Originally posted by Freethinker
Horse. Fucking. Shit.

America's success is almost entirely due to the stealing of one of the most untouched, temperate, agricultural and mineral rich areas in the world from the indigenous people living there, and then building a sizeable portion of it on slave labor.

FT,

Before the coming of Europeans to the continent it was completely underutilized. Societies of hunter gatherers with a few farming societies interspersed did not make use of the land. They had not even invented the wheel. Had Europeans not discovered the 'New World' the people would most likely still be living a neolithic life.

As for a sizeable portioin of the country being built on slave labor, that is pure baloney. The vast majority of the country was not built on slave labor but on the hard work of immigrants. Slavery in the northern part of the state was almost noe-existent and completely non-existent very early in our history. Slavery in the south was concentrated mainly in areas growing cotton, rice and indigo. While they were important to the southern economy, they were less important to the national economy which was dominated by the New England and Mid-Atlantic states. The north was industrialized while the south was agricultural. Had the majority of the wealth of this country been built on slave labor the South would have won the Civil War.

Originally posted by Frogger
FT,

Before the coming of Europeans to the continent it was completely underutilized. Societies of hunter gatherers with a few farming societies interspersed did not make use of the land.

I see.

So if I see someone who has something, and they are *not using it*, I should feel free to kill them and take it, so that it will be "fully utilized".


Originally posted by Frogger
Had Europeans not discovered the 'New World' the people would most likely still be living a neolithic life.

And the planet would be TREMENDOUSLY LESS polluted.

Originally posted by Frogger
As for a sizeable portion of the country being built on slave labor, that is pure baloney........While they were important to the southern economy.......

I would say that the entire Southern states' agricultural economy was indeed a *sizeable portion* of America's economy.

If the People have no food to eat, it's a tad difficult to maintain or build *an economy*.

FT,

Since we disagree so fully we could spend the entire evening going in circles. You believe we raped the country. I believe we utilized it. You believe slavery is the defining subject of this country. I don't.

You are not going to convince me to change my mind and I am not going to convince you to change yours.


Let's just agree to disagree.

Originally posted by Frogger
You believe we raped the country.

Uhh....yeah.....carrying out a campaign of genocide against the native populace in order to steal their land would qualify as *rape*, I think.

Originally posted by Frogger
You believe slavery is the defining subject of this country.

I do??!

Hmmm...I don't seem to recall saying that.


Originally posted by Frogger
Let's just agree to disagree.


How unbelievably magnanimous of you Righties to "agree to disagree".........

____________________________

In and of itself, the arrogance, bragging and smugness of the Rightwing would not seem so hateful except for two reasons: it is based on falsehood and deception and it is based on the deprivation and diminution of people in places that are not the USA. Arrogance and bragging are not in themselves major hateful qualities but when they are coupled with cruelty, hypocrisy, cheating and savagery, they become almost unbearable. It is the glaring contradiction of the 'greatness of America' with the depredations and barbarity of America that leads one into despising the country in which one was born. Perhaps this is what many foreigners see -- the lie, the ugly lie that is so infuriating. Perhaps they see the democracy that elects venal fools, the corporate-controlled Media that controls the citizens minds, the arrogance of the rich, the degradation of the poor, the racial hatred, the religious intolerance, the callous disregard for the destruction of the environment ----- all the wonderful and great things that God has bestowed upon his favorite people._______anon

Originally posted by Frogger
$827 per week is over $43,000 a year, hardly slave wages,

And a fair amount more than I made right out of law school, I might add. Cry me a freaking river.

Holy fucking shit. This is about minimum wage, not you subsidizing my job. The two are completely different. Unions don't have any relevance to this thread at all. That is a different argument altogether. Quit changing the damn subject when you can't win the argument. The minimum wage needs to be updated to fit modern times. There is no way anybody should be working for $5.15 an hour. Not everybody can go to vocational school right off the bat. Some people have to work towards it. In many cases, minimum wage jobs are all they have. The only reason an employer pays minimum wage is because he cannot get away with paying a lower wage. No job is worth it. That is slave labor in today's economy. It's worse than slave labor, because at least a slave got a roof over his head and a cot to sleep on. (No beatings though)

I have already established that Prea is a hypocritical asshole who thinks people who aren't as smart or as wealthy as he is deserve to be shit on. Instead of answering me, he quibbles on some issue far from the original topic. He would rather convince himself of any half-baked, crackpot theory on how he is somehow better than the people he stepped on to get where he is at. They are either lazy, stupid, or not ambitious enough, according to him. In reality, wealth is assigned by pure dumb luck. Only a select few receive the education and the mental capacity, and the right environment to chase wealth. The rest are shit out of luck, and are doomed to live a mediocre existance by modern western standards. Prea reminds me of a new-ager, and it pisses me off the same way that the new-agers piss off Blob. Only, I have more respect for the new-ager, because the new-ager at least isn't physically shitting on everybody lower than him, only verbally.

When I confront him with these things, all he has to say is, "Don't like it? Leave America!!!111" This is because he cannot bear to hear anything remotely suggest that he doesn't deserve his wealth, his Bentley, his consumptous western lifestyle, and acts like we are trying to take it away from him and all other manner of straw men. He complains that we are somehow deluded, because we do not share his superiority complex. He lives in a black and white world where liberals are communists and capitalists are gods. If they aren't as rich or as wealthy as he is, well then they are just stupid.

Originally posted by Freethinker
If I had the requisite finances, i W-O-U-L-D.

T-O-N-I-G-H-T.


How much you need?:banana:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Frogger
Let's just agree to disagree.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response by Free thinker

How unbelievably magnanimous of you Righties to "agree to disagree".........

I guess I could have just called you a fuckin' idiot who didn't know shit from Shineola. Instead, I figured that rather than getting into an argument neither of us could win I would just agree to disagree. That seem to have pissed you off for some reason.

Oh, well, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree about how magnanimous we Righties are.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Freethinker
[B]Uhh....yeah.....carrying out a campaign of genocide against the native populace in order to steal their land would qualify as *rape*, I think.



Freethinker,

I am a descendant of early colonial settlers. (Massachusetts Bay Colony;Plymouth Colony). I have done extensive research on these people, and others like them. I take exception to them being called thieves. This is not correct.

I would be glad to direct you to where original documents are kept, which show purchase of said land.

Yes, I will agree that some settlers used various wrong means to gain title. To say that all of them did so is historically inaccurate.

They were also not dependent on slaves. As Puritans, they looked ill on that practice. They did their own work and farmed their own land. Some prospered, some didn't.

Just would like to clear this up.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
I have already established that Prea is a hypocritical asshole who thinks people who aren't as smart or as wealthy as he is deserve to be shit on.
I never said that.
Originally posted by Napsterbater
He would rather convince himself of any half-baked, crackpot theory on how he is somehow better than the people he stepped on to get where he is at.
For your information, I've stepped on nobody.
Originally posted by Napsterbater
Prea reminds me of a new-ager, and it pisses me off the same way that the new-agers piss off Blob. Only, I have more respect for the new-ager, because the new-ager at least isn't physically shitting on everybody lower than him, only verbally.
I'm not familiar with the "new-ager" concept - will you enlighten me please?
Originally posted by Napsterbater
This is because he cannot bear to hear anything remotely suggest that he doesn't deserve his wealth, his Bentley, his consumptous western lifestyle, and acts like we are trying to take it away from him and all other manner of straw men.
I don't have a Bentley (yet), and you'll never take my wealth away. In short, I care about people like you, for who else is going to fetch me coffee or collate my checks? You people ARE important, and honestly...I don't want you to forget it! :)
Originally posted by Napsterbater
He complains that we are somehow deluded...
And you're saying you're not??? Hey, pal, at least I'm living in a country I like without pretension. As far as you're concerned, well....I guess that's another story. On the other hand, I suppose you have a special right to life. Well, good for you........now prove it.
Originally posted by Napsterbater
He lives in a black and white world where liberals are communists and capitalists are gods.
Nonsense. Capitalists are certainly not Gods...
Originally posted by Napsterbater
If they aren't as rich or as wealthy as he is, well then they are just stupid.
That's simply not true.

