Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    11:28 PM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: It Is Time To Raise The Minimum Wage Back to Topics
SemiSteve

Champion Author
Tampa

Posts:17,594
Points:343,740
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 14, 2013 9:55:33 AM

"The argument for an increase in the minimum wage ought not to rely on or focus on economics. The political, ethical, and social reasons for higher minimum wages make the case better, more clearly and more definitively.

Economists have accumulated a vast literature on the minimum wage. That literature is divided into two opposing schools. The first, comprised of paid spokespersons for business and their various allies in politics, media and the academy, strives to establish the following sort of argument. Raising minimum wages will reduce the number of jobs available to those earning the pre-rise minimum wage. This is because of the "law" of supply and demand which holds that demand for anything fall as its price rises. Raise the price of labor power, less will be demanded. In short, raising the minimum wage will push more workers out of jobs into unemployment. It is thus bad for just those in whose name the minimum wage is to be raised.

Such arguments provoked liberal, labor, and radical economists to seek to prove the contrary point. They questioned the theoretical assumptions about supply and dermand as it pertains to wage determination. They also offered empirical analyses to show countless cases where wages rose and no unemployment followed, etc.

Excluding unrepentant ideologues, most economists now acknowledge that the end product of the vast literature on both sides is a kind of stalemate. That is, it is not at all clear whether raising the minimum wage would help or hurt employment numbers. There is no one-to-one correlation, no clear-cut cause-and-effect relationship, between raising a wage, on the one hand, and increasing versus decreasing the number of workers employed at the raised wage, on the other.

...

Given that we don't know how raising the minimum wage will play out on employment in advance, that the employment outcome will vary from case to case, the decision about raising the minimum wage ought to be made on other, non-economic grounds (political and ethical and social) where the positive effects of doing so can be more confidently described, predicted, and/or advocated."

Richard Wolff on the minimum wage

--People are hurting. Since it is unclear whether raising the min wage helps or hurts unemployment we should do it because it will help the economy by providing more spending power for consumers. I agree almost completely with President Obama on this. Except he says make it $9 hr and I think it should be $10.
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
BuzzLOL
Champion Author Toledo

Posts:2,380
Points:42,025
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Apr 11, 2014 1:42:32 PM

. LOL! SemiSteve, your plan below sounds just like the same one Pastor David Koresh of Waco Religious Mass Murder fame used... except he put all the wives into his own bedroom... which pissed the husbands off...
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:17,594
Points:343,740
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Apr 10, 2014 11:23:35 AM

teacher_tim: "Simple solution. Don't start a family that you can't afford. ... It doesn't take a genius to figure out how NOT to have kids, with or without sex.

When the government starts withholding funds for baby mommas, the attitude will change. "

--I agree. I say cut off most of the dole and replace it with the tough-love system of 3 hots and a cot with no privacy. Put all the men in barrack room, the women in another, and the kids in a third. Make the baby-makers serve as day-care workers and the rest do maintenance and other chores. Anybody who makes trouble gets sent to a place of stricter rules and less freedom. That should take care of the problem nicely. Finance it all with the money saved from not doling out millions of checks.

[Edited by: SemiSteve at 4/10/2014 11:32:33 AM EST]
Profile Pic
BuzzLOL
Champion Author Toledo

Posts:2,380
Points:42,025
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Apr 9, 2014 12:18:39 PM

. "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt(Koch bros.)… a few other Texas oil millionaires (Bush's), and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

-–President Dwight D. Eisenhower(R), in a 1954 letter to his brother Edgar

. Remember when the GOP was so different than today...?
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:29,021
Points:3,206,760
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Apr 9, 2014 12:08:10 PM

SemiSteve - did you subscribe to the Planet Money podcast yet? They discussed this very same thing. 2 economists have different opinions on this (surprise, surprise). You ought to listen to the podcast and hear some of the issues from some "experts".
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:39,350
Points:4,314,880
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Apr 9, 2014 11:45:57 AM

SemiSteve, question, are you saying that the minimum wage should be high enough to support a family?

Thus, should people have a pay rate according to their family size?
Profile Pic
teacher_tim
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:17,966
Points:782,965
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Apr 9, 2014 11:29:13 AM

Simple solution. Don't start a family that you can't afford. I didn't start a family until I was in my thirties. It doesn't take a genius to figure out how NOT to have kids, with or without sex.

When the government starts withholding funds for baby mommas, the attitude will change.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:17,594
Points:343,740
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Apr 9, 2014 11:25:44 AM

Look at it this way. We either raise the minimum wage or we pay more taxes to support those who qualify for govt assistance even as they are earning minimum wage.

