U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-18-2019, 08:29 PM
 
52,416 posts, read 42,151,707 times
Reputation: 32718

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer View Post
The usual scary assertions.

And the usual complete lack of evidence or references.

(yawn)
I didn't think that they needed to provide that info when this has already been widely discussed after the CBO report on the matter.

If you are unaware of the CBO report on how businesses would react (it's non-partisan) then you should look at it because it's pretty much basic info that anyone weighing in on the topic should understand.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-18-2019, 08:34 PM
 
52,416 posts, read 42,151,707 times
Reputation: 32718
I could get behind federal minimum wage if they put some sort of cost of living adjustment in it.

Currently, it's nothing more than a giant political football where democrats try to push it for urban votes knowing it's a nightmare for businesses in low cost of living rural places.

As such, it creates a wedge issue to help them secure votes....even though many urban areas would instead employ fewer people and be more likely to employ illegals and automate. (Per their own studies.)

Anyone serious about this should have some sort of COLA involved or it's just political grandstanding.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2019, 08:47 PM
 
1,394 posts, read 715,085 times
Reputation: 379
Mircea, regarding your post #24:
Could you expand upon these three sentences of your response?

How or why is the stated opinion false?

How did you reach the conclusion “then employers would pay the minimum wage and only the minimum wage and no higher wages”?

What do you mean by the phrase “review of Social Security wages”, and what claim would it “debunk”?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
////////////
Originally Posted by Supposn:
If there's no definite legally enforced minimum wage rate, the effective minimum rate's an indefinite theoretical market-determined rate that may and likely will, (in the absence of labor shortages), too often race down to an “extremely poor bottom”.
///////////

Your claim is false.

If your claim was true, then employers would pay the minimum wage and only the minimum wage and no higher wages.

A simple review of Social Security wages debunks your claim. ...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2019, 08:54 PM
 
19,193 posts, read 9,776,224 times
Reputation: 5371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy View Post
I could get behind federal minimum wage if they put some sort of cost of living adjustment in it.

Currently, it's nothing more than a giant political football where democrats try to push it for urban votes knowing it's a nightmare for businesses in low cost of living rural places.

As such, it creates a wedge issue to help them secure votes....even though many urban areas would instead employ fewer people and be more likely to employ illegals and automate. (Per their own studies.)

Anyone serious about this should have some sort of COLA involved or it's just political grandstanding.
Please explain which part you support:

1. People are forced at gunpoint to pay above fair market rate for labor and services, or
2. People are prohibited from selling their labor and services at a discount to compete with others so that they can have a job and feed their family?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2019, 10:40 PM
 
1,394 posts, read 715,085 times
Reputation: 379
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy View Post
I could get behind federal minimum wage if they put some sort of cost of living adjustment in it.

Currently, it's nothing more than a giant political football where democrats try to push it for urban votes knowing it's a nightmare for businesses in low cost of living rural places.

As such, it creates a wedge issue to help them secure votes....even though many urban areas would instead employ fewer people and be more likely to employ illegals and automate. (Per their own studies.)

Anyone serious about this should have some sort of COLA involved or it's just political grandstanding.
Mathguy, on the 6th year after HR528th's enactment, the minimum rate reaches $15 per hour.
Thereafter annually, the minimum rate is adjusted to stay in proportion to increases of the prior year's median wage rate. (That may or may not be more or less than COLA increase), but I don't have a problem with it.
One reason I don't object is the prior year's median wage rate's explainable to voters and there's not much chance that political maneuvering can succeed to louse it up).

It's the $15 target that displeases me. Regardless of which political party has the House and Senate chambers' majorities, or is in the White House, after 6 years, I expect $15 to be worth something less than today's $15.

I prefer the target to be 125% of the minimums February-1968 consumer price index value. Drafted in that language, the target retains its value over the 6 years. But HR528 is not a bad House Resolution bill.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2019, 11:32 PM
 
1,394 posts, read 715,085 times
Reputation: 379
Quote:
Originally Posted by travis t View Post
Most reasonable observers agree that the minimum wage should be left to the states (if we are to have it in the first place). Economic conditions vary too much for a one-size-fits-all number.

A federal minimum wage is a waste of paper and ink, and enforcement thereof is a waste of Dept. of Labor resources. I've had dealings with the federal DOL, and getting them to respond is like pulling teeth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer View Post
Most reasonable people despise the minimum wage law which is just an euphemism for slavery.

