rise Against

Bollocks.

[thegreekdog]

Some job openings for those making $25K a year... if you're interested.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/ins ... ll-hiring/

workers to answer phones — at up to $81,000 a year — or to drive cars for the State Department, for as much as $26.45 an hour.

[Lootifer]

I don't see any connection. Explain, please.

I don't often eat Doritos and I don't know what the kardashians is/are. Should I feel insulted?

It was a general poke at the fact that the free market does not provide direct incentives for social goods and services or social value.

To be fair it was a generic comment; it wasnt aimed at you personally (since I dont know if you eat doritos or not). It was just an example of two products (doritos and kardashians) that are designed to decieve their consumers in a sustainable way (thus will flourish in a free market). Both these products flourishing is, arguably, not a particularly good result for society when you consider both economic and social value (under economic value only they are fine - the exchange is seemingly mutually beneficial).

To clarify: the social value difference to society of doritos/kardashians is the opportunity cost; that is by eating doritos/watching the kardashians you are not eating vegetables/watching an documentary on the costs of generating electricity or renaissance art.

[PLAYER57832]

BUT... given that he has over 30 years as a volunteer firefighter and that I have volunteered in floods, hurricanes and teaching first aid/CPR for free, I don't consider that a horrible taking of other people's money. I and my husband EACH contribute far more to this country than most people. (and that is without getting into numerous other things we do.. such as my husband spending many, many hours coaching and being an unofficial social worker to many young men in this community)

So let me get this straight.....because you and your husband have supposedly chosen to volunteer SOOOOO much, you now claim the right to demand through the government that other people give you money to support you? I thought volunteering meant that you gave up of your time and/or money, not something that gives you a blank check for future payments.

Uh.. no, but that is what you keep attempting to claim I am saying.

People volunteer because there are real needs that need to be met. Some people feel an obligation to attend to real needs, rather than just thinking that "someone else" will take care of that. Even so, it doesn't pay the rent.

What I am disputing is your theory that people basically get what they deserve.. that somehow just going and getting a degree, somehow entitles you to decide that people who don't have degrees don't work hard enough to be able to pay their own way in the world. What I am disputing is your contention that your making a bit more and paying a tad more in taxes means you somehow have a better understanding of how the world works, but moreover have the right to make those decisions.

My contention is that just about everyone works hard and that hiring someone is not just a privilage, it is an obligation with limits. One of those limits is that you don't get to decide to pay someone only what you think is OK. You need to pay a basic wage or your decision is to not hire anyone.

My other contention is that to claim that you are in favor of people working to support themselves, but then wanting to cut all the subsidies that allow people to survive on poor wages is, at best, hypocritical.

[thegreekdog]

BUT... given that he has over 30 years as a volunteer firefighter and that I have volunteered in floods, hurricanes and teaching first aid/CPR for free, I don't consider that a horrible taking of other people's money. I and my husband EACH contribute far more to this country than most people. (and that is without getting into numerous other things we do.. such as my husband spending many, many hours coaching and being an unofficial social worker to many young men in this community)

So let me get this straight.....because you and your husband have supposedly chosen to volunteer SOOOOO much, you now claim the right to demand through the government that other people give you money to support you? I thought volunteering meant that you gave up of your time and/or money, not something that gives you a blank check for future payments.

Uh.. no, but nice try at pretending to actually pay attention to opposition. "other people: are not supporting me, never have... and yes, contributing to society is a better measure of success than how much money is in your personal bank account. Claiming that you have the right to foist your morality onto everyone else, to decide that you get to decide that anyone without a degree doesn't deserve to make enough to just live is pretty stupid and well beyond selfish. That is my point. But.. you will ignore it and keep pretending the minimum wage debate is about me, even though I actually don't make minimum wage. (though I don't make a great wage).

The fact is that I don't demand anything... I give. Yet, you could care less about that. You think anyone opposing your ideas is a user and that anyone who is not meeting your idea of success is just not deserving, but you have never bothered to check and see if any of your ideas are correct. You just assume because things work for you, the system must work and anyone for whom it doesn't deserves whatever they get.

Oh, and in what universe do you think paying someone a minimum of $8.00 an hour is going to mean that people with degrees cannot earn more. They already do, for the most part!... as do people with other skills, some of which pay far more than a basic degree.

Player, the problem with this post is that you assume a lot of things about Night Strike. First, you assume that he doesn't give (whether through the government or otherwise). Second, you assume that he's in favor of people failing with no safety net, government provided or not government provided. Third, you assume the minimum wage is $8.00 and that there are enough people making minimum wage to make a difference.

There are not many people that are suggesting that people should be forced to live in abject poverty. This is a thread about minimum wage. This is a thread about the government doing something, not individuals doing something on their own. All the volunteer work that you and your husband do is not government-provided, right? How do you know Night Strike isn't serving in a soup kitchen or volunteering dollars to non-profit organizations?

As to the rest, I've provided plenty of evidence and opportunities for you to respond. I've even, tongue-in-cheek, provided an example of available jobs for those looking to make more money. You need to get on the same page as at least Juan Bottom and realize what you've been duped into arguing about.

