Raise The Minimum Wage!

Right because why would the effects of massive food inflation for many years in a row on the very poor concern you?

Yet you want to make the food cost more by raising the minimum wage? What are the very poor (typically those on government welfare, not with jobs) going to do if you make the every day purchases cost more?

why anyone supports a federal minimum wage is beyond me. Should the minimum be the same in NYC as it is in Mobile Alabama? Let the states set their own if you are hell bent on forcing a minimum.
 
Right because why would the effects of massive food inflation for many years in a row on the very poor concern you?

Well then why didn't he do this three years ago? He may have but I didn't know it. If stuff like this is proposed during a non-election year I am prone to view it with less cynicism.
 
In a repressed or depressed economy, people often clamor for the federal government to increase minimum wage laws as a way to combat poverty and help struggling individuals. However a noble plight this may be, it is actually counterproductive to the end result they wish to see. Minimum wage hurts poor or unskilled workers, small businesses and minorities, costs jobs and raises prices of goods or services while helping union members and encouraging illegal immigration.

Victim Number One: Poor or Unskilled Workers

While on the surface, minimum wage laws or increasing minimum wages from a federal level seems like it would be a benefit to workers and society as a whole, the opposite is true. The University of California in Irvine conducted research focused on how minimum wages and any increases affected workers with little to no skill. The study found that minimum wage laws and their hikes clearly and significantly reduced employment for unskilled laborers. For every ten percent minimum wage increased, employment for the unskilled worker was reduced by 8.8 percent. The bottom line, in a tough economy with an even tougher job market, a job at fair market value is much more beneficial to the low wage worker than no job at all under minimum wage laws.

A fifty year study conducted by the Joint Economic Committee of the US Congress also found that minimum wages:

• Do nothing to reduce or alleviate poverty
• Hurt the poor the most
• Hurt the low wage worker
• Hurt minorities
• Reduce employment opportunities for teenagers
• Reduce employment the most for young black males
• Reduce overall employment


http://www.oakparkrepublic.com/2012/04/victims-of-minimum-wage-laws-by-andrea.html


Asked, and answered
 
Yet you want to make the food cost more by raising the minimum wage? What are the very poor (typically those on government welfare, not with jobs) going to do if you make the every day purchases cost more?

why anyone supports a federal minimum wage is beyond me. Should the minimum be the same in NYC as it is in Mobile Alabama? Let the states set their own if you are hell bent on forcing a minimum.


I don't think it is too much for the federal government to set a floor for wages. If states want to enact higher minimum wages, they can.
 
I don't think it is too much for the federal government to set a floor for wages. If states want to enact higher minimum wages, they can.

It really wouldn't be too smart for states to enact a higher "minimum" wage would it...at least if they want to attract some vusinesses to their state. I can see it now, workers flock to a state because they have set forth a higher minimum wage than the rest of the country....businesses then leave for Texas. Wait....that's already happened with taxes hasn't it.

I will be the first to admit that I am out of my league with this economy stuff...I am just looking at it as I see it. It probably isn't that simple.
 
What's the matter, can't take what you dish out? Oldest Alinsky tactic in the book, pick an unreasonable standard and hold your opponent to it while you don't have to.

Cite where Saul Alinsky did this. Not your warped interpretation - a documented incidence.
 
It really wouldn't be too smart for states to enact a higher "minimum" wage would it...at least if they want to attract some vusinesses to their state. I can see it now, workers flock to a state because they have set forth a higher minimum wage than the rest of the country....businesses then leave for Texas. Wait....that's already happened with taxes hasn't it.

I will be the first to admit that I am out of my league with this economy stuff...I am just looking at it as I see it. It probably isn't that simple.


Some states do it.

Frankly, if a business wants to pay its workers less that $7.25 I don't know that its the kind of business a state would really want to attract.
 
I don't think it is too much for the federal government to set a floor for wages. If states want to enact higher minimum wages, they can.

Setting the floor for unskilled workers at rates that are not needed in parts of the country is a disservice. If you take the latest proposal for Dems at $10, that would equate to roughly $20k per year for minimum wage 40hrs per week, 50 wks.

20k in Mobile Alabama is the same as about $41k in Brooklyn in terms of cost of living. With that kind of discrepancy, the Federal minimum wage should be based on the lower cost of living area. Then let states adjust up if need be. Setting it too high hurts lower cost of living states.
 
It really wouldn't be too smart for states to enact a higher "minimum" wage would it...at least if they want to attract some vusinesses to their state. I can see it now, workers flock to a state because they have set forth a higher minimum wage than the rest of the country....businesses then leave for Texas. Wait....that's already happened with taxes hasn't it.

I will be the first to admit that I am out of my league with this economy stuff...I am just looking at it as I see it. It probably isn't that simple.

It is part of the reason why companies relocate to lower cost of living states. The employees get more bang for their buck in terms of homes, food, clothing etc... and the employer gets lower wage workers. It is the same reason companies will offshore some of their work to places like China/India, where the hourly wage seems abysmal to US workers, but is middle income to them.
 
Cite where Saul Alinsky did this. Not your warped interpretation - a documented incidence.

Sure, and I want people to pay attention, and take a look at these 'Rules for Radicals' Alinsky spoke of, because they have been a playbook for the hard left for decades now.

RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)

RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)

RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)

RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)

RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)

RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid “un-fun” activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)

RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)

RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)

RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)

RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)

RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)

RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)[2]
[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals
 
Sure, and I want people to pay attention, and take a look at these 'Rules for Radicals' Alinsky spoke of, because they have been a playbook for the hard left for decades now.

RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)

LOLOL....right. The Alinsky Bogeyman. You're a hoot.

So you cited the ominous 'Rule 4' as proof of this:

pick an unreasonable standard and hold your opponent to it while you don't have to.

Nowhere in Rule 4 does it assert any of the hyperbolic mash you're claiming. Do all Alinskyphobes spout the same stupid nonsense? It appears so. :D
 
LOLOL....right. The Alinsky Bogeyman. You're a hoot.

So you cited the ominous 'Rule 4' as proof of this:



Nowhere in Rule 4 does it assert any of the hyperbolic mash you're claiming. Do all Alinskyphobes spout the same stupid nonsense? It appears so. :D

Ah, so you slip to rule 5:

RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)

I am telling you man, it doesn't work...You should stop...
 
No they don't. They tell you that it is an 'acceptable' thing in a robust economy, because it is a side-effect of economic prosperity occurring. It is NEVER a "good" thing for an economy. It is always a "detrimental" thing to the economy.... the question of acceptability or degree, is a different argument.

Wow, you really are an idiot.

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2010/09/27/100927ta_talk_surowiecki
http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/why-inflation-is-good-for-you.html
http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/1357/economics/benefits-of-inflation

Where did you attend school...Oral Roberts, or Patriot University, perhaps?

it is a side-effect of economic prosperity occurring. [...] It is always a "detrimental" thing to the economy.

LOL. So a side effect of prosperity is damage to the economy?
 
Last edited:

Okay... So you posted the views of ONE economist, who says essentially what I stated, that 2% inflation is indicative of a prospering economy, and acceptable. And you posted a liberal opinion piece which misinterprets this principle to conclude that inflation is really GOOD. And finally, an entry from an economics blog, which also agrees with the point I made.

Now you can keep being a petty little twit who has to twist and distort what I say, and lie about what you present, but that doesn't make you right.
 
Setting the floor for unskilled workers at rates that are not needed in parts of the country is a disservice. If you take the latest proposal for Dems at $10, that would equate to roughly $20k per year for minimum wage 40hrs per week, 50 wks.

20k in Mobile Alabama is the same as about $41k in Brooklyn in terms of cost of living. With that kind of discrepancy, the Federal minimum wage should be based on the lower cost of living area. Then let states adjust up if need be. Setting it too high hurts lower cost of living states.


The $10 by 2015 proposal is based on the original minimum wage and is more a statement than a sound policy proposal. Having said that, the current minimum wage amounts to roughly $15,000 for a full time worker. I don't think $7.25 is anything approaching "too high" for any area. At least it shouldn't be.


Edit: And this is an argument about an appropriate minimum wage rate, not whether there should be a minimum wage.
 
What's the matter, can't take what you dish out? Oldest Alinsky tactic in the book, pick an unreasonable standard and hold your opponent to it while you don't have to.

I apologized to christie because after re reading the thread, I thought I was a bit harsh, not because you or anyone else had anything to say about it...Darla on the other hand wanted to bring in the ever so snarky 'teabagger' tag like a 6th grader that snickers, knowing the meaning of the phrase, so since she introduced it, she should be prepared to take the heat from using it. And I couldn't care any less what some message board liberal hack thinks of it either....Are we clear?

Lol...I guess lilmac doesn't realize Mitt's daddy used to pal around with Alinsky.
 
Back
Top