GOP-Run Senate Kills Minimum Wage Increase

The govt has absolutely NO business telling business what to pay employees - NONE. Its just a mechanism for the bleeding heart politicians to appeal to their uneducated base.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(KMO @ Jun 22 2006, 05:55 PM) [snapback]275467[/snapback]</div>

The sad thing is how others do not see the fallacy of a minimum wage. What is the purpose of it in the UK? How does it not cause a pass through of costs? Do you have caps on the costs of goods and services? And the economy of the UK is nothing to be proud of compared to the US economy.

And dont even go towards health care comparisons. At least here we try to save lives and can use the latest technology and medications to do so. Was it not in the UK were a lady with breast cancer had to file suit to get herceptin - it is cheaper to let people die than to treat them is the central motto there.

I love the brits - but if you want to talk about suckers dont look beyond that little island to far. We can start with your immigration policies - sure seem to have failed in that multiculturalism thing - instead of assimilating the Muslim immigrants you guys seem to have radicalized them and now you are going to build the worlds biggest mosque in london - hope it doesnt have any storage bunkers for WMD's or access to the subways. what is unemployment there? population growth is? tax rates are? and you think this is a sustainable way of life? tell me - could England defend the Falkland Islands today without help? How about if your oil supply was to be cut off - could you re-establish the flow? Oh, how about all that tax money you guys gave to the A380 :lol: Is that thing every going to fly or they just going to cut their losses and shut it down before they throw more money away? Being a sucker is not having any control over where your tax money is spent - no?

We know our best interests. They are usually opposite of how europeans (more the french and germans) do things - that has always been an accurate compass. i would have thought that european suckers who still favor APPEASEMENT (was that born from an englishman named Chamberlein) would have learned from history - but once a sucker....

 

The purpose of minimum wage is to ensure that legal workers employed full time are not living in poverty. If you are working you should have adequate food, shelter and clothing.

At that it has failed.

Not all businesse are regulated by the minimum wage law. And those that are can certainly pay their workers MORE if they wish. The question should be why should we *have* to have a minimum wage law. Obviously it was needed to protect workers from exploitation from employers.

No one working full time should be living in poverty.

And if you have more money to live on on welfare than you have working full time there isn't a problem with welfare...there's a problem with the job market.

People working full time should not be living in poverty. I'm not saying they should all drive new cars and have big screen TVs. There children should have three square meals a day, not just the free lunch they get at school.

But then *this* bleeding heart believes that no one in this country should be living in the same squalid conditions as can be found in third world countries. There is no excuse for it. And I believe everyone who works should have healthcare. Everyone who works. Other countries do it. My dog has better healthcare than minimum wage earners. I pay plenty of taxes for crap that I don't believe in and didn't vote for. Why shouldn't some of that tax money go for healthcare for every WORKING citizen? And why shouldn't those that can afford it most pay more than those that can afford it least? Tax breaks my a$$. They didn't do me any good.

The motto of the United States should not be "Life is hard and then you die."

OH...and it's those with NO health insurance that are breaking the backs of our emergency rooms with piddly problems that should be taken care of by a GP during a routine office visit except....THEY HAVE NO HEALTHCARE and emergency rooms can't turn them away.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(imntacrook @ Jun 23 2006, 03:24 PM) [snapback]275967[/snapback]</div>

Because the government should stick its nose into the bedroom and tell people how to live their lives. It's a mechanism for small minded politicians to appeal to their special interest base....who will give them lots of money.

Last time I looked (2004) there were plenty of people with college degrees voting Democrat. Also a large number of women and minorities. I'm sure the women and minorities will appreciate being labeled uneducated.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jun 22 2006, 10:46 AM) [snapback]275231[/snapback]</div>

Oh, that must be why the House just voted itself a pay increase for the umpteenth time in a row. What a inspiring move of self-sacrifice to keep raising their own wages to keep step with inflation! They could have been greedy and voted to allow their own pay to fall further and further behind inflation, but they recognized that their higher duty was to everyday Americans, not to themselves. So they just bit down on the bullet and accepted a pay raise for themeselves (at their own detriment), while nobly saving the great benefit of ever smaller adjusted wages for average Americans.

