Romney vetoed minimum wage increase

[Sinjorri]

I have always been a little perplexed by the "minimum wage is bad" thing.

Can someone explain how paying employees less is supposed to be a good thing when the cost of living is constantly increasing? Regardless of the administration that is in charge the cost of living will increase. What is the point of getting paid for a job if you can not support your family off of it.

Is there supposed to be some hidden tax component that comes with it that is supposed to actually make this a good thing for the worker? Or is it specifically for the business's benefit only?

Personally I would think that there would have to be an immense amount of accompanied legislation and reform to even make it viable. Immigration reform (NO Illegals at all), complete tax reform and much much more, just to begin. Virtually, IMHO, making it impossible for the idea of dissolving minimum wage to exist, you are never gonna get support on both sides for all reforms to make it viable.

if you dont run a business, cant explain it to you.

Didn't I tell you to start PMing me BEFORE you make assumptions? It's not very becoming of you..

I do run a business, we have no problem paying our employees above minimum wage and offering healthcare.

I could understand (but fundamentally disagree) with the argument against raising it.. But, I cannot fathom that abolishing it is fair to the middle class, poor and even workers with higher educations.

So please, do explain the rationale...

even if you dont want to abolish it, change it to either be fair, or allow some businesses to opt out of it, its real hard when it comes to private businesses to tell them how to run it. and this says to the private sector, "we re going to tell you how to run your business"

and if you run a business this is part of the "I cant explain it to you" if you are in the tank for the government telling you how to run your business so be it, its your choice. if you are profitable now, let me explain to you, theres always a good chance you might come across NOT making payroll and you will be cursing minimum wage.

 

[Ernie S.]

I have always been a little perplexed by the "minimum wage is bad" thing.

Can someone explain how paying employees less is supposed to be a good thing when the cost of living is constantly increasing? Regardless of the administration that is in charge the cost of living will increase. What is the point of getting paid for a job if you can not support your family off of it.

Is there supposed to be some hidden tax component that comes with it that is supposed to actually make this a good thing for the worker? Or is it specifically for the business's benefit only?

Personally I would think that there would have to be an immense amount of accompanied legislation and reform to even make it viable. Immigration reform (NO Illegals at all), complete tax reform and much much more, just to begin. Virtually, IMHO, making it impossible for the idea of dissolving minimum wage to exist, you are never gonna get support on both sides for all reforms to make it viable.

The cost of living has no bearing on what an employee is worth. Only demand for a skill and the employee's ability to perform that skill makes a worker worth more or less.
That's one reason why barack obama makes $400,000/year and Derick Jeter makes 16 million. There are over 300 million Americans better qualified to be POTUS, but only a couple dozen who can play Shortstop.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Romney vetoed minimum wage increase

Romney claims he worked across the aisle with the overwhelmingly Democratic Massachusetts legislature: Really? Well, a complete list of veto overrides covering all four of Romney’s budgets found that the overrides for fiscal years 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 totaled 707 of the more than 800 line-item vetoes he issued. And in some cases, even the Republicans went against Romney. His minimum wage veto in 2006 was overridden unanimously… the House voted against him 152 to 0, and minutes later the Senate voted 38 to 0. Now tell us more about how much he cares about 100% of all Americans and how well he works across the aisle!

(1) Education: Romney said, “We were able to drive our schools to be number one in the nation in my state.” This is the second time he has outrageously taken credit for the level of education in Massachusetts. It was the Massachusetts Education Reform Act of 1993 that pumped billions into education in that state. When he was governor, in 2007 he cut $277 million from the state’s local education aid budget and $130 million from higher education!

(2) Massachusetts budget: In 2003 he doubled fees for court filings, professional registrations and firearm licenses. He quintupled the per gallon delivery fee for gasoline. All told, the fees raised more than $400 million in their first year. He also “closed loopholes” in the corporate tax structure, a move that generated another $150 million in increased revenue. He cut aid to local cities and counties. In 2004, he cut nearly 5 percent, or about $230 million, from the local aid budget. The Massachusetts Municipal Association, representing the state’s cities and towns, said Romney’s cut “forced communities statewide to cut services and raise local taxes and fees.” His oft-touted cuts in “wasteful programs” and duplicate agencies made only a small dent in the deficit, according to an estimate by the independent, nonpartisan Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. Sure, Romney closed the deficit without raising taxes; he increased government fees by hundreds of millions of dollars; a shell game!