NOBODY SHOULD BE FORCED TO PAY YOU ANYTHING!
Travis T & LifeExplorer, I suppose USA's population and voters aren't reasonable. All surveys indicate they're in favor of the minimum wage and want the rate increased.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
The Federal Minimum Wage Rate.

The federal minimum wage rate is a minimum rate. States may, and many have enacted a higher minimum within their own jurisdiction.

Delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention determined a federal law was necessary for reducing the economic harm that a U.S. State may deliberately or inadvertently inflict upon any other State, particularly an adjoining state.
The constitution's commerce clause was enabled by delegates from wealthier states agreeing to sacrifice their own states' advantages. Without such compromises, the constitution would not have been ratified and our nation might not have survived to this day. That compromise is no less needed now, as it was in 1787.

If there's no definite legally enforced minimum wage rate, the effective minimum rate's an indefinite theoretical market-determined rate that may and likely will, (in the absence of labor shortages), too often race down to an “extremely poor bottom”.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2019, 12:12 AM
 
1,394 posts, read 715,085 times
Reputation: 379
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
... Ah, yes, more of your drivel. You still can't wrap your brain around the fact that $1 of imports does not equal $1 of GDP.
$1 of imports equals $8 to $20 or more of GDP.
Mircea, I'm aware of some peoples' ignorance. They're unaware that USA's great chronic annual trade deficits of goods indicate we've purchased more products than we've produced.

USA's trade deficits dragging upon our GDP, and reducing our numbers of jobs and those lost jobs' wages more than otherwise. Annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nations' economies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2019, 12:22 AM
 
1,394 posts, read 715,085 times
Reputation: 379
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus View Post
The Republicans want to keep it low? It was them who passed the last wage raise.

Your Democrat-controlled Congress and presidency under Obama did not pass any wage increase at all.
Boxus, you're correct. Their only excuse was being occupied with the task of pulling out of the great recession Bush left behind.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2019, 12:30 AM
 
5,116 posts, read 5,115,667 times
Reputation: 6373
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
Mircea, I'm aware of some peoples' ignorance. They're unaware that USA's great chronic annual trade deficits of goods indicate we've purchased more products than we've produced.

USA's trade deficits dragging upon our GDP, and reducing our numbers of jobs and those lost jobs' wages more than otherwise. Annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nations' economies.
Economy is a strange beast then. Getting something for nothing as in trading 1 and zeros that represent dollars for real efforts is always a superior deal, especially if you can print those dollars in your basement. It is true that domestic manufacture of all those goods would require extra labor, traffic, pollution, death and illness, i.e. gdp, there is no way domestic manufacture will make us all better off since dollars you pay to domestic manufacturers will come back to you to demand a share of your time and efforts, and your time and efforts are already tied up with something other than serving manufacturers needs since Chinese etc. are happy to get dollars/bonds and do not bug you about real tangible stuff you must apply yourself to provide.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2019, 04:53 AM
 
Location: Texas
27,088 posts, read 11,376,812 times
Reputation: 6240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
I did not infer, I stated, “the constitution's commerce clause was enabled by delegates from wealthier states agreeing to sacrifice their own states' advantages. Without such compromises, the constitution would not have been ratified and our nation might not have survived to this day. That compromise is no less needed now, as it was in 1787”.
What proof do you have of this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
Your conclusion of inference from that statement are a matter within your own mind. In this case, your conclusion of inference is not shared by myself and I don't suppose it would be shared by most people. I'm pleased that the law amuses you; humor is healthy.
What proof do you have of this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
The federal minimum wage rate has been continuously upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Congress has not voted to repeal it. That pleases me.
Because children need government to run their lives. Because children don't understand the economics behind these laws and how they can ruin economies.

Since minimum wage pay is typically associated with entry-level workers, if employers are forced to let these employees go, they will lack the skills necessary to quickly rebound in the job market. As a result, unemployment rates begins to rise. duh

“The impact on the economies of American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands was devastating. In American Samoa, by 2009, after only three of the ten scheduled minimum-wage increases, overall employment dropped 30 percent — 58 percent in the critically important tuna-canning industry. "

When the minimum wage laws hit American Samoa the Tuna industries that brought boats loaded with supplies and left loaded with tuna have mostly moved out. Unemployment has risen and the goods available to purchase have become more expensive.

THAT is actual proof and not some made up garbage by a ward of the state.

But lets rely on government vs the free market when it comes to the economy since government rarely make mistakes, right?

Last edited by Loveshiscountry; 08-19-2019 at 05:17 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top