Could Republicans Live On Minimum Wage? NO! But No Fixes To It Either!

[Andylusion]

What is it with these young Republicans that post on here? I've read where three of them have or still do work for minimum wage. For pretty long periods. One thought that going from 5 something an hour to 8 was a major raise.

I am 61 and I am sure you rethugs call me a Demorat. BUT I HAVE NEVER WORKED FOR MINIMUM WAGE IN MY LIFE. And I've been working since I was 15.

What the hell is wrong with you repubs either sitting on your asses all day on a message board with no work to do or working for minimum wage.

Of course I doubt if any of the Repubs are worth more than a minimum wage. You all can't seem to DO anything but suffer with your Obama Derangement Syndrome.

Well first off, I am not a Republican. I am a conservative. It happens that most of the conservatives are Republican, but I would easily vote for a Democrap, provided he was conservative enough. This is why I did not vote for Romney or McCain, because neither of them were conservatives.

That said....

I fully admit I'm a rather pathetic loser. I have not been able to succeed at anything in life. Am I stupid? Am I useless? I have no idea. I'll let you be the judge of that. I gave life my best shot, and lost.

That said, I am still a conservative, and I don't blame employers for my failure, nor do I think somehow I 'deserve' a raise simply because I've sucked air for 40 years.

The reason I'm where I am, is not because "rich people are greedy!" or some other nonsense. It is simply because I have not been able to do something of higher value. Or I am too lazy. Whatever reason floats your boat is fine with me.

Regardless, raising the minimum wage, won't make people more wealthy. It will make them unemployed. That's not a solution.

I wouldn't say that would make them unemployed. If they did for some reason become unemployed they would soon be replaced by others at the business place so that they then could become a little more prosperous.

But you also have to look at the overall picture. That being that the more you pay an employee, the more they will spend and the more they spend the more they will contribute to the American economy! So, raising the minimum wage will actually help the American economy. And since by no means is everyone wealthy in America, people will soon realize that the business has made an effort to help the employees economically by raising their wages that they are more apt to support that business, be a return customer, and also recommend the business to others. And that will be a good thing and a win-win situation!

You are missing a fundamental aspect.

What is the labor worth? Who determines how much the labor is worth?

The answer, is the customer.

If the customer isn't willing to pay more for the product or service, then you can't pay the employees more.

Say you have a home, with a front and back yard, and you want your lawn cut. So I show up and offer to mow your lawn for $30 a mow.

That seems a good deal to you, and agree to do it.

Then the government comes in, and says "Lawn mowing people deserve $100 a mow". So I come and ask for my $100 to do your lawn.

Are you going to do that? Twice a month for six months, is $1,200. You could buy a really nice mower, and all the fuel you could use for the whole summer for that much money.

Chances are, you are not going to go for that. To expensive.

The value of the labor, didn't change because the government mandated that I get paid more.

I'm not going to get more "prosperous" hiring people. Why? Because the amount I would have to pay them, would be more than how much the customer is willing to pay for the service.

Customers are not going to pay my lawn mowing business $100 a mow, so that I can pay my employees $100 a mow. So my customers are paying me $30 a mow, and I'm paying my employees $100 a mow? I would not hire more people, in fact, I would not hire any people, in fact I would FIRE all my people. I'm losing money on every employee. Thus I lay them all off, and have zero employees.

Same is true of McDonald and Wendy's. People are not going to pay $20 for a cheap fast food burger. If they customers are not willing to pay that much for a burger, then I can't hire people that cost $20 an hour.

I'm going to LOSE money, not become 'prosperous' by hiring people. The only time you become 'prosperous' is when the cost of hiring someone is LOWER the value of the labor they perform for the customer.

When you artificially drive up wages with government minimum wage, in many industries, the cost of employment, goes above the value of the labor, and those people end up unemployed, and earning ZERO.

Lastly, this idea that 'if we pay people more, the economy will improve' has been proven false dozens of times.

They tried this in the 1930s, and it didn't work in the Great Depression.

