Democrats should immediately confront the minimum wage rate.

[Andylusion]

The minimum wage is for kids and retirees and people just starting out.

^^^THIS^^^

Deadbeat losers who won't improve themselves have already priced themselves out of the low end labor market due to the flood of illegals the Dims have imported to bolster their voting base.

In my state, the minimum wage is 7.25. If pajama boi works 8 hours a day at 7.25, he'll get 58 bucks before tax and gas money. I can go to the Lowe's or Home Depot parking lot ANY MORNING of the year and hire illegals between the ages of 17 and 40 who will work their ass off 12 hours a day for 35 bucks. That's for unskilled labor. I can hire a skilled carpenter or painter for what pajama boi makes a day at minimum wage.

So tell me again why I should pay some whiny little bitch more than he's worth?

The low end labor market is flooded. There is more supply than demand so the price is low. Basic economics. Want to raise the price of low end labor? Lower the supply. Build the wall.

The wall will not allay the rich wanting to be richer..

The rich will always get richer, as long as they continue to invest. The wall has nothing to do with it.
In fact,, even if you intentionally caused a new great depression, the rich will still get richer, because they will simply invest where their investments make money. If not in the US, then elsewhere.

 

[Andylusion]

I voted for the increase in min wage just like the board of directors vote to raise their prices..

Well yeah. When you increase the minimum wage, the board of directors has to offset that cost.... by raising prices on the public.

Everyone should understand, that when you demand a raise to the minimum wage, you are in effect demanding that you are charged more for everything you buy.

 

[Moonglow]

I voted for the increase in min wage just like the board of directors vote to raise their prices..

Well yeah. When you increase the minimum wage, the board of directors has to offset that cost.... by raising prices on the public.

Everyone should understand, that when you demand a raise to the minimum wage, you are in effect demanding that you are charged more for everything you buy.

Yet you have zero problems with a board member that shows up once a month for a couple of hours and makes 50k a year doing it..

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Democrats regained the congressional House. Now they should immediately confront the federal minimum wage rate issue.

I’m among those that advocate a minimum wage rate gradually increased to higher purchasing power and thereafter monitored and (when necessary to retain its targeted purchasing power), it should be updated prior to New Year’s date of the following year. In my opinion, annual increases of 12% until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power is reasonable.

It would be possible, but politically problematic for the Republican majority U.S. Senate not to pass an alternative bill responding to the Democratic House’s bill. Usually, there are differences between bills that may, (or may not) be reconciled by negotiators from each chamber. A bill sent to the president for his consideration must be passed by both houses with exactly the same drafted language. That usually requires both chambers to again vote and pass a draft of the bill that’s a mutually agreed upon update.

Possible House’s negotiating positions:

The Senate will be displeased by the concept of pegging the rate’s purchasing power.
The House’s alternative position could be, lose the purchasing power provision but give us 15% annual increase for 10 years.

The Senate may then find the purchasing power concept less objectionable but they're then displeased with the 12%.
The House’s alternative position could be, 8% increase every Labor Day until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power, but the rate’s additionally annually updates reflecting changes in the CPI-U will begin prior to the New Year’s day following the enactment day of the Bill.

I hope the Democratic negotiators would be polite and respectful beyond civility, but FIRM! they should not acquiesce or attempt to placate to the opposition. Democrats should be fully prepared to leave the negotiating table and permit the differences to be resolved by the 2020 general elections.

Respectfully, Supposn

You realize that will never happen with high rates of immigration right? Besides, in 68 we were the only game in town. ILMAO @ 12% per year. Folks must really have it bad doing jobs we did as teenagers

Let's see, in 1984 I saved 12K to buy a house while living on my own. That was on $6 an hour. The house was 65K, but interest rates were 12ish. The rate today is 4-5ish, and the house is worth 170K. At the rate I was paying that 170K house would be worth approx. 80K today. Poor fellows, you can't buy a house today? Stop having kids and blowing your money on useless shit. Employers owe you a wage, and if the job doesn't pay enough then do something about it. A minimum wage is an entitlement. And incidentally, the wealth gap is primarily the work of progressive liberals.

The minimum wage is NOT an entitlement because you are not entitled to receive it. You invested nothing, so you should get nothing. Technically, it is government mandated welfare for those unable to earn a decent wage based on their abilities and experience.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I voted for the increase in min wage just like the board of directors vote to raise their prices..

Well yeah. When you increase the minimum wage, the board of directors has to offset that cost.... by raising prices on the public.

