Minimum Wage Increase: They Never Talks About the SALES

[Billy_Kinetta]

When you start out in saying "what a worker is worth" for giving an employer full time work for the week....the least that these folks who are the least among us are worth for full time labor, is what it takes for them to minimally get by for self sufficiency

Who says? Why?

If an employer can not pay his full time workers, what it takes for them to survive after the full time workers put in a full week of working them, THEN this is the EMPLOYER'S problem.

Why is it? Be specific.

They can raise their prices to cover it if it is needed

Well, that would by all logic result in fewer customers. Is that a desirable business trend?

or ask for welfare from the gvt for themselves.

Ahhh, the answer to all problems. Soak the taxpayers.

every man or woman working full time is at minimum worth a minimal survival for his full week's labor...PERIOD.

I reiterate. Why are they? Be specific.

 

[Skull Pilot]

It's just hilarious how these asshats think their data points--uncorrected for confounding anti-inflation/unemployment policies--and their special case anecdotes, refute the well established economic principles--affirmed and reaffirmed by generations of professional economists--that assert and describe how statutory minimum wage necessarily results in inflation and unemployment.

When confronted with the simple question, premised upon sound economic principles: "Why do you object to simply basing a worker's wage upon what that worker's work is worth?"--they uniformly swerve away from submitting a direct answer.

It's OBVIOUS that their position is informed by something other than sound economic principles.

Do you mean like these economists?

Over 600 Economists Sign Letter In Support of 10.10 Minimum Wage Economist Statement on the Federal Minimum Wage Economic Policy Institute

No. I'm referring to the 16,000+ economists and all their predecessors who didn't sign that letter.

I couldn't help notice that while you could submit 600 economists who can rationalize a statutory minimum wage, you could not be bothered to submit answers to the questions asked repeatedly:

"Why do you object to simply basing a worker's wage upon what that worker's work is worth?"

"If I wish to accept wages below the level YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) deem proper, upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) declare it illegal for me to accept such wages? Upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) deny someone else my services? Upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) deny me that employment?"

"Upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) decide for OTHERS what their work (either offered or performed) is worth?"

I find it noteworthy that you made an effort to not recognize the moral questions submitted.

Why would you do that, Pumpkin?

When you start out in saying "what a worker is worth" for giving an employer full time work for the week....the least that these folks who are the least among us are worth for full time labor, is what it takes for them to minimally get by for self sufficiency....if they want more than that, then they can work a second job.

If an employer can not pay his full time workers, what it takes for them to survive after the full time workers put in a full week of working them, THEN this is the EMPLOYER'S problem. They can raise their prices to cover it if it is needed or ask for welfare from the gvt for themselves.

Basically, one way to stop all of this welfare that we end up giving out to the million plus employees for the employer, so the employer can make a profit...we should be giving this welfare to the Business itself, instead of putting this on to the employee....Pay the employee for what they are worth working a full week's work, which is enough to survive on....every man or woman working full time is at minimum worth a minimal survival for his full week's labor...PERIOD.

If the business that can not afford to pay a full time worker a living wage, then this employer should file for welfare, from the govt, to help his business pay them a minimal living wage.

Switch it around, and make the business file for the government welfare. All the same in the end, except probably a lot less welfare fraud with ebt cards, a lot less govt employees to handle the welfare system, and some dignity for those who labored full time... for an employer.

Then you all on the right, can start calling these businesses, welfare queens if you like....

Loki, there is no "free market" to determine the lowest wages, because the gvt comes in and pays the employees, for the employer, to bring them up to a self sufficient wage....therefore the minimum wage, a living wage, will never rise to what it should be, with these welfare programs....

thus, the "market" does not work, and does not have the pressure that it would to have employers pay their full time employees a minimal living wage.

If you can't understand this, then I don't know what else to say...

Your still saying "what the worker is worth"

That is not the issue.

The issue is what is the worker's labor worth.

If the only skill a worker has is scooping fries into little paper bags then his labor isn't worth much now is it?

 

[Mac1958]

If an employer can not pay his full time workers, what it takes for them to survive after the full time workers put in a full week of working them, THEN this is the EMPLOYER'S problem.

Why is it? Be specific..

