Congress should never get a pay raise unless minimum wage is raised in the same year. Now if only people weren't too chickenshit to withhold their taxes over things like this.

It seems to be taxation without representation. All working men will say they need a pay raise and that congress doesn't. So why is it that the exact opposite happens? Congressmen do not represent us, plain and simple.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Rich Senators Defeat Minimum-Wage Hike
Congressional Pay Rises While Minimum Stays Same
Helen Thomas, Hearst White House columnist

U.S. senators -- who draw salaries of $162,100 a year and enjoy a raft of perks -- have rejected a minimum wage hike from $5.15 an hour to $6.25 for blue-collar workers.

Can you believe it?

The proposed increase was sponsored by Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and turned down in the Senate by a vote of 51 against the boost and 49 in favor. Under a Senate agreement, it needed 60 votes to pass.

All the Democrats voted for the wage boost. All the negative votes were cast by Republicans.

Four Republicans voted for it. Three of the four are running for reelection and were probably worried about how voters would react if they knew that their well-heeled senators had turned down a pittance of an increase in the salaries of the lowest paid workers in the country.

The minimum wage was last increased in 1997.

Kennedy called the vote "absolutely unconscionable."

The lawmakers are hardly hurting. They get health insurance, life insurance, pensions, office expenses, ranging from $2 million on up, depending on the population of a state. The taxpayers also pay for their travel, telecommunications, stationery and mass mailings.

AFL-CIO president John Sweeney said the rejection was "outrageous and shocking."

Sweeney said minimum-wage workers "deserve a pay raise -- plain and simple -- no strings attached."

He said it is "appalling that the same right-wing leaders in Congress -- who have given themselves seven pay raises since the last minimum wage increase -- voted down the modest wage increase proposed by the Kennedy amendment."

During the same period since 1997, raises that the Senate has given itself bolstered senatorial pay by $28,000 a year, Kennedy said.

"If we are serious about helping hard-working families, we will give a fair raise to America's low-income workers without taking away essential protections," he added.

The Senate also killed an amendment proposed by Sen. Michael Enzi, R-Wyo., which also would have increased the minimum wage by $1.10 but included drastic measures such as wiping out the 40-hour work week, cutting overtime pay and weakening job safety and health protection.

At the same time, Enzi wanted to sweeten the pot for small business by providing tax and regulatory relief and to exempt small business from the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Kennedy likened the Enzi bill to an "anti-worker poison pill" and said it would "severely hurt millions and millions of workers."

According to the Census Bureau, there are 37 million Americans living in poverty, up 1 million in just a year.

Statements by President George W. Bush since the Gulf Coast hurricane disasters indicate he has a new awareness of the plight of the poor in this country. Katrina and the devastation of New Orleans have made the more affluent realize the hardships suffered by poor families.

When asked about the Kennedy measure, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Bush "believes that we should look at having a reasonable increase in the minimum wage ... But we need to make sure that, as we do that, that it is not a step that hurts small business or prices people out of the job market."

Bush has not weighed in with his own proposal for a pay hike.

The Senate's action comes at a worrisome time when motorists are paying much more for gasoline and heating bills are expected to rise by 56 percent this winter, according to Kennedy.

As a result, families will have to tighten their belts to pay for the basic necessities.

"It is shameful that in America today, the richest and most powerful nation on earth, nearly a fifth of all children go to bed hungry at night because their parents, many of whom are working full time at the minimum wage, still can't make ends meet," Kennedy said.

Kennedy has been in the forefront of the fight for increases in the minimum wage for years, and I don't expect him to throw in the towel now.

Congress still may have a chance to redeem itself in the eyes of the less fortunate -- before the 2006 elections.

http://www.wesh.com/helenthomas/5183628/detail.html

In related news...

US poor set to lose food stamps
October 29, 2005 - 10:43AM

With more than 38 million Americans too poor to buy adequate food, the US Congress has begun to take away the food stamps many of them receive.

The Republican majority on the House Agriculture Committee has approved budget cuts that will take "food stamps" away from an estimated 300,000 people and could cut off school lunches and breakfasts for 40,000 children.

The action came as the US Government reported that the number of people who are hungry because they can't afford to buy enough food rose to 38.2 million in 2004, an increase of seven million in five years.

The number represents nearly 12 per cent of US households.

Food stamps are coupons distributed to low-income people and redeemable at grocery stories for food.

The cuts, approved by the Republican-controlled committee on a party-line vote, are part of an effort by Republicans to curb federal spending by $US50 billion ($65.7 billion).

The food and agriculture cuts would reduce spending by $US3.7 billion, including $US844 million on nutrition, $US760 million on conservation and $US212 million on payments to US farmers.
Advertisement

Advertisement

The $US574 million reduction in food stamp spending is estimated to shut up to 300,000 people out of the program.

The restriction also could take free meals away from an estimated 40,000 school children, because children in many states are automatically eligible for school meals when they get food stamps, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The White House proposed the restriction earlier this year.

The bill would also raise the waiting period for food stamps for legal immigrants from five to seven years.

Senate Republican leaders are seeking to curb spending by $US39 billion, and have been more reluctant to cut government benefit programs.

The committee voted to shave $US212 million from direct payments to farmers, a one per cent reduction over the next four years. Cuts to commodity programs totalled $US1 billion and include repeal of a federal cotton subsidy to comply with a World Trade Organisation ruling against the program.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/us-poor-set-to-lose-food-stamps/2005/10/29/1130400390006.html
+++++++++++++++++++++

But don't worry the upper class tax cuts are permanant as are the corporate overseas accounts. Oh and the war will continue indefinatly. The government rather starve Americans then stop killing people in their own country.

I'm against the congressional pay raise, but against the minimum wage as well, it just causes more unemployment, more outsourcing, and a worse economy.

As for the food stamps, I'm against those too, provided that they eliminate agricultural subsidies at the same time.

First, where do you live that $162,000 makes someone rich?

Second, how much should someone on minimum wage make annually for working 40 hours per week? (I'm just curious what a 16 year old working at a deli counter after school should make per year.)

Originally posted by Brooks
First, where do you live that $162,000 makes someone rich?

I'd feel pretty good about that salary.


Second, how much should someone on minimum wage make annually for working 40 hours per week? (I'm just curious what a 16 year old working at a deli counter after school should make per year.)

Most minimum wage jobs are part-time, not 40 hours/week. Additionally, at least in WI, a 16 year-old student wouldn't be allowed to work full time. Add to that the fact that minimum wage jobs typically have no benefits, and the situation for a minimum wage earner just gets worse.

Okay, let's end this whole thing once and for all. You can't hire someone unless you pay them AT LEAST the salary our Congressmen and Senators are making. That includes the good health care benefits.


It doesn't matter if it's part time, full time or one time. No matter if it's raking leaves or doing brain surgery. EVERYONE makes at least 165,000 a year.

And we'll just see how many of the unskilled laborers become unskilled & jobless and what happens to the economy.

Originally posted by 00Elf
I'm against the congressional pay raise, but against the minimum wage as well, it just causes more unemployment, more outsourcing, and a worse economy.

As for the food stamps, I'm against those too, provided that they eliminate agricultural subsidies at the same time.

