Raise the Minimum Wage

[Conservative65]

It's simple Econ 101: raise the price, you sell less of it. WHy do people think that somehow laws of economics dont apply to their issue?

I've said that for DECADES, and still can't get anyone to answer that.

In any other situation, people grasp that if the price of milk, was $15 a gallon.... dur.... people buy less of it.

If the price of gasoline, was $15 a gallon.... dur.... people would buy less of it.

If a porno film was $1,000 a film... people would buy less of it.

If cell phones, and data packages were $1,000 a phone, and $500 a month...... dur... people would buy fewer phones and data packages.

Labor... has to be bought. If you triple the cost of labor itself.... HEY! People buy less labor.

This isn't that complicated. Why can't the people on the left grasp basic economics?

I completely agree. However, there are some products that even if the price goes up, people will buy as much or more of it simply because there is no viable alternative. An example would be insulin to a diabetic.

 

[Conservative65]

Hold on

Didn't these folks already get a raise?

I guess free health insurance isn't considered a raise?

What am I missing?

Its never enough for some people.
just amazing and almost sickening

For some, it never will be.

 

[Conservative65]

You need evidence? Really? Okay, let's say you get a one week pay check that amounts to $240, or you could get a pay check that amounts to $500 for the week. Which pay check do you think will keep you out of poverty?

Well that was easy. LOL!

Oversimplification. You missed everything else that will be affected. Wages won't go up in a vacuum. The money has to come from somewhere.

Those who argue that increasing minimum wage will do that think wages are mutually exclusive from all other factors.

 

[Conservative65]

The question is not raising the minimum wage the problem is how much to raise it. I don't object to raising it but I do doubling it to $15.00 a hour.

I object to doing it. You don't make people comfortable when they can do better. I also don't think a person should be paid more, for a job that is not worth the extra cost.
You do realize the restaurants are already passing the cost on to the consumer?

The customer should pay more for their meal instead of having to tip their waiter/waitress. How I am meant to work out how much tip I should pay. I'd have to bring a damned calculator in with me to work it out.

Smart people have no trouble calculating 10%, 15% or 20% of a total bill. Just saying.

Most restaurants have made it easier for the dumb ones. They put, usually at the bottom of the bill, what the tip would be for several percentages.

 

[Billy000]

The question is not raising the minimum wage the problem is how much to raise it. I don't object to raising it but I do doubling it to $15.00 a hour.

As long as it was gradual, it would work. To keep up with inflation, the wage would have to be 15.00

The skills required to do minimum wage jobs have been the same for years. That means those doing minimum wage jobs are on the same skills level as someone doing the same job 50 years ago. Since the skill level hasn't inflated, why should the wage?

The problem is that 16.5 million people make under 10.10. Many of those people are raising kids. Could you live off 10.10 an hour? Look I'm all for paying skilled people more than entry levels, but if so many people are forced to take jobs they can't support themselves on it's only ethical to pay them more or allow them to work more per week. Even people working full time can't support themselves and their kids on less than 10.10.

Here's something to consider: productivity in the lower classes has increased 100% in the last couple of decades yet wages have remained flat. Shouldn't these workers be compensated for the extra demand in productivity?

Your entire rant has more holes than Swiss cheese.

Whether or not they have kids has absolutely nothing with how their wage should be determined. People are paid for the job they do and the skills they have not personal choices or personal situations they are in especially when many of those situations were already in place before they had the job. If they occurred after the job was taken doesn't mean the employer should now pay for them because the one making them can't afford them.

Could I live off $10.10/hour. Not in the same lifestyle I currently live. However, I knew that I wanted a better lifestyle and took it upon myself to get an education and offer skills worth more.

Arguing ethics is nothing more than saying an employer should do it your way or they're wrong. Not a valid stance.

You base your entire productivity argument making the claim that the workers are the sole reason it has increased. Guess you've never heard of technology.

Here's my challenge to you. If you don't think someone has enough, you are free to help them in any way, shape, or form you wish with your money. However, to demand a business you don't own be forced to pay them more is unethical unless you're willing to do it yourself personally to the same level.

The problem with your argument is that you are too sympathetic to the choice of a business and not at all on the vital workers they employ. On the one hand you say employers shouldn't pay more based on a lack of skill yet you think productivity doesn't matter at all. Thats bullshit. And yes technology has increased but that doesn't mean it acconts for the 100% increase. It probably should be factored in to an extent but that still wouldn't justify keeping wages the way they are now.

If this was 10 years ago, I wouldn't even make this argument but since the recession there has been a significant increase in low wage jobs and a significant decrease of good paying jobs. That means people have NO CHOICE but to accept shitty paying jobs. A business is about give and take. Workers help the company make profit and the company must respond by paying them fairly. Right now the minimum wage is way behind on inflation. That means the last time someone could make a secure living on 10 an hour was in the 1970s. Don't you think inflation matters? Shouldn't the low level workers be compensated? Without them a business cannot even exist. That throws out your philosophical argument about forcing businesses to pay more.

It's interesting you say I shouldn't argue with ethics but that is the basis of your entire argument is it not? Not forcing businesses to increase their wages?

 

[Conservative65]

The question is not raising the minimum wage the problem is how much to raise it. I don't object to raising it but I do doubling it to $15.00 a hour.

As long as it was gradual, it would work. To keep up with inflation, the wage would have to be 15.00

The skills required to do minimum wage jobs have been the same for years. That means those doing minimum wage jobs are on the same skills level as someone doing the same job 50 years ago. Since the skill level hasn't inflated, why should the wage?