Everyone should understand, that when you demand a raise to the minimum wage, you are in effect demanding that you are charged more for everything you buy.

Yet you have zero problems with a board member that shows up once a month for a couple of hours and makes 50k a year doing it..

Why would anybody care about that?

 

[Andylusion]

I voted for the increase in min wage just like the board of directors vote to raise their prices..

Well yeah. When you increase the minimum wage, the board of directors has to offset that cost.... by raising prices on the public.

Everyone should understand, that when you demand a raise to the minimum wage, you are in effect demanding that you are charged more for everything you buy.

Yet you have zero problems with a board member that shows up once a month for a couple of hours and makes 50k a year doing it..

So your response, has absolutely nothing at all, to do with my post.

What does one, have to do with the other? Nothing.

Do you think that if you raise the minimum wage, that this would change how much board members make, or how much they work? Of course not.

First, the vast majority of all board members are working their asses off.

Second, whether they do, or don't, doesn't matter because it's not your money, and you are not getting it either way.

Third, the owners of the company determine how much board members are paid, and that's their right. What you think does not, and should not matter.

Forth, regardless of any of that, the cost of labor is passed on in higher prices to the public. What you said doesn't change that.

To put it even more bluntly.... I am not a greedy envious person. Because I am not greedy or envious, you are absolutely correct in your statement. I do not have a problem with a company that is willing to pay a board member $50K a year, to show up for a few hours a month.

Here's a thought for you. Instead of making arguments based on envy and greed... how about you figure out what qualification and consulting you need to do, to get that job? Nothing would make me more happy, than to find someone who succeeds in life.

Because the alternative of sitting around complaining about it, is how you end up a loser for life.

and by the way... board members are often leading the company, and making decisions that and either create hundreds of thousands of jobs, and billions in wealth for the entire country. If a guy is only paid $50,000 for a few hours of work a month, and yet creates millions of jobs, and millions of dollars in wealth.... would that not be a good deal for the company? I think so.

It's often people who have the least knowledge of how a company operates, that assumes corporate leadership serves no purpose. But every country that has driven out corporate leadership, universally ends up in economic crashes.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I voted for the increase in min wage just like the board of directors vote to raise their prices..

Well yeah. When you increase the minimum wage, the board of directors has to offset that cost.... by raising prices on the public.

Everyone should understand, that when you demand a raise to the minimum wage, you are in effect demanding that you are charged more for everything you buy.

Yet you have zero problems with a board member that shows up once a month for a couple of hours and makes 50k a year doing it..

So your response, has absolutely nothing at all, to do with my post.

What does one, have to do with the other? Nothing.

Do you think that if you raise the minimum wage, that this would change how much board members make, or how much they work? Of course not.

First, the vast majority of all board members are working their asses off.

Second, whether they do, or don't, doesn't matter because it's not your money, and you are not getting it either way.

Third, the owners of the company determine how much board members are paid, and that's their right. What you think does not, and should not matter.

Forth, regardless of any of that, the cost of labor is passed on in higher prices to the public. What you said doesn't change that.

To put it even more bluntly.... I am not a greedy envious person. Because I am not greedy or envious, you are absolutely correct in your statement. I do not have a problem with a company that is willing to pay a board member $50K a year, to show up for a few hours a month.

Here's a thought for you. Instead of making arguments based on envy and greed... how about you figure out what qualification and consulting you need to do, to get that job? Nothing would make me more happy, than to find someone who succeeds in life.

Because the alternative of sitting around complaining about it, is how you end up a loser for life.

and by the way... board members are often leading the company, and making decisions that and either create hundreds of thousands of jobs, and billions in wealth for the entire country. If a guy is only paid $50,000 for a few hours of work a month, and yet creates millions of jobs, and millions of dollars in wealth.... would that not be a good deal for the company? I think so.

It's often people who have the least knowledge of how a company operates, that assumes corporate leadership serves no purpose. But every country that has driven out corporate leadership, universally ends up in economic crashes.

In most cases with the left, they get their information from movies and TV sitcoms. They think all CEO's are people who are so bored with life they do nothing more than practice putts on their office astroturf and have a large breasted blond secretary they fool around with every now and then.

 

[AntonToo]

Democrats regained the congressional House. Now they should immediately confront the federal minimum wage rate issue.

I’m among those that advocate a minimum wage rate gradually increased to higher purchasing power and thereafter monitored and (when necessary to retain its targeted purchasing power), it should be updated prior to New Year’s date of the following year. In my opinion, annual increases of 12% until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power is reasonable.