[Juan_Bottom]

This thread is bananas.

We make what we deserve to make. That's all there is to it.

Said the bulldog to the boy working in the coal pits.

You're witty, though not a lot of boys working in coal pits these days. Coal is evil anyway - we've learned that, right, what with the carbon and all? ...

If you see what you believe is an error, point it out. Or you agree but just cannot admit it?

Yeah, I was trying to lead a horse to water.

MY POINT IS THAT IT'S NOT THAT SIMPLE. There is no moral way you can objectify people and say that they only make the amount of money that they deserve. NS would try to, Tzor maybe too. But Jesus wouldn't. But your argument was literally the same one that the mine bosses used themselves to try to prevent the miners from unionizing. And they even used it before children were taken out of mines. That's labor history, son. If people earned income based on what they deserved, there would be a lot more people with higher salaries and a lot of politicians and bankers who wouldn't earn a cent. And if the miners hadn't organized, then there would still be mine barons dominating the American West and the Heartland. You're just espousing a simple one liner that sounds pretty, but lacks critical thinking, and one that also completely ignores American history. Unionized African Americans in this country earn about $185 more per week than non-union African Americans. Is it because joining a union means you deserve more? No. BECAUSE IT'S NOT THAT f-ing SIMPLE.


Also, no, there's no such thing as clean coal. I'm not a Christian, and I don't believe that when we destroy this planet God will give us a fresh one. Coal should go.

Unionized workers of any color tend to make quite a bit more than their non-union counterparts. Why did you bring up black union members specifically? Is the difference greatest among them?

Let me explain what I mean by "deserve". Those who went to college and studied something salable are more likely to earn more than those who go to university to study "the Classics", Art History, Graphic Design, etc... They made the choice of their major and so deserve the rewards that later came with it. Those who make the decision to push on through grad school will earn yet more (again, with a salable field of study).

Similarly, a high school dropout who later pursues his GED has the ability to earn more than one who does not. He will (statistically) earn the rewards for his efforts. Those who choose to attend a trade school of some kind will vastly improve their earning potential.

As for unions, seeking employment with a unionized company is also a choice, and one reaps the rewards for that choice. I meant no attack on unions in this thread, as much as I despise what they do to companies and to people.

Player's about to show up and talk about mothers, victims of corporate greed, working 2 jobs for minimum wage to feed four kids, etc... Well, in most cases her circumstances will be the result of her own decisions (possible exception being the death of primary breadwinner), and so she will "get what she deserves". She didn't pursue further education and she couldn't keep her knees together, so now she's saddled with 4 children who need her support... and the best she can do is manual labor someplace, or working as a waitress, or both. She gets what she deserves.

Opportunity exists for everyone. Those opportunities will not be equal - some inner city kid who grows up on welfare assistance with parents who would rather drink, smoke and watch TV than work, is unlikely to see the same array of opportunities as a kid who grows up with money, granted. But the choices that kid makes within his own world will determine what he deserves.

Am I clear?

Clear, judgmental, and irrelevant. Nobody in the whole wide world is disagreeing with the commonly held assertion that people who spend more time educating themselves deserve to reap the benefits of such labors. What we are saying is that everyone is still human and deserve to be treated as such, and they don't "deserve" to live in poverty or to be taken advantage of. They do not deserve to have their wages suppressed, or live in a feudalistic state to support your gluttonous vision of personal greed.
But truly, is there any worse and more disgusting behavior than when someone sitting in relative comfort starts to judge the actions of the poor? Your two examples of people "getting what they deserve" revolved around women who 'can't keep their knees shut' and kids who 'spend their time partying.' It's so revealing of your character, condescending, and irrelevant. I'll tell you right now that it takes more work to be poor than it does to be rich. And today, according to the latest census bureau data, HALF of Americans live in poverty, or, as you call it, "they're all getting what they deserve." MUAHAHAHAAHAAAAAA
/Whatever

[Night Strike]

What I am disputing is your theory that people basically get what they deserve.. that somehow just going and getting a degree, somehow entitles you to decide that people who don't have degrees don't work hard enough to be able to pay their own way in the world. What I am disputing is your contention that your making a bit more and paying a tad more in taxes means you somehow have a better understanding of how the world works, but moreover have the right to make those decisions.

My contention is that just about everyone works hard and that hiring someone is not just a privilage, it is an obligation with limits. One of those limits is that you don't get to decide to pay someone only what you think is OK. You need to pay a basic wage or your decision is to not hire anyone.

A degree doesn't entitle anyone to a job. In fact, no person is entitled to any job. If a person wants to make money, they either start their own business or demonstrate to someone else that they have skills worth providing to someone else's business. It's those skills that should be the determining factor in what the worker earns, not some governmentally mandated wage. Working hard does not in and of itself mean a person deserves a high wage. I worked hard pushing carts at Walmart. Besides pay raises for longevity or merit, there's only one instance in that job that I can say the worker should be paid more than minimum wage: extreme weather. Some people who push carts do work very hard at their job, but that doesn't mean the job itself provides enough money to the company to justify a $20 per hour wage. And the same goes for many other jobs: if basically anybody can do the job if they choose to do it, then it's probably not worth being paid more for it. And when the government comes in and demands that those unskilled workers get paid more and more, it artificially raises the prices of anything that employer is providing.

