Should The Government Raise The Minimum Wage?

[SwimExpert]

Bullshit buddy, the cost of living argument has been used against every MW increase proposal.. The cost of living goes up either way.

So....you believe the evil, greedy, corrupt rich guys at the top of the corporate ladder are simply going to volunteer to take the increase out of their own paychecks?

What are you on about now? When the minimum wage was initially started, people argued raising it would increase the cost of living, surprise surprise, it went up either way.

You didn't answer the question.

They wouldn't even have to take it out of their bonuses..

You still didn't answer the question.

 

[David_42]

Bullshit buddy, the cost of living argument has been used against every MW increase proposal.. The cost of living goes up either way.

So....you believe the evil, greedy, corrupt rich guys at the top of the corporate ladder are simply going to volunteer to take the increase out of their own paychecks?

What are you on about now? When the minimum wage was initially started, people argued raising it would increase the cost of living, surprise surprise, it went up either way.

You didn't answer the question.

They wouldn't even have to take it out of their bonuses..

You still didn't answer the question.

I just did.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes, 10.10 is a good start.

You mean because employer will pay someone worth $7 an hour $10, we wouldn't find a worker worth $10 if we have to pay that.

You are extremely naive. Basic logic tells you that the minimum wage would never work. All you do is deny any job to the people who need it the most.

It's the inevitable result of someone, you, being generous with someone else's money

See the issue here is that you have hired people. David has not. He has only worked for others (maybe). So he thinks, hey free money! Instead of doing this crummy job for 7/hr he can do it for 10/hr!
But you and I know that if I have to pay top wage I'm gong to hire top people, not some guy who may or may not showup on time.

 

[David_42]

Yes, 10.10 is a good start.

You mean because employer will pay someone worth $7 an hour $10, we wouldn't find a worker worth $10 if we have to pay that.

You are extremely naive. Basic logic tells you that the minimum wage would never work. All you do is deny any job to the people who need it the most.

It's the inevitable result of someone, you, being generous with someone else's money

See the issue here is that you have hired people. David has not. He has only worked for others (maybe). So he thinks, hey free money! Instead of doing this crummy job for 7/hr he can do it for 10/hr!
But you and I know that if I have to pay top wage I'm gong to hire top people, not some guy who may or may not showup on time.

You know nothing about me, first of all, and second of all, no one is using the free money argument, wages need to adjust to the cost of living or people have to rely on food stamps/etc..

 

[Avatar4321]

The federal government should abolish the minimum wage at the federal level. Let the state's do as they choose

 

[Boss]

Okay.... So here is a hypothetical for you libtards out there....

Why not raise the minimum wage to $100 hr.?

Surely, no matter where you live or what you do for a living, this should be more than a living wage to please anyone, I would think. Imagine all the "buying power" it would create overnight? You could all pay off those student loans in no time!

View attachment 49298

No one is obligated to answer a question at that level of monumental stupidity about minimum wage.

Why not? Don't you want to solve poverty?

Your entire argument is juvenile, the minimum wage is meant to ensure a basic standard of living for working people, no one wants to raise it to such an unreasonable Amount, however, it does need to keep up with the cost of living.

What's unreasonable about $100 hr.? Why is that unreasonable? Stop pretending it is juvenile and answer my questions. What is a basic standard of living? Is it the same for a high school kid living at home as it is for a single mother of three? We've had the minimum wage for 82 years and it doesn't seem to be able to keep up with the cost of living. Maybe if we raise it to $100 hr. that won't be a problem, right? I would think $100 hr. could meet the cost of living for just about everyone, don't you agree?

Because that's a wage way out of whack to anyone who understands basic economics? You clearly don't. A standard of living is enough to afford an apartment without it taking more then 40% of your income, not having to rely on food stamps..

What do you mean "out of whack?" I think $100 hr. is adequate to provide a quality lifestyle to most anyone. You wouldn't need food stamps or have to worry about an apartment with that kind of money. Your standard of living would be excellent.

I don't work much now but back when I did work, my time and talent was worth $100 hr. If I couldn't make that it wasn't worth me doing. I didn't worry about how much I needed to make so that 40% of my income went to housing. I also didn't worry much about economics, it seemed to keep working just fine. So why are you so opposed to my idea of people making $100 hr.?

 

[kaz]

Yes, 10.10 is a good start.

You mean because employer will pay someone worth $7 an hour $10, we wouldn't find a worker worth $10 if we have to pay that.

You are extremely naive. Basic logic tells you that the minimum wage would never work. All you do is deny any job to the people who need it the most.

It's the inevitable result of someone, you, being generous with someone else's money

And those same people "worth" $7 were worth 2 dollars at one point.. Should we have never raised the minimum wage when the cost of living spiraled?

There should be no minimum wage. It's a hurdle, not a tide. Here's the inside scoop, Holmes. People aren't paid what they need, they are paid what they are worth. And worth is set by free markets. No one takes a job if they can get a better one. They take the best job they can get. Ditto for employers, we hire the best employee we can for what we are paying. Who'd a thunk, huh?

You are so arrogant, you think someone who is willing to accept a job for a certain wage isn't smart enough to decline it on their own, they need you to step in and do it for them. How do you get your head through doorways?

 

[kaz]

View attachment 49298

No one is obligated to answer a question at that level of monumental stupidity about minimum wage.

Why not? Don't you want to solve poverty?

Your entire argument is juvenile, the minimum wage is meant to ensure a basic standard of living for working people, no one wants to raise it to such an unreasonable Amount, however, it does need to keep up with the cost of living.

What's unreasonable about $100 hr.? Why is that unreasonable? Stop pretending it is juvenile and answer my questions. What is a basic standard of living? Is it the same for a high school kid living at home as it is for a single mother of three? We've had the minimum wage for 82 years and it doesn't seem to be able to keep up with the cost of living. Maybe if we raise it to $100 hr. that won't be a problem, right? I would think $100 hr. could meet the cost of living for just about everyone, don't you agree?

Because that's a wage way out of whack to anyone who understands basic economics? You clearly don't. A standard of living is enough to afford an apartment without it taking more then 40% of your income, not having to rely on food stamps..

What do you mean "out of whack?" I think $100 hr. is adequate to provide a quality lifestyle to most anyone. You wouldn't need food stamps or have to worry about an apartment with that kind of money. Your standard of living would be excellent.

I don't work much now but back when I did work, my time and talent was worth $100 hr. If I couldn't make that it wasn't worth me doing. I didn't worry about how much I needed to make so that 40% of my income went to housing. I also didn't worry much about economics, it seemed to keep working just fine. So why are you so opposed to my idea of people making $100 hr.?

David is like government, just reasonable, damn it. They know what's best for us. I'm not sure why if they have the best, most reasonable answers, then why do they need to enforce their decisions with guns? That one is a poser

 

[David_42]

Why not? Don't you want to solve poverty?

Your entire argument is juvenile, the minimum wage is meant to ensure a basic standard of living for working people, no one wants to raise it to such an unreasonable Amount, however, it does need to keep up with the cost of living.

What's unreasonable about $100 hr.? Why is that unreasonable? Stop pretending it is juvenile and answer my questions. What is a basic standard of living? Is it the same for a high school kid living at home as it is for a single mother of three? We've had the minimum wage for 82 years and it doesn't seem to be able to keep up with the cost of living. Maybe if we raise it to $100 hr. that won't be a problem, right? I would think $100 hr. could meet the cost of living for just about everyone, don't you agree?

Because that's a wage way out of whack to anyone who understands basic economics? You clearly don't. A standard of living is enough to afford an apartment without it taking more then 40% of your income, not having to rely on food stamps..

What do you mean "out of whack?" I think $100 hr. is adequate to provide a quality lifestyle to most anyone. You wouldn't need food stamps or have to worry about an apartment with that kind of money. Your standard of living would be excellent.

I don't work much now but back when I did work, my time and talent was worth $100 hr. If I couldn't make that it wasn't worth me doing. I didn't worry about how much I needed to make so that 40% of my income went to housing. I also didn't worry much about economics, it seemed to keep working just fine. So why are you so opposed to my idea of people making $100 hr.?

David is like government, just reasonable, damn it. They know what's best for us. I'm not sure why if they have the best, most reasonable answers, then why do they need to enforce their decisions with guns? That one is a poser

What are you talking about? The government is ran by the people.

 

[koshergrl]

We could support ourselves just fine on low wage jobs if we didn't have to give a ridiculous portion of it to assholes who refuse to work in the form of welfare, unemployment, medical, etc.

What the hell? A lot of welfare goes to working people on these low wage jobs.

And if they didn't have to pay for that shit out of their wages, they'd have that money to spend on themselves. Go figger.

 

[David_42]

Yes, 10.10 is a good start.

You mean because employer will pay someone worth $7 an hour $10, we wouldn't find a worker worth $10 if we have to pay that.

You are extremely naive. Basic logic tells you that the minimum wage would never work. All you do is deny any job to the people who need it the most.

It's the inevitable result of someone, you, being generous with someone else's money

And those same people "worth" $7 were worth 2 dollars at one point.. Should we have never raised the minimum wage when the cost of living spiraled?

There should be no minimum wage. It's a hurdle, not a tide. Here's the inside scoop, Holmes. People aren't paid what they need, they are paid what they are worth. And worth is set by free markets. No one takes a job if they can get a better one. They take the best job they can get. Ditto for employers, we hire the best employee we can for what we are paying. Who'd a thunk, huh?

You are so arrogant, you think someone who is willing to accept a job for a certain wage isn't smart enough to decline it on their own, they need you to step in and do it for them. How do you get your head through doorways?

Yeah, I loved them 50 hour work weeks being paid 1 dollar an hour.. LOL.

 

[SwimExpert]

So....you believe the evil, greedy, corrupt rich guys at the top of the corporate ladder are simply going to volunteer to take the increase out of their own paychecks?

What are you on about now? When the minimum wage was initially started, people argued raising it would increase the cost of living, surprise surprise, it went up either way.

You didn't answer the question.

They wouldn't even have to take it out of their bonuses..

You still didn't answer the question.

I just did.

It's a yes or no question. Do you believe the evil, greedy, corrupt rich guys at the top of the corporate ladder are simply going to volunteer to take the increase out of their own paychecks? Yes, or no?

 

[koshergrl]

Your entire argument is juvenile, the minimum wage is meant to ensure a basic standard of living for working people, no one wants to raise it to such an unreasonable Amount, however, it does need to keep up with the cost of living.

What's unreasonable about $100 hr.? Why is that unreasonable? Stop pretending it is juvenile and answer my questions. What is a basic standard of living? Is it the same for a high school kid living at home as it is for a single mother of three? We've had the minimum wage for 82 years and it doesn't seem to be able to keep up with the cost of living. Maybe if we raise it to $100 hr. that won't be a problem, right? I would think $100 hr. could meet the cost of living for just about everyone, don't you agree?

Because that's a wage way out of whack to anyone who understands basic economics? You clearly don't. A standard of living is enough to afford an apartment without it taking more then 40% of your income, not having to rely on food stamps..

What do you mean "out of whack?" I think $100 hr. is adequate to provide a quality lifestyle to most anyone. You wouldn't need food stamps or have to worry about an apartment with that kind of money. Your standard of living would be excellent.

I don't work much now but back when I did work, my time and talent was worth $100 hr. If I couldn't make that it wasn't worth me doing. I didn't worry about how much I needed to make so that 40% of my income went to housing. I also didn't worry much about economics, it seemed to keep working just fine. So why are you so opposed to my idea of people making $100 hr.?

David is like government, just reasonable, damn it. They know what's best for us. I'm not sure why if they have the best, most reasonable answers, then why do they need to enforce their decisions with guns? That one is a poser

What are you talking about? The government is ran by the people.

Shut the hell up, statist puke. You're a lemming and should be culled from the population, but sadly will probably live till you're a hundred.

 

[David_42]

What's unreasonable about $100 hr.? Why is that unreasonable? Stop pretending it is juvenile and answer my questions. What is a basic standard of living? Is it the same for a high school kid living at home as it is for a single mother of three? We've had the minimum wage for 82 years and it doesn't seem to be able to keep up with the cost of living. Maybe if we raise it to $100 hr. that won't be a problem, right? I would think $100 hr. could meet the cost of living for just about everyone, don't you agree?

Because that's a wage way out of whack to anyone who understands basic economics? You clearly don't. A standard of living is enough to afford an apartment without it taking more then 40% of your income, not having to rely on food stamps..

What do you mean "out of whack?" I think $100 hr. is adequate to provide a quality lifestyle to most anyone. You wouldn't need food stamps or have to worry about an apartment with that kind of money. Your standard of living would be excellent.

I don't work much now but back when I did work, my time and talent was worth $100 hr. If I couldn't make that it wasn't worth me doing. I didn't worry about how much I needed to make so that 40% of my income went to housing. I also didn't worry much about economics, it seemed to keep working just fine. So why are you so opposed to my idea of people making $100 hr.?

David is like government, just reasonable, damn it. They know what's best for us. I'm not sure why if they have the best, most reasonable answers, then why do they need to enforce their decisions with guns? That one is a poser

What are you talking about? The government is ran by the people.

Shut the hell up, statist puke. You're a lemming and should be culled from the population, but sadly will probably live till you're a hundred.

Typical Christian.

