Time To End Minimum Wage

[Gunslinger08]

I have mixed feelings on minimum wage, which go along with the current state of the economy.

You have the crazy people calling for ridiculous increases in the minimum wage (ex. $20+). People have to realize that forcibly increasing labor costs just causes inflation.

However, I do feel that the current economic environment isn't right for abolishing the minimum wage. Removing the minimum wage works when the supply of workers is outpaced by the demand of employers with open positions. This means that there is competition for workers, so wages will naturally increase to attract workers. This isn't the case right now, or probably really ever.

For jobs that wouldn't normally pay so low, this is typically the case. Employers have to compete to hire and retain talent. You also have some lower paying businesses that have built a reputation of customer satisfaction, even with higher prices, which allows them to pay their workers more for typical "low paying jobs." Examples would be Chick-Fil-A or Costco. Unfortunately, the market isn't such that it can support EVERY business being this way. There is a need for people who will work for bottom dollar so that businesses can compete on price instead of features. This is why I feel that a minimum wage is necessary right now. You need to keep the very bottom wages at a point where people still feel that it's worthwhile to work instead of living off of government programs. Basically, we're going to pay for it one way or the other. Either wages are artificially high, which raises prices, or unemployment is higher and the government pays to support people.

I have absolutely no idea how to determine what the "right" minimum wage is however. I am by no means an economist.

 

[shadow9d9]

I dont hate Americans, I hate the government telling people how to live thier life, and nice job stereotyping me you ignoramus, when did I ever state that government should be in your bedroom, I said that I have no problem with gays and the government should stay out of the way

It used to be that children worked, companies could fire you after injuring you on the job, and work paid slave labor prices. That was the free market in action. You want to go back to that? Great idea!

Lets let the meatpacking industry go back to its old ways and lets let companies pollute as much as they want... government shouldn't tell them what to do right? We shouldn't regulate medication.. let them put whatever they want in it... right?

Brilliant!

 

[hal2kilo]

I think someones been corrupted by misinformation.

The latest conservative flak.

 

[shadow9d9]

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

Correlation doesn't equal causation. Prove your claims.

The Soviet Union was around then. The fall of the Soviet Union killed businesses.

 

[lotus503]

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?

I am defending the right of a person that qualifys for assistance based on program guidlines to get that assistance. While I agree that the social implication fo someone choosing to do that other than work is at play, I simply think we have bigger problems to focus on.

Welfare is simply not the portion of the budget that will yield the most bang for the buck is reducing.

If we really want to approach the question with intellectual honesty, we have to ask why so many people are below the poverty line. The answer isn not simply because they are lazy and dont want to work hard.

If you want to discuss lazy people who would rather collect welfare, then we have to discuss hard working people below poverty line that cant survive without it.

 

[alzan]

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

1) Actually I was talking about people on minimum wage having unprotected sex and possibly creating a baby. But I'm not surprised you misconstrued it (willfully or accidentally), thereby moving the goalpost. Some parents, once the child is born, find adopting the baby reprehensible and will sacrifice a lot to keep the child. I have no problem helping them.

2) Congratulations and welcome to reality. Getting rid of all lobbyists would be a boon to all citizens, and not just from a financial standpoint. But once again: with or without lobbyists; all taxpayers are against their taxes paying for certain things, we don't get to have a line item veto.

 

[Incorruptible]

It used to be that children worked, companies could fire you after injuring you on the job, and work paid slave labor prices. That was the free market in action. You want to go back to that? Great idea!

Lets let the meatpacking industry go back to its old ways and lets let companies pollute as much as they want... government shouldn't tell them what to do right? We shouldn't regulate medication.. let them put whatever they want in it... right?

Brilliant!

Whats the definition of slave labour, people arent forced to work at these places they have a CHOICE.

You do realize that the FDA has done more damage to Americans and prevented a cure for cancer, only the free markets and individuals will provide the cure for cancer not government

 

[Incorruptible]

1) Actually I was talking about people on minimum wage having unprotected sex and possibly creating a baby. But I'm not surprised you misconstrued it (willfully or accidentally), thereby moving the goalpost. Some parents, once the child is born, find adopting the baby reprehensible and will sacrifice a lot to keep the child. I have no problem helping them.

2) Congratulations and welcome to reality. Getting rid of all lobbyists would be a boon to all citizens, and not just from a financial standpoint. But once again: with or without lobbyists; all taxpayers are against their taxes paying for certain things, we don't get to have a line item veto.

I have no problem if the couple keeps the child and can afford it but if they cant then they must adopt the baby

Except you ignored the part about how government is involved in way too many things and serving special interests. Taxes shouldn't be paying for ridiculous programs

 

[nextJin]

Why does everyone assume everyone in America on minimum wage would be getting 25 cents an hour? It doesn't work that way folks.

 

[alzan]

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.

This hard working American is sick of welfare as well; welfare to WalMart, GE, Halliburton, Best Buy, Shell, et al. Those worthless ass individuals have been sucking at the American teat for way too long.

 

[nehalem256]

I am defending the right of a person that qualifys for assistance based on program guidlines to get that assistance. While I agree that the social implication fo someone choosing to do that other than work is at play, I simply think we have bigger problems to focus on.

Welfare is simply not the portion of the budget that will yield the most bang for the buck is reducing.

If we really want to approach the question with intellectual honesty, we have to ask why so many people are below the poverty line. The answer isn not simply because they are lazy and dont want to work hard.

If you want to discuss lazy people who would rather collect welfare, then we have to discuss hard working people below poverty line that cant survive without it.

It has been demonstrated in this thread that working at walmart will put you above the poverty line.

It seems to me that every time poverty is brought up single mothers are not far behind. Hmm, I wonder why?