By the way, there are plenty of great paying careers available for those who do not have a college degree, it's just that society refuses to respect and promote such jobs. If a person wants a good paying job, it's their responsibility to find out how to fit themselves in a marketplace that provides good paying jobs. It's not the government's job to mandate what they get paid.

My other contention is that to claim that you are in favor of people working to support themselves, but then wanting to cut all the subsidies that allow people to survive on poor wages is, at best, hypocritical.

I'm okay with a temporary safety net. I'm not okay with people living off the government as a way of life. If people aren't being paid enough to afford their expenses, it's their responsibility to either move up in the company, find an additional job, or improve their skills to improve their pay. Government handouts should not be provided to either the employers or the employees.

[Nobunaga]

This thread is bananas.

We make what we deserve to make. That's all there is to it.

Said the bulldog to the boy working in the coal pits.

You're witty, though not a lot of boys working in coal pits these days. Coal is evil anyway - we've learned that, right, what with the carbon and all? ...

If you see what you believe is an error, point it out. Or you agree but just cannot admit it?

Yeah, I was trying to lead a horse to water.

MY POINT IS THAT IT'S NOT THAT SIMPLE. There is no moral way you can objectify people and say that they only make the amount of money that they deserve. NS would try to, Tzor maybe too. But Jesus wouldn't. But your argument was literally the same one that the mine bosses used themselves to try to prevent the miners from unionizing. And they even used it before children were taken out of mines. That's labor history, son. If people earned income based on what they deserved, there would be a lot more people with higher salaries and a lot of politicians and bankers who wouldn't earn a cent. And if the miners hadn't organized, then there would still be mine barons dominating the American West and the Heartland. You're just espousing a simple one liner that sounds pretty, but lacks critical thinking, and one that also completely ignores American history. Unionized African Americans in this country earn about $185 more per week than non-union African Americans. Is it because joining a union means you deserve more? No. BECAUSE IT'S NOT THAT f-ing SIMPLE.


Also, no, there's no such thing as clean coal. I'm not a Christian, and I don't believe that when we destroy this planet God will give us a fresh one. Coal should go.

Unionized workers of any color tend to make quite a bit more than their non-union counterparts. Why did you bring up black union members specifically? Is the difference greatest among them?

Let me explain what I mean by "deserve". Those who went to college and studied something salable are more likely to earn more than those who go to university to study "the Classics", Art History, Graphic Design, etc... They made the choice of their major and so deserve the rewards that later came with it. Those who make the decision to push on through grad school will earn yet more (again, with a salable field of study).

Similarly, a high school dropout who later pursues his GED has the ability to earn more than one who does not. He will (statistically) earn the rewards for his efforts. Those who choose to attend a trade school of some kind will vastly improve their earning potential.

As for unions, seeking employment with a unionized company is also a choice, and one reaps the rewards for that choice. I meant no attack on unions in this thread, as much as I despise what they do to companies and to people.

Player's about to show up and talk about mothers, victims of corporate greed, working 2 jobs for minimum wage to feed four kids, etc... Well, in most cases her circumstances will be the result of her own decisions (possible exception being the death of primary breadwinner), and so she will "get what she deserves". She didn't pursue further education and she couldn't keep her knees together, so now she's saddled with 4 children who need her support... and the best she can do is manual labor someplace, or working as a waitress, or both. She gets what she deserves.

Opportunity exists for everyone. Those opportunities will not be equal - some inner city kid who grows up on welfare assistance with parents who would rather drink, smoke and watch TV than work, is unlikely to see the same array of opportunities as a kid who grows up with money, granted. But the choices that kid makes within his own world will determine what he deserves.

Am I clear?

Clear, judgmental, and irrelevant. Nobody in the whole wide world is disagreeing with the commonly held assertion that people who spend more time educating themselves deserve to reap the benefits of such labors. What we are saying is that everyone is still human and deserve to be treated as such, and they don't "deserve" to live in poverty or to be taken advantage of. They do not deserve to have their wages suppressed, or live in a feudalistic state to support your gluttonous vision of personal greed.
But truly, is there any worse and more disgusting behavior than when someone sitting in relative comfort starts to judge the actions of the poor? Your two examples of people "getting what they deserve" revolved around women who 'can't keep their knees shut' and kids who 'spend their time partying.' It's so revealing of your character, condescending, and irrelevant. I'll tell you right now that it takes more work to be poor than it does to be rich. And today, according to the latest census bureau data, HALF of Americans live in poverty, or, as you call it, "they're all getting what they deserve." MUAHAHAHAAHAAAAAA
/Whatever

Juan, don't get so excited.

I have known and do know many "poor people". Though different in the details, their lives follow patterns. Their circumstances were and are the direct result of their decisions. Kids they can't afford, terrible spending habits and huge debt, lack of education... You call foul, call this my "judging the actions of the poor". I suppose you are correct, and tell me why I should not? We judge and discuss the actions of many groups and individuals here, do the poor merit some kind of pass in this regard?

Who is it, and please be as specific as you can, you see treating the poor as less than human? I've traveled extensively and I'm here to tell you that those in "poverty" in the US live under conditions better than the middle class in most of the world, well, Europe and Asia specifically. So please don't cry for our poor - they've got it pretty good in the grand scheme.

Do you believe people should not be held accountable for their actions and decisions? You certainly are coming across that way.

[tzor]

I just want to point out (although I don't have the link offhand and I don't have the time at this moment to look it up) that from a world perspective most of the people considered "in poverty" would be considered exceptionally well off and a significant percentage of our population would be considered in that so called evil "1%" of the world's richest. The whole notion that anyone in the United States is being fiscally abused is absurd.

[thegreekdog]

I just want to point out (although I don't have the link offhand and I don't have the time at this moment to look it up) that from a world perspective most of the people considered "in poverty" would be considered exceptionally well off and a significant percentage of our population would be considered in that so called evil "1%" of the world's richest. The whole notion that anyone in the United States is being fiscally abused is absurd.

There are two links that exist somewhere in this forum that show how absurd the hand-wringing is over the impoverished in the United States. There's the one you are referring to (comparing US to others). There is also one showing what percentage of the government-defined poor own certain luxury-type items (like vehicles, big screen TVs, cable television, internet, central air conditioning, owned homes, etc.). It's pretty interesting.

And look, I'm sympathetic to people that live in poverty (mostly those peoples' children). And I'll volunteer to help them as best I can. But giving $10 to the government, which takes $2 for itself, and pays $8 to the impoverished without helping them get off the government rules is not an efficient use of my charity money. That's ultimately my beef with welfare, unemployment, and the like. President Clinton's welfare reforms were fantastic; they put people back to work. I want that again.

All of which has nothing to do with the increase in minimum wage. And, gain, the Democrats are pulling on heartstrings and making untrue statements about people making minimum wage without making the true statement that this is all about increasing union salaries from $22.95 an hour to $25.95 an hour.

[PLAYER57832]

Blah..blah..blah..blah...When you dismiss everyone who doesn't get a degree as a "failure" you dismiss a lot of knowledge, pretend that there is not a massive amount of work out there that needs doing but for which there is no or are few handy degrees. If you want to make that abundantly clear, then just go spend some time on a farm.. except, oh yeah.. you seem to think food just comes magically into your basket or that some kind of economic trick is all that is necessary to make sure that acres and acres of farmland every year stay in production instead of being polluted, dried up or turned into development.

Where did I dismiss those without degrees as failures? Are you projecting again? They're going to make less money, on average quite a bit less... but nowhere did I dismiss them as failures. You want me to think that way, to help you believe what you want to believe, but sorry, that's not my opinion.

Then stop acting as if it is. Nothing about giving low wage earners enough to get by will threaten those with better skills, including degrees, Just the opposite, in fact.

The truth is that a lot of businesses benefit from having low-wage, uncomplaining workers. That is one big reason so many undocumented workers are here. But does that really benefit the rest of us? In fact, it drives the whole system down, not up. The wages earned by construction workers in California is a good example, as is the wages of meat cutters... any generally blue collar industry.

Someone said earlier that the minimum wage had kept pace with inflation the current minimum wage would be around $20.
I don't agree that that is a completely reasonable assessment, mostly becuase today we live in a world of 2 worker households, not the single male head of house that was overwhelmingly dominent back when the minimum wage was instituted. That said, the idea that our economy will collapse if the bottom gets paid more is just wrong. There is a minor blip for about 2 years, when businesses operating "on the edge" fail or decide not to hire/rehire people. Some call that moving toward efficiency anyway. Two years down the road there is no net loss attributable to a rise in minimum wage.

I grew up working on farms, actually.

Good, then you already know some of what I am talking about. Or, maybe you just find it convenient to forget it.. because you have "moved beyond". Don't get me wrong, my parents made perfectly clear that planning on staying in farming was not a good job opportunity. As an adult, though, I don't just accept that because I see the problems with american farms as part of, examples of what is wrong with our society and economic policies/system in general.

[tzor]

The truth is that a lot of businesses benefit from having low-wage, uncomplaining workers. That is one big reason so many undocumented workers are here.

This is not quite the truth you make it out to be. Businesses that exploit low-wage uncomplaining workers often cause more damage to the other businesses that do not. More over these businesses are potential danger zones in the community at large (as an example the average business that exploits undocumented labor probably doesn't carry enough liability coverage for them either; the poor person who pays fir their service unaware could wind up in trouble if a major problem occurs).

This isn't to say that there are not cases where low wage documented workers work their butts off and never complain because the "low wage" they make can be compounded into a very good life for themselves and their families in their native land - they return home a decade or so later and become upper class in their old lands.

