Time To End Minimum Wage

[nextJin]

This discussion is pointless unless you also want to abolish welfare of all varieties. I am an advocate of getting rid of minimum wage but there is no way it would work unless you also got rid of general welfare.

I also believe that local and state schools should bring back trade skill classes so those who do not wish to get a PhD in underwater transgender studies can do so but I digress.

 

[nehalem256]

Define a decent wage?

Being able to buy an average priced home in the area where the person works
Being able to buy an average priced car/suv or truck in the area where the person works
Affordable benefits package
Having money left over for extra things in life

A decent liveable wage should be common sense. To ask what a liveable wage is implies you have no life experience and you live in your moms basement.

And you still havent answered how many people we should assume are in the household.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Have you ever worked construction in a chemical plant? Helpers make something like $18 an hour, and that is low pay.

We are talking about people with no skills besides a pair of hands and being able to follow instructions.

So why doesn't your cousin have one of these chemical plant jobs so he can take care of his baby instead of letting the government pay for his offspring?

 

[Texashiker]

So why doesn't your cousin have one of these chemical plant jobs so he can take care of his baby instead of letting the government pay for his offspring?

Why should my cousin work a physically demanding job, when he can work at jack in the box and let you pay for the baby?

And you still havent answered how many people we should assume are in the household.

Do you live in your moms basement or something? Come back when you get some real life experience.

 

[Incorruptible]

How did companies back in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s,,, pay their employees a decent wage, and people were able to afford to buy stuff?

Its called greed, look it up sometime.

How much did the average CEO make in the 1950s, as compared to today?




How about the owner of jack in the box make a few million less?

Back in the 50`s Americans were paid the highest wages in the world yet produced the cheapest goods because it was cheaper to produce, there were much less regulations, regulations kill businesses

As for owners making less that's up to them, the government cant legislate how much they should make, you also forget that someone is willing to pay them that amount

 

[nehalem256]

How did companies back in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s,,, pay their employees a decent wage, and people were able to afford to buy stuff?

Its called greed, look it up sometime.

How much did the average CEO make in the 1950s, as compared to today?




How about the owner of jack in the box make a few million less?

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=JACK+Profile

The CEO made 1.66M + 758K in options = 2.42 million

25,700 full time employess. 2.42m/25,700 employees / 2000/hr/year = 4.7 cents per hour bump for every employeee.

 

[MrColin]

The laws of supply and demand do provide optimal efficiency in many situations. This can be subverted in favor of suppliers or buyers when price fixing schemes are used. For suppliers of labor, labor unions are able to artificially raise labor prices above optimal levels. For consumers of labor it is less common for competing parties to coordinate to create a ceiling price but it can happen. Where there is a small number of buyers, as we have with the big multinational megacorps it is far easier to fix artificially low prices (wages).

Also, as to the creating more jobs argument, one job that pays $10/hr is not equal to two jobs that pay $5/hr in terms of human well being as it doubles the overhead and opportunity costs for the suppliers of labor.

 

[alzan]

Restaurants are already required by law, to pay minimum wage. If a tipped person fails to meet the minimum wage with their $2.13+tips, the restaurant is required to pay the difference. If you can't hit minimum wage in a waiter/waitress job you aren't going to be around for long. People who should be waiting tables, make a decent living. Those who shouldn't, just shouldn't be waiting tables.

I wasn't aware of that requirement, thanks for pointing it out.

Decent living: it means different things to different people and I think is mostly opinion. Minimum wage, in some metropolitan areas at least, is more like subsistence living. Even in the metro areas of Missouri, someone making minimum wage would be hard pressed to rent a room or apartment, pay for utilities, food, phone, etc., and have enough left over for savings or a little entertainment.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Why should my cousin work a physically demanding job, when he can work at jack in the box and let you pay for the baby?

So in other words your cousin is too stupid to work a real job and you're proud he's working at Jack in the Box while hard working American's are subsidizing his worthless ass.

 

[Texashiker]

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=JACK+Profile

The CEO made 1.66M + 758K in options = 2.42 million

25,700 full time employess. 2.42m/25,700 employees / 2000/hr/year = 4.7 cents per hour bump for every employeee.

You forgot about all the other CEOs, how much did the company pay in dividends to the stockholders?

So in other words your cousin is too stupid to work a real job and you're proud he's working at Jack in the Box while hard working American's are subsidizing his worthless ass.

Isn't that how the system works?

Fortune 500 companies are allowed to pay poverty level wages, and we have to subsidize his income? But nobody wants to raise minimum wage for fortune 500 companies.

 

[Incorruptible]

So in other words your cousin is too stupid to work a real job and you're proud he's working at Jack in the Box while hard working American's are subsidizing his worthless ass.

Thats the typical mentality of these guys, always want someone else to pay for it

 

[alzan]

I agree that there are people who make more than minimum wage and cant take care of their babies but the argument is that people on minimum wage CANT afford to take care of a baby

I'm not disagreeing that they can't; just that it would be hard from a legal or governmental standpoint to enforce. Not to mention a lot of people find that stance morally/ethically objectionable.

It's been said before but bears repeating: there's a lot of things that all taxpayers feel that their taxes shouldn't be paying for; unfortunately our tax code doesn't allow us to have a line item veto, nor should it.

 

[Texashiker]

Thats the typical mentality of these guys, always want someone else to pay for it

Is the employee to blame for corporate policy?

When a walmart employee receives welfare benefits, should we blame the employee, or walmart? What about target, and what about apple?