I had trouble understanding that before. Thanks for clearing the matter up.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(imntacrook @ Jun 23 2006, 04:24 PM) [snapback]275967[/snapback]</div>

Corporations are NOT people. Regulations on corporations can't ever infringe upon freedom, because corporations are not people and don't have any freedom to begin with. Sometimes we (the people) treat them as if they were people because we (the people) decided that it can encourage economic growth, which can in turn benefit the people, but that still doesn't make corporations the same as people. Corporations are allowed to exist at all entirely at the pleasure of the government (the people). The Constitution starts out with "We the People" not "We the Corporations." If the goverment (the people) decides that the best way to benefit the economy and the people is to regulate the wages that corporations pay employees (the people), then it has every right to do so.

 

So, after what, 3 pages, I ask again:

1. WHAT SHOULD THE PREVAILING HOURLY MINIMUM WAGE BE?

$8
$16
$25
$_______

2. WHAT WAS THE ORIGINAL PURPOSE OF A MINIMUM WAGE? (As opposed to the more modern, but undefined 'living wage')

___________________________________________________

____________________________________________________

 

i don't know much about economics but since the economy is not stagnant, wouldn't it be prudent to set minimum wage in step with cost of living increases? these are honorable people trying to make an honorable living and it would be much better than these individuals collecting welfare while sitting on the bumm. i understand the argument one can have that if people want to make more money, they should set their sights on an education so that they're able to obtain a job with higher pay. on the other hand, isn't having a society comprised of a significant portion of people residing in or near poverty level putting us at risk in many ways? for instance, poverty begets crime, crime requires additional police manpower, taxpayers fund the costs of this, increased prison enrollment, and also any related bankruptcies that may occur as a result of this poverty, neighborhood areas and the continguous real estate market get depressed and so on and so on.

i'm not so sure i believe in letting the market dictate wages any longer since walmart has lowered the bar to unimaginable levels. i also believe that any person making a comfortable living shouldn't step foot in that store. if we want a society that is affluent and prosperous, we have to pay for this status in some form or fashion, whether it be through our tax dollars or with our purchase decisions/power.

 

SSimon,

If there were no WalMarts/Kmarts, where is one to go to buy goods if you are living on say $10/hr?

Nordstoms?
Macy's

And, most grocery store people earn near minimum as well; farm workers in California average $9.50 hour; I doubt they shop much at Tiffany's or Best Buy or even Sears.

Tell you what, why don't you just tip REALLY well to make up the difference...

Or, as one person opined years ago, tie Congressional pay to the LOWEST salary in that person's district or state.

You may end up paying $1000/week for food, but hey, that is fair, right?

 

i understand what you mean. that's why i said "comfortable" living. people that work at places like walmart obviously have to shop at places like walmart. besides wages, there's much to debate about walmart's handling of its employees.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Subversive @ Jun 23 2006, 07:10 PM) [snapback]276071[/snapback]</div>

Actually, I think they're working on that.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SSimon @ Jun 23 2006, 07:05 PM) [snapback]276114[/snapback]</div>

I only used WalMart because you did; I suspect that they pay about the same as others for similar positions.

For our discussion, let us pretend that WalMart plays by the rules, whatever they are.

Anyway:

How much is a "comfortable" living? Can you give me a dollar amount, or a range of say, $15-25/hour?

If you only bought at stores that paid everyone at least $20/hr, could you afford to buy what you do now?

Let's see, that DVD will be $100 and the taxes to provide that healthcare is another $15 please.

Even if we assume that the owner is one who only takes a small salary, at some point he will find a way to increase his takehome, either buy selling cheaper goods or reducing workforce. I am sure that his creditors will not care how "comfortable" anyone is if he doesn't produce enough profit to pay his loans.