If we don't raise it then it is a gift to the large corporations which are paying so little and keeping people part-time that they can't get by and have to go on the govt dole.

A low minimum wage is the same as big corporate welfare.

How is McDonalds profits doing? How about WalMart? Starbucks?

These corporations are making tons of money. They don't need a handout to support their workers paid for by the rest of us taxpayers. They should be paying their workers enough to get by without the help of taxpayers.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:25,869
Points:1,261,925
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Apr 9, 2014 11:22:04 AM

Why the connection (or attempted connection) between the wage a person is paid for what work they do and how they spend those wages.

I was always under the impression that your salary is based on your value to the company. In that the more value you bring to and or add to the company the more your wages will be. The skilled machinist should be paid more than the guy who cleans the coffee cups. The coffee cup washer may wish to be paid enough to have a 10,000 sgft mansion and drive a Tesla or whatever but he doesnt earn it no matter how hard he works. The skilled machinist or the guy who designs the machines is worth more and what each employee does with their wage is of no business of the company paying them.

The concept of a certain wage isnt enough to raise a family is nonsense on the face of it. What your saying is that id someone decides to get married or start a family sans marriage they should automatically get a raise and be paid more for doing the same work the high school kid who stays home gets. That to me is the height of nonsensical discussion.
Profile Pic
BuzzLOL
Champion Author Toledo

Posts:2,380
Points:42,025
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Apr 9, 2014 10:35:47 AM

< "nobody raises a family on minimum wage" >

. Actually, prolly 40% or more of families are raised on or within $1 of minimum wage... privileged people making more to much much more don't realize what life is like for the 'other 1/2'...

. The current minimum wage is prolly high enough for now, because there are huge numbers of people these days who aren't productive enough to even work well enough to earn even that... a starter wage is needed for them to even have a job and, hopefully, improve their basic job skills to the point where they are worth more... if ever... by basic job skills, I'm talking get up and go to work, get to work every workday, pay attention to their job, be sober enough to do any job, be in sufficient physical condition to last 8 hours, etc...

. Of course, there is little incentive to work these days with more people on entitlements than working, working for a living looks strange to most people now... and the people on entitlements earn more on average than working people... that all needs to be fixed even before the minimum wage...
Profile Pic
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,296
Points:39,040
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Apr 9, 2014 8:34:58 AM

Minimum wage has never been an issue locally.

The larger issues for job seekers are qualifying for jobs, landing jobs, keeping jobs and the lack of hours.

Many can only find part-time work, so they'll have to work 2, 3 or more part time jobs with flexible hours to receive 40 plus hours of work per week.

Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:39,350
Points:4,314,880
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Apr 9, 2014 8:08:22 AM

Looking at the chart another way, there are (were) only 75,000 people earning the minimum wage in the country (how may of those are tipped employees). And 100% of them are over 16 years old!
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:39,350
Points:4,314,880
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Apr 9, 2014 8:01:33 AM

40niner, "Every one has to get a start and make a living. It is a double edge sword and it draws blood from the employees who say they can't raise a family on minimum wage..."

Nobody raises a family on minimum wage. Secondly, the minimum wage is not intended to be a wage to start a family, it is usually a "first job", a training job where the new worker can learn skills and move up.
Profile Pic
40niner
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:34,294
Points:2,697,360
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Apr 8, 2014 11:23:37 PM

Every one has to get a start and make a living. It is a double edge sword and it draws blood from the employees who say they can't raise a family on minimum wage. The employers say they can't afford to pay more yet it is clear that to have a good working relationship you need to pay them so they will want to give as well as do their best at work. This entry level also gives the employees experience doing that job which may be a step in the direction of a higher wage and a level up the ranks.

Also have you noticed that few employers hire and pay minimum wages to their own children. The old saying I guess it really does mean who you know not what you know is true. Have a good night.
Profile Pic
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,296
Points:39,040
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Apr 2, 2013 12:31:05 PM

"Minimum wage workers tend to be young. Although workers under age 25 represented only about one-fifth of hourly paid workers, they made up about half of those paid the Federal minimum wage or less. Among employed teenagers paid by the hour, about 21 percent earned the minimum wage or less, compared with about 3 percent of workers age 25 and over"

Speaking of minimum wage in New York, here in New York we have over 2 dozen poor, or low income non immediate relatives with jobs.

Although many didn't even graduate high school and had no skills or experience, all started at more than the minimum wage.

For a school project, one of our daughters tried to find some people working for minimum wage to question/interview, but couldn't find a single person that made the minimum or less. She followed numerous leads, however all either no longer worked the jobs, or they were making more money.

I was surprised how much money many of our poor relatives made per hour. Many made 10 plus per hour, but they're still struggling since they're working part-time, they've made numerous poor decisions, plus living beyond their means.

Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:17,594
Points:343,740
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Apr 2, 2013 11:30:28 AM

"The largest percentage of minimum wage workers are 16 to 19 year old females."

--Looks like you misread the chart, MJ. What a highly misleading statement!

It is important to read these things carefully. I think you took your figure from the column which shows the percentage of ALL HOURLY WORKERS being paid at minimum wage. This is different from looking only at minimum wage workers. Look at the column to the left of that which shows the breakdown of minimum wage workers.

-from the BLS chart you linked:

"Percent Distribution at minimum wage, (both sexes):

Age: 16-19 ... 30.9%

Age: 20 & over: ... 69.1%

***

At minimum wage, (female)

Age 16-19 ... 17.8%

Age 20 & over: ... 46%"

--Teens do not comprise the largest percentage of minimum wage workers. They are only 31% of the minimum wage work force. Break that down into sexes and female teens are only 18% of the minimum wage work force. Those are verifiable facts right off the chart.

While it is true that female teens are the distinct age group with the largest percentage of all the age groups studied, that is different from saying that they are the largest percentage. Add all the other groups together and the percentage of teens earning minimum wage is not the majority. The chart you linked also includes another (combined) age group labelled "25 years and over". That group comprises 45% of the minimum wage workers. Were you cherry-picking when you chose to disregard that group and claim that teens were the largest group at 31%? How is 31 greater than 45? The facts do not support your statement.

If you want to look only at females they comprise 63.8% of minimum wage workers. Female teens are 17.8 of those. 20 & over female teens are then [63.8 - 17.8] = 46%.

[Edited by: SemiSteve at 4/2/2013 11:33:13 AM EST]
Profile Pic
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,296
Points:39,040
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Apr 2, 2013 8:41:36 AM

"Over 50% of minimum wage jobs are held by folks less than 25 years old.

Wonder why New York state seems to not follow the US trend?"

====================================================================

The largest percentage of minimum wage workers are 16 to 19 year old females.

When the article stated that 90% of New York's minimum wage workforce were adults, they likely included 18 and 19 year old workers.

The article cited no sources, plus there are few sources that break down data without lumping several age groups together.

It's pretty rare to see workers under 18 years old these days unless they're working under-the-table.


Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers By Age and Sex: 2012
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:12,380
Points:1,616,940
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Apr 1, 2013 2:06:24 PM

SS: "I'm really surprised Walmart doesn't have automated check-outs like Home Depot. "

Some do now. I spent the winter in Florida and the Walmart there has them.



SS: " Extrapolate that trend and the middle class becomes eliminated. The eventual result would be the wealthy few, a very small number of middle earners, and most people being dirt poor."


That's going to happen anyway. It's only a matter of time. There is a huge untapped pool of labor available in the world, and advances in logistics, finance, and technology are rapidly making that untapped labor available to entrepreneurs. When you add that to continuous technological advances like Baxter, it spells the end of the "easy" jobs where you don't have to think and you don't have to be physically fit or accept some danger. Service sector and manufacturing sector unskilled labor jobs are soon to become an endangered species. All that will be left will be "hard" labor jobs that have to be performed on site, like construction, and jobs which involve danger, like mining, and even those jobs will eventually become targets once all the low hanging fruit in the form of manufacturing and service sector jobs have been picked. Of course one sector that will continue to employ these workers, until it goes broke, is government.

If you would like to accelerate the process just keep raising the minimum wage and make the payoff for getting rid of workers even better, which will encourage investors to pour even more money into the development of Baxster and his buddies, and/or make the cost benefit of shipping those jobs overseas even more attractive.

You had better hope that technology advances fast enough that all these automated factories and the like can eventually produce the necessities of life so cheaply that they can afford to be basically given away to a permanent underclass of people who contribute nothing to society; because if it doesn't they are eventually going to starve or be killed when they start rioting. Of course, by attacking energy you all on the left are doing everything possible to make sure that doesn't happen because having enough necessities of life to give it away to that many people requires a very cheap and plentiful supply of energy, which is exactly what you don't want.

I think we have a far larger chance of a Soylent Green future than we do of a Star Trek future.


mudtoe


[Edited by: mudtoe at 4/1/2013 2:07:39 PM EST]
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:25,869
Points:1,261,925
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Apr 1, 2013 1:39:44 PM

Look at the pie chart Steve - that is based on National data.
.
Over 50% of minimum wage jobs are held by folks less than 25 years old.

Wonder why New York state seems to not follow the US trend?
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:17,594
Points:343,740
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Apr 1, 2013 12:46:07 PM

I'm really surprised Walmart doesn't have automated check-outs like Home Depot.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:17,594
Points:343,740
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Apr 1, 2013 12:44:49 PM

"Adults currently make up around 90% of the minimum wage workforce in New York state."

