Do Democrats Seriously Want to Raise the minimum Wage or ...

[eflatminor]

Excuse me? Any wage increase that will actually pass will only get us back to an adjusted wage of sometime in the last decade at best.

You're still not address the question...the problem created by a minimum wage. Now why is that?



What their skills bear in a voluntary market. Stated differently, whatever they're willing to work for that someone is willing to pay. Next.

You need to understand that minimum wage was never meant to be what someone makes over the long term but with so many good jobs having been replaced with crappy service sector jobs there just is no wage increase for a lot of Americans unless someone makes McDonald's or Walmart do it, keeping the wage unchanged is a slow death spiral for the working class who are increasingly having to hold these formerly entry level jobs for years because of lack of opportunity.

Again, still not addressing the point. One last shot at it: Tell us how the unemployment rate among the young and uneducated is a "fantasy". Explain to us how you expect those that do not qualify for your minimum wage to earn a living.

I already answered the question, comrade asholovich,

No, you didn't. But the ad hominem attack surely isn't a sign of desperation or a failed retort...

if we raise the min wage to where it has the pitifully sad buying power of 2004 for instance, what is the difference?

Because the minimum wage in 2004 was every bit has harmful to the most vulnerable in our society as it is today. You know, the people your minimum wage keeps from working at all. How shamefully immoral of you.

It's the best anyone can hope for.

Wrong. A JOB is the best anyone can hope for when we're talking about the young, the elderly, the unskilled and the unintelligent. But I get it, fuck those people, right?

If those entry level jobs continue to be worked by single moms and retirees for years at a time how is a wage hike going to effect teenagers?

They're not getting job at all comrade. That's the problem. That's what your minimum wage does. It prevents the most vulnerable from working at all and forces them on the dole. Again, immoral.

We can assume the people working these jobs for more than a year are very well qualified for them and probably need a raise they will never get if people like you have any say in the matter.

The people that actually get minimum wage jobs may strive to advance beyond that level like anyone else. If they have the ability and the work ethic to earn more, they will. If not, they won't. That's how it works. But that's not the point and you know it. The point is the millions of our most vulnerable citizens whose skills simply do not qualify for the minimum wage. Your central planning is preventing them from working AT ALL and forcing them on the dole.

Shame on you for that.

I'm off to bed now. Should actually address the question, I'll respond. Otherwise, your just trolling and avoiding the real issue.

As a reminder: Tell us how the unemployment rate among the young and uneducated is a "fantasy". Explain to us how you expect those that do not qualify for your minimum wage to earn a living.

 

[Kosh]

I see the far left is still using talking points and propaganda.

If the minimum wage goes up so does everything else and they will still be in the same position if not worse several years down the road.

It is like all those fools that want higher gas price and honestly believe that doing so will help the poor.

 

[Care4all]

Notice how you COMPLETELY avoided the real impact of minimum wage? I did. Tell us how the unemployment rate among the young and uneducated is a "fantasy". Explain to us how you expect those that do not qualify for your minimum wage to earn a living.

The floor is yours comrade.



No, eliminating the cause of inflation, the Federal Reserve, would be better. But you go ahead and keep supporting those central planners that control the price of money and cause that inflation...and then look to those same central planners to fix the problem.

Brilliant plan comrade.

How about you let a person work for what they're willing to work for? Why, you might even find someone willing to work for free. That's called an internship, which many have found incredibly valuable in gaining real experience and connections despite earning little to no income.

Sorry to break it to you comrade, but you DON'T know what best for others.

It's almost like you will personally have to hand some poor sap more money. Wage parity with China is a disastrous goal you foolish person.

You're still avoiding the question. Telling. One more time: Tell us how the unemployment rate among the young and uneducated is a "fantasy". Explain to us how you expect those that do not qualify for your minimum wage to earn a living.

why don't you post those facts if they are facts....show us the UE hikes related to minimum wage hikes....would love to see the relationship!

 

[hunarcy]

The rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting fucked. This is under the current system as the rich can pocket more and more.

You tea fuckers want to make this a thousand times worse.

It seems that you have no idea how the real world works. If the minimum wage is raised, producers raise the prices of their goods to cover it, meaning that you don't really "stick it to the rich", you squeeze the middle class and the poor end up in exactly the position they are in now. THEN, the value of our money is weakened, meaning a dollar doesn't buy as much as it previously did, putting the middle class and the poor in worse shape, while the rich simply move their money out of dollars and into something more stable and keep on getting richer.

You're a fool.

 

[Care4all]

The argument is that it will hurt the very people it was meant to help by forcing employers to cut jobs, raise prices or both. They point to studies that minimum-wage increases hurt teenagers, because young workers typically get minimum-wage jobs, which become scarce when employers are forced to raise salaries. But a wave of new economic research is disproving those arguments about job losses and youth employment. Previous studies tended not to control for regional economic trends that were already affecting employment levels, such as a manufacturing-dependent state that was shedding jobs. The new research looks at micro-level employment patterns for a more accurate employment picture.
The studies find minimum-wage increases even provide an economic boost, albeit a small one, as strapped workers immediately spend their raises. A 2011 paper by economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago found that a $1 minimum-wage increase lifts household income by about $250 and increases spending by about $700 a quarter in the following year. The spending increase is driven by a small number of households that primarily buy vehicles.
No Employment Effects

A team of economists, led by Arindrajit Dube of the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, compared employment levels in contiguous areas with disparate minimum-wage levels over a 16-year period and concluded in a 2010 paper there are “strong earnings effects and no employment effects of minimum wage increases.”

Raise the Minimum Wage - Bloomberg

 

[Care4all]

The rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting fucked. This is under the current system as the rich can pocket more and more.

You tea fuckers want to make this a thousand times worse.

It seems that you have no idea how the real world works. If the minimum wage is raised, producers raise the prices of their goods to cover it, meaning that you don't really "stick it to the rich", you squeeze the middle class and the poor end up in exactly the position they are in now. THEN, the value of our money is weakened, meaning a dollar doesn't buy as much as it previously did, putting the middle class and the poor in worse shape, while the rich simply move their money out of dollars and into something more stable and keep on getting richer.

You're a fool.

really? PROVE IT....show us the numbers, pretty please.... not talk, not speculation, but prove it...

 

[hunarcy]

The rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting fucked. This is under the current system as the rich can pocket more and more.

You tea fuckers want to make this a thousand times worse.

It seems that you have no idea how the real world works. If the minimum wage is raised, producers raise the prices of their goods to cover it, meaning that you don't really "stick it to the rich", you squeeze the middle class and the poor end up in exactly the position they are in now. THEN, the value of our money is weakened, meaning a dollar doesn't buy as much as it previously did, putting the middle class and the poor in worse shape, while the rich simply move their money out of dollars and into something more stable and keep on getting richer.

You're a fool.

really? PROVE IT....show us the numbers, pretty please.... not talk, not speculation, but prove it...

Just look at the period of time between 2007 and now. Or, perhaps this will help you. Minimum Wages: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

 

[Care4all]

It seems that you have no idea how the real world works. If the minimum wage is raised, producers raise the prices of their goods to cover it, meaning that you don't really "stick it to the rich", you squeeze the middle class and the poor end up in exactly the position they are in now. THEN, the value of our money is weakened, meaning a dollar doesn't buy as much as it previously did, putting the middle class and the poor in worse shape, while the rich simply move their money out of dollars and into something more stable and keep on getting richer.

You're a fool.

really? PROVE IT....show us the numbers, pretty please.... not talk, not speculation, but prove it...

Just look at the period of time between 2007 and now. Or, perhaps this will help you. Minimum Wages: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

but you can't compare min wage in 2007 and now.....without considering the housing bubble and bust, the banking bust and bail out and mortgage meltdown, and wall street fiasco's which had absolutely nothing to do with minimum wage hikes.....can you? so what is it that you see in that period that supports the claim Hunarcy?

 

[Care4all]

40% of min wage earners today are college grads or had some college behind them...they are not for the most part non skilled kids living at home with mom and dad anymore.....

If raising the minimum wage causes inflation then you should be able to pull up the numbers to prove such....

And if raising the minimum wage... raises prices as you think it does, then what does giving multi million dollar raises to executives do to prices and why isn't it argued that paying ceo's 200 to 400 times more than the average worker today in the corporation (when they were being paid about 70 times the average worker), do to inflation and prices?

and another question,

doesn't rising gas prices increase inflation MORE than any minimum wage hike could possibly do?

Why are all of these things okay and raising the minimum wage is not.....?

See, prices have all gone up, without increasing the minimum wage...that's a fact, not fiction....

If I had a teenage child working at minimum wage, I would NOT want them to get paid less, rather.... have less purchasing power than I did, when I worked minimum wage, way back when...

we can't keep squeezing the very bottom, with inflation occurring ALREADY without giving them a raise to compensate....

inflation happens all on its own, and we are only asking to give them more money at mw, AFTER THE FACT, after inflation has occurred.....to keep up with the cost of living that has already gone up....
EDIT
Ideally, the States should be raising their minimum wages all on their own, with the rising cost of living...and truthfully many states do this all on their own....but many States have not kept up and not done anything to help their own citizens on MW, the MINIMUM, I repeat, the minimum federal wage....is just that, the very minimum employees are allowed to be paid per the fed....and again as mentioned, many states have higher minimum wages than the federal minimum.

 

[Political Junky]

The GOP thinks keeping folks poor will stimulate the economy.

 

[auditor0007]

Dems have been trying to raise the minimum wage for many years, where the hell have you been?

Evidently I was out to lunch with the democrats when they had a super-majority of both houses of congress from 2009-2011. Why didn't they do it then? 111th United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It was last raised in July of 2009. That increase was the last of a three tier increase that was passed in 2007. I would assume that it wasn't brought up again right away because it had just been raised.

 

[Publius1787]

Dems have been trying to raise the minimum wage for many years, where the hell have you been?

Evidently I was out to lunch with the democrats when they had a super-majority of both houses of congress from 2009-2011. Why didn't they do it then? 111th United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It was last raised in July of 2009. That increase was the last of a three tier increase that was passed in 2007. I would assume that it wasn't brought up again right away because it had just been raised.

Yes it was a 2007 law. Am I to believe that the democrats did not use their super majority to increase the minimum wage because it had just been increased to a level they're just now, 4 years later, claiming that it isn't enough? You would figure that if there ever was a time when democrats would attempt to "relive" low wage earners it would have been in 2009 as opposed to "the recovery" they say were experiencing now. In fact, immigration, minimum wage, and a whole host of other issues could have been passed by the democrat super majority. Why didn't they? They either didn't want to over extend themselves or they were tucking it away for later.

 

[auditor0007]

Evidently I was out to lunch with the democrats when they had a super-majority of both houses of congress from 2009-2011. Why didn't they do it then? 111th United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It was last raised in July of 2009. That increase was the last of a three tier increase that was passed in 2007. I would assume that it wasn't brought up again right away because it had just been raised.

Yes it was a 2007 law. Am I to believe that the democrats did not use their super majority to increase the minimum wage because it had just been increased to a level they're just now, 4 years later, claiming that it isn't enough? You would figure that if there ever was a time when democrats would attempt to "relive" low wage earners it would have been in 2009 as opposed to "the recovery" they say were experiencing now. In fact, immigration, minimum wage, and a whole host of other issues could have been passed by the democrat super majority. Why didn't they? They either didn't want to over extend themselves or they were tucking it away for later.

The minimum wage does not have a history of being raised every one or two years. It stayed at $5.15 for almost ten years.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Dems have been trying to raise the minimum wage for many years, where the hell have you been?

Evidently I was out to lunch with the democrats when they had a super-majority of both houses of congress from 2009-2011. Why didn't they do it then? 111th United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They were too busy fixing all the mistakes of George Dumbya the Cross Eyed War Monkey.

Were they?

Well, now they'll be picking up the pieces after the next Monkey leaves. Barry Odumba the Gun Running Healthscare Monkey.

 

[Publius1787]

It was last raised in July of 2009. That increase was the last of a three tier increase that was passed in 2007. I would assume that it wasn't brought up again right away because it had just been raised.

Yes it was a 2007 law. Am I to believe that the democrats did not use their super majority to increase the minimum wage because it had just been increased to a level they're just now, 4 years later, claiming that it isn't enough? You would figure that if there ever was a time when democrats would attempt to "relive" low wage earners it would have been in 2009 as opposed to "the recovery" they say were experiencing now. In fact, immigration, minimum wage, and a whole host of other issues could have been passed by the democrat super majority. Why didn't they? They either didn't want to over extend themselves or they were tucking it away for later.

The minimum wage does not have a history of being raised every one or two years. It stayed at $5.15 for almost ten years.

Sure, and this is the excuse for not raising the minimum wage when they had a super majority? If they were worried about precedent they wouldn't have passed Obamacare.

 

[Care4all]

Yes it was a 2007 law. Am I to believe that the democrats did not use their super majority to increase the minimum wage because it had just been increased to a level they're just now, 4 years later, claiming that it isn't enough? You would figure that if there ever was a time when democrats would attempt to "relive" low wage earners it would have been in 2009 as opposed to "the recovery" they say were experiencing now. In fact, immigration, minimum wage, and a whole host of other issues could have been passed by the democrat super majority. Why didn't they? They either didn't want to over extend themselves or they were tucking it away for later.

The minimum wage does not have a history of being raised every one or two years. It stayed at $5.15 for almost ten years.

Sure, and this is the excuse for not raising the minimum wage when they had a super majority? If they were worried about precedent they wouldn't have passed Obamacare.

They had a super majority for just a few months NOT a couple of years....Kennedy was sick and then died, they lost their super majority with Scott Brown taking the spot...

also the Dems did introduce bills trying to raise the minimum wage which were not passed or blocked dearest...

Just looked it up....4 months with the super majority to get things done, NOT 24 MONTHS as the right wing is claiming....