It is a cycle that feeds on itself. Governments have tried price and wage controls in the past and they failed. Capitalism works to improve things because, perversely, we all want to be better off than we are, and also, better off than others. We all like to think we are being paid what we are worth, but if the labor market says your skills only warrant $7/hr, that is what will be paid. You can ask for $14, but if a boss can get the same skill at $7, hat is what he will pay. I can also point to the price of a used Prius: Kelley may state it is worth $22K, but if you are only willing to give me $20K I have a choice to sell it at the lower price, or keep it longer. When I was stationed in Iceland, the Icelandic Governmet determined the price that I could sell the car for; take it or leave it. Most cases, their pricing scheme was well below the real market.

So, it remains an empasse...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(wstander @ Jun 23 2006, 08:56 PM) [snapback]276110[/snapback]</div>

Well, that's almost TWICE minimum wage. You're telling me these people can't afford food and clothing and they make twice minimum wage? What's the poor minimum wage schmuck to do? Plant a garden I guess. Oops....ratrap, code violation apartment manager won't allow it.

Dumpster diving maybe?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(wstander @ Jun 23 2006, 08:56 PM) [snapback]276110[/snapback]</div>

Now, I'm for that. Politicians should not get rich going into politics. And don't they get free healthcare for life? And I bet it isn't any of that Medicare crap either. I understand they get an awesome pension plan too. None of that Social Security for them, no sir. But then, the job they do is so much more important than say a doctor or policeman or fireman. And they work a lot longer hours than a nurse or a teacher. In fact, if all of the politicians went on strike and refused to go to work the country would just, plain stop running; fall apart....right? Talk about letting the market set the value for compensation.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jun 23 2006, 07:54 PM) [snapback]276141[/snapback]</div>

Hmmmm, recall when the Guvmint 'shut down' for that week or so in the late 90s? What a sigh of relief that those 535 elected criminals could not cause damage for a while


Godiva, I notice that you too labor in the PRK, so you too must know this.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(wstander @ Jun 23 2006, 09:41 PM) [snapback]276083[/snapback]</div>

1. $25 (until 2010, then increase to $35....or...umm). Actually a living wage varies by location, number in a family, etc. Wow, this living wage stuff can get complicated.
2. I give up. My guess is to ensure that the owner will be persuaded to get by with fewer employees and expect more out of them, and secondly to freeze out potential employees who would accept lower wages to be employed. The employer will surely choose the applicant who he/she feels is more polished or speaks better or is more outgoing - since there is no fiscal penalty in such a decision.

 

I won't waste my time and yours giving my opinion on the merits, or lack there of, of a minimum wage. But I will say that any minimum wage should be set by the state, not the Feds. Florida I think has a minimum wage of $6.40 and California $6.75 (?). I have never lived in CA but from prices I have heard of for gasoline and real estate, CA workers need much more than FL workers to make it. Perhaps a minimum wage should be tied to how many dependants the worker is providing for. Most of you for a much higher minimum wage are grouping everyone in poverty that makes minumum wage. There are a lot of minimum wage earners that are not the "bread winner" for the family and are not "poor" schmucks.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Subversive @ Jun 23 2006, 09:10 PM) [snapback]276071[/snapback]</div>

A coprporatiion, AKA a business, or worse a BIG business, is a PROPERTY. Individuals have a RIGHT to property. The owner of a restaurant does not operate the restaurant at "the pleasure of government". Groups have no rights. ONLY individuals have rights! Government can and does unholster and point its gun at many businesses (the power of force). The anti-trust laws being the most egregious example. If the goverment stayed out of the way of the free exchange of goods and services, the economy would be a heck of a lot more robust than it is now.

The free market is clearly the best "decider" of the most efficient AND moral way to benefit indivduals (not people, as in the peoples republic). After all each transaction in a capitalistic, free economy, is in reality, and at the root, a free exchange of "property" between two individuals. If I exchange $10 for your 5 gallons of gasoline, and we're both satisfied - that's capitalism. If the government, at all levels, extracts blood money (say $1) then I get only 3 1/3 gallons. That's capitalism in chains.