--Oh, but I thought you said most minimum wage jobs were held by teens?
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:17,594
Points:343,740
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Apr 1, 2013 12:43:13 PM

From mud's link: "Erik Brynjolfsson, director of the MIT Center for Digital Business and co-author of Race Against the Machine, has been warning economists about the coming job disruption for years. "Technology doesn't automatically lift the fortunes of all people," Brynjolfsson said recently to a crowd at Wharton University in San Francisco. "Profits [in the U.S.] have never been higher, innovation is roaring along, GDP is high, but job creation is lagging terribly, and the share of profits going to labor is at a 60-year low. This is one of the most important issues facing our society." "

--That's the problem. One would be naive to think that human advancements in making more and more machines that can do our everyday work would lead to more leisure time for humans and less time needing to be spent on working for a living. On the contrary it seems to be the exact opposite.

Instead of using our wonderful inventions to ease our need to work these innovative advancements are used to make the few greedy and powerful 1% richer.

With more and more traditional jobs being eliminated by machines and population growth continuing to explode the result is more and more people chasing after fewer and fewer jobs and a predictable downward trend in wages. Extrapolate that trend and the middle class becomes eliminated. The eventual result would be the wealthy few, a very small number of middle earners, and most people being dirt poor.

The minimum wage is just a bandage to prevent ruthless and greedy wealth-lusting executives from taking advantage of the situation by offering to pay people less than they can actually live on. Because there are so many job-seekers and so few jobs.

If we don't raise the minimum wage and tie it to inflation then it will become irrelevant.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:17,594
Points:343,740
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Apr 1, 2013 12:27:51 PM

AC-302, I want no part of running a business. And that is the voice of experience. I have run two small businesses. In each case the competition from much larger businesses made it nearly impossible to grow the business. I'm no MBA and I did it all with my own money. Nothing borrowed. I made a living but in each case reached a ceiling imposed by the market.

It is probably also true that if I really wanted to become rich I would have entered neither of those areas of business and I would have had to outlay a lot more money and/or borrow the start-up capital. I am too valued as a worker to take such risks. I have a perfectly good life on what I can make as an employee at another business.

I never had the ambition to do what it takes to get vastly rich. I am happy doing my own job and I don't mind working hard when it is called for. And then when the work is done I am very happy to go my own way and let somebody else have all the stress of running a business with employees.

I see what the owners of the business do. They have no life. They spend nights, weekends working. It doesn't matter how hard I work, they work harder. I'm glad they do. They work as much as twice as hard as I do. And they probably earn twice what I am paid. Or maybe even a bit more than that. And I am fine with that. Should they earn 200 or 300 times what I make? No way! They couldn't possibly work that hard or justify being paid that much. They would have to slash my pay and pull all kinds of shady deals to do that.

Profile Pic
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,296
Points:39,040
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Apr 1, 2013 8:11:15 AM

They have automated burger machines that can replace many McWorkers.

Even many of the order takers aren't necessary with touch screen terminals.
Profile Pic
WES03
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:6,113
Points:1,526,585
Joined:Feb 2009
Message Posted: Apr 1, 2013 7:47:11 AM

Not a good idea. Employers will reduce work force and/or McBurger prices wil rise and consumers will buy fewer.
Profile Pic
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,296
Points:39,040
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Apr 1, 2013 7:30:39 AM

Speaking of automation, we recently worked on a project at the business of a customer that expanded their business to allow for more automation, equipment, inventory and trucks.

They plan on cutting 40 plus full-time workers and 10 part-time workers that won't be necessary anymore.

Since they'll be moving much more volume, the only workers they need more of are truck drivers.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:25,869
Points:1,261,925
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Mar 31, 2013 6:17:58 PM

Its true - officially the loony gov of NY wants taxpayers to fund his schemes and he thinks there will be no consequences???
.
>>>Under the new law, the minimum wage will rise from $7.25 an hour to $8 an hour next year. In future years, the minimum wage will be adjusted higher, reaching $9 an hour in 2016. Employers, however, can get a refundable tax credit to cover the increased labor costs between the old and the new wage. In other words, the state taxpayers will cover the labor costs for the new higher wage, but only for those workers aged 16-19.

If you're an employer, giving a job to an 18-year-old will cause the state to subsidize part of your labor costs. If you hire a 20-year-old, however, there is no subsidy. What possible incentive do you have to hire a 20-year-old if someone 18 or 19 is available? In addition, what incentive do you have to continue to employ a 19-year-old after her 20th birthday?