This one really is fascinating, and very telling. Outside of the MW discussion, this opinion opens up a Pandora's Box of issues, and illustrates how the Illiberal Left shifts responsibility away from the individual.

It's also at the heart of the "you didn't build that, you didn't earn that" foundation they have now laid. It's no longer the responsibility of the individual to simply take care of themselves and their family, it's the responsibility of the person who employs them. On top of everything else the employer has to do. This is why they minimize the employer's role in the very existence of the business.

It doesn't even occur to these people for a moment that an employer will have to (a) take people off of full-time status, and (b) not hire as many full time workers, because they have no understanding of business economics or business psychology. It's very simplistic, rudimentary, almost child-like thinking.

Then, if the person who employs them can't do it, the taxpayer has to. It's a great circular argument, completely letting the individual off the hook and putting the onus on "someone else". And that someone else is going to be American business. Get used to it.

.

 

[dblack]

If an employer can not pay his full time workers, what it takes for them to survive after the full time workers put in a full week of working them, THEN this is the EMPLOYER'S problem.

Why is it? Be specific..

This one really is fascinating, and very telling. Outside of the MW discussion, this opinion opens up a Pandora's Box of issues, and illustrates how the Illiberal Left shifts responsibility away from the individual.

It's also at the heart of the "you didn't build that, you didn't earn that" foundation they have now laid. It's no longer the responsibility of the individual to simply take care of themselves and their family, it's the responsibility of the person who employs them. On top of everything else the employer has to do.

It doesn't even occur to these people for a moment that an employer will have to (a) take people off of full-time status, and (b) not hire as many full time workers, because they have no understanding of business economics or business psychology. It's very simplistic, almost child-like thinking.

Then, if the person who employs them can't do it, the taxpayer has to. It's a great circular argument, completely letting the individual off the hook and putting the onus on "someone else". And that someone else is going to be American business. Get used to it.

.

On the flip side, and perhaps less obvious, we'll see more and more businesses willing to accept such responsibility - recognizing the additional power and control it gives them.

 

[Mac1958]

If an employer can not pay his full time workers, what it takes for them to survive after the full time workers put in a full week of working them, THEN this is the EMPLOYER'S problem.

Why is it? Be specific..

This one really is fascinating, and very telling. Outside of the MW discussion, this opinion opens up a Pandora's Box of issues, and illustrates how the Illiberal Left shifts responsibility away from the individual.

It's also at the heart of the "you didn't build that, you didn't earn that" foundation they have now laid. It's no longer the responsibility of the individual to simply take care of themselves and their family, it's the responsibility of the person who employs them. On top of everything else the employer has to do.

It doesn't even occur to these people for a moment that an employer will have to (a) take people off of full-time status, and (b) not hire as many full time workers, because they have no understanding of business economics or business psychology. It's very simplistic, almost child-like thinking.

Then, if the person who employs them can't do it, the taxpayer has to. It's a great circular argument, completely letting the individual off the hook and putting the onus on "someone else". And that someone else is going to be American business. Get used to it.

.

On the flip side, and perhaps less obvious, we'll see more and more business willing to accept such responsibility - recognizing the additional power and control it gives them.

I think that's possible. There are more and more stories of businesses choosing to do so, because they see benefits. I think that's great and I hope it works.

What I'm fascinated by is the process here.

.

 

[dblack]

If an employer can not pay his full time workers, what it takes for them to survive after the full time workers put in a full week of working them, THEN this is the EMPLOYER'S problem.

Why is it? Be specific..

This one really is fascinating, and very telling. Outside of the MW discussion, this opinion opens up a Pandora's Box of issues, and illustrates how the Illiberal Left shifts responsibility away from the individual.

It's also at the heart of the "you didn't build that, you didn't earn that" foundation they have now laid. It's no longer the responsibility of the individual to simply take care of themselves and their family, it's the responsibility of the person who employs them. On top of everything else the employer has to do.

It doesn't even occur to these people for a moment that an employer will have to (a) take people off of full-time status, and (b) not hire as many full time workers, because they have no understanding of business economics or business psychology. It's very simplistic, almost child-like thinking.

Then, if the person who employs them can't do it, the taxpayer has to. It's a great circular argument, completely letting the individual off the hook and putting the onus on "someone else". And that someone else is going to be American business. Get used to it.

.

