Rise of Minimum wage?

[thegreekdog]

Honestly this is probably the dumbest thing that I've ever read on this site by someone who is actually respected by the fora users.
You just attacked a woman for forming her opinions on an issue by issue basis. I'm so sorry for you because she considers points and counter points before she takes a stand.
Duh.
Seriously, this is a really stupid personal attack.

I have no problem with Player forming her opinions and confronting people on issues. What I have a problem with is the way she uses the "government is controlled by corporations" argument. If she is supportive of a particular law or regulation, she will ignore the "goverment is controlled by corporations" argument. If she is not supportive of a particular law or regulation, she will use the "government is controlled by corporations" argument. My preference would be that she doesn't use the argument at all if she can't use it consistently.

Contrast with you. You use that argument occasionally, but do not have the same level of hypocrisy that Player uses; in fact, you generally apply that argument consistently.

[PLAYER57832]

Oh bull. The government is us. The "government" is those people WE elect, so they absolutely care about what the majority of people want. Unless it's something I don't agree with; then the government is run by evil corporations.

Fixed.

Yeah. Don't forget her hated "conservatives" who want lower taxes and who control people's minds with their ideas and stuff. But if they're "liberals" who want bigger government, then that's fine. Or maybe not, she can be fickle at times. If they bankroll her favored programs, then she'll flop on her belly for them and wiggle whichever way they say to.

Like I said, when you have to be dishonest to refute what I am saying, you have already lost.
Too bad you won't admit it.

In case anyone who has not followed the dialogue pops in -- I am neither for bigger government, nor lesser government. I am for effective and appropriate government. Similarly, claiming to be for "lower taxes" when you are really about foisting your business costs onto the rest of society is extremely dishonest. When you claim that a business can legitimately hire someone for less than it takes them to eat, have a decent apartment or home, clothing, then yes, you are either declaring that work and people have no value and can just starve or you are expecting others to pick up those costs.

[PLAYER57832]

Honestly this is probably the dumbest thing that I've ever read on this site by someone who is actually respected by the fora users.
You just attacked a woman for forming her opinions on an issue by issue basis. I'm so sorry for you because she considers points and counter points before she takes a stand.
Duh.
Seriously, this is a really stupid personal attack.

I have no problem with Player forming her opinions and confronting people on issues. What I have a problem with is the way she uses the "government is controlled by corporations" argument. If she is supportive of a particular law or regulation, she will ignore the "goverment is controlled by corporations" argument. If she is not supportive of a particular law or regulation, she will use the "government is controlled by corporations" argument. My preference would be that she doesn't use the argument at all if she can't use it consistently.

That is utter bull and you know it.

You distort what I am saying so you can pretend it is true.

I have no idea why you have gone from honest debating to simply attacking, personal attacks at that, exaggerations and lies, but what is really scary is how many people are acting and thinking exactly like you. THAT is why we are in the mess we are in, too many people who have plain stopped thinking, who think truth, honesty and facts are some kind of popularity contest where the "winner" takes all. But when its truth that loses, EVERYONE loses.

The Allegheny forest is probably your worst example yet. Despite all of your claims, you still, truly don't bother to get what the real issues even are. Abortion is pretty high up there as well, where you tried to claim I said that every abortion was to save a mother's life.

[thegreekdog]

Honestly this is probably the dumbest thing that I've ever read on this site by someone who is actually respected by the fora users.
You just attacked a woman for forming her opinions on an issue by issue basis. I'm so sorry for you because she considers points and counter points before she takes a stand.
Duh.
Seriously, this is a really stupid personal attack.

I have no problem with Player forming her opinions and confronting people on issues. What I have a problem with is the way she uses the "government is controlled by corporations" argument. If she is supportive of a particular law or regulation, she will ignore the "goverment is controlled by corporations" argument. If she is not supportive of a particular law or regulation, she will use the "government is controlled by corporations" argument. My preference would be that she doesn't use the argument at all if she can't use it consistently.

That is utter bull and you know it.

You distort what I am saying so you can pretend it is true.

