America doesn't have a jobs issue, WE HAVE A WAGE ISSUE.

America doesn't have a Wage issue, it has a Lack of Growth one.

America doesn't have a Wage issue, it has a Lack of Growth one.

Higher wages would promote growth.


B'loney. Growth begets higher wages as demand for labor increases. If spending more for something that it is worth (i.e., Porkulus Stimulus programs) begat growth, our economy would be growing at a very rapid pace by now. It's not. So you fail.

B'loney. Growth begets higher wages as demand for labor increases. If spending more for something that it is worth (i.e., Porkulus Stimulus programs) begat growth, our economy would be growing at a very rapid pace by now. It's not. So you fail.

But to promote growth you need higher wages/wages equal to costs to create growth due to more spending.

You have it backwards, bub.

To promote higher growth, investors must believe they can earn a reasonable return in order to invest capital. Arbitrarily raising wages above what productivity levels can support only suppresses expected returns and discourages investment. What you advocate destroys growth.
 
A Call to Action



In New York City, over 150,000 children under five are poor. Last year, nearly 20,000 of these children slept in homeless shelters - enough to fill Madison Square Garden. From the moment they're born, children in poverty face an uphill struggle to survive, thrive and learn with so many odds stacked against them.

When will those in Washington agree? Its time raise the min. wage and its time to give hard working, decent folk wages they can live on. Wall street has had nothing but huge wind falls for the last 2 decades, including tax payer bailouts...when does the trickle down occur, Mr. GOP **** head!!

Let me ask you a few questions. I'll keep it simple.

Under what constitutional authority does the Federal government dictate to workers the limits of pay that they may contract for their labor? Under what constitutional authority does the Federal government dictate to employers the worth of the work they offer? Finally, under what constitutional authority may the Federal government compel employers to support contracted workers beyond not only the worth of the work they offer, but beyond the worker's own efforts to better their subjective predicaments?

Since the Founders never considered such concepts when crafting the Constitution, please provide reference to article, section, and paragraph.

Fair Labor Standards Act - FLSA - 29 U.S. Code Chapter 8 | findUSlaw


Sec. 202. Congressional finding and declaration of policy

(a) The Congress finds that the existence, in industries engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, of labor conditions detrimental to the maintenance of the minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency, and general well-being of workers
(1) causes commerce and the channels and instrumentalities of commerce to be used to spread and perpetuate such labor conditions among the workers of the several States;
(2) burdens commerce and the free flow of goods in commerce;
(3) constitutes an unfair method of competition in commerce;
(4) leads to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of goods in commerce; and
(5) interferes with the orderly and fair marketing of goods in commerce. That Congress further finds that the employment of persons in domestic service in households affects commerce.
(b) It is declared to be the policy of this chapter, through the exercise by Congress of its power to regulate commerce among the several States and with foreign nations, to correct and as rapidly as practicable to eliminate the conditions above referred to in such industries without substantially curtailing employment or earning power.

So that would be Article I, section 8 paragraph 3.

I see. The "paragraph that stretches".

"Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938".

None of those guys in 1938 were Founders, unless we're talking time travel and secret identities.
You asked under what authority minimum wage was set. The FLSA is the law that instituted the minimum wage and it explicitly states under what authority it does so. But then I don't believe you really thought I was trying to claim the FLSA was either the Constitution or written by the Founders.

You asked a question, I gave you the answer. If you don't like the answer, that's not my problem.

You gave AN answer. If a law is not supported by the Constitution, it is not a law, but a dictate.

Point well taken.

Lame Duck President Barack Hussein Obama major objection to our constitution is that it LIMITS WHAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN DO, a great thing for the citizens, not such a great thing for a far left Progressive like President Obama. Obama believes out constitution should ENUMERATE what the Federal Government MUST PROVIDE for the citizens.

For others...(ie Progressives) you are referring to the 10th Amendment in our Bill of Rights.

U.S. Constitution - Amendment 10

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People
<<Back | Table of Contents | Next>>

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

U.S. Constitution - Amendment 10 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
 
America doesn't have a Wage issue, it has a Lack of Growth one.