The problem is that 16.5 million people make under 10.10. Many of those people are raising kids. Could you live off 10.10 an hour? Look I'm all for paying skilled people more than entry levels, but if so many people are forced to take jobs they can't support themselves on it's only ethical to pay them more or allow them to work more per week. Even people working full time can't support themselves and their kids on less than 10.10.

Here's something to consider: productivity in the lower classes has increased 100% in the last couple of decades yet wages have remained flat. Shouldn't these workers be compensated for the extra demand in productivity?

Your entire rant has more holes than Swiss cheese.

Whether or not they have kids has absolutely nothing with how their wage should be determined. People are paid for the job they do and the skills they have not personal choices or personal situations they are in especially when many of those situations were already in place before they had the job. If they occurred after the job was taken doesn't mean the employer should now pay for them because the one making them can't afford them.

Could I live off $10.10/hour. Not in the same lifestyle I currently live. However, I knew that I wanted a better lifestyle and took it upon myself to get an education and offer skills worth more.

Arguing ethics is nothing more than saying an employer should do it your way or they're wrong. Not a valid stance.

You base your entire productivity argument making the claim that the workers are the sole reason it has increased. Guess you've never heard of technology.

Here's my challenge to you. If you don't think someone has enough, you are free to help them in any way, shape, or form you wish with your money. However, to demand a business you don't own be forced to pay them more is unethical unless you're willing to do it yourself personally to the same level.

The problem with your argument is that you are too sympathetic to the choice of a business and not at all on the vital workers they employ. On the one hand you say employers shouldn't pay more based on a lack of skill yet you think productivity doesn't matter at all. Thats bullshit. And yes technology has increased but that doesn't mean it acconts for the 100% increase. It probably should be factored in to an extent but that still wouldn't justify keeping wages the way they are now.

If this was 10 years ago, I wouldn't even make this argument but since the recession there has been a significant increase in low wage jobs and a significant decrease of good paying jobs. That means people have NO CHOICE but to accept shitty paying jobs. A business is about give and take. Workers help the company make profit and the company must respond by paying them fairly. Right now the minimum wage is way behind on inflation. That means the last time someone could make a secure living on 10 an hour was in the 1970s. Don't you think inflation matters? Shouldn't the low level workers be compensated? Without them a business cannot even exist. That throws out your philosophical argument about forcing businesses to pay more.

It's interesting you say I shouldn't argue with ethics but that is the basis of your entire argument is it not? Not forcing businesses to increase their wages?

It's not a matter of sympathy for business. It's a matter of what a business pays should be the choice of the business doing the paying not someone like you that doesn't own one. When it comes to the workers, I don't have sympathy for someone that makes personal choices in private life then expects the government force a business to pay for something totally unrelated to what pay should be based on, skills.

That you still claim workers are the overwhelming majority of the reason productivity is up and give lip service to technology invalidates your argument.

It could be 10 years ago or 10 days ago, it doesn't matter. You argument is based on situations not the only factor that should go into determining a wage, skills.

It is give and take. Someone works a job that is worth $7.25/hour and they get paid that much. That's fair. To say otherwise is saying fair involves making a business pay more than skills are worth determined by those not doing the paying.

Without a business, there would be no workers. If no business existed, no workers would exist. Therefore, before any worker position ever comes into place, the business must come first.

My argue is based on a business being the one to determine the wage not letting some asshole like you have a say in what a business you don't own pays.

 

[kiwiman127]

And that's why wage growth has been flat for three decades.
Take a look at historical wages (in Real Dollars) for non-supervisory workers. Productivity has been on a steady rise but not wages. These numbers are based on the Department of Labor who measures wage growth in Real Dollars as do economists, no matter what political stripe.

Wage growth has been flat because the government has been determining the compensation that businesses should pay?

No, businesses have. The Minimum Wage is so far behind the inflation rate it isn't funny. (Well to some it is)

The skill level required to do minimum wage jobs has grown zero, therefore, the wage shouldn't grow.[/QUOTE]

The employer does raise his prices of the goods/services that are offered to meet the increases in the cost of doing business which are driven by inflation. But you think the employee should accept the value of his wage decreases because of inflation? Correct?
So in the end, everyone increases the cost of their product and the end user of this chain is the consumer who hasn't seen an increase in their expendable income but has seen their expendable income decrease.
Now, as we do have a consumer driven economy and the working class is the largest segment of the consumer class, how does our economy survive.
Ever notice that ever since wage growth has been flat, recessions take longer and longer to recover.
So, explain how you plan to balance the very base of this country's economy.

 

[Conservative65]

And that's why wage growth has been flat for three decades.
Take a look at historical wages (in Real Dollars) for non-supervisory workers. Productivity has been on a steady rise but not wages. These numbers are based on the Department of Labor who measures wage growth in Real Dollars as do economists, no matter what political stripe.

Wage growth has been flat because the government has been determining the compensation that businesses should pay?

No, businesses have. The Minimum Wage is so far behind the inflation rate it isn't funny. (Well to some it is)

The skill level required to do minimum wage jobs has grown zero, therefore, the wage shouldn't grow.

The employer does raise his prices of the goods/services that are offered to meet the increases in the cost of doing business which are driven by inflation. But you think the employee should accept the value of his wage decreases because of inflation? Correct?
So in the end, everyone increases the cost of their product and the end user of this chain is the consumer who hasn't seen an increase in their expendable income but has seen their expendable income decrease.
Now, as we do have a consumer driven economy and the working class is the largest segment of the consumer class, how does our economy survive.
Ever notice that ever since wage growth has been flat, recessions take longer and longer to recover.
So, explain how you plan to balance the very base of this country's economy.[/QUOTE]

Cost of doing business for an employer goes up for any number of reasons. Prices increase even if payroll doesn't for things totally unrelated to labor. Since the skills someone offers is the determinant of their wage, if those skills don't go up neither do the wages.

Ever notice that low skilled workers continue to demand they be handed more than get off their asses and do something to EARN more? When they offer something in return for their higher wage, they'll get it.

 

[Billy000]

As long as it was gradual, it would work. To keep up with inflation, the wage would have to be 15.00

The skills required to do minimum wage jobs have been the same for years. That means those doing minimum wage jobs are on the same skills level as someone doing the same job 50 years ago. Since the skill level hasn't inflated, why should the wage?

The problem is that 16.5 million people make under 10.10. Many of those people are raising kids. Could you live off 10.10 an hour? Look I'm all for paying skilled people more than entry levels, but if so many people are forced to take jobs they can't support themselves on it's only ethical to pay them more or allow them to work more per week. Even people working full time can't support themselves and their kids on less than 10.10.

Here's something to consider: productivity in the lower classes has increased 100% in the last couple of decades yet wages have remained flat. Shouldn't these workers be compensated for the extra demand in productivity?

Your entire rant has more holes than Swiss cheese.

Whether or not they have kids has absolutely nothing with how their wage should be determined. People are paid for the job they do and the skills they have not personal choices or personal situations they are in especially when many of those situations were already in place before they had the job. If they occurred after the job was taken doesn't mean the employer should now pay for them because the one making them can't afford them.

Could I live off $10.10/hour. Not in the same lifestyle I currently live. However, I knew that I wanted a better lifestyle and took it upon myself to get an education and offer skills worth more.

Arguing ethics is nothing more than saying an employer should do it your way or they're wrong. Not a valid stance.

You base your entire productivity argument making the claim that the workers are the sole reason it has increased. Guess you've never heard of technology.

Here's my challenge to you. If you don't think someone has enough, you are free to help them in any way, shape, or form you wish with your money. However, to demand a business you don't own be forced to pay them more is unethical unless you're willing to do it yourself personally to the same level.

The problem with your argument is that you are too sympathetic to the choice of a business and not at all on the vital workers they employ. On the one hand you say employers shouldn't pay more based on a lack of skill yet you think productivity doesn't matter at all. Thats bullshit. And yes technology has increased but that doesn't mean it acconts for the 100% increase. It probably should be factored in to an extent but that still wouldn't justify keeping wages the way they are now.

If this was 10 years ago, I wouldn't even make this argument but since the recession there has been a significant increase in low wage jobs and a significant decrease of good paying jobs. That means people have NO CHOICE but to accept shitty paying jobs. A business is about give and take. Workers help the company make profit and the company must respond by paying them fairly. Right now the minimum wage is way behind on inflation. That means the last time someone could make a secure living on 10 an hour was in the 1970s. Don't you think inflation matters? Shouldn't the low level workers be compensated? Without them a business cannot even exist. That throws out your philosophical argument about forcing businesses to pay more.

It's interesting you say I shouldn't argue with ethics but that is the basis of your entire argument is it not? Not forcing businesses to increase their wages?

It's not a matter of sympathy for business. It's a matter of what a business pays should be the choice of the business doing the paying not someone like you that doesn't own one. When it comes to the workers, I don't have sympathy for someone that makes personal choices in private life then expects the government force a business to pay for something totally unrelated to what pay should be based on, skills.

That you still claim workers are the overwhelming majority of the reason productivity is up and give lip service to technology invalidates your argument.

It could be 10 years ago or 10 days ago, it doesn't matter. You argument is based on situations not the only factor that should go into determining a wage, skills.

It is give and take. Someone works a job that is worth $7.25/hour and they get paid that much. That's fair. To say otherwise is saying fair involves making a business pay more than skills are worth determined by those not doing the paying.

Without a business, there would be no workers. If no business existed, no workers would exist. Therefore, before any worker position ever comes into place, the business must come first.

My argue is based on a business being the one to determine the wage not letting some asshole like you have a say in what a business you don't own pays.

Dude your entire argument is based on the same tired belief businesses shouldn't be forced to pay a certain wage. You can repeat that shit over and over but it wouldn't do anything to erase the objective facts I am giving you about poverty in America. Unless you have some other arguement why the minimum wage shouldn't be raised just stop now. I'm really sick of this personal choice bullshit about the jobs people accept. That isn't relevant anymore. People have NO CHOICE but to accept low wage jobs.

Imagine the chaos if there was no minimum wage. What would stop businesses paying their workers 2.00 an hour? How would you feel then?

 

[kiwiman127]

And that's why wage growth has been flat for three decades.
Take a look at historical wages (in Real Dollars) for non-supervisory workers. Productivity has been on a steady rise but not wages. These numbers are based on the Department of Labor who measures wage growth in Real Dollars as do economists, no matter what political stripe.

Wage growth has been flat because the government has been determining the compensation that businesses should pay?

No, businesses have. The Minimum Wage is so far behind the inflation rate it isn't funny. (Well to some it is)

The skill level required to do minimum wage jobs has grown zero, therefore, the wage shouldn't grow.

The employer does raise his prices of the goods/services that are offered to meet the increases in the cost of doing business which are driven by inflation. But you think the employee should accept the value of his wage decreases because of inflation? Correct?
So in the end, everyone increases the cost of their product and the end user of this chain is the consumer who hasn't seen an increase in their expendable income but has seen their expendable income decrease.
Now, as we do have a consumer driven economy and the working class is the largest segment of the consumer class, how does our economy survive.
Ever notice that ever since wage growth has been flat, recessions take longer and longer to recover.
So, explain how you plan to balance the very base of this country's economy.

Cost of doing business for an employer goes up for any number of reasons. Prices increase even if payroll doesn't for things totally unrelated to labor. Since the skills someone offers is the determinant of their wage, if those skills don't go up neither do the wages.

Ever notice that low skilled workers continue to demand they be handed more than get off their asses and do something to EARN more? When they offer something in return for their higher wage, they'll get it.[/QUOTE]

What we are talking about is training the minimum wage worker and that costs money. Who's paying for that training?

 

[Conservative65]

And that's why wage growth has been flat for three decades.
Take a look at historical wages (in Real Dollars) for non-supervisory workers. Productivity has been on a steady rise but not wages. These numbers are based on the Department of Labor who measures wage growth in Real Dollars as do economists, no matter what political stripe.

Wage growth has been flat because the government has been determining the compensation that businesses should pay?

No, businesses have. The Minimum Wage is so far behind the inflation rate it isn't funny. (Well to some it is)

The skill level required to do minimum wage jobs has grown zero, therefore, the wage shouldn't grow.

The employer does raise his prices of the goods/services that are offered to meet the increases in the cost of doing business which are driven by inflation. But you think the employee should accept the value of his wage decreases because of inflation? Correct?
So in the end, everyone increases the cost of their product and the end user of this chain is the consumer who hasn't seen an increase in their expendable income but has seen their expendable income decrease.
Now, as we do have a consumer driven economy and the working class is the largest segment of the consumer class, how does our economy survive.
Ever notice that ever since wage growth has been flat, recessions take longer and longer to recover.
So, explain how you plan to balance the very base of this country's economy.

Cost of doing business for an employer goes up for any number of reasons. Prices increase even if payroll doesn't for things totally unrelated to labor. Since the skills someone offers is the determinant of their wage, if those skills don't go up neither do the wages.

Ever notice that low skilled workers continue to demand they be handed more than get off their asses and do something to EARN more? When they offer something in return for their higher wage, they'll get it.

What we are talking about is training the minimum wage worker and that costs money. Who's paying for that training?[/QUOTE]

When you talk about training, do you really mean providing an education?

 

[Conservative65]

The skills required to do minimum wage jobs have been the same for years. That means those doing minimum wage jobs are on the same skills level as someone doing the same job 50 years ago. Since the skill level hasn't inflated, why should the wage?

The problem is that 16.5 million people make under 10.10. Many of those people are raising kids. Could you live off 10.10 an hour? Look I'm all for paying skilled people more than entry levels, but if so many people are forced to take jobs they can't support themselves on it's only ethical to pay them more or allow them to work more per week. Even people working full time can't support themselves and their kids on less than 10.10.

Here's something to consider: productivity in the lower classes has increased 100% in the last couple of decades yet wages have remained flat. Shouldn't these workers be compensated for the extra demand in productivity?

Your entire rant has more holes than Swiss cheese.

Whether or not they have kids has absolutely nothing with how their wage should be determined. People are paid for the job they do and the skills they have not personal choices or personal situations they are in especially when many of those situations were already in place before they had the job. If they occurred after the job was taken doesn't mean the employer should now pay for them because the one making them can't afford them.

Could I live off $10.10/hour. Not in the same lifestyle I currently live. However, I knew that I wanted a better lifestyle and took it upon myself to get an education and offer skills worth more.

Arguing ethics is nothing more than saying an employer should do it your way or they're wrong. Not a valid stance.

You base your entire productivity argument making the claim that the workers are the sole reason it has increased. Guess you've never heard of technology.

Here's my challenge to you. If you don't think someone has enough, you are free to help them in any way, shape, or form you wish with your money. However, to demand a business you don't own be forced to pay them more is unethical unless you're willing to do it yourself personally to the same level.

The problem with your argument is that you are too sympathetic to the choice of a business and not at all on the vital workers they employ. On the one hand you say employers shouldn't pay more based on a lack of skill yet you think productivity doesn't matter at all. Thats bullshit. And yes technology has increased but that doesn't mean it acconts for the 100% increase. It probably should be factored in to an extent but that still wouldn't justify keeping wages the way they are now.

If this was 10 years ago, I wouldn't even make this argument but since the recession there has been a significant increase in low wage jobs and a significant decrease of good paying jobs. That means people have NO CHOICE but to accept shitty paying jobs. A business is about give and take. Workers help the company make profit and the company must respond by paying them fairly. Right now the minimum wage is way behind on inflation. That means the last time someone could make a secure living on 10 an hour was in the 1970s. Don't you think inflation matters? Shouldn't the low level workers be compensated? Without them a business cannot even exist. That throws out your philosophical argument about forcing businesses to pay more.

It's interesting you say I shouldn't argue with ethics but that is the basis of your entire argument is it not? Not forcing businesses to increase their wages?

It's not a matter of sympathy for business. It's a matter of what a business pays should be the choice of the business doing the paying not someone like you that doesn't own one. When it comes to the workers, I don't have sympathy for someone that makes personal choices in private life then expects the government force a business to pay for something totally unrelated to what pay should be based on, skills.

That you still claim workers are the overwhelming majority of the reason productivity is up and give lip service to technology invalidates your argument.

It could be 10 years ago or 10 days ago, it doesn't matter. You argument is based on situations not the only factor that should go into determining a wage, skills.

It is give and take. Someone works a job that is worth $7.25/hour and they get paid that much. That's fair. To say otherwise is saying fair involves making a business pay more than skills are worth determined by those not doing the paying.

Without a business, there would be no workers. If no business existed, no workers would exist. Therefore, before any worker position ever comes into place, the business must come first.

My argue is based on a business being the one to determine the wage not letting some asshole like you have a say in what a business you don't own pays.

Dude your entire argument is based on the same tired belief businesses shouldn't be forced to pay a certain wage. You can repeat that shit over and over but it wouldn't do anything to erase the objective facts I am giving you about poverty in America. Unless you have some other arguement why the minimum wage shouldn't be raised just stop now. I'm really sick of this personal choice bullshit about the jobs people accept. That isn't relevant anymore. People have NO CHOICE but to accept low wage jobs.

Imagine the chaos if there was no minimum wage. What would stop businesses paying their workers 2.00 an hour? How would you feel then?

That's because businesses shouldn't be forced to pay a certain wage. It's not an employers place to bring someone out of poverty. It's the person's responsibility. The only thing an employer owes a worker is a wage equivalent to the skills the worker offers. An employer is in no way responsible for personal life choices that put or keep someone in poverty. That you think so proves you would never be successful in business. That you use the word dude to address me also proves it.

Low skilled people have no choice but to accept low wage jobs. That's because they have low skills.

I would feel fine if the skills that worker offers is worth $2/hour.

 

[Conservative65]

Raising the minimum wage historically has done absolutely nothing to help the poor or raise people out of poverty.

Bullshit. How completely ridiculous!

If it's completely ridiculous bullshit you should certainly have no problem providing evidence to the contrary.

Supporters argue that a higher minimum wage is an effective anti-poverty tool. If businesses must pay their low-wage employees more, then those workers should earn more and fewer of them should live in poverty. Common sense says a higher minimum wage should fight poverty.

The facts, however, show otherwise. Many economists have examined the evidence and come to the surprising conclusion that the minimum wage does not reduce poverty. Ohio University economists Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway examined the effect that increases in the minimum wage had on the overall poverty rate in the United States and on the poverty rates for groups like minorities and teenagers that might especially benefit from higher minimum wages.[1] They found that the minimum wage had no statistically detectable effect on poverty rates.

[1] See Richard K. Vedder and Lowell E. Gallaway, "Does the Minimum Wage Reduce Poverty?" Employment Policies Institute, June 2001, at www.epionline.org/studies/vedder_06-2001.pdf(December 28, 2006).

Raising the Minimum Wage Will Not Reduce Poverty

You need evidence? Really? Okay, let's say you get a one week pay check that amounts to $240, or you could get a pay check that amounts to $500 for the week. Which pay check do you think will keep you out of poverty?

Well that was easy. LOL!

Its not that simple. And to think that a $500 per week paycheck should be the minimum is ABSURD..
Tell ya what.....Let's see you walk the walk.....Open your own business. Lets say a convenience store or a retail shop of any kind. Then pay your employees $15 per hour.
Don't adjust your prices according to your labor costs. See how long your business lasts.

People that suggests what you challenged that guy to do would never last in business long enough to realize that their foolish ideas is what would put them out of business.

 

[kiwiman127]

This country lacks enough skilled workers. Which has hurt this country's competitiveness. Call it what you will, education or training, if it helps the minimum wage worker to to rise up and better themselves, becoming a skilled worker takes training/education.
Training workers to fill the skilled workers void, which helps America and betters Americans. Who covers to cost of training the unskilled minimum wage worker?

 

[Billy000]

The problem is that 16.5 million people make under 10.10. Many of those people are raising kids. Could you live off 10.10 an hour? Look I'm all for paying skilled people more than entry levels, but if so many people are forced to take jobs they can't support themselves on it's only ethical to pay them more or allow them to work more per week. Even people working full time can't support themselves and their kids on less than 10.10.

Here's something to consider: productivity in the lower classes has increased 100% in the last couple of decades yet wages have remained flat. Shouldn't these workers be compensated for the extra demand in productivity?

Your entire rant has more holes than Swiss cheese.

Whether or not they have kids has absolutely nothing with how their wage should be determined. People are paid for the job they do and the skills they have not personal choices or personal situations they are in especially when many of those situations were already in place before they had the job. If they occurred after the job was taken doesn't mean the employer should now pay for them because the one making them can't afford them.

Could I live off $10.10/hour. Not in the same lifestyle I currently live. However, I knew that I wanted a better lifestyle and took it upon myself to get an education and offer skills worth more.

Arguing ethics is nothing more than saying an employer should do it your way or they're wrong. Not a valid stance.

You base your entire productivity argument making the claim that the workers are the sole reason it has increased. Guess you've never heard of technology.

Here's my challenge to you. If you don't think someone has enough, you are free to help them in any way, shape, or form you wish with your money. However, to demand a business you don't own be forced to pay them more is unethical unless you're willing to do it yourself personally to the same level.

The problem with your argument is that you are too sympathetic to the choice of a business and not at all on the vital workers they employ. On the one hand you say employers shouldn't pay more based on a lack of skill yet you think productivity doesn't matter at all. Thats bullshit. And yes technology has increased but that doesn't mean it acconts for the 100% increase. It probably should be factored in to an extent but that still wouldn't justify keeping wages the way they are now.

If this was 10 years ago, I wouldn't even make this argument but since the recession there has been a significant increase in low wage jobs and a significant decrease of good paying jobs. That means people have NO CHOICE but to accept shitty paying jobs. A business is about give and take. Workers help the company make profit and the company must respond by paying them fairly. Right now the minimum wage is way behind on inflation. That means the last time someone could make a secure living on 10 an hour was in the 1970s. Don't you think inflation matters? Shouldn't the low level workers be compensated? Without them a business cannot even exist. That throws out your philosophical argument about forcing businesses to pay more.

It's interesting you say I shouldn't argue with ethics but that is the basis of your entire argument is it not? Not forcing businesses to increase their wages?

It's not a matter of sympathy for business. It's a matter of what a business pays should be the choice of the business doing the paying not someone like you that doesn't own one. When it comes to the workers, I don't have sympathy for someone that makes personal choices in private life then expects the government force a business to pay for something totally unrelated to what pay should be based on, skills.

That you still claim workers are the overwhelming majority of the reason productivity is up and give lip service to technology invalidates your argument.

It could be 10 years ago or 10 days ago, it doesn't matter. You argument is based on situations not the only factor that should go into determining a wage, skills.

It is give and take. Someone works a job that is worth $7.25/hour and they get paid that much. That's fair. To say otherwise is saying fair involves making a business pay more than skills are worth determined by those not doing the paying.

Without a business, there would be no workers. If no business existed, no workers would exist. Therefore, before any worker position ever comes into place, the business must come first.

My argue is based on a business being the one to determine the wage not letting some asshole like you have a say in what a business you don't own pays.

Dude your entire argument is based on the same tired belief businesses shouldn't be forced to pay a certain wage. You can repeat that shit over and over but it wouldn't do anything to erase the objective facts I am giving you about poverty in America. Unless you have some other arguement why the minimum wage shouldn't be raised just stop now. I'm really sick of this personal choice bullshit about the jobs people accept. That isn't relevant anymore. People have NO CHOICE but to accept low wage jobs.

Imagine the chaos if there was no minimum wage. What would stop businesses paying their workers 2.00 an hour? How would you feel then?

That's because businesses shouldn't be forced to pay a certain wage. It's not an employers place to bring someone out of poverty. It's the person's responsibility. The only thing an employer owes a worker is a wage equivalent to the skills the worker offers. An employer is in no way responsible for personal life choices that put or keep someone in poverty. That you think so proves you would never be successful in business. That you use the word dude to address me also proves it.

Low skilled people have no choice but to accept low wage jobs. That's because they have low skills.

I would feel fine if the skills that worker offers is worth $2/hour.

It's interesting you try to make this fantasy correlation between lack of skill and pay. Do you think a business would say "well he has no skills, let's pay him $2 per hour. I don't know the logic behind 2 per hour, but let's just go with it". Why doesn't the job itself matter? The actual work? Are you suggesting fast food workers (the average age is 29) should be paid $2 an hour? Based on what quantifiable measure is that? Many fast food workers are independent adults trying to make a living. Because they had no prior skill, they should be paid shitty regardless of how demanding their job is?

Okay now let's pretend there is no minimum wage again. What would stop a business from paying a skilled worker $4 an hour and a no skilled worker $2 per hour? You see how that works? There must be rules.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I would think that the company out in California that just got busted paying workers $1.20 an hour despite the minimum wage law would prove to any thinking person that the law is a necessity.

 

[Conservative65]

Your entire rant has more holes than Swiss cheese.

Whether or not they have kids has absolutely nothing with how their wage should be determined. People are paid for the job they do and the skills they have not personal choices or personal situations they are in especially when many of those situations were already in place before they had the job. If they occurred after the job was taken doesn't mean the employer should now pay for them because the one making them can't afford them.

Could I live off $10.10/hour. Not in the same lifestyle I currently live. However, I knew that I wanted a better lifestyle and took it upon myself to get an education and offer skills worth more.

Arguing ethics is nothing more than saying an employer should do it your way or they're wrong. Not a valid stance.

You base your entire productivity argument making the claim that the workers are the sole reason it has increased. Guess you've never heard of technology.

Here's my challenge to you. If you don't think someone has enough, you are free to help them in any way, shape, or form you wish with your money. However, to demand a business you don't own be forced to pay them more is unethical unless you're willing to do it yourself personally to the same level.

The problem with your argument is that you are too sympathetic to the choice of a business and not at all on the vital workers they employ. On the one hand you say employers shouldn't pay more based on a lack of skill yet you think productivity doesn't matter at all. Thats bullshit. And yes technology has increased but that doesn't mean it acconts for the 100% increase. It probably should be factored in to an extent but that still wouldn't justify keeping wages the way they are now.

If this was 10 years ago, I wouldn't even make this argument but since the recession there has been a significant increase in low wage jobs and a significant decrease of good paying jobs. That means people have NO CHOICE but to accept shitty paying jobs. A business is about give and take. Workers help the company make profit and the company must respond by paying them fairly. Right now the minimum wage is way behind on inflation. That means the last time someone could make a secure living on 10 an hour was in the 1970s. Don't you think inflation matters? Shouldn't the low level workers be compensated? Without them a business cannot even exist. That throws out your philosophical argument about forcing businesses to pay more.

It's interesting you say I shouldn't argue with ethics but that is the basis of your entire argument is it not? Not forcing businesses to increase their wages?

It's not a matter of sympathy for business. It's a matter of what a business pays should be the choice of the business doing the paying not someone like you that doesn't own one. When it comes to the workers, I don't have sympathy for someone that makes personal choices in private life then expects the government force a business to pay for something totally unrelated to what pay should be based on, skills.

That you still claim workers are the overwhelming majority of the reason productivity is up and give lip service to technology invalidates your argument.

It could be 10 years ago or 10 days ago, it doesn't matter. You argument is based on situations not the only factor that should go into determining a wage, skills.

It is give and take. Someone works a job that is worth $7.25/hour and they get paid that much. That's fair. To say otherwise is saying fair involves making a business pay more than skills are worth determined by those not doing the paying.

Without a business, there would be no workers. If no business existed, no workers would exist. Therefore, before any worker position ever comes into place, the business must come first.

My argue is based on a business being the one to determine the wage not letting some asshole like you have a say in what a business you don't own pays.

Dude your entire argument is based on the same tired belief businesses shouldn't be forced to pay a certain wage. You can repeat that shit over and over but it wouldn't do anything to erase the objective facts I am giving you about poverty in America. Unless you have some other arguement why the minimum wage shouldn't be raised just stop now. I'm really sick of this personal choice bullshit about the jobs people accept. That isn't relevant anymore. People have NO CHOICE but to accept low wage jobs.

Imagine the chaos if there was no minimum wage. What would stop businesses paying their workers 2.00 an hour? How would you feel then?

That's because businesses shouldn't be forced to pay a certain wage. It's not an employers place to bring someone out of poverty. It's the person's responsibility. The only thing an employer owes a worker is a wage equivalent to the skills the worker offers. An employer is in no way responsible for personal life choices that put or keep someone in poverty. That you think so proves you would never be successful in business. That you use the word dude to address me also proves it.

Low skilled people have no choice but to accept low wage jobs. That's because they have low skills.

I would feel fine if the skills that worker offers is worth $2/hour.

It's interesting you try to make this fantasy correlation between lack of skill and pay. Do you think a business would say "well he has no skills, let's pay him $2 per hour. I don't know the logic behind 2 per hour, but let's just go with it". Why doesn't the job itself matter? The actual work? Are you suggesting fast food workers (the average age is 29) should be paid $2 an hour? Based on what quantifiable measure is that? Many fast food workers are independent adults trying to make a living. Because they had no prior skill, they should be paid shitty regardless of how demanding their job is?

Okay now let's pretend there is no minimum wage again. What would stop a business from paying a skilled worker $4 an hour and a no skilled worker $2 per hour? You see how that works? There must be rules.

Since the skills required to make a burger are on about the $2/hour level, $2/hour sounds good. The only measure that matters is what the owner thinks the job is worth. What you think doesn't mean shit.

It's because they have no skills as why they get paid a low wage. If it's shitty, that's their fault for not offering more skills.

Skilled workers wouldn't be paid $4/hour because they are SKILLED.

I have figured out why you want rules for minimum pay. Otherwise, your dumbass would be one of those making $2/hour because what you have to offer is about one step above what a monkey could be trained to do.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

The problem with your argument is that you are too sympathetic to the choice of a business and not at all on the vital workers they employ. On the one hand you say employers shouldn't pay more based on a lack of skill yet you think productivity doesn't matter at all. Thats bullshit. And yes technology has increased but that doesn't mean it acconts for the 100% increase. It probably should be factored in to an extent but that still wouldn't justify keeping wages the way they are now.

If this was 10 years ago, I wouldn't even make this argument but since the recession there has been a significant increase in low wage jobs and a significant decrease of good paying jobs. That means people have NO CHOICE but to accept shitty paying jobs. A business is about give and take. Workers help the company make profit and the company must respond by paying them fairly. Right now the minimum wage is way behind on inflation. That means the last time someone could make a secure living on 10 an hour was in the 1970s. Don't you think inflation matters? Shouldn't the low level workers be compensated? Without them a business cannot even exist. That throws out your philosophical argument about forcing businesses to pay more.

It's interesting you say I shouldn't argue with ethics but that is the basis of your entire argument is it not? Not forcing businesses to increase their wages?

It's not a matter of sympathy for business. It's a matter of what a business pays should be the choice of the business doing the paying not someone like you that doesn't own one. When it comes to the workers, I don't have sympathy for someone that makes personal choices in private life then expects the government force a business to pay for something totally unrelated to what pay should be based on, skills.

That you still claim workers are the overwhelming majority of the reason productivity is up and give lip service to technology invalidates your argument.

It could be 10 years ago or 10 days ago, it doesn't matter. You argument is based on situations not the only factor that should go into determining a wage, skills.

It is give and take. Someone works a job that is worth $7.25/hour and they get paid that much. That's fair. To say otherwise is saying fair involves making a business pay more than skills are worth determined by those not doing the paying.

Without a business, there would be no workers. If no business existed, no workers would exist. Therefore, before any worker position ever comes into place, the business must come first.

My argue is based on a business being the one to determine the wage not letting some asshole like you have a say in what a business you don't own pays.

Dude your entire argument is based on the same tired belief businesses shouldn't be forced to pay a certain wage. You can repeat that shit over and over but it wouldn't do anything to erase the objective facts I am giving you about poverty in America. Unless you have some other arguement why the minimum wage shouldn't be raised just stop now. I'm really sick of this personal choice bullshit about the jobs people accept. That isn't relevant anymore. People have NO CHOICE but to accept low wage jobs.

Imagine the chaos if there was no minimum wage. What would stop businesses paying their workers 2.00 an hour? How would you feel then?

That's because businesses shouldn't be forced to pay a certain wage. It's not an employers place to bring someone out of poverty. It's the person's responsibility. The only thing an employer owes a worker is a wage equivalent to the skills the worker offers. An employer is in no way responsible for personal life choices that put or keep someone in poverty. That you think so proves you would never be successful in business. That you use the word dude to address me also proves it.

Low skilled people have no choice but to accept low wage jobs. That's because they have low skills.

I would feel fine if the skills that worker offers is worth $2/hour.

It's interesting you try to make this fantasy correlation between lack of skill and pay. Do you think a business would say "well he has no skills, let's pay him $2 per hour. I don't know the logic behind 2 per hour, but let's just go with it". Why doesn't the job itself matter? The actual work? Are you suggesting fast food workers (the average age is 29) should be paid $2 an hour? Based on what quantifiable measure is that? Many fast food workers are independent adults trying to make a living. Because they had no prior skill, they should be paid shitty regardless of how demanding their job is?

Okay now let's pretend there is no minimum wage again. What would stop a business from paying a skilled worker $4 an hour and a no skilled worker $2 per hour? You see how that works? There must be rules.

Since the skills required to make a burger are on about the $2/hour level, $2/hour sounds good. The only measure that matters is what the owner thinks the job is worth. What you think doesn't mean shit.

It's because they have no skills as why they get paid a low wage. If it's shitty, that's their fault for not offering more skills.

Skilled workers wouldn't be paid $4/hour because they are SKILLED.

I have figured out why you want rules for minimum pay. Otherwise, your dumbass would be one of those making $2/hour because what you have to offer is about one step above what a monkey could be trained to do.

Please explain how you have came to the conclusion that fast food workers are worth $2/Hr.

Seriously, explain your methodology here.

 

[Conservative65]

It's not a matter of sympathy for business. It's a matter of what a business pays should be the choice of the business doing the paying not someone like you that doesn't own one. When it comes to the workers, I don't have sympathy for someone that makes personal choices in private life then expects the government force a business to pay for something totally unrelated to what pay should be based on, skills.

That you still claim workers are the overwhelming majority of the reason productivity is up and give lip service to technology invalidates your argument.

It could be 10 years ago or 10 days ago, it doesn't matter. You argument is based on situations not the only factor that should go into determining a wage, skills.

It is give and take. Someone works a job that is worth $7.25/hour and they get paid that much. That's fair. To say otherwise is saying fair involves making a business pay more than skills are worth determined by those not doing the paying.

Without a business, there would be no workers. If no business existed, no workers would exist. Therefore, before any worker position ever comes into place, the business must come first.

My argue is based on a business being the one to determine the wage not letting some asshole like you have a say in what a business you don't own pays.

Dude your entire argument is based on the same tired belief businesses shouldn't be forced to pay a certain wage. You can repeat that shit over and over but it wouldn't do anything to erase the objective facts I am giving you about poverty in America. Unless you have some other arguement why the minimum wage shouldn't be raised just stop now. I'm really sick of this personal choice bullshit about the jobs people accept. That isn't relevant anymore. People have NO CHOICE but to accept low wage jobs.

Imagine the chaos if there was no minimum wage. What would stop businesses paying their workers 2.00 an hour? How would you feel then?

That's because businesses shouldn't be forced to pay a certain wage. It's not an employers place to bring someone out of poverty. It's the person's responsibility. The only thing an employer owes a worker is a wage equivalent to the skills the worker offers. An employer is in no way responsible for personal life choices that put or keep someone in poverty. That you think so proves you would never be successful in business. That you use the word dude to address me also proves it.

Low skilled people have no choice but to accept low wage jobs. That's because they have low skills.

I would feel fine if the skills that worker offers is worth $2/hour.

It's interesting you try to make this fantasy correlation between lack of skill and pay. Do you think a business would say "well he has no skills, let's pay him $2 per hour. I don't know the logic behind 2 per hour, but let's just go with it". Why doesn't the job itself matter? The actual work? Are you suggesting fast food workers (the average age is 29) should be paid $2 an hour? Based on what quantifiable measure is that? Many fast food workers are independent adults trying to make a living. Because they had no prior skill, they should be paid shitty regardless of how demanding their job is?

Okay now let's pretend there is no minimum wage again. What would stop a business from paying a skilled worker $4 an hour and a no skilled worker $2 per hour? You see how that works? There must be rules.

Since the skills required to make a burger are on about the $2/hour level, $2/hour sounds good. The only measure that matters is what the owner thinks the job is worth. What you think doesn't mean shit.

It's because they have no skills as why they get paid a low wage. If it's shitty, that's their fault for not offering more skills.

Skilled workers wouldn't be paid $4/hour because they are SKILLED.

I have figured out why you want rules for minimum pay. Otherwise, your dumbass would be one of those making $2/hour because what you have to offer is about one step above what a monkey could be trained to do.

Please explain how you have came to the conclusion that fast food workers are worth $2/Hr.

Seriously, explain your methodology here.

Because a monkey could be trained to do what many of them do and "do you want fries with that" being the hardest thing to learn is worth about $2/hour.

Explain why you think it's your place to make any kind of determination what a business owner should pay his employee regardless of the job. Since you aren't doing the paying, STFU about what someone actually doing the paying should be paying.

 

[Judicial review]

The minimum wage doesn't effect my company at all. We get paid on commission. Ha!