[Night Strike]

Then stop acting as if it is. Nothing about giving low wage earners enough to get by will threaten those with better skills, including degrees, Just the opposite, in fact.

Of course giving unskilled workers more pay doesn't threaten skilled workers........if it's the free market system adjusting the pay. However, when the government comes and inserts an artificial price floor, it punishes all people in a variety of ways that have already been discussed ad nauseum in this thread.

[PLAYER57832]

The truth is that a lot of businesses benefit from having low-wage, uncomplaining workers. That is one big reason so many undocumented workers are here.

This is not quite the truth you make it out to be. Businesses that exploit low-wage uncomplaining workers often cause more damage to the other businesses that do not. More over these businesses are potential danger zones in the community at large (as an example the average business that exploits undocumented labor probably doesn't carry enough liability coverage for them either; the poor person who pays fir their service unaware could wind up in trouble if a major problem occurs).

EXACTLY!

Laws like safety laws, minimum wage laws help everyone, but too many folks want to lay out the cry "but business..." because it is temporarily convenient, easire for them or because they really could care less about honest timpacts and would rather just spout rhetoric.

This isn't to say that there are not cases where low wage documented workers work their butts off and never complain because the "low wage" they make can be compounded into a very good life for themselves and their families in their native land - they return home a decade or so later and become upper class in their old lands.

Too many are are NOT going back to their native land, and even though they dream of sending money back, wind up having to pay for high rent and food right here and so don't make the road ahead they expect.

The real truth is that allowing ANY worker to not obtain a real livable wage, to pay for decent housing exploits us all, drags the entire economy and our society down. (and note... "decent housing" can mean putting 4 to a room!!!!, if there are exists and fire protections, operable plumbing, a kitchen, etc.)

[PLAYER57832]

Then stop acting as if it is. Nothing about giving low wage earners enough to get by will threaten those with better skills, including degrees, Just the opposite, in fact.

Of course giving unskilled workers more pay doesn't threaten skilled workers........if it's the free market system adjusting the pay. However, when the government comes and inserts an artificial price floor, it punishes all people in a variety of ways that have already been discussed ad nauseum in this thread.

No, the "free market" allows slavery, exploitation. Laws are needed because people at the bottom don't have the ability or power to fight against the heavy manipulation used by many in the name of "making a profit". Honest business people don't have to fear the government minimum standards, but jerks... certainly do.

You keep putting forward false ideas, like that low wages are for trainees.... even back when I worked fast food while attending college, over half of the people I worked with were older women or immigrants (perhaps illegal.. this was before rules got as strict as they are now). AND, though all of us were making low wages, almost none were tecnically making "minimum wage".... they were making about 5-10 cents over minimum.

[tzor]

Laws like safety laws, minimum wage laws help everyone, but too many folks want to lay out the cry "but business..." because it is temporarily convenient, easire for them or because they really could care less about honest impacts and would rather just spout rhetoric.

Safety laws do help everyone, but minimum wage laws (as they are currently designed in the United States) do not help everyone. Youth unemployment is a direct result of these laws. Can these laws be written to be helpful to everyone? Yes. Will they? No way.

Too many are NOT going back to their native land, and even though they dream of sending money back, wind up having to pay for high rent and food right here and so don't make the road ahead they expect.

This sounds like a "my anecdote" / "your anecdote" problem. The biggest threat to these workers was an attempt by the teacher's unions in NYC to force overtime pay scales on vineyard farm workers where weather conditions can often require a non M-F workweek. (If you think supermarket margins are razor thin, a family vineyard's margins are thinner.

The real truth is that allowing ANY worker to not obtain a real livable wage, to pay for decent housing exploits us all, drags the entire economy and our society down. (and note... "decent housing" can mean putting 4 to a room!!!!, if there are exists and fire protections, operable plumbing, a kitchen, etc.)

Here you have placed a number of factors and conditions into the equation. All of these conditions and factors are interdependent. The notion that you can "solve" the problem simply by increasing the minimum wage is false because the unintended consequences in effect result in the costs for the worker to increase as much if not more than the increase in pay. Moreover you wind up with fewer workers able to be paid.

You mention "safety" laws. For the most part, they are designed using some sort of cost benefit analysis; the cost of the law is always less than the actual benefit of the law (the cost if the law were not in place).

Minimum wage laws in the United States are not designed that way; they are based on "emotional" logic. The first laws were implemented to keep non union minorities (because at the time minorities could not enter the unions) from taking away union jobs. They are heavy handed and not based on local conditions. The cost of living in New York City is not the same as that of living in Buffalo, for example, yet the wage is the same for both locations.

So we get back to the same point; if the minimum wage is increased above the local regions ability to support it then unemployment increases and more people loose what little they had in the first place.

As I stated earlier, it is possible to design laws that would mitigate all of these problems but no one in the United States is even proposing them.