Minimum wage is what prevents bigwigs from exploiting common workers. Having worthless salaries also causes unemployment because people get as much out of sitting on their ass as they do busting their ass at McDonald's.

People should recieve a livable salary for busting their ass, period.

As for the Congressional pay raise, 162K is shit pay for people who are in charge of running the country.

I support a much overdue min. wage hike, and Congressional salary increase.

How bout we stop spending tons of money on stupid wars and pay people what they're worth?

on the food stamps:
++++++++++++++++++++
"Military families on food stamps? It's not an urban myth. About 25,000 families of servicemen and women are eligible, and this may be an underestimate, since the most recent Defense Department report on the financial condition of the armed forces--from 1999--found that 40 percent of lower-ranking soldiers face "substantial financial difficulties." Senator Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, reports hearing from constituents that the Army now includes applications for food stamps in its orientation packet for new recruits."
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0329-08.htm

What about the money for the food stamps?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Lawmakers vote to allow privatizing US food stamps

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - House and Senate negotiators working on a $100 billion agriculture spending bill voted on Tuesday to allow states to privatize the food stamp program, which helps 25 million people put food on the table monthly."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051026/pl_nm/food_congress_usda_dc_1

Maybe lawmakers could stop these real government handouts. Not to help people survive but to fatten some assholes wallet:
++++++++++++++++++++++++

Pentagon program costing taxpayers millions in inflated prices
By LAUREN MARKOE and SETH BORENSTEIN

WASHINGTON - The Pentagon paid $20 apiece for plastic ice cube trays that once cost it 85 cents. It paid a supplier more than $81 apiece for coffeemakers that it bought for years for just $29 from the manufacturer.
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/12974204.htm

Minimum wage is what prevents bigwigs from exploiting common workers. Having worthless salaries also causes unemployment because people get as much out of sitting on their ass as they do busting their ass at McDonald's.

"Economists may not know much, but we know one thing very well: how to produce surpluses and shortages. Do you want a surplus? Have the government legislate a minimum price that is above the price that would otherwise prevail." Milton Friedman, Free To Choose.

The same principle applies to the labor force, a higher minimum price creates a surplus, in this case, unemployment. Letting the market reign will allow more employment, even if lower wage workers take a cut. Better to have more people on a low wage then a few on a high one.

How bout we stop spending tons of money on stupid wars and pay people what they're worth?

The cost of the war isn't related to wages.

maybe you haven't studied up much on the early 1900's but they were depolorable time to massive exploitation. Wage slavery in its peak. The owners of mines found out it was simply cheaper to use people hauling coal than mules. Becuase if there was a cave in he'd have to buy a new mule. With people he'd just hire someone else at a ridiculously low wage.

If minimum wage currently isn't a living wage what good is anything under that going to do besides enable slave labor?

They're already doing it in prison...

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
If minimum wage currently isn't a living wage what good is anything under that going to do besides enable slave labor?

They're already doing it in prison...

It is not MEANT to be a living wage. A minimum wage job is a job so simple that many people are available to do it. Therefore you have to establish an artificial minimum, because... well I don't exactly know why.

Since you say "living wage" I guess you think someone should be able to be independent on it. Tell me exactly what that wage should be.

If the minimum wage is so great, then why not just raise it to $1,000,000? If it can defeat poverty, surely it can create wealth right?

Paying somebody $5.15 an hour == exploitation.

It's that simple. The point of law is to keep the little fish from getting eaten by the big fish. If the law protects only the big fish, than the law needs to be changed.

I personally think the minimum wage should be raised to $10 an hour.

Paying somebody $5.15 an hour == exploitation.

Not when their work is only worth $5.15/hour.

I personally think the minimum wage should be raised to $10 an hour.

Which will only cause more unemployment and less high paying jobs in the long run, we don't want to promote unskilled work, we want people in those positions to have incentives for advancement.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
All working men will say they need a pay raise and that congress doesn't. So why is it that the exact opposite happens?

I'll tell you exactly WHY it happens.

It happens because a majority of those **working people** you're talking about continue to vote into office the 51 scumbag Rightwing politicians who continually vote AGAINST the things that woud benefit working/poor people.........things like an increase in the minimum wage.

Those people (and make NO mistake; there are many MILLIONS of them in this country) who, in a laughably misguided attempt to see to it that the most "moral" politicans are elected, continue to vote for the SAME Reichwing that prevents them from receiving a minimum wage increase are too fucking stupid for words.

Not when their work is only worth $5.15/hour.

No work is worth 5.15 an hour. If there is work good enough for a human being to do, it is good enough to earn a livable wage. A person should be able to support himself and provide for basic necessities with a part time job.

Which will only cause more unemployment and less high paying jobs in the long run,

How do you know?

we don't want to promote unskilled work, we want people in those positions to have incentives for advancement.

We want to promote the types of jobs that enable people to live off the wages. Forcing employers to provide a livable wage will do exactly that. As far as advancement goes, well, the minimum wage has nothing to do with that. It is all up to an individual's ambition.

A fair day's work for a fair day's pay, is all we are asking for.

If it came to a choice between me working for $5.15 and being unemployed, I'll sit on my ass any day. If all the jobs that payed under $8 an hour went away, it will be a proud day for humanity.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Paying somebody $5.15 an hour == exploitation.

It's that simple. The point of law is to keep the little fish from getting eaten by the big fish. If the law protects only the big fish, than the law needs to be changed.

I personally think the minimum wage should be raised to $10 an hour.

So the "big fish" owner of a small store who hires a kid for 4 hours a day after school and six hours on Saturday can just lay out another thousand bucks a month?

Guess what - he won't.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
If it came to a choice between me working for $5.15 and being unemployed, I'll sit on my ass any day.

Then you'll have to stay with your parents, and most respnsible parents wouldn't allow it.

Originally posted by Brooks
So the "big fish" owner of a small store who hires a kid for 4 hours a day after school and six hours on Saturday can just lay out another thousand bucks a month?

Actually, it would be $504.40.

About half of what you claim.

26 x 4 x $4.85

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If the min wage were raised what's being proposed in Congress, it would come to about 120 dollars.......a month.

I say repeal the minimum wage, but replace it with a change to the business tax code. Make the base rate for the income tax on businesses 20% of what it currently is, but add in a multiplier. After you calculate that reduced tax, you multiply that figure by the ratio of the full pay (including the costs of any benifits) of the highest paid worker at that company over the full pay of the lowest paid worker. The owner would be considered a worker.
This would encourage new startup companies where the owner is making little more than his workers. It would discourage highly paid CEO's. It would also encourage companies to pay their workers fairly, because if they didn't they would pay the government instead.
As for the Congressional pay raise, I have never worked anywhere that I got to decide when I deserved a raise. It was always up to my boss. The American people are the employers of Congress, and ought to be consulted before any raises are handed out. I say, put it to the people in a national referendum.

No work is worth 5.15 an hour. If there is work good enough for a human being to do, it is good enough to earn a livable wage. A person should be able to support himself and provide for basic necessities with a part time job.

Your paid relative to how valuable what you do is, some things like stockings shelves or delivering papers just aren't worth $8/hour. We don't want to subsidize laziness.