They tried this in 2009. The last thing that happened before the crash, was Bush increased the minimum wage from $5.25, to $7.25. A massive hike in the minimum wage. It didn't spur the economy.... it killed our economy.

Greece!! Greece tried to increase the minimum wage in 2010-2011-2012. Result? 27% unemployment.

In fact, the results were so bad, that Greece did a complete reversal of policy, and CUT their minimum wage, specifically to spur employment.... and employment is slowly.... very slowly, beginning to grow.

The minimum wage does not spur economic growth. It kills jobs. That's what it has ALWAYS done throughout all modern history.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Some people expect to prosper without much effort. Those who expend effort in the quest for prosperity, who then fail in that quest; then demand that they be propped up by society. Minimum wage was never meant to make anyone rich, it was meant to get people going, like training wheels on a bike.

The only thing people who make demands of others do in the grand scheme of life is run out of breath.

 

[Ernie S.]

What is it with these young Republicans that post on here? I've read where three of them have or still do work for minimum wage. For pretty long periods. One thought that going from 5 something an hour to 8 was a major raise.

I am 61 and I am sure you rethugs call me a Demorat. BUT I HAVE NEVER WORKED FOR MINIMUM WAGE IN MY LIFE. And I've been working since I was 15.

What the hell is wrong with you repubs either sitting on your asses all day on a message board with no work to do or working for minimum wage.

Of course I doubt if any of the Repubs are worth more than a minimum wage. You all can't seem to DO anything but suffer with your Obama Derangement Syndrome.

Well first off, I am not a Republican. I am a conservative. It happens that most of the conservatives are Republican, but I would easily vote for a Democrap, provided he was conservative enough. This is why I did not vote for Romney or McCain, because neither of them were conservatives.

That said....

I fully admit I'm a rather pathetic loser. I have not been able to succeed at anything in life. Am I stupid? Am I useless? I have no idea. I'll let you be the judge of that. I gave life my best shot, and lost.

That said, I am still a conservative, and I don't blame employers for my failure, nor do I think somehow I 'deserve' a raise simply because I've sucked air for 40 years.

The reason I'm where I am, is not because "rich people are greedy!" or some other nonsense. It is simply because I have not been able to do something of higher value. Or I am too lazy. Whatever reason floats your boat is fine with me.

Regardless, raising the minimum wage, won't make people more wealthy. It will make them unemployed. That's not a solution.

I wouldn't say that would make them unemployed. If they did for some reason become unemployed they would soon be replaced by others at the business place so that they then could become a little more prosperous.

But you also have to look at the overall picture. That being that the more you pay an employee, the more they will spend and the more they spend the more they will contribute to the American economy! So, raising the minimum wage will actually help the American economy. And since by no means is everyone wealthy in America, people will soon realize that the business has made an effort to help the employees economically by raising their wages that they are more apt to support that business, be a return customer, and also recommend the business to others. And that will be a good thing and a win-win situation!

You probably should pick up a book on basic economic principles. What you describe would only result in inflation. Some people would have more dollars, but the dollars would be worth less. If you pay people $10 for an $8 job, every one of those 10 dollar bills in your pocket just lost $2 in buying power. Most people wouldn't really notice the difference because wage earners would just have 20% more dollars. The people who would be hurt the worst are the people living off their retirement savings. Think things through! Dollars are simply a medium for exchanging wealth. Wealth is the sum of tangible assets.
Your real estate, your automobiles, boats, flat screens, precious metals are your wealth. Money is only a medium with which you can acquire more.

 

[Ernie S.]

If we figured UE like France, we'd have at least 11% too. Thanks for the corrupt World Depression, Pubbies.

It's a Pub dupe myth that the rich are GOP- actually it's just the greedy idiot rich who are DUH.

Fancy that! You, of all people calling others idiots.

 

[FJO]

Minimum wage???

Is there anyone advocating a national minimum wage also advocates minimum contribution?

Or, minimum labor for said minimum wage?