On the flip side, and perhaps less obvious, we'll see more and more business willing to accept such responsibility - recognizing the additional power and control it gives them.

I think that's possible. There are more and more stories of businesses choosing to do so, because they see benefits. I think that's great and I hope it works.

I hope that's sarcasm.

 

[Mac1958]

If an employer can not pay his full time workers, what it takes for them to survive after the full time workers put in a full week of working them, THEN this is the EMPLOYER'S problem.

Why is it? Be specific..

This one really is fascinating, and very telling. Outside of the MW discussion, this opinion opens up a Pandora's Box of issues, and illustrates how the Illiberal Left shifts responsibility away from the individual.

It's also at the heart of the "you didn't build that, you didn't earn that" foundation they have now laid. It's no longer the responsibility of the individual to simply take care of themselves and their family, it's the responsibility of the person who employs them. On top of everything else the employer has to do.

It doesn't even occur to these people for a moment that an employer will have to (a) take people off of full-time status, and (b) not hire as many full time workers, because they have no understanding of business economics or business psychology. It's very simplistic, almost child-like thinking.

Then, if the person who employs them can't do it, the taxpayer has to. It's a great circular argument, completely letting the individual off the hook and putting the onus on "someone else". And that someone else is going to be American business. Get used to it.

.

On the flip side, and perhaps less obvious, we'll see more and more business willing to accept such responsibility - recognizing the additional power and control it gives them.

I think that's possible. There are more and more stories of businesses choosing to do so, because they see benefits. I think that's great and I hope it works.

I hope that's sarcasm.

It isn't. If businesses see benefit in a strategy - whatever it is - then great. If a business owner decides to change the way its people are paid and it motivates them more and/or creates positive goodwill/publicity with the public, fuckin' great, do it. Start the momentum, see where it goes.

What I don't like is the Illiberal Left's insistence on dishonesty. Instead of providing positive ideas for business on how changing pay structure might help them, they have to tear business down with "you didn't build that" and the like. If business sees a benefit, it will react. If it feels it's under attack, it will go in the opposite direction, which is precisely what it has done under this administration.

.

 

[dblack]

Why is it? Be specific..

This one really is fascinating, and very telling. Outside of the MW discussion, this opinion opens up a Pandora's Box of issues, and illustrates how the Illiberal Left shifts responsibility away from the individual.

It's also at the heart of the "you didn't build that, you didn't earn that" foundation they have now laid. It's no longer the responsibility of the individual to simply take care of themselves and their family, it's the responsibility of the person who employs them. On top of everything else the employer has to do.

It doesn't even occur to these people for a moment that an employer will have to (a) take people off of full-time status, and (b) not hire as many full time workers, because they have no understanding of business economics or business psychology. It's very simplistic, almost child-like thinking.

Then, if the person who employs them can't do it, the taxpayer has to. It's a great circular argument, completely letting the individual off the hook and putting the onus on "someone else". And that someone else is going to be American business. Get used to it.

.

On the flip side, and perhaps less obvious, we'll see more and more business willing to accept such responsibility - recognizing the additional power and control it gives them.

I think that's possible. There are more and more stories of businesses choosing to do so, because they see benefits. I think that's great and I hope it works.

I hope that's sarcasm.

It isn't. If businesses see benefit in a strategy - whatever it is - then great. If a business owner decides to change the way its people are paid and it motivates them more and/or creates positive goodwill/publicity with the public, fuckin' great, do it. Start the momentum, see where it goes.

But that's not what's going on. Assigning businesses the responsibility for our welfare via mandates like minimum wage laws forces all their competitors, and their employees, down the same path. I'm talking about business, particularly large corporations, recognizing the benefits of "partnering" with government, and manipulating the law to their benefit.

 

[Mac1958]

This one really is fascinating, and very telling. Outside of the MW discussion, this opinion opens up a Pandora's Box of issues, and illustrates how the Illiberal Left shifts responsibility away from the individual.

It's also at the heart of the "you didn't build that, you didn't earn that" foundation they have now laid. It's no longer the responsibility of the individual to simply take care of themselves and their family, it's the responsibility of the person who employs them. On top of everything else the employer has to do.

It doesn't even occur to these people for a moment that an employer will have to (a) take people off of full-time status, and (b) not hire as many full time workers, because they have no understanding of business economics or business psychology. It's very simplistic, almost child-like thinking.

Then, if the person who employs them can't do it, the taxpayer has to. It's a great circular argument, completely letting the individual off the hook and putting the onus on "someone else". And that someone else is going to be American business. Get used to it.

.

On the flip side, and perhaps less obvious, we'll see more and more business willing to accept such responsibility - recognizing the additional power and control it gives them.

I think that's possible. There are more and more stories of businesses choosing to do so, because they see benefits. I think that's great and I hope it works.

I hope that's sarcasm.

It isn't. If businesses see benefit in a strategy - whatever it is - then great. If a business owner decides to change the way its people are paid and it motivates them more and/or creates positive goodwill/publicity with the public, fuckin' great, do it. Start the momentum, see where it goes.

But that's not what's going on. Assigning businesses the responsibility for our welfare via mandates like minimum wage laws forces all their competitors, and their employees, down the same path. I'm talking about business, particularly large corporations, recognizing the benefits of "partnering" with government, and manipulating the law to their benefit.

Sure, that's how they roll: Use a government bludgeon to force people to act in certain ways.

My point is that they don't have to be dishonest, they could go a different route but choose not to.

.

 

[LOki]

This one really is fascinating, and very telling. Outside of the MW discussion, this opinion opens up a Pandora's Box of issues, and illustrates how the Illiberal Left shifts responsibility away from the individual.

It's also at the heart of the "you didn't build that, you didn't earn that" foundation they have now laid. It's no longer the responsibility of the individual to simply take care of themselves and their family, it's the responsibility of the person who employs them. On top of everything else the employer has to do.

It doesn't even occur to these people for a moment that an employer will have to (a) take people off of full-time status, and (b) not hire as many full time workers, because they have no understanding of business economics or business psychology. It's very simplistic, almost child-like thinking.

Then, if the person who employs them can't do it, the taxpayer has to. It's a great circular argument, completely letting the individual off the hook and putting the onus on "someone else". And that someone else is going to be American business. Get used to it.

.

On the flip side, and perhaps less obvious, we'll see more and more business willing to accept such responsibility - recognizing the additional power and control it gives them.

I think that's possible. There are more and more stories of businesses choosing to do so, because they see benefits. I think that's great and I hope it works.

I hope that's sarcasm.

It isn't. If businesses see benefit in a strategy - whatever it is - then great. If a business owner decides to change the way its people are paid and it motivates them more and/or creates positive goodwill/publicity with the public, fuckin' great, do it. Start the momentum, see where it goes.

But that's not what's going on. Assigning businesses the responsibility for our welfare via mandates like minimum wage laws forces all their competitors, and their employees, down the same path. I'm talking about business, particularly large corporations, recognizing the benefits of "partnering" with government, and manipulating the law to their benefit.

We need to challenge the self-negating paradigm of these so-called "progressives"; require them to look up the terms "Regulatory Capture" and "Rent-Seeking Behavior" and then tell us of they're still a proponent of "...business, particularly large corporations, recognizing the benefits of "partnering" with government."

 

[LOki]

It's just hilarious how these asshats think their data points--uncorrected for confounding anti-inflation/unemployment policies--and their special case anecdotes, refute the well established economic principles--affirmed and reaffirmed by generations of professional economists--that assert and describe how statutory minimum wage necessarily results in inflation and unemployment.

When confronted with the simple question, premised upon sound economic principles: "Why do you object to simply basing a worker's wage upon what that worker's work is worth?"--they uniformly swerve away from submitting a direct answer.

It's OBVIOUS that their position is informed by something other than sound economic principles.

Do you mean like these economists?

Over 600 Economists Sign Letter In Support of 10.10 Minimum Wage Economist Statement on the Federal Minimum Wage Economic Policy Institute

No. I'm referring to the 16,000+ economists and all their predecessors who didn't sign that letter.

I couldn't help notice that while you could submit 600 economists who can rationalize a statutory minimum wage, you could not be bothered to submit answers to the questions asked repeatedly:

"Why do you object to simply basing a worker's wage upon what that worker's work is worth?"

"If I wish to accept wages below the level YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) deem proper, upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) declare it illegal for me to accept such wages? Upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) deny someone else my services? Upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) deny me that employment?"

"Upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) decide for OTHERS what their work (either offered or performed) is worth?"

I find it noteworthy that you made an effort to not recognize the moral questions submitted.

Why would you do that, Pumpkin?

When you start out in saying "what a worker is worth" for giving an employer full time work for the week...

But I didn't start out in saying "what a worker is worth", so you are NOT answering the question posed:

"Why do you object to simply basing a worker's wage upon what that worker's work is worth?"​

...the least that these folks who are the least among us are worth for full time labor, is what it takes for them to minimally get by for self sufficiency....if they want more than that, then they can work a second job.

Ok. This opens the opportunity for you to answer another question (which you will certainly avoid for OBVIOUS reasons):

"Upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) decide for OTHERS what they are worth?"​

YOU obviously believe YOU have such authority... I want you to explain to us how YOU came about having it.

If an employer can not pay his full time workers, what it takes for them to survive after the full time workers put in a full week of working them, THEN this is the EMPLOYER'S problem. They can raise their prices to cover it if it is needed or ask for welfare from the gvt for themselves.

Why is it an employers problem that the work offered is not worth what YOU think it's worth?

"Upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) decide for OTHERS what their work (either offered or performed) is worth?"

"Why do you object to simply basing a worker's wage upon what that worker's work is worth?"​

Basically, one way to stop all of this welfare that we end up giving out to the million plus employees for the employer, so the employer can make a profit...we should be giving this welfare to the Business itself, instead of putting this on to the employee...

This sound more like an argument against welfare...and an excellent one at that.

One way to stop all of this welfare that we end up giving out to the million plus employees for the employer,... is to just stop giving it out. If the work is being bought for less than it is worth, then the labor pool will be motivated to demand higher wages... no "safety net" subsidizing their subsistence.

We nor "employers" owe anyone subsistence. The "needs" of employees do not place obligations upon us; they owe their own subsistence to themselves only.

"If I wish to accept wages below the level YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) deem proper, upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) declare it illegal for me to accept such wages? Upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) deny someone else my services? Upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) deny me that employment?"

"Upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) decide for OTHERS what their work (either offered or performed) is worth?"

"Why do you object to simply basing a worker's wage upon what that worker's work is worth?"​

Pay the employee for what they are worth working a full week's work, which is enough to survive on....every man or woman working full time is at minimum worth a minimal survival for his full week's labor...PERIOD.

"Upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) decide for OTHERS what they are worth?"

"If I wish to accept wages below the level YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) deem proper, upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) declare it illegal for me to accept such wages? Upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) deny someone else my services? Upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) deny me that employment?"

"Upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) decide for OTHERS what their work (either offered or performed) is worth?"

"Why do you object to simply basing a worker's wage upon what that worker's work is worth?"​

If the business that can not afford to pay a full time worker a living wage, then this employer should file for welfare, from the govt, to help his business pay them a minimal living wage.

Why?

People are not in business to provide work or "living wages."

So you need to tell us exactly why businesses must file for welfare to supplement wages.

"Upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) decide for OTHERS what their work (either offered or performed) is worth?"​

"Why do you object to simply basing a worker's wage upon what that worker's work is worth?"
.

Switch it around, and make the business file for the government welfare. All the same in the end, except probably a lot less welfare fraud with ebt cards, a lot less govt employees to handle the welfare system, and some dignity for those who labored full time... for an employer.

Better idea. If YOU think someone is not being paid enough, reach into YOUR OWN pocket and pay the difference.

If it is REALLY worth it to you, then you will certainly do it... no appeal to "fair share"... you (and like minded folk) just pony up and do "the right thing."

That's what I do. And I do it without requiring ANYONE ELSE to do so as well.--I certainly wouldn't consider making such contribution compulsory; at gun point.

Why do you consider this wrong?

Then you all on the right, can start calling these businesses, welfare queens if you like....

Why is it you offer only two alternatives to business? Be a "welfare queens" OR be a welfare program?

"Upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) decide for OTHERS what their work (either offered or performed) is worth?"

"Why do you object to simply basing a worker's wage upon what that worker's work is worth?"​

Loki, there is no "free market" to determine the lowest wages, because the gvt comes in and pays the employees, for the employer, to bring them up to a self sufficient wage....therefore the minimum wage, a living wage, will never rise to what it should be, with these welfare programs....