[PLAYER57832]

Laws like safety laws, minimum wage laws help everyone, but too many folks want to lay out the cry "but business..." because it is temporarily convenient, easire for them or because they really could care less about honest impacts and would rather just spout rhetoric.

Safety laws do help everyone, but minimum wage laws (as they are currently designed in the United States) do not help everyone. Youth unemployment is a direct result of these laws. Can these laws be written to be helpful to everyone? Yes. Will they? No way.

Prove that minimum wage laws are really causing youth unemployment.

See, that is one of those things that gets thrown out a lot, but has little real truth. Large numbers of undocumented workers have a far greater impact (though that, too is over-stated at times and often impacts skilled labor more than unskilled youth type labor). Today, the biggest problem is a combination of a generally downtrodden economy (which is partially caused by low wages, by-the-way!) and the fact that so many younger people just don't look for work (short of it falling into their laps). Seriously... they hire a LOT of teens where I work, for after school shifts, and its amazing how many show up and basically say "oh, you mean you actually want me to WORK!"..and then leave.

Too many are NOT going back to their native land, and even though they dream of sending money back, wind up having to pay for high rent and food right here and so don't make the road ahead they expect.

This sounds like a "my anecdote" / "your anecdote" problem. The biggest threat to these workers was an attempt by the teacher's unions in NYC to force overtime pay scales on vineyard farm workers where weather conditions can often require a non M-F workweek. (If you think supermarket margins are razor thin, a family vineyard's margins are thinner.

Uh.. not sure which specific case to which you are referring, I was talking more generally, about a wide swath of jobs... and statistics, studies of undocumented workers.

Per the vineyard bit.... Actually vineyards have a much higher profit margin, usually, than a lot of other agriculture, but it can be more risky at times. Also, you have to have several years of investment before you can get any return, unlike a lot of other agriproducts that show more immediate returns.

The real truth is that allowing ANY worker to not obtain a real livable wage, to pay for decent housing exploits us all, drags the entire economy and our society down. (and note... "decent housing" can mean putting 4 to a room!!!!, if there are exists and fire protections, operable plumbing, a kitchen, etc.)

Here you have placed a number of factors and conditions into the equation. All of these conditions and factors are interdependent. The notion that you can "solve" the problem simply by increasing the minimum wage is false because the unintended consequences in effect result in the costs for the worker to increase as much if not more than the increase in pay. Moreover you wind up with fewer workers able to be paid.

No mistake there. They all ARE very much interdependent. Not suggesting that having a minimum wage is going to fix all those other issues, but I am saying that when people are not being paid, have to eat poorly and live in substandard housing, it hurts all of us in many ways.

You mention "safety" laws. For the most part, they are designed using some sort of cost benefit analysis; the cost of the law is always less than the actual benefit of the law (the cost if the law were not in place).

Your point?

Insurance agents want to make money, so they tend to require certain things before they will cover houses, etc... and that often leads to requirements. (sometimes they fight for the requirements first)

Minimum wage laws in the United States are not designed that way; they are based on "emotional" logic. The first laws were implemented to keep non union minorities (because at the time minorities could not enter the unions) from taking away union jobs. They are heavy handed and not based on local conditions. The cost of living in New York City is not the same as that of living in Buffalo, for example, yet the wage is the same for both locations.

The fact that the cost of living in New York is different from timbuktu PA is irrelevant. (Buffalo and NY costs of living are not all that different, really). The national minimum wage is a national standard minimum.

In fact, I actually argue very much against using local measures for any kind of national minimum support standards... be it rent subsidies or food subsidies or minimum wages. The reason? Because then you DO get into the big of my supporting someone in NY city who might be making a LOT More than I. Personally, I think you need a different tactic to ensure people can find housing in places like SF or Seattle. (of NY City). Those places are expensive because they offer a lot of things that benefit people who live there. Benefits mean responsibility and part of the responsibility of living in "high rent" districts is to make sure there is room for people not making huge wages. Else, you have lots of people living in the woods or streets (like they have in parts of Colorado and SF both), something that winds up hurting everyone.. again. I won't get into that more, because its very complicated, but the point is that minimum wage is not intended to be a universal equalizer, it is a bottom basic. Pay less and other than very specific circumstances (trainees, kids are some fo them), you are not hiring someone, you are exploiting them.

So we get back to the same point; if the minimum wage is increased above the local regions ability to support it then unemployment increases and more people loose what little they had in the first place.

Minimum wages are not increased above the local regions ability to support it, though people like to make that claim.
Right now, we are supporting people with all of OUR tax dollars folks who should be getting their incomes solely from their employer's profits...or stock holder dividends, in some cases. THAT is the real scenario.

For all this talk of "fixing the deficit" and "entitlements".. raising the minimum wage will do three things in one fell swoop. It will reduce the tax payer support people need now and in the future (future because they will be paying more toward their social security), increase taxes people pay AND give people more real money to spend on things. All of that will move the economy far more than any pretended benefits from tax cuts or the many other things bieng passed off as intelligent economics (by mostly non-economist politicians) today.

