Would republican voters support lowering the minimum wage if the GOP pushed such a thing?

[Carl in Michigan]

After all, the government had no place in raising the wage to begin with! Cost of living and inflation be damned! Corporate profits are all that matters! The GOP really looks out for us all huh? That turtle faced piece of shit McDonnell is a true Christian after all.

Them doing this really wouldn’t be outside the realm of possibility. After all, the GOP was outraged after Obama expanded over time pay entitlement to thousands of workers. They of course had to undo that!

Point blank: republicans would you support lowering the minimum wage because of your weird outrage over it being raised over time in the first place?

States have their own minimum wage. Usually it's higher that the federal. So what's the point?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Actually, I wonder if the Greed Factor can't be placed under the Ricco Act. It amounts to exactly the same thing.

I think you mean RICO Act. RICO applies to criminal conspiracy. Greed isn't criminal and isn't conspiratorial.

In fact ...

Actually, the Rico act covers quite a large area. And something can be marginally criminal and be good for society. But when it becomes unhealthy to society then it becomes criminal. What has been done to the workers by grabbing more than their fair share has reached the criminal heights. See my next post.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I'll give an oops on that one. So what is your beef with Min Wage if it's so low? I see a report that is incomplete, myself. Around here, Min Wage is 11 bucks an hour and many make between 11 and 15 bucks an hour. You need to make 20 an hour to make a livable wage. If they increased the bottom average pay to 20 bucks an hour, the fat cats would just raise the cost of living where it would require 22 to 23 bucks an hour in order to break even. And even the Oil Field Workers would suffer because they wouldn't raise their 22 and 23 buck an hour wages to compensate. Greed, pure and simple. Capitalism at it's ugliest.

Well, first, I appreciate you calming down and having a rational discussion, as well as admitting you made a mistake, that's incredibly rare around here.

I actually have multiple problems with a minimum wage, but I'll start with the economic factors. The Government has no method of measuring supply and demand curves, nor do they have any skills which would allow any individual in Government to determine how businesses should be run, so not only are those in Government unqualified to determine this, but the Government itself, as an organization is completely incapable. As you noted in your post, increasing minimum wage doesn't actually help anyone, it just increases the cost of living, however that's not all there is to it. There are some jobs and some workers who are not worth the minimum wage, which actually causes a business to overpay some employees, and this causes them to be unable or unwilling to hire more employees.

Another problem with a minimum wage is that it prevents the lowest tier of jobs from teaching employees who become skilled enough from actually negotiating their wages, preventing them from learning such a skill at an early age. This is also in addition to the minimum wage gatekeeping newer businesses, preventing them from hiring employees that they can afford.

Not only all of this, but businesses are already naturally prevented from paying employees too low of a wage in the first place. Not only would they lose employees to competitors if they paid them too little, but they'd also be reducing the number of people in the area that can afford their products, even if people were willing to work for wages which were too low. Oh, and voluntary unions also can help people negotiate wages, though Government-Enforced Unions allow the union to bully the business, which increases the cost of living as well.

Some people also support Federal Aid for subverting the cost of living problem, however it actually pushes wages down, due to the businesses knowing that people can obtain it. One example is Walmart encouraging employees to apply for Food Stamps. Businesses do a similar thing when dealing with insurance; Knowing they're dealing with someone who has deeper pockets, they increase the cost of their services, they would otherwise ensure that consumers can afford their product, as they would otherwise make no money.

Now, with all of that explained, I also have an ethical problem with the minimum wage. It's the Government using force to tell businesses how much money they have to hand over to their employees, regardless of whether or not the position or laborer is actually worth that amount or not. This is the Government telling businesses, or really anyone who uses their property as a means of production, what they can and can't do with that property, forcing association.

I have to look at the results of the force min wage. So you force the min wage. The problem is, the Company Store just raises it's prices to not only grab the wage increase but sucks in more of your money.

One Lady was interviewed. She worked in a Bank as a Teller. That should pay enough to live on right? It didn't. She lived on a Ramien Noodle diet with an occasional Sub, lived in her older SUV on the Street, Coleman Stove to cook with, used laundromats, joined a gym for the shower. Just to make ends meet. That was on 60 minutes. Did anyone after the showing take notice? No, no one. You see, a one BR Studio Apartment (1 room, period) cost more than her wages. Plus, every 3rd day, she had to move her SUV to a new location. Luckily, she didn't have any children. But you can see the system is broken in many areas where the greed factor leaves a lot of working people out on the street.

And the results are higher cost of living, and an adverse effect on the people that they're trying, supposedly, to help. This is because people won't work for too low of a price, and a business has to make money in order for the process to be worth the effort. What the effect of increasing the minimum wage shows is that businesses know what the labor and products are worth, and the Government does not.

I can't say that a bank teller should be worth any specific amount. What I can say is that she wouldn't be working the job if the money wasn't worth it to her. Alternatively, if we exchanged in a currency that had actual worth, everyone would be making a "living wage" regardless of whether a business was paying someone any specific amount or not.

See, the difficulty in living has nothing to do with your wages. One of the things politicians are intentionally taking advantage of is that a lot of people don't understand that wages does not equal purchasing power. Your purchasing power is not going far due to regulations and currency problems. Regulations, each and every one, necessarily make it more difficult for a business to enter the market, produce a product, or distribute that product, resulting in smaller businesses struggling while larger businesses acclimate to the new difficulty, which in turn results in fewer businesses in any one area, and less competitive markets. What do you think would happen if one business was paying employees 1$ an hour, one was paying employees 7$ an hour, and a third was paying 10$ an hour? People would work for the third, overflow would go to the second, and nobody would work for the first. Businesses would naturally be unable to get by only offering a 1$ wage, because nobody would work for that amount. This factor also applies to the amount items are sold for.

To be clear, my argument is not that things are fine, but that more Government isn't the answer, since Government is the problem in the first place.

Actually, I wonder if the Greed Factor can't be placed under the Ricco Act. It amounts to exactly the same thing.

What exactly is "the Greed Factor"?

When Capitalism is left completely unchecked like it was in the late 1920s, it destroys from the bottom up. You honestly believe the Rockefellers, Gettys and such really were harmed by the Great Depression? They made out like bandits. And they are the ones that had a large hand in causing it. One person said that his Grands finally were able to afford their first car in the middle 20s. Yes, but by 1929, what good did that do them when they could not afford the gas to run it and they had to live in it? One of the main indicators that something had to be done like the New Deal was when DC was slammed by WWI vets in 1933 demanding the bonus they were promised from WWI but weren't really liable for it until 1945. Those 3.5 million Vets were armed,, out of work, hungry, cold, and with families.

I see more and more people joining the Poverty ranks even when they have jobs. I see the Homeless ranks growing even when these people have jobs. I see most of the indicators from 1929 where Greed cause the nation to come close to coming apart at the seems. The Greed Factor is when the Rich decide they want even more than the middle class and below can afford to give them. And the Rich has the ability to just take it.

The next revolution won't be fought over a Political Ideal, it's going to be fought over a loaf of bread.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Did you not bother reading the article you cited, there, champ?

It says that the 58.3% is people working for hourly wages, and that the 2.3% is the total amount working for minimum wage. The article you cited agrees with this. Why don't you read your citation before accusing people of being liars? The second paragraph states that it's decreasing.

"
In 2017, 80.4 million workers age 16 and older in the United States were paid at hourly rates, representing 58.3 percent of all wage and salary workers. Among those paid by the hour, 542,000 workers earned exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. About 1.3 million had wages below the federal minimum. Together, these 1.8 million workers with wages at or below the federal minimum made up 2.3 percent of all hourly paid workers.

The percentage of hourly paid workers earning the prevailing federal minimum wage or less declined from 2.7 percent in 2016 to 2.3 percent in 2017. This remains well below the percentage of 13.4 recorded in 1979, when data were first collected on a regular basis. (See table 10.)
"

I'll give an oops on that one. So what is your beef with Min Wage if it's so low? I see a report that is incomplete, myself. Around here, Min Wage is 11 bucks an hour and many make between 11 and 15 bucks an hour. You need to make 20 an hour to make a livable wage. If they increased the bottom average pay to 20 bucks an hour, the fat cats would just raise the cost of living where it would require 22 to 23 bucks an hour in order to break even. And even the Oil Field Workers would suffer because they wouldn't raise their 22 and 23 buck an hour wages to compensate. Greed, pure and simple. Capitalism at it's ugliest.

Well, first, I appreciate you calming down and having a rational discussion, as well as admitting you made a mistake, that's incredibly rare around here.