Adults currently make up around 90% of the minimum wage workforce in New York state. What will that number look like next year, when employers can get a refundable tax credit on some portion of the wages paid to those under 20?

It isn't a total win for teenagers, though. The subsidy only applies to those workers making exactly the minimum wage. If a teen is making $8.10 an hour, for example, the employer can't file for the subsidy. Roughly 65,000 teens currently make between $8 and $10 an hour. It is likely some of these teens will have their wages cut to allow their employer to access the taxpayer subsidy.<<<

I wonder if these uber liberal rich fat cats will ever learn the laws of unintended consequences.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:12,380
Points:1,616,940
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Mar 31, 2013 12:48:32 PM

Here is capitalism's response to SS's socialism call to raise the minimum wage:


The Robot Reality: Service Jobs Are Next to Go


mudtoe
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:29,021
Points:3,206,760
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Mar 31, 2013 10:50:56 AM

SemiSteve continued to wail: "Funny how effective giant corporations are at influencing the way you think, AC-302." and "Ask 100 low wage workers if the minimum wage should be raised and they will probably ALL tell you yes." and further: "Have compassion. Don't side with the ruthless."

--Why do you think corporate "giants" are influencing my though pattern, Steve? Me? I think for myself and I use LOGIC. I realize that how you "feel" and what "feels good" is how most liberals, such as yourself, think and act. And the world takes all kinds of different people to function. But to Cirdan's point, do you get that raising the minimum wage IS a form of charity? What you're doing is FORCING companies (who are not charities) to fork over more money for exactly the same work. And you still have not acknowledged that minimum wage is not and should not be a "living wage". It's a starting point, period. And most full time workers are not making minimum. As well, you fail to realize (or acknowledge) that there are some jobs in America that are not really intended to be careers and are not high paying. From what you espouse, it would seem that you want flipping burgers at McDonald's to be a "living wage"? Why is that? How about parking lot attendant or stocking shelves at the grocery (not that you can't move up at the grocery store)? There are just some lower skilled jobs that anyone off the street can fill, Steve. And when you ask, particularly a small business, to pay significantly more, and their sales are no higher, then what do you think that logical outcome is? Hmmm???

Businesses aren't cooperatives, in general. Someone put their capital on the line to try to earn more money. Eventually they hire workers to work for them, and they agree on what is a fair rate for the job and the experience of the person filling it. By the way - out here, McDonald's is NOT a minimum wage job. The free market has worked. Workers won't work for that kind of money, so they must pay more. Is it ruthless? No. It's common sense, man!

Here, now. Maybe what you need to do, Steve, is start your own business. Let's talk machinery for a second. OK, let's say you go into business for yourself after your boss retires - or maybe he sells the business to you. YOU now become the boss. Presumably you have a mortgage on your new business. So are you going to want to pay your workers more than you are making? Are you going to have performance based incentives for them (productivity, profitability or some such measure)? Are you going to let your workers fly first class in order to be "humanisitic"? And what about your office staff (presuming you grow big enough)? Are you going to pay your receptionist the same money you are paying the service engineers? If not, why not? She's a valued member of the team, too?
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,048
Points:1,746,480
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Mar 29, 2013 4:16:20 PM

SemiSteve, >>MJack, if I am mistaken please correct me. Has the Constitutionality of the minimum wage ever been decided in a SCOTUS case?<<
**************
If we had courageous politicians who lived up to their oaths of office instead of the devious sycophants that we have, we wouldn't even be discussing this.

The powers granted to the Federal Government by the governed do not include the power to FORCE some citizens (ie. business owners) to give up their property to other citizens.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:17,594
Points:343,740
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Mar 29, 2013 3:15:55 PM

MJack, if I am mistaken please correct me. Has the Constitutionality of the minimum wage ever been decided in a SCOTUS case?
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:17,594
Points:343,740
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Mar 28, 2013 9:04:47 AM

What does charity have to do with the minimum wage?
Profile Pic
Cirdan
Champion Author Nevada

Posts:2,385
Points:133,205
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Mar 28, 2013 12:56:23 AM

The quote:

"Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." --James Madison
Profile Pic
greentre
Champion Author Pensacola

Posts:1,272
Points:396,520
Joined:Oct 2011
Message Posted: Mar 25, 2013 9:15:52 PM

If the government is tasked with all these things. Then why does the Constitution begin with "We THE PEOPLE of the United States..."

As Daniel Webster said “It is the people’s government, made for the people, made by the people, and answerable to the people."

Just a thought.
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,048
Points:1,746,480
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Mar 25, 2013 3:40:00 PM

SemiSteve, >>MahopacJack: (essentially) 'The minimum wage itself is unconstitutional.'