It would be possible, but politically problematic for the Republican majority U.S. Senate not to pass an alternative bill responding to the Democratic House’s bill. Usually, there are differences between bills that may, (or may not) be reconciled by negotiators from each chamber. A bill sent to the president for his consideration must be passed by both houses with exactly the same drafted language. That usually requires both chambers to again vote and pass a draft of the bill that’s a mutually agreed upon update.

Possible House’s negotiating positions:

The Senate will be displeased by the concept of pegging the rate’s purchasing power.
The House’s alternative position could be, lose the purchasing power provision but give us 15% annual increase for 10 years.

The Senate may then find the purchasing power concept less objectionable but they're then displeased with the 12%.
The House’s alternative position could be, 8% increase every Labor Day until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power, but the rate’s additionally annually updates reflecting changes in the CPI-U will begin prior to the New Year’s day following the enactment day of the Bill.

I hope the Democratic negotiators would be polite and respectful beyond civility, but FIRM! they should not acquiesce or attempt to placate to the opposition. Democrats should be fully prepared to leave the negotiating table and permit the differences to be resolved by the 2020 general elections.

Respectfully, Supposn

Democrats should all immediately self immolate. The minimum wage is for kids and retirees and people just starting out. If I can make 20 dollars an hour as a door greeter at walmart, what incentive to I have to be more? lol liberals all blow.

WTF? Who is proposing $20 minimum wage?

 

[Andylusion]

I voted for the increase in min wage just like the board of directors vote to raise their prices..

Well yeah. When you increase the minimum wage, the board of directors has to offset that cost.... by raising prices on the public.

Everyone should understand, that when you demand a raise to the minimum wage, you are in effect demanding that you are charged more for everything you buy.

Yet you have zero problems with a board member that shows up once a month for a couple of hours and makes 50k a year doing it..

So your response, has absolutely nothing at all, to do with my post.

What does one, have to do with the other? Nothing.

Do you think that if you raise the minimum wage, that this would change how much board members make, or how much they work? Of course not.

First, the vast majority of all board members are working their asses off.

Second, whether they do, or don't, doesn't matter because it's not your money, and you are not getting it either way.

Third, the owners of the company determine how much board members are paid, and that's their right. What you think does not, and should not matter.

Forth, regardless of any of that, the cost of labor is passed on in higher prices to the public. What you said doesn't change that.

To put it even more bluntly.... I am not a greedy envious person. Because I am not greedy or envious, you are absolutely correct in your statement. I do not have a problem with a company that is willing to pay a board member $50K a year, to show up for a few hours a month.

Here's a thought for you. Instead of making arguments based on envy and greed... how about you figure out what qualification and consulting you need to do, to get that job? Nothing would make me more happy, than to find someone who succeeds in life.

Because the alternative of sitting around complaining about it, is how you end up a loser for life.

and by the way... board members are often leading the company, and making decisions that and either create hundreds of thousands of jobs, and billions in wealth for the entire country. If a guy is only paid $50,000 for a few hours of work a month, and yet creates millions of jobs, and millions of dollars in wealth.... would that not be a good deal for the company? I think so.

It's often people who have the least knowledge of how a company operates, that assumes corporate leadership serves no purpose. But every country that has driven out corporate leadership, universally ends up in economic crashes.

In most cases with the left, they get their information from movies and TV sitcoms. They think all CEO's are people who are so bored with life they do nothing more than practice putts on their office astroturf and have a large breasted blond secretary they fool around with every now and then.

They really do. I remember all the way back in the 1990s, when I was in high school, one of our classes played the movie Dave. You remember this movie? 1993, where the guy goes to the white house, takes over as president, and fixes the country, by finding random wasted money in the budget, and is able to pay for everything?

I had students I was in school with, saying that's how government really works, and we just need to find "dave" and put him in the white house, and he'll be able to fix everything.

I realized all the way back then as a stupid teenager, that people think what they see in the movies is real life. They really think all these things. That rich people have be vaults of money, that they do a swan dive off a diving board, into a pool of money they swim through.

Left-wingers are INSANE.....

 

[AntonToo]

The minimum wage is for kids and retirees and people just starting out.

^^^THIS^^^

Deadbeat losers who won't improve themselves have already priced themselves out of the low end labor market due to the flood of illegals the Dims have imported to bolster their voting base.