I realize memories can be short in the political world, and 2010 seems like a long time ago, but it’s unnerving when professionals who presumably keep up with current events are this wrong. Even if various pundits lost track of the specific details, I’d at least expect Fox News hosts to remember Sen. Scott Brown’s (R) special-election win in Massachusetts.
Since memories are short, let’s take a brief stroll down memory lane, giving Wallace a hand with the recent history he’s forgotten.
In January 2009, there were 56 Senate Democrats and two independents who caucused with Democrats. This combined total of 58 included Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), whose health was failing and was unable to serve. As a practical matter, in the early months of Obama’s presidency, the Senate Democratic caucus had 57 members on the floor for day-to-day legislating.
In April 2009, Pennsylvania’s Arlen Specter switched parties. This meant there were 57 Democrats, and two independents who caucused with Democrats, for a caucus of 59. But with Kennedy ailing, there were still “only” 58 Democratic caucus members in the chamber.
In May 2009, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) was hospitalized, bringing the number of Senate Dems in the chamber down to 57.
In July 2009, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) was finally seated after a lengthy recount/legal fight. At that point, the Democratic caucus reached 60, but two of its members, Kennedy and Byrd, were unavailable for votes.
In August 2009, Kennedy died, and Democratic caucus again stood at 59.
In September 2009, Sen. Paul Kirk (D-Mass.) filled Kennedy’s vacancy, bringing the caucus back to 60, though Byrd’s health continued to deteriorate.
In January 2010, Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) replaced Kirk, bringing the Democratic caucus back to 59 again.
In June 2010, Byrd died, and the Democratic caucus fell to 58, where it stood until the midterms. [Update: Jonathan Bernstein reminds me that Byrd’s replacement was a Dem. He’s right, though this doesn’t change the larger point.]
Wallace believes the Dems’ “filibuster proof majority in the Senate” lasted 24 months. In reality, he’s off by 20 months, undermining the entire thesis pushed so aggressively by Republicans.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/fleeting-illusory-supermajority

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-m-granholm/debunking-the-myth-obamas_b_1929869.html

 

[Spiderman]

it is a distraction.

Less than 3% of hourly workers make federal minimum wage.

It's the reddest of red herrings.

 

[hunarcy]

but you can't compare min wage in 2007 and now.....without considering the housing bubble and bust, the banking bust and bail out and mortgage meltdown, and wall street fiasco's which had absolutely nothing to do with minimum wage hikes.....can you? so what is it that you see in that period that supports the claim Hunarcy?

But, but, but...of course I can compare because the rise in minimum wage cut off hiring, so people who would have had jobs didn't...so, they didn't buy things, slowing demand and ending up in layoffs, which meant people couldn't pay their mortgages, so foreclosures began, choking off demand for new housing, which slowed demand for new houses and ending up in unemployment for carpenters and laborers, which scared bankers who slowed lending and interest rates climbed making in difficult for people with ARMs to pay their mortgages, which popped the housing bubble.

 

[Care4all]

but you can't compare min wage in 2007 and now.....without considering the housing bubble and bust, the banking bust and bail out and mortgage meltdown, and wall street fiasco's which had absolutely nothing to do with minimum wage hikes.....can you? so what is it that you see in that period that supports the claim Hunarcy?

But, but, but...of course I can compare because the rise in minimum wage cut off hiring, so people who would have had jobs didn't...so, they didn't buy things, slowing demand and ending up in layoffs, which meant people couldn't pay their mortgages, so foreclosures began, choking off demand for new housing, which slowed demand for new houses and ending up in unemployment for carpenters and laborers, which scared bankers who slowed lending and interest rates climbed making in difficult for people with ARMs to pay their mortgages, which popped the housing bubble.

This is what you "think" Hun, and I can honestly see how one might "think" that...it seems like it would be just common sense.....

BUT, there is absolutely NO FACTS supporting these ''thoughts''.....NONE....truly, none....I've searched the numbers inside out, and this "theory" can't be proven.

EDITS

AND, you really think people on minimum wage had MORTGAGES? no, no they didn't....not in any kind of numbers...

AND, the layoffs began BEFORE any minimum wage increase.

AND the housing bubble began to burst in 2006, again before the minimum wage hike

AND, you give so little credit to small business owners, of which I am one....there are many ways to cut back, to pay for the workers you may have at minimum wage....when the going gets tough, the tough get going....cut electric bills, cutting wasteful travel, cutting wastefull or non-necessary supply costs, bargaining with whom you buy your goods from to get better deals....cut rent, SELL MORE, increase employee's PRODUCTIVITY....so it pays for the 50 cent -$1 hike

 

[Ame®icano]

People today seem to have bigger houses and a lot more stuff than they had back in 1968.

And this makes it ok for the rich to take hundreds of times more then the avg worker? This makes the growing difference ok...Why shouldn't people have a large house, car and computer?


Why?

Nobody's saying they shouldn't have it. The argument is whether should they earn it.


.