Again, you make a compelling argument against welfare.

You are entirely correct that such subsidies are OBVIOUSLY an inappropriate and destructive influence on the cost of labor, and the determination of wages.

thus, the "market" does not work, and does not have the pressure that it would to have employers pay their full time employees a minimal living wage.

I'm pretty sure you don't mean to eliminate the inappropriate and destructive influence of subsidies, so I'll ask again:

"Upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) decide for OTHERS what they are worth?"

"If I wish to accept wages below the level YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) deem proper, upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) declare it illegal for me to accept such wages? Upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) deny someone else my services? Upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) deny me that employment?"

"Upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) decide for OTHERS what their work (either offered or performed) is worth?"

"Why do you object to simply basing a worker's wage upon what that worker's work is worth?"​

If you can't understand this, then I don't know what else to say...

I understand you quite clearly. OBVIOUSLY.

And I say OBVIOUSLY with all that emphasis, because I know the reason you refuse to answer my questions. I OBVIOUSLY understand you clearly.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If an employer can not pay his full time workers, what it takes for them to survive after the full time workers put in a full week of working them, THEN this is the EMPLOYER'S problem.

Why is it? Be specific..

This one really is fascinating, and very telling. Outside of the MW discussion, this opinion opens up a Pandora's Box of issues, and illustrates how the Illiberal Left shifts responsibility away from the individual.

It's also at the heart of the "you didn't build that, you didn't earn that" foundation they have now laid. It's no longer the responsibility of the individual to simply take care of themselves and their family, it's the responsibility of the person who employs them. On top of everything else the employer has to do. This is why they minimize the employer's role in the very existence of the business.

It doesn't even occur to these people for a moment that an employer will have to (a) take people off of full-time status, and (b) not hire as many full time workers, because they have no understanding of business economics or business psychology. It's very simplistic, rudimentary, almost child-like thinking.

Then, if the person who employs them can't do it, the taxpayer has to. It's a great circular argument, completely letting the individual off the hook and putting the onus on "someone else". And that someone else is going to be American business. Get used to it.

.

It's very simplistic, rudimentary, almost child-like thinking.

That is what liberals do best.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Yeah this is worth 15 an hour

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yeah this is worth 15 an hour

Paulitician can carry a tune.

 

[Care4all]

If an employer can not pay his full time workers, what it takes for them to survive after the full time workers put in a full week of working them, THEN this is the EMPLOYER'S problem.

Why is it? Be specific..

This one really is fascinating, and very telling. Outside of the MW discussion, this opinion opens up a Pandora's Box of issues, and illustrates how the Illiberal Left shifts responsibility away from the individual.

It's also at the heart of the "you didn't build that, you didn't earn that" foundation they have now laid. It's no longer the responsibility of the individual to simply take care of themselves and their family, it's the responsibility of the person who employs them. On top of everything else the employer has to do. This is why they minimize the employer's role in the very existence of the business.

It doesn't even occur to these people for a moment that an employer will have to (a) take people off of full-time status, and (b) not hire as many full time workers, because they have no understanding of business economics or business psychology. It's very simplistic, rudimentary, almost child-like thinking.

Then, if the person who employs them can't do it, the taxpayer has to. It's a great circular argument, completely letting the individual off the hook and putting the onus on "someone else". And that someone else is going to be American business. Get used to it.

.

It's very simplistic, rudimentary, almost child-like thinking.

That is what liberals do best.

Honest to goodness Todd, WHAT ARE YOU, some 5 yr old? Repeating this kind of childish rhetoric, is NOT fruitful in any manner, its simply ridiculous, especially if you are actually an adult and have to resort to this kind of childishness in a debate conversation...

Seriously....this is REAL LIFE, and we have some real life problems in this Nation, for a multitude of reasons, and NONE boil down to simply "liberal" scum and "conservative" scum....

Think, before you speak.....were you not ever taught that....?

I don't agree with your or Loki or Andy's theory on this, and still have seen no evidence that raising the minimum wage will cause inflation or will cause unemployment to rise. It has been and proven to show the complete opposite.... it does not stunt the growth of gdp either....

And in the past, those small businesses that needed help in raising the min wage hourly rate, were given tax breaks through 2016, for 10 years, to help cover the previous federal hike.