In my state, the minimum wage is 7.25. If pajama boi works 8 hours a day at 7.25, he'll get 58 bucks before tax and gas money. I can go to the Lowe's or Home Depot parking lot ANY MORNING of the year and hire illegals between the ages of 17 and 40 who will work their ass off 12 hours a day for 35 bucks. That's for unskilled labor. I can hire a skilled carpenter or painter for what pajama boi makes a day at minimum wage.

So tell me again why I should pay some whiny little bitch more than he's worth?

The low end labor market is flooded. There is more supply than demand so the price is low. Basic economics. Want to raise the price of low end labor? Lower the supply. Build the wall.

Umm same reason it is worth $7.25 now?

Labor, BY LAW is worth at least MINIMUM WAGE and our society has deemed anything less to be a form of usery.

 

[Andylusion]

Democrats regained the congressional House. Now they should immediately confront the federal minimum wage rate issue.

I’m among those that advocate a minimum wage rate gradually increased to higher purchasing power and thereafter monitored and (when necessary to retain its targeted purchasing power), it should be updated prior to New Year’s date of the following year. In my opinion, annual increases of 12% until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power is reasonable.

It would be possible, but politically problematic for the Republican majority U.S. Senate not to pass an alternative bill responding to the Democratic House’s bill. Usually, there are differences between bills that may, (or may not) be reconciled by negotiators from each chamber. A bill sent to the president for his consideration must be passed by both houses with exactly the same drafted language. That usually requires both chambers to again vote and pass a draft of the bill that’s a mutually agreed upon update.

Possible House’s negotiating positions:

The Senate will be displeased by the concept of pegging the rate’s purchasing power.
The House’s alternative position could be, lose the purchasing power provision but give us 15% annual increase for 10 years.

The Senate may then find the purchasing power concept less objectionable but they're then displeased with the 12%.
The House’s alternative position could be, 8% increase every Labor Day until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power, but the rate’s additionally annually updates reflecting changes in the CPI-U will begin prior to the New Year’s day following the enactment day of the Bill.

I hope the Democratic negotiators would be polite and respectful beyond civility, but FIRM! they should not acquiesce or attempt to placate to the opposition. Democrats should be fully prepared to leave the negotiating table and permit the differences to be resolved by the 2020 general elections.

Respectfully, Supposn

Democrats should all immediately self immolate. The minimum wage is for kids and retirees and people just starting out. If I can make 20 dollars an hour as a door greeter at walmart, what incentive to I have to be more? lol liberals all blow.

WTF? Who is proposing $20 minimum wage?

There are a few groups who have said $15/hour isn't enough.

Because as the minimum wage rises, so does the cost of living. Remember, no one was suggesting $15/hour, when the minimum wage was $5.25. It was after Bush raised it up to $7.25, that $15/hour became the new target. Why? Because the cost of everything went up, so the target went up too. And when we raise the minimum wage to $10/hr, they'll raise the target.

It doesn't really matter what the minimum wage is. Whatever they raise the minimum wage too, it will be the new standard of poor, and they will want to raise it higher.

 

[Clementine]

Democrats regained the congressional House. Now they should immediately confront the federal minimum wage rate issue.

I’m among those that advocate a minimum wage rate gradually increased to higher purchasing power and thereafter monitored and (when necessary to retain its targeted purchasing power), it should be updated prior to New Year’s date of the following year. In my opinion, annual increases of 12% until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power is reasonable.

It would be possible, but politically problematic for the Republican majority U.S. Senate not to pass an alternative bill responding to the Democratic House’s bill. Usually, there are differences between bills that may, (or may not) be reconciled by negotiators from each chamber. A bill sent to the president for his consideration must be passed by both houses with exactly the same drafted language. That usually requires both chambers to again vote and pass a draft of the bill that’s a mutually agreed upon update.

Possible House’s negotiating positions:

The Senate will be displeased by the concept of pegging the rate’s purchasing power.
The House’s alternative position could be, lose the purchasing power provision but give us 15% annual increase for 10 years.

The Senate may then find the purchasing power concept less objectionable but they're then displeased with the 12%.
The House’s alternative position could be, 8% increase every Labor Day until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power, but the rate’s additionally annually updates reflecting changes in the CPI-U will begin prior to the New Year’s day following the enactment day of the Bill.

I hope the Democratic negotiators would be polite and respectful beyond civility, but FIRM! they should not acquiesce or attempt to placate to the opposition. Democrats should be fully prepared to leave the negotiating table and permit the differences to be resolved by the 2020 general elections.