As I stated earlier, it is possible to design laws that would mitigate all of these problems but no one in the United States is even proposing them.

Sort of agree, but not as you stated it above. Minimum wage laws ARE part of that mix, but with the understanding that a minimum wage law is just that... a bare basic bottom, not a full fix to poverty or any such thing.

[Night Strike]

Laws like safety laws, minimum wage laws help everyone, but too many folks want to lay out the cry "but business..." because it is temporarily convenient, easire for them or because they really could care less about honest timpacts and would rather just spout rhetoric.

Actually, much of the focus on the misguided increase of the minimum wage has focused on its detrimental effects on young workers and others who have actually done work to get raises above minimum wage. There's been very little cry of "but business..." because businesses aren't even the ones who are most hurt by such laws.

The real truth is that allowing ANY worker to not obtain a real livable wage, to pay for decent housing exploits us all, drags the entire economy and our society down. (and note... "decent housing" can mean putting 4 to a room!!!!, if there are exists and fire protections, operable plumbing, a kitchen, etc.)

Incorrect. Some jobs are simply unskilled and can be picked up by anyone. These jobs are specifically for people to work in order to gain experience or do part time while in school. They were never designed to be lived off of as a sole income, but yet the government has come and demanded that business pay those people more, even if their contributions/turnover don't justify such pay rates.

By the way, this administration is also the one that has punished young people who actually want to learn their skills directly in the field by making it much harder for companies to provide unpaid internships. All of these laws are passed by claiming to help the helpless, but all they do is do even more harm to those same groups of people. It's the free market systems that have lifted more people out of poverty than any government ever did. More government just means fewer opportunities for people in the private sector to create and improve, which is precisely why we've been in a defacto recession for 4+ years.

No, the "free market" allows slavery, exploitation. Laws are needed because people at the bottom don't have the ability or power to fight against the heavy manipulation used by many in the name of "making a profit". Honest business people don't have to fear the government minimum standards, but jerks... certainly do.

Yep, the government can do anything they want because those who are being good don't have to worry about what new laws are passed.

The thing is, you completely misunderstand and misappropriate the role of the government. The government is there to make sure people aren't forced into a job against their will (slavery) and that businesses pay what they have agreed to pay (exploitation). It's not the government's role to dictate what compensation people must receive for their work; it's only role is to make sure the agreed upon compensation is honored.

By the way, the fact that you believe the government is there to fight for "the little guy" shows how completely misguided your beliefs really are. The government actively works to stomp the little guys while promoting the big ones. It's only be making the government as small as possible that the little people are able to get their own fair shake from the system. Everyday, the government makes it harder and harder for people to work their way up from having nothing to creating a great new business because the government has regulated them out of existence before they can even exist.

[Night Strike]

Today, the biggest problem is a combination of a generally downtrodden economy (which is partially caused by low wages, by-the-way!) and the fact that so many younger people just don't look for work (short of it falling into their laps). Seriously... they hire a LOT of teens where I work, for after school shifts, and its amazing how many show up and basically say "oh, you mean you actually want me to WORK!"..and then leave.

Funny that you're a big contributor to this problem of entitlement. You keep demanding that the government provide everything for people, and then complain that young people feel entitled to not have to work to provide for themselves. You really need to stop the double standard.

[PLAYER57832]

BUT... given that he has over 30 years as a volunteer firefighter and that I have volunteered in floods, hurricanes and teaching first aid/CPR for free, I don't consider that a horrible taking of other people's money. I and my husband EACH contribute far more to this country than most people. (and that is without getting into numerous other things we do.. such as my husband spending many, many hours coaching and being an unofficial social worker to many young men in this community)

So let me get this straight.....because you and your husband have supposedly chosen to volunteer SOOOOO much, you now claim the right to demand through the government that other people give you money to support you? I thought volunteering meant that you gave up of your time and/or money, not something that gives you a blank check for future payments.

Uh.. no, but nice try at pretending to actually pay attention to opposition. "other people: are not supporting me, never have... and yes, contributing to society is a better measure of success than how much money is in your personal bank account. Claiming that you have the right to foist your morality onto everyone else, to decide that you get to decide that anyone without a degree doesn't deserve to make enough to just live is pretty stupid and well beyond selfish. That is my point. But.. you will ignore it and keep pretending the minimum wage debate is about me, even though I actually don't make minimum wage. (though I don't make a great wage).

The fact is that I don't demand anything... I give. Yet, you could care less about that. You think anyone opposing your ideas is a user and that anyone who is not meeting your idea of success is just not deserving, but you have never bothered to check and see if any of your ideas are correct. You just assume because things work for you, the system must work and anyone for whom it doesn't deserves whatever they get.

Oh, and in what universe do you think paying someone a minimum of $8.00 an hour is going to mean that people with degrees cannot earn more. They already do, for the most part!... as do people with other skills, some of which pay far more than a basic degree.

Player, the problem with this post is that you assume a lot of things about Night Strike. First, you assume that he doesn't give (whether through the government or otherwise).