This is much more complicated than it seems....and simply changing from one economic theory over to another economoic theory over night, just 'ain't gonna happen'...

That's my main problem with all of you that just wants to change things right now, with no thought or reason as to how this could even be done....in the least harmful way.

PIECE MEAL is NOT the way to do this, and starting out with the minimum wage people, bringing them to even LOWER wages than they make now if the min wage law was rescinded, is simply unethical and immoral.

And it is equally immoral to have a minimum wage law in effect, that is kept so low, Year after year, and does not go up with inflation, and that it does not allow an adult, full time worker, to simply support themselves with no luxuries....and we, the tax payer has to make up the difference....

 

[Care4all]

Yeah this is worth 15 an hour

He looks like a teen, and guess what, you can pay him $4.65 an hour for 3 months and if you don't think he will be worth the full minimum wage, you can fire him....ahhhh, freedom of choice is wonderful!

 

[dblack]

And it is equally immoral to have a minimum wage law in effect, that is kept so low, Year after year, and does not go up with inflation, and that it does not allow an adult, full time worker, to simply support themselves with no luxuries....and we, the tax payer has to make up the difference....

Kinda makes you wonder if that ever really the point in the first place, dudn't it?

 

[LOki]

If an employer can not pay his full time workers, what it takes for them to survive after the full time workers put in a full week of working them, THEN this is the EMPLOYER'S problem.

Why is it? Be specific..

This one really is fascinating, and very telling. Outside of the MW discussion, this opinion opens up a Pandora's Box of issues, and illustrates how the Illiberal Left shifts responsibility away from the individual.

It's also at the heart of the "you didn't build that, you didn't earn that" foundation they have now laid. It's no longer the responsibility of the individual to simply take care of themselves and their family, it's the responsibility of the person who employs them. On top of everything else the employer has to do. This is why they minimize the employer's role in the very existence of the business.

It doesn't even occur to these people for a moment that an employer will have to (a) take people off of full-time status, and (b) not hire as many full time workers, because they have no understanding of business economics or business psychology. It's very simplistic, rudimentary, almost child-like thinking.

Then, if the person who employs them can't do it, the taxpayer has to. It's a great circular argument, completely letting the individual off the hook and putting the onus on "someone else". And that someone else is going to be American business. Get used to it.

.

It's very simplistic, rudimentary, almost child-like thinking.

That is what liberals do best.

Honest to goodness Todd, WHAT ARE YOU, some 5 yr old? Repeating this kind of childish rhetoric, is NOT fruitful in any manner, its simply ridiculous, especially if you are actually an adult and have to resort to this kind of childishness in a debate conversation...

Seriously....this is REAL LIFE, and we have some real life problems in this Nation, for a multitude of reasons, and NONE boil down to simply "liberal" scum and "conservative" scum....

Think, before you speak.....were you not ever taught that....?

I don't agree with your or Loki or Andy's theory on this, and still have seen no evidence that raising the minimum wage will cause inflation or will cause unemployment to rise. It has been and proven to show the complete opposite.... it does not stunt the growth of gdp either....

And in the past, those small businesses that needed help in raising the min wage hourly rate, were given tax breaks through 2016, for 10 years, to help cover the previous federal hike.

This is much more complicated than it seems....and simply changing from one economic theory over to another economoic theory over night, just 'ain't gonna happen'...

That's my main problem with all of you that just wants to change things right now, with no thought or reason as to how this could even be done....in the least harmful way.

PIECE MEAL is NOT the way to do this, and starting out with the minimum wage people, bringing them to even LOWER wages than they make now if the min wage law was rescinded, is simply unethical and immoral.

And it is equally immoral to have a minimum wage law in effect, that is kept so low, Year after year, and does not go up with inflation, and that it does not allow an adult, full time worker, to simply support themselves with no luxuries....and we, the tax payer has to make up the difference....

"If I wish to accept wages below the level YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) deem proper, upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) declare it illegal for me to accept such wages? Upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) deny someone else my services? Upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) deny me that employment?"

"Upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) decide for OTHERS what their work (either offered or performed) is worth?"

"Why do you object to simply basing a worker's wage upon what that worker's work is worth?"