 

[dank69]

troll fight deathmatch ITT

 

[shadow9d9]

Whats the definition of slave labour, people arent forced to work at these places they have a CHOICE.

You do realize that the FDA has done more damage to Americans and prevented a cure for cancer, only the free markets and individuals will provide the cure for cancer not government

You do realize making ridiculous claims with no proof makes you look foolish, right?

As for the slave labor, I was talking about the way it used to be in the US. American history shows that with no minimum wage, no unions, and no disability/regulations to control companies firing, children worked in factories, people were paid rock bottom wages and then fired with no compensation when injured/maimed on the job. Awesome idea!

 

[shadow9d9]

It has been demonstrated in this thread that working at walmart will put you above the poverty line.

It seems to me that every time poverty is brought up single mothers are not far behind. Hmm, I wonder why?

The poverty line is simply a number used. Health insurance for a family of 4 costs the same amount as the poverty line, not counting copays or deductibles.

 

[Texashiker]

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

Its pretty clear that you have no children, and have led a pretty easy life.

Come back when you have a family, and lose your job to cutbacks. I guess you think child protection services should remove the children if the mom or dad loses their job.

My 4th child was not planned. I came home from work one day and my wife said "I am pregnant". Four years later I lost my job because the company was going bankrupt.

Sometimes things happen. you just do what you can.

 

[Incorruptible]

Why does everyone assume everyone in America on minimum wage would be getting 25 cents an hour? It doesn't work that way folks.

Because what else would you expect from liberals, always fear mongering

 

[shadow9d9]

I have no problem if the couple keeps the child and can afford it but if they cant then they must adopt the baby

Except you ignored the part about how government is involved in way too many things and serving special interests. Taxes shouldn't be paying for ridiculous programs

Who will pay to organize adopting the baby out? The taxpayers. Who will pay to organize the forcing of mothers to give up their babies? The taxpayers. Who will pay for the health costs of giving birth to a baby without health insurance. The taxpayers.

Your way isn't magic. I'd argue it'd cost more in the long run both financially and emotionally(to the children).

 

[shadow9d9]

Because what else would you expect from liberals, always fear mongering

Someone disagreeing with you doesn't make them a "liberal." That is just a blanket boogieman term that you use to label EVERYONE with a different opinion. There is only one liberal senator in the US. 1/100 and yet everyone is a liberal in your eyes right? The democrats are middle right(hell, they used a republican 90s think tank's idea for healthcare) and the republicans are off the cliff right.

 

[JMapleton]

I'm 100% capitalist and quasi-conservative, but I think a high minimum wage is a good idea. $8 bucks minimum, maybe 9 in some areas of the country.

Here is my logic:

Some claim it will put small businesses out of business. I say, if you cannot pay someone a livable wage, you shouldn't be in business.

Others don't realize, companies will screw people and if we don't throw some money to the bottom we're going to have a socialist revolt on our hands in the future that is going to ruin capitalism for everyone.

 

[nehalem256]

Who will pay to organize adopting the baby out? The taxpayers. Who will pay to organize the forcing of mothers to give up their babies? The taxpayers. Who will pay for the health costs of giving birth to a baby without health insurance. The taxpayers.

Your way isn't magic. I'd argue it'd cost more in the long run both financially and emotionally(to the children).

Logically they should just get an abortion. Problem solved.

 

[manimal]

I'm 100% capitalist and quasi-conservative, but I think a high minimum wage is a good idea. $8 bucks minimum, maybe 9 in some areas of the country.

Here is my logic:

Some claim it will put small businesses out of business. I say, if you cannot pay someone a livable wage, you shouldn't be in business.

Others don't realize, companies will screw people and if we don't throw some money to the bottom we're going to have a socialist revolt on our hands in the future that is going to ruin capitalism for everyone.

Good post

 

[nehalem256]

Someone disagreeing with you doesn't make them a "liberal." That is just a blanket boogieman term that you use to label EVERYONE with a different opinion. There is only one liberal senator in the US. 1/100 and yet everyone is a liberal in your eyes right? The democrats are middle right(hell, they used a republican 90s think tank's idea for healthcare) and the republicans are off the cliff right.

And yet the also support gay marriage. Pretty sure gay marriage is far left position.

They also are to the left of European socialists on Abortion.

And they only used the Republican plan, because they lacked the balls to push through their only and were hoping they could get some Republicans on board so they wouldnt have to take sole responsibility for it.

 

[Moonbeam]

You do realize making ridiculous claims with no proof makes you look foolish, right?

Are you kidding? He will go to any ends not to be feel wrong. You know the saying, give me liberty or give me death? His motto is give me foolishness but don't give me ego death. There is way way too much at stake to worry about looking foolish. This is a part of the conservative brain defect and why conservatives will never see it.

 

[shadow9d9]

Logically they should just get an abortion. Problem solved.

Yes, that is one option. But who pays for it and what do they do if they are in a hick state where abortion is restricted, requires non necessary medical procedures that cost money, or where there are incredibly few abortion centers?

 

[shadow9d9]

And yet the also support gay marriage. Pretty sure gay marriage is far left position.

They also are to the left of European socialists on Abortion.

And they only used the Republican plan, because they lacked the balls to push through their only and were hoping they could get some Republicans on board so they wouldnt have to take sole responsibility for it.

No, it isn't actually. Gay marriage is a moderate position considering over 50% of the country is for it and most of the civilized world is for it.

Again, NOT agreeing with the current republicans does NOT make someone a liberal.

Gay marriage is no more liberal than inter-racial marriage.

And no, they used that healthcare bill because there is barely a liberal presence in our government, so it wouldn't have passed in a million years. Hell, the government is so non liberal that they wouldn't even let the one liberal senator READ his plan out loud.

Even the 90s right wing plan barely passed because the country's government has become so off the cliff rightwing.