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.
Lets deal with reality, not how everyone wants things to be, or how they should be.
1. people making minimum wage are often collecting welfare or food stamps.
2. if a business pays them minimum wage, we subsidize their employees by making up the shortfall.
3. paying people a higher wage will result in them getting off of welfare and food stamps.
Is the debate that 1,2, or 3 are wrong? If not.....why aren't people all for businesses paying more so that we aren't putting people on welfare and food stamps? If a business cannot survive without a government subsidizing their employees, isnt it a good thing that they dont survive?
Lets deal with reality, not how everyone wants things to be, or how they should be.
1. people making minimum wage are often collecting welfare or food stamps.
2. if a business pays them minimum wage, we subsidize their employees by making up the shortfall.
3. paying people a higher wage will result in them getting off of welfare and food stamps.
Is the debate that 1,2, or 3 are wrong? If not.....why aren't people all for businesses paying more so that we aren't putting people on welfare and food stamps? If a business cannot survive without a government subsidizing their employees, isnt it a good thing that they dont survive?
People ARE for corporations paying more.. If you reduce welfare and/or food stamps, then corporations have to pay more. By keeping welfare and stamps where they are, people are willing to accept jobs that pay lower than needed.
#3 is WRONG, because it increases the cost of living and with that, increased standards to collect the same benefits.
Lets deal with reality, not how everyone wants things to be, or how they should be.
1. people making minimum wage are often collecting welfare or food stamps.
2. if a business pays them minimum wage, we subsidize their employees by making up the shortfall.
3. paying people a higher wage will result in them getting off of welfare and food stamps.
Is the debate that 1,2, or 3 are wrong? If not.....why aren't people all for businesses paying more so that we aren't putting people on welfare and food stamps? If a business cannot survive without a government subsidizing their employees, isnt it a good thing that they dont survive?
Because it's an artificial way to band-aid a fundamental problem. Wal Mart and McDonalds can get away with paying the current MW because there's a greater supply of labor than demand. We have 20 million illegal immigrants who will work for MW or even less. This "heaves" the lower end of the job market upward, saturating other layers of the market and lowering wages across the board.
Want to raise the wages on the low end, get rid of the illegal low end competition. You could also encourage workers in these industries to unionize, though that would only help a little I suspect unless the oversupply is addressed.
Lets deal with reality, not how everyone wants things to be, or how they should be.
1. people making minimum wage are often collecting welfare or food stamps.
2. if a business pays them minimum wage, we subsidize their employees by making up the shortfall.
3. paying people a higher wage will result in them getting off of welfare and food stamps.
Is the debate that 1,2, or 3 are wrong? If not.....why aren't people all for businesses paying more so that we aren't putting people on welfare and food stamps? If a business cannot survive without a government subsidizing their employees, isnt it a good thing that they dont survive?
This assumes a business exists to provide employees a standard of living, and that is patently untrue. Business exists to make profit for the owners, period.
Nobody is owed a standard of living by virtue of existence, because all of the things that go into a standard of living are created/produced by other people. Thus, if someone is owed the labor of others by virtue of existence, then those who are the ones who must create/produce what that person is owed are that person's slaves.
So let us return to your three points:
1) Yes, people working for minimum wage often collect welfare and food stamps. They shouldn't, because we should end the welfare state or tie any federal benefit to work performed directly for the benefit of the taxpayers.
2) If a business pays them minimum wage or doesn't, our subsidizing people has nothing to do with what the business pays them. We choose to give people below a certain income level free money as a reward for their continued lack of self-actualization, thus, we choose to reward people choosing to not provide increased value to a business. A business choosing not to reward people for no apparent increase in value is proper, smart, expected business. What a business chooses to do and what the government chooses to do are separate, independent things in this equation.
3) Paying people a higher wage if they increase their value to warrant that increase may help them get off welfare. But arbitrarily increasing a wage beyond its profitability for the business keeps them on welfare and simply changes how the taxpayers' money is funneled to them. In traditional welfare, it comes from the taxpayers via collection and then entitlement checks. In the minimum wage model, it comes in the form of higher prices at any retailer who decides to keep the same number of employees at the new higher wage. Here's the funny thing about that...in the traditional model, the bottom half of taxpayers give nothing to welfare, since they pay no federal tax. In the minimum wage model, they are now being taxed to pay welfare, but just calling it "higher prices." Since traditional welfare (non-SS/Medicare income and housing assistance) is ~18% of anyone's taxes, the lower 50% pay more for welfare on higher prices if they pay even one penny in higher prices that result from a minimum wage increase.
All you do is shift the welfare distribution process and who pays into it. In your minimum wage case, you penalize the poor with higher prices vs leaving them alone to pay nothing for traditional welfare.
We do not subsidize employees. We subsidize lack of value. Now, you can pick how you want to do that - have the rich 50% pay it all via government redistribution, or shift the cost to every single person in the country in the form of higher prices. Your choice, but you're the one insisting on only helping poor people, so I am curious as to why you are so fired up to raise their daily cost of living to fund your helping them, vs sticking it to the rich as we do now?
The ultimate compromise that should make most people pretty happy:
1.) Raise the minimum wage
2.) Cut welfare
Help the poor without sending them a check from the federal government, make em work for it.
If you raise the minimum, you increase the number of people who lose their jobs, and thus incresase not only the number of people on welfare, but the cost of living, thus making it more difficult for those who actually live on the newly established minimum wage.
This assumes a business exists to provide employees a standard of living, and that is patently untrue. Business exists to make profit for the owners, period.
Nobody is owed a standard of living by virtue of existence, because all of the things that go into a standard of living are created/produced by other people. Thus, if someone is owed the labor of others by virtue of existence, then those who are the ones who must create/produce what that person is owed are that person's slaves.
So let us return to your three points:
1) Yes, people working for minimum wage often collect welfare and food stamps. They shouldn't, because we should end the welfare state or tie any federal benefit to work performed directly for the benefit of the taxpayers.
2) If a business pays them minimum wage or doesn't, our subsidizing people has nothing to do with what the business pays them. We choose to give people below a certain income level free money as a reward for their continued lack of self-actualization, thus, we choose to reward people choosing to not provide increased value to a business. A business choosing not to reward people for no apparent increase in value is proper, smart, expected business. What a business chooses to do and what the government chooses to do are separate, independent things in this equation.
3) Paying people a higher wage if they increase their value to warrant that increase may help them get off welfare. But arbitrarily increasing a wage beyond its profitability for the business keeps them on welfare and simply changes how the taxpayers' money is funneled to them. In traditional welfare, it comes from the taxpayers via collection and then entitlement checks. In the minimum wage model, it comes in the form of higher prices at any retailer who decides to keep the same number of employees at the new higher wage. Here's the funny thing about that...in the traditional model, the bottom half of taxpayers give nothing to welfare, since they pay no federal tax. In the minimum wage model, they are now being taxed to pay welfare, but just calling it "higher prices." Since traditional welfare (non-SS/Medicare income and housing assistance) is ~18% of anyone's taxes, the lower 50% pay more for welfare on higher prices if they pay even one penny in higher prices that result from a minimum wage increase.
All you do is shift the welfare distribution process and who pays into it. In your minimum wage case, you penalize the poor with higher prices vs leaving them alone to pay nothing for traditional welfare.
We do not subsidize employees. We subsidize lack of value. Now, you can pick how you want to do that - have the rich 50% pay it all via government redistribution, or shift the cost to every single person in the country in the form of higher prices. Your choice, but you're the one insisting on only helping poor people, so I am curious as to why you are so fired up to raise their daily cost of living to fund your helping them, vs sticking it to the rich as we do now?
If you raise the minimum, you increase the number of people who lose their jobs, and thus incresase not only the number of people on welfare, but the cost of living, thus making it more difficult for those who actually live on the newly established minimum wage.
That's the first thing they teach you in Econ 101, but thankfully that oversimplified model doesn't represent reality. It tells you that if labor costs are doubled (say, at a restaurant), then the restaurant will have to fire half of its employees if they want to stay economically competitive. If you're not 18 years old, this sounds absurd.
I think $12 would be a good starting point for an American minimum wage.
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.