 

[David_42]

What are you on about now? When the minimum wage was initially started, people argued raising it would increase the cost of living, surprise surprise, it went up either way.

You didn't answer the question.

They wouldn't even have to take it out of their bonuses..

You still didn't answer the question.

I just did.

It's a yes or no question. Do you believe the evil, greedy, corrupt rich guys at the top of the corporate ladder are simply going to volunteer to take the increase out of their own paychecks? Yes, or no?

No one is saying they're all evil or greedy. They probably wouldn't even have to take it out of their bonuses.

 

[koshergrl]

Because that's a wage way out of whack to anyone who understands basic economics? You clearly don't. A standard of living is enough to afford an apartment without it taking more then 40% of your income, not having to rely on food stamps..

What do you mean "out of whack?" I think $100 hr. is adequate to provide a quality lifestyle to most anyone. You wouldn't need food stamps or have to worry about an apartment with that kind of money. Your standard of living would be excellent.

I don't work much now but back when I did work, my time and talent was worth $100 hr. If I couldn't make that it wasn't worth me doing. I didn't worry about how much I needed to make so that 40% of my income went to housing. I also didn't worry much about economics, it seemed to keep working just fine. So why are you so opposed to my idea of people making $100 hr.?

David is like government, just reasonable, damn it. They know what's best for us. I'm not sure why if they have the best, most reasonable answers, then why do they need to enforce their decisions with guns? That one is a poser

What are you talking about? The government is ran by the people.

Shut the hell up, statist puke. You're a lemming and should be culled from the population, but sadly will probably live till you're a hundred.

Typical Christian.

You'd better believe it.

 

[SwimExpert]

You didn't answer the question.

They wouldn't even have to take it out of their bonuses..

You still didn't answer the question.

I just did.

It's a yes or no question. Do you believe the evil, greedy, corrupt rich guys at the top of the corporate ladder are simply going to volunteer to take the increase out of their own paychecks? Yes, or no?

No one is saying they're all evil or greedy. They probably wouldn't even have to take it out of their bonuses.

You can't even answer a simple question, because you realize it blows your entire argument to shit. If they're not evil and greedy, then your entire argument falls apart. The would be paying better wages all on their own accord, simply because they believe in doing so, much like Costco. On the other hand, if they are evil and greedy, they'll respond to a minimum wage increase by raising prices, among other things, much like Walmart.

You would have been better off to simply have admitted your error instead of the tap-dance routine you tried to pull.

 

[David_42]

They wouldn't even have to take it out of their bonuses..

You still didn't answer the question.

I just did.

It's a yes or no question. Do you believe the evil, greedy, corrupt rich guys at the top of the corporate ladder are simply going to volunteer to take the increase out of their own paychecks? Yes, or no?

No one is saying they're all evil or greedy. They probably wouldn't even have to take it out of their bonuses.

You can't even answer a simple question, because you realize it blows your entire argument to shit. If they're not evil and greedy, then your entire argument falls apart. The would be paying better wages all on their own accord, simply because they believe in doing so, much like Costco. On the other hand, if they are evil and greedy, they'll respond to a minimum wage increase by raising prices, among other things, must like Walmart.

You would have been better off to simply have admitted your error instead of the tap-dance routine you tried to pull.

What are you on about now? There are good and bad leaders, but we saw what happened when the MW didn't exist, some leaders of these businesses didn't pay out to there employees what they need to live a basic life.

 

[kaz]

Yes, 10.10 is a good start.

You mean because employer will pay someone worth $7 an hour $10, we wouldn't find a worker worth $10 if we have to pay that.

You are extremely naive. Basic logic tells you that the minimum wage would never work. All you do is deny any job to the people who need it the most.

It's the inevitable result of someone, you, being generous with someone else's money

And those same people "worth" $7 were worth 2 dollars at one point.. Should we have never raised the minimum wage when the cost of living spiraled?

There should be no minimum wage. It's a hurdle, not a tide. Here's the inside scoop, Holmes. People aren't paid what they need, they are paid what they are worth. And worth is set by free markets. No one takes a job if they can get a better one. They take the best job they can get. Ditto for employers, we hire the best employee we can for what we are paying. Who'd a thunk, huh?

You are so arrogant, you think someone who is willing to accept a job for a certain wage isn't smart enough to decline it on their own, they need you to step in and do it for them. How do you get your head through doorways?

Got nothing, huh David?

 

[hadit]

I wonder if the people who want to limit a company's profitability are also willing to limit its risk. IOW, if it's incumbent on a successful company to pay high wages and taxes, society should also be willing to prop it up when profits decline.