America doesn't have a Wage issue, it has a Lack of Growth one.

Higher wages would promote growth.

FORCED higher wages would crash the growth. Keep in mind, Lame Duck President Barack Hussein Obama is the first president in history to NOT have a single year of his administration with a growth rate of over 3% and it was all of... 0.5 percent this past quarter. Dismal!

FORCED higher wages would crash the growth. Keep in mind, Lame Duck President Barack Hussein Obama is the first president in history to NOT have a single year of his administration with a growth rate of over 3% and it was all of... 0.5 percent this past quarter. Dismal!

Higher wages have NEVER crashed growth in the United States.


Poppycock. Uneconomically viable costs of labor deter growth. We have that already in the forms of requiring Union Labor, Regulations, and Taxes. I bet you whinge that Multinationals have moved labor offshore. Now why would they do that if Higher Wages cause growth?
 
Leave it to the left to offer mind numbing simplistic solutions to complicated problems. Do they really think the 20,000 children who "slept in homeless shelters in NYC" did so because the minimum wage is too low? Drug use and alcohol abuse had nothing to do with it?
 
America doesn't have a Wage issue, it has a Lack of Growth one.

America doesn't have a Wage issue, it has a Lack of Growth one.

Higher wages would promote growth.


B'loney. Growth begets higher wages as demand for labor increases. If spending more for something that it is worth (i.e., Porkulus Stimulus programs) begat growth, our economy would be growing at a very rapid pace by now. It's not. So you fail.

B'loney. Growth begets higher wages as demand for labor increases. If spending more for something that it is worth (i.e., Porkulus Stimulus programs) begat growth, our economy would be growing at a very rapid pace by now. It's not. So you fail.

But to promote growth you need higher wages/wages equal to costs to create growth due to more spending.

You have it backwards, bub.

To promote higher growth, investors must believe they can earn a reasonable return in order to invest capital. Arbitrarily raising wages above what productivity levels can support only suppresses expected returns and discourages investment. What you advocate destroys growth.

You have it backwards, bub.

To promote higher growth, investors must believe they can earn a reasonable return in order to invest capital. Arbitrarily raising wages above what productivity levels can support only suppresses expected returns and discourages investment. What you advocate destroys growth.

Increased wages promotes more sales of products and services thus increased profits.
 
America doesn't have a Wage issue, it has a Lack of Growth one.

America doesn't have a Wage issue, it has a Lack of Growth one.

Higher wages would promote growth.


B'loney. Growth begets higher wages as demand for labor increases. If spending more for something that it is worth (i.e., Porkulus Stimulus programs) begat growth, our economy would be growing at a very rapid pace by now. It's not. So you fail.
Growth comes from spending/higher wages. Things dont grow unless you water them.


Growth comes from investing in new businesses, products, and expanding markets. Just paying more for something that its economic value is Not Growth. If it were, Solyndra would have been a raging success.
You cant invest if people dont have money. Even if for some reason you were correct, investing alone wouldnt do anything. People need to spend money for those investments to pay dividends.
 
You asked under what authority minimum wage was set. The FLSA is the law that instituted the minimum wage and it explicitly states under what authority it does so. But then I don't believe you really thought I was trying to claim the FLSA was either the Constitution or written by the Founders.

You asked a question, I gave you the answer. If you don't like the answer, that's not my problem.

You gave AN answer. If a law is not supported by the Constitution, it is not a law, but a dictate.
And the FLSA gave 5 reasons why it is supported by the Constitution. There is no other answer. You asked what part of the Constitution authorizes it, and I gave THE answer.

Now if you want to try to argue why none of the 5 points are true...go ahead.

In the Dred Scott Decision, the Supreme Court gave a reasoned explanation why black people could not become citizens of the United States. Fortunately, those reasons were not Constitutional, and were shot down reasonably quickly. Those gentlemen were, of course, closer to the founding than we.

Saying a thing does not make it true.

