Republicans Tie Minimum Wage to Tax Cut

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2248129

Congress would pass an increase in the minimum wage before leaving Washington for vacation, but only as part of a package rolling back taxes on the heirs of multimillionaires, a Senate leadership aide said Friday.

The wage would increase from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour, phased in over the next two years, the aide said.

In the past eight years Congress has raised their own pay seven times, yet has refused to offer minimum wage earners a single raise.

The current minimum of wage is $5.15 is grossly inadequate to live on in this economy with nearly 36 million people live in poverty, including 13 million children. An American who works full-time, year-round at the current minimum wage earns $10,700 a year -- $5,000 below the poverty line for a family of three.

Discuss.

What does the minimum wage has to do with tax cuts for the rich? Bush wants a less progressive tax system, eh? :rolleyes:

So... how's unemployment in the US? High?

http://www.bls.gov/

Its 4.6%. (June 2006)

Is that high or low?

It's low. But it might increase if this pass...

If folks don't want to continue working for the current minimum wage, why don't they just get a better paying job?

How will paying incompetent people more money make them more competent?

Ah, they'll vote Dem for the payoff.

Got it.

How many CEOs does a compnay has? Most jobs pays only minimum wage, stupid. :D

The joke's on you.

Most stupids are paid minimum wage.

I'm self-employed. 15 years, now.Retirement assured.

I don't work for minimum wage.

If I'm stupid, why are stupid people complaining about only earning minimum wage?

Hell, why are self-proclaimed smart people complaining about only earning minimum wage?

6th defininition of "Smart"?

Not everyone can run companies. Not everyone has the skills to do so. And there aren't enough opportunities to do that, really. As I said, not everyone can be on the top.

Not everyone can run companies.
So why should someone who can run a company have to adopt those who can't just to support them because they possess natural incompetence?
Not everyone has the skills to do so.
Wrong. Everyone has skills. What "not everyone" doesn't have is motivation.

Why should folks 'who can' have to hire and pay folks 'who won't' a wage beyond their free market valued behavioral skill set?

You can't support yourself? Why would I imagine you could possibly help to support me?

At any wage.

And there aren't enough opportunities to do that, really.
Anyone can register a fictious name with their state and pay the fees for county and municipal occuptaional licenses.

Bam. In business.

The rest is also up to the individual.

It's really not about opportunities, is it? It's really about folks willing to make their own opportunities, or not.

Not the problem of the motivated.
...not everyone can be on the top.
Hell, not everyone wants to be on top.

Again, not the problem of the motivated.

One has to ask oneself: What is their destiny -- life-long minimum wage, an unreadable cardboard sign on the side of the road, or behaving like a productive adult?

If folks don't want to continue working for the current minimum wage, why don't they just get a better paying job?

Because they can't?

How will paying incompetent people more money make them more competent?

It won't. But it will help them to live.

So why should someone who can run a company have to adopt those who can't just to support them because they possess natural incompetence?

They don't need to employ them to run the company.

Wrong. Everyone has skills. What "not everyone" doesn't have is motivation.

Does everybody have marketable skills?

Why should folks 'who can' have to hire and pay folks 'who won't' a wage beyond their free market valued behavioral skill set?

Because an enlightened society sets a minimum standard of living.

You can't support yourself? Why would I imagine you could possibly help to support me?

Beats me. You don't claim to need support. Are you confused?

It's really not about opportunities, is it? It's really about folks willing to make their own opportunities, or not.

No. It's really about opportunities.

Because they can't?
True for some; not all.

Business isn't a charity. If folks need charity they should petition charitable organizations for support.

Business is business.

Charity is charity.

Expectations do not define reality.

It won't. But it will help them to live.
Employers aren't nurse maidens.
They don't need to employ them to run the company.
Werd.
Does everybody have marketable skills?
Are there so few markets?
Because an enlightened society sets a minimum standard of living.
Your minimum standard society isn't elightened enough.
Beats me. You don't claim to need support. Are you confused?
Nope. I'm self-sufficient. I'm not asking any of you folks for a hand out.

Would that I could hope for the same level of respect in return.
No. It's really about opportunities.
No. It's really about opportunities provided by the hard work of others, not about opportunites provided by Mother Nature.

No. It's really about opportunies provided by the hard work of others, not about opportunites provided by Mother Nature.

Why are so many Americans intolerant of social morality?

Why are so many Americans intolerant of social morality?
Whose version?

Whose version?

Define the American version.

Define the American version.
I'm an American.

Why not mine?

I'm an American.

Why not mine?

I already guessed you're American from this:

No. It's really about opportunities provided by the hard work of others, not about opportunites provided by Mother Nature.

Yours, then.

Yours, then.
Okay.

Social morality: Value given for value received.

I already guessed you're American from this:

“No. It's really about opportunities provided by the hard work of others, not about opportunites provided by Mother Nature.”

From that you could accurately only guess that I'm not a commie.

From that you could accurately only guess that I'm not a commie.

Nope I could also guess with reasonable accuracy that you're not Asian or European. Besides, you're arrogant and that, combined with the low social moral responsibility, well, I'm afraid you could only be American.

Okay.

Social morality: Value given for value received.

How do you define value?

Is it in terms of satisfaction received or given or both?

How do you define value?
It's whatever it's voluntarily agreed to be between interested parties. ;)

There's not market value in "involuntary".

It's whatever it's voluntarily agreed to be between interested parties. ;)

There's not market value in "involuntary".

So do you create a need or satisfy one?

Regarding the thread topic, the purpose of the linkage of the tax cut with the minimum wage increase is twofold. One, it's a poison pill meant to prevent the bill from passing. Two, it's a way of getting some good out of the idiotic idea of raising minimum wage.

Regarding the thread topic, the purpose of the linkage of the tax cut with the minimum wage increase is twofold. One, it's a poison pill meant to prevent the bill from passing. Two, it's a way of getting some good out of the idiotic idea of raising minimum wage.

Why is it idiotic to raise the minimum wage?

Wow Mr. G, those are the first real posts I've seen out of you in years. They are swell. Thanks for contributing more than I do. ;)

Why is it idiotic to raise the minimum wage?
First of all, it's better for an unskilled person to have a job for six bucks and hour than to be unemployed at seven and a quarter. When you raise the cost of something, people buy less of it. If the item in question is unskilled labor, raising it's cost will result in greater unemployment.

Secondly, any gains made by those lucky enough to keep their jobs at the new rate will soon be eaten up by inflation induced by the increase in minimum wage. Employers forced to spend more on labor will raise prices. Cost of living will go up, soon liberals will be clamoring for another increase in minimum wage.

Finally, if seven and a quarter is good, why not twenty bucks an hour? Why not fifty or a hundred? Let's make it five hundred bucks an hour and soon we'll all be millionaires!

But the minimum wage has not been raised in 7 years; don't you think it may be too low right now?

Minimum wage doesn't employ people, it unemploys people. "Too low" is determined by the market, not by liberals.

(Did you like my jab at the liberals? It's so easy pretending we can blame all our economic and social woes on a disparate political group!)

First of all, it's better for an unskilled person to have a job for six bucks and hour than to be unemployed at seven and a quarter. When you raise the cost of something, people buy less of it. If the item in question is unskilled labor, raising it's cost will result in greater unemployment.

Secondly, any gains made by those lucky enough to keep their jobs at the new rate will soon be eaten up by inflation induced by the increase in minimum wage. Employers forced to spend more on labor will raise prices. Cost of living will go up, soon liberals will be clamoring for another increase in minimum wage.

Finally, if seven and a quarter is good, why not twenty bucks an hour? Why not fifty or a hundred? Let's make it five hundred bucks an hour and soon we'll all be millionaires!

It seems to me that you're kind of contradicting yourself in the first two paragraphs. As you said, employers will be forced to spend more on employees -- The demand from the public won't go down. Employers are forced to hire the same amount of people to meet the same public demand. Right? ... Unemployment isn't gonna be a problem if the companies are meeting the publics' demand; production of the same amount of whatever. To do this, they need to keep the same amount of staff they had before.

Not quite clear on what you're trying to say.

also...Hasn't the raise been imposed to adjust to the slight inflation over the last 7 years?

As you said, employers will be forced to spend more on employees -- The demand from the public won't go down.

Employers will have to charge more for their products, which drives demand down.

Hasn't the raise been imposed to adjust to the slight inflation over the last 7 years?

Markets adjust for inflation with contracts. When you get a job, or purchase a loan, the financiers of the firm speculate on what interest will be in the future (as does the loanee/employee), and then they settle on a contract that takes into account future inflation. For instance, I get small raises (1.5, 2%) after x amount of work to take into account inflation.

It's not like employees are completely out of the loop here.

Minimum wage is so stupid. It cuts jobs and raises prices.

Have you heard of the plan where the government buries money in mine shafts, and the public digs it up?

Have you heard of the plan where the government buries money in mine shafts, and the public digs it up?

I heard about it. It sounds to me like the gold rush.

But it wouldn't work. Our jobs would be to dig up the ground. You are drunk.

Employers will have to charge more for their products, which drives demand down.



Markets adjust for inflation with contracts. When you get a job, or purchase a loan, the financiers of the firm speculate on what interest will be in the future (as does the loanee/employee), and then they settle on a contract that takes into account future inflation. For instance, I get small raises (1.5, 2%) after x amount of work to take into account inflation.

It's not like employees are completely out of the loop here.


Well, I would think that there are major imperfections with that system considering it's all speculation and employers probably have a tendency to speculate a smaller inflation than they should when they're contemplating giving those raises :) .... so inflation has been steadily eeking by what the speculations have been, creating a minimum wage that can't sustain the poor in a way that it should. And we need to sustain our poor. Because we love them.

Well, I would think that there are major imperfections with that system considering it's all speculation and employers probably have a tendency to speculate a smaller inflation than they should when they're contemplating giving those raises :) .... so inflation has been steadily eeking by what the speculations have been, creating a minimum wage that can't sustain the poor in a way that it should. And we need to sustain our poor. Because we love them.

But you do know the cost of minimum wage, don't you?

But you do know the cost of minimum wage, don't you?

The rich get less rich?

But you do know the cost of minimum wage, don't you?

Improved living standards?

But you do know the cost of minimum wage, don't you?
Ten bob an hour?

More money to spend in the local economy?

a reason for the unemployed to seek work?

So do you create a need or satisfy one?
Yes.

Wow Mr. G, those are the first real posts I've seen out of you in years. They are swell. Thanks for contributing more than I do. ;)
Either you're slipping, or I've always posted real posts. Or both. ;)

Why is it idiotic to raise the minimum wage?
Why is it idiotic to raise your still-living-at-home adult children's allowances? ;)

But the minimum wage has not been raised in 7 years; don't you think it may be too low right now?
Don't you think the minimum motivation to find better paying jobs just might be too low, too?

If government tells me how much I have to pay someone beyond their market value, I just close the business and help that someone make far less than minimum wage.

QED

Yes.

What about equality?
(Nice response btw)

What about equality?
What about equivalence?

Mr.G:

Business isn't a charity. If folks need charity they should petition charitable organizations for support.

But you won't contribute to charities unless you are forced to do so, will you? After all, what's yours is yours.

Employers aren't nurse maidens.

Fair pay for fair work.

Are there so few markets?

Work it out for yourself.

Your minimum standard society isn't elightened enough.

Werd.

Nope. I'm self-sufficient. I'm not asking any of you folks for a hand out.

You're not self-sufficient. You rely on other people for most things.

What about equivalence?

That is an individual value not a social one.

Why not both?

Don't you think the minimum motivation to find better paying jobs just might be too low, too?

Working 40+ hour weeks and still not being able to afford housing?
How much motivation would that create?

If government tells me how much I have to pay someone beyond their market value, I just close the business and help that someone make far less than minimum wage.

Does that "market value" take into account a minimum desirable standard of living?

Mr.G:

But you won't contribute to charities unless you are forced to do so, will you? After all, what's yours is yours.
Um, charity isn't charity if it's forced.

And, yes: What's mine is mine.

Just because I am blessed with the right to own property that I've earned honestly doesn't automatically infect me with a Scrooge McDuck can't-share-the-wealth virus.

The inuendo speaks more to your own biases and prejudices toward the producers of actual wealth.

Since one can imagine that eating one's own is a no-no, ...
Fair pay for fair work.
At fair market value. Yes.
Work it out for yourself.
I guess you cannot create a market that has me as a paying customer this time around, again.
Werd.
You're honest. I've never thought you weren't.
You're not self-sufficient. You rely on other people for most things.
I rely on other people willing to trade something of value for equal value in a different desireable form.

People with nothing to offer have to be satisfied with their own playground adornments.

That is an individual value not a social one.

Why not both?
Why the supposition that the value isn't both an indivdual and a social one?

Paint me the picture.

Working 40+ hour weeks and still not being able to afford housing? How much motivation would that create?
The motivation to move to more affordable estates. ;)
Does that "market value" take into account a minimum desirable standard of living?
No. The market doesn't exchange desires. Standard Desires are a personal thing.

Why the supposition that the value isn't both an indivdual and a social one?

Paint me the picture.

As I understand it:

equivalence = essentially equal (related to comparative value).

equal = same in some quality or status.

The motivation to move to more affordable estates. ;)


What if the person has already reached the limit of his capabilities?

No. The market doesn't exchange desires. Standard Desires are a personal thing.

In that case a socially defined minimum SOL; i.e. food, shelter, basic necessities, education, healthcare, insurance.

What if the person has already reached the limit of his capabilities?
Which of us hasn't?

Why does the fact of my own existence obligate you to involuntarily support me in a way that I cannot?
In that case a socially defined minimum SOL; i.e. food, shelter, basic necessities, education, healthcare, insurance.
Since I'm a member of Society and I'm not happy with all that I have and I desire more/better -- fork over, or I'll call you bad names.

That seems to be the Jame's Standard Model Approach around these parts.

Which of us hasn't?

