If minimum wage were raised ...

[OnePercenter]

Define greed.

Intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth and power.

That's rather vague isn't it?

No, spot-on.

 

[Iceweasel]

No, spot-on.

That's an evasion. That's why I asked. It's impossible to regulate with your definition.

 

[OnePercenter]

No, spot-on.

That's an evasion. That's why I asked. It's impossible to regulate with your definition.

How about the non-profit requirement in the HMO act that Reagan reversed.

 

[OnePercenter]

No, spot-on.

That's an evasion. That's why I asked. It's impossible to regulate with your definition.

Blade guards on meat slicers.

 

[BobPlumb]

I think you are missing an important point. If the minimum wage were raised, then all items that you buy at the store would also have to rise to cover those costs. Many want to argue that raising the minimum wage would lower the amount of poverty. Studies conducted on this remain very inconclusive. In fact, if everything rises, then the poverty level will have to rise too. If it were true that raising minimum wage put an end to poverty, then when wages went from 75 cents to a dollar, poverty would have ended, and we all know that was not the case.

That's why my plan is perfect. None of what you state will happen.

Because you say so...............

 

[OnePercenter]

I think you are missing an important point. If the minimum wage were raised, then all items that you buy at the store would also have to rise to cover those costs. Many want to argue that raising the minimum wage would lower the amount of poverty. Studies conducted on this remain very inconclusive. In fact, if everything rises, then the poverty level will have to rise too. If it were true that raising minimum wage put an end to poverty, then when wages went from 75 cents to a dollar, poverty would have ended, and we all know that was not the case.

That's why my plan is perfect. None of what you state will happen.

Because you say so...............

-I eliminate ALL taxes for business.

-I put tens of billions per year back into the economy by putting it back into the hands of the middle-class.

-I reduce the cost of employees for business to the amount of all taxes and fees currently being paid, and subsidies any additional costs for businesses with 200 or less employees.

What's wrong with that?

 

[BobPlumb]

No plan is perfect. Just ask Murphy.

 

[beagle9]

If minimum wage were raised, presumably many people's wages would be bumped at least a little. Even though only a small percentage of workers earn minimum wage, the people who started out at minimum wage and got raises would get upset if brand new employees suddenly got as much as they did, so lots of wages would go up.

So how many jobs would be created or saved by this move -- for instance because of the increase in spending money available for local spending?

And how many jobs would be lost -- for instance because the increase in American wages would make offshore labor look more appealing, or because business owners' profit margin wouldn't support a 20% hike in labor costs so they would let a small portion of their workforce go and hope for more productivity from the rest?

Catch 22 is what it is really, and the most powerful will win unless something of equal power could keep the peace between it all.

Now the government as is being looked at by many to be that intervention, has a terrible track record of doing what is right or negotiating anything that seems to be right and/or righteous anymore it seems.

If people would do right on their own, it sure would help, but it seems anymore that they want to teach the government how to be a dictator, and that is a very bad thing for this nation to end up with.

The government is also working hard to slam the door on all those who are becoming weakened by their actions over time, so look out because this nation is being set up by it all as we speak. Not sure what the future will bring anymore, but thank goodness I'm old, and I won't be around to see it when it gets terribly bad for so many, and continues to get terribly good for so few.

 

[Iceweasel]

No, spot-on.

That's an evasion. That's why I asked. It's impossible to regulate with your definition.

How about the non-profit requirement in the HMO act that Reagan reversed.

Profit equals greed? Is that your point?

 

[Agit8r]

If raising the minimum wage would end poverty, poverty would have been eradicated when the MW went from 75 cents an hour to $1.25 an hour.

Poverty is relative. Pay people $100.00 an hour and they will still be poor.

But if rents and gas and food go up and wages stay the same, then people will be poorer.

Exactly. That is why minimum wage workers are poorer now than in the late 60s; because $1.25 then was worth what $9 is now.

 

[Iceweasel]

Exactly. That is why minimum wage workers are poorer now than in the late 60s; because $1.25 then was worth what $9 is now.

I'm skeptical of your claims but have you calculated the standard of living? What did an average 60s minimum wage worker have compared to today. Looking strictly at inflation rates doesn't paint the entire picture.

 

[BillyZane]

I just don't know how anyone can defend the current minimum wage with a straight face. I mean no person should have to expand an hour of labor at any job just to buy a gallon of milk. And that's basically where we are. An hour at minimum wage will after taxes pay for a gallon of milk.

I wouldn't defend it at all. Government has no business setting wages. That isn't why our government was formed. If it costs X amount of dollars to live the employer will have to pay x amount of dollars to keep someone worthwhile. Somehow we managed before the law went into effect. True story.

Actually, that's EXACTLY the purpose of government, to protect the weak from the strong. Otherwise why have one at all? Why have laws against murder? I mean if you can't prevent your own murder too bad.

And your "we survived before the law" is pretty silly. Employees were treated like shit, and sometimes even killed by their employers before the government started passing regulations.

 

[Iceweasel]

Actually, that's EXACTLY the purpose of government, to protect the weak from the strong. Otherwise why have one at all? Why have laws against murder? I mean if you can't prevent your own murder too bad.

And your "we survived before the law" is pretty silly. Employees were treated like shit, and sometimes even killed by their employers before the government started passing regulations.

We were discussing the minimum wage, not every sin ever done by a human or business.

 

[SwimExpert]

Exactly. That is why minimum wage workers are poorer now than in the late 60s; because $1.25 then was worth what $9 is now.

I'm skeptical of your claims but have you calculated the standard of living? What did an average 60s minimum wage worker have compared to today. Looking strictly at inflation rates doesn't paint the entire picture.

 

[oldfart]

Actually, that's EXACTLY the purpose of government, to protect the weak from the strong.

That may be what a sixth grade civics text says, but anyone who looks at any political system would recognize that the primary purpose of any political system and government is to protect and advance the interests of those who control it. If a system is controlled by a bureaucracy, the system will defend that bureaucracy above all else, regardless of whether it is a set of government departments, or a corporate structure. The model of the American government which predicts the behavior of Congress the best, for example, is to regard Congress as the coordinating committee of the wealthiest and the power elite in government and business. Both the Tea Party and Progressives rail against it from opposite sides of the spectrum, but the outcome is constrained by what very large campaign contributors, the ideological think tanks, industrial special interests (like coal, petroleum, big pharma, private prison corporations, etc) and similar very narrow constituencies which comprise perhaps 00.001% of the population find in their narrow interests.

This situation does not apply equally to both Left and Right (each side sees the other as a nefarious conspiracy controlling the outcome) but the critique of the center is symmetrical. Both sides want to "throw the rascals out", but disagree on what should replace them. So both of these groups get screwed. They are the Left Opposition and Right Opposition playing the game that Stalin won.

Why have laws against murder? I mean if you can't prevent your own murder too bad.

The government does not prevent murder, it sanctions who is allowed to commit it with impunity. Look at the recent Florida murder trials. The state's interest is not in reducing the number of killings, but in making sure killings are either done for the benefit of the state, by persons favored by the state, or are severely punished. Neither concepts of justice nor the welfare of society has anything to do with it.

And your "we survived before the law" is pretty silly. Employees were treated like shit, and sometimes even killed by their employers before the government started passing regulations.

And for the benefit of whom?

 

[OnePercenter]

That's an evasion. That's why I asked. It's impossible to regulate with your definition.

How about the non-profit requirement in the HMO act that Reagan reversed.

Profit equals greed? Is that your point?

Reagan removed competition in the industry, and today we can see why competition is necessary.

 

[beagle9]

I guess it is supposed by the government, that all jobs or companies are created equal, and this is regardless of the types of businesses or the various business models that are out there. I think the main thing is to make sure that companies are satisfying a grading system of some sort. It should be a system set up or created by the government, where as if a company wants to be involved, then this grading system would show that they (the companies being graded or looked at) would have a suitable pay scale system set up that would show that they have an entrance pay, and also an annual or performance based raise system intact which is based upon the merit system as it should be, along with a benefit package if can be afforded to the employee's, as well as an exiting strategy, otherwise known as a retirement plan if can be afforded also to it's employee's.

Once these minimum standard requirements are met in order to join the grading system for those employing more than 25 workers, and no less than 25 workers, then a grade is given for the best pay system set up that is put forward by these individual companies in documentation therefore given to the government grading system, and this in regards to their employee's and how they are being treated in each company that voluntarily participates in the program. Then the grades would determine the awards or subsidies that are to be given by the feds, and this whether it be in perks for being a great company, having a great owner(s) for whom will promote such things as these that are mentioned above. The only reason for the government getting involved in a blanket minimum wage campaign, is to possibly redistribute wealth in which it feels has been held back by the greedy, and therefore causing some serious ripples in the overall economy because of, and especially on the consumerism side of the equation. Now once the government makes it's move if it thinks that this is what happened, then it should follow up with the grading system as so not to have to continue to become involved in such moves in the near future.

I say let's give them a raise this time on the blanket scale, and then begin the grading system from here on out. The feds might never have to be involved it such things again, as the embarrassment of a company not doing right by it's employee's, would be known, as well as the company cutting itself out of the awards and perks in which it could get by doing the right thing to the best of it's ability. Now for the companies that opt out of the awards program, well who would want to work for them ? So it would probably be best to stay clear of them if at all possible. Just ideas yall, so hash over them and then think about other answers to these things if you have some good answers or ideas also

 

[OnePercenter]

I guess it is supposed by the government, that all jobs or companies are created equal, and this is regardless of the types of businesses or the various business models that are out there. I think the main thing is to make sure that companies are satisfying a grading system of some sort, that should be set up or created by the government if it wants to be involved like they are wanting always to be, where as this grading system would show that they (the companies being graded or looked at) would have a suitable pay scale system set up that would show that they have an entrance pay, also an annual or performance based raise system intact which is based upon the merit system as it should be, along with a benefit package if can be afforded to the employee's, as well as an exiting strategy, otherwise known as a retirement plan if can be afforded also to it's employee's.

Once these minimum standard requirements are met by those employing more than 25 workers, and no less than 25 workers, then a grade is given for the best pay system set up that is put forward by these individual companies in documentation therefore given to the government grading system, and this in regards to their employee's and how they are being treated in each company that voluntarily participates in the program. Then the grades would determine the awards or subsidies that are to be given by the feds, and this whether it be in perks for being a great company, having a great owner(s) for whom will promote such things as these that are mentioned above. The only reason for the government getting involved in a blanket minimum wage campaign, is to possibly redistribute wealth in which it feels has been held back by the greedy, and therefore causing some serious ripples in the overall economy because of, and especially on the consumerism side of the equation. Now once the government makes it's move if it thinks that this is what happened, then it should follow up with the grading system as so not to have to continue to become involved in such moves again or in the near future.

I say let's give them a raise this time on the blanket scale, and then begin the grading system from here on out. The feds might never have to be involved it such things again, as the embarrassment of a company not doing right by it's employee's, would be known, as well as the company cutting itself out of the awards and perks in which it could get by doing the right thing to the best of it's ability. Now for the companies that opt out of the awards program, well who would want to work for them ? So it would probably be best to stay clear of them if at all possible. Just ideas yall, so hash over them and then think about other answers to these things if you have some good answers or ideas also

All businesses and jobs are fundamentally the same.

 

[beagle9]

i guess it is supposed by the government, that all jobs or companies are created equal, and this is regardless of the types of businesses or the various business models that are out there. I think the main thing is to make sure that companies are satisfying a grading system of some sort, that should be set up or created by the government if it wants to be involved like they are wanting always to be, where as this grading system would show that they (the companies being graded or looked at) would have a suitable pay scale system set up that would show that they have an entrance pay, also an annual or performance based raise system intact which is based upon the merit system as it should be, along with a benefit package if can be afforded to the employee's, as well as an exiting strategy, otherwise known as a retirement plan if can be afforded also to it's employee's.

Once these minimum standard requirements are met by those employing more than 25 workers, and no less than 25 workers, then a grade is given for the best pay system set up that is put forward by these individual companies in documentation therefore given to the government grading system, and this in regards to their employee's and how they are being treated in each company that voluntarily participates in the program. Then the grades would determine the awards or subsidies that are to be given by the feds, and this whether it be in perks for being a great company, having a great owner(s) for whom will promote such things as these that are mentioned above. The only reason for the government getting involved in a blanket minimum wage campaign, is to possibly redistribute wealth in which it feels has been held back by the greedy, and therefore causing some serious ripples in the overall economy because of, and especially on the consumerism side of the equation. Now once the government makes it's move if it thinks that this is what happened, then it should follow up with the grading system as so not to have to continue to become involved in such moves again or in the near future.

I say let's give them a raise this time on the blanket scale, and then begin the grading system from here on out. The feds might never have to be involved it such things again, as the embarrassment of a company not doing right by it's employee's, would be known, as well as the company cutting itself out of the awards and perks in which it could get by doing the right thing to the best of it's ability. Now for the companies that opt out of the awards program, well who would want to work for them ? So it would probably be best to stay clear of them if at all possible. Just ideas yall, so hash over them and then think about other answers to these things if you have some good answers or ideas also

all businesses and jobs are fundamentally the same.

huh ?

 

[beagle9]

Yall jumped this before I could edit it, so here is the finished product.

I guess it is supposed by the government, that all jobs or companies are created equal, and this is regardless of the types of businesses or the various business models that are out there. I think the main thing is to make sure that companies are satisfying a grading system of some sort. It should be a system set up or created by the government, where as if a company wants to be involved, then this grading system would show that they (the companies being graded or looked at) would have a suitable pay scale system set up that would show that they have an entrance pay, and also an annual or performance based raise system intact which is based upon the merit system as it should be, along with a benefit package if can be afforded to the employee's, as well as an exiting strategy, otherwise known as a retirement plan if can be afforded also to it's employee's.

Once these minimum standard requirements are met in order to join the grading system for those employing more than 25 workers, and no less than 25 workers, then a grade is given for the best pay system set up that is put forward by these individual companies in documentation therefore given to the government grading system, and this in regards to their employee's and how they are being treated in each company that voluntarily participates in the program. Then the grades would determine the awards or subsidies that are to be given by the feds, and this whether it be in perks for being a great company, having a great owner(s) for whom will promote such things as these that are mentioned above. The only reason for the government getting involved in a blanket minimum wage campaign, is to possibly redistribute wealth in which it feels has been held back by the greedy, and therefore causing some serious ripples in the overall economy because of, and especially on the consumerism side of the equation. Now once the government makes it's move if it thinks that this is what happened, then it should follow up with the grading system as so not to have to continue to become involved in such moves in the near future.

I say let's give them a raise this time on the blanket scale, and then begin the grading system from here on out. The feds might never have to be involved it such things again, as the embarrassment of a company not doing right by it's employee's, would be known, as well as the company cutting itself out of the awards and perks in which it could get by doing the right thing to the best of it's ability. Now for the companies that opt out of the awards program, well who would want to work for them ? So it would probably be best to stay clear of them if at all possible. Just ideas yall, so hash over them and then think about other answers to these things if you have some good answers or ideas also