 

[dblack]

If an employer can not pay his full time workers, what it takes for them to survive after the full time workers put in a full week of working them, THEN this is the EMPLOYER'S problem.

Why is it? Be specific..

This one really is fascinating, and very telling. Outside of the MW discussion, this opinion opens up a Pandora's Box of issues, and illustrates how the Illiberal Left shifts responsibility away from the individual.

It's also at the heart of the "you didn't build that, you didn't earn that" foundation they have now laid. It's no longer the responsibility of the individual to simply take care of themselves and their family, it's the responsibility of the person who employs them. On top of everything else the employer has to do. This is why they minimize the employer's role in the very existence of the business.

It doesn't even occur to these people for a moment that an employer will have to (a) take people off of full-time status, and (b) not hire as many full time workers, because they have no understanding of business economics or business psychology. It's very simplistic, rudimentary, almost child-like thinking.

Then, if the person who employs them can't do it, the taxpayer has to. It's a great circular argument, completely letting the individual off the hook and putting the onus on "someone else". And that someone else is going to be American business. Get used to it.

.

It's very simplistic, rudimentary, almost child-like thinking.

That is what liberals do best.

Honest to goodness Todd, WHAT ARE YOU, some 5 yr old? Repeating this kind of childish rhetoric, is NOT fruitful in any manner, its simply ridiculous, especially if you are actually an adult and have to resort to this kind of childishness in a debate conversation...

Seriously....this is REAL LIFE, and we have some real life problems in this Nation, for a multitude of reasons, and NONE boil down to simply "liberal" scum and "conservative" scum....

Think, before you speak.....were you not ever taught that....?

I don't agree with your or Loki or Andy's theory on this, and still have seen no evidence that raising the minimum wage will cause inflation or will cause unemployment to rise. It has been and proven to show the complete opposite.... it does not stunt the growth of gdp either....

And in the past, those small businesses that needed help in raising the min wage hourly rate, were given tax breaks through 2016, for 10 years, to help cover the previous federal hike.

This is much more complicated than it seems....and simply changing from one economic theory over to another economoic theory over night, just 'ain't gonna happen'...

That's my main problem with all of you that just wants to change things right now, with no thought or reason as to how this could even be done....in the least harmful way.

PIECE MEAL is NOT the way to do this, and starting out with the minimum wage people, bringing them to even LOWER wages than they make now if the min wage law was rescinded, is simply unethical and immoral.

And it is equally immoral to have a minimum wage law in effect, that is kept so low, Year after year, and does not go up with inflation, and that it does not allow an adult, full time worker, to simply support themselves with no luxuries....and we, the tax payer has to make up the difference....

"If I wish to accept wages below the level YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) deem proper, upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) declare it illegal for me to accept such wages? Upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) deny someone else my services? Upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) deny me that employment?"

"Upon what moral authority do YOU (and/or YOUR proxy) decide for OTHERS what their work (either offered or performed) is worth?"

"Why do you object to simply basing a worker's wage upon what that worker's work is worth?"

You keep making this point, but I'm not sure they understand what it means. Allow me to put it another way. "Why should someone who can't earn what you deem to be a "liveable" wage, be prohibited from working?"

 

[Care4all]

We have legal immigration that affects lower end wages.

We have illegal immigrants, in the millions, that affects lower end wages.

We have an over supply of lower end workers, because of the recession we went through and many slightly better paying jobs were eliminated, or the business owners rehired people at minimum wage to fill the jobs...

We have the Affordable Care Act that affects this as well...

and we have Trade Policy over the decades that also has moved higher skilled jobs overseas, leaving these individuals in the market place looking for jobs...

and we have Corporate tax policy that also affects this.....

I am CERTAIN if I had a few more minutes I could list a bunch of other things....

Simply eliminating the minimum wage, or never raising it again, IS NOT THE ANSWER to our problems at this point....and doing such at this point when so many other policies get in the way of the "market" to work freely have to be addressed ALL AT ONCE if we truly think this 'change' is needed.

IT IS NOT simply, If I want to accept a wage lower than minimum wage.....NO ONE WANTS to do this when minimum wage is so low already, BUT THEY WILL out of desperation....that's immoral to put that upon the desperate.

you want to get paid less for babysitting or cleaning a neighbor's house, or mowing his lawn, then go right ahead....