2 questions
Why do we have to keep raising it?
And why waste time, why not put it to $200/ hour

 

[Cheddarmelon]

Liberals just cannot comprehend shit like this. There really is no use in trying to explain it.

Diseases of the mind have always been hard to understand. It's been a study that has required more and more attention. Sociopathic disregard for others is one of the hardest ones to grasp, for people who have any level of social concience.

 

[eflatminor]

But, I cannot fathom that abolishing it is fair to the middle class, poor and even workers with higher educations.

Imposing a minimum wage disenfranchises uneducated, unskilled, and inexperience workers, including our youngest and oldest workers just trying to make a few extra dollars. Our most vulnerable citizens, whose skills or commitment do not justify an artificially imposed minimum wage are prevented from working, often forced on the dole. Personally, I cannot image being so cruel to those that most need to work. But then, as history shows again and again, central planners have always proven to be sick motherfuckers.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Too which I say..

Good for Mitt Romney.

 

[Freemason9]

Romney's plan to "create jobs" in America is based upon destroying all remaining unions, eliminating minimum wages, and cutting average American wages by 70%.

Because that's GOOD FOR BUSINESS.

 

[eflatminor]

Can someone explain how paying employees less is supposed to be a good thing when the cost of living is constantly increasing?

Nobody is saying anyone MUST pay employees less. In fact, only about 5% of workers make the minimum. You cannot state with certainty that these people would all of a sudden see their pay cut. Logic suggests that without an imposed minimum, more people would be at least working.

What is the point of getting paid for a job if you can not support your family off of it.

Because not everyone that works is supporting a family from their wages. Young people looking to gain experience and the elderly looking to stay engaged and earn a few extra bucks are two examples. Lots of people who want to work do not have a family to support.

Is there supposed to be some hidden tax component that comes with it that is supposed to actually make this a good thing for the worker? Or is it specifically for the business's benefit only?

The worker that is not hired because the employer cannot justify paying him minimum wage is the tradegy here. It has nothing to do with taxes.

 

[Conservative]

Romney's plan to "create jobs" in America is based upon destroying all remaining unions, eliminating minimum wages, and cutting average American wages by 70%.

Because that's GOOD FOR BUSINESS.

link?

 

[eflatminor]

Romney's plan to "create jobs" in America is based upon destroying all remaining unions, eliminating minimum wages, and cutting average American wages by 70%.

Because that's GOOD FOR BUSINESS.

Bullshit. But I'm sure you have a link to back up these claims...

 

[Freemason9]

Romney's plan to "create jobs" in America is based upon destroying all remaining unions, eliminating minimum wages, and cutting average American wages by 70%.

Because that's GOOD FOR BUSINESS.

Bullshit. But I'm sure you have a link to back up these claims...

DUH. You need a "link???"
Willard does not like labor unions. Correct?
Willard does not like minimum wage laws. Correct?
Is it not true that everything Willard supports tends to depress wages?

DUH/

 

[Liberal]

But, I cannot fathom that abolishing it is fair to the middle class, poor and even workers with higher educations.

Imposing a minimum wage disenfranchises uneducated, unskilled, and inexperience workers, including our youngest and oldest workers just trying to make a few extra dollars. Our most vulnerable citizens, whose skills or commitment do not justify an artificially imposed minimum wage are prevented from working, often forced on the dole. Personally, I cannot image being so cruel to those that most need to work. But then, as history shows again and again, central planners have always proven to be sick motherfuckers.

So, basically the workers ability to live off of the pay should not be considered in any form? Wouldn't that hinder productivity?

In the most literal terms you can sit there and say: "Yes, more people might have jobs", but that point is moot if the pay for their labor is not enough to live off of.. The cost of living is not going to drop [even] drastically like someone opened a trap door, just because MW was dropped.

One person being paid $7.00hr is better than two being paid $3.50hr (or less). Just because more people are working does not mean that they are surviving off of the pay.