I actually have multiple problems with a minimum wage, but I'll start with the economic factors. The Government has no method of measuring supply and demand curves, nor do they have any skills which would allow any individual in Government to determine how businesses should be run, so not only are those in Government unqualified to determine this, but the Government itself, as an organization is completely incapable. As you noted in your post, increasing minimum wage doesn't actually help anyone, it just increases the cost of living, however that's not all there is to it. There are some jobs and some workers who are not worth the minimum wage, which actually causes a business to overpay some employees, and this causes them to be unable or unwilling to hire more employees.

Another problem with a minimum wage is that it prevents the lowest tier of jobs from teaching employees who become skilled enough from actually negotiating their wages, preventing them from learning such a skill at an early age. This is also in addition to the minimum wage gatekeeping newer businesses, preventing them from hiring employees that they can afford.

Not only all of this, but businesses are already naturally prevented from paying employees too low of a wage in the first place. Not only would they lose employees to competitors if they paid them too little, but they'd also be reducing the number of people in the area that can afford their products, even if people were willing to work for wages which were too low. Oh, and voluntary unions also can help people negotiate wages, though Government-Enforced Unions allow the union to bully the business, which increases the cost of living as well.

Some people also support Federal Aid for subverting the cost of living problem, however it actually pushes wages down, due to the businesses knowing that people can obtain it. One example is Walmart encouraging employees to apply for Food Stamps. Businesses do a similar thing when dealing with insurance; Knowing they're dealing with someone who has deeper pockets, they increase the cost of their services, they would otherwise ensure that consumers can afford their product, as they would otherwise make no money.

Now, with all of that explained, I also have an ethical problem with the minimum wage. It's the Government using force to tell businesses how much money they have to hand over to their employees, regardless of whether or not the position or laborer is actually worth that amount or not. This is the Government telling businesses, or really anyone who uses their property as a means of production, what they can and can't do with that property, forcing association.

I have to look at the results of the force min wage. So you force the min wage. The problem is, the Company Store just raises it's prices to not only grab the wage increase but sucks in more of your money.

One Lady was interviewed. She worked in a Bank as a Teller. That should pay enough to live on right? It didn't. She lived on a Ramien Noodle diet with an occasional Sub, lived in her older SUV on the Street, Coleman Stove to cook with, used laundromats, joined a gym for the shower. Just to make ends meet. That was on 60 minutes. Did anyone after the showing take notice? No, no one. You see, a one BR Studio Apartment (1 room, period) cost more than her wages. Plus, every 3rd day, she had to move her SUV to a new location. Luckily, she didn't have any children. But you can see the system is broken in many areas where the greed factor leaves a lot of working people out on the street.

And the results are higher cost of living, and an adverse effect on the people that they're trying, supposedly, to help. This is because people won't work for too low of a price, and a business has to make money in order for the process to be worth the effort. What the effect of increasing the minimum wage shows is that businesses know what the labor and products are worth, and the Government does not.

I can't say that a bank teller should be worth any specific amount. What I can say is that she wouldn't be working the job if the money wasn't worth it to her. Alternatively, if we exchanged in a currency that had actual worth, everyone would be making a "living wage" regardless of whether a business was paying someone any specific amount or not.

See, the difficulty in living has nothing to do with your wages. One of the things politicians are intentionally taking advantage of is that a lot of people don't understand that wages does not equal purchasing power. Your purchasing power is not going far due to regulations and currency problems. Regulations, each and every one, necessarily make it more difficult for a business to enter the market, produce a product, or distribute that product, resulting in smaller businesses struggling while larger businesses acclimate to the new difficulty, which in turn results in fewer businesses in any one area, and less competitive markets. What do you think would happen if one business was paying employees 1$ an hour, one was paying employees 7$ an hour, and a third was paying 10$ an hour? People would work for the third, overflow would go to the second, and nobody would work for the first. Businesses would naturally be unable to get by only offering a 1$ wage, because nobody would work for that amount. This factor also applies to the amount items are sold for.

To be clear, my argument is not that things are fine, but that more Government isn't the answer, since Government is the problem in the first place.

Actually, I wonder if the Greed Factor can't be placed under the Ricco Act. It amounts to exactly the same thing.

Greed is exactly what motivates people to create a business and hire individuals in the first place. It's a GOOD thing, as it's what causes people to fulfill a demand and, as a consequence, improve the lives of those around them.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I have to look at the results of the force min wage. So you force the min wage. The problem is, the Company Store just raises it's prices to not only grab the wage increase but sucks in more of your money.

One Lady was interviewed. She worked in a Bank as a Teller. That should pay enough to live on right? It didn't. She lived on a Ramien Noodle diet with an occasional Sub, lived in her older SUV on the Street, Coleman Stove to cook with, used laundromats, joined a gym for the shower. Just to make ends meet. That was on 60 minutes. Did anyone after the showing take notice? No, no one. You see, a one BR Studio Apartment (1 room, period) cost more than her wages. Plus, every 3rd day, she had to move her SUV to a new location. Luckily, she didn't have any children. But you can see the system is broken in many areas where the greed factor leaves a lot of working people out on the street.

And the results are higher cost of living, and an adverse effect on the people that they're trying, supposedly, to help. This is because people won't work for too low of a price, and a business has to make money in order for the process to be worth the effort. What the effect of increasing the minimum wage shows is that businesses know what the labor and products are worth, and the Government does not.

I can't say that a bank teller should be worth any specific amount. What I can say is that she wouldn't be working the job if the money wasn't worth it to her. Alternatively, if we exchanged in a currency that had actual worth, everyone would be making a "living wage" regardless of whether a business was paying someone any specific amount or not.

See, the difficulty in living has nothing to do with your wages. One of the things politicians are intentionally taking advantage of is that a lot of people don't understand that wages does not equal purchasing power. Your purchasing power is not going far due to regulations and currency problems. Regulations, each and every one, necessarily make it more difficult for a business to enter the market, produce a product, or distribute that product, resulting in smaller businesses struggling while larger businesses acclimate to the new difficulty, which in turn results in fewer businesses in any one area, and less competitive markets. What do you think would happen if one business was paying employees 1$ an hour, one was paying employees 7$ an hour, and a third was paying 10$ an hour? People would work for the third, overflow would go to the second, and nobody would work for the first. Businesses would naturally be unable to get by only offering a 1$ wage, because nobody would work for that amount. This factor also applies to the amount items are sold for.

To be clear, my argument is not that things are fine, but that more Government isn't the answer, since Government is the problem in the first place.

Actually, I wonder if the Greed Factor can't be placed under the Ricco Act. It amounts to exactly the same thing.

What exactly is "the Greed Factor"?

Greed is the desire for more and more ... like a politician is greedy for taxpayer dollars.

But the "Greed Factor" is a capitalized essence. Surely it is more profound than simple greed. What say you, Daryl Hunt ?

Greed is good. Unchecked Greed, just like unchecked Capitalism, turns criminal fast. Much like unchecked Socialism.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I'll give an oops on that one. So what is your beef with Min Wage if it's so low? I see a report that is incomplete, myself. Around here, Min Wage is 11 bucks an hour and many make between 11 and 15 bucks an hour. You need to make 20 an hour to make a livable wage. If they increased the bottom average pay to 20 bucks an hour, the fat cats would just raise the cost of living where it would require 22 to 23 bucks an hour in order to break even. And even the Oil Field Workers would suffer because they wouldn't raise their 22 and 23 buck an hour wages to compensate. Greed, pure and simple. Capitalism at it's ugliest.

Well, first, I appreciate you calming down and having a rational discussion, as well as admitting you made a mistake, that's incredibly rare around here.

I actually have multiple problems with a minimum wage, but I'll start with the economic factors. The Government has no method of measuring supply and demand curves, nor do they have any skills which would allow any individual in Government to determine how businesses should be run, so not only are those in Government unqualified to determine this, but the Government itself, as an organization is completely incapable. As you noted in your post, increasing minimum wage doesn't actually help anyone, it just increases the cost of living, however that's not all there is to it. There are some jobs and some workers who are not worth the minimum wage, which actually causes a business to overpay some employees, and this causes them to be unable or unwilling to hire more employees.

Another problem with a minimum wage is that it prevents the lowest tier of jobs from teaching employees who become skilled enough from actually negotiating their wages, preventing them from learning such a skill at an early age. This is also in addition to the minimum wage gatekeeping newer businesses, preventing them from hiring employees that they can afford.

Not only all of this, but businesses are already naturally prevented from paying employees too low of a wage in the first place. Not only would they lose employees to competitors if they paid them too little, but they'd also be reducing the number of people in the area that can afford their products, even if people were willing to work for wages which were too low. Oh, and voluntary unions also can help people negotiate wages, though Government-Enforced Unions allow the union to bully the business, which increases the cost of living as well.

Some people also support Federal Aid for subverting the cost of living problem, however it actually pushes wages down, due to the businesses knowing that people can obtain it. One example is Walmart encouraging employees to apply for Food Stamps. Businesses do a similar thing when dealing with insurance; Knowing they're dealing with someone who has deeper pockets, they increase the cost of their services, they would otherwise ensure that consumers can afford their product, as they would otherwise make no money.

Now, with all of that explained, I also have an ethical problem with the minimum wage. It's the Government using force to tell businesses how much money they have to hand over to their employees, regardless of whether or not the position or laborer is actually worth that amount or not. This is the Government telling businesses, or really anyone who uses their property as a means of production, what they can and can't do with that property, forcing association.

I have to look at the results of the force min wage. So you force the min wage. The problem is, the Company Store just raises it's prices to not only grab the wage increase but sucks in more of your money.

One Lady was interviewed. She worked in a Bank as a Teller. That should pay enough to live on right? It didn't. She lived on a Ramien Noodle diet with an occasional Sub, lived in her older SUV on the Street, Coleman Stove to cook with, used laundromats, joined a gym for the shower. Just to make ends meet. That was on 60 minutes. Did anyone after the showing take notice? No, no one. You see, a one BR Studio Apartment (1 room, period) cost more than her wages. Plus, every 3rd day, she had to move her SUV to a new location. Luckily, she didn't have any children. But you can see the system is broken in many areas where the greed factor leaves a lot of working people out on the street.

And the results are higher cost of living, and an adverse effect on the people that they're trying, supposedly, to help. This is because people won't work for too low of a price, and a business has to make money in order for the process to be worth the effort. What the effect of increasing the minimum wage shows is that businesses know what the labor and products are worth, and the Government does not.

I can't say that a bank teller should be worth any specific amount. What I can say is that she wouldn't be working the job if the money wasn't worth it to her. Alternatively, if we exchanged in a currency that had actual worth, everyone would be making a "living wage" regardless of whether a business was paying someone any specific amount or not.

See, the difficulty in living has nothing to do with your wages. One of the things politicians are intentionally taking advantage of is that a lot of people don't understand that wages does not equal purchasing power. Your purchasing power is not going far due to regulations and currency problems. Regulations, each and every one, necessarily make it more difficult for a business to enter the market, produce a product, or distribute that product, resulting in smaller businesses struggling while larger businesses acclimate to the new difficulty, which in turn results in fewer businesses in any one area, and less competitive markets. What do you think would happen if one business was paying employees 1$ an hour, one was paying employees 7$ an hour, and a third was paying 10$ an hour? People would work for the third, overflow would go to the second, and nobody would work for the first. Businesses would naturally be unable to get by only offering a 1$ wage, because nobody would work for that amount. This factor also applies to the amount items are sold for.

To be clear, my argument is not that things are fine, but that more Government isn't the answer, since Government is the problem in the first place.

Actually, I wonder if the Greed Factor can't be placed under the Ricco Act. It amounts to exactly the same thing.

Greed is exactly what motivates people to create a business and hire individuals in the first place. It's a GOOD thing, as it's what causes people to fulfill a demand and, as a consequence, improve the lives of those around them.

Unchecked Greed and when you mix it with unchecked Capitalism or Unchecked Socialism, will always be unhealthy to the workers. But it's great for the Rich, right? And only things good for the Rich is good, screw everyone else.

 

[dblack]

Well, first, I appreciate you calming down and having a rational discussion, as well as admitting you made a mistake, that's incredibly rare around here.

I actually have multiple problems with a minimum wage, but I'll start with the economic factors. The Government has no method of measuring supply and demand curves, nor do they have any skills which would allow any individual in Government to determine how businesses should be run, so not only are those in Government unqualified to determine this, but the Government itself, as an organization is completely incapable. As you noted in your post, increasing minimum wage doesn't actually help anyone, it just increases the cost of living, however that's not all there is to it. There are some jobs and some workers who are not worth the minimum wage, which actually causes a business to overpay some employees, and this causes them to be unable or unwilling to hire more employees.

Another problem with a minimum wage is that it prevents the lowest tier of jobs from teaching employees who become skilled enough from actually negotiating their wages, preventing them from learning such a skill at an early age. This is also in addition to the minimum wage gatekeeping newer businesses, preventing them from hiring employees that they can afford.

Not only all of this, but businesses are already naturally prevented from paying employees too low of a wage in the first place. Not only would they lose employees to competitors if they paid them too little, but they'd also be reducing the number of people in the area that can afford their products, even if people were willing to work for wages which were too low. Oh, and voluntary unions also can help people negotiate wages, though Government-Enforced Unions allow the union to bully the business, which increases the cost of living as well.

Some people also support Federal Aid for subverting the cost of living problem, however it actually pushes wages down, due to the businesses knowing that people can obtain it. One example is Walmart encouraging employees to apply for Food Stamps. Businesses do a similar thing when dealing with insurance; Knowing they're dealing with someone who has deeper pockets, they increase the cost of their services, they would otherwise ensure that consumers can afford their product, as they would otherwise make no money.

Now, with all of that explained, I also have an ethical problem with the minimum wage. It's the Government using force to tell businesses how much money they have to hand over to their employees, regardless of whether or not the position or laborer is actually worth that amount or not. This is the Government telling businesses, or really anyone who uses their property as a means of production, what they can and can't do with that property, forcing association.

I have to look at the results of the force min wage. So you force the min wage. The problem is, the Company Store just raises it's prices to not only grab the wage increase but sucks in more of your money.

One Lady was interviewed. She worked in a Bank as a Teller. That should pay enough to live on right? It didn't. She lived on a Ramien Noodle diet with an occasional Sub, lived in her older SUV on the Street, Coleman Stove to cook with, used laundromats, joined a gym for the shower. Just to make ends meet. That was on 60 minutes. Did anyone after the showing take notice? No, no one. You see, a one BR Studio Apartment (1 room, period) cost more than her wages. Plus, every 3rd day, she had to move her SUV to a new location. Luckily, she didn't have any children. But you can see the system is broken in many areas where the greed factor leaves a lot of working people out on the street.

And the results are higher cost of living, and an adverse effect on the people that they're trying, supposedly, to help. This is because people won't work for too low of a price, and a business has to make money in order for the process to be worth the effort. What the effect of increasing the minimum wage shows is that businesses know what the labor and products are worth, and the Government does not.

I can't say that a bank teller should be worth any specific amount. What I can say is that she wouldn't be working the job if the money wasn't worth it to her. Alternatively, if we exchanged in a currency that had actual worth, everyone would be making a "living wage" regardless of whether a business was paying someone any specific amount or not.

See, the difficulty in living has nothing to do with your wages. One of the things politicians are intentionally taking advantage of is that a lot of people don't understand that wages does not equal purchasing power. Your purchasing power is not going far due to regulations and currency problems. Regulations, each and every one, necessarily make it more difficult for a business to enter the market, produce a product, or distribute that product, resulting in smaller businesses struggling while larger businesses acclimate to the new difficulty, which in turn results in fewer businesses in any one area, and less competitive markets. What do you think would happen if one business was paying employees 1$ an hour, one was paying employees 7$ an hour, and a third was paying 10$ an hour? People would work for the third, overflow would go to the second, and nobody would work for the first. Businesses would naturally be unable to get by only offering a 1$ wage, because nobody would work for that amount. This factor also applies to the amount items are sold for.

To be clear, my argument is not that things are fine, but that more Government isn't the answer, since Government is the problem in the first place.

Actually, I wonder if the Greed Factor can't be placed under the Ricco Act. It amounts to exactly the same thing.

What exactly is "the Greed Factor"?

When Capitalism is left completely unchecked like it was in the late 1920s, it destroys from the bottom up. You honestly believe the Rockefellers, Gettys and such really were harmed by the Great Depression? They made out like bandits. And they are the ones that had a large hand in causing it. One person said that his Grands finally were able to afford their first car in the middle 20s. Yes, but by 1929, what good did that do them when they could not afford the gas to run it and they had to live in it? One of the main indicators that something had to be done like the New Deal was when DC was slammed by WWI vets in 1933 demanding the bonus they were promised from WWI but weren't really liable for it until 1945. Those 3.5 million Vets were armed,, out of work, hungry, cold, and with families.

I see more and more people joining the Poverty ranks even when they have jobs. I see the Homeless ranks growing even when these people have jobs. I see most of the indicators from 1929 where Greed cause the nation to come close to coming apart at the seems. The Greed Factor is when the Rich decide they want even more than the middle class and below can afford to give them. And the Rich has the ability to just take it.

The next revolution won't be fought over a Political Ideal, it's going to be fought over a loaf of bread.

That sounds terrifying. I can see why you're so upset.

"Greed Factor is when the Rich decide they want even more than the middle class and below can afford to give them."

So what? Shouldn't anyone be free to decide what they want? What are you getting at?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Well, first, I appreciate you calming down and having a rational discussion, as well as admitting you made a mistake, that's incredibly rare around here.

I actually have multiple problems with a minimum wage, but I'll start with the economic factors. The Government has no method of measuring supply and demand curves, nor do they have any skills which would allow any individual in Government to determine how businesses should be run, so not only are those in Government unqualified to determine this, but the Government itself, as an organization is completely incapable. As you noted in your post, increasing minimum wage doesn't actually help anyone, it just increases the cost of living, however that's not all there is to it. There are some jobs and some workers who are not worth the minimum wage, which actually causes a business to overpay some employees, and this causes them to be unable or unwilling to hire more employees.

Another problem with a minimum wage is that it prevents the lowest tier of jobs from teaching employees who become skilled enough from actually negotiating their wages, preventing them from learning such a skill at an early age. This is also in addition to the minimum wage gatekeeping newer businesses, preventing them from hiring employees that they can afford.

Not only all of this, but businesses are already naturally prevented from paying employees too low of a wage in the first place. Not only would they lose employees to competitors if they paid them too little, but they'd also be reducing the number of people in the area that can afford their products, even if people were willing to work for wages which were too low. Oh, and voluntary unions also can help people negotiate wages, though Government-Enforced Unions allow the union to bully the business, which increases the cost of living as well.

Some people also support Federal Aid for subverting the cost of living problem, however it actually pushes wages down, due to the businesses knowing that people can obtain it. One example is Walmart encouraging employees to apply for Food Stamps. Businesses do a similar thing when dealing with insurance; Knowing they're dealing with someone who has deeper pockets, they increase the cost of their services, they would otherwise ensure that consumers can afford their product, as they would otherwise make no money.

Now, with all of that explained, I also have an ethical problem with the minimum wage. It's the Government using force to tell businesses how much money they have to hand over to their employees, regardless of whether or not the position or laborer is actually worth that amount or not. This is the Government telling businesses, or really anyone who uses their property as a means of production, what they can and can't do with that property, forcing association.

I have to look at the results of the force min wage. So you force the min wage. The problem is, the Company Store just raises it's prices to not only grab the wage increase but sucks in more of your money.

One Lady was interviewed. She worked in a Bank as a Teller. That should pay enough to live on right? It didn't. She lived on a Ramien Noodle diet with an occasional Sub, lived in her older SUV on the Street, Coleman Stove to cook with, used laundromats, joined a gym for the shower. Just to make ends meet. That was on 60 minutes. Did anyone after the showing take notice? No, no one. You see, a one BR Studio Apartment (1 room, period) cost more than her wages. Plus, every 3rd day, she had to move her SUV to a new location. Luckily, she didn't have any children. But you can see the system is broken in many areas where the greed factor leaves a lot of working people out on the street.

And the results are higher cost of living, and an adverse effect on the people that they're trying, supposedly, to help. This is because people won't work for too low of a price, and a business has to make money in order for the process to be worth the effort. What the effect of increasing the minimum wage shows is that businesses know what the labor and products are worth, and the Government does not.

I can't say that a bank teller should be worth any specific amount. What I can say is that she wouldn't be working the job if the money wasn't worth it to her. Alternatively, if we exchanged in a currency that had actual worth, everyone would be making a "living wage" regardless of whether a business was paying someone any specific amount or not.

See, the difficulty in living has nothing to do with your wages. One of the things politicians are intentionally taking advantage of is that a lot of people don't understand that wages does not equal purchasing power. Your purchasing power is not going far due to regulations and currency problems. Regulations, each and every one, necessarily make it more difficult for a business to enter the market, produce a product, or distribute that product, resulting in smaller businesses struggling while larger businesses acclimate to the new difficulty, which in turn results in fewer businesses in any one area, and less competitive markets. What do you think would happen if one business was paying employees 1$ an hour, one was paying employees 7$ an hour, and a third was paying 10$ an hour? People would work for the third, overflow would go to the second, and nobody would work for the first. Businesses would naturally be unable to get by only offering a 1$ wage, because nobody would work for that amount. This factor also applies to the amount items are sold for.

To be clear, my argument is not that things are fine, but that more Government isn't the answer, since Government is the problem in the first place.

Actually, I wonder if the Greed Factor can't be placed under the Ricco Act. It amounts to exactly the same thing.

What exactly is "the Greed Factor"?

When Capitalism is left completely unchecked like it was in the late 1920s, it destroys from the bottom up. You honestly believe the Rockefellers, Gettys and such really were harmed by the Great Depression? They made out like bandits. And they are the ones that had a large hand in causing it. One person said that his Grands finally were able to afford their first car in the middle 20s. Yes, but by 1929, what good did that do them when they could not afford the gas to run it and they had to live in it? One of the main indicators that something had to be done like the New Deal was when DC was slammed by WWI vets in 1933 demanding the bonus they were promised from WWI but weren't really liable for it until 1945. Those 3.5 million Vets were armed,, out of work, hungry, cold, and with families.

I see more and more people joining the Poverty ranks even when they have jobs. I see the Homeless ranks growing even when these people have jobs. I see most of the indicators from 1929 where Greed cause the nation to come close to coming apart at the seems. The Greed Factor is when the Rich decide they want even more than the middle class and below can afford to give them. And the Rich has the ability to just take it.

The next revolution won't be fought over a Political Ideal, it's going to be fought over a loaf of bread.

Except it wasn't unchecked in the 1920s, that's when competition was outright being outlawed and monopoly licenses were being handed to businesses to show that they couldn't be opposed. The claim that there was no regulation during that time is an outright myth.



When left on their own, businesses are at the mercy of their consumers, and must be offering a service or product which consumers find desirable, or end up going out of business due to competitors doing so in their place. When considering business practices, all you have to do is ask yourself "Would I be okay with this?", and if the answer is no, it means there's no demand, and therefor no market for it.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Well, first, I appreciate you calming down and having a rational discussion, as well as admitting you made a mistake, that's incredibly rare around here.

I actually have multiple problems with a minimum wage, but I'll start with the economic factors. The Government has no method of measuring supply and demand curves, nor do they have any skills which would allow any individual in Government to determine how businesses should be run, so not only are those in Government unqualified to determine this, but the Government itself, as an organization is completely incapable. As you noted in your post, increasing minimum wage doesn't actually help anyone, it just increases the cost of living, however that's not all there is to it. There are some jobs and some workers who are not worth the minimum wage, which actually causes a business to overpay some employees, and this causes them to be unable or unwilling to hire more employees.

Another problem with a minimum wage is that it prevents the lowest tier of jobs from teaching employees who become skilled enough from actually negotiating their wages, preventing them from learning such a skill at an early age. This is also in addition to the minimum wage gatekeeping newer businesses, preventing them from hiring employees that they can afford.

Not only all of this, but businesses are already naturally prevented from paying employees too low of a wage in the first place. Not only would they lose employees to competitors if they paid them too little, but they'd also be reducing the number of people in the area that can afford their products, even if people were willing to work for wages which were too low. Oh, and voluntary unions also can help people negotiate wages, though Government-Enforced Unions allow the union to bully the business, which increases the cost of living as well.

Some people also support Federal Aid for subverting the cost of living problem, however it actually pushes wages down, due to the businesses knowing that people can obtain it. One example is Walmart encouraging employees to apply for Food Stamps. Businesses do a similar thing when dealing with insurance; Knowing they're dealing with someone who has deeper pockets, they increase the cost of their services, they would otherwise ensure that consumers can afford their product, as they would otherwise make no money.

Now, with all of that explained, I also have an ethical problem with the minimum wage. It's the Government using force to tell businesses how much money they have to hand over to their employees, regardless of whether or not the position or laborer is actually worth that amount or not. This is the Government telling businesses, or really anyone who uses their property as a means of production, what they can and can't do with that property, forcing association.

I have to look at the results of the force min wage. So you force the min wage. The problem is, the Company Store just raises it's prices to not only grab the wage increase but sucks in more of your money.

One Lady was interviewed. She worked in a Bank as a Teller. That should pay enough to live on right? It didn't. She lived on a Ramien Noodle diet with an occasional Sub, lived in her older SUV on the Street, Coleman Stove to cook with, used laundromats, joined a gym for the shower. Just to make ends meet. That was on 60 minutes. Did anyone after the showing take notice? No, no one. You see, a one BR Studio Apartment (1 room, period) cost more than her wages. Plus, every 3rd day, she had to move her SUV to a new location. Luckily, she didn't have any children. But you can see the system is broken in many areas where the greed factor leaves a lot of working people out on the street.

And the results are higher cost of living, and an adverse effect on the people that they're trying, supposedly, to help. This is because people won't work for too low of a price, and a business has to make money in order for the process to be worth the effort. What the effect of increasing the minimum wage shows is that businesses know what the labor and products are worth, and the Government does not.

I can't say that a bank teller should be worth any specific amount. What I can say is that she wouldn't be working the job if the money wasn't worth it to her. Alternatively, if we exchanged in a currency that had actual worth, everyone would be making a "living wage" regardless of whether a business was paying someone any specific amount or not.

See, the difficulty in living has nothing to do with your wages. One of the things politicians are intentionally taking advantage of is that a lot of people don't understand that wages does not equal purchasing power. Your purchasing power is not going far due to regulations and currency problems. Regulations, each and every one, necessarily make it more difficult for a business to enter the market, produce a product, or distribute that product, resulting in smaller businesses struggling while larger businesses acclimate to the new difficulty, which in turn results in fewer businesses in any one area, and less competitive markets. What do you think would happen if one business was paying employees 1$ an hour, one was paying employees 7$ an hour, and a third was paying 10$ an hour? People would work for the third, overflow would go to the second, and nobody would work for the first. Businesses would naturally be unable to get by only offering a 1$ wage, because nobody would work for that amount. This factor also applies to the amount items are sold for.

To be clear, my argument is not that things are fine, but that more Government isn't the answer, since Government is the problem in the first place.

Actually, I wonder if the Greed Factor can't be placed under the Ricco Act. It amounts to exactly the same thing.

Greed is exactly what motivates people to create a business and hire individuals in the first place. It's a GOOD thing, as it's what causes people to fulfill a demand and, as a consequence, improve the lives of those around them.

Unchecked Greed and when you mix it with unchecked Capitalism or Unchecked Socialism, will always be unhealthy to the workers. But it's great for the Rich, right? And only things good for the Rich is good, screw everyone else.

False, you have to be willing to work under the conditions in order for a business to be able to run a business in said conditions. What IS good for the "rich" is regulations, since they adversely affect the smaller businesses, resulting the promotion of monopolies. Larger businesses have more money, and therefor better deal with those regulations. This results in regulations gate-keeping entrance into the market.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And the results are higher cost of living, and an adverse effect on the people that they're trying, supposedly, to help. This is because people won't work for too low of a price, and a business has to make money in order for the process to be worth the effort. What the effect of increasing the minimum wage shows is that businesses know what the labor and products are worth, and the Government does not.

I can't say that a bank teller should be worth any specific amount. What I can say is that she wouldn't be working the job if the money wasn't worth it to her. Alternatively, if we exchanged in a currency that had actual worth, everyone would be making a "living wage" regardless of whether a business was paying someone any specific amount or not.

See, the difficulty in living has nothing to do with your wages. One of the things politicians are intentionally taking advantage of is that a lot of people don't understand that wages does not equal purchasing power. Your purchasing power is not going far due to regulations and currency problems. Regulations, each and every one, necessarily make it more difficult for a business to enter the market, produce a product, or distribute that product, resulting in smaller businesses struggling while larger businesses acclimate to the new difficulty, which in turn results in fewer businesses in any one area, and less competitive markets. What do you think would happen if one business was paying employees 1$ an hour, one was paying employees 7$ an hour, and a third was paying 10$ an hour? People would work for the third, overflow would go to the second, and nobody would work for the first. Businesses would naturally be unable to get by only offering a 1$ wage, because nobody would work for that amount. This factor also applies to the amount items are sold for.

To be clear, my argument is not that things are fine, but that more Government isn't the answer, since Government is the problem in the first place.

Actually, I wonder if the Greed Factor can't be placed under the Ricco Act. It amounts to exactly the same thing.

What exactly is "the Greed Factor"?

Greed is the desire for more and more ... like a politician is greedy for taxpayer dollars.

But the "Greed Factor" is a capitalized essence. Surely it is more profound than simple greed. What say you, Daryl Hunt ?

Greed is good. Unchecked Greed, just like unchecked Capitalism, turns criminal fast. Much like unchecked Socialism.

 

[dblack]

Greed is good. Unchecked Greed, just like unchecked Capitalism, turns criminal fast.

Ok. Let me try to track this argument:

"Unchecked Greed, just like unchecked Capitalism, turns criminal fast."

Greed is a motivation, and I'm wondering how you "check" a motivation. I can see making the wrong acts of greedy people (lying, cheating, stealing, etc...) against the law and punishing them accordingly. But these laws are already on the books. Did you have something else in mind?

 

[initforme]

1) No thanks to living in south south carolina.
2). Wouldn't work in mcdees....ever.

0 for 2

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well, first, I appreciate you calming down and having a rational discussion, as well as admitting you made a mistake, that's incredibly rare around here.

I actually have multiple problems with a minimum wage, but I'll start with the economic factors. The Government has no method of measuring supply and demand curves, nor do they have any skills which would allow any individual in Government to determine how businesses should be run, so not only are those in Government unqualified to determine this, but the Government itself, as an organization is completely incapable. As you noted in your post, increasing minimum wage doesn't actually help anyone, it just increases the cost of living, however that's not all there is to it. There are some jobs and some workers who are not worth the minimum wage, which actually causes a business to overpay some employees, and this causes them to be unable or unwilling to hire more employees.

Another problem with a minimum wage is that it prevents the lowest tier of jobs from teaching employees who become skilled enough from actually negotiating their wages, preventing them from learning such a skill at an early age. This is also in addition to the minimum wage gatekeeping newer businesses, preventing them from hiring employees that they can afford.

Not only all of this, but businesses are already naturally prevented from paying employees too low of a wage in the first place. Not only would they lose employees to competitors if they paid them too little, but they'd also be reducing the number of people in the area that can afford their products, even if people were willing to work for wages which were too low. Oh, and voluntary unions also can help people negotiate wages, though Government-Enforced Unions allow the union to bully the business, which increases the cost of living as well.

Some people also support Federal Aid for subverting the cost of living problem, however it actually pushes wages down, due to the businesses knowing that people can obtain it. One example is Walmart encouraging employees to apply for Food Stamps. Businesses do a similar thing when dealing with insurance; Knowing they're dealing with someone who has deeper pockets, they increase the cost of their services, they would otherwise ensure that consumers can afford their product, as they would otherwise make no money.

Now, with all of that explained, I also have an ethical problem with the minimum wage. It's the Government using force to tell businesses how much money they have to hand over to their employees, regardless of whether or not the position or laborer is actually worth that amount or not. This is the Government telling businesses, or really anyone who uses their property as a means of production, what they can and can't do with that property, forcing association.

I have to look at the results of the force min wage. So you force the min wage. The problem is, the Company Store just raises it's prices to not only grab the wage increase but sucks in more of your money.

One Lady was interviewed. She worked in a Bank as a Teller. That should pay enough to live on right? It didn't. She lived on a Ramien Noodle diet with an occasional Sub, lived in her older SUV on the Street, Coleman Stove to cook with, used laundromats, joined a gym for the shower. Just to make ends meet. That was on 60 minutes. Did anyone after the showing take notice? No, no one. You see, a one BR Studio Apartment (1 room, period) cost more than her wages. Plus, every 3rd day, she had to move her SUV to a new location. Luckily, she didn't have any children. But you can see the system is broken in many areas where the greed factor leaves a lot of working people out on the street.

And the results are higher cost of living, and an adverse effect on the people that they're trying, supposedly, to help. This is because people won't work for too low of a price, and a business has to make money in order for the process to be worth the effort. What the effect of increasing the minimum wage shows is that businesses know what the labor and products are worth, and the Government does not.

I can't say that a bank teller should be worth any specific amount. What I can say is that she wouldn't be working the job if the money wasn't worth it to her. Alternatively, if we exchanged in a currency that had actual worth, everyone would be making a "living wage" regardless of whether a business was paying someone any specific amount or not.

