should minimum wage be mandated?

[rightwinger]

Of course it implies causation. It may not be a one to one causation. But it is borne out by both theory and history, if you bothered to read any of the three links I posted.

Let me ask you, why would increasing the price of something not result in less of it sold? And again, where is the cut off point? If 7.50 is good, why not 15? 25? 100?

Let me use some Rabbi logic here..

If raising the minimum wage from $6.55 to $7.25 didn't drive employers out of business, then raising it to $100 will not drive them out of business

It all comes down to causation. If you look at the extreme it justifies your point

Right rabbi??

Wow are you dumb, too dumb to write coherently.
How do you know the rise from 6.55 to 7.25 didnt drive some employers out of business? What evidence do you have?
Of course it has. Raising it to $25 would drive even more out. $100 would pretty much drive all of them out. So you might have one guy making $100 at min wage. And about 10k completely unemployed.
That is the choice: people working at a market wage or a lot of people not working at a higher wage.

Explain Rabbi..

Its your bizarre logic of extremes..

Raising the minimum wage from $6.55 to $7.25 didn't drive us to hell and damnation....Why would raising it to $100 ??

 

[Polk]

Fortunately this isn't social science.
Why are you not answering the questions?

Economics is a social science.

As for your questions, they've been addressed earlier in the thread. Instead of reinventing the wheel, I suggest you go back and read what has been written by myself and others.

No, they were not addressed. They were scoffed at and ridiculed but not answered. Now you are trying to do the same thing.

Your question was already answered in detail.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/91167-should-minimum-wage-be-mandated-10.html#post1611044

Your second question was ridiculed because it's an absurd question.

 

[The Rabbi]

Let me use some Rabbi logic here..

If raising the minimum wage from $6.55 to $7.25 didn't drive employers out of business, then raising it to $100 will not drive them out of business

It all comes down to causation. If you look at the extreme it justifies your point

Right rabbi??

Wow are you dumb, too dumb to write coherently.
How do you know the rise from 6.55 to 7.25 didnt drive some employers out of business? What evidence do you have?
Of course it has. Raising it to $25 would drive even more out. $100 would pretty much drive all of them out. So you might have one guy making $100 at min wage. And about 10k completely unemployed.
That is the choice: people working at a market wage or a lot of people not working at a higher wage.

Explain Rabbi..

Its your bizarre logic of extremes..

Raising the minimum wage from $6.55 to $7.25 didn't drive us to hell and damnation....Why would raising it to $100 ??

Whoa. Did I say the rise drove us to hell and damnation? Please show me the post where I wrote that.
I said it drove some employers out of business. That is indisputable. The higher the rate, the more employers driven out of business. Setting the rate at $100 will drive virtually anyone who relies on employees getting paid less than that out of business.

 

[The Rabbi]

Economics is a social science.

As for your questions, they've been addressed earlier in the thread. Instead of reinventing the wheel, I suggest you go back and read what has been written by myself and others.

No, they were not addressed. They were scoffed at and ridiculed but not answered. Now you are trying to do the same thing.

Your question was already answered in detail.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/91167-should-minimum-wage-be-mandated-10.html#post1611044

Your second question was ridiculed because it's an absurd question.

And I refuted your stupid explanation. And if the second question is so absurd then you won't have any trouble answering it.

 

[Polk]

No, they were not addressed. They were scoffed at and ridiculed but not answered. Now you are trying to do the same thing.

Your question was already answered in detail.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/91167-should-minimum-wage-be-mandated-10.html#post1611044

Your second question was ridiculed because it's an absurd question.

And I refuted your stupid explanation. And if the second question is so absurd then you won't have any trouble answering it.

You didn't refute you. You made a series of claims based on emotions.

 

[manifold]

Economics is a social science.

As for your questions, they've been addressed earlier in the thread. Instead of reinventing the wheel, I suggest you go back and read what has been written by myself and others.

No, they were not addressed. They were scoffed at and ridiculed but not answered. Now you are trying to do the same thing.

Your question was already answered in detail.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/91167-should-minimum-wage-be-mandated-10.html#post1611044

Your second question was ridiculed because it's an absurd question.

That's nothing. You should've seen it a while back when he claimed that libertarians don't believe in law enforcement. And then claimed victory because nobody would indulge him in his lunacy.

 

[The Rabbi]

No, they were not addressed. They were scoffed at and ridiculed but not answered. Now you are trying to do the same thing.

Your question was already answered in detail.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/91167-should-minimum-wage-be-mandated-10.html#post1611044

Your second question was ridiculed because it's an absurd question.

That's nothing. You should've seen it a while back when he claimed that libertarians don't believe in law enforcement. And then claimed victory because nobody would indulge him in his lunacy.

That's of course a total distortion of what I might have said. But not surprising from someone who can't read or write.

 

[The Rabbi]

Your question was already answered in detail.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/91167-should-minimum-wage-be-mandated-10.html#post1611044

Your second question was ridiculed because it's an absurd question.

And I refuted your stupid explanation. And if the second question is so absurd then you won't have any trouble answering it.

You didn't refute you. You made a series of claims based on emotions.

There was no emotion in my post. I pointed out the unemployment rate among those most likely to have min wage jobs is not only the highest, but has risen the most in this recession, which follows on a recent increase in min wage.
I also pointed out that you do not increase purchasing power overall by taking money from A and giving it to B. Purchasing power remains the same.
Having settled that, why don't you answer the questions?

 

[Polk]

You claimed that the increase in unemployment was due to the minimum wage increase, for which you provided no evidence. The recession is what is driving unemployment rates upward.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

I have to side with the conservatives on this issue. I think minimum wage is a bad idea.

But then again, I live in an area where the "minimum wage" is like eight dollars an hour.

In most places, the minimum wage is entirely irrelevant to the prevailing wages dictated by the marketplace.

All the bullshit about the minimum wage is about is keeping people at the Gubmint Printing Office in business.

Absolutely correct!!! The government wants to control wages on the low side...to keep people in poverty and now they are trying to control wages on the high side to redistribute wealth!!!!!
Fucking socialists.

 

[The Rabbi]

You claimed that the increase in unemployment was due to the minimum wage increase, for which you provided no evidence. The recession is what is driving unemployment rates upward.

No, that isn't what I claimed. No wonder your arguments suck--you can't read or write.
I wrote that the rate of unemployment among black teens, the ones most likely to work min wage jobs, went from around 30+% to over 50%. Do you want to attribute that to the recession? But remember, correlation doesn't equal causation, right?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

should the minimum wage be mandated by the government?

If one's goal is to undermine the value of that with which the person being paid, then sure... because in so doing one increases the minimum that one will be paid to an arbitrary value, which will be in excess of what that person is creating; thus the value of the remittance is rendered down to the value of that which the individual is producing.

 

[Care4all]

Ok.......while at first I wasn't going to step into this conversation, after reading extensively about the two companies vilified the most in this country it seems, I just felt this need to come in and put my two cents worth in.

I spent 12 years working for McDonalds and learned a great deal about how it operates. Something it is very obvious that many of those that vilify it the strongest have no clue of. First off, McDonalds stores are NOT one huge corporation. 96% of all McDonalds in the US are owned by individual franchise owners. Not only do they pay their employees, cover all the overhead costs, they pay their franchise fees with regularity. And trust me, that ain't pennies! The majority of all McDonalds employees are what I lovingly call stair step employees. It's a job that is simply a stairstep on to other things. They are highschool and entry level college students for the most part. They still live at home and are NOT depended on their wages to support themselves. ANYONE that works for McDonalds has the potential to become an owner if they so desire. Me.....during the first 5 years I worked at McDonalds I went from cashier to shift leader, to shift supervisor, to breakfast manager, to second assistant, to first assistant, to Store Manager. I worked for a great gentleman who owned 6 stores in a two town area. He believed very strongly in promoting from within his stores for those management positions. My foray into Store Manager was not an easy one. But it was one I thoroughly enjoyed for 7 years. YES, I had to WORK for it. It was not just given to me. I also had to go to "Hamburger U" (it really exists) for their 6 week training program. That is 6 weeks away from home with little to no time for anything but learning the ins and outs of what makes McDonalds so sucessful. Procedure until I was quoting temperatures, cooking times, and cleanliness standards in my sleep. Was it worth it? Hell yeah! I made good money, had fun at my job, considered all of my "kids" my family and had the opportunity if I so chose to become a Store Owner. I chose to go a different route and sometimes wonder if that was a mistake. But the long hours and the toll it was taking on me physically pushed me into school, which by the way, was helped along with Employee Scholarships given by none other than the McDonalds corporation. McDonalds is a great place to work and offers a lot of growth potential to those that CHOOSE to go for the oppotunities they offer. It's NOT just a menial, flipping burgers job. It's what you make it.