Is there anyone over the age of 16 - including phony pundits and politicians - who think that minimum wage should be an issue of a self-respecting individual?

Is there anyone who faces the prospect of finding no job in their locality, ready to move and find a job elsewhere?

People of my generation sure did.

I, myself, worked as a lumberjack, miner (2,400 feet underground), factory worker and supermarket shelf stuffer, moving from job to job, using nothing but my thumb for transportation, until I found the job that eventually allowed me to progress to a well respected and well paid computer programmer (self taught) until I retired after 37 years of service.

I have absolutely no sympathy for the plight of the misfortunate of today.

It is their own making, it is their own fault.

 

[usmcstinger]

I up the minimum wage to $200 an hour. How about we pay people what they are worth!!!!

Most of the Millennium Generation don't have a clue about Economics or the History of our nation. The best part of this Generation are those who served and are serving in our Armed Forces!

 

[Andylusion]

Seriously, if you people really really believe that raising the minimum wage absolutely does not kill jobs.... then why the heck are you aiming so low?

Let's mandate $100,000 minimum yearly salary for everyone.

Of course not even the economically illiterate would touch that, because they know it would destroy the economy.

 

[francoHFW]

Jeeebus what a bunch of stupid chumps of the greedy idiot rich...

BTW, the states who've raised their min wage are doing better than the cockamamie red states. After 30 years of voodoo, we need higher wages and lower taxes on the struggling nonrich, higher taxes on the bloated rich and big corporations. We need DEMAND. see sig paragraph one, dingbats...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Jeeebus what a bunch of stupid chumps of the greedy idiot rich...

BTW, the states who've raised their min wage are doing better than the cockamamie red states. After 30 years of voodoo, we need higher wages and lower taxes on the struggling nonrich, higher taxes on the bloated rich and big corporations. We need DEMAND. see sig paragraph one, dingbats...

BTW, the states who've raised their min wage are doing better than the cockamamie red states.

Why are they so stingy? Why haven't any states raised the minimum to $20 or $30?

After all, we need higher wages for the struggling nonrich, higher taxes on the bloated rich and big corporations. $40 an hour minimum wage would do both.
The only thing stopping our recovery is the lack of a $50 minimum wage.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

LOL@ Advice from the Food Stamps and Unemployment stimulate the economy Party

 

[usmcstinger]

What is it with these young Republicans that post on here? I've read where three of them have or still do work for minimum wage. For pretty long periods. One thought that going from 5 something an hour to 8 was a major raise.

I am 61 and I am sure you rethugs call me a Demorat. BUT I HAVE NEVER WORKED FOR MINIMUM WAGE IN MY LIFE. And I've been working since I was 15.

What the hell is wrong with you repubs either sitting on your asses all day on a message board with no work to do or working for minimum wage.

Of course I doubt if any of the Repubs are worth more than a minimum wage. You all can't seem to DO anything but suffer with your Obama Derangement Syndrome.

Well first off, I am not a Republican. I am a conservative. It happens that most of the conservatives are Republican, but I would easily vote for a Democrap, provided he was conservative enough. This is why I did not vote for Romney or McCain, because neither of them were conservatives.

That said....

I fully admit I'm a rather pathetic loser. I have not been able to succeed at anything in life. Am I stupid? Am I useless? I have no idea. I'll let you be the judge of that. I gave life my best shot, and lost.

That said, I am still a conservative, and I don't blame employers for my failure, nor do I think somehow I 'deserve' a raise simply because I've sucked air for 40 years.

The reason I'm where I am, is not because "rich people are greedy!" or some other nonsense. It is simply because I have not been able to do something of higher value. Or I am too lazy. Whatever reason floats your boat is fine with me.

Regardless, raising the minimum wage, won't make people more wealthy. It will make them unemployed. That's not a solution.

I wouldn't say that would make them unemployed. If they did for some reason become unemployed they would soon be replaced by others at the business place so that they then could become a little more prosperous.

But you also have to look at the overall picture. That being that the more you pay an employee, the more they will spend and the more they spend the more they will contribute to the American economy! So, raising the minimum wage will actually help the American economy. And since by no means is everyone wealthy in America, people will soon realize that the business has made an effort to help the employees economically by raising their wages that they are more apt to support that business, be a return customer, and also recommend the business to others. And that will be a good thing and a win-win situation!

What you call the overall picture is delusional. Understanding basic economics has eluded you.
By the way no reaction to my statement that the Democrats are the party of the rich?

 

[Peach]

Well first off, I am not a Republican. I am a conservative. It happens that most of the conservatives are Republican, but I would easily vote for a Democrap, provided he was conservative enough. This is why I did not vote for Romney or McCain, because neither of them were conservatives.

That said....

I fully admit I'm a rather pathetic loser. I have not been able to succeed at anything in life. Am I stupid? Am I useless? I have no idea. I'll let you be the judge of that. I gave life my best shot, and lost.

That said, I am still a conservative, and I don't blame employers for my failure, nor do I think somehow I 'deserve' a raise simply because I've sucked air for 40 years.

The reason I'm where I am, is not because "rich people are greedy!" or some other nonsense. It is simply because I have not been able to do something of higher value. Or I am too lazy. Whatever reason floats your boat is fine with me.

Regardless, raising the minimum wage, won't make people more wealthy. It will make them unemployed. That's not a solution.

I wouldn't say that would make them unemployed. If they did for some reason become unemployed they would soon be replaced by others at the business place so that they then could become a little more prosperous.

But you also have to look at the overall picture. That being that the more you pay an employee, the more they will spend and the more they spend the more they will contribute to the American economy! So, raising the minimum wage will actually help the American economy. And since by no means is everyone wealthy in America, people will soon realize that the business has made an effort to help the employees economically by raising their wages that they are more apt to support that business, be a return customer, and also recommend the business to others. And that will be a good thing and a win-win situation!

What you call the overall picture is delusional. Understanding basic economics has eluded you.
By the way no reaction to my statement that the Democrats are the party of the rich?

Both major parties depend on the wealthy, no way around that quandry.

 

[Misty]

2.9 % of Americans earn minimum wage and most of them are teenagers who also go to school.

Most people who work make over the minimum wage. It's a fake issue per usual.

 

[Peach]

2.9 % of Americans earn minimum wage and most of them are teenagers who also go to school.

Most people who work make over the minimum wage. It's a fake issue per usual.

I have read 1% from Glenn Beck, most I know on mimimum wage are teenagers, yes.

 

[Andylusion]

Both major parties depend on the wealthy, no way around that quandry.

I am not entirely sure of that. The Constitution was written so that the President was elected by state legislators, as was Senators.

The only people who were directly elected by the people, were the your house representative, and the state legislators, which differed by state constitutions.

The more I look at this system, the more ingenious it is. I do think the people who wrote our constitution, were brilliant people.

Under this system, presidents and senators, didn't have to even run a public campaign. They only had to run an internal campaign, to win over the people in the state governments. Well obviously, finding all the voters isn't a problem, since you just go to the state government buildings, and all the state legislators tend to meet there.

Additionally, slick slogans, and profession BS campaign ads, tend to not work on other people who master the art of slick slogans and professional BS campaigns. If Obama could have only been president, by convincing other professional BS spewing politicians at state governments to vote for him, do you think his ads "Yes we can!" and "Hope and Change!" and "Believe!" would have swayed those politicians? I think not. He would have had to have more substance, and less BS.

Now house representatives did have to run public campaigns... but generally they didn't need big money. This is because a representative, only had to campaign in their specific district of the state. Virginia, for example, had 10 Reps in the state. Thus each running representative, only had to campaign in a district, roughly, 1/10th of the state.

Additionally, there is little incentive for business, or anyone, to try and influence house elections, for a number of reasons.

But most important is, if you spend millions, their term only lasts 2 years, and the power of a single representative is extremely limited. Senators have 6-year terms, and President has at least 4, with a probability of 8.

As such, the need for money to launch massive country wide, and state wide election campaigns was low.

But now, with public votes on Senators, and public election of the President, yeah, money is absolutely required. You simply can't win without money, because you have to reach the general public, and whoever gets their snappy slogans, and BS campaign to the most people wins.

The American public has insisted on the very system they hate.

 

[Peach]

I am not entirely sure of that. The Constitution was written so that the President was elected by state legislators, as was Senators.

The only people who were directly elected by the people, were the your house representative, and the state legislators, which differed by state constitutions.

The more I look at this system, the more ingenious it is. I do think the people who wrote our constitution, were brilliant people.

Under this system, presidents and senators, didn't have to even run a public campaign. They only had to run an internal campaign, to win over the people in the state governments. Well obviously, finding all the voters isn't a problem, since you just go to the state government buildings, and all the state legislators tend to meet there.

Additionally, slick slogans, and profession BS campaign ads, tend to not work on other people who master the art of slick slogans and professional BS campaigns. If Obama could have only been president, by convincing other professional BS spewing politicians at state governments to vote for him, do you think his ads "Yes we can!" and "Hope and Change!" and "Believe!" would have swayed those politicians? I think not. He would have had to have more substance, and less BS.

Now house representatives did have to run public campaigns... but generally they didn't need big money. This is because a representative, only had to campaign in their specific district of the state. Virginia, for example, had 10 Reps in the state. Thus each running representative, only had to campaign in a district, roughly, 1/10th of the state.

Additionally, there is little incentive for business, or anyone, to try and influence house elections, for a number of reasons.

But most important is, if you spend millions, their term only lasts 2 years, and the power of a single representative is extremely limited. Senators have 6-year terms, and President has at least 4, with a probability of 8.

As such, the need for money to launch massive country wide, and state wide election campaigns was low.

But now, with public votes on Senators, and public election of the President, yeah, money is absolutely required. You simply can't win without money, because you have to reach the general public, and whoever gets their snappy slogans, and BS campaign to the most people wins.

The American public has insisted on the very system they hate.

Mass media developing also led to mass spending required; I recognize your point however. The "popular vote" was also hard to calculate, transportation limited access.

 

[Andylusion]

Mass media developing also led to mass spending required; I recognize your point however. The "popular vote" was also hard to calculate, transportation limited access.

Yeah, somewhat. However, part of the reason for a need for mass media, was the popular vote. The earliest examples of mass media in the colonies, was partisan news papers, funded exclusively by the major parties after 1776, for the purpose of having members of their party elected. These were distributed through the newly created US Post Office, throughout the states. Nearly all of these news papers, were money losers, but that early form of mass media was vital to the major parties. After all, who is voted in the state governments, determines who is in the Senate, and who is President.

At the same time, from the history that I have read thus far, there is no evidence that Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Monroe, Madison, Q Adams, spent so much as a penny on campaigning. Of course that's logical. Why would you campaign, when you will be voted in by people who are already in office? The time to campaign, was when the public was choosing their state legislators.

 

[Peach]

Yeah, somewhat. However, part of the reason for a need for mass media, was the popular vote. The earliest examples of mass media in the colonies, was partisan news papers, funded exclusively by the major parties after 1776, for the purpose of having members of their party elected. These were distributed through the newly created US Post Office, throughout the states. Nearly all of these news papers, were money losers, but that early form of mass media was vital to the major parties. After all, who is voted in the state governments, determines who is in the Senate, and who is President.

At the same time, from the history that I have read thus far, there is no evidence that Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Monroe, Madison, Q Adams, spent so much as a penny on campaigning. Of course that's logical. Why would you campaign, when you will be voted in by people who are already in office? The time to campaign, was when the public was choosing their state legislators.

Yes, but the disagreement between the followers of Adams & Jefferson ended up with meetings, visits, and "letters", which did take time, and some expenditures.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You simply can't win without money, because you have to reach the general public, and whoever gets their snappy slogans, and BS campaign to the most people wins.
.

Of course thats idiotic since some people get outspent 150 to 1 and still win!!