Respectfully, Supposn

So, the first thing you want them to do is decrease the number of jobs. That is almost always the effect of raising minimum wage. Small businesses usually paid better than the beginner jobs. And the companies gave raises each year. Thanks to Obamacare and the Dem policies, small businesses were wiped out across the country. It left only the minimum wage jobs or the jobs that required more education and experience than the average person had.

I know Dems want to take away the middle class tax cuts and increase them even more.

Middle class is not something you find in socialist countries. You have poor people standing in bread lines and extremely wealthy leaders who never want for anything. Nothing in between. Life is good if you are an elite member and hell if you're not.

Dems are never friendly to things that help the economy and create jobs. Hard to push socialism if people are able to make their own way. Radical leftists are pushing to end capitalism and change us to a socialist country. None of the idiots have ever figured out that without capitalism, socialists have nothing to redistribute. Money runs out and then enters communism. Same shit every time.

The left's policies sound good to some people and they believe they are intended to help everyone. Truth is that the result of these policies kill jobs, increase the tax burden for the average person and destroys the economy. Face it, that is exactly what the leftist leaders want. And they are following Alinsky's plan, as well as the Cloward-Piven plan to make it happen. If more people would learn the history of past dictatorships, they would see exactly what the left is doing right now. Liberals of yesterday would have been dead set against this plan to have massive government intervention in our lives.

Are there any real liberals left or have most been brainwashed into following the Dems to the far left?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I voted for the increase in min wage just like the board of directors vote to raise their prices..

Well yeah. When you increase the minimum wage, the board of directors has to offset that cost.... by raising prices on the public.

Everyone should understand, that when you demand a raise to the minimum wage, you are in effect demanding that you are charged more for everything you buy.

Yet you have zero problems with a board member that shows up once a month for a couple of hours and makes 50k a year doing it..

So your response, has absolutely nothing at all, to do with my post.

What does one, have to do with the other? Nothing.

Do you think that if you raise the minimum wage, that this would change how much board members make, or how much they work? Of course not.

First, the vast majority of all board members are working their asses off.

Second, whether they do, or don't, doesn't matter because it's not your money, and you are not getting it either way.

Third, the owners of the company determine how much board members are paid, and that's their right. What you think does not, and should not matter.

Forth, regardless of any of that, the cost of labor is passed on in higher prices to the public. What you said doesn't change that.

To put it even more bluntly.... I am not a greedy envious person. Because I am not greedy or envious, you are absolutely correct in your statement. I do not have a problem with a company that is willing to pay a board member $50K a year, to show up for a few hours a month.

Here's a thought for you. Instead of making arguments based on envy and greed... how about you figure out what qualification and consulting you need to do, to get that job? Nothing would make me more happy, than to find someone who succeeds in life.

Because the alternative of sitting around complaining about it, is how you end up a loser for life.

and by the way... board members are often leading the company, and making decisions that and either create hundreds of thousands of jobs, and billions in wealth for the entire country. If a guy is only paid $50,000 for a few hours of work a month, and yet creates millions of jobs, and millions of dollars in wealth.... would that not be a good deal for the company? I think so.

It's often people who have the least knowledge of how a company operates, that assumes corporate leadership serves no purpose. But every country that has driven out corporate leadership, universally ends up in economic crashes.

In most cases with the left, they get their information from movies and TV sitcoms. They think all CEO's are people who are so bored with life they do nothing more than practice putts on their office astroturf and have a large breasted blond secretary they fool around with every now and then.

They really do. I remember all the way back in the 1990s, when I was in high school, one of our classes played the movie Dave. You remember this movie? 1993, where the guy goes to the white house, takes over as president, and fixes the country, by finding random wasted money in the budget, and is able to pay for everything?

I had students I was in school with, saying that's how government really works, and we just need to find "dave" and put him in the white house, and he'll be able to fix everything.

I realized all the way back then as a stupid teenager, that people think what they see in the movies is real life. They really think all these things. That rich people have be vaults of money, that they do a swan dive off a diving board, into a pool of money they swim through.

Left-wingers are INSANE.....

The left often tells me that CEO's are people that don't perform for a company. They are just lucky individuals who get paid seven figure salaries for doing nothing. They have no talent whatsoever and are nothing more than leaches for the company.

So then I ask, if being a CEO is so easy and requires no talent, why don't you become a CEO yourself?

Crickets.