Yes, but not all of us earning minimum wage

Why does the fact of my own existence obligate you to involuntarily support me in a way that I cannot?

You are a human being, you are a part of the society I belong to.

Since I'm a member of Society and I'm not happy with all that I have and I desire more/better -- fork over, or I'll call you bad names.

It would help if inflation and the minimum wage were linked then, to make sure that you can make at least enough to share in the basic human necessities.

Yes, but not all of us earning minimum wage.
A man said to the universe: "Sir, I exist!"

"However," replied the universe, "the fact has not created in me a sense of obligation."

-- Stephen Crane, From War Is Kind, 1900

A man said to the universe: "Sir, I exist!"

"However," replied the universe, "the fact has not created in me a sense of obligation."

-- Stephen Crane, From War Is Kind, 1900

But is that all there is? Existence?

The welfare of each is bound up in the welfare of all.”
-Helen Keller

Mr. G:

The fact is, you're just lucky. By accident of birth, you have had opportunities to earn a decent living - opportunities that are denied to others by similar accidents of birth.

But you won't share your luck and wealth. You won't level the playing field and provide equal opportunity. You want to keep it all for yourself. That's just selfish.

Um, charity isn't charity if it's forced.

I'm right, aren't I? How many charities do you support?

Just because I am blessed with the right to own property that I've earned honestly doesn't automatically infect me with a Scrooge McDuck can't-share-the-wealth virus.

Well, something obviously does.

No one has a right to demand from another any charity whatsoever. Charity, if given, is a choice of an individual. Similarly, government control of wages only reflects our distrust of people being able to take care of themselves, and if they cannot take care of themselves, I ask for all to answer:

Why should we take care of them and care at all?

No one has a right to demand from another any charity whatsoever. Charity, if given, is a choice of an individual. Similarly, government control of wages only reflects our distrust of people being able to take care of themselves, and if they cannot take care of themselves, I ask for all to answer:

Why should we take care of them and care at all?

Why not?

But is that all there is? Existence?

No. There's also non-existence. ;)
The welfare of each is bound up in the welfare of all.”
-Helen Keller
So, too, the welfare of all is bound up in the welfare of each.

To deny ownership of property because others lack the means of ownership benefits the poor by making all persons poor exactly how?

It takes more poor people to charitably contribute to one another (share the poverty) than fewer people of means to share the wealth.

How many poor people gainfully employee other poor people that they can become unpoor?

To deny ownership of property because others lack the means of ownership benefits the poor by making all persons poor exactly how?

So you see nothing wrong with exhorbitantly unequal distribution?

Mr. G:

The fact is, you're just lucky. By accident of birth, you have had opportunities to earn a decent living - opportunities that are denied to others by similar accidents of birth.
Precisely how does my personal situational fortuity automatically obligate me to others who are not similarly automatically obligated to me in precisely the same way, beyond my own sense of compassion and charity for those physically and mentally incapable of even nominal self-support?
But you won't share your luck and wealth.
And you're not above holding a figurative rhetorical gun to my head in an attempt to coerce me to conform to your own appraisals of the value of another's charity, denying me my freedom to my establish my own valued notions -- free from interference by public guilt-tripping innuendo. And based on no personal knowledge of my actual history of charity whatsoever.

How uncharitable of you.

And you presume to lecture me about charity?
You won't level the playing field and provide equal opportunity. You want to keep it all for yourself. That's just selfish.
Guess what I'm thinking.
I'm right, aren't I? How many charities do you support?
What number greater than zero would you find believable according to your philosophy?

So you see nothing wrong with exhorbitantly unequal distribution?
No.

Equal opportunity is the guarantee. Not equal result.

Yes.

If I work harder to earn the same as someone who works not at all, where's the equality then?

No.

Equal opportunity is the guarantee. Not equal result.


What about socially disadvantaged groups?

Yes.

If I work harder to earn the same as someone who works not at all, where's the equality then?

Does greater earning power always translate to working harder?

What about socially disadvantaged groups?
You mean Progressive Democrats?

I was not asked to help them make their personally significant decisions along with them so I don't have to share in the inadequacies of their results.

Not my problem

First rule of being offered delegated responsibility: No responsiblity without delegated authority, too.

Does greater earning power always translate to working harder?
Certainly not. Many people panhandle for spare change so they can afford to but more than one lotto ticket. ;)

Mr. G:

The fact is, you're just lucky. By accident of birth, you have had opportunities to earn a decent living - opportunities that are denied to others by similar accidents of birth.
That's right, effort and drive have absolutely nothing to do with it.

Sure, some people are born with Down's syndrome, or blind due to no fault of their own and deserve our help. But they are special cases.

What seperates one able bodied man from another is not chance. It is free will. Making the decision to be sucessful and then doing whatever it takes to get there.