Regulations on business are almost always made by people who don't understand capitalism, or if understood, the percs of power over freedom is too attractive to ignore. The mixed economy with which we are saddled has, and always will, prevent the US of A from achieving its full potential!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(FL Buckeye @ Jun 24 2006, 12:35 AM) [snapback]276185[/snapback]</div>

So having babies=automatic pay raises? Yeah, there's a plan.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Subversive @ Jun 23 2006, 08:10 PM) [snapback]276071[/snapback]</div>

Not all businesses/employers are corporations. Far from it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Denny_A @ Jun 23 2006, 11:40 PM) [snapback]276186[/snapback]</div>

So what about the government laws on monopoly? Should they also be abolished? I mean....if the government is going to get out, it should get out completely, right?

So if a company (controlled by a person or persons) was able to buy up or put out of business all of their competitors in a free market...they would be really, really successful. They would also be the only supplier for the demand and could set the price for anything. There value of their product could be artificially increased by witholding supply, thus making it rare. If anyone tried to compete, they could temporarily lower their prices or flood the market to drive the competitor bankrupt, then when the coast was clear, limit supply and jack up the prices as high as they wanted again.

That's a free market right?

BTW...anyone familiar with the history of the diamond industry and how they operate. There's a moral, free market for you.

I'd say a free market has nothing to do with morality. It's the very immorality of the free market that has forced the government to step in and inact the laws it has. Capitalism created sweatshops. They may have been good for the people who bought their cheap goods, but bad for the workers. Government outlawed them...in the U.S.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JackDodge @ Jun 22 2006, 12:49 AM) [snapback]275144[/snapback]</div>

Whats your point? you just admitted that if they would have raised it, you would haven't given them credit for a good thing, but that it would be only in the interest of an election year?

Do you want them to play politics or don't you?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Denny_A @ Jun 24 2006, 12:40 AM) [snapback]276186[/snapback]</div>

Most certainly they do. Governments exist first and foremost to protect the people. This includes protecting the people from restaurant operators. That's why we have health inspectors. That's why we have OSHA. Neither restaurant owners nor the free market have any desire or ability to protect people in the same way, yet people have more of a right to be pre-emptively protected from potentially disease-ridden food than a restaurant owner has to cut costs by creating seriously unsanitary conditions that might sicken people.

You consider anti-trust laws to be egregious? You would rather have the country run lock, stock, and barrel, by uncontrolled corporate monopolies and trusts? A feeding frenzy of greed by a ruling class upon a vast nation of what would be essentially serfs and slaves? Why not then just cut out the corporate middleman and reduce society to feuding warlords battling it out with armies of children drafted at gunpoint?

I could really care less about the most efficient manner to funnel the dollars in the pockets of regular people (including both you, by the way) into the pockets of the tiny handful of individuals in the ruling class that you would like to set up (and again, sorry, but you are simply not eligible to be in the ruling class), and I have trouble imagining any way in which it would be "moral" to attempt to do so. These individuals of which you speak really do not require any benefit from me, or for that matter, from any other people either.

I understand capitalism fine. I understand that competition can be a great motivator. The difference is that I don't worship capitalism as some sort of personal god (Mammon?). I recognize that capitalism is not perfect and it can be the cause of serious societal problems if practiced to unmoderated corporatist excess.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Electrified @ Jun 22 2006, 04:06 AM) [snapback]275147[/snapback]</div>

Funny how I have NEVER heard of unemployed people (at least not those who are citizens) complaining that the reason they are unemployed is that the minimum wage is just too darned high. How could these people ever survive without good samaritans like you helping them to articulate that what they really want is the opportunity to work hard under horrible conditions for people like you for even less money? They sure are lucky to have people like you around, to help keep their wages falling further and further behind inflation every year!