You're forgetting lazy, crippled, or mentally retarded. Big difference.
Originally posted by Napsterbater
Quit changing the damn subject when you can't win the argument.
"Can't win the argument"??? LOL. That's funny considering the fact that I've already won it. Weren't you the visionary who suggested raising minimum wage to $10.00 an hour, and then backtracked when you realized how positively stupid that was? Like you don't think the cost of goods and services is affected by the lowest common denominator: the workingman's wage? Get real.

In summation, I suppose I should have some sympathy for your handicap. If you're going to say something that ignorant in the future, then do yourself a favor, and at least fake a stroke first.

Originally posted by Echo2 If you want to earn more money, don't whine at the government to force your employer to pay you more, learn a skill, go to school, find a market.

Response by Napsterbater Nobody should have to do these things just to get by in life. If you want more out of life, then so be it, but no one should be forced to go to school, which is expensive, start a business, which doesn't always work, or learn a skilled trade, which can take years; just to get by.

And herein lies the problem. You don't think that people should learn or know how to do something yet they should still get paid a high wages for doing it. As an employer I sure as hell would not hire someone who is too lazy or too stupid to take the time to learn a skill.

For the record, nobody gets a good paying job who has the attitude that you do.

The idea that the government should force business's to pay high wages to someone who doesn't think anyone should have to learn a trade or skill is rediculous. Those too lazy to learn too impatient to take the time to learn or too stupid to learn should not be rewarded for their failings.

99% of the working people in this country start at the bottom and work their way up. Even college graduates start at the bottom of the management levels. One gets better pay by getting better at what they do, practicing those skills and learning.

Maybe you should invest you savings in an auto shop and then be forced to hire idiots with no skill or education to work for $10 an hour. See how long your business stays afloat.


We are not all born equal. However in America we all have an equal oppotrtunity to succeed. Success takes; ability (skills), motivation ( the fortitude to wade through the learning process- to get those skills) and attitude (the determination to do ones best and not rely on others to make things happen)..

For your information, I've stepped on nobody. What do you call doing business with slave owners?

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
What do you call doing business with slave owners?
They're doing the stepping, not me, and FYI - I’m not dealing with the Saudi Royal Family directly. It's primarily through Royal Dutch Shell, and at this moment, it hasn’t happened yet, so how have I stepped on anyone?

Originally posted by Frogger

I guess I could have just called you a fuckin' idiot who didn't know shit from Shineola.

I see it as pretty much the same thing.

The way i see it, the ""let's agree to disagree" proviso from the Rightwingers comes ONLY because they possess ALL the power in this country......it comes, IOW, with the explicit understanding that THEY will be still continue making all the decisions, and that people with progressive, rational ideas can take a fucking hike.

THAT is the reason for my angry response.

Originally posted by Echo2, responding to Napsterbater

For the record, nobody gets a good paying job who has the attitude that you do.

I disagree.

GW Bush was awarded the job of running the most powerful nation on earth, and he has a far worse attitude than Napster (i.e., smirking, elitist, aloof, authoritarian, reactionary, know-nothing-and-proud-of-it)------PLUS, he's a complete fucking imbecile with little skill at running ANYTHING, much less an entire country.

For your information, I've stepped on nobody.

Maybe not directly, but if you are the kind of asshole that would pay a person the equivalent of slave labor to do your shit work...

I'm not familiar with the "new-ager" concept - will you enlighten me please?

http://www.allforums.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13703

This is the thread where Blob and I discussed new-agism.

In short, I care about people like you, for who else is going to fetch me coffee or collate my checks? You people ARE important, and honestly...I don't want you to forget it!

That is exactly the kind of attitude that would lead me to beat the living fuck out of you. You were probably cheering for Gary Cole's character in Office Space.

On the other hand, I suppose you have a special right to life. Well, good for you........now prove it.

Come around Salt Lake City sometime, and I will.

Weren't you the visionary who suggested raising minimum wage to $10.00 an hour, and then backtracked when you realized how positively stupid that was?

I stand by that declaration. I don't take back anything. If I had to hire somebody, I would pay him at least $10. If I can't afford it, I would do the work myself, or change my business model.

The idea that the government should force business's to pay high wages to someone who doesn't think anyone should have to learn a trade or skill is rediculous.

$10 an hour is not a high wage!

As an employer I sure as hell would not hire someone who is too lazy or too stupid to take the time to learn a skill.

So hire people with skills! You can bet your ass they won't work for minimum wage though.

99% of the working people in this country start at the bottom and work their way up. Even college graduates start at the bottom of the management levels. One gets better pay by getting better at what they do, practicing those skills and learning.

Nobody is arguing that.

Maybe you should invest you savings in an auto shop and then be forced to hire idiots with no skill or education to work for $10 an hour. See how long your business stays afloat.

Auto shops do not pay minimum wage.

However in America we all have an equal oppotrtunity to succeed. Success takes; ability (skills), motivation ( the fortitude to wade through the learning process- to get those skills) and attitude (the determination to do ones best and not rely on others to make things happen)..

$10 an hour is not success! It is just getting by. Why the fuck do you people fly around on this? If a person can do a job, he should get paid for it! $5.15 an hour is slave labor! If he/she cannot do the job, fire him, but if he can, he deserves a decent wage.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
That is exactly the kind of attitude that would lead me to beat the living fuck out of you.
Yeah, that picture of you with your little gay dog (Orion, or whatever) is pretty menacing. LOL.
Originally posted by Napsterbater
You were probably cheering for Gary Cole's character in Office Space.
No, but I was a pretty big fan of the Bobs. ;)

Yeah, that picture of you with your little gay dog (Orion, or whatever) is pretty menacing. LOL.

Some of the best fighters in the world look like pipsqeaks. Be careful you don't underestimate somebody when you are disrespecting them in person.

There are people who have no skills, no education above high school and not a whole lot of common sense, Why the hell should employers be forced to pay high wages to someone who will never be able to do more than physical labor. If dishwashers, , lettuce pickers, day laborers, pump jockeys, etc got paid a higher wage, the cost of goods and services would go up and then that $10. an hour that you want them to get would be worth about $4. so they would be in the same boat as before. They would be making more money, but the cost of living would keep them at poverty level anyway.

A free market sets wages that are equivelant to ones abilities. Some people just don't have a lot of abilities.

Well said, Echo. Well said Echo. said Echo. Echo. cho. o.

Originally posted by Echo2
There are people who have no skills, no education above high school and not a whole lot of common sense, Why the hell should employers be forced to pay high wages to someone who will never be able to do more than physical labor. If dishwashers, , lettuce pickers, day laborers, pump jockeys, etc got paid a higher wage, the cost of goods and services would go up and then that $10. an hour that you want them to get would be worth about $4. so they would be in the same boat as before. They would be making more money, but the cost of living would keep them at poverty level anyway.

A free market sets wages that are equivelant to ones abilities. Some people just don't have a lot of abilities.

Apparently, you and Frogger completely missed the last minimum wage hike. I actually worked in a grocery store as a sacker when that happened and got a close up view of it. None of the dire predictions you make were true, and have been proven to be untrue. Do you really think minimum wage salaries influence the cost of goods THAT much? Believe it or not, there're are far more costly factors involved in bringing goods to store shelves than paying the minimum wage guys that stock the shelves.

Let's try an example for you two. Imagine you run a Superwalmart. Let's say you have an average of 30 employees in the store at a time. Now, there's a minimum wage hike, and as a result, you have to increase all of their salaries by 2 dollars an hour. So let's do the math: $2 x 30 empoyees x 24 hours in a day.....so the store has to make an additional 1440 dollars in revenue daily. Now let's say this is a Superwalmart that makes REALLY bad business and they only get 1440 customers daily. That means each customer would have to pay a dollar more per purchase....hardly the dire increase in cost of goods that you people predict.

Honestly, I don't think you people understand just how huge the Man's cut is in running businesses.

Because physical labor is hard fucking work, if you've ever done it yourself. I sure have. Again, $10 an hour is not a high wage! I've never seen a day laborer get paid minimum wage. In fact, most labor-type positions get paid a few dollars over state minimum wage. This is due to the free market effect you are talking about. Changing the minimum wage will only affect employers who actually pay minimum wage, or below the new minimum wage. There aren't as many as you might think. And you are wrong if you think that the cost of goods and services will go up significantly, to the point that the poor would be in the same boat. Labor costs are only a small piece of business overhead. Lots of people thought the economy would get crushed when gas prices rose to the level they are at now. Prices sure went up, and the sqeeze definately hurt the poor, but that is only because wages didn't go up as well.

The economy needs to place the burden of tougher prices on those who are more able to bear the burden. Forcing employers to bear this burden is an expediant way of doing this. Ideally, we could force the rich and corporations to actually pay taxes, then re-route that cash into social programs for the poor, or outright wealth redistribution, (to counter the effect of "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer") But raising the minimum wage is something we can do, that would meet less hurdles in Congress. I doubt we could shoot for $10, but $7 shouldn't be all that hard.

And let me preempt your next stupid argument. Do not try to argue that the rich don't pay taxes, or how bad an idea wealth redistribution would be, because we are talking about minimum wage right now. I can't believe I actually have to say it.

Leper,

It is not my responsibility to subsidize your wage increase no matter what the cost to me.

Your rosey picture of Walmart, not just any Walmart but a Superwalmart, is just that, a rosey picture. Walmart prices items very close to the bone so the figure you mention of $1,440 might represent a pretty big number to them. Remember, we are talking $1,440 more in profit which translates to $10,080 per week or more than a half million dollars a year.

You were a bagger earning minimum wage. I hate to break it to you, Leper, but all a bagger deserves is minimum wage.

The economy needs to place the burden of tougher prices on those who are more able to bear the burden. Forcing employers to bear this burden is an expediant way of doing this.

The old redistribute the wealth from the evil rich argument again, Napsterbater. Why do some people seem to always feel the rich should be punished for being rich?

Besides, this would not hurt the rich as much as it would hurt the middle class and those who are making not all that much above minimum wage themselves. Why should anyone be forced to pay more so that someone else can earn more?

Remember, we are talking $1,440 more in profit which translates to $10,080 per week or more than a half million dollars a year.

No, we are talking about a company with a zillion dollar legal team to force their way into communities that don't want them. Trust me, Wal-mart will survive.

I hate to break it to you, Leper, but all a bagger deserves is minimum wage.

I hate to break it to you, but all you deserve is a punch in the face, Frogger.

Why do some people seem to always feel the rich should be punished for being rich?

They are not being punished! They are being forced to carry their fair share of the burden!

Besides, this would not hurt the rich as much as it would hurt the middle class and those who are making not all that much above minimum wage themselves.

How can making MORE money hurt them, huh?

Why should anyone be forced to pay more so that someone else can earn more?

To bring wages in line with costs of living, and to help people get out of wage slavery.

I hate to break it to you, Leper, but all a bagger deserves is minimum wage. Yes of course. I agree. So now on to the discussion we should raise minimum wage...

Originally posted by Leper
Let's try an example for you two. Imagine you run a Superwalmart. Let's say you have an average of 30 employees in the store at a time. Now, there's a minimum wage hike, and as a result, you have to increase all of their salaries by 2 dollars an hour. So let's do the math: $2 x 30 empoyees x 24 hours in a day.....so the store has to make an additional 1440 dollars in revenue daily. Now let's say this is a Superwalmart that makes REALLY bad business and they only get 1440 customers daily. That means each customer would have to pay a dollar more per purchase....hardly the dire increase in cost of goods that you people predict.

OK, instead let's say it's a relatively small family owned grocery store (they still exist in a few places) that is already under tremendous pricing pressure from large chains because they don't buy in huge volumes. Even the large chains like Kroger are under tremendous pressure because the profit margin is so thin. They bounce back and forth between loss and profit seemingly every quarter.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Again, $10 an hour is not a high wage!
. . .
I doubt we could shoot for $10, but $7 shouldn't be all that hard.

It's hard to have a decent debate if we can't decide what we're debating about. I'm absolutely opposed to a $10 minimum wage. A $7 wage is much more palatable because, as you point out, very few people are actually making minimum wage.

Even the large chains like Kroger are under tremendous pressure because the profit margin is so thin. They bounce back and forth between loss and profit seemingly every quarter.

These businesses are due for a reinvent. They cannot compete price-wise with Wal-mart, so they have to find another way to become profitable.

It's hard to have a decent debate if we can't decide what we're debating about. I'm absolutely opposed to a $10 minimum wage. A $7 wage is much more palatable because, as you point out, very few people are actually making minimum wage.

Most people would be opposed to a $10 minimum wage, that is why I stated that it was my opinion when I brought it up. I did not intend to argue for it. I am not afraid of sightly more radical changes, but I am willing to compromise. I will take whatever I can get, because $5.15 is damn close to slave labor.

Originally posted by Frogger
[B]Leper,

It is not my responsibility to subsidize your wage increase no matter what the cost to me.

You wouldn't be subsidizing anything. Unless you're a worker, you're the one being subsidized.

Workers making a better wage would not be given shit - they'd be recieving a greater portion of their own labor.

You were a bagger earning minimum wage. I hate to break it to you, Leper, but all a bagger deserves is minimum wage.

All a boss deserves is nothing. A boss's entire existence is based on living off the labor of others, a bagger is doing some very productive (and hard) work.

The old redistribute the wealth from the evil rich argument again, Napsterbater. Why do some people seem to always feel the rich should be punished for being rich?

Why should the products are labor produces be given to bosses? Why is there so much poverty in a world that can already produce enough to feed and clothe everyone?

Besides, this would not hurt the rich as much as it would hurt the middle class and those who are making not all that much above minimum wage themselves. Why should anyone be forced to pay more so that someone else can earn more?

Why should the rights of property be more important to you than the living standards of the majority?

The logical conclusion to draw from this entire conversation is that capitalism doesn't meet the needs of its own people. That undeniable fact is becoming more obvious, and the efforts to spin it will become more transparent and recognized for what it is, naked class interest.

The main theme I see here is that raising the minimum wage would be unpragmatic - despite how it may help the working class. This is actually true: in a society driven by profit, the needs of the majority are simply incidental.

Originally posted by Deepest Red
All a boss deserves is nothing. A boss's entire existence is based on living off the labor of others
Here I disagree greatly. Yes, there are plenty of leech managers, CEOs, and PHBs around. But I have had the great opportunity throughout my (short) working career to meet some absolutely great managers who actually care about their employees. And it's not just the lower-level store managers...our district manager is an asshole PHB, but the regional manager is a great guy whom I really like, and I despise manager-types. And the people at the top do all sorts of number-crunching, make all sorts of decisions, and in general work their asses off for the status they have, and more often than not, have earned.Lumping all bosses into the selfish, penny-pinching (except when it comes to their Bimmer), uncaring paradigm in the mold of Catbert is absolutely unfair. A fair number of them are Catberts, but the ones who are not deserve a lot of credit.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
These businesses are due for a reinvent. They cannot compete price-wise with Wal-mart, so they have to find another way to become profitable.

But the laborers who have no education or have not bettered themselves in any way so as to be able to earn more than minimum wage are under no corresponding obligation to become more competitive?

Originally posted by Napsterbater
I will take whatever I can get, because $5.15 is damn close to slave labor.

About $5.15 away from slave labor by my count.

Oregon's minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. Basically I pay more for my groceries so that some pimply faced 16 year old grocery bagger can earn twice what his job is worth.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Here I disagree greatly. Yes, there are plenty of leech managers, CEOs, and PHBs around. But I have had the great opportunity throughout my (short) working career to meet some absolutely great managers who actually care about their employees. And it's not just the lower-level store managers...our district manager is an asshole PHB, but the regional manager is a great guy whom I really like, and I despise manager-types. And the people at the top do all sorts of number-crunching, make all sorts of decisions, and in general work their asses off for the status they have, and more often than not, have earned.Lumping all bosses into the selfish, penny-pinching (except when it comes to their Bimmer), uncaring paradigm in the mold of Catbert is absolutely unfair. A fair number of them are Catberts, but the ones who are not deserve a lot of credit.

Those are elements of the middle class - managers in this case. That's not the Boss, the guy that has the ultimate say so, who you work for. The boss is the one who purchases your labor and profits from it. The average boss (an owner) does no useful work.

On top of that, in my experience, most managers do little work that's actually productive, and are still paid far higher than most workers.

It is what people dont understand. There is a way to make a better life, it is called college, it is called work. We dont need to raise the minimum wage at all. It can just raise the unemployment when all the people get laid off because the employers are paying more.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hate to break it to you, Leper, but all a bagger deserves is minimum wage.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I hate to break it to you, but all you deserve is a punch in the face, Frogger.

Now that's what I call a real adult statement, Napsterbater.

Originally posted by ConservativeMan
It is what people dont understand. There is a way to make a better life, it is called college, it is called work. We dont need to raise the minimum wage at all. It can just raise the unemployment when all the people get laid off because the employers are paying more.

Even if everyone had a college degree, some of them would have to clean public toilets. You already see that today, with the proliferation of college degrees and college students that can't find a job that meets their built-up expectations. Either way, the toilet cleaners are productive members of society and there's no good reason why they shouldn't live above the poverty line, too.

What you people can't admit to yourselves is that you NEED the minimum wage earners' labor to live the life you want to live.

Originally posted by Echo2
Oregon's minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. Basically I pay more for my groceries so that some pimply faced 16 year old grocery bagger can earn twice what his job is worth.

If you don't think their work is worth that, shop at a Sack n' Save.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
OK, instead let's say it's a relatively small family owned grocery store (they still exist in a few places) that is already under tremendous pricing pressure from large chains because they don't buy in huge volumes. Even the large chains like Kroger are under tremendous pressure because the profit margin is so thin. They bounce back and forth between loss and profit seemingly every quarter.


The reason only a few small, family-owned grocery stores still exist is because they've already been priced out. The ones that still exist are the ones that don't face the competition because they are in rural areas.

Face it, small businesses in a undiversified retail business are always going to fail without government subsidies, and that fact has nothing to do with minimum wage....that's just a result of large businesses having overwhelming efficiency compare to small businesses.

Now that's what I call a real adult statement, Napsterbater.

Cry me a river, Frogger. Disappointed that you didn't get your hug?

Why is my chair moving?

Oh, it's me shaking in my boots because Napsterbater wants to punch me in the face. Maybe I better run and hide before he gets me.

Nah, I think I'll take a nap instead.

http://cybergifs.com/faces/sleepy2.gif

Originally posted by Frogger

Oh, it's me shaking in my boots because Napsterbater wants to punch me in the face.

?!?!

Where did you get that?

There is realistically NO way for Napster to "punch you in the face", even if he wanted to.

He said that youdeserved one, not that he himself wanted to do it.

Nah, I think I'll take a nap instead.

Maybe you should find an answer to Leper's arguments instead.

There is realistically NO way for Napster to "punch you in the face", even if he wanted to.

Of course there isn't. People say lots of things behind the safety of internet anonymity that they wouldn't say in a face to face situation. It is easy to say someone deserves to be punched in the face because you disagree with them or don't like what they say. It doesn't add anything to the discussion though and is, in fact, a discussion stopper.

It doesn't add anything to the discussion though and is, in fact, a discussion stopper.

Now that's funny. This 'debate' thing isn't really your bag, is it, Frogger? Not too keen on discussion staples like logic, are you? Well, let me clue you in. See, it is YOU stopping the discussion, to bitch. I was making a point. You chose to ignore that point and whine in your loudest and most adult voice that, "Napster wants to punch me in the face!!!11 Mommy!!" That is what is really stopping this discussion. I made my point and moved on. You are the one who decided that the discussion at hand just wasn't important anymore. And I think I know why. Because you LOST! Now man up about it. You sound like that annoying kid nobody wants to play with. "Oh, it's me shaking in my boots because Napsterbater wants to punch me in the face. Maybe I better run and hide before he gets me." Does that look like sound debate tactics to you?

Originally posted by Deepest Red
Workers making a better wage would not be given shit - they'd be recieving a greater portion of their own labor.
For pushing a button, packing a bag, or collecting carts??? No, I think their job is deserving of no more than $2.50 an hour - well, either that, or their employer could spring for a free lobotomy, because that's a minimum requirement for someone who collects shopping carts for a living. Of course, on the other hand, their menial job can always be replaced with competent workers (read automation), that don't fuck around on the job, or take breaks while milking the clock for money they're NOT EARNING. (How long do you think it takes to train a grocery bagger, anyway?) Either that, or we can do away with minimum wage entirely, thus eliminating the need to hire Mexicans over Americans to stay profitable, but I guess that’s another conversation entirely.
Originally posted by Deepest Red
All a boss deserves is nothing. A boss's entire existence is based on living off the labor of others, a bagger is doing some very productive (and hard) work.
"A boss's entire existence is based on living off the labor of others", ay? That's pretty funny, because I'd look at it another way...your whole reason for being is based off the generosity of your boss being nice enough to employ your disgruntled ass. With an attitude like that, I don't think you're worth minimum wage, much less, $2.50 an hour...
Originally posted by Deepest Red
Why should the rights of property be more important to you than the living standards of the majority?
Because, luckily, as an American, I'm able to put my individual needs first without fear of some commie bureaucrat coming over to take my money for the sake of the "collective". If someone doesn't take the initiative, then I've got no sympathy for 'em.

This reminds me of a great scene in one of my personal favorites, "Glengarry Glen Ross":

Blake: You got leads (for a sales call). Mitch & Murray paid good money for 'em. If you can't close the leads you're given, you can't close shit; you are shit; hit the bricks pal, and beat it, 'cause you are going *out*!

Shelley Levene: The leads are weak.

Blake: "The leads are weak"??? The fucking leads are weak!?!? You're weak. I've been in this business fifteen years...

Dave Moss: What's your name?

Blake: Fuck you. That's my name. [Moss laughs]

Blake: You know why, mister? 'Cause you drove a Hyundai to get here tonight, and I drove an eighty thousand dollar BMW. *That's* my fucking name...

You wanna bitch about not being properly compensated - go cry me a river, assface, because in a dog eat dog world, if you choose not to find your niche, then prepare to be consumed by someone who isn't afraid to filet your ass. If you wanna live in a collective, then America isn't the country for you.
Originally posted by Deepest Red
The logical conclusion to draw from this entire conversation is that capitalism doesn't meet the needs of its own people.
How many astute, educated, or shrewd Americans are starving or homeless? Yep, that's what I thought. Hell, even our poor are fat, clothed, and living in Apts. – what’s your point???
Originally posted by Deepest Red
This is actually true: in a society driven by profit, the needs of the majority are simply incidental.
I agree with that...

For pushing a button, packing a bag, or collecting carts??? No, I think their job is deserving of no more than $2.50 an hour - well, either that, or their employer could spring for a free lobotomy, because that's a minimum requirement for someone who collects shopping carts for a living. Of course, on the other hand, their menial job can always be replaced with competent workers (read automation), that don't fuck around on the job, or take breaks while milking the clock for money they're NOT EARNING. (How long do you think it takes to train a grocery bagger, anyway?) Either that, or we can do away with minimum wage entirely, thus eliminating the need to hire Mexicans over Americans to stay profitable, but I guess that’s another conversation entirely.

Translation: I don't like grocery baggers, so I don't think they should earn a decent wage.

That's pretty funny, because I'd look at it another way...your whole reason for being is based off the generosity of your boss being nice enough to employ your disgruntled ass.

Translation: The people with the money are the only one's good enough to make a person's life worthwhile.

You wanna bitch about not being properly compensated - go cry me a river, assface, because in a dog eat dog world, if you choose not to find your niche, then prepare to be consumed by someone who isn't afraid to filet your ass. If you wanna live in a collective, then America isn't the country for you.

Synopsis: People are evil, so nobody is allowed to point out the deficiencies of a capitalistic system. When facts and truth aren't on your side, fall back on name calling. Oh yeah, and telling the other to move out of the country, because obviously the other is "against America."

How many astute, educated, or shrewd Americans are starving or homeless?

I've known a few, usually they are too proud to go on welfare.

In short, more bullshit, nothing to see here, move on.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Translation: I don't like grocery baggers, so I don't think they should earn a decent wage.
I have absolutely nothing against them because everyone has to start somewhere, but that's not the point. God willing, it's a part time job for a 16 year old, or a mental retardate, not someone looking to "earn a living" doing it. My point was simple: they should receive a wage commensurate with that of being trained to ask one question: paper or plastic. I'm sorry, but I don't think these men or women are worth $7.00 an hour, and neither does the business world.
Originally posted by Napsterbater
Translation: The people with the money are the only one's good enough to make a person's life worthwhile.
Correction: EMPLOYERS are the only ones good enough to make a bagger's life worthwhile. IOW, short of using their extensive Tetris skills, what have they done for anyone that requires real training or thought? The funny thing is, you could hire a foreigner (one that doesn't even speak English), and train him for bagging duty without even saying a word to him. There's obviously a reason you're not in business, kid, so just relax, and let the people who know how to conduct business (read capitalists), conduct business.
Originally posted by Napsterbater
In short, more bullshit, nothing to see here, move on.
You can say that again.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
I've known a few, usually they are too proud to go on welfare.
Based on the question alone - no, you haven't. Shrewd or astute people have a type savvy, a business sense, if you will. Educated people might be the exception here because sometimes their ideals are so lofty, they'd sooner shit marble then knuckle down and do some real work. However, I'll be willing to give you the benefit of the doubt there, but only on principle - not reality.

As Gordon Gekko said in Wall Street, "Give me a guy that's poor, smart, and hungry with no feelings, and I'll show you a winner".

I'm sorry, but I don't think these men or women are worth $7.00 an hour, and neither does the business world.

That person is giving a significant amount of his time to ensure that his bosses business venture succeeds. The boss should show some compassion and pay the person enough for his time. A single grocery bagger can increase sales significantly for a business. Some people were born to be businessmen. Others were born to be grocery baggers. It would be nice if the grocery bagger got some respect too. You ought to read the book "Working" by Studs Terkel. It is eye-opening.

Shrewd or astute people have a type savvy, a business sense, if you will.

People fail, you know. Lose their businesses, end up millions of dollars in debt. Sometimes they don't have it in them to pick themselves up and try again.

what have they done for anyone that requires real training or thought?

These people have families, man. They have kids. Their kids go to school just like you did. It might not look like much, man, but they are people. Lots of times both parents have to work, because one parent just doesn't make enough money. If they did, maybe it wouldn't be the television raising these kids. Maybe their parents would have more of an impact on them than their classmates. Keeping poor people poor is only exacerbating glaring social problems. Especially when the only reason for doing so is greed and hubris.

Any job that a chimpanzee can be trained to do reasonable well, i.e. bagging groceries, gathering shopping carts, etc., does not deserve more than minimum wage if even that.

Most of those earning minimum wage are young teens who are either just entering the job market or working part time for a bit of spending money. Raise the mnimum wage and they will be out of work.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Keeping poor people poor is only exacerbating glaring social problems.
I agree, but only they can make the decision to change their situation. I'm responsible for my life, and MY LIFE only. As an American, I'm free to choose how I want to spend my money (for the most part, despite heavy taxes), and free to choose how to spend my time, and I'd appreciate it if people would mind their own business, and start taking care of themselves without the expectation of a hand-out.
Originally posted by Napsterbater
Especially when the only reason for doing so is greed and hubris.
I disagree. If those people had the savvy, drive, or ambition needed to succeed, they wouldn't be in that situation. Believe it or not, not every wealthy person was born that way. As a matter of fact, millionaires are made every day, you just have to stake your claim and bust your ass. Look, I'm only moderately intelligent, and some day I'll be a multi, multi-millionaire. In short, If I can do it, ANYONE can...

If you want to play the "victim" role for the rest of your life, then so be it, but that's YOUR CHOICE, not mine, so please don't punish me for your shortcomings.

Good...I’m glad we cleared this up, and hey – all before dinner, too.

Originally posted by Frogger

Most of those earning minimum wage are young teens......Raise the mnimum wage and they will be out of work.

And the groceries will bag themselves, I guess.

And the groceries will bag themselves, I guess.

Or the customers can, or the cashier. It's just elminiating one of those jobs that build skills and build savings, but that isn't necessary.

Originally posted by 00Elf
Or the customers can, or the cashier. It's just elminiating one of those jobs that build skills and build savings, but that isn't necessary.
Exactly.

Did you guys hear about what happened to the meat packers who worked at Wal-Mart a few years back? Apparently, there's a meat packing union, and these guys demanded a pretty gross wage increase to which the Wal-Mart execs tried to counter with a fair, but soft offer. Consequently, their price-fixing union threatened to strike, and they approached their ball-clenching lawyers to file a suit under the condition that Wal-Mart be forced to pay so long as they had the facilities on site to cut, clean, and package meat. In short, these pricks thought they were one move away from checkmate, but Wal-Mart found a loophole. Nowhere in the contract did it specify they couldn't close the packaging portion of their business down to do whatever they desired with the floor space they owned. Even though it cost Wal-Mart millions, they revamped their floors, and put those greedy fuckers out on their asses. They, in turn, switched to prepackaged meats, in which, saved them millions in long-term revenue, minimized their liabilities, and maximized their retail space. Although I don't much care for their business practices (I view them as somewhat of a Microsoft in the retail world), I couldn't help but admire the bold fuck-you they sent those pricks C.O.D. I remember cheering out loud when I read that...

Most of those earning minimum wage are young teens who are either just entering the job market or working part time for a bit of spending money. Raise the mnimum wage and they will be out of work.

I seriously doubt the jobs will all go away. They might get harder to acquire, but they won't go away.

And why are you repeating Prea?

Any job that a chimpanzee can be trained to do reasonable well, i.e. bagging groceries, gathering shopping carts, etc., does not deserve more than minimum wage if even that.

No job is worthless. If a job exists, it deserves to be paid an ok amount of money for. Quit bringing up old points. Besides, there are lots of exploiter's out there paying minimum wage for hard, physical type work. Raising the minimum wage benefits everybody, and eliminates that problem.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
No job is worthless. If a job exists, it deserves to be paid an ok amount of money for. Quit bringing up old points. Besides, there are lots of exploiter's out there paying minimum wage for hard, physical type work. Raising the minimum wage benefits everybody, and eliminates that problem.
Don't you see what you're doing here - you're price-fixing. This firmly goes against everything capitalism (not to mention a free market) stands for, but then again, I guess that's why you like it. You might be an ardent fan of governmental regulation and control, by I, myself, am not. As a matter of fact, I see the whole concept as anathema to everything that’s made our country great for 229 years.

If someone doesn't have the ambition, intellegence and drive to make it in this world, why should the rest of us have to support him?

Anyone over 21 who is still working for minimum wage has no one to blame but themselves.

Then again, the attitude that was postured earlier that "no one should have to go to college or learn a skill or a trade to survive" (I think it was napster that posted it) pretty much sums up the issue. If you are too stupid to learn a skill, trade or get some education then you really aren't going to earn more than a trained monkey would anyway.

It amases me that some people think that the government owes them a comfortable living. Get off your ass's and work for it like the rest of us have had to. I started out at minimum wage ($1.60 at the time). I have worked hard to get where I am and I have no intention of supporting some lazy ass who isn't willing to work hard, expand his knowledge and learn skills in order to support himself. Almost everyone starts out at the bottom of the ladder. The smart ones move up. The dumb ones stay at minimum wage. Either out of lack of ambition, lack of skills or lazyness.

Originally posted by Echo2
Anyone over 21 who is still working for minimum wage has no one to blame but themselves.
If you're 21, and you're making minimum wage, then you deserve to have your organs harvested by our government so they can sell them on the black market to make up for the food, water, space, and oxygen you've consumed during your lifetime.

Don't you see what you're doing here - you're price-fixing.

No, price fixing would be me saying how much YOU make. Or anybody else that makes more than the minimum wage.

If someone doesn't have the ambition, intellegence and drive to make it in this world, why should the rest of us have to support him?

Because he shouldn't need those things just to get by in the world, and it's cheaper in the long run to make employers shoulder this burden. Like I said earlier, some tough social problems can be alleviated by this. And it isn't the "rest of us", its employers. Unless you happen to be a business owner, you don't pay a dime.

If you are too stupid to learn a skill, trade or get some education then you really aren't going to earn more than a trained monkey would anyway.

You should make a decent cut for your time. If you want more, learn a skill.

Do you know why the Air Force uses airmen? Because NASA has a contract with the monkeys.

If you're 21, and you're making minimum wage, then you deserve to have your organs harvested by our government so they can sell them on the black market to make up for the food, water, space, and oxygen you've consumed during your lifetime.

That is a good summary of every single post you've made in this thread, and is as logically sound.

No, price fixing would be me saying how much YOU make. Or anybody else that makes more than the minimum wage.

If you are putting the price above the wage that would otherwised be issued, yes, you are price fixing.

Because he shouldn't need those things just to get by in the world, and it's cheaper in the long run to make employers shoulder this burden. Like I said earlier, some tough social problems can be alleviated by this. And it isn't the "rest of us", its employers. Unless you happen to be a business owner, you don't pay a dime.

What "social problems", I can think of a few that will be greatly exacerbated, Unemployment, Crime, Class Warfare, to name a few.

Unemployment, Crime, Class Warfare, to name a few.

Ahh, more unsubstantiated claims. People turn to crime when they aren't making enough money. A decent minimum wage will probably alleviate crime. Less people will hate "The Man" if they are making more money. And it is arguable as to whether unemployment would rise. I refer you back to the last minimum wage hike, as well as when they instituted it in the first place. The sky didn't fall then, and it won't now.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
No, price fixing would be me saying how much YOU make. Or anybody else that makes more than the minimum wage.
Price-fixing: (n.) The setting of commodity prices artificially by a government.

Here, you're dictating the cost of a specific commodity (labor), and you're doing it very artifically, I might add. In a sense, you're acting as if you were the government, and you're doing so without regard to the real market. In short, if people are willing to work for less, then yes, you're price-fixing labor costs.

If you are putting the price above the wage that would otherwised be issued, yes, you are price fixing.

In the case of people's salaries, that is acceptable. These are not televisions we are talking about here.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
In the case of people's salaries, that is acceptable. These are not televisions we are talking about here.
No, we're talking about the Keynesian hand of economics, and you, my friend, are fucking it up.

Originally posted by Echo2
It amases me that some people think that the government owes them a comfortable living.

a) we are not talking about "the government" paying anybody anything

b) we are not talking about a granting anyone a "comfortable living", we are talking about employers paying full time working people the princely sum of $250 dollars a week....BEFORE taxes are held out. There are millions of people in this country trying to eek out a living on minimum wage......i'd like to see how well YOU could live on 250 a week.

Originally posted by Echo2
Get off your ass's and work for it like the rest of us have had to. I started out at minimum wage ($1.60 at the time).

Any discussion of **minimum wage**, by definition, is concerned ONLY with people who ARE working. Sheesh.......you seem to have a terrible misconception of this issue......it does not involve "the government supporting 'lazy' people".......it has to do with raisng the wage of people who are working.

Originally posted by Echo2
I have worked hard to get where I am and I have no intention of supporting some lazy ass who isn't willing to work hard, expand his knowledge and learn skills

WTF?!?!?

Answer one simple question.

How could raising the minimum wage from 5.15 per hour to 6.25 per hour be construed by you as YOU having to "support" someone?

Originally posted by Frogger

Most of those earning minimum wage are young teens who are either just entering the job market or working part time for a bit of spending money. Raise the mnimum wage and they will be out of work.

Most are young teens, eh? Wrong.

"Minimum wage workers tend to be young. About half of all hourly-paid workers earning $5.15 or less were under age 25, and about one-fourth were age 16-19. Among teenagers, about 9 percent earned $5.15 or less. About 2 percent of workers age 25 and over earned the minimum wage or less. Among those age 65 and over, the proportion was 4 percent."

http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2004.htm (Department of Labor)

Maybe you should come to a grip with reality before you come to any conclusions about an issue.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Don't you see what you're doing here - you're price-fixing. This firmly goes against everything capitalism (not to mention a free market) stands for, but then again, I guess that's why you like it. You might be an ardent fan of governmental regulation and control, by I, myself, am not. As a matter of fact, I see the whole concept as anathema to everything that’s made our country great for 229 years.

This post is also inconsistent with reality. That is, if you bother looking around you, you would know that the United States is not a purely free market economy. In fact, it is a closely regulated economy, somewhat based on the idea of capitalism intermingled with some socialist principles designed to create a country where everyone has a chance to make it as long as they are willing to work hard.

THAT is what has made our country great and advanced today's successful nations beyond the purely free market economies that gave birth to serfs and feudal lords.

Like it or not, minimum wage is here to stay and is for all of the country's good, and it needs to be hiked to at least keep up with the past 10 years worth of inflation.

How could raising the minimum wage from 5.15 per hour to 6.25 per hour be construed by you as YOU having to "support" someone?

Don't bother pointing out reason to these people, they are too hung up on their free market and responsibility bullshit. Anything that will make things better for people will be vehemently argued against, because they want others to have it just as hard as they did.

Napster and Leper,

I don't think many people are against minimum wage. I think what set this whole thing off when someone suggested it should be ten dollars per hour, and someone else said they'd stay at home for less than a certain wage.

Unless you are saying minimum wage should be $100.00, and we are saying there should be no such thing, I think we actually agree on the concept, but just differ on the amount. I don't think the difference here is phiposophical, so statements like - "Don't bother pointing out reason to these people, they are too hung up on their free market and responsibility" really don't make any sense.

PS - and if you're saying I'm too hung up on "responsibility", I'm having trouble finding the insult in there.

I don't think many people are against minimum wage. I think what set this whole thing off when someone suggested it should be ten dollars per hour, and someone else said they'd stay at home for less than a certain wage.

It was me both times. I like to say such things to provoke debate.

I think we actually agree on the concept, but just differ on the amount.

I believe Frogger, 00Elf and Prea are all in favor of eliminating the minimum wage.

PS - and if you're saying I'm too hung up on "responsibility", I'm having trouble finding the insult in there.

No insult there, but I was making a point. You have argued yourself that the anti-abortion movement was not pro-life, but anti-sex. All they care about is making women take responsibility for having sex, regardless of the social problems that causes. This is a similar case.

Prea

I find it incredible that shortening such a simple name as The Praetorian or Evakian still runs into spelling difficulties for people, not singling you out Nupstir.

Meh. I sound words out when I write, and Prea rolls off the tongue easier than Prae. I don't just pay attention to spelling and grammer, I also watch how I sound. Though, there is another reason to use Prae. Maybe if I 'pray' hard enough, he'll get a clue.

Originally posted by Leper
Even if everyone had a college degree, some of them would have to clean public toilets. You already see that today, with the proliferation of college degrees and college students that can't find a job that meets their built-up expectations. Either way, the toilet cleaners are productive members of society and there's no good reason why they shouldn't live above the poverty line, too.

What you people can't admit to yourselves is that you NEED the minimum wage earners' labor to live the life you want to live.

I agree with you, well said.

There's no reason that essential and difficult labor should be viewed with contempt. In fact, anyone who does that kind of honest work should be proud. They're productive unlike the useless yuppies and owners who are parasites on the working class.

Originally posted by Brooks
Napster and Leper,

I don't think many people are against minimum wage. I think what set this whole thing off when someone suggested it should be ten dollars per hour, and someone else said they'd stay at home for less than a certain wage.


I'm sorry, but I fail to see people distinguishing between a high minimum wage and low minimum wage.

i have to agree with the original post guerilla (sorry, haven't been here for awhile), i don't understand how a congressman who spends all his time on his ass and most of the work processing information comes from his underlings can get raises all the time and most by the way it looks , yearly. and everyone else just gets screwed even more.
go ahead and leave minimum slave as is, cut foodstamps, and see how long those congressmen/women keep their jobs. or how long before the country gets burned to the ground.
another thing to look at, corporate heads are paid millions of dollars a year. most of the work is done by underlings. and some guy somewhere with not much opportunities is paid minimum slave.
there are a lot of things i'd change. senators and other politicians would be paid a LIVING wage, no more, especially since they have so many perks given to them. and they ALL would not be allowed to become carreer politicians. a couple of terms and no more.
corporate heads would be paid no more than maybe $30,000 more than their lowest paid worker.

if subsidization of people is to exist, at least let's do it with common sense. no more farmers getting money with the stipulation that they HAVE to use harmful pesticides and chemical fertilizers, and they are, (simple crop rotation, green manures, and use of manure produced by animals they raise will suffice)

foodstamps? automatically make junkfood , softdrinks and the such ineligible for purchase with foodstamps. how many foodstamp users do you see buying hotdogs, sodas, candy, chips by the truckload? i see them all the time.

i can see some people getting cut from foodstamps because have you seen any of the guide lines for eligibility? some of it is ridiculous and people who do not need them are taking advantage of it.

Originally posted by ivan
i have to agree with the original post guerilla (sorry, haven't been here for awhile), i don't understand how a congressman who spends all his time on his ass and most of the work processing information comes from his underlings can get raises all the time and most by the way it looks , yearly. and everyone else just gets screwed even more.
Wow - I agree.
Originally posted by ivan
go ahead and leave minimum slave as is, cut foodstamps, and see how long those congressmen/women keep their jobs.
You think people who make $5.15 an hour vote??? Hardly, and thank god for that.
Originally posted by ivan
or how long before the country gets burned to the ground.
Not likely.
Originally posted by ivan
and some guy somewhere with not much opportunities is paid minimum slave.
Oh, boo hoo, Ivan...that's just the way it is. You know, some people actually take the time to make things happen in their life. You don't always have to rely on handouts to get ahead.
Originally posted by ivan
there are a lot of things i'd change. senators and other politicians would be paid a LIVING wage, no more, especially since they have so many perks given to them. and they ALL would not be allowed to become carreer politicians. a couple of terms and no more.
I COMPLETELY AGREE! Great suggestion, but come to think of it, it probably wouldn't help curb corruption all that much, would it?
Originally posted by ivan
corporate heads would be paid no more than maybe $30,000 more than their lowest paid worker.
Brilliant way to keep incentive alive in corporate America! :thumbs:
Originally posted by ivan
i can see some people getting cut from foodstamps because have you seen any of the guide lines for eligibility? some of it is ridiculous and people who do not need them are taking advantage of it.
Miraculously enough, once again, I agree.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Maybe if I 'pray' hard enough, he'll get a clue.
Surly you fucking jest.

I've made peace with the country I'm in. I'm not under any illusions, but you, my little red buddy, are. I won't discount your points entirely, for I'm sure you've put some serious thought into your convictions. In short, I have mixed emotions here - kind of like you driving off a cliff in my BMW. I guess I'll take your criticisms in stride. ;)

"Minimum wage workers tend to be young. About half of all hourly-paid workers earning $5.15 or less were under age 25, and about one-fourth were age 16-19. Among teenagers, about 9 percent earned $5.15 or less. About 2 percent of workers age 25 and over earned the minimum wage or less. Among those age 65 and over, the proportion was 4 percent."

Like I said, most of those earning minimum wage are teenagers. The majority of those over 65 earning minimum wage are part timers, not full time employees. The same with the majority of the young people. Most of them are students and most of those over 65 are retirees.

There are only two things one need do to keep from being poor; finish school and get a job, any job, and stick with it.

Originally posted by Frogger
Like I said, most of those earning minimum wage are teenagers.

Errm.....a course in reading comprehension may be in order.

Here's the quote again. Please pay attention to the underlined portion.

"Minimum wage workers tend to be young. About half of all hourly-paid workers earning $5.15 or less were under age 25, and about one-fourth were age 16-19."

So, you see, one-fourth of the workers being 16-19 does not comprise "most' minimum wage workers.

Originally posted by Deepest Red
In fact, anyone who does that kind of honest work should be proud. They're productive unlike the useless yuppies and owners who are parasites on the working class.

But then again, thank goodness the yuppies have lawns and toilets to provide "that kind of honest work"

I'd say it's more symbiotic than parasitic.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
You have argued yourself that the anti-abortion movement was not pro-life, but anti-sex. All they care about is making women take responsibility for having sex, regardless of the social problems that causes. This is a similar case.

I didn't say that, but it is a good analogy.

(For the record, I'm anti-abortion and pro-sex. And I believe everyone is pro-life)

Originally posted by Brooks
I'd say it's more symbiotic than parasitic.
That's a great comment, Brooks.

Okay, FT. Point taken. I still think the majority of those earning minimum wage are part timers. Most people graduate from graduate school at around age twenty three or so, with many graduating later. When you are only working summers, or a hour or two a day while going to school you are not going to get a great hourly wage. I worked for next to nothing when I was in college, my kids worked for next to nothing when they were in college. Once we got our real jobs we made more than minimum wage.