Of course events beyond our control can sometimes intervene. A sudden deterioration in health, an accident, whatever. But you seem to believe that we are pawns with no control over our lives whatsoever.

If that were the case, what's the point of living?

I voted "no". The minimum wage is a bad idea and a tax cut is a good idea, so I don't think that a good idea should be tied to a bad idea. If I were to tie something to tax cuts it would be another good idea (but one that is less politically acceptable). Specifically, I would tie tax cuts to spending cuts.

-Dale

a reason for the unemployed to seek work?

More money to spend in the local economy?

Ten bob an hour?

Improved living standards?

The rich get less rich?

Minimum wage cuts jobs and/or raises prices you twats. It's simple economics. Why not draw a supply and demand curve to see this? Increase wages.. keep the current employees. Prices rise. Or, lay-off the employees that MW covers to keep the prices the same. Because no one likes price increases. Some cannot afford it (maybe MW earners?).

Also other things such as: increase in inflation... higher cost of government social programs for the laid off... increase in illegal immigration... decrease in unskilled labor jobs, some of which provide good experience for "moving up the ladder." Don't think this is likely? Tell that to Wal-mart managers. Almost 70% came from working on the floor at wal-mart. The rest usually come from other retail stores (Target, anyone?).

Also.. check this out:http://www.crfa.ca/research/2006/foodservice_profit_margin_inches_up.asp

It's about the CANADIAN food service industry. Not the US. It seems minimum wage laws increased the cost of operation 7.7%. Sure, their profits increased by a SLIGHT margin of 0.4% (from a 4.6% increase in sales)... however, you cannot attribute this as a positive effect of increase in MW. Why? IN 2004, only 4.6% of all employees work on minimum age (Source (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/economy/min_wage.html) ).

So, do you think the increase in MW has caused all of those at MW to eat out more (kind of odd, eh? 4.6% increase in sales... 4.6% work at MW...)? Maybe the average person eats out more? Maybe the average person decides to spend a little more for an extra side order? Or maybe add a salad bar to their order? Considering the person on MW has less to spend than the average person, I doubt these low wage earners will spend much money on eating out considering there are more important things to spend their money on.

If I worked at MW, I know I wouldn't spend an hour's (or more) worth of work on one meal. In one hour I could buy maybe 2 meals or even 3 if I buy my own food and cook it myself.

The fact is, you're just lucky. By accident of birth, you have had opportunities to earn a decent living - opportunities that are denied to others by similar accidents of birth.

Luck is opportunity met by preparation -- and to be prepared or unprepared is a personal choice. - Neal Boortz.

If one wants to spend more time asking for help than finding a source of money, that it their choice. I bet anyone in here that if I felt like it, I could earn $50 looking for something to do outside my current job (and something a 'poor' guy could do).

Everyone has 168 hours in a week. Let's say I am poor and I work 60 hours a week.. I cannot make ends-meet. That gives me 108 hours left in the week. I sleep 5 hours a day. Now I have 73 hours left to eat and do whatever else. Say 30 hours of those 78 hours left are spent doing whatever I need to survive (eat, take showers.. driving to and from work). I have 48 hours left. That gives me an average of 6.1 hours left in an average day. Let's round that down to 6. In 6 hours I am sure I can find more money. Maybe I can offer a hand to some guy doing some lawn work. He'll pay me $20 for 2 hours of work. Hell, I would pay someone $30 to cut my grass (and it's not that big.. takes 30 minutes to cut it with an push mower.. and have it edged). Got a baby or a small child that cannot care for themselves? Tough shit... most of the time it's the mistake of the person in poverty (notice I say most of the time... sure, things happen. I do not deny that). Statistics show that a person born into a certain social-class (in terms of income) tend to remain there for the rest of their lives. So it's very likely that this female was born poor, grows older, remains poor, and has a child. She is still poor. Sure, she brought a child in to the world. That's great. I am not suggesting she be denied that opporitunity. However, she needs to realize that it will hurt her situation and her child is likely to be poor in adulthood, too.

Or maybe with these 6 hours this person in poverty can learn new skills? Pick up a book and learn plumbing? Go to the library. Homeless can even do this one.

How about you come drive by West End, College Park, or downtown here in Atlanta. You'll see most of the homeless doing nothing or begging for money. Yes, few do ask for money. I'd say in the average day, of the 20 homeless I might see, only about 3 or 4 actually ask for money. However, did you know that the average a panhandler makes in a day is about $20-$50? That's about $170-$350 a week. Some even make $600 in a week (if you claim the "good spots."). Surely, even at $170 they would have some money left over after food and maybe a clean t-shirt. Wash up and go to the grocery store instead of McDonalds. Those that don't pan handle can simply do as I said... find some work. Do like the Mexicans do around here.. hang out at The Home Depot and ask for work. Most of the those picking up people there pay about $10 an hour... and it's tax free. That is about the same as making $14/hour legally. Sure, I hate untaxed money. However, as NB said: "Luck is opportunity met by preparation." The opportunity is money that is untaxed. Preparation? Willing to get off your "hand-me-outs" ass and do something.