 

[Andylusion]

The minimum wage is for kids and retirees and people just starting out.

^^^THIS^^^

Deadbeat losers who won't improve themselves have already priced themselves out of the low end labor market due to the flood of illegals the Dims have imported to bolster their voting base.

In my state, the minimum wage is 7.25. If pajama boi works 8 hours a day at 7.25, he'll get 58 bucks before tax and gas money. I can go to the Lowe's or Home Depot parking lot ANY MORNING of the year and hire illegals between the ages of 17 and 40 who will work their ass off 12 hours a day for 35 bucks. That's for unskilled labor. I can hire a skilled carpenter or painter for what pajama boi makes a day at minimum wage.

So tell me again why I should pay some whiny little bitch more than he's worth?

The low end labor market is flooded. There is more supply than demand so the price is low. Basic economics. Want to raise the price of low end labor? Lower the supply. Build the wall.

Umm same reason it is worth $7.25 righ now?

Labor, BY LAW is worth at least MINIMUM WAGE dummy and our society had deemed anything less to be a form of usery.

No, that is incorrect.

Labor is worth.... whatever the customer is willing to pay for it. If the customer isn't willing to pay what the minimum wage is, then the customer simply doesn't pay for it. Thus the value of that labor ends up being zero. Or black market. The shadow economy is growing very fast in the US. Shadow economy being work down without taxes, or following the minimum wage laws.

There are lots of services customers will pay to have done under the table. Happens constantly.

 

[AntonToo]

Democrats regained the congressional House. Now they should immediately confront the federal minimum wage rate issue.

I’m among those that advocate a minimum wage rate gradually increased to higher purchasing power and thereafter monitored and (when necessary to retain its targeted purchasing power), it should be updated prior to New Year’s date of the following year. In my opinion, annual increases of 12% until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power is reasonable.

It would be possible, but politically problematic for the Republican majority U.S. Senate not to pass an alternative bill responding to the Democratic House’s bill. Usually, there are differences between bills that may, (or may not) be reconciled by negotiators from each chamber. A bill sent to the president for his consideration must be passed by both houses with exactly the same drafted language. That usually requires both chambers to again vote and pass a draft of the bill that’s a mutually agreed upon update.

Possible House’s negotiating positions:

The Senate will be displeased by the concept of pegging the rate’s purchasing power.
The House’s alternative position could be, lose the purchasing power provision but give us 15% annual increase for 10 years.

The Senate may then find the purchasing power concept less objectionable but they're then displeased with the 12%.
The House’s alternative position could be, 8% increase every Labor Day until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power, but the rate’s additionally annually updates reflecting changes in the CPI-U will begin prior to the New Year’s day following the enactment day of the Bill.

I hope the Democratic negotiators would be polite and respectful beyond civility, but FIRM! they should not acquiesce or attempt to placate to the opposition. Democrats should be fully prepared to leave the negotiating table and permit the differences to be resolved by the 2020 general elections.

Respectfully, Supposn

Democrats should all immediately self immolate. The minimum wage is for kids and retirees and people just starting out. If I can make 20 dollars an hour as a door greeter at walmart, what incentive to I have to be more? lol liberals all blow.

WTF? Who is proposing $20 minimum wage?

There are a few groups who have said $15/hour isn't enough.

Because as the minimum wage rises, so does the cost of living. Remember, no one was suggesting $15/hour, when the minimum wage was $5.25. It was after Bush raised it up to $7.25, that $15/hour became the new target. Why? Because the cost of everything went up, so the target went up too. And when we raise the minimum wage to $10/hr, they'll raise the target.

It doesn't really matter what the minimum wage is. Whatever they raise the minimum wage too, it will be the new standard of poor, and they will want to raise it higher.

I'll repeat the question - who is advocating $20 minimum wage?

Answer is NO ONE and the argument made was just a strawman.

And for clearity - we ought to always discuss economics in REAL terms. So when someone says $20, that means $20 worth in year 2018.

For example in the 1960s minimum wage peaked at just over $10 in REAL terms, which is $3 dollars more than today's minimum wage. So there is little reason to not have $10 minimum wage today.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Democrats regained the congressional House. Now they should immediately confront the federal minimum wage rate issue.

I’m among those that advocate a minimum wage rate gradually increased to higher purchasing power and thereafter monitored and (when necessary to retain its targeted purchasing power), it should be updated prior to New Year’s date of the following year. In my opinion, annual increases of 12% until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power is reasonable.