Few of those people earning minimum wage are full time workers.

Was looking for jobs today.

Crossing guards make $7.50 - 8.03

WTF!

Crossing Guard is a part time job. That isn't bad pay for a part time job.

Originally posted by Frogger
Crossing Guard is a part time job. That isn't bad pay for a part time job.
I think it's highway robbery. I think paying someone $8.00 an hour to hold a fucking sign is criminal. No one should be compensated that well for such a task. Knowledgeable Chinese factory workers only make about 10 dollars a week, and they build everything from windshields to motherboards. I know, this isn't China, but it IS reality, and that shouldn't fly.

Surly you fucking jest.

I've made peace with the country I'm in. I'm not under any illusions, but you, my little red buddy, are. I won't discount your points entirely, for I'm sure you've put some serious thought into your convictions. In short, I have mixed emotions here - kind of like you driving off a cliff in my BMW. I guess I'll take your criticisms in stride.

You'd have to buy a lot of Beamers to get rid of all the people in the country who think like me. And it really doesn't matter to me whether you discount my points at all, or not. Taking my criticisms in stride is all you will ever be able to do, because you cannot open your mind enough to actually care about the people you have contempt for. I suppose all that money lets you live with yourself.

I think paying someone $8.00 an hour to hold a fucking sign is criminal.

Because children deserve a minimum wage guard to protect them. They are probably going to grow up lazy and unproductive anyway. Who cares if they get hit by a car?

quote: Napsterbater
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because he shouldn't need those things just to get by in the world, and it's cheaper in the long run to make employers shoulder this burden.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am amazed that you think that the employers would soak up the cost of this. You know as well as I that they will pass the cost of paying a higher wage to their employees - on to their customers. Whether it be the cost of a meal in a resturant or the price of groceries. It wont come out of the employers profit. They will either pay their middle wage earners less or charge the customers more. i.e. The cost of living will slowly rise untill the minimum wage is below poverty again, (this is a historical fact with each minimum wage increase we have ever had) or the middle wage earners will start making the same as the lower wage earners. And guess what? The employers still make the same profits. That would leave a poor class and a wealthy class and no middle class.

A better idea would be to have health, dental and vision insurane mandatory for employers to provide if they have more than 10 employees. They could band together for cheap rates. If minimum wage earners had those 3 things they would be MUCH better off.

And yes, I know that customers would pay the difference. but hey, everyone deserves healthcare.

A better idea would be to have health, dental and vision insurane mandatory for employers to provide if they have more than 10 employees. They could band together for cheap rates. If minimum wage earners had those 3 things they would be MUCH better off.

I think communities should band together to pay for a doctor. That doctor would get more money when everybody is healthy, and less money when people are sick. Let that community pay his salary directly, instead of through insurance agencies. That would give the doc an incentive to keep people healthy, instead of over-medicating every little problem. For more pressing problems, I think states should provide surgery and intensive care service. A decent society should have no need for insurance.

Let the government provide for the general welfare, when people cannot do that for themselves, and employers to create and distribute wealth. They should not be keeping a disproportionate amount of the profits to themselves, especially when their workers are starving. It should not be the employers providing for the general welfare, and the governments distributing the wealth the employers create. That's pretty bass-ackwards, IMO.

Originally posted by Frogger
When you are only working summers, or a hour or two a day while going to school you are not going to get a great hourly wage.

No, you are not.

But what would be wrong with them earning --NOT a "great" hourly wage-- but $6.25 per hour???

That's ALL that the people proposing a wage increase are asking for.

Freethinker,

Minimum wage jobs are entry level jobs. There is nothing wrong with paying people doing these jobs $6.25 per hour. There is nothing wrong with paying them $10.00 per hour. There isn't even anything wrong with paying them $100.00 per hour. What is wrong is telling an employer what he must pay his employees.

These jobs aand the wages they pay must be attractive enough because Burger King, McDonald's, etc. seem to have no problem finding people to fill both their day and night shifts.

Entry level jobs are meant to be just that, entry level. They pay less because they are worth less. They pay less because they can be filled by anyone, not just people with a particulaar skill or a particular level of education. They pay less because less is expected or demanded of the employees.

What is wrong is telling an employer what he must pay his employees.

You sound like a broken record. Come up with some new arguments.

When people come up with the same statements that we should simply increase the minimum wage without giving valid reasons for doing so the same old arguments, as you call them, are as valid as they were the first time.

You have still not managed to give one good reason for increasing the minimum wage other than you want to. If paying people more will somehow assuage your conscience, why don't you dip into your savings and give them some money. Why not contact all the bleeding heart liberal millionairs in Hollywood and get them to chip in a few bucks each. Maybe they can give a concert or something. Don't dictate to the rest of us what we have to pay for unskilled labor

Dear lord! This is why those on the left cannot even talk with those on the right. We can give all the valid, sensible, and worthwhile ideas and reasons in the world, only to have the right say it is all because of a whim! We've made some outstanding arguments. Why don't you go back and actually READ them?

Nappy,

I've read them and while they might seem compelling to you, to me they are just pap. You have given no reason why the minimum wage should be raised other than it would be a nice thing to do.

You see your ideas as, "valid, sensible, and worthwhile", I don't.I see them as the feel good solutions of yet another pie-in-the-sky liberal.

Don't get upset. Find better arguments.

Originally posted by Frogger
Freethinker,

Minimum wage jobs are entry level jobs. There is nothing wrong with paying people doing these jobs $6.25 per hour. There is nothing wrong with paying them $10.00 per hour. There isn't even anything wrong with paying them $100.00 per hour. What is wrong is telling an employer what he must pay his employees.

I guess we just disagree.

For me, it is about protecting workers who cannot look out for themselves.

Under your rules, a retarded 16 year old could be walking down the street, and an owner of a small business could tell him--"Hey kid; i need someone to stock shelves, you want a job?,... I'll give you a whole DOLLAR every hour!!"

......and in your prefered world it would be perfectly legal and acceptable.

I use this extreme example to illustrate to you that there are workers out there who need some regulatory body [i.e., the government] to mandate to the small business owner that it is not permissible to just pay anything that the workers will settle for. It is protection for the workers in the same way that OSHA health and safety standards help to protect workers.

You may favor a society that is an anarchy....or maybe it's just that you want to live in a predatory, dog-eat-dog world where the strong survive very well and the poor just die and fall by the wayside..............but I do not.

WHAT REASON is there to even go to the trouble of FORMING a government if that government is not there to protect the rights of people???

I see them as the feel good solutions of yet another pie-in-the-sky liberal.

Therein lies the problem. It has nothing to do with the arguments, just the ideology behind them. As long as you see liberals as evil, we can never discuss.

I for one, have better things to do.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Dear lord! This is why those on the left cannot even talk with those on the right. We can give all the valid, sensible, and worthwhile ideas and reasons in the world, only to have the right say it is all because of a whim! We've made some outstanding arguments. Why don't you go back and actually READ them?

Napster, I am a hardcore progresive, anyone on this board will vouch for that. Yet I disagree with raising the minimum wage. Not because I don't want people to be paid more, but because it is NOT a solution to the problem.

A better solution would be that the minimum pay that a worker can earn must be at a minimum 20% of what the employer is earning. So if he gives himself a raise, his employees must get one. If he makes more profits. his employees must get a portion of them.

That would be nice, and in the spirit of what I am trying to get across here. However, that would place a paperwork and administrative burden on employers to accomplish something that could be helped, not solved, by a simple increase in the minimum wage. Something like you are saying would be very hard to implement.