Minimum wage cuts jobs and/or raises prices you twats. It's simple economics. Why not draw a supply and demand curve to see this? Increase wages.. keep the current employees. Prices rise. Or, lay-off the employees that MW covers to keep the prices the same. Because no one likes price increases. Some cannot afford it (maybe MW earners?).

Also other things such as: increase in inflation... higher cost of government social programs for the laid off... increase in illegal immigration... decrease in unskilled labor jobs, some of which provide good experience for "moving up the ladder." Don't think this is likely? Tell that to Wal-mart managers. Almost 70% came from working on the floor at wal-mart. The rest usually come from other retail stores (Target, anyone?).

Also.. check this out:http://www.crfa.ca/research/2006/foodservice_profit_margin_inches_up.asp

It's about the CANADIAN food service industry. Not the US. It seems minimum wage laws increased the cost of operation 7.7%. Sure, their profits increased by a SLIGHT margin of 0.4% (from a 4.6% increase in sales)... however, you cannot attribute this as a positive effect of increase in MW. Why? IN 2004, only 4.6% of all employees work on minimum age (Source (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/economy/min_wage.html) ).

So, do you think the increase in MW has caused all of those at MW to eat out more (kind of odd, eh? 4.6% increase in sales... 4.6% work at MW...)? Maybe the average person eats out more? Maybe the average person decides to spend a little more for an extra side order? Or maybe add a salad bar to their order? Considering the person on MW has less to spend than the average person, I doubt these low wage earners will spend much money on eating out considering there are more important things to spend their money on.

If I worked at MW, I know I wouldn't spend an hour's (or more) worth of work on one meal. In one hour I could buy maybe 2 meals or even 3 if I buy my own food and cook it myself.

I'm not quite getting this. 'You wouldn't order a an extra sidedish if you got paid more so minimum wage is bad?' And the other thing I don't get; Would they spend more if there wasn't a minimum wage and have less money?

Maybe think before replying?

No. Look, the whole point is that MW cuts jobs and/or raises prices. I was simply providing an example of such. Tell me.. would you rather have a job a $4/hour working 60 hours a week or zero dollars an hour working zero hours a week? The fact is: forcing $5.15 an hour (or whatever) for a job that the MARKET values as $4 an hour is not going to work. I wonder what determines the MARKET value :rolleyes:

And what the hell is with "'You wouldn't order a an extra sidedish if you got paid more so minimum wage is bad?'??" That doesn't make any sense. Seems you do not know how to read. I said:

Maybe the average person eats out more? Maybe the average person decides to spend a little more for an extra side order? Or maybe add a salad bar to their order? Considering the person on MW has less to spend than the average person, I doubt these low wage earners will spend much money on eating out considering there are more important things to spend their money on.

How about critiquing my argument instead of claiming I make no sense and that I should think before posting. Tell me how a minimum wage increase has caused the 4.6% increase in sales in the food service industry in Canada, dispite the fact that MW caused a 7.7% increase in labor costs. Assuming everything else is equal in cost (which they are not.. everything else increased in cost.. read the article).. this means the cost of labor for every $100 they take in increases from $31.10 dollars to $33.49. That is a difference of $2.39. For the 0.4% increase in sales, this means for every $100, they earn 40 cents more. Comparing the $0.40 to $2.39... it doesn't seem to make sense. The MW earners make more money, yet the food service business industry seems to benefit very little from this (if at all). Asume that the $0.40 comes from an equal distribution of income earners (remember, 4.6% make MW and about 95% make more than this), 4.6%*$.40 = $0.0184 of the profit increase. That sure as hell is not a whole lot. And surely the poor eat out sometimes. Now let's compare the numbers again. Spend $2.39 for an increase of $0.0184 from MW earners eating out.

But it's inconceivable that the average guy (or rich guy) eats out more than those with less money. I mean, had this been the case, the $2.39 increase in cost for MW would actually hurt profits and the increase in profit, from their end of the contribution, is negative. And we all know that negative + positive always equals a negative.. :rolleyes:

Why should society force only employers to have to bear the load of seeing that minimum wage workers can acquire wealth beyond their own natural means?

Why shouldn't all tax-paying adults in society share the load (http://www.nber.org/digest/aug06/w11729.html)?

Don't get James questioning your charity now. http://www.sciforums.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Mr. G:

Precisely how does my personal situational fortuity automatically obligate me to others who are not similarly automatically obligated to me in precisely the same way, beyond my own sense of compassion and charity for those physically and mentally incapable of even nominal self-support?