No, I assume he is saying it doesn't matter, is irrelevant.. and it is not.

Second, you assume that he's in favor of people failing with no safety net, government provided or not government provided.

No, but he is stating both that he wants aid to poor cut, says repeatedly in various threads the the welfare system is being abused, etc, etc, etc,

He also sees no problem with people working for low wages... BUT then he also complains about having to support those people. These are not "assumptions" they are his arguments, voiced over and over. He certainly tries to claim that he can have each of those opinions, that they don't relate and that there is nothing incorrect about any of it. I disagree.

Third, you assume the minimum wage is $8.00 and that there are enough people making minimum wage to make a difference.

Not sure where you get THAT idea! The PA minimum wage is currently $7.35 an hour, the national minimum wage IS $7.25 an hour. Many other areas have higher minimum wages, but that is irrelevant. When I refer to $8.00, it is what I have said the national minimum wage should be. One proposal out there under serious consideration is to make it $9.00, but I am sticking with $8.00 because it is what I have argued all along.

I refer to that figure because it is much, much more relevant to consider everyone making less than the proposed minimum wage than to worry about just those who are truly making the actual minimum right now. This is a big point I mentioned regarding your statistics, and but you just ignored the point and went on assuming that "only kids" get minimum wage. It is technically true if you look at ONLY those making the true minimum wage, but not true when you look at those making well below what it takes to live upon today. That last is the truly relevant figure.

There are not many people that are suggesting that people should be forced to live in abject poverty. This is a thread about minimum wage. This is a thread about the government doing something, not individuals doing something on their own.

No, its about whether these people are supported by your and MY tax dollars or are supported by the businesses for whom they work (unless there are extenuating circumstances requiring more than usual help, such as a disabled child ). Again, you and NS, BBS, etc all want to pretend this is just about what businesses want to pay, its not its also about whether we wind up having to support those workers because they are getting such low wages.

All the volunteer work that you and your husband do is not government-provided, right? How do you know Night Strike isn't serving in a soup kitchen or volunteering dollars to non-profit organizations?

I hope he is, but its actually irrelevant, though I did rather fall into the trap he intended to set.

Here is the thing. He claims that demands for more payment equals "taking". Demands for more taxes is a kind of "theft" and demand that businesses pay more is also theft. I abjectly and completely disagree with that last. Paying workers too little to live upon is plain not OK. To me, it really doesn't matter if people are paid in food, housing and clothes , etc. OR are just paid a bigger check. It DOES matter if we taxpayers have to wind up supporting people becuase businesses are allowed to pretend they can get by with paying people wages that really are just a down payment on the support people need, so that those businesses can pretend they are taking a bigger profit.. (and, of course, complain about the taxes they are paying to, among other things support the abusive poor people ).

Here is the real point. My husband volunteers, risks his life to save other people's homes and lives becuase it is a job that needs to be done. We all inherited a great gift in being born in this country with lots of wonderful services. Part of what we owe in return are taxes... part is owed in things we do for those around us. NS likes to pretend that all of that is supposed to just be volunteer, out of the "goodness of everyone's heart" and that that "goodness" will just somehow magically take care of everyone's needs. It doesn't work that way. If it did, we would not have the many rules we have, would not have welfare, would not have social security, etc. We have those things because individuals are not efficient enough at deciding where help should go and too often think that they have the right to just decide not to pay. Look at the protest, for example, when anyone proposes increasing charges for fire service... either increasing taxes or requiring a subscription, etc.

The FACT is that today, too many people just don't have time to volunteer. I sure don't have anything close to the time I did, Not since I started working 40 hours... and I don't have a serious commute, am only working 1 paid job. When they have the time, the sense of "owing" one's community is being replaced with the very ideas being voiced here.. that folks "get what they deserve", that "someone else" will take care of that. This is not an esoteric debate. Fire companies across the nation are losing members. The average age in my husband's department is 50! There are 4 firefighters under the age of 25-- that's it, and I might add that is actually more than in past years becuase one is the daughter of a chief, one is my stepson, and 2 are his friends!

You cannot have it both ways. Either we live in a country that supports its people or we live in a country with no taxes, no requirements....a nd well, I don't really see tons of people flocking there! Sometimes people might move parts of their business there, but they sure are not going to those places to live and raise families for long. They LIVE in the US where we have police, we have fire fighters (for now, anyway), we have decent roads and communication lines.. we have various services that people use. (not to mention a whole background of scientific research.. largely government funded).

PART of that mix is a minimum wage that actually provides a real living.

As to the rest, I've provided plenty of evidence and opportunities for you to respond. I've even, tongue-in-cheek, provided an example of available jobs for those looking to make more money. You need to get on the same page as at least Juan Bottom and realize what you've been duped into arguing about.

No. You haven't, actually. Meanwhile, you have presented a lot of data that was just plain not what you claimed.. like presenting figures on minimum wages that stated exactly what I said above, that just looking at minimum wage figures is irrelevant becuase it ONLY includes those who are making just the exact minimum, not everyone making less than what is proposed as the new minimum.