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.
Perhaps, but saying no to $10.10 would seem to be a bad position to defend.
What's hard to defend is that there is some urgent need for an increase in the minimum wage, since that "need" is entirely based on rhetoric, leftist gobbledygook that any wage should be a "living wage."
With such a poor economy as this, when jobs are scarce, and unemployment at or near a record high (the recent 6.something % figure is a lie), it would seem unwise to even consider it, when it would result in even more job loss, or at the very least, a freeze on new hiring at the lower levels. You can make whatever argument you want that an increase would have no effect, but history and facts prove you wrong.
Thomas Sowell has written about the effects of minimum wage laws:
What's hard to defend is that there is some urgent need for an increase in the minimum wage, since that "need" is entirely based on rhetoric, leftist gobbledygook that any wage should be a "living wage."
With such a poor economy as this, when jobs are scarce, and unemployment at or near a record high (the recent 6.something % figure is a lie), it would seem unwise to even consider it, when it would result in even more job loss, or at the very least, a freeze on new hiring at the lower levels. You can make whatever argument you want that an increase would have no effect, but history and facts prove you wrong.
Thomas Sowell has written about the effects of minimum wage laws:
Well, exactly. We should be looking for ways to remove the regulatory and tax burdens on businesses to encourage growth, but Obama goes the complete opposite direction and increases the burdens. his policies and erratic, destabilizing affects on the economy is why it's stagnant and faltering.
So just make it $15.15, how do you expect parents to raise a family off $10.10 an hour.
How many "parents" are trying to raise a family on minimum wage? Can you cite some statistics? That would mean that those parents are still working at entry level jobs. How many years does an employee (I avoid the use of the term "worker" as it is demeaning and comes from a socialist/communist world view, and labor union lexicon which are socialist) remain in a minimum wage job? If one is still earning only minimum wage after starting a family, he/she had no business starting that family, and must obviously have a learning disability. Most people move out of minimum wage jobs rather quickly, if they show any promise at all, and are performing more than the minimum required to remain employed by an employer. Most employers will rid themselves of the unproductive after the probationary period, if there is no sign of growth and improvement in skills.
Actually, it should be tied to Cost of Living and be adjusted accordingly.
No, it shouldn't. There should be no minimum wage at all. A business sets the value of any position and job description, according to their needs, and there is a pay scale for any given position. Along with the market this should be the only factor in deciding on a wage scale.
How many "parents" are trying to raise a family on minimum wage? Can you cite some statistics? That would mean that those parents are still working at entry level jobs. How many years does an employee (I avoid the use of the term "worker" as it is demeaning and comes from a socialist/communist world view, and labor union lexicon which are socialist) remain in a minimum wage job? If one is still earning only minimum wage after starting a family, he/she had no business starting that family, and must obviously have a learning disability. Most people move out of minimum wage jobs rather quickly, if they show any promise at all, and are performing more than the minimum required to remain employed by an employer. Most employers will rid themselves of the unproductive after the probationary period, if there is no sign of growth and improvement in skills.
Your argument is invalid on it's face.
Can't be too many.
62% of those making min wage are students (HS and college) and living in homes that make $75K a year.
Your Wallymart workers that the MSM tells us are raising families on min wage are already making near $10 and still on SNAP, medicaid and free lunches in school. Simple math says they need $28-30/hr to get off those 3 programs.
Perhaps, but saying no to $10.10 would seem to be a bad position to defend.
It's difficult to explain Real Life to stupid people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob
Actually, it should be tied to Cost of Living and be adjusted accordingly.
Who says it should be?
On what basis?
Is your position too weak to defend?
Quote:
Originally Posted by borregokid
That was a little bit of trickery in 2% of the population.
The 50 Million "uninsured" was trickery, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob
I suppose some will continue to think that, however, there is no history that shows raising min wage actually has that effect. Makes a "good" talking point tho, huh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob
No evidence that raising min wage costs jobs either. Just another talking point some have swallowed.
There is evidence raising the minimum wage costs jobs, but you don't want to see it.
Before you cite some silly biased study, I suggest you exercise due diligence and follow up on those studies, because the authors most commonly cited in support of minimum wage have backed-off of their claims (after their data and methodology was proven false).
No, it shouldn't. There should be no minimum wage at all. A business sets the value of any position and job description, according to their needs, and there is a pay scale for any given position. Along with the market this should be the only factor in deciding on a wage scale.
In that case, how can you justify housing restrictions and requirements which restrict supply and impose costs?
Shouldn't a property owner get too set the standards of property they own and rent out, according to their needs?
Oh, sorry, I forgot that the "party of science" does not believe in economics.
The Dems are a party of emotions, not numbers.
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.