--Good luck with that argument. One would think that if it were true a case would have been brought to the SCOTUS. Still waiting on that one. Don't hold your breath.<<
****************
I see you've lowered yourself to making up your own facts.

While I do not disagree that Federal intrusion in the workplace is unconstitutional, I was referring to your 3/19/13 rant of, "I also believe we need a maximum ratio of executive pay to average worker pay. This does not cap executive pay. It merely says that in order for executives to earn more, they MUST guide the business toward earning more so that they can share increases in profits with the workers who made those increases possible. "
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:17,594
Points:343,740
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Mar 25, 2013 3:12:18 PM

MahopacJack: (essentially) 'The minimum wage itself is unconstitutional.'

--Good luck with that argument. One would think that if it were true a case would have been brought to the SCOTUS. Still waiting on that one. Don't hold your breath.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:17,594
Points:343,740
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Mar 25, 2013 3:09:46 PM

Funny how effective giant corporations are at influencing the way you think, AC-302.

I don't 'google' things. I perform a net-search. I don't use a kleenex for a runny nose. I use a tissue. I don't put a bandaid on cuts, I use a bandage.

Corporate executives paid a lot of money to have people tossing their product names around as if these were words in the English language. Corporations also spend a lot of money on PR to do other things. Such as get people to think that raising the minimum wage would hurt our economy.

Ask one corporate executive of a giant and enormously profitable corporation which employes some low wage workers if the minimum wage should be raised and he will predictably tell you it should not.

Ask 100 low wage workers if the minimum wage should be raised and they will probably ALL tell you yes.

The majority of the nation thinks the minimum wage should be raised.

"Some 71 percent of those surveyed said they supported raising the federal minimum wage to $9 an hour from $7.25, while 27 percent opposed it, according to a Gallup Poll released Wednesday."

Have compassion. Don't side with the ruthless.

71%
Profile Pic
Cirdan
Champion Author Nevada

Posts:2,385
Points:133,205
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Mar 25, 2013 1:57:34 AM

James Madison made it perfectly clear in his writings that there is NOTHING in the Constitution that gives the Government to take money from one citizen and give it to another. General "welfare" does NOT mean what we use "welfare" for today.
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,048
Points:1,746,480
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Mar 24, 2013 11:13:15 AM

SemiSteve, >>"It is of no concern of Government how a private company rewards its employees as long as there is no violation of laws."

--Wrong. Government does more than enforce violations of laws. Government MAKES laws. According to a founding document which begins:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

--No part of "promote the general Welfare" means government should stay out of commerce among the States. Exactly the opposite. The federal government is TASKED WITH promoting the GENERAL welfare. That means widespread welfare, not just for those who get born into wealth or manage to fight, bite and scratch their way into it (often by cheating others). They are the few. That is not the general welfare. The general welfare is the many. Government should make and enforce laws which promote the welfare of the majority of the nation.<<
***
Steve, we've been over this before.

The Preamble states the goals of our Constitution. Article I, Section 8, enumerates the powers granted the Federal Government to accomplish the goals. It does not, however, give them "carte blanche' to do as they please. Just for the record, the Tenth Amendment clearly states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Once again, from the US Constitution, "8.3 To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"

AS you (or most people) can plainly see, the Government is NOT given authority to regulate how an employer compensates its employees. If an employer were to over compensate its employees, the business would have to either or both lower its quality of goods or services, or charge more for their goods and services. The free market would almost immediately begin correcting the over compensation.

Let's leave Government out of our daily decisions. It hasn't learned how to do what it is supposed to do.
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:29,021
Points:3,206,760
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Mar 23, 2013 1:51:31 PM

SemiSteve chided below: "You say there is only so much money and you think liberals don't understand that. Another misperception. This is your own reasoning but what you lack is anything to back it up. You can't offer a link that proves liberals think there is unlimited money. So why believe such a silly notion? Does it help you to demonize liberals and pretend they lack intelligence? Have you not met your match in wits against any number of us time and time again right here on these pages?"

--Hmmm.. let me think.. Oh yeah (and you can google this one) wasn't it Hillary Clinton that laughed and said (during her presidential bid) "There's not enough money in America to do everything that I want to do"? Here's another example - in California, our "Bullet train to nowhere" (also known as "the BROWN streak". Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown is pushing this train that has already been proven to be not economically feasible, and will cost BILLIONS that the good citizens of CA don't have and will have to borrow. The bullet train will never be able to cover it's costs, and they know it good and well. Yet our liberal politicians are shoving this up our collective anuses, much like ObamaCare on a national level. Unsustainable and rammed through against the will of the people.

And, Steve, I've matched wits with you for about 7 years on these pages. And you have said yourself that I do give you pause in especially making you think about the consequences of what you propose. Sometimes you vomit out ideas, hoping they stick to the wall. Mostly they don't, when I and others show you the real-world consequences of your proposals. Yes, I realize that your proposals sound good, and are intended to be humanistic. But is the ideal human condition REALLY to have someone over you to take care of you and force you to make decisions for the sum total of your life? I think not, nor do I think that having an overlord is "humanistic", not matter how "gentle" that beloved leader wants to be. And while you want to suggest that everyone should be "the same", the truth is that we're not all "the same". Everyone has different abilities and different capabilities. I couldn't step in today and fix your machinery. I could LEARN it quickly, but I don't know it now. And I doubt you could program some of the machines I know, nor could you diagnose problems based on outputs. Though I suspect I could teach you quite a bit about it in 6 months or so.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:25,869
Points:1,261,925
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Mar 22, 2013 5:23:31 PM

Steve - we disagree - the real takers in this country are those who are supported by the rest of us and who don't contribute to pay the bills. The folks who are the innovators and company builders are the ones who ultimately support the takers.

Yes there is need of regulations to protect the country and to make it a more level playing field for everyone. But IMHO the regulators are going too far these days and the economy is showing the strains.

We have a very high percentage of people of working age who are not working, we have many companies moving more and more operations overseas, we have more and more regulations making it harder and harder to run a company here, youth employment is plummeting as the expense to have workers keeps going up. TANSTAAFL Steve.

Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:17,594
Points:343,740
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Mar 22, 2013 4:46:09 PM

Paying workers a wage which can not be lived on is taking advantage of their misfortune. It is getting rich by stepping on the poor.

"It is of no concern of Government how a private company rewards its employees as long as there is no violation of laws."

--Wrong. Government does more than enforce violations of laws. Government MAKES laws. According to a founding document which begins:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

--No part of "promote the general Welfare" means government should stay out of commerce among the States. Exactly the opposite. The federal government is TASKED WITH promoting the GENERAL welfare. That means widespread welfare, not just for those who get born into wealth or manage to fight, bite and scratch their way into it (often by cheating others). They are the few. That is not the general welfare. The general welfare is the many. Government should make and enforce laws which promote the welfare of the majority of the nation.

And don't mistake that word for the assistance programs. As we all agree, taking wealth away from some and spreading it around to those who didn't work for it can not be sustainable on a widespread basis. Especially if the earners become fewer and fewer and the needy become more numerous.

The concept is to regulate capitalism so that it flourishes and blooms with widespread opportunity; so that people have a chance to work and provide a good life for themselves and their family. That is getting more and more difficult as the greedy and powerful manipulate government.

If we stopped regulating capitalism and just let the barons do whatever they feel like things would be worse. Without government protections products would be nothing but come-ons and workers would cheated out of reasonable incomes. There would be no general welfare.

The real takers in this country are the greedy and powerful. Government needs to act to thwart their selfish actions to ensure healthy thriving commerce. THAT provides for the general welfare.

Profile Pic
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,296
Points:39,040
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Mar 22, 2013 3:00:28 PM

Here in New York we have the highest per-pupil educational costs in the nation, many @ $20,000 plus per year per pupil, plus some of the highest paid teachers in the nation, yet many of our graduation rates are extremely poor.

Many of our relatives have kids that go to school systems with graduation rates of about 60%.

Many of those that don't drop out barely squeak by. Like many of our job applicants, many have failed relatively simple aptitude tests.

Physical fitness is very poor as well, hence why many can't pass physical fitness assessments either.

Profile Pic
daylily2009
Champion Author Fayetteville

Posts:1,889
Points:879,105
Joined:Oct 2009
Message Posted: Mar 22, 2013 11:35:32 AM

Why?
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:12,380
Points:1,616,940
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Mar 22, 2013 11:20:35 AM

mj: "In many regions it's hard to find job seekers with HS diplomas, reliable transportation and driver's licenses that can pass background checks, DMV checks, drug testing, aptitude tests and physical fitness assessments, let alone find job seekers with education, knowledge, skills and experience."


Just read that 80% of the kids that graduate from NY City schools can't read well enough to start college. Mind you, this percentage is among those that get their diploma. It doesn't even count the 35% or so that dropped out. That means that of those who start high school in NYC public schools only 13% leave high school with a diploma and sufficient reading skills to start college. Put another way, the vast majority of the remaining 87% who started high school will more than likely end up being takers on public assistance as soon as they are old enough to collect benefits, because they lack even the most basic skills necessary to hold a job.

80% of NYC high school graduates can't read well enough to start college


mudtoe
Profile Pic
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,296
Points:39,040
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Mar 22, 2013 10:31:09 AM

I started working when I was 12 performing jobs where pay was based on the job, piece rate or performance. I picked rocks, harvested crops, tied vines, dragged trees/brush, stacked hay, fed livestock, tended to horses, delivered newspapers, shoveled snow, shoveled roofs, raked leaves, mowed lawns, painted etc.

Much of my pay was based on barter, or a combination or pay and barter.

I had to knock on hundreds of doors, advertise and network with others to find work.

When I was 14, I hired some older classmates that could drive since I had many customers and/or many potential jobs/customers, but wasn't old enough to drive.

By the time I was 16 I acquired numerous high demand skills in construction, plumbing, electrical, heating, cooling, welding, carpentry, metal fabrication, hydraulics, pneumatics, automotive/marine mechanical, heavy equipment operation - too much too list.

These days it's pretty common for us to have literally dozens of job applicants for a single job that have zero high demand skills, or experience.

Rules, regulations, wage mandates, liability, labor laws and brutal competition have made it tough for many to find jobs, so many will have to start in the underground self-employment economy like myself, much of my family and many of my friends and classmates did.

It's pretty rare to see anyone knocking on doors looking for work like we did when we were younger.

Profile Pic
Cirdan
Champion Author Nevada

Posts:2,385
Points:133,205
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Mar 21, 2013 11:48:37 PM

We need "starter" jobs so unemployed people can demonstrate they are capable of working. Loved it when my nephews got jobs at McDonalds. Yeah, it's minimum wage and you can't make a career out of McDonalds. But, it teaches you to be reliable (show up), deal with customers, and work as part of a team. From McDonalds, you move onward and upward.

My first job, at age 15, was washing dishes in a greasy spoon restaurant. It taught me to work, to earn my own way, and that I never wanted to do that job again. That's motivational. Now I'm a professional, manager, with multiple college degrees.

It's well established among serious Economists (not Liberal pundits) that the minimum wage screws minorities and teens, because it takes away that first step -- the starter job. Too much of liberalism is wishful thinking without regard to the real world consequences. Minimum wage increase hurt, not help, the poor by denying them opportunities.
Profile Pic
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,296
Points:39,040
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Mar 20, 2013 11:50:36 AM

"Seventy-two percent of employers at big companies and 58 percent at small ones say there is a "great deal" or "some" opportunity for worker advancement. But, asked the same question, 67 percent of all low-wage workers said they saw "a little" or "no opportunity" at their jobs for advancement."

This is just another example of the pessimistic defeatist attitudes shared by many unsuccessful workers.

My 19 year old niece moved up from cashier to management in less than a year, yet many that she now manages claim they're working dead end jobs.

Truth be told many never move up the ladder since they're lazy, poor performers, slow learners and turn down hours, second/third shifts, nights, weekends, overtime, holidays, transfers - too much to list.
Profile Pic
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,296
Points:39,040
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Mar 20, 2013 11:39:54 AM

"Yet 44 percent of employers surveyed said it's hard to recruit people with appropriate skills or experiences to do lower-wage jobs, particularly in manufacturing (54 percent)."

In many regions it's hard to find job seekers with HS diplomas, reliable transportation and driver's licenses that can pass background checks, DMV checks, drug testing, aptitude tests and physical fitness assessments, let alone find job seekers with education, knowledge, skills and experience.

That's the short list. Many will have a hard time finding/keeping jobs due to the way they look, act, dress, speak, write, poor attitudes, poor work ethic, poor performance.

I'm amazed how many job seekers show up late for interviews.

Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,478
Points:2,825,055
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Mar 20, 2013 10:56:24 AM

Before Obama was president, was anyone worrying about what the minimum wage was?
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,048
Points:1,746,480
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Mar 20, 2013 10:55:04 AM

SemiSteve, >>So why are we here? To benefit the chosen few or to have a nation with abundant prosperity? If we want a good life for as many as possible then we MUST actively regulate commerce. We MUST raise the minimum wage and we MUST tie it to inflation thereafter.<<
***
No, we MUST MIND OUR OWN BUSINESS. It is of no concern of Government how a private company rewards its employees as long as there is no violation of laws. Any employee that is underpaid or feels they deserve better can leave a company to improve themselves.

If you want to persue the redistribution theme, why not begin with Federal Government? Demand (and we have the right to) they immediately put an end to their junkets, pork filled bills, free "Cadillac' Health Insurance and many other perks that we don't even know about? Maybe their austerity WITH OUR MONEY might just catch on. In the event it doesn't, there will be more money in workers pockets with which they can more prudently use to pursue happiness.

Post a reply Back to Topics