How do you know?

If the price of something is forcibly increased, a surplus will be created. A surplus of labor is unemployment.

We want to promote the types of jobs that enable people to live off the wages. Forcing employers to provide a livable wage will do exactly that. As far as advancement goes, well, the minimum wage has nothing to do with that. It is all up to an individual's ambition.

And when you can survive for your entire life on an entry level job, that ambition will be crushed with a giant rock.

A fair day's work for a fair day's pay, is all we are asking for.

A part time job is not a days work.

An example of how this would work. Say a business now pays an income tax of $1 million dollars. Their CEO's salary, including benefits is $500,000. The lowest paid worker is making $50,000 including benefits. Their new tax would be


$500,000
$200,000 x ________ = $2,000,000
$50,000


A small startup company is making money hand over fist. They have only two employees, but their income tax is also $1 million. The employees are paid quite well. Each has a salary of $500,000. by the same formula, their tax would only be $200,000.

Originally posted by 00Elf
"Economists may not know much, but we know one thing very well: how to produce surpluses and shortages. Do you want a surplus? Have the government legislate a minimum price that is above the price that would otherwise prevail." Milton Friedman, Free To Choose.

The same principle applies to the labor force, a higher minimum price creates a surplus, in this case, unemployment. Letting the market reign will allow more employment, even if lower wage workers take a cut. Better to have more people on a low wage then a few on a high one.


You seem to think that, if people are employed, then everything is ok. Well, you're wrong on that point. Employment isn't worth a whole lot if you're in poverty whether you're employed or not. Not only that, but it defeats the spirit of capitalism, and creates a miserable world to live in.

As minimum wage becomes worth less and less, the rich become richer. While I think it is a necessary thing to have people become wealthy in a capitalist system, I don't think it is a good thing when people are become filthy, stinking rich. That is what is happening today, and it is time for a minimum wage increase.

And if you think that's going to cost jobs, let's look back to the last minimum wage hike, during the Clinton administration. Not only did that not increase unemployment, but the United States economy thrived with the hike.


The cost of the war isn't related to wages.

Lol, you don't think government salaries are affected by war spending?! Not only does it interfere with the government's ability to give pay raises, but it smothers the economy, because we're investing so much of our country's productivity into war.

While I typically side with libertarians, this is the point where I think libertarians are delusional. That is, the economy does need government regulation to stay healthy, because natural economic forces only result in the rich becoming richer and the poor becoming poorer.

I don't know about you, but I want to live in a country where an unskilled, but hard-working individual can make a living from his labor.

Originally posted by Leper
That is, the economy does need government regulation to stay healthy, because natural economic forces only result in the rich becoming richer and the poor becoming poorer.

I don't know about you, but I want to live in a country where an unskilled, but hard-working individual can make a living from his labor.

Well said, Leper. :)

Your paid relative to how valuable what you do is, some things like stockings shelves or delivering papers just aren't worth $8/hour.

If it isn't worth $8 an hour, its beneath dignity to have humans doing it. It is essentially child labor because only the really young would consider taking a job like that. Sure they are just doing it for pocket money, but when times get lean, they will have to support their family. When they do, it would be nice to have a decent wage.

We don't want to subsidize laziness.

Which is what we do when we have a low minimum wage. We allow companies to treat people like donkeys, and throw them away when they don't need them anymore.

If the price of something is forcibly increased, a surplus will be created. A surplus of labor is unemployment.

Not everything follows your free market ideas. Show me a time in history where the unemployment rate was raised sharply, thus creating unemployment. Oh that's right, you can't.

And when you can survive for your entire life on an entry level job, that ambition will be crushed with a giant rock.

Some people have no ambition. Why should we force ambition on those who don't want it? The nation needs janitors and fast food clerks, and probably could not run without them. Its time we recognize that.

A part time job is not a days work.

Some people work full time on minimum wage.

The same principle applies to the labor force, a higher minimum price creates a surplus, in this case, unemployment. Letting the market reign will allow more employment, even if lower wage workers take a cut. Better to have more people on a low wage then a few on a high one. You reasoning doesn't make any sense Elf (which i gess makes it not "reasoning"). The is a surplus of labor in all lands. Always has been always will be. The surplus IS unemployment. The Surplus itself results in abysmal wages which are kept in check by minimum wage. Youre trying to put the cart before the mule.

As recent history has demonstrated a comapny would rather pad its CEO than hire new workers. Your application is flawed and holds no ground in reality.

Originally posted by Freethinker
Actually, it would be $504.40.

About half of what you claim.

26 x 4 x $4.85


If you'll notice, in that post I was responding to somebody who was suggesting that the minimun wage be $10.00 per hour. That WOULD be over a thousand dollars per month for a high school kid.

And, as I said, in that case the deli would just do without the extra employee. How does that help that segment of the workforce?

Raising the minimum wage sounds great and fine on paper but it doesn't solve the problem of poverty.

If I owned a business and the government told me I had to start paying my laborors $10 an hour rather than $6 an hour I would either lay off a couple of workers or raise prises to cover the higher cost of wages. What results when the minimum wage is raised is that more people are out of work and prices go up for goods and services.

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. Be self relient and take care of yourself. Where do all you nuts get the idea that the government is here to force those with to support those without.

My first job was for minimum wage. $1.60 an hour. That was a long time ago.

So the "big fish" owner of a small store who hires a kid for 4 hours a day after school and six hours on Saturday can just lay out another thousand bucks a month?

If he cannot afford to pay somebody a decent wage, he has no business hiring anybody. Let him work his shop himself. Then maybe he can put it in the position where he can hire people.

Raising the minimum wage sounds great and fine on paper but it doesn't solve the problem of poverty.

No single policy will.

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.

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. The point of an advanced society is to make things easier on people. Nobody should be going hungry in this day and age. That is why we have welfare programs and unemployment compensation.

Where do all you nuts get the idea that the government is here to force those with to support those without.

Those with, got it from those without. They have a moral duty to provide for those they get their wealth from.

The point of a welfare state is not to grant sinecures to the lazy, but to make things easier on ordinary people, and to provide for basic human needs.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
If he cannot afford to pay somebody a decent wage, he has no business hiring anybody. Let him work his shop himself. Then maybe he can put it in the position where he can hire people.


Great. So a kid who wants to work after school for a little over $100.00 a week (if he wants to work) will now make $0.

And the small business owner has less opportunity to expand.

Nicely done.



"If it came to a choice between me working for $5.15 and being unemployed, I'll sit on my ass any day."
Not everyone else is quite so lazy, Napster. Fortunately.
Enjoy living with your parents?

Enjoy living with your parents?

Ho ho ho! I've been in and out of the military already. I haven't lived at home for three years now.

If the business cannot make enough money to pay its people a decent wage, it doesn't deserve to expand. And the kid is probably better off making nothing. Kids these days enter the workforce entirely too early. Let him wait until he graduates to get a job.

Staples, where I work, pays a $7/hr. wage to whomever starts work there. Minimum is $6.15, formerly $5.15. I work a hell of a lot more than those bastards at, say, EB Games, who get paid $6.15 an hour to stand around all day. I don't think a minimum wage is necessary. If you apply to a job and it turns out they only pay $3/hr., guess what? Find another job.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
If the business cannot make enough money to pay its people a decent wage, it doesn't deserve to expand.


Apparently you're under the impression that every business starts off Wal-Mart sized.

It's amazing to me that your cure for poverty is to restrict the ability of people to start businesses. Brilliant!

Originally posted by Napsterbater
I personally think the minimum wage should be raised to $10 an hour.
I personally think you'd be a shitty businessman.

I just finished reading this whole thread, and, well...........WOW!

It's truly amazing how completely out of touch some of these people are with reality. I'm utterly speechless...

Originally posted by Brooks
Great. So a kid who wants to work after school for a little over $100.00 a week (if he wants to work) will now make $0.

And the small business owner has less opportunity to expand.

Nicely done.



"If it came to a choice between me working for $5.15 and being unemployed, I'll sit on my ass any day."
Not everyone else is quite so lazy, Napster. Fortunately.
Enjoy living with your parents?
Well said, Brooks.

Clinton was able to the raise minimum wage at the same time he was fostering a business climate which created 20 million jobs. This whole thread would be moot if Bush had the ability to create any jobs. He hasn't. Under the GOP, polarization of wealth is a continuing problem. The economy is spinning out billionaires at a record pace while doing little to nothing for the middle and lower class. It's true that any increase in minimum wage hurts our ability to compete. But if we were creating good quality jobs here instead of in India and China it really wouldn't matter. And those jobs wouldn't be minimum wage either.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Staples, where I work, pays a $7/hr. wage to whomever starts work there. Minimum is $6.15, formerly $5.15. I work a hell of a lot more than those bastards at, say, EB Games, who get paid $6.15 an hour to stand around all day. I don't think a minimum wage is necessary. If you apply to a job and it turns out they only pay $3/hr., guess what? Find another job.

Believe it or not, there are a lot of people in the country that don't have a wide range of options.....

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Apparently you're under the impression that every business starts off Wal-Mart sized.

It's amazing to me that your cure for poverty is to restrict the ability of people to start businesses. Brilliant!

Do you think the minimum wage should be annihilated? If not, this argument makes no sense.

Originally posted by Leper
Believe it or not, there are a lot of people in the country that don't have a wide range of options.....
And we should punish employers for this...why, again?

Originally posted by fluffernutter
1. Clinton was able to the raise minimum wage at the same time he was fostering a business climate which created 20 million jobs.

2. But if we were creating good quality jobs here instead of in India and China it really wouldn't matter. And those jobs wouldn't be minimum wage either.

1. There was the computer and (mostly artificial and temporary) internet boom which aided quite a bit in that. When the bubble burst, the economy was entering a recession before President Clinton left office.

2. It's cheaper overseas. That's more of a union issue than a governmental one.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
And we should punish employers for this...why, again?

It's not a punishment; Please look up the definition of "punish" before you misuse that term anymore. Rather, it's an economic regulation necessary to keep wealth from accumulating in a few rich people's hands.

Please see my prior posts for further explanation.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
And we should punish employers for this...why, again?

I refuse to believe there is any person stupid enough to think that the reason a minimum wage increase is being advocated is to *punish employers*.

Originally posted by Leper
It's not a punishment; Please look up the definition of "punish" before you misuse that term anymore.
pun·ish
v. tr.
3.To handle roughly; hurt: My boots were punished by our long trek through the desert.

Seems to fit.
Rather, it's an economic regulation necessary to keep wealth from accumulating in a few rich people's hands.
Presumably because if there is no minimum wage, then employers will pay people $.50/hr. while squirreling away their ill-gotten gains. However, have you ever considered the absolute lack of work you'll get for stupid wages like that? The free market, which sorts out prices for everything from corn to cars, would work equally well with employment. You can buy that $300 used Yugo, but don't expect much productivity out of it. Same with employment. Competition would demand that employers pay a competitive wage even to unskilled workers in order to ensure that they aren't left with a bunch of idiots or, even worse, nobody at all.

Originally posted by fluffernutter
Clinton was able to the raise minimum wage at the same time he was fostering a business climate which created 20 million jobs.

Of course Clinton didn't advocate doubling the minimum wage, which is what most are talking about here. In all honesty, we could raise the minimum wage a similar percentage now with very little impact because very few people are currently making minimum wage. Doubling the current minimum is an entirely different ball of wax.

Originally posted by Leper

Do you think the minimum wage should be annihilated? If not, this argument makes no sense.


I don't think the minimum wage needs to be eliminated. I was responding to someone that suggested that if your business can't pay someone a $10 minimum wage, your business doesn't deserve to exist. Which is essentially making it more difficult to grow new businesses, which is a strange way to create jobs for the poor.

Which is essentially making it more difficult to grow new businesses, which is a strange way to create jobs for the poor.

What the poor do not need is more shitty jobs. They need decent ones from decent employers, not ones that will treat them like shit. A low minimum wage encourages them to do just that. Economic policy should help people get a leg up in the world, not keep them in the same stupid job year after year. If those jobs went away, it would encourage people to become useful enough to employers to compete for the jobs that are left.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
What the poor do not need is more shitty jobs. They need decent ones from decent employers, not ones that will treat them like shit. A low minimum wage encourages them to do just that. Economic policy should help people get a leg up in the world, not keep them in the same stupid job year after year. If those jobs went away, it would encourage people to become useful enough to employers to compete for the jobs that are left.

How nice of you to save poor people from employment. They should all write you a letter of thanks. "No Mr. Poor, I've decided that job isn't good enough for you. I know you were hoping to work your way up the ladder and increase your earnings, but I know better. You go back home until I decide there's a job you can take." How condescending is that?

Competition would demand that employers pay a competitive wage even to unskilled workers in order to ensure that they aren't left with a bunch of idiots or, even worse, nobody at all. your ignoring the supply and demand aspect. There is always a surplus of labor. The US has been able to minimize it through things like schooling, needless beauracracy, and service jobs. However there will always be a surplus. And with NAFTA, CAFTA and other destruction of barriers to foreign labor markets unemployment and poverty is going up up up.

BTW- I think anyone on welfare should have to take a basic accounting class as well as one in conservation techniques (like cooling your house at night, reusing many things etc) as well as have the cable tv companies compare the list of recipiants to their subscibers. Anyone on welfare should not be living luxoriously or wasteful in any sense.

Originally posted by LionelHutz

I don't think the minimum wage needs to be eliminated. I was responding to someone that suggested that if your business can't pay someone a $10 minimum wage, your business doesn't deserve to exist. Which is essentially making it more difficult to grow new businesses, which is a strange way to create jobs for the poor.

Can we agree that minimum wage needs to be increased then? I also agree that doubling the min wage would be too much....I would think about $7/hour would be appropriate, although I would be happy to hear some advice from a good economist.

I know you were hoping to work your way up the ladder and increase your earnings, but I know better.

Because we all know what the potential earning capability of a burger flipper is.

Can we agree that minimum wage needs to be increased then?

What's the point in that? Then we can't argue about it! Where would all the fun be?

Echo said it best - go learn a skill, go to school (there's enough grants and loans available especially for those with low income) and get a better job. There are soo many people sitting on their butts now, churning out kids left and right from different fathers, and we're supporting that. Take it upon yourself to support yourself.

Raising the minimum wage will increase the prices for goods and services. I don't agree that a minimum wage should be a livable wage. See first sentence in paragraph above.

Corporate America is already utilizing much, much lower wages in India, China, etc. Raising the minimum wage here in the US will increase that globalization tremendously. Then where will we be?

Originally posted by saycricket
Corporate America is already utilizing much, much lower wages in India, China, etc. Raising the minimum wage here in the US will increase that globalization tremendously. Then where will we be?
That's exactly right, Cricket, but some of the myopic do-gooders here are intent on missing the big picture while feigning some sort of social altruism like a knock-off Mother Theresa. We're not just talking about competing in America when the global economy stipulates market prices for domestic labor. On the flip side of the global market, look at the stranglehold unions have on private industry right here in our own back yard. That aside, manufacturing jobs are leaving in record number because they simply CAN'T afford to pay 7-10 bucks an hour for someone who pushes a button to operate a mechanical press. In the grand scheme of things, they're simply not worth it. In short, the spoiled American populous is in for a HUGE reality check. Deluded people like Deepest Red are thoroughly convinced (using the simplest logic afforded mankind) that CEO's aren't as important as garbage men because every person amounts to nothing more than a proverbial cog in the machine. I'm sorry, but I can only chalk up the naiveté to a lack of business sense and economic knowledge. That goes for you, too, Napsterjerker.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
In short, the spoiled American populous is in for a HUGE reality check.

I agree, and it's already begun.

Originally posted by saycricket
Corporate America is already utilizing much, much lower wages in India, China, etc. Raising the minimum wage here in the US will increase that globalization tremendously. Then where will we be?

That's exactly wrong, actually. The jobs that are being outsourced are manufacturing jobs or jobs that can be done via computer or telephone; Most minimum wage jobs are NOT of that sort. Think fast food, maintenence, lawn care......minimum wage is for unskilled laborors, not for computer programmers and clockmakers.

Besides, if you want to stop outsourcing, you pass other laws to address that problem. But then y'all would complain about small businesses not being able to expand cause they can't hire an Indian computer technician for $2 an hour.....

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Because we all know what the potential earning capability of a burger flipper is. The wage is based on availability of the workers. Where I live, those jobs became more profitable recently. Do you know how? The teenage workforce is not as "enthusiastic" as it used to be. Now older people are taking those jobs, and that smaller available workforce created the need for an increase in the wage.

Originally posted by Leper
But then y'all would complain about small businesses not being able to expand cause they can't hire an Indian computer technician for $2 an hour.....
"Y'all"...you know, if it weren't for the drawl, I'd swear you weren't from Texas. :D

Okay, let's talk about this for a second...

Wouldn't the fact that hiring on an Indian computer technician for "$2" an hour put the "computer programmers and clockmakers" on the minimum wage wagon? I personally think it would if you're going to look at it from the perspective of a business. I'm not suggesting that it's practical to hire on our technicians at minimum wage, but I am saying that it does raise an eyebrow if you wanna be realistic. In 2005, are we not competing in a global market? Doesn’t that market set the precedent for wage earnings across the board? Don’t worry, they’re rhetorical questions...

In short, losing manufacturing is one of the biggest blows this economy is currently undergoing. If we're not exporting any goods, then we're not making money, period.
Originally posted by Leper
Besides, if you want to stop outsourcing, you pass other laws to address that problem.
So you're against free trade and open markets, ay? Heh...

You, my friend, are a democrat indeed. ;)

That's exactly right, Cricket, but some of the myopic do-gooders here are intent on missing the big picture while feigning some sort of social altruism like a knock-off Mother Theresa. We're not just talking about competing in America when the global economy stipulates market prices for domestic labor. Yeah because Americans should learn to live in America on the daily wages of India...

You logic is severly flawed here. You are pitting different economies against each other. Apples and Oranges. Just because Multinational Coroporations can exploit this does not mean that American wages should have to pander to the lowest common global denominator. Jobs are paid on a local level because your workers have to afford where they are living.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Yeah because Americans should learn to live in America on the daily wages of India...
Originally posted by The Praetorian
I'm not suggesting that it's practical to hire on our technicians at minimum wage, but I am saying that it does raise an eyebrow if you wanna be realistic. (from a companies perspective, of course)

quoth the Prea
In 2005, are we not competing in a global market? Doesn’t that market set the precedent for wage earnings across the board? Don’t worry, they’re rhetorical questions...

So you're against free trade and open markets, ay? Heh... You, my friend, are a democrat indeed. ummm.....Clinton?

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
You logic is severly flawed here. You are pitting different economies against each other. Apples and Oranges. Just because Multinational Coroporations can exploit this does not mean that American wages should have to pander to the lowest common global denominator. Jobs are paid on a local level because your workers have to afford where they are living.

AND, in order to afford one's living, do you think it's good to ship so-called telephone and computer jobs to India when workers here in the US can do them? Even for minimum wage?

There's a bigger picture here and I apologize that I dragged it into this thread. 500 is right, we cannot compare the two economies.

I'm not advocating minimum wage be doubled. Hardly. However, simply because one starts out at minimum wage, doesn't necessarily mean that one will remain at minimum wage forever. If I'm flipping burgers at McDonalds part time (or full time for that matter) I don't believe that my position should qualify for $10 per hour.

If the minimum wage is increased, the cost of all goods and services increases as well. The part or service that used to cost $1 will now cost $2 (as an example only) in order to cover the cost of the wage increase. This will ripple all the way to the top of the food/goods/services chain. This "ripple" will spur cost of living wage increases for the non-minimum wage earner, and then the cycle begins all over again.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by The Praetorian
"Y'all"...you know, if it weren't for the drawl, I'd swear you weren't from Texas. :D

Believe it or not, not everyone in Texas is a Bush disciple.

Okay, let's talk about this for a second...

Wouldn't the fact that hiring on an Indian computer technician for "$2" an hour put the "computer programmers and clockmakers" on the minimum wage wagon? I personally think it would if you're going to look at it from the perspective of a business. I'm not suggesting that it's practical to hire on our technicians at minimum wage, but I am saying that it does raise an eyebrow if you wanna be realistic. In 2005, are we not competing in a global market? Doesn’t that market set the precedent for wage earnings across the board? Don’t worry, they’re rhetorical questions...

In short, losing manufacturing is one of the biggest blows this economy is currently undergoing. If we're not exporting any goods, then we're not making money, period.

So you're against free trade and open markets, ay? Heh...

You, my friend, are a democrat indeed. ;)

Actually, I don't consider myself a Democrat. Rather, I'd call myself a moderate conservative with Libertarian leanings. However, that doesn't mean I never side with Democrats on some issues.

Besides, I'm not even advocating laws against outsourcing; I'm responding to people who are concerned a min wage hike will lead to catastrophic outsourcing.

Personally, outsourcing isn't a big concern for me. A nation's economy doesn't have to be based on manufacturing for it to be successful (as the U.S. is proving as we speak), but that's not the topic of this thread so I'm going to stop there.

But what I do believe is that one of the legitimate functions of government is to regulate economy, so that you don't end up with medieval societies where there are a few people who are filthy rich and most other people are dirt poor. Minimum wage is a crucial mechanism in stopping our society from degenerating in such a way.

And one more note, 500lb Gorilla makes an excellent point about why your logic is flawed.

Originally posted by Leper
Believe it or not, not everyone in Texas is a Bush disciple.
Believe it or not, I'm finding myself less of one every day. (Not that I was ever a "disciple"...)
Originally posted by Leper
And one more note, 500lb Gorilla makes an excellent point about why your logic is flawed.
Maybe so, but my point wasn't really to compare the two economies as much as it was to point out why we're losing the battle. Yeah, I know - it's obvious enough, but something's gonna have to give, or we're gonna lose our shirt BIG TIME - hence the "reality check" I was talking about earlier.

Originally posted by Brooks
First, where do you live that $162,000 makes someone rich?



Certainly not on Long Island.

A family living here and earning $162,000 is middle class, upper middle class maybe, but definetly middle class.

This is what I was talking about with my 100K a year wage as being average for a RESPONSIBLE family living relatively comfortably.

If you keep your cold goods in a refrigerater and wash your clothes in a washing machine, you are richer than 97% of the rest of the world.

Don't give me that cost of living garbage. And don't tell me that it was anything other than pure dumb luck that you have all that money either, because it doesn't wash. Economics is designed to keep that wealth in the hands of those 7% that have it already. Liberalism is designed to create more wealth for everybody. Economics will not help the poor. Neither will more shitty, dead-end jobs.

Middle class is wealthy. It is only because you see the people above you with a lot more that gives you the impression that you are not.

The wage is based on availability of the workers. Where I live, those jobs became more profitable recently. Do you know how? The teenage workforce is not as "enthusiastic" as it used to be. Now older people are taking those jobs, and that smaller available workforce created the need for an increase in the wage.

Above a certain point, market forces should definately dictate wages. Below that level, the federal and state minimum wage, it would be inhuman to allow such impersonal forces to determine a person's ability to put food on the table and keep the lights on.

The working class will have to subsist on these unlivable wages until we unite. We need to do so sooner rather than later; the writing's on the wall, my friends.

Originally posted by Deepest Red
The working class will have to subsist on these unlivable wages until we unite. We need to do so sooner rather than later; the writing's on the wall, my friends.
Nice talking point. Kudos to you!

What's a "talking point" mean?

From Wikipedia:

Talking points are small pre-prepared arguments or phrases that political strategists issue to representatives or supporters of a party or administration to be used repeatedly in speeches, talk show appearances and debates. The strategy is to create a meme and make the idea a common assumption by sheer means of repetition. Talking points are often gross simplifications of issues, and become name calling if used too often. The most effective talking points consist of one or two words, e.g. "flip-flopper", "job loser", and "ACLU member".

A little boy goes to his dad and asks, "What is politics?"

Dad says, "Well son, let me try to explain it this way: I'm the breadwinner of the family, so let's call me capitalism. Your Mom, she's the administrator of the money, so we'll call her the Government. We're here to take care of your needs, so we'll call you the people. The nanny, we'll consider her the Working Class. And your baby brother, we'll call him the Future. Now, think about that and see if that makes sense,"

So the little boy goes off to bed thinking about what dad had said. Later that night, he hears his baby brother crying, so he gets up to check on him. He finds that the baby has severely soiled his diaper. So the little boy goes to his parents' room and finds his mother sound asleep. Not wanting to wake her, he goes to the nanny's room. Finding the door locked, he peeks in the keyhole and sees his father in bed with the nanny. He gives up and goes back to bed. The next morning, the little boy says to his father, "Dad, I think I Understand the concept of politics now." The father says, "Good son, tell me in your own words what you think politics is all about." The little boy replies, "Well, while Capitalism is screwing the Working Class, the Government is sound asleep, the People are being ignored and the Future is in deep shit."

Originally posted by Napsterbater
And don't tell me that it was anything other than pure dumb luck that you have all that money either, because it doesn't wash.
What an utter load of bullshit. God, people like you REALLY piss me off...

Making decent choices and "dumb luck" aren't always congruous concepts when it comes to making money. Dumb luck is being handed cash or winning the lottery. Yeah, I know it happens, but I've also seen a lot of people who didn't have a pot to piss in become millionaires. In the grand scheme of things, I plan to amass my own wealth, and then use it to permanently move you and your ilk to countries like Cuba. I just have one question: where do you people come from? You reap the benefits of living in one of the greatest societies on Earth (read capitalistic), and you pride yourself in bashing it at every corner. Jesus, you raging hypocrites...

JUST GET THE FUCK OUT!!!

Are you Mormon, Napsterbater??? Please help me understand your position by saying yes.

Let's say we take Napsterbater's suggestion and raise the minimum wage to $10.00 per hour. What do you think the people now earning $10.00 per hour are going to do? They are going to demand $15.00 per hour. Those making $15.00 per hour will demand $20.00 hour, ad infinitum.

Keeping in mind that a rising tide raises all boats, all wages will go up by the same percentage the minimum wage increased, making the minimum wage once again too low. Increasing the minimum wage has the opposite effect of what is hoped. Poor people don't suddenly become less poor. They, in fact, become more poor.

Since minimum wages are meant for entry level jobs, jobs held by students and others just entering the workforce, there are only two things one has to do to keep from being poor; stay in school and get a job, any job and stick with it.

Originally posted by Frogger

Keeping in mind that a rising tide raises all boats, all wages will go up by the same percentage the minimum wage increased, making the minimum wage once again too low.


"Same percentage"? That's an absolutely false statement made by a hopelessly linear thinker.

Although all costs will rise, middle and upper class will bear a disproportionate share of the burden. That is, if you raised minimum wage by 50%, you would only see a small rise in cost of living for everyone else...I would guess something around 5%. So the minimum wage earners would net a 45% (granted, I'm not including a tax adjustment) increase in wealth.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
What an utter load of bullshit. God, people like you REALLY piss me off...

Making decent choices and "dumb luck" aren't always congruous concepts when it comes to making money. Dumb luck is being handed cash or winning the lottery. Yeah, I know it happens, but I've also seen a lot of people who didn't have a pot to piss in become millionaires. In the grand scheme of things, I plan to amass my own wealth, and then use it to permanently move you and your ilk to countries like Cuba. I just have one question: where do you people come from? You reap the benefits of living in one of the greatest societies on Earth (read capitalistic), and you pride yourself in bashing it at every corner. Jesus, you raging hypocrites...

JUST GET THE FUCK OUT!!!

Oh, please. "I don't like what you say, so you need to get out of this oh-so-great country!" Does it make you feel uncomfortable, that you are riding on the backs of the poor, or do you really believe that garbage that, "they can become wealthy if they want to!" thereby absolving you of any responsibility whatsoever to them? I'm sorry you don't like it when I point it out to you, but I take no pity on you and your $100,000 a year salary, which you claim is "middle class."

Can you sit there and remain smug in your (obviously skillfully acquired) superiority, when you don't even advocate paying the people you rely on for YOUR salary a decent, livable wage, that is far less than a hundred thousand dollars a year? Are you so money-minded that you actually think that paying poor people LESS money is actually helping them, and will come up with any number of half-baked arguments to support giving people absolute shit for their hard work and time?

Perhaps you think that just because capitalism helped YOU out, that it also helps the billions of other people in this world without the benefit of a western education and an initiation into American-style money-grubbing? So much so that you think that NOT being a money grubber is somehow anti-American, as well as pointing out the greed and hypocrisy of those who claim that economic theory actually HELPS the poor? Pardon me, but pointing out the ills of the majority point of view was never anti-American. Dissent is the HIGHEST form of patriotism, as Jefferson once said.

You want everybody that says uncomfortable things out of the country? I think YOU need to walk in the shoes of a beggar for a few years.

Originally posted by Deepest Red
The working class will have to subsist on these unlivable wages until we unite. We need to do so sooner rather than later; the writing's on the wall, my friends.

Minimum wage-debunkers, take a look at this post. This is the sort of talk you will hear more and more the more the poor get seperated from the rich. This is the secondary effect of allowing the gap between the wealthy and poor to grow too large...that is, the likelihood of a confrontation between the two classes will occur, and as history shows us, this is often a physical confrontation that hurts everyone in the nation.

This is the secondary effect of allowing the gap between the wealthy and poor to grow too large...that is, the likelihood of a confrontation between the two classes will occur, and as history shows us, this is often a physical confrontation that hurts everyone in the nation.

You are absolutely right. This has forced me to reconsider my stance. I think its nigh time for another Magna Carta.

Prae, I have just joined your side. Don't worry about answering my post, as I'm sure it has thrown you in a fit of hysterics. Feel free to take it out on your illegal alien maid you pay two dollars an hour.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Feel free to take it out on your illegal alien maid you pay two dollars an hour.
It's $2.25, I'll thank you very much...

Now, in regards to your post, you're not dissenting, my little commie friend, you're trying to reinvent the wheel, and you're doing so on a premise that is so absolutely and rankly Un-American, it sickens me. Now you can call it dissent until the cows come home, but that doesn't change the fact that WE'LL NEVER ADOPT A SYSTEM THAT OUR COUNTRY WASN'T BUILT ON. Tweaking the current structure is one thing, but what you're suggesting is insane. Your proposal isn't constructive; it's a fucking teardown with no regard for business, our history, or accomplishments, period. If you want to live in a nation that operates in such a manner, then move to Cuba and live in a commune. Pack your Volkswagen, load the bong, arrange for transportation in Mexico, and get a move on, Skippy. People like you don't offer a welcome or refreshing perspective to a new problem. In short, you're the tired answer to an old one.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
I think YOU need to walk in the shoes of a beggar for a few years.
You know, the problem with your type is......you take responsibility away from people. The responsibility to work, think, read, assess, assimilate information, and discriminate. People can be amazing, but if they CHOOSE to do nothing with their life (or lack intelligence), then they deserve to be treated as house pets, turned into menial workers, or eliminated. If you feel so badly for them, then you can put a roof over their heads and food in their bellies. I just hope you have a job that affords you the pleasure.

Do you accuse every single left-winger you meet of being a communist? Seems to me like exactly the sort of world you live in. You'd probably be right at home with Joseph McCarthy and his band of party animals. "Yep, he's a commie, put him on the list."

I'm sure Thomas Jefferson would look on to our current system of wage-serfdom and pump his fist in the air, and exclaim to the whole world that it is the best thing since sliced bread, and then get down on his knees to fellate the current generation of robber barons. Sorry to burst your bubble, Mr. Cheap-labor Conservative, but raising the minimum wage won't tear down a damn thing, except for exploitative and poorly managed businesses with whiny, crybaby owners, who can't be bothered to do a little extra work to ensure that his workers have enough money to put food on the table.

Raising the minimum wage is exactly the sort of tweak you are speaking of. It doesn't have to be $10 an hour. But $5.15 just doesn't cut the yellow shitstain-like condiment. Nobody is suggesting that we just get rid of all our accomplishments. We are just saying that we need to use them responsibly, to maybe treat the people who built those accomplishments a little better.

Our buildings are built and maintained by poor people. So are the roads. So are the fancy electronic goods. Our wars are fought by them. Treat these people with a little more respect, is all I ask!

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Our buildings are built and maintained by poor people. So are the roads. So are the fancy electronic goods.
You've gotta be kidding me! Union workers (and non-union alike) are paid incredibly high wages to (hardly) work at all. As a matter of fact, they get paid two to three times as much as they do in Europe, and the cost of living is only slightly higher here. Usually the onus is on the employer to provide medical and dental care for your average Joe Six-pack who's now being subsidized by our government to do absolutely nothing for four hours while he's clocking in 8. Do you have any idea how much construction workers make? If you've got a man who's fully vested (especially in the electrical field), then they can EASILY make six figures with overtime (of course, most of the "overtime" has been doctored, especially if the state's picking up the tab for inferior work, but I digress - it's planned obsolescence anyway).
Originally posted by Napsterbater
Our wars are fought by them. Treat these people with a little more respect, is all I ask!
Absolutely true, and I'm not treating them with any disrespect at all. If they want respect, they'll earn it.

People can be amazing, but if they CHOOSE to do nothing with their life (or lack intelligence), then they deserve to be treated as house pets, turned into menial workers, or eliminated.

Absolutely pathetic. You think that people actually CHOOSE the lot they are stuck with? You think they LIKE being pushed around by the government, the corporation, their bosses? You think that people who aren't smart enough to acquire wealth from others actually DESERVE to be treated like shit? You think people are responsible for the fact that their bosses are too damn stingy to pay them enough money to keep the lights on?Perhaps it is their fault that they cannot get decent health-care anymore. Maybe it is their fault that they have to lose every cent they own to become eligible for Medicaid? So, it's their fault that wages are dropping and jobs are fleeing while costs are rising? Oh wait, according to you, they can just make more money! Life is absolutely simple! Don't like where you're at? Just get rich!

Originally posted by Leper
"Same percentage"? That's an absolutely false statement made by a hopelessly linear thinker.

Although all costs will rise, middle and upper class will bear a disproportionate share of the burden. That is, if you raised minimum wage by 50%, you would only see a small rise in cost of living for everyone else...I would guess something around 5%. So the minimum wage earners would net a 45% (granted, I'm not including a tax adjustment) increase in wealth.

It is obvious you don't know human nature, Leper. If person A is making allforums.netallforums.netallforums.netallforums.n etallforums.netallforums.netallforums.net per hour and his wage is raised by the government to $10.00 per hour, person B who is presently making $10.00 an hour will almost immediately demand a commensurate pay increase.

It is not simply a question of the cost of things but of the value people place on their own labor.

Police in New York City earn less than those in nearby Nassau and Suffolk Counties. They make a good wage but it is less than their neighbors. They don't give a damn how good their wage is, they want to make as much as those in the two nearby counties. The same goes for New York City teachers. They are constantly calling for an increase in pay so that they make an amount equal to their suburban counterparts.

Raise the minimum wage and you will have to raise all wages and those making minimum will still be at the bottom of the wage ladder and disatisfied.

If people wish to rise above minimum wage jobs they should do something other than minimum wage work. If someone is unskilled and uneducated he is pretty much unemployable in any but the most menial jobs. That is his fault, not mine and I feel no responsibility to pay higher taxes in order to artificially increase his salary.

Do you have any idea how much construction workers make?

I was a construction worker once. I sure as hell wasn't in a union, and I definately didn't get subsidized by the government. I made ten dollars an hour. I was an efficient and hard-working electrical apprentice. Did all that cash really go to your head that much that you are that divorced from the day-to-day life of your average lower-class citizen? Or are you just ignorant? The more you post, the more I suspect the latter. If you got into the electrical union these days, you'll be lucky to make nine dollars an hour!

My father, who owns the business, did have a six-figure paycheck. But I'll be damned if he ever enjoys any of it. He owns a bulldozer special. Granted, it is in a nice section of town, and it cost him a hundred grand, but he still lives like a pauper. 25 years of hard work, and he still works six days a week, ten hours a day. Electrical work isn't easy, not the work he does. He's having all sorts of back and joint problems. It ain't no cakewalk, buddy.

They don't give a damn how good their wage is, they want to make as much as those in the two nearby counties. The same goes for New York City teachers. They are constantly calling for an increase in pay so that they make an amount equal to their suburban counterparts.

Doesn't mean they are getting it. People can howl and scream all they want, employers are going to pay only what they want to pay.

Napsterbater,

When were you earning ten an hour as an electrician's apprentice? Were you also learning a trade that would be more remunerative in the future? Did you pick that job or were you forced into it at gunpoint?


I am retired and I have enough money to live comfortably with a large house on Long Island and a condo directly on the ocean in Florida. It isn't simply the result of luck that I am where I am.

I couldn't afford college so I spent three years in the Army and went on the G.I. Bill, working while in school and vacations to supplement the G.I. Bill money.

I got a job and continued my schooling, eventually earning two Master's degrees and enough post-graduate credits to be paid at the PhD rate.

I stayed at my job for over thirty five years, constantly upgrading my education so that I could earn more. When my salary was not enough to meet my needs I worked two and occassionally three jobs.

I saved as much money as I could, postponing buying things until I had the money to afford them and sometimes simply doing without. After paying my basic needs I first put money into savings before buying goodies. I saved throughout my working career, realizing the power of compounding.

My wife and I have instilled our habits in our children. Stay in school and get an education. Study hard, work hard and save hard. Get a job and keep it. My eldest daughter is a special education teacher, my eldest son is a dentist, my next eldest son is a cardiologist and my youngest son is a lawyer. They all make very good money. They all put in lots of effort to get where they are. No one handed them their education or their jobs.

My kids are saving as much money as they can and are instilling their work and saving ethic in their children.

I have four brothers and a sister who did not complete college, but they did work hard. They started out with minimum wage jobs and kept trying to improve themselves. Each of them is far from being poor. They are all solidly middle class. Why? Because they worked at becoming solidly middle class.

If someone is disabled, I feel I owe that person a helping hand. If someone is not disabled, I feel I owe them nothing. If you don't want to earn minimum wage stop putting in minimum effort.

That is his fault, not mine and I feel no responsibility to pay higher taxes in order to artificially increase his salary.

Where did you get this garbage? The money is coming out of the employers pocketbook, not yours.

Any time wages go up, it cost me more. It cost me more either in taxes or in increased cost of goods and services. It is not my responsiblity to subsidize another person unless that person is disabled. Quitting school, not getting a skill, not sticking with a job, are not disabilities.

Journeyman wages are 35.15 an hour in Chicago, my pink buddy, and ComEd employs thousands of them. That's roughly 76,000 per year with vacation pay. With overtime, you're looking at a 5,000-10,000 dollar a year bump in earnings. That's not bad for someone who went to a trade school to earn his living. I hate to bust your hump, but welcome to reality.

When were you earning ten an hour as an electrician's apprentice?

Last year.

Were you also learning a trade that would be more remunerative in the future?

No, seeing as I don't like construction work.

Did you pick that job or were you forced into it at gunpoint?

I picked it. Big deal. I am in a much better position than most Americans. I was lucky enough to get the tools I need to succeed. Most people don't. You were lucky enough to be able to work hard and get somewhere. Lots of people work hard and get nowhere. This "I worked hard, look what I have, it had absolutely nothing to do with luck at all!" bit doesn't wash, especially when you gain an appreciation for the fact that you were among the top 5 percent of wealthiest people in the world, when you were born.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
This "I worked hard, look what I have, it had absolutely nothing to do with luck at all!" bit doesn't wash, especially when you gain an appreciation for the fact that you were among the top 5 percent of wealthiest people in the world, when you were born.
This is just fucking crazy. In a country of only 285 million people, we live better than the other 5.75 billion because, A) we're in a great country, and B) we've made good decisions while living here, period. Just being an American gives you a leg up, but people like you don't see it that way. That's not our fault, nor is it our problem.

Average weekly salary of a white male union electrical worker, age 16+: $827

This includes master electricians.

The averages go down sharply when you look at the minorities. A far cry from $35.15.

Source: http://www.ibew.org/union/it_pays_to_be_union.htm

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Average weekly salary of a white male union electrical worker, age 16+: $827

This includes master electricians.

The averages go down sharply when you look at the minorities. A far cry from $35.15.

Source: http://www.ibew.org/union/it_pays_to_be_union.htm

$827 per week is over $43,000 a year, hardly slave wages, and that takes in the wages of beginning apprentences as well as master electricians. A more accurate wage picture would be what journeyman and master electricians earn after a few years on the job. I'll be willing to wager it is a hell of a lot more than $827 per week.


You said you left the electrician field because you didn't like construction work. That was your decision and if you got a subsequent job earning less that is also your decision. Don't expect me to subsidize you because you didn't like your work.

Originally posted by Frogger
$827 per week is over $43,000 a year, hardly slave wages, and that takes in the wages of beginning apprentences as well as master electricians. A more accurate wage picture would be what journeyman and master electricians earn after a few years on the job. I'll be willing to wager it is a hell of a lot more than $827 per week.


You said you left the electrician field because you didn't like construction work. That was your decision and if you got a subsequent job earning less that is also your decision. Don't expect me to subsidize you because you didn't like your work.
Exactly.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
In a country on only 285 million people, we live better than the other 5.75 billion because, A) we're in a great country, and B) we've made good decisions while living here, period.

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.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. FT, it is what it is, and you, like Napster, seem to have a problem with that. It's not dissent if you hate the whole fucking country - i.e. what it was built on, and how it was founded. There's no fixing it for you people, but you'd gladly continue to exploit it while you sit there and smugly bash it for it's exploitation of others. Don't you see how fucked that is? Don’t you get it??? Are you not capable of detecting any hypocrisy in that??? L-E-A-V-E.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
L-E-A-V-E.

If I had the requisite finances, i W-O-U-L-D.

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