The Dred Scott Decision did not claim that the Constitution did not allow Blacks to be citizens

The Court held that a negro, whose ancestors were imported into the U.S. and sold as slaves, whether enslaved or free, could not be an American citizen and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court.

That would be the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision concerning a person, 1/4 black, riding in the passenger car for whites, on a train going through the state of Louisana. That decision created the separate but equal doctrine.

I'm sure you are also aware that the Brown v. Board of Education overturned that prior decision.
 
why the **** would a grown person apply for a minimum wage job? WHY?
 
America doesn't have a Wage issue, it has a Lack of Growth one.

America doesn't have a Wage issue, it has a Lack of Growth one.

Higher wages would promote growth.

FORCED higher wages would crash the growth. Keep in mind, Lame Duck President Barack Hussein Obama is the first president in history to NOT have a single year of his administration with a growth rate of over 3% and it was all of... 0.5 percent this past quarter. Dismal!

FORCED higher wages would crash the growth. Keep in mind, Lame Duck President Barack Hussein Obama is the first president in history to NOT have a single year of his administration with a growth rate of over 3% and it was all of... 0.5 percent this past quarter. Dismal!

Higher wages have NEVER crashed growth in the United States.


Poppycock. Uneconomically viable costs of labor deter growth. We have that already in the forms of requiring Union Labor, Regulations, and Taxes. I bet you whinge that Multinationals have moved labor offshore. Now why would they do that if Higher Wages cause growth?

Poppycock. Uneconomically viable costs of labor deter growth. We have that already in the forms of requiring Union Labor, Regulations, and Taxes. I bet you whinge that Multinationals have moved labor offshore. Now why would they do that if Higher Wages cause growth?

You're being suckered.

My favorite example of your 'suckering' comes from Levi-Strauss & Company who moved operations off-shore stating they couldn't make $26.00 501's in the US. So now 501's are made in slave wage countries and selling for $60.00, but the good news is that the company has enough monies to put their name on a stadium.

Every business in this country CAN afford to pay living wages, they don't want too.
 
I find it interesting the complete disconnect here... The correlation of wages paid is not just "what's important for the business," it's between the paying rate for labor and labor availability. If there are 100 burger flipper's then that is a labor glut, it deflates the paying worth of that labor. If there are 10 managers, that is a labor shortage which inflates the paying worth of that labor. I am baffled that folks cannot see this, simple, common, everyday correlation.

If there are 1,000 widgets on the market the selling price would be less than if there were only 500. This is the exact same concept.
I agree in principal but you forget there are exceptions to that. Look at the cost of iPhones and tell me they will go down if they have a surplus of them.
Of course, the price of the older iPhones will drop if they have a surplus. They'll make it up on the sale of the bright NEW model the techies will camp out to buy.
 
I find it interesting the complete disconnect here... The correlation of wages paid is not just "what's important for the business," it's between the paying rate for labor and labor availability. If there are 100 burger flipper's then that is a labor glut, it deflates the paying worth of that labor. If there are 10 managers, that is a labor shortage which inflates the paying worth of that labor. I am baffled that folks cannot see this, simple, common, everyday correlation.

If there are 1,000 widgets on the market the selling price would be less than if there were only 500. This is the exact same concept.
I agree in principal but you forget there are exceptions to that. Look at the cost of iPhones and tell me they will go down if they have a surplus of them.
Of course, the price of the older iPhones will drop if they have a surplus. They'll make it up on the sale of the bright NEW model the techies will camp out to buy.
Since no one mentioned older Iphones I have to consider your post irrelevant.
 
why the **** would a grown person apply for a minimum wage job? WHY?

why the **** would a grown person apply for a minimum wage job? WHY?

Because there is nothing else available due to employers treating their employees like commodities.
 
why the **** would a grown person apply for a minimum wage job? WHY?
Probably to feed themselves, family, etc instead of being on welfare.


Why not apply for $9.00 or $10.00 an hour? Why settle for minimum wage?

Why not apply for $9.00 or $10.00 an hour? Why settle for minimum wage?

You do understand that those wages in the vast majority of the US is below living wage standards.
 