See, the difficulty in living has nothing to do with your wages. One of the things politicians are intentionally taking advantage of is that a lot of people don't understand that wages does not equal purchasing power. Your purchasing power is not going far due to regulations and currency problems. Regulations, each and every one, necessarily make it more difficult for a business to enter the market, produce a product, or distribute that product, resulting in smaller businesses struggling while larger businesses acclimate to the new difficulty, which in turn results in fewer businesses in any one area, and less competitive markets. What do you think would happen if one business was paying employees 1$ an hour, one was paying employees 7$ an hour, and a third was paying 10$ an hour? People would work for the third, overflow would go to the second, and nobody would work for the first. Businesses would naturally be unable to get by only offering a 1$ wage, because nobody would work for that amount. This factor also applies to the amount items are sold for.

To be clear, my argument is not that things are fine, but that more Government isn't the answer, since Government is the problem in the first place.

Actually, I wonder if the Greed Factor can't be placed under the Ricco Act. It amounts to exactly the same thing.

What exactly is "the Greed Factor"?

Greed is the desire for more and more ... like a politician is greedy for taxpayer dollars.

I guess greed is only good when it applies to most people.

If you demand more money at work, are you greedy? Of course you are. You want more money for the work you do that you promised to do at your current pay.

When you look for cheaper prices, are you greedy? Of course you are. You are taking food out of the mouths of labor.

When you invest your money in stocks or for your IRA, are you greedy? Of course you are. You want more money for doing nothing but lending your own money out that you will likely get back.

If you go on food stamps or some other welfare program, are you greedy? Of course you are. You are taking money from the working to supplement or live life without working yourself.

So who in this country never exercised greed before?

 

[fncceo]

I have to look at the results of the force min wage. So you force the min wage. The problem is, the Company Store just raises it's prices to not only grab the wage increase but sucks in more of your money.

One Lady was interviewed. She worked in a Bank as a Teller. That should pay enough to live on right? It didn't. She lived on a Ramien Noodle diet with an occasional Sub, lived in her older SUV on the Street, Coleman Stove to cook with, used laundromats, joined a gym for the shower. Just to make ends meet. That was on 60 minutes. Did anyone after the showing take notice? No, no one. You see, a one BR Studio Apartment (1 room, period) cost more than her wages. Plus, every 3rd day, she had to move her SUV to a new location. Luckily, she didn't have any children. But you can see the system is broken in many areas where the greed factor leaves a lot of working people out on the street.

And the results are higher cost of living, and an adverse effect on the people that they're trying, supposedly, to help. This is because people won't work for too low of a price, and a business has to make money in order for the process to be worth the effort. What the effect of increasing the minimum wage shows is that businesses know what the labor and products are worth, and the Government does not.

I can't say that a bank teller should be worth any specific amount. What I can say is that she wouldn't be working the job if the money wasn't worth it to her. Alternatively, if we exchanged in a currency that had actual worth, everyone would be making a "living wage" regardless of whether a business was paying someone any specific amount or not.

See, the difficulty in living has nothing to do with your wages. One of the things politicians are intentionally taking advantage of is that a lot of people don't understand that wages does not equal purchasing power. Your purchasing power is not going far due to regulations and currency problems. Regulations, each and every one, necessarily make it more difficult for a business to enter the market, produce a product, or distribute that product, resulting in smaller businesses struggling while larger businesses acclimate to the new difficulty, which in turn results in fewer businesses in any one area, and less competitive markets. What do you think would happen if one business was paying employees 1$ an hour, one was paying employees 7$ an hour, and a third was paying 10$ an hour? People would work for the third, overflow would go to the second, and nobody would work for the first. Businesses would naturally be unable to get by only offering a 1$ wage, because nobody would work for that amount. This factor also applies to the amount items are sold for.

To be clear, my argument is not that things are fine, but that more Government isn't the answer, since Government is the problem in the first place.

Actually, I wonder if the Greed Factor can't be placed under the Ricco Act. It amounts to exactly the same thing.

What exactly is "the Greed Factor"?

Greed is the desire for more and more ... like a politician is greedy for taxpayer dollars.

I guess greed is only good when it applies to most people.

If you demand more money at work, are you greedy? Of course you are. You want more money for the work you do that you promised to do at your current pay.

When you look for cheaper prices, are you greedy? Of course you are. You are taking food out of the mouths of labor.

When you invest your money in stocks or for your IRA, are you greedy? Of course you are. You want more money for doing nothing but lending your own money out that you will likely get back.

If you go on food stamps or some other welfare program, are you greedy? Of course you are. You are taking money from the working to supplement or live life without working yourself.

So who in this country never exercised greed before?

Politicians are greedy for money and power over us ... the only thing stopping them is our own greed to retain that we have. Greed maintains balance.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I have to look at the results of the force min wage. So you force the min wage. The problem is, the Company Store just raises it's prices to not only grab the wage increase but sucks in more of your money.

One Lady was interviewed. She worked in a Bank as a Teller. That should pay enough to live on right? It didn't. She lived on a Ramien Noodle diet with an occasional Sub, lived in her older SUV on the Street, Coleman Stove to cook with, used laundromats, joined a gym for the shower. Just to make ends meet. That was on 60 minutes. Did anyone after the showing take notice? No, no one. You see, a one BR Studio Apartment (1 room, period) cost more than her wages. Plus, every 3rd day, she had to move her SUV to a new location. Luckily, she didn't have any children. But you can see the system is broken in many areas where the greed factor leaves a lot of working people out on the street.

And the results are higher cost of living, and an adverse effect on the people that they're trying, supposedly, to help. This is because people won't work for too low of a price, and a business has to make money in order for the process to be worth the effort. What the effect of increasing the minimum wage shows is that businesses know what the labor and products are worth, and the Government does not.

I can't say that a bank teller should be worth any specific amount. What I can say is that she wouldn't be working the job if the money wasn't worth it to her. Alternatively, if we exchanged in a currency that had actual worth, everyone would be making a "living wage" regardless of whether a business was paying someone any specific amount or not.

See, the difficulty in living has nothing to do with your wages. One of the things politicians are intentionally taking advantage of is that a lot of people don't understand that wages does not equal purchasing power. Your purchasing power is not going far due to regulations and currency problems. Regulations, each and every one, necessarily make it more difficult for a business to enter the market, produce a product, or distribute that product, resulting in smaller businesses struggling while larger businesses acclimate to the new difficulty, which in turn results in fewer businesses in any one area, and less competitive markets. What do you think would happen if one business was paying employees 1$ an hour, one was paying employees 7$ an hour, and a third was paying 10$ an hour? People would work for the third, overflow would go to the second, and nobody would work for the first. Businesses would naturally be unable to get by only offering a 1$ wage, because nobody would work for that amount. This factor also applies to the amount items are sold for.

To be clear, my argument is not that things are fine, but that more Government isn't the answer, since Government is the problem in the first place.

Actually, I wonder if the Greed Factor can't be placed under the Ricco Act. It amounts to exactly the same thing.

What exactly is "the Greed Factor"?

When Capitalism is left completely unchecked like it was in the late 1920s, it destroys from the bottom up. You honestly believe the Rockefellers, Gettys and such really were harmed by the Great Depression? They made out like bandits. And they are the ones that had a large hand in causing it. One person said that his Grands finally were able to afford their first car in the middle 20s. Yes, but by 1929, what good did that do them when they could not afford the gas to run it and they had to live in it? One of the main indicators that something had to be done like the New Deal was when DC was slammed by WWI vets in 1933 demanding the bonus they were promised from WWI but weren't really liable for it until 1945. Those 3.5 million Vets were armed,, out of work, hungry, cold, and with families.

I see more and more people joining the Poverty ranks even when they have jobs. I see the Homeless ranks growing even when these people have jobs. I see most of the indicators from 1929 where Greed cause the nation to come close to coming apart at the seems. The Greed Factor is when the Rich decide they want even more than the middle class and below can afford to give them. And the Rich has the ability to just take it.

The next revolution won't be fought over a Political Ideal, it's going to be fought over a loaf of bread.

That sounds terrifying. I can see why you're so upset.

"Greed Factor is when the Rich decide they want even more than the middle class and below can afford to give them."

So what? Shouldn't anyone be free to decide what they want? What are you getting at?

There has to be some kind of safeguards put into place. What those are is way above my paygrade.

 

[OKTexas]

After all, the government had no place in raising the wage to begin with! Cost of living and inflation be damned! Corporate profits are all that matters! The GOP really looks out for us all huh? That turtle faced piece of shit McDonnell is a true Christian after all.

Them doing this really wouldn’t be outside the realm of possibility. After all, the GOP was outraged after Obama expanded over time pay entitlement to thousands of workers. They of course had to undo that!

Point blank: republicans would you support lowering the minimum wage because of your weird outrage over it being raised over time in the first place?

I'd support eliminating it entirely. The Government can't properly allocate resources or measure supply and demand curves, and nobody who works in Government is at all qualified to run a business, otherwise they would be running businesses instead of stealing our money and sending Road Pirates after us.

EDIT: Roughly 2.7% of people who work for an hourly wage are paid minimum wage, for the record.

Your record is broken, liar. Look at Characteristics of minimum wage workers, 2017 : BLS Reports: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and you will see it's 58.4%. That 2.7% is the decrease in the number from 2016 to 2017 not the total. It's been running right about a +61% for a few years. And don't give me this crap that it was Trump that made it drop. Any change that affected 2017 was done in 2016. The Reports for 2018 are not tabulated yet. Want to bet they won't be too well off?

You can stop lying any time now.

Did you not bother reading the article you cited, there, champ?

It says that the 58.3% is people working for hourly wages, and that the 2.3% is the total amount working for minimum wage. The article you cited agrees with this. Why don't you read your citation before accusing people of being liars? The second paragraph states that it's decreasing.

"
In 2017, 80.4 million workers age 16 and older in the United States were paid at hourly rates, representing 58.3 percent of all wage and salary workers. Among those paid by the hour, 542,000 workers earned exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. About 1.3 million had wages below the federal minimum. Together, these 1.8 million workers with wages at or below the federal minimum made up 2.3 percent of all hourly paid workers.

The percentage of hourly paid workers earning the prevailing federal minimum wage or less declined from 2.7 percent in 2016 to 2.3 percent in 2017. This remains well below the percentage of 13.4 recorded in 1979, when data were first collected on a regular basis. (See table 10.)
"

Careful now, commies are easily confused by facts. That's why they do their best to avoid them. LOL

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I have to look at the results of the force min wage. So you force the min wage. The problem is, the Company Store just raises it's prices to not only grab the wage increase but sucks in more of your money.

One Lady was interviewed. She worked in a Bank as a Teller. That should pay enough to live on right? It didn't. She lived on a Ramien Noodle diet with an occasional Sub, lived in her older SUV on the Street, Coleman Stove to cook with, used laundromats, joined a gym for the shower. Just to make ends meet. That was on 60 minutes. Did anyone after the showing take notice? No, no one. You see, a one BR Studio Apartment (1 room, period) cost more than her wages. Plus, every 3rd day, she had to move her SUV to a new location. Luckily, she didn't have any children. But you can see the system is broken in many areas where the greed factor leaves a lot of working people out on the street.

And the results are higher cost of living, and an adverse effect on the people that they're trying, supposedly, to help. This is because people won't work for too low of a price, and a business has to make money in order for the process to be worth the effort. What the effect of increasing the minimum wage shows is that businesses know what the labor and products are worth, and the Government does not.

I can't say that a bank teller should be worth any specific amount. What I can say is that she wouldn't be working the job if the money wasn't worth it to her. Alternatively, if we exchanged in a currency that had actual worth, everyone would be making a "living wage" regardless of whether a business was paying someone any specific amount or not.

See, the difficulty in living has nothing to do with your wages. One of the things politicians are intentionally taking advantage of is that a lot of people don't understand that wages does not equal purchasing power. Your purchasing power is not going far due to regulations and currency problems. Regulations, each and every one, necessarily make it more difficult for a business to enter the market, produce a product, or distribute that product, resulting in smaller businesses struggling while larger businesses acclimate to the new difficulty, which in turn results in fewer businesses in any one area, and less competitive markets. What do you think would happen if one business was paying employees 1$ an hour, one was paying employees 7$ an hour, and a third was paying 10$ an hour? People would work for the third, overflow would go to the second, and nobody would work for the first. Businesses would naturally be unable to get by only offering a 1$ wage, because nobody would work for that amount. This factor also applies to the amount items are sold for.

To be clear, my argument is not that things are fine, but that more Government isn't the answer, since Government is the problem in the first place.

Actually, I wonder if the Greed Factor can't be placed under the Ricco Act. It amounts to exactly the same thing.

What exactly is "the Greed Factor"?

When Capitalism is left completely unchecked like it was in the late 1920s, it destroys from the bottom up. You honestly believe the Rockefellers, Gettys and such really were harmed by the Great Depression? They made out like bandits. And they are the ones that had a large hand in causing it. One person said that his Grands finally were able to afford their first car in the middle 20s. Yes, but by 1929, what good did that do them when they could not afford the gas to run it and they had to live in it? One of the main indicators that something had to be done like the New Deal was when DC was slammed by WWI vets in 1933 demanding the bonus they were promised from WWI but weren't really liable for it until 1945. Those 3.5 million Vets were armed,, out of work, hungry, cold, and with families.

I see more and more people joining the Poverty ranks even when they have jobs. I see the Homeless ranks growing even when these people have jobs. I see most of the indicators from 1929 where Greed cause the nation to come close to coming apart at the seems. The Greed Factor is when the Rich decide they want even more than the middle class and below can afford to give them. And the Rich has the ability to just take it.

The next revolution won't be fought over a Political Ideal, it's going to be fought over a loaf of bread.

Except it wasn't unchecked in the 1920s, that's when competition was outright being outlawed and monopoly licenses were being handed to businesses to show that they couldn't be opposed. The claim that there was no regulation during that time is an outright myth.



When left on their own, businesses are at the mercy of their consumers, and must be offering a service or product which consumers find desirable, or end up going out of business due to competitors doing so in their place. When considering business practices, all you have to do is ask yourself "Would I be okay with this?", and if the answer is no, it means there's no demand, and therefor no market for it.

The US was in turmoil going into the 1920s. It had been changed almost willy nilly back and forth from one side to another. Here is 4 ideas from 4 people of that period. These are not direct quotes.


1. John D. Rockefeller: Leave monopolies alone to efficiently produce and distribute products according to freedom of contract and the right of property.


2. Theodore Roosevelt (or Woodrow Wilson): Regulate the business practices, prices, and labor conditions of monopolies.


3. William Howard Taft: Break up all illegal monopolies by bringing lawsuits against them under the Sherman Act.


4. Eugene V. Debs: Monopolies are inevitable. They should be taken over by government and run in the public interest.

In 25 years, all these methods were tried. The only one that worked was Roosevelts and Wilsons. And still do today. But too many fight tooth and nail for Rockefellers method that has NEVER worked. What we see in almost every community, the bulk of the services and goods are controlled by a very small number of individuals and corporations. In affect, they could loosely be deemed in violation of the Sherman Act but since they also own the local Governments that will never be seriously looked at. Since the goods and services are NOT connected dirrectly to supply and demand in any way, they are determined another way. If they were determined by simple supply and demand if a worker were to receive a 1 buck an hour raise, his cost of living would go up 1 dollar an hour to match it. Instead, he receives a 1 dollar and hour raise and his equiv cost of living goes up 1.03 dollars an hour. This goes on year after year. After 40 years, the worker is now way behind on the wage scale versus cost of living by magnitudes. The increases in Bread, Milk, Rent, Property, and every other venue of the cost of living has been inflated well past what the same worker making the equiv money can afford to pay. So he cuts cost. In many cases, Public Assistance now pays better. In fact, in many cases, begging on a street corner may pay better and have more benefits.

I don't support the min wage either. But I do support locking up the Greed Factors up, or fining them into non existance using Teddy Rs methods.

 

[dblack]

There has to be some kind of safeguards put into place. What those are is way above my paygrade.

?? So you're advocating for something, but you have no idea what it is?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

The US was in turmoil going into the 1920s. It had been changed almost willy nilly back and forth from one side to another. Here is 4 ideas from 4 people of that period. These are not direct quotes.

You didn't bother refuting anything I said, you just launched into quoting people instead of addressing the argument. Something some people don't realize is that quoting is often just an appeal to authority, not an argument. Quoting only works in very specific cases in which the individual is the topic of discussion, or in cases in which the quote poses an argument that has not yet been refuted, and specifically addresses the argument being made. Your quotes do not do that, however I'll refute them anyway.

1. John D. Rockefeller: Leave monopolies alone to efficiently produce and distribute products according to freedom of contract and the right of property.

This argument is hilariously fallacious. If you leave the market alone, a monopoly cannot form, as forming in the absence of Government protectionism is totally impossible. The lack of other options in and of itself results in demand for other options. This is only subverted by the Government barring entry into the market, much like they had been doing in the 1920s. What Rockefeller was arguing was that the Government outlawing competition was completely fine.

2. Theodore Roosevelt (or Woodrow Wilson): Regulate the business practices, prices, and labor conditions of monopolies.

Regulation is exactly what created monopolies, and both Theodore and Woodrow were examples of this, as they both used protectionist policies. In fact, Woodrow Wilson had almost the exact same policies as FDR, who was responsible for regulating competition out of the market, and promoting monopolies as a result.

3. William Howard Taft: Break up all illegal monopolies by bringing lawsuits against them under the Sherman Act.

This is another case of the Government creating monopolies and then granting themselves the power and permission to go further, and this has been happening since the creation of the Federal Government. Cause a problem, then expand power to fix it. This is one of the reasons Government is not sustainable, and cannot be kept small.

4. Eugene V. Debs: Monopolies are inevitable. They should be taken over by government and run in the public interest.

Monopolies are only inevitable under Government, because the Government is what creates them. In the absence of Government, the mere existence of a monopoly is what causes competitors to enter the market, due to demand existing as a result of fewer options. Had you bothered to watch the video I linked, you'd have become aware of this, however I see we're playing the "Ignore all evidence and talk at you" game.

In 25 years, all these methods were tried. The only one that worked was Roosevelts and Wilsons. And still do today. But too many fight tooth and nail for Rockefellers method that has NEVER worked. What we see in almost every community, the bulk of the services and goods are controlled by a very small number of individuals and corporations. In affect, they could loosely be deemed in violation of the Sherman Act but since they also own the local Governments that will never be seriously looked at. Since the goods and services are NOT connected dirrectly to supply and demand in any way, they are determined another way. If they were determined by simple supply and demand if a worker were to receive a 1 buck an hour raise, his cost of living would go up 1 dollar an hour to match it. Instead, he receives a 1 dollar and hour raise and his equiv cost of living goes up 1.03 dollars an hour. This goes on year after year. After 40 years, the worker is now way behind on the wage scale versus cost of living by magnitudes. The increases in Bread, Milk, Rent, Property, and every other venue of the cost of living has been inflated well past what the same worker making the equiv money can afford to pay. So he cuts cost. In many cases, Public Assistance now pays better. In fact, in many cases, begging on a street corner may pay better and have more benefits.

I don't support the min wage either. But I do support locking up the Greed Factors up, or fining them into non existance using Teddy Rs methods.

Except Roosevelt's and Wilson's methods are what create the monopolies in the first place, which you totally ignored and refused to address when I explained it.

I also want to point out the irony of complaining that services and resources are controlled by a small group of individuals, while claiming that putting them under the control of a small number of individuals will solve the problem. Do you not realize what Government is? It's a monopoly, an unaccountable monopoly on arbitration, which has been proven not to care what the populace wants.
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
This study shows public opinion has no effect on the passage of legislation. This means that you're advocating taking the means of production, property, of individuals who need your consent in order to make money, sell their services and products, and putting it in the hands of a monopoly with no incentive to listen to the people. You're advocating taking a problem that was created by Government in the first place, and making it ten times worse instead of solving it. Had you bothered watching the video I linked or actually addressing my arguments in any way,t his would have become apparent to you. Instead, you chose to talk AT me instead of to me.

I already explained what causes cost to increase, you ignored me and restated your position, then told me "Yeah, let's eliminate greed". Do you think that the organization which gives itself legitimacy to take our money is somehow a more trustworthy one, despite businesses needing out consent? Have you even considered your position for a brief moment?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The US was in turmoil going into the 1920s. It had been changed almost willy nilly back and forth from one side to another. Here is 4 ideas from 4 people of that period. These are not direct quotes.

You didn't bother refuting anything I said, you just launched into quoting people instead of addressing the argument. Something some people don't realize is that quoting is often just an appeal to authority, not an argument. Quoting only works in very specific cases in which the individual is the topic of discussion, or in cases in which the quote poses an argument that has not yet been refuted, and specifically addresses the argument being made. Your quotes do not do that, however I'll refute them anyway.

1. John D. Rockefeller: Leave monopolies alone to efficiently produce and distribute products according to freedom of contract and the right of property.

This argument is hilariously fallacious. If you leave the market alone, a monopoly cannot form, as forming in the absence of Government protectionism is totally impossible. The lack of other options in and of itself results in demand for other options. This is only subverted by the Government barring entry into the market, much like they had been doing in the 1920s. What Rockefeller was arguing was that the Government outlawing competition was completely fine.

2. Theodore Roosevelt (or Woodrow Wilson): Regulate the business practices, prices, and labor conditions of monopolies.

Regulation is exactly what created monopolies, and both Theodore and Woodrow were examples of this, as they both used protectionist policies. In fact, Woodrow Wilson had almost the exact same policies as FDR, who was responsible for regulating competition out of the market, and promoting monopolies as a result.

3. William Howard Taft: Break up all illegal monopolies by bringing lawsuits against them under the Sherman Act.

This is another case of the Government creating monopolies and then granting themselves the power and permission to go further, and this has been happening since the creation of the Federal Government. Cause a problem, then expand power to fix it. This is one of the reasons Government is not sustainable, and cannot be kept small.

4. Eugene V. Debs: Monopolies are inevitable. They should be taken over by government and run in the public interest.

Monopolies are only inevitable under Government, because the Government is what creates them. In the absence of Government, the mere existence of a monopoly is what causes competitors to enter the market, due to demand existing as a result of fewer options. Had you bothered to watch the video I linked, you'd have become aware of this, however I see we're playing the "Ignore all evidence and talk at you" game.

In 25 years, all these methods were tried. The only one that worked was Roosevelts and Wilsons. And still do today. But too many fight tooth and nail for Rockefellers method that has NEVER worked. What we see in almost every community, the bulk of the services and goods are controlled by a very small number of individuals and corporations. In affect, they could loosely be deemed in violation of the Sherman Act but since they also own the local Governments that will never be seriously looked at. Since the goods and services are NOT connected dirrectly to supply and demand in any way, they are determined another way. If they were determined by simple supply and demand if a worker were to receive a 1 buck an hour raise, his cost of living would go up 1 dollar an hour to match it. Instead, he receives a 1 dollar and hour raise and his equiv cost of living goes up 1.03 dollars an hour. This goes on year after year. After 40 years, the worker is now way behind on the wage scale versus cost of living by magnitudes. The increases in Bread, Milk, Rent, Property, and every other venue of the cost of living has been inflated well past what the same worker making the equiv money can afford to pay. So he cuts cost. In many cases, Public Assistance now pays better. In fact, in many cases, begging on a street corner may pay better and have more benefits.

I don't support the min wage either. But I do support locking up the Greed Factors up, or fining them into non existance using Teddy Rs methods.

Except Roosevelt's and Wilson's methods are what create the monopolies in the first place, which you totally ignored and refused to address when I explained it.

I also want to point out the irony of complaining that services and resources are controlled by a small group of individuals, while claiming that putting them under the control of a small number of individuals will solve the problem. Do you not realize what Government is? It's a monopoly, an unaccountable monopoly on arbitration, which has been proven not to care what the populace wants.
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
This study shows public opinion has no effect on the passage of legislation. This means that you're advocating taking the means of production, property, of individuals who need your consent in order to make money, sell their services and products, and putting it in the hands of a monopoly with no incentive to listen to the people. You're advocating taking a problem that was created by Government in the first place, and making it ten times worse instead of solving it. Had you bothered watching the video I linked or actually addressing my arguments in any way,t his would have become apparent to you. Instead, you chose to talk AT me instead of to me.

I already explained what causes cost to increase, you ignored me and restated your position, then told me "Yeah, let's eliminate greed". Do you think that the organization which gives itself legitimacy to take our money is somehow a more trustworthy one, despite businesses needing out consent? Have you even considered your position for a brief moment?

Not once did I say to eliminate Greed. Greed is a good thing when it's done in a healthy way. But when it is done in a way that it harms the general public then it needs regulated. It's a balancing act. The problem is, the greediest find ways to get even more greedy and harm the most even by buying off the very regulators that are supposed to be protecting the general public. In the end, Greed wins until things are so trashed that the General Public has no choice but to rebel. I know you think greed is always a good thing. You'll always spout the party line. But we are headed for the breakdown right now. 1929 is just around the corner since the same stupid mistakes are being made today. The next revolution will be over a loaf of bread.