It would be possible, but politically problematic for the Republican majority U.S. Senate not to pass an alternative bill responding to the Democratic House’s bill. Usually, there are differences between bills that may, (or may not) be reconciled by negotiators from each chamber. A bill sent to the president for his consideration must be passed by both houses with exactly the same drafted language. That usually requires both chambers to again vote and pass a draft of the bill that’s a mutually agreed upon update.

Possible House’s negotiating positions:

The Senate will be displeased by the concept of pegging the rate’s purchasing power.
The House’s alternative position could be, lose the purchasing power provision but give us 15% annual increase for 10 years.

The Senate may then find the purchasing power concept less objectionable but they're then displeased with the 12%.
The House’s alternative position could be, 8% increase every Labor Day until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power, but the rate’s additionally annually updates reflecting changes in the CPI-U will begin prior to the New Year’s day following the enactment day of the Bill.

I hope the Democratic negotiators would be polite and respectful beyond civility, but FIRM! they should not acquiesce or attempt to placate to the opposition. Democrats should be fully prepared to leave the negotiating table and permit the differences to be resolved by the 2020 general elections.

Respectfully, Supposn

Democrats should all immediately self immolate. The minimum wage is for kids and retirees and people just starting out. If I can make 20 dollars an hour as a door greeter at walmart, what incentive to I have to be more? lol liberals all blow.

WTF? Who is proposing $20 minimum wage?

There are a few groups who have said $15/hour isn't enough.

Because as the minimum wage rises, so does the cost of living. Remember, no one was suggesting $15/hour, when the minimum wage was $5.25. It was after Bush raised it up to $7.25, that $15/hour became the new target. Why? Because the cost of everything went up, so the target went up too. And when we raise the minimum wage to $10/hr, they'll raise the target.

It doesn't really matter what the minimum wage is. Whatever they raise the minimum wage too, it will be the new standard of poor, and they will want to raise it higher.

I'll repeat the question - who is advocating $20 minimum wage?

Answer is NO ONE and the argument made was just a strawman.

And for clearity - we ought to always discuss economics in REAL terms. So when someone says $20, that means $20 worth in year 2018.

For example in the 1960s minimum wage peaked at just over $10 in REAL terms, which is $3 dollars more than today's minimum wage. So there is little reason to not have $10 minimum wage today.

Perhaps I had one too many beers, but what do you mean minimum wage peaked at $10.00 an hour? I worked for minimum wage in the 70's for three something an hour.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Democrats regained the congressional House. Now they should immediately confront the federal minimum wage rate issue.

I’m among those that advocate a minimum wage rate gradually increased to higher purchasing power and thereafter monitored and (when necessary to retain its targeted purchasing power), it should be updated prior to New Year’s date of the following year. In my opinion, annual increases of 12% until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power is reasonable.

It would be possible, but politically problematic for the Republican majority U.S. Senate not to pass an alternative bill responding to the Democratic House’s bill. Usually, there are differences between bills that may, (or may not) be reconciled by negotiators from each chamber. A bill sent to the president for his consideration must be passed by both houses with exactly the same drafted language. That usually requires both chambers to again vote and pass a draft of the bill that’s a mutually agreed upon update.

Possible House’s negotiating positions:

The Senate will be displeased by the concept of pegging the rate’s purchasing power.
The House’s alternative position could be, lose the purchasing power provision but give us 15% annual increase for 10 years.

The Senate may then find the purchasing power concept less objectionable but they're then displeased with the 12%.
The House’s alternative position could be, 8% increase every Labor Day until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power, but the rate’s additionally annually updates reflecting changes in the CPI-U will begin prior to the New Year’s day following the enactment day of the Bill.

I hope the Democratic negotiators would be polite and respectful beyond civility, but FIRM! they should not acquiesce or attempt to placate to the opposition. Democrats should be fully prepared to leave the negotiating table and permit the differences to be resolved by the 2020 general elections.

Respectfully, Supposn

Your just trying to prevent jobs leaving your states


Trickle up poor


.

 

[AntonToo]

Democrats regained the congressional House. Now they should immediately confront the federal minimum wage rate issue.

I’m among those that advocate a minimum wage rate gradually increased to higher purchasing power and thereafter monitored and (when necessary to retain its targeted purchasing power), it should be updated prior to New Year’s date of the following year. In my opinion, annual increases of 12% until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power is reasonable.

It would be possible, but politically problematic for the Republican majority U.S. Senate not to pass an alternative bill responding to the Democratic House’s bill. Usually, there are differences between bills that may, (or may not) be reconciled by negotiators from each chamber. A bill sent to the president for his consideration must be passed by both houses with exactly the same drafted language. That usually requires both chambers to again vote and pass a draft of the bill that’s a mutually agreed upon update.

Possible House’s negotiating positions:

The Senate will be displeased by the concept of pegging the rate’s purchasing power.
The House’s alternative position could be, lose the purchasing power provision but give us 15% annual increase for 10 years.

The Senate may then find the purchasing power concept less objectionable but they're then displeased with the 12%.
The House’s alternative position could be, 8% increase every Labor Day until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power, but the rate’s additionally annually updates reflecting changes in the CPI-U will begin prior to the New Year’s day following the enactment day of the Bill.

I hope the Democratic negotiators would be polite and respectful beyond civility, but FIRM! they should not acquiesce or attempt to placate to the opposition. Democrats should be fully prepared to leave the negotiating table and permit the differences to be resolved by the 2020 general elections.

Respectfully, Supposn

Democrats should all immediately self immolate. The minimum wage is for kids and retirees and people just starting out. If I can make 20 dollars an hour as a door greeter at walmart, what incentive to I have to be more? lol liberals all blow.

WTF? Who is proposing $20 minimum wage?

There are a few groups who have said $15/hour isn't enough.

Because as the minimum wage rises, so does the cost of living. Remember, no one was suggesting $15/hour, when the minimum wage was $5.25. It was after Bush raised it up to $7.25, that $15/hour became the new target. Why? Because the cost of everything went up, so the target went up too. And when we raise the minimum wage to $10/hr, they'll raise the target.

It doesn't really matter what the minimum wage is. Whatever they raise the minimum wage too, it will be the new standard of poor, and they will want to raise it higher.

I'll repeat the question - who is advocating $20 minimum wage?

Answer is NO ONE and the argument made was just a strawman.

And for clearity - we ought to always discuss economics in REAL terms. So when someone says $20, that means $20 worth in year 2018.

For example in the 1960s minimum wage peaked at just over $10 in REAL terms, which is $3 dollars more than today's minimum wage. So there is little reason to not have $10 minimum wage today.

Perhaps I had one too many beers, but what do you mean minimum wage peaked at $10.00 an hour? I worked for minimum wage in the 70's for three something an hour.

In 1976 minimum wage was $2, which had about the same purchasing power as $9-$10 today.

 

[OKTexas]

The Minimum wage is clearly labeled as such; only the Right Wing, has a problem with a Minimum wage.

They tend to be the ones with an understanding of economics beyond third grade reasoning such as Krugman or Keynes.

sure; get richer, even at the expense of the Poor.

Poor is a state of mind, I've been broke, but I've never been poor. But there's a four letter solution to being broke, it's called work.

.

 

[AntonToo]

The minimum wage is for kids and retirees and people just starting out.

^^^THIS^^^

Deadbeat losers who won't improve themselves have already priced themselves out of the low end labor market due to the flood of illegals the Dims have imported to bolster their voting base.

In my state, the minimum wage is 7.25. If pajama boi works 8 hours a day at 7.25, he'll get 58 bucks before tax and gas money. I can go to the Lowe's or Home Depot parking lot ANY MORNING of the year and hire illegals between the ages of 17 and 40 who will work their ass off 12 hours a day for 35 bucks. That's for unskilled labor. I can hire a skilled carpenter or painter for what pajama boi makes a day at minimum wage.

So tell me again why I should pay some whiny little bitch more than he's worth?

The low end labor market is flooded. There is more supply than demand so the price is low. Basic economics. Want to raise the price of low end labor? Lower the supply. Build the wall.

Umm same reason it is worth $7.25 righ now?

Labor, BY LAW is worth at least MINIMUM WAGE dummy and our society had deemed anything less to be a form of usery.

No, that is incorrect.

Labor is worth.... whatever the customer is willing to pay for it. If the customer isn't willing to pay what the minimum wage is, then the customer simply doesn't pay for it. Thus the value of that labor ends up being zero. Or black market. The shadow economy is growing very fast in the US. Shadow economy being work down without taxes, or following the minimum wage laws.

There are lots of services customers will pay to have done under the table. Happens constantly.

Nope.

Maybe you are thinking of some other country, but in this country, like in every first world democracy, national minimum wage is A LAW, set not by market condition, but by the people through political process.

You may not like that, but it is the fact of the matter.