15th post
America doesn't have a Wage issue, it has a Lack of Growth one.

America doesn't have a Wage issue, it has a Lack of Growth one.

Higher wages would promote growth.


B'loney. Growth begets higher wages as demand for labor increases. If spending more for something that it is worth (i.e., Porkulus Stimulus programs) begat growth, our economy would be growing at a very rapid pace by now. It's not. So you fail.

B'loney. Growth begets higher wages as demand for labor increases. If spending more for something that it is worth (i.e., Porkulus Stimulus programs) begat growth, our economy would be growing at a very rapid pace by now. It's not. So you fail.

But to promote growth you need higher wages/wages equal to costs to create growth due to more spending.

You have it backwards, bub.

To promote higher growth, investors must believe they can earn a reasonable return in order to invest capital. Arbitrarily raising wages above what productivity levels can support only suppresses expected returns and discourages investment. What you advocate destroys growth.

You have it backwards, bub.

To promote higher growth, investors must believe they can earn a reasonable return in order to invest capital. Arbitrarily raising wages above what productivity levels can support only suppresses expected returns and discourages investment. What you advocate destroys growth.

Increased wages promotes more sales of products and services thus increased profits.


Then why not just have the government print money and give it away so that people can buy products and services?
 
I agree it would be a wage subsidy. However, how do you rationalize paying people more than what they produce? Think about it for a minute. I own a company and I sell widgets that cost me $10 for raw material to build. I sell them at $20. Now I have to pay my employee that pushes the widgets down the assembly line $11. Why should i bother being in business?

You're asking the wrong question:

How much will the wage increase increase your production costs on a per unit basis? If the employee can process 60 widgets an hour, then the $3.00 per hour increase, adds 5 cents to the cost of your widget. You have the choice of adding the 5 cents to the price of your widgets, or absorbing it.

NOT if you sell your widgets for $1.00 each. Then the 5 cent addition is a FIVE PERCENT increase.
 
why the **** would a grown person apply for a minimum wage job? WHY?
Probably to feed themselves, family, etc instead of being on welfare.


Why not apply for $9.00 or $10.00 an hour? Why settle for minimum wage?

Why not apply for $9.00 or $10.00 an hour? Why settle for minimum wage?

You do understand that those wages in the vast majority of the US is below living wage standards.

A minimum wage is not intended for "living wage" standards. It is the price of basically untrained and unskilled labor. Taking a minimum wage job is an entry into the workforce, not the ultimate goal.
 
America doesn't have a Wage issue, it has a Lack of Growth one.

America doesn't have a Wage issue, it has a Lack of Growth one.

Higher wages would promote growth.

FORCED higher wages would crash the growth. Keep in mind, Lame Duck President Barack Hussein Obama is the first president in history to NOT have a single year of his administration with a growth rate of over 3% and it was all of... 0.5 percent this past quarter. Dismal!

FORCED higher wages would crash the growth. Keep in mind, Lame Duck President Barack Hussein Obama is the first president in history to NOT have a single year of his administration with a growth rate of over 3% and it was all of... 0.5 percent this past quarter. Dismal!

Higher wages have NEVER crashed growth in the United States.


Poppycock. Uneconomically viable costs of labor deter growth. We have that already in the forms of requiring Union Labor, Regulations, and Taxes. I bet you whinge that Multinationals have moved labor offshore. Now why would they do that if Higher Wages cause growth?

Poppycock. Uneconomically viable costs of labor deter growth. We have that already in the forms of requiring Union Labor, Regulations, and Taxes. I bet you whinge that Multinationals have moved labor offshore. Now why would they do that if Higher Wages cause growth?

You're being suckered.

My favorite example of your 'suckering' comes from Levi-Strauss & Company who moved operations off-shore stating they couldn't make $26.00 501's in the US. So now 501's are made in slave wage countries and selling for $60.00, but the good news is that the company has enough monies to put their name on a stadium.

Every business in this country CAN afford to pay living wages, they don't want too.


Your sentence is incomplete. They don't want to... lose money and go out of business.
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom