Question for Minimum Wage supporters

Discussion in 'Economics & Trade' started by Oxymoron, Aug 29, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Ted

    Ted Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    Messages:
    3,132
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Does the below argument make sense???
    you don't actually want a minimum wage since that would make it illegal to hire folks who are not worth the minimum wage.
     
  2. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2008
    Messages:
    8,968
    Likes Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    48
    why would you want to employ people no worth paying?
     
  3. Ted

    Ted Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    Messages:
    3,132
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    nobody said you would???? you would want to employ people and pay them what they were worth. Not all people are worth, say, $100/hour.
    now do you understand?
     
  4. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2008
    Messages:
    8,968
    Likes Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    48
    English is your first language?
     
  5. Ted

    Ted Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    Messages:
    3,132
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    why not try to explain what you don't understand??
     
  6. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2008
    Messages:
    8,968
    Likes Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I also understand that if we do not have some limitations on the market, then a fair free market place is impossible to achieve. The key is to find limitations and controls that are based on facts and figures rather then arbitrary off the wall numbers.
     
  7. WJV

    WJV Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2016
    Messages:
    939
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It doesnt make any sense to base min wage hourly pay on on a full time week of work because like I said most people working low wage jobs are on welfare and most min wage jobs are not full time. There are 50 million Americans getting some form of government assistance. Min wage does not cover basic needs.

    http://www.ibtimes.com/welfare-amer...rs-use-food-stamps-housing-assistance-2300713

    You can assume all you like but it doesnt change the fact that all of these low wage workers are on welfare. These people are working 40 hours per week. They still need welfare.

    And if you do not think that welfare should cover basic needs then you are saying that you are happy for the unemployed and underemployed to live like badly fed animals. Welfare must cover basic needs not an hourly rate of pay based on 40 hours per week of min wage pay when most min wage jobs are not full time and and the world is moving away from full time jobs for low income workers.

    edit - Not only are people seeking a living wage - but we are also moving to a 30 hour work week. Which makes sense because we have too many workers. Part time work is the new normal. And whipping these people like slaves into 40 hours of work per week that they cannot find is no solution. You seem to love the idea of a slave working 50 or 60 hours per week on low wage jobs - but we need to make it illegal for low income workers to work too many hours or jobs because they need to be spread out. The low income worker that takes on more than 40 hours per week of work is a job hog and a problem.

    edit - And when there are 50 million low income workers needing welfare then how many of these hard working low income workers that take on more than one job and work more than 40 hours per week can there be that do not still require welfare? Not many if any.

    You only bring up this mythical low wage worker that works three jobs and 60 hours per week to support themselves and family to imply that anyone that is on welfare and isnt working 60 hours per week is somehow lazy and their circumstance is their own fault. What else?

    Did you work at McDonalds early in your upward mobility climb? You know how it is do you?
     
  8. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    one that competes favorably with the cost of social services.
     
  9. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    you are making simple assumptions. wages for that sector won't cause that much inflation. in any case; why more worry about wages that helps fellow Persons, and not price inflation for fuel due to republican policies? how bad was price inflation for fuel.
     
  10. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2008
    Messages:
    8,968
    Likes Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    48
    meaningless words with no substance.
     
  11. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    if social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, by equivalence; then a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage makes sense.
     
  12. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2008
    Messages:
    8,968
    Likes Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Would it? Also is this on state or federal level?
     
  13. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    20,296
    Likes Received:
    7,744
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The founders of this nation created tariffs. We lived under them, until neoliberalism took over, and this scheme of free trade was born, for one intent. To create greater disparity in wealth and income to favor the top dogs.

    This idea about being competitive globally is also a scheme, to lower wages for workers in America. The thinking about trade is convoluted, and is concerned not about employing americans, but about benefitting the owner class. For if each nation wants to employ the maximum number of its own people, they will employ them in making what these workers consume in goods and services. This is so simple, and no one seems smart enough to see it. If you must depend upon selling your manufactured goods to another nation to employ your people, you just took jobs away from the nation you are selling to. For they should be making the products you sell to them. And if we are buying our goods from china, we are employing them, when we should be employing our own people making those same goods. The only reason we offshore is to max out owner profits. Which creates unemployment here.

    What should be the purpose of a nation's economic model? Well, since people have to work to eat, to survive, the purpose should be to employ your own people. Rocket science, huh? But that is not the purpose of our current economic model. We run trade deficits, with our free trade partners, because some of our owners max out their profits by these deficits. If trade does not run close to zero deficit or surplus one nation's people are unemployed. What feeds these unemployed? Taxes being redistributed, so no free lunch here. We redistribute taxes so that our owners can max out their profits in slave labor nations overseas.

    So, if want an economic model that has the purpose of employing you own people, you will make all that you consume in goods and services, and trade then is done only in minimal amounts as not to hurt the employment in every trading partner, and to maintain good relations. And the trade would involve goods that we cannot provide, like French wine, speciality items and raw materials. So being globally competitive is not necessary. And you use tariffs to protect your workers and industry from slave wages overseas. Like we did from the founding until neoliberalism took over, supply side economics, trickle down madness.

    Economic models are now structured with one interest in mind. To benefit the owner class, instead of being an engine to provide essential jobs for your own people so they can survive without taxing others and redistributing so owners can max out their own income. It is an elite scheme, and most economists support it. But it is irrational, illogical, unreasonable and totally lacks a moral compass.
     
    Jonsa likes this.
  14. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I believe it is on a national level. There is nothing preventing States from implementing higher minimums.
     
  15. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2008
    Messages:
    8,968
    Likes Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Question is what is the minimum wage based on?
     
  16. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Federal poverty guidelines?
     
  17. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why should the government be subsidizing under-compensation for labor by employers? There are only two reasons why an employer doesn't provide the compensation necessary for their employee to live on.

    1. The employer is greedy and is profiting by undercompensating their employee(s).
    2. The employer is an incompetent business person that doesn't know how to create, follow, and modify a business plan to accommodate business expenditures.

    There are no other reasons for under compensation for labor and the government should not be subsidizing greed and/or incompetence.
     
  18. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    A minimum wage competing favorably with the cost of social services, by equivalent; conforms to rational choice theory.
     
  19. Jackster

    Jackster New Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2012
    Messages:
    3,275
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And where exactly does government get this magic money from?

    Oh they get by taking from business and their employees. Dont they have it great - when a company is in profit they basically take X% of profits without ever buying one single share. When a company is in loss they still tax the employees wages - paid by the business.
    Of course government can get money by selling debt, they basically sell the promise to take more money from business and their employees. Get it, NO business NO employees, NO money for govt. Everything they get is taken from business in one way, shape or form. So allowing business to keep more of what they give is hardly a handout. In fact all the govt does is take handouts. It is the incompetent structure that cant survive without leaching off the success of others.

    I dont understand the left and their support for the min wage tbh. Dont you guys want other people to stop interfering in the choices of others? Yet you fight tooth and nail to stop people who might want to work cheap to gain the experience all based on some Morals that god gave you. Oh not god you say.....where did they come from then? Why should your morals be forced onto others and their not on you?
     
  20. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2008
    Messages:
    8,968
    Likes Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Which are based on what?
     
  21. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    It is about privatizing costs instead of socializing costs. A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage helps accomplish that.
     
  22. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Believing as I do that most Americans oppose government subsidies to fund the greed and/or incompetence of the owners of enterprise the funding is predominately coming from those that oppose under-compensation for employment the necessitates welfare assistance for working households in America.

    Based upon political ideologies it's the Republicans that are the advocates for greed and incompetence in enterprise we can assume that they're also the default advocates for welfare assistance to working households that under-compensation necessitates.
     
  23. Ted

    Ted Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    Messages:
    3,132
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    actually if govt would stop welfare then compensation would have to go up. If a job didn't pay a living wage nobody would have a reason to take it. The more libturd govt pays the less a business has to pay and the less it wants to pay since it is paying for the welfare in taxes already. 1+1=2
     
  24. liberalminority

    liberalminority Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Messages:
    25,273
    Likes Received:
    1,633
    Trophy Points:
    113
    the free market only includes America, not other countries who use slaves for cheap labor.

    tariffs are necessary to protect the free market.
     
  25. liberalminority

    liberalminority Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Messages:
    25,273
    Likes Received:
    1,633
    Trophy Points:
    113
    raising the minimum wage to outpace inflation does work and it makes the poor feel good temporarily, but it is a trick by the rich to keep them fooled until they return to poverty shortly after the elections from higher cost of living.

    the poor are entitled to a more permanent or longer lasting fix for lower wages, such as tariffs and a huge wall on the borders to prevent the rich from using cheap labor both on shore and off shore.

    the moral compass of the west is dictated by the greed of its rich, where they get richer taking away wealth from their poor to give it to other poor, who they feel are more worthy of a better life. if the rich are truly holier than thou to be the deciders, they ought to be the ones who make the bigger sacrifices of their lifestyles to save the world.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page