But, sure, if you have some weird idea that businesses do not owe any bit of decency to their employees who work to progress and grow the business.. I guess it would seem like a kind of perverted good idea.

We thank our employees for working hard for us, they get vacation, sick time and lunches/picnics for meeting sales goals, seems to make them more productive than paying them less..

 

[kaz]

I have always been a little perplexed by the "minimum wage is bad" thing.

Can someone explain how paying employees less is supposed to be a good thing when the cost of living is constantly increasing?

Because you don't pay people what they "want" or what they "need" you pay them for what they are "worth." Someone who is not worth $7.25 an hour is very young and inexperienced, every unreliable or very something that's not good. It's very easy to be worth that. But as an employer, I call tell you there are many, many who are not. People don't show up for work, don't work when they are there, talk back to their manager and do all sorts of unbelievable things. What it comes down to are three fundamental things:

1) Businesses don't make money by paying employees more than the value they provide.

2) 99% of employees who aren't worth $7.25 an hour aren't worth that because they don't care. That is their root issue. It is their job to care about their life before it is the employer's job.

3) If you pay them $7.25 an hour anyway, you create more work for the people who aren't useless and demoralize them. Why should they work for their pay when you pay people what they "need" whether they work or not?

I've fired many people over my 25 year management career, and I've never once had another employee either object or ask me why I did it. I have had them ask why it took so long. I have yet to have a permanent employee quit in the three years I owned my own business, so don't bother with some lame accusation as to why.

 

[Zarius]

What do you expect. That entire party is against workers

 

[kaz]

What do you expect. That entire party is against workers

And our country is suffering because your entire party is against work...ing...

 

[Freemason9]

Businesses don't make money by paying employees more than the value they provide.

Businesses ONLY MAKE MONEY because of the profitable productivity of skilled workers.

99% of employees who aren't worth $7.25 an hour aren't worth that because they don't care. That is their root issue. It is their job to care about their life before it is the employer's job.

They are worth whatever profits their labor creates. YOUR judgement of human "worth" is merely reflective of your soul and greed.

3) If you pay them $7.25 an hour anyway, you create more work for the people who aren't useless and demoralize them. Why should they work for their pay when you pay people what they "need" whether they work or not?

See above. It is not for you to decide; their labor is worth whatever revenue it creates.

I've fired many people over my 25 year management career, and I've never once had another employee either object or ask me why I did it.

They probably didn't give a fuck, and were happy to look elsewhere for other crappy jobs.

 

[Amazed]

The modern union is the single largest anti-american organization in our Country today.

 

[Zarius]

What do you expect. That entire party is against workers

And our country is suffering because your entire party is against work...ing...

Not true. If left up to the teapublicans we would be wage slaves.

 

[Amazed]

Businesses don't make money by paying employees more than the value they provide.

Businesses ONLY MAKE MONEY because of the profitable productivity of skilled workers.

99% of employees who aren't worth $7.25 an hour aren't worth that because they don't care. That is their root issue. It is their job to care about their life before it is the employer's job.

They are worth whatever profits their labor creates. YOUR judgement of human "worth" is merely reflective of your soul.

3) If you pay them $7.25 an hour anyway, you create more work for the people who aren't useless and demoralize them. Why should they work for their pay when you pay people what they "need" whether they work or not?

See above. It is not for you to decide; their labor is worth whatever revenue it creates.

I've fired many people over my 25 year management career, and I've never once had another employee either object or ask me why I did it.

They probably didn't give a fuck, and were happy to look elsewhere for other crappy jobs.

Patently stupid, you argue that all profits shoild be returned to the worker.

You'll need guns to get that anywhere.

 

[Meister]

Romney's plan to "create jobs" in America is based upon destroying all remaining unions, eliminating minimum wages, and cutting average American wages by 70%.

Because that's GOOD FOR BUSINESS.

Bullshit. But I'm sure you have a link to back up these claims...

DUH. You need a "link???"
Willard does not like labor unions. Correct?
Willard does not like minimum wage laws. Correct?
Is it not true that everything Willard supports tends to depress wages?

DUH/

In other words, you got nuttin'.