Should we be mad at apple for hiring foxconn to build apple products when we need jobs here in the states?

 

[nehalem256]

Why should my cousin work a physically demanding job, when he can work at jack in the box and let you pay for the baby?

Wow. There are literally no words. But thanks for revealing what liberals actually believe.

 

[Incorruptible]

I'm not disagreeing that they can't; just that it would be hard from a legal or governmental standpoint to enforce. Not to mention a lot of people find that stance morally/ethically objectionable.

It's been said before but bears repeating: there's a lot of things that all taxpayers feel that their taxes shouldn't be paying for; unfortunately our tax code doesn't allow us to have a line item veto, nor should it.

Im not saying we should take away babies belonging to minimum wage parents but if the parents cant take care of the baby they have to do the right thing and adopt the baby

The problem is the role of the government has expanded massively with corrupt politicians who further their agenda and serve special interests which is why taxpayers pay for so many things

 

[Incorruptible]

Is the employee to blame for corporate policy?

When a walmart employee receives welfare benefits, should we blame the employee, or walmart? What about target, and what about apple?

Should we be mad at apple for hiring foxconn to build apple products when we need jobs here in the states?

Your cousin has no right to take other peoples money for himself and that you are defending this is pathetic

 

[lotus503]

Back in the 50`s Americans were paid the highest wages in the world yet produced the cheapest goods because it was cheaper to produce, there were much less regulations, regulations kill businesses

As for owners making less that's up to them, the government cant legislate how much they should make, you also forget that someone is willing to pay them that amount

"regulations kill businesses"

Lack of them kill people, the environment and other businesses.

 

[Texashiker]

Wow. There are literally no words. But thanks for revealing what liberals actually believe.

You are welcome.

Where do we draw the line between a company being responsible to the employees and the community, and the government providing a safety net?

Too many companies are using the safety net of walfare as part of its benefits package. Why should a fortune 500 company have to provide health coverage, when the government can provide it?

Part of problem with minimum wage is welfare. If a company pays their employees too much, the employee does not get government funded health care and food stamps.

Your cousin has no right to take other peoples money for himself and that you are defending this is pathetic

Defending companies like walmart and mcdonalds is pathetic.

 

[nehalem256]

You forgot about all the other CEOs, how much did the company pay in dividends to the stockholders?




Isn't that how the system works?

Fortune 500 companies are allowed to pay poverty level wages, and we have to subsidize his income? But nobody wants to raise minimum wage for fortune 500 companies.

Companies only have one CEO.

It paid no dividends. Its earnings were ~55 million. Which means if every penny of earnings was used to increase employee salaries everyone would get a bump of $1.06/hr.

It seems you really have not thought your plan through at all.

 

[soundforbjt]

Back in the 50`s Americans were paid the highest wages in the world yet produced the cheapest goods because it was cheaper to produce, there were much less regulations, regulations kill businesses

Not even close to true.

 

[Moonbeam]

I will be alright if the minimum wage is eliminated provided the government tax folk with income to provide a decent life for folk who don't want to work below their personal minimum wage. This will allow any who want to die working at 50 cents an our to be able to do so, and any who think that if a job is required to live then it should be able to support a life in the manner in which each life sees living. If the government covers basic needs, any who want extra can work if the job they take will provide that extra. Otherwise, they can settle for the minimum and enjoy a minimum life, one which Jesus chose as the Son of Man.

 

[lotus503]

Your cousin has no right to take other peoples money for himself and that you are defending this is pathetic

He is not taking money from people, he is taking money from a government program funded by tax dollars.

You dont pay for welfare you pay your taxes, then other than vote you dont get to decide how its spent.

We all pay taxes, we all have things that tax money is spent on we disagree with.

 

[Texashiker]

It paid no dividends. Its earnings were ~55 million. Which means if every penny of earnings was used to increase employee salaries everyone would get a bump of $1.06/hr.

It seems you really have not thought your plan through at all.

What I would like to see, is a fortune 500 company either paying an employee a liveable wage, or reimburse the government when the employee draws government provided benefits.

Lets say a single mother with 3 children works at walmart for $9 an hour. The mother is able to draw food stamps and government funded healthcare.

Walmart should have to reimburse the government for the money the public has put out on that family.

Why should I have to pay for someones health care, food stamps, public housing,,, when walmart is more then capable of paying those bills through higher wages.

If a company can not afford to 1, reimburse the government, 2, pay a liveable wage, then they need to do something to fix the issues.

 

[nehalem256]

He is not taking money from people, he is taking money from a government program funded by tax dollars.

You dont pay for welfare you pay your taxes, then other than vote you dont get to decide how its spent.

We all pay taxes, we all have things that tax money is spent on we disagree with.

So you are defending the right of a person to choose to not get a better paying (but more demanding) job and then getting the taxpayer to foot the bill for his family?

 

[nehalem256]

What I would like to see, is a fortune 500 company either paying an employee a liveable wage, or reimburse the government when the employee draws government provided benefits.

Lets say a single mother with 3 children works at walmart for $9 an hour. The mother is able to draw food stamps and government funded healthcare.

Walmart should have to reimburse the government for the money the public has put out on that family.

Why should I have to pay for someones health care, food stamps, public housing,,, when walmart is more then capable of paying those bills through higher wages.

If a company can not afford to 1, reimburse the government, 2, pay a liveable wage, then they need to do something to fix the issues.

"single mother with 3 children"

Funny how it always comes down to single mothers huh. Maybe she should have kept the aspirin between her legs if she couldnt get a better job, or a husband with a better job.