It's a moral obligation - something you probably find hard to comprehend.

And you're not above holding a figurative rhetorical gun to my head in an attempt to coerce me to conform to your own appraisals of the value of another's charity, denying me my freedom to my establish my own valued notions -- free from interference by public guilt-tripping innuendo.

I'm realistic enough to realise that trying to change you would be futile, Mr. G. I am content merely to point out your failings so others can form their own opinions. You are not unique. There are many selfish people in the world.

I'm right, aren't I? How many charities do you support?

What number greater than zero would you find believable according to your philosophy?

Nice attempt to dodge the question, but too transparent.


madanthonywayne:

That's right, effort and drive have absolutely nothing to do with it.

I didn't say that.

What seperates one able bodied man from another is not chance. It is free will. Making the decision to be sucessful and then doing whatever it takes to get there.

Spoken like somebody who has never had to struggle.


Absane:

Maybe I can offer a hand to some guy doing some lawn work. He'll pay me $20 for 2 hours of work. Hell, I would pay someone $30 to cut my grass (and it's not that big.. takes 30 minutes to cut it with an push mower.. and have it edged).

If some destitute guy rolled up to your doorstep offering to cut your grass, would you give him the job? Really? The reality is: many people would not.

Got a baby or a small child that cannot care for themselves? Tough shit... most of the time it's the mistake of the person in poverty (notice I say most of the time... sure, things happen. I do not deny that). Statistics show that a person born into a certain social-class (in terms of income) tend to remain there for the rest of their lives. So it's very likely that this female was born poor, grows older, remains poor, and has a child. She is still poor. Sure, she brought a child in to the world. That's great. I am not suggesting she be denied that opporitunity. However, she needs to realize that it will hurt her situation and her child is likely to be poor in adulthood, too.

You think it is fair to deny children to poor people, just because they are poor? Interesting point of view. I'm sure Mr. G agrees with you.

How about you come drive by West End, College Park, or downtown here in Atlanta.

Actually, one of the things I was struck by on a recent visit to the United States was just how many homeless people there are wandering the streets and hanging around public buildings. You just don't see that in Australia. I think it is because Australia has a reasonable welfare system, whereas the American system is based on the kinds of views you and Mr. G are putting forward. What do you think?

Those that don't pan handle can simply do as I said... find some work.

What's the unemployment rate in the US right now?

[b]Absane:



If some destitute guy rolled up to your doorstep offering to cut your grass, would you give him the job? Really? The reality is: many people would not.

That's why I suggested he clean himself up. I remember mentioning that somewhere. Public restrooms? And yes... I would pay someone to cut my grass. I hate cutting it. I would just do like anyone else.. make him do the work before I hand over the money. I don't care if he is homeless or makes $100,000 a week.

Or this guy could find someone who has his lawn cut by some other guy. Ask how much he is charging. Offer to charge $5-$10 less. Doesn't work? Ask someone else. Do not stop until you find someone. Keep that customer. Then, ask some more people until you find a second person. Repeat.


You think it is fair to deny children to poor people, just because they are poor? Interesting point of view. I'm sure Mr. G agrees with you.

One... I am not looking to kiss anyone's ass that agrees with me. Two.. I am not denying poor people the right to have children. You missed my point. I am simply stating that to have a child while poor and also complaining that you are poor is a contradiction in my eyes. How can you expect to bring a child in the world and have enough money to get out of poverty? If they want a child.. fine. But don't ask for handouts. If you don't have a child, ask for as few handouts as possible but work as hard as you can to get out of poverty.


Actually, one of the things I was struck by on a recent visit to the United States was just how many homeless people there are wandering the streets and hanging around public buildings. You just don't see that in Australia. I think it is because Australia has a reasonable welfare system, whereas the American system is based on the kinds of views you and Mr. G are putting forward. What do you think?

Welfare... stealing for those that earned money and giving it to those that squander it. Welfare is a great system for those that had a series of bad events occur that threw them into a deep hole. Shit does happen. However if you also pay attention to the poor in the US, most of them not born that way got there due to bad decision making. Have you ever talked to the homeless here? I have... it's amazing that 50% were professional Jaza musicians. Some actually tell me the truth: they were arrested for drug use and just released from prison. Some tell me they missed the rent on their apartment and were kicked out. I can recall a handfull of homeless guys that used to hang out at churches or the Bank of America building. All day. In the morning, the same thing. I used to live downtown and I had to pass them multiple times a day going to a from class. It's amazing. They see me all the time because I am doing something. I see them all the time because they are doing nothing.

Do you think 6 months is enough to get back on your feet if you got "unlucky?" Limit welfare to that length of time and that is it. Did you know that here in the US, the more children you have, the more welfare you receive? You'll see welfare families of 6-8 kids. Amazing.


What's the unemployment rate in the US right now?

4.6% as of June 2006 (Source (http://www.bls.gov/cps/) )

Spoken like somebody who has never had to struggle.

What the hell do you know about how much I've had to struggle? I worked my way through college while supporting a wife and child. I worked at a grocery store, seven-eleven, a factory, for the government, mowed lawns, did yard work. Whatever it took. All while carrying a full load of classes and I usually had two or three jobs at the same time. Most of the furniture in my families first apartment came from the garbage. We lived on the fourth floor, no air, no elevator, and roaches from hell.

Does any of that count as a struggle?

Mr. G: It's a moral obligation - something you probably find hard to comprehend.
And your's is an empirical obligation you find hard to comprehend.
I am realistic enough to realise that trying to change you would be futile, Mr. G.
Your realized realisticallity is pretty limited by your pretty low-mass event horizon.
I am content merely to point out your failings so others can form their own opinions.
I'm flattered by your immitation.
There are many selfish people in the world.
Thus Sprach Mr. Charity. http://www.sciforums.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

It seems that in your case I made a mistake, madanthonywayne. Sorry.

It seems that in your case I made a mistake, madanthonywayne. Sorry.

Shall I get a response in time? I hope :)

i dont know what market you are looking at, but since the government here increased minimum mage to $10.25(about $2 increase) last year unemployment has dropped from 3.6%

minimum mage increases arent going to cause widespread unemployment as you seem to think.

Why would it cause widespread unemployment when such a small percentage of the labor force works at minimum wage anyway? It will increase unemployment only among the small group of people working at minimum wage, mostly teenagers living at home.

-Dale

well the average wage here is about $12.45, so id say there are quite a lot of people on minimum wage. plus the minimum wage for 16 and 17 year olds is only $9.15 at the moment, the green party legislation to bring up to the adult wage is currently being debated by parliament.

What the hell do you know about how much I've had to struggle? I worked my way through college while supporting a wife and child. I worked at a grocery store, seven-eleven, a factory, for the government, mowed lawns, did yard work. Whatever it took. All while carrying a full load of classes and I usually had two or three jobs at the same time. Most of the furniture in my families first apartment came from the garbage. We lived on the fourth floor, no air, no elevator, and roaches from hell.

Does any of that count as a struggle?

No, sounds like an unneccessary situation.


well the average wage here is about $12.45, so id say there are quite a lot of people on minimum wage. plus the minimum wage for 16 and 17 year olds is only $9.15 at the moment, the green party legislation to bring up to the adult wage is currently being debated by parliament.


When I was 18 I was working for 2 Euro an hour doing night shifts in a glass factory. That's 7 days in a row, 3 days off.

and at 16 im working for approx. 5 Euro an hour doing 11 days on 3 days off. whats your point?

the minimum wage for 16 and 17 year olds is only $9.15 at the moment, and at 16 im working for approx. 5 Euro an hour Huh?

In any case, I would expect a minimum wage increase to have a bigger effect on inflation than on unemployment. After all, inflation is a direct effect of a minimum wage increase and employment is only an indirect effect and would depend on the price elasticity in the labor market.

-Dale

and at 16 im working for approx. 5 Euro an hour doing 11 days on 3 days off. whats your point?

I didn't have any.

Except that the system of ridiculous low minimum wages based on age groups is 'unfair' and creates an atmosphere where old people are considered undesirable because they are too expensive compared to young people.

Typical Dutch though. I haven't seen such a big difference in Finland between minimum wage of young people and old people.

...the system of ridiculous low minimum wages based on age groups is 'unfair' and creates an atmosphere where old people are considered undesirable because they are too expensive compared to young people.
Dude, you better get used to it. If you aren't self-employed before you hit 40, you're on the fast track to nowhere. Because you will expense yourself out of the free market workpool.

Another 'greedy' reply by a republican.

I wasn't talking about myself, but about trends in society.

It's difficult to notice of course if you cannot look beyond yourself, but please try once in a while.

Another 'greedy' reply by a republican.

I wasn't talking about myself, but about trends in society.

It's difficult to notice of course if you cannot look beyond yourself, but please try once in a while.
Umm, I'm a registered Independent.

But you just keep on keeping on with your cookie cutter notions of reality.

Nothing like potential competitors being patently incapable of competing in the free market.

That's okay, actually. The free market needs affordable drones.

Umm, I'm a registered Independent.

Closet Republican.

Closet Republican.
Closet Republican's drone dependent.

The joke's on you.

Most stupids are paid minimum wage.

I'm self-employed. 15 years, now.

Where is your sweat shop located? :D

No inbred incompetents were hurt in the making of that post, that didn't hurt themselves instead of behaving like normal adults do.