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.
... "States can choose to modify the federal minimum rate statutes within their own jurisdictions" is NOT consistent with "having lesser consideration for their citizens, (i.e. states of lower applicable minimum wage rates)" - you are saying essentially that states should have the right to set and then saying should not be able to set it low[er than the federal minimum wage rate].
DDeemo, you’re alleging my post contradicts itself or another of my posts, but you do not post and highlight what you believe to be contradictions? You may, or may not be correct, but you don’t explain yourself.
I certainly agree with the federal law, but it’s the law rather than I which legally prohibits a state from reducing the applicable federal minimum rate within their jurisdiction.
Respectfully, Supposn
Again - it is ddeemo - please don't change it by capitalizing. It is NOT correct.
You quoted exactly where you are conflicting yourself, when you say states have the right to set min wage and then saying that essentially don't have the right to set if too low. They either have the right to set as local conditions dictate or not - they can't be subject to YOUR idea of what it should be.
These min wages should be set locally not at the national level - setting at the national level will greatly impact many small businesses adversely and will cause many to lose their jobs. Raising the National min wage is trying to fix a local issue by Federal dictates - similar to if tried to set gas or electric rates nationally.
Again - min wage has zero impact if wages are naturally higher - that is why so few are impacted by current min wages and most that are impacted are mainly part time teens in low wage areas according to BLS data.
I agree it should be set locally, not only because COL varies tremendously, but because if the entire country gets a raise at the same time, rental markets will respond accordingly (i.e. Ka-Ching) and it will be a wash since these are not home buyers.
Possibly you're correct but we'll never know because you're unable to explain yourself. You're unable to explain upon what basis you've determined my reasonng is circular? Respectfuly, supposn
Possibly you're correct but we'll never know because you're unable to explain yourself. You're unable to explain upon what basis you've determined my reasonng is circular? Respectfuly, supposn
Vic Romano, you post various enigmatic messages which may be meaningful only to yourself. You’re incapable of explaining your own messages?
Regarding this question you posted, I believe I understood what I posted, but I cannot ascertain if you understand your own or my posts. Respectfully, Supposn
Possibly you're correct but we'll never know because you're unable to explain yourself. You're unable to explain upon what basis you've determined my reasonng is circular? Respectfuly, supposn
I only apply the same standards you use for yourself.
Possibly you're correct but we'll never know because you're unable to explain yourself. You're unable to explain upon what basis you've determined my reasoning is circular? Respectfuly, supposn
[quote=Vic Romano;60638067]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn
I only apply the same standards you use for yourself. Interesting you admit I may be correct.
Vic Romano, yes, If you are knowledgeable, and if you could explain the logic of whatever it is that you're unable or unwilling to explain, you may, or you may not be correct.
Respectfully, Supposn
all this would do is change the definition of poverty. Democrats already tell people they are impoverished even if they have new clothes, cars, iPhones/samsungs, big tv's, cable. it's never enough and they have the gall to tell the well of folks in society they are greedy.
That's how they stay in power. Hard to have folks vote for you, if you haven't convinced them they need you in order to survive.
That's how they stay in power. Hard to have folks vote for you, if you haven't convinced them they need you in order to survive.
Rocko20, is it your opinion that the concept you described is applicable only to those who vote for Democratic candidates? It’s not applicable to those who supported and/or support ex-president Trump?
Respectfully, Supposn
Vic Romano, yes, If you are knowledgeable, and if you could explain the logic of whatever it is that you're unable or unwilling to explain, you may, or you may not be correct.
Respectfully, Supposn
You certainly demonstrated you aren't knowledgeable or can explain logically.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddeemo
I said you countered yourself - I was not arguing anything about the act - only about YOUR statements - go back and reread instead of taking out of context. BTW - it is ddeemo not DDeemo - or should I say supPOSER.
You do NOT seem to understand anything - I am arguing against your poorly thought out statements - I NEVER said that I am trying to change the laws passed or the fair employment act.
My main disagreements are based on the economic impacts expected - that is what you seem to miss. I am specifically disagreeing with what you are stating based on expected results - that is NOT law unless you are now in charge. Run for congress if you want to pass your ideas - they are NOT based on economics or actual data.
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.
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.