I have no idea why you have gone from honest debating to simply attacking, personal attacks at that, exaggerations and lies, but what is really scary is how many people are acting and thinking exactly like you. THAT is why we are in the mess we are in, too many people who have plain stopped thinking, who think truth, honesty and facts are some kind of popularity contest where the "winner" takes all. But when its truth that loses, EVERYONE loses.

The Allegheny forest is probably your worst example yet. Despite all of your claims, you still, truly don't bother to get what the real issues even are. Abortion is pretty high up there as well, where you tried to claim I said that every abortion was to save a mother's life.

I'm not distorting anything. I've used your own typed words. You have a problem with the private companies exploiting natural gas in the Allegheny forest region of Pennsylvania. So do I. And we both know that the reason that private companies can exploit natural gas in the Allegheny forest region of Pennsylvania is because of soft money and lobbying.

What I have a problem with and will continue to have a problem with, is that you then turn around and say that you're okay with minimum wage laws or environmental tax credits or immigration reform because "the government is made up of the people." How can you be consistent when you've just spent time arguing about corporate influence? I can't have a discussion with you any more because you fail to grasp this concept that you're being hypocritical. It is figuratively driving me insane. Unless and until you either acknowledge the hypocrisy or change your argument style in some way, why would I continue to drive myself figuratively insane?

You have painted me with a brush that I'm anti-government... and that's true, except that I'm anti-government as it's currently situated. I don't like rent-seeking. I don't like that the government is essentially controlled by large companies, unions, and special interest lobbies, whether those entities and organizations are conservative or liberal or neither. I don't like that Exxon has a lot of influence. I don't like that the SEIU has a lot of influence. I don't like that NOW, the NAACP, or that group that always complains about sex on TV have a lot of influence. On the one hand, you seem to agree with me that these entities have a lot of influence, at least with respect to large companies. And yet you turn around and denigrate my point of view and hammer home the idea that the government is "of the people" in another post. It's not consistent. You can't have it both ways. Either the government is heavily influenced by large companies, unions, and special interest lobbies, or it's not. If it is influenced by large companies, unions, and special interest lobbies, and you think that's bad, then you should certainly not denigrate me when I come into a minimum wage thread and note that the only reason that minimum wage will be increased is so that employees in the SEIU union can make $25 an hour instead of $23 an hour.

[thegreekdog]

Just a refresher...

This thread is bananas. I've gotten the impression that nobody other than player and myself make less than $25K a year, or aren't CEOs of big dumb companies. Because why would you vote against yourself? Unless you only buy American products so you can feel good about yourself, but you want to pay the cheapest price so you want to keep workers down.... or if you live off of fast food and can't afford to pay more for Burger King.

What would Utah Philips think of all of you? You should feel ashamed.
Also, serious question too - did any of you learn about American Labor History in high school or college? It seems like nobody here ever talks about history when discussing these topics, and everyone on the other side of this debate is pro big business. I feel like that's treason.

Why shouldn't Union workers make more money anyway? Union workers are not overpaid; you are underpaid. Fair wages do not bankrupt a business, poor management is what ruins a business. Each time a Unionized company fails, the Union gets blamed. But each time, as with GM and Hostess we see that the unions make repeated concessions to help the company do better. There's absolutely no reason to be anti-union at all, America is a Union, and look how strong we are. Some of our favorite American institutions are Unionized, like Hershey, Doritos, Pepsi, Coke, Keebler Cookies, Old Spice, Miller High Life, and Budweiser. Our teachers, police officers, paramedics, and firefighters are unionized.
Eric Liu, a popular lecturer and internet author said "Unions lift wages for non-union members by creating a higher prevailing wage. Even if you aren't a union member, your pay is influenced by the strength or weakness of organized labor. the presence of unions sets off a wage race to the top. Their absence sets off a race to the bottom." He's absolutely correct, because while worker pay peaked the same time that the minimum wage did, it's been on the decline ever since, as have Unions. While we had a strength of Unions in America, we all made more money at our jobs, and the economy was healthier.

Why shouldn't college students earn more money? Don't these poor bastards already get hammered enough?

If a business is successful, shouldn't they share that success with the ones who actually created it?

Of course you're not going to find many people working full time for minimum wage. Most of the businesses who hire workers for minimum wage suppress workers hours to less than 35 a week. They also hire teenagers, because only teenagers will work for shit wages with shit hours at a shitty job. That doesn't make the practice good, nor does it make the massive profits of companies like McDonalds or Wal*Mart ingeniously American. It's organized greed perpetrated at your expense. In Australia, for example, fast food workers make $16 an hour. Our ridiculous fake "fair" minimum wage works to protect big business profits only. Our minimum wage remains well below the rate of inflation. Adjusting for inflation the minimum wage should be $10.55 an hour. Now, how many American's work full time for less than $10.55 an hour? A bunch, I'm guessing. For example, according to southernstudies, the majority of construction workers in Texas work 40 hours a week, yet 52% of them live below the poverty level.
Slave wages will do nothing to help the worker or the economy.

Why shouldn't minimum wage be tied directly to inflation? FDR said, quite emphatically, that "No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to it's workers has any right to continue in this country." And remember who FDR was.... the guy who took over during the Great Depression. And again I say that our living wage is $10.55 an hour.
When the minimum wage peaked in 1968, America was in the mist of it's longest period of growth, ever. Unemployment averaged somewhere around 5%, which is similar to the 90s. The economy was robust and healthy. As Henry Ford said, if you want people to buy your shit, then you need to pay people enough to buy your shit. And that's the bottom line.

I would like to thank Juan for talking about the actual issue (unlike Player, I might add).

My response to this is that if union workers don't want their hourly wages tied to minimum wage, they should have demanded that their high priced attorneys draft agreements that did not tie hourly wages to minimum wage. I'm not anti-union. I'm actually very much pro-union. I think it's a form of capitalism or democracy for workers to organize and fight for higher wages. So, the unions have my blessing to go after higher wages in agreements with their employers. Go for it!

And just to be clear, from the SEIU website:

$917 = Median weekly earnings in 2010 of union members.

http://www.seiu.org/a/ourunion/research ... igures.php

That's $47,684 a year.
That's $22.95 an hour (assuming a 40 hour work week). $22.95 an hour is well over federal minimum wage, state minimum wage, and the "living wage" in a city like Philadelphia (according to MIT). And that wage does not count other benefits of being in a union, like for example health insurance benefits.

So yeah, you should be in a union if you can, but union workers are making a living wage and more. So don't feel sorry for them.

In the great state of New Jersey, teachers make on average $61,830 a year. That's $1,545 a week. That's $38 an hour assuming a 40 hour work week AND that the teacher works every week of every year (which usually doesn't occur). $38 an hour is well over federal minimum wage, state minimum wage, and the "living wage" in a city like Newark (according to MIT). And that wage does not count other benefits of being in the union, like only paying 6% or so of your health insurance costs (that number used to be much lower).

http://www.teachersalaryinfo.com/averag ... ersey.html

So yeah, you should be in the teachers union in New Jersey if you can, but New Jersey teachers are making a living wage and more. So don't feel sorry for them.

And lest you think otherwise, I'm not denigrating unions. Good for the SEIU members. Good for the New Jersey teachers. Great job. Keep fighting the fight. But don't expect me to feel sorry for you.

By the way. Juan, Player - you guys should probably look into this union thing. You could double your salaries!

[PLAYER57832]

b
By the way. Juan, Player - you guys should probably look into this union thing. You could double your salaries!

[/quote]
Unions require large groups of people able to organize against a single large entity to be truly effective. Most low-wage workers are spread out in various jobs with various employers. A very large percetage are in food service , childcare and retail sales, but you can find them all over.

Also, you seem to underestimate what it took to even get unions and to effectively fight those in power.
Low wages are Machiavelli-like, just enough to keep people from going to those lengths, but not enough to keep the system from harming society. Add in the fact that a good many are here illegally or on shakey grounds for other reasons that prevent them from fighting and you have a bunch of people trapped.

But, the real issue here is that most people in this low-wage arena actually ARE making more, just not by themselves. In may case, my husband makes better wages, but many people survive by getting tax payer paid government handouts. You want to stop handouts, make companies pay a legitimate wage. THAT is the real issue. I don't believe it truly will result in more people moving into welfare and unemployment other htan in the short term (less than 2 years), BUT even if it did, then having an honest wage base will allow us to focus on real issue, rather than back-handed supports supports for what should be private companies. I may not like someone being on welfare, but at least we know they are on welfare. Today, it all gets muffled. Figures showing people getting support don't identify whether they are also working or not. Statistics on wages and employment don't readily identify if the workers are making ends meet by working multiple jobs, spousal support, family support or government support or a combination.


Also, because so many people being helped are actually working, its harder or impossible mandate that they get education, work on public service needs or any other real demand. If I am going to pay for someone's food and rent (and I AM), then I want them to at least contribute something to the community unless they are really and truly not able. (and even then, I would rather fix the "not able" part than simply keep them on the dole).


OH, one thing.. illegal workers are not eligible for government aid, BUT they do often depend on local societal help that otherwise would go to other causes. Plus, in many cases they have kids who are citizens and therefore who ARE eligible for assistance.... but who would not require assistance if their parents were able to do better. In that regard, it really doesn' t matter if the assistance is private or public. I just refer more to the public help because so many opposed to the raise in minimum wage are also low tax proponents.

[BigBallinStalin]

You want to pretend that people have no inherent value, that all that matters is the business ability to make money. Giving people no value is pretty much a definition of evil. You can paint it up with all the stats and figures you like, but yes, that is a pretty basic point. If people have no value, then there is no value in anything at all.

Seconded.

Yeah. Don't forget her hated "conservatives" who want lower taxes and who control people's minds with their ideas and stuff. But if they're "liberals" who want bigger government, then that's fine. Or maybe not, she can be fickle at times. If they bankroll her favored programs, then she'll flop on her belly for them and wiggle whichever way they say to.

Honestly this is probably the dumbest thing that I've ever read on this site by someone who is actually respected by the fora users.
You just attacked a woman for forming her opinions on an issue by issue basis. I'm so sorry for you because she considers points and counter points before she takes a stand.
Duh.
Seriously, this is a really stupid personal attack.

That's nice JB. If you wish to make a more informed criticism, you should understand the context (including the page after where player further fails to make sense).

We can distort my above post into a personal attack, but that position is for people who find simple explanations cheaper than critical thinking. After someone has been thoroughly explained that their Ideology and position is counter-productive and stupid (respectively), and after that someone refuses to critically evaluate his/her own position, then they don't deserve to be taken seriously. Good luck.

[BigBallinStalin]

Its not just money at play here. Power is just as, if not more so, alluring than cold hard cash.

Meaning that politicians only listen to people with power; sure that usually co-incides with people who have a lot of money, but not exclusively.

Which may explain why such small donations to politicians can be so influential on their decision-making. It seems similar to the bets that NFL players take on getting the first interception or fumble. These guys make millions, they bet a few hundred, but after the game, cash swaps hands and bragging rights ensue. Maybe politicians behave in a similar manner. It's about that feeling of power/superiority.

[BigBallinStalin]

Oh bull. The government is us. The "government" is those people WE elect, so they absolutely care about what the majority of people want. Unless it's something I don't agree with; then the government is run by evil corporations.

Fixed.

Yeah. Don't forget her hated "conservatives" who want lower taxes and who control people's minds with their ideas and stuff. But if they're "liberals" who want bigger government, then that's fine. Or maybe not, she can be fickle at times. If they bankroll her favored programs, then she'll flop on her belly for them and wiggle whichever way they say to.

Like I said, when you have to be dishonest to refute what I am saying, you have already lost.
Too bad you won't admit it.

In case anyone who has not followed the dialogue pops in -- I am neither for bigger government, nor lesser government. I am for effective and appropriate government. Similarly, claiming to be for "lower taxes" when you are really about foisting your business costs onto the rest of society is extremely dishonest. When you claim that a business can legitimately hire someone for less than it takes them to eat, have a decent apartment or home, clothing, then yes, you are either declaring that work and people have no value and can just starve or you are expecting others to pick up those costs.

Player, I've already addressed your position in the privatization thread, where you were full of fail and stubbornly insisted on being full of fail. That's why I'll make the above posts--because you have failed to demonstrate that I should take you seriously.

Masking your lack of critical self-evaluation under your banner of "UR DISHONEST!!" won't do you any favors. The path to human flourishing is difficult, but I strongly encourage you to put away your banners and continue your steps to flourishing. Good luck.

[PLAYER57832]

Oh bull. The government is us. The "government" is those people WE elect, so they absolutely care about what the majority of people want. Unless it's something I don't agree with; then the government is run by evil corporations.

Fixed.

Yeah. Don't forget her hated "conservatives" who want lower taxes and who control people's minds with their ideas and stuff. But if they're "liberals" who want bigger government, then that's fine. Or maybe not, she can be fickle at times. If they bankroll her favored programs, then she'll flop on her belly for them and wiggle whichever way they say to.

Like I said, when you have to be dishonest to refute what I am saying, you have already lost.
Too bad you won't admit it.

In case anyone who has not followed the dialogue pops in -- I am neither for bigger government, nor lesser government. I am for effective and appropriate government. Similarly, claiming to be for "lower taxes" when you are really about foisting your business costs onto the rest of society is extremely dishonest. When you claim that a business can legitimately hire someone for less than it takes them to eat, have a decent apartment or home, clothing, then yes, you are either declaring that work and people have no value and can just starve or you are expecting others to pick up those costs.

Player, I've already addressed your position in the privatization thread, where you were full of fail and stubbornly insisted on being full of fail. That's why I'll make the above posts--because you have failed to demonstrate that I should take you seriously.

Masking your lack of critical self-evaluation under your banner of "UR DISHONEST!!" won't do you any favors. The path to human flourishing is difficult, but I strongly encourage you to put away your banners and continue your steps to flourishing. Good luck.

The trouble is, you did not really "counter" what I said. You disagree, fine. That doesn't mean I am "full of fail" or failing to demonstrate sense.

Your tactic of instantly attacking not just me, but anyone who seriously disagrees is pretty telling.

Your arguments fail because you start with the assumption that all you have learned aboout economics is actually predictive and real. It is, but only when viewed within a very, very narrow context and only short term. You have no problem simply ignoring things that are not manipulable by humans. I have a very, very big problem with ignoring things that will change, but not necessarily the way humans need or want. You can pretend all you like that you can just ignore the impact of limited oil because some "techological fix" is out there. You can pretend all you like that corporations cannot possible be responsible for testing products more fully before selling them because they will go out of business and, in your mind the damage will be controlled. Both of those assumptions are invalid when you look at the real data. Admitting that, however, would probably require you to admit a lot of other very uncomfortable facts.

Masking your lack of critical self-evaluation under your banner of "UR DISHONEST!!" won't do you any favors. The path to human flourishing is difficult, but I strongly encourage you to put away your banners and continue your steps to flourishing. Good luck.

That is a mirror, not a window, you are looking in.

[BigBallinStalin]

Your arguments fail because you start with the assumption that all you have learned aboout economics is actually predictive and real. It is, but only when viewed within a very, very narrow context and only short term. You have no problem simply ignoring things that are not manipulable by humans. I have a very, very big problem with ignoring things that will change, but not necessarily the way humans need or want. You can pretend all you like that you can just ignore the impact of limited oil because some "techological fix" is out there. You can pretend all you like that corporations cannot possible be responsible for testing products more fully before selling them because they will go out of business and, in your mind the damage will be controlled.

Obviously, you don't really bother reading my posts when I'm being entirely neutral to your ignorance. Otherwise, you wouldn't claim that I support such stances, nor could your claims be reasonable implications of my stances. Since this is the case, then I don't have to take you seriously, and all criticism on your stupidity is valid and sound.

Masking your lack of critical self-evaluation under your banner of "UR DISHONEST!!" won't do you any favors. The path to human flourishing is difficult, but I strongly encourage you to put away your banners and continue your steps to flourishing. Good luck.

That is a mirror, not a window, you are looking in.

WHOA! HUGE DEFENSE THERE!! The tables still haven't turned, but please stop banging your knife and fork on the nice, wooden surface. It doesn't help.