I remember well one particular young lady that had that potential. A single mother with two kids. She could have pushed her way forward into a position of management, gotten away from the minimum wage level but she CHOSE not to. Her reasoning everytime I asked why she wouldn't take my offer of a shift leader or shift manager position......................"if I make anymore money then I won't get my apartment paid for and I'll lose my foodstamps". Real motivation wouldn't you say? Do you realize just how many people actually STAY in minimum wage jobs JUST FOR THOSE REASONS?

Sure McDonalds STARTS it employees at minimum wage. Why shouldn't they? 95% of those that come to work for McDonalds have no discernable skills, this is their first job, or they're just working for some spending money while finishing High School or College. BUT...and I know this to be fact......people that choose to stay at McDonalds, even those parents you see working in many of them, are NOT stuck at minimum wage. There is a standard that ALL franchise owners have to adhere to. COL raises are common. Maybe not so much now with our economy as it is, but they are a standard. Just as performance raises are a standard. The franchise owner is NOT the dictator when it comes to 99.9% of McDonald's standards and operations procedures. They follow a long held guideline dictated by the McDonalds Corporation. Why in the hell do you think that they've remained such a driving force in this country and able to maintain the number of stores that are in existance and popping up all the time? It's not because they "jack their prices up", it's not because they refuse to pay their employees a decent wage, it's because of the standards that Ray Croc first set aside for his company. Standards to this day that must be followed by all franchise owners or their franchise license can and will be pulled.

Yes, I'm a defender of McDonalds!! I've been there. I learned the expectations that the corporation as a whole has for each of it's stores. Those that the corp still owns AND those that are owned by individuals. Some of those standards have changed over the years and several things happened that a lot of us felt had Ray Croc turning over in his grave. But those changes did NOT hurt them. Sure they deviated from his "vision" but in the long run they proved sucessful. I still keep in touch with a lot of my "kids" and have seen many of them go on to be well paid, productive, members of our society. A couple have even become Store ownes themselves and love it.

I know I've rambled, but what I think I'm trying to show here, is that sure, McDonalds is one of those minimum wage (starting pay) employers. BUT, McDonalds offers the means and the opportunity to go as far as you want within the company IF YOU CHOOSE TO DO SO! They give out scholarships, they do great charity work, they are a "stair step" company for a lot of up and coming doctors, lawyers, CEO's, etc etc. It seems to me that so many of the people that choose to vilify McDonalds do so simply because all they see is a minimum wage (starting pay) type of company where a bunch of semi literate, unskilled, struggling people work and have NO CLUE exactly how the company operates. INHO, for as big as Walmart is, they could take lessons from the McDonalds corporation on how to treat their employees. And by the way, 95% of McDonalds store owners offer some form of health insurance. When you're eligible depends on the number of hours you work sure. They aren't just going to hand out insurance to some 16 year old kid working maybe 20 hours a week for spending money while they're still in High School. There are requirements you have to meet to be able to have insurance. So please, before you continue to vilify a company for what you PERCIEVE is mistreatment of it's employees and not paying a decent living wage, learn a little more about what goes on behind the scenes before you claim to have all the answers. You only see it from YOUR side of the counter.

EDIT!

I meant to say first, your mcdonald's story and success story is FANTASTIC...I love hearing the climbing the ladder from the bottom up type stories!!!!

I was wondering, was the young lady that did not want a promotion, better in her position than the other newbies hired? Was she more productive than those others on the same level as her?

I would imagine she still got raises even though she stayed in the same position for cost of living hikes....

In other words, she is NOT STILL a minimum wage earner, is she? I'm guessing she is making more than minimum, even without taking a promotion?

on another note....

In general, women work 9 less years than men in their lifetime, due to rearing children and taking care of elderly parents...and their retirement accounts are less funded is what i was hearing on a financial show with maria bartiromo...and many of those years working are part time not full time, due to their mothering/parenting responsibilities....and very high day care costs are probably taken in to consideration as well.

I also had read a short while back that most people earning minimum wage are NOT under the age of 18....they are not high school students, the largest breakdown category are working mothers....not JUST working single mothers on welfare, but part time working mothers who are married as well...who are stuck with putting their own careers and success on hold, for the sake of their children, and due to their own personal circumstance....

I know a married woman, who works as a store clerk part time....has done such the last 10-15 years while rearing her and her husbands 3 children....they just could not afford the cost of daycare with her working full time....I guess I am saying, that not only women on welfare with children, who have potential, stay in their entry level jobs, by choice.


But also, that store that has employed this woman for 10-15 years is getting more out of this long time employee than what a new hire would give them, and I would hope this woman i know and the girl at Mc D's that you knew, are not stuck at minimum?

care

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

You claimed that the increase in unemployment was due to the minimum wage increase, for which you provided no evidence. The recession is what is driving unemployment rates upward.

Gee... Let's see... The increase in the minimum wage, artificially increased the liability of the least productive workers... as indicated by their wage status: Minimum; thus where sufficient stress is realized, it follows that such increases in liability with regard to the production potential, would reduce the time that an employer would sustain someone who they are already compensating above their production value, due to the regulatory device which artificially increased their liability.

This isn't a particularly complex calculation here Polk... so either you're just a typical idiot, or you're an obtuse idiot...

Which do ya think we're dealing with here?

 

[Care4all]

hogwash...you can't take what is happening now without considering what is going on with the credit market crash and the stock market crash and the housing market crash and credit still being tight.

the only way to give accurate analysis is to exam every minimum wage hike we have had....not this one singled out instance.

 

[The Rabbi]

hogwash...you can't take what is happening now without considering what is going on with the credit market crash and the stock market crash and the housing market crash and credit still being tight.

the only way to give accurate analysis is to exam every minimum wage hike we have had....not this one singled out instance.

Ok
But this point was proven over the last 20+ years. You seem to be failing here.

 

[Care4all]

hogwash...you can't take what is happening now without considering what is going on with the credit market crash and the stock market crash and the housing market crash and credit still being tight.

the only way to give accurate analysis is to exam every minimum wage hike we have had....not this one singled out instance.

Ok
But this point was proven over the last 20+ years. You seem to be failing here.

The point has NOT been proven over the past few decades....just look at the minimum wage hikes during clinton and all others.

there was NO overall RISE IN UNEMPLOYMENT and there was NO RISE in the cost of living after ALL other minimum wage hikes....NONE.

Not that what is happening now isn't different Rab, than what happened in these other cases with minimum wage, because we are in the deepest recession since the great depression and a minimum wage hike during these conditions may not be in the best interest of anyone....and this should be added to the overall tracking of the statistics of this and be duly noted....

care

 

[The Rabbi]

Dont be silly. Of course there was. Not the overall rate, just the rate for those most affected by min wage.
This is a settled issue. I dont know why you want to debate it when there is academic study on it.

 

[Care4all]

Dont be silly. Of course there was. Not the overall rate, just the rate for those most affected by min wage.
This is a settled issue. I dont know why you want to debate it when there is academic study on it.

no, it is not a settled issue.

 

[The Rabbi]

Dont be silly. Of course there was. Not the overall rate, just the rate for those most affected by min wage.
This is a settled issue. I dont know why you want to debate it when there is academic study on it.

no, it is not a settled issue.

Only to people who don't bother to read and don't understand economics. Then again, there are people who think gov't spending stimulates the economy. You can't get any more wrong than that.