should minimum wage be mandated?

If you pay peanuts you hire monkeys.
If companies paid substandard wages, they would get substandard people, and their profits would suck.
The min wage has destroyed large segments of entry level jobs in this country. When gov't sets a floor on anything they increase demand and decrease supply. It is basic econ 101.

I would really like to see some stats on that statement. Can you please direct us to some of those statistics that show large segments of entry level jobs being lost in the US? Sorry, but I don't buy it.

First of all, the minimum wage, even after the recent increase, is still much lower in real dollars than it was thirty or forty years ago. Secondly, most minimum wage jobs are entry level, and also part-time, which means those workers do not receive any benefits, making their pay extremely low. Honestly, if you can't make a profit on a business paying minimum wage, then you really don't have a viable business to begin with.

And by the way, I am an employer. My company is small, but I do have to consider wages as they are my biggest expense.
How the Minimum Wage Destroys Jobs
Morning Bell: More Job-Killing Regulations Approved by President Obama » The Foundry
ECONOMY, MINIMUM WAGE TAKE A TOLL ON TEEN JOBS | Population & Demographics > Demographic Groups from AllBusiness.com
How many more studies and references would you like?
It is pure economics:raise the price of something you get less demand for it and more supply.
And I would amend your last statement to say that if you can't make a profit at whatever your business model is, then you don't have a viable business.
 
Ok.......while at first I wasn't going to step into this conversation, after reading extensively about the two companies vilified the most in this country it seems, I just felt this need to come in and put my two cents worth in.

I spent 12 years working for McDonalds and learned a great deal about how it operates. Something it is very obvious that many of those that vilify it the strongest have no clue of. First off, McDonalds stores are NOT one huge corporation. 96% of all McDonalds in the US are owned by individual franchise owners. Not only do they pay their employees, cover all the overhead costs, they pay their franchise fees with regularity. And trust me, that ain't pennies! The majority of all McDonalds employees are what I lovingly call stair step employees. It's a job that is simply a stairstep on to other things. They are highschool and entry level college students for the most part. They still live at home and are NOT depended on their wages to support themselves. ANYONE that works for McDonalds has the potential to become an owner if they so desire. Me.....during the first 5 years I worked at McDonalds I went from cashier to shift leader, to shift supervisor, to breakfast manager, to second assistant, to first assistant, to Store Manager. I worked for a great gentleman who owned 6 stores in a two town area. He believed very strongly in promoting from within his stores for those management positions. My foray into Store Manager was not an easy one. But it was one I thoroughly enjoyed for 7 years. YES, I had to WORK for it. It was not just given to me. I also had to go to "Hamburger U" (it really exists) for their 6 week training program. That is 6 weeks away from home with little to no time for anything but learning the ins and outs of what makes McDonalds so sucessful. Procedure until I was quoting temperatures, cooking times, and cleanliness standards in my sleep. Was it worth it? Hell yeah! I made good money, had fun at my job, considered all of my "kids" my family and had the opportunity if I so chose to become a Store Owner. I chose to go a different route and sometimes wonder if that was a mistake. But the long hours and the toll it was taking on me physically pushed me into school, which by the way, was helped along with Employee Scholarships given by none other than the McDonalds corporation. McDonalds is a great place to work and offers a lot of growth potential to those that CHOOSE to go for the oppotunities they offer. It's NOT just a menial, flipping burgers job. It's what you make it.

I remember well one particular young lady that had that potential. A single mother with two kids. She could have pushed her way forward into a position of management, gotten away from the minimum wage level but she CHOSE not to. Her reasoning everytime I asked why she wouldn't take my offer of a shift leader or shift manager position......................"if I make anymore money then I won't get my apartment paid for and I'll lose my foodstamps". Real motivation wouldn't you say? Do you realize just how many people actually STAY in minimum wage jobs JUST FOR THOSE REASONS?

Sure McDonalds STARTS it employees at minimum wage. Why shouldn't they? 95% of those that come to work for McDonalds have no discernable skills, this is their first job, or they're just working for some spending money while finishing High School or College. BUT...and I know this to be fact......people that choose to stay at McDonalds, even those parents you see working in many of them, are NOT stuck at minimum wage. There is a standard that ALL franchise owners have to adhere to. COL raises are common. Maybe not so much now with our economy as it is, but they are a standard. Just as performance raises are a standard. The franchise owner is NOT the dictator when it comes to 99.9% of McDonald's standards and operations procedures. They follow a long held guideline dictated by the McDonalds Corporation. Why in the hell do you think that they've remained such a driving force in this country and able to maintain the number of stores that are in existance and popping up all the time? It's not because they "jack their prices up", it's not because they refuse to pay their employees a decent wage, it's because of the standards that Ray Croc first set aside for his company. Standards to this day that must be followed by all franchise owners or their franchise license can and will be pulled.

Yes, I'm a defender of McDonalds!! I've been there. I learned the expectations that the corporation as a whole has for each of it's stores. Those that the corp still owns AND those that are owned by individuals. Some of those standards have changed over the years and several things happened that a lot of us felt had Ray Croc turning over in his grave. But those changes did NOT hurt them. Sure they deviated from his "vision" but in the long run they proved sucessful. I still keep in touch with a lot of my "kids" and have seen many of them go on to be well paid, productive, members of our society. A couple have even become Store ownes themselves and love it.

I know I've rambled, but what I think I'm trying to show here, is that sure, McDonalds is one of those minimum wage (starting pay) employers. BUT, McDonalds offers the means and the opportunity to go as far as you want within the company IF YOU CHOOSE TO DO SO! They give out scholarships, they do great charity work, they are a "stair step" company for a lot of up and coming doctors, lawyers, CEO's, etc etc. It seems to me that so many of the people that choose to vilify McDonalds do so simply because all they see is a minimum wage (starting pay) type of company where a bunch of semi literate, unskilled, struggling people work and have NO CLUE exactly how the company operates. INHO, for as big as Walmart is, they could take lessons from the McDonalds corporation on how to treat their employees. And by the way, 95% of McDonalds store owners offer some form of health insurance. When you're eligible depends on the number of hours you work sure. They aren't just going to hand out insurance to some 16 year old kid working maybe 20 hours a week for spending money while they're still in High School. There are requirements you have to meet to be able to have insurance. So please, before you continue to vilify a company for what you PERCIEVE is mistreatment of it's employees and not paying a decent living wage, learn a little more about what goes on behind the scenes before you claim to have all the answers. You only see it from YOUR side of the counter.
 
I remember well one particular young lady that had that potential. A single mother with two kids. She could have pushed her way forward into a position of management, gotten away from the minimum wage level but she CHOSE not to. Her reasoning everytime I asked why she wouldn't take my offer of a shift leader or shift manager position......................"if I make anymore money then I won't get my apartment paid for and I'll lose my foodstamps". Real motivation wouldn't you say? Do you realize just how many people actually STAY in minimum wage jobs JUST FOR THOSE REASONS?

Some woud use this to justify eliminating welfare, others would use this to justify raising the minimum wage.

In either case it shows what it means to be among the working poor
 
I remember well one particular young lady that had that potential. A single mother with two kids. She could have pushed her way forward into a position of management, gotten away from the minimum wage level but she CHOSE not to. Her reasoning everytime I asked why she wouldn't take my offer of a shift leader or shift manager position......................"if I make anymore money then I won't get my apartment paid for and I'll lose my foodstamps". Real motivation wouldn't you say? Do you realize just how many people actually STAY in minimum wage jobs JUST FOR THOSE REASONS?

Some woud use this to justify eliminating welfare, others would use this to justify raising the minimum wage.

In either case it shows what it means to be among the working poor
Except eliminating (or scaling back) welfare willbe good for the country. Raising the min wage will be bad for the country.
Then again, I am dealing with someone who thinks the gov't can create prosperity by taxing one person and giving another person that money.
 
I remember well one particular young lady that had that potential. A single mother with two kids. She could have pushed her way forward into a position of management, gotten away from the minimum wage level but she CHOSE not to. Her reasoning everytime I asked why she wouldn't take my offer of a shift leader or shift manager position......................"if I make anymore money then I won't get my apartment paid for and I'll lose my foodstamps". Real motivation wouldn't you say? Do you realize just how many people actually STAY in minimum wage jobs JUST FOR THOSE REASONS?

Some woud use this to justify eliminating welfare, others would use this to justify raising the minimum wage.

In either case it shows what it means to be among the working poor
Except eliminating (or scaling back) welfare willbe good for the country. Raising the min wage will be bad for the country.
Then again, I am dealing with someone who thinks the gov't can create prosperity by taxing one person and giving another person that money.

So if we eliminate welfare while freezing minimum wage we throw millions of Americans into the streets, deny them healthcare, deny them food.

Sounds like the Rabbi wants to turn this country into Calcutta
 
Some woud use this to justify eliminating welfare, others would use this to justify raising the minimum wage.

In either case it shows what it means to be among the working poor
Except eliminating (or scaling back) welfare willbe good for the country. Raising the min wage will be bad for the country.
Then again, I am dealing with someone who thinks the gov't can create prosperity by taxing one person and giving another person that money.

So if we eliminate welfare while freezing minimum wage we throw millions of Americans into the streets, deny them healthcare, deny them food.

Sounds like the Rabbi wants to turn this country into Calcutta
BlahBlahBlah--do you ever give up spouting idiocy?
Just like you can't answer what would happen if we raised the min wage to $100/hr so too you can't answer what would happen if we eliminated welfare.
 
$100/hr.? You do realize that there is something called inflation right? You realize why some earn ( a word you should understand) more than others? They have a skill(s) or product/service others value. Minimum wage jobs are for those who have few skills, little ambition and/or special circumstances. Treating people like they need a handout for life is a high form of cruelty. Encourage them to get skills. Liberals rob some of their money and the rest their dignity.
 
Gotta love the ridiculousness of the $100/hr argument! :lol:

That's like saying category 5 hurricanes cause billions in property damage, therefore a breezy rainy day does too, and if you can't see that you're just being ignorant. :rofl:

Or...

if you drain all the blood out of a person's body, they will likely die. Therefore anyone that donates blood is putting their life at risk, and anyone who can't see this is an imbecile.

Or...

an effective tax rate of 100% eliminates any incentive to make money, therefore all taxes regardless of the rate are bad. And anyone that doesn't see this is an ingnorant shitstain.


:rofl:


Extreme and absurd hypotheticals only prove that those advancing them clearly have no leg left to stand on in the debate. True story.
 
Except eliminating (or scaling back) welfare willbe good for the country. Raising the min wage will be bad for the country.
Then again, I am dealing with someone who thinks the gov't can create prosperity by taxing one person and giving another person that money.

So if we eliminate welfare while freezing minimum wage we throw millions of Americans into the streets, deny them healthcare, deny them food.

Sounds like the Rabbi wants to turn this country into Calcutta
BlahBlahBlah--do you ever give up spouting idiocy?
Just like you can't answer what would happen if we raised the min wage to $100/hr so too you can't answer what would happen if we eliminated welfare.

the reason no one answers you rab, is because the argument is beyond absurd....

the minimum wage is not arbitrarily thrown out there without thought or reason...there is a science to it, true analysis. There are also studies to calculate its impact and a whole bunch of other considerations on how the affect would be on the economy and small business before the minimum wage is ever raised....

PLEASE stop with the strawman stuff, and argue your argument honestly...the $100 bucks an hour would NEVER be considered.


care
 
Last edited:
No, seriously. I want to hear your version as to why a $100/hr min wage is wrong. Many people actually earn that much. Why not entry level workers?

And this is exactly why anything you say cannot be taken seriously.

I'll take a bat at it:

Rabbi, the minimum wage isn't designed to do anything but prevent the standard of living from dropping down to that of a third-world nation. It's not designed to stimulate the economy.

Next?

Even that's not the right argument. It would be like discrediting the idea that "tax cuts increase revenue" (which isn't true except at a certain point on the revenue curve, but that's another issue) by saying "if cutting taxes increases revenue, let's set the rate at zero and watch the revenue pour in".
 
Except mandating $100/hour wages would not stimulate the economy, it would lead to massive unemployment. Which goes to show the fallacy of any minimum wage. If you make it illegal for people to work under a certain wage then there is going to be more unemployment because not every job will be worth the mandated wage.

Comparing a $100 per hour minimum wage to $7.25 does not show the fallacy of any minimum wage.

The same principle applies to mandating $100/hour as mandating $7.25/hour. If you can see how one leads to unemployment you can see how the other does as well.

Not at all. Your analogy assumes wages exist in a vacuum independent of the rest of the economy.
 
Except mandating $100/hour wages would not stimulate the economy, it would lead to massive unemployment. Which goes to show the fallacy of any minimum wage. If you make it illegal for people to work under a certain wage then there is going to be more unemployment because not every job will be worth the mandated wage.

Comparing a $100 per hour minimum wage to $7.25 does not show the fallacy of any minimum wage.

The same principle applies to mandating $100/hour as mandating $7.25/hour. If you can see how one leads to unemployment you can see how the other does as well.

You are right; it does apply if the average worker was earning $300 per hour.
 
Comparing a $100 per hour minimum wage to $7.25 does not show the fallacy of any minimum wage.

The same principle applies to mandating $100/hour as mandating $7.25/hour. If you can see how one leads to unemployment you can see how the other does as well.

You are right; it does apply if the average worker was earning $300 per hour.

What, you don't even make three benjamins per hour?

Fuck'n loser! :doubt:
 
Gotta love the ridiculousness of the $100/hr argument! :lol:

That's like saying category 5 hurricanes cause billions in property damage, therefore a breezy rainy day does too, and if you can't see that you're just being ignorant. :rofl:

Or...

if you drain all the blood out of a person's body, they will likely die. Therefore anyone that donates blood is putting their life at risk, and anyone who can't see this is an imbecile.

Or...

an effective tax rate of 100% eliminates any incentive to make money, therefore all taxes regardless of the rate are bad. And anyone that doesn't see this is an ingnorant shitstain.


:rofl:


Extreme and absurd hypotheticals only prove that those advancing them clearly have no leg left to stand on in the debate. True story.

Well a breezy rainy day may not have the same effects right away as a hurricane but you get enough breezy rainy days and over time your roof will start to leak. Same with donating blood. It's certainly not healthy to have blood removed from your body. So your analogies only further prove the point.
 
Comparing a $100 per hour minimum wage to $7.25 does not show the fallacy of any minimum wage.

The same principle applies to mandating $100/hour as mandating $7.25/hour. If you can see how one leads to unemployment you can see how the other does as well.

Not at all. Your analogy assumes wages exist in a vacuum independent of the rest of the economy.

No, my analogy assumes that wages should be set by supply and demand just as all other prices are set on the market, and that artificially setting a minimum wage means that some people are not going to be able to find a job and that others will be fired. Some jobs and some people simply will not be worth the minimum wage.
 
Gotta love the ridiculousness of the $100/hr argument! :lol:

That's like saying category 5 hurricanes cause billions in property damage, therefore a breezy rainy day does too, and if you can't see that you're just being ignorant. :rofl:

Or...

if you drain all the blood out of a person's body, they will likely die. Therefore anyone that donates blood is putting their life at risk, and anyone who can't see this is an imbecile.

Or...

an effective tax rate of 100% eliminates any incentive to make money, therefore all taxes regardless of the rate are bad. And anyone that doesn't see this is an ingnorant shitstain.


:rofl:


Extreme and absurd hypotheticals only prove that those advancing them clearly have no leg left to stand on in the debate. True story.

Well a breezy rainy day may not have the same effects right away as a hurricane but you get enough breezy rainy days and over time your roof will start to leak. Same with donating blood. It's certainly not healthy to have blood removed from your body. So your analogies only further prove the point.

Right, because it's nearly impossible to fix a leaky roof! :rofl:

And studies have shown that donating blood is actually very heathy.
donating blood health benefits - Google Search


So actually, your reponse only serves to prove my point, that advancing this ridiculous $100/hr argument proves that your quiver is empty in this battle. Time to cut and run. :lol:
 
So if we eliminate welfare while freezing minimum wage we throw millions of Americans into the streets, deny them healthcare, deny them food.

Sounds like the Rabbi wants to turn this country into Calcutta
Look, up in the sky....It's a bird...It's a plane...No, it's....

20j5ve9.jpg
 
Gotta love the ridiculousness of the $100/hr argument! :lol:

That's like saying category 5 hurricanes cause billions in property damage, therefore a breezy rainy day does too, and if you can't see that you're just being ignorant. :rofl:

Or...

if you drain all the blood out of a person's body, they will likely die. Therefore anyone that donates blood is putting their life at risk, and anyone who can't see this is an imbecile.

Or...

an effective tax rate of 100% eliminates any incentive to make money, therefore all taxes regardless of the rate are bad. And anyone that doesn't see this is an ingnorant shitstain.


:rofl:


Extreme and absurd hypotheticals only prove that those advancing them clearly have no leg left to stand on in the debate. True story.

Well a breezy rainy day may not have the same effects right away as a hurricane but you get enough breezy rainy days and over time your roof will start to leak. Same with donating blood. It's certainly not healthy to have blood removed from your body. So your analogies only further prove the point.

Right, because it's nearly impossible to fix a leaky roof! :rofl:

And studies have shown that donating blood is actually very heathy.
donating blood health benefits - Google Search


So actually, your reponse only serves to prove my point, that advancing this ridiculous $100/hr argument proves that your quiver is empty in this battle. Time to cut and run. :lol:

Fixing a leaky roof requires money. But the point remains the same. Just because the rain is not a hurricane doesn't mean it doesn't do damage to your house, just as the minimum wage even though it's not $100/hour still leads to unemployment.

That is interesting about donating blood, though. I guess I shouldn't make any medical pronouncements I know nothing about. ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom