Raise The Minimum Wage!

Dixie said:
Yes. And I read you backpedaling from your original claim that "no American has legally visited Cuba in 50 years."

Hoist with his own petard! ...It's Shakespeare, btw.
Click to expand...

Since you are clearly reading impaired, I will print the sentence you misunderstand again;

To be clear, it is still illegal for ordinary American vacationers to hop on a plane bound for Cuba, which has been under a United States economic embargo for nearly 50 years. True, plenty have dodged the restrictions — and continue to do so — by flying there from another country like Mexico or Canada

What part of "still illegal" do you not understand?
 
cawacko said:
christiefan915 said:
I see a lot of "Joe the Plumber" thinking with the anti-raise crowd. Joe thought under Obama his taxes would go way up but the actual number came out to $750 a year, while his income would increase by the thousands.

If you have five employees and the minimum gets raised to $7.65, for instance, it works out to $20/day ($4/person) for a 40-hour week. Now look at those 19 years I talked about previously. 1981-1990, min. was $3.35 yet the COLA went up 48%. Same thing for the years 1997-2007. The worker was getting a lot less bang for his buck at the end of these long spells. A few additional dollars in the paycheck means a lot to those who earn a pittance.

Companies and workers are mutually dependent yet the ones with the money always have the power.

My questions to conservatives are: do you think minimum wage should be eliminated, and if not, what amount should it be?[/QUOTE

It's not about Joe the Plumber or being conservative. I asked my old man who has a PhD in economics and used to teach it. Doesn't mean he's right about everything but it's an area he's very knowledgable about. He also voted for Obama and lives in San Francisco so he's not a right-wing Southerner. I asked his opinion and first response was it will cost jobs just as I posted previously. It's economics.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I guess my attempt at analogy was a little muddled. I was trying to say that a fifty-cent increase, for example, doesn't cost the employer that much in total dollars but it makes a big difference to the employee. And I defer to your pops and am only trying to get educated and fully understand the others' views on the MW. So what I'm hearing from everyone is that there are a lot of conditions in the market that cause price increases. So it's hard (for me anyway) to see that increasing the minimum wage alone will tip the economy negatively.

This is not to suggest that conservatives don't think workers should be treated fairly. We just have a difference of opinion on where the line is drawn.
Click to expand...
 
Rune said:
Since you are clearly reading impaired, I will print the sentence you misunderstand again;

To be clear, it is still illegal for ordinary American vacationers to hop on a plane bound for Cuba, which has been under a United States economic embargo for nearly 50 years. True, plenty have dodged the restrictions — and continue to do so — by flying there from another country like Mexico or Canada

What part of "still illegal" do you not understand?
Click to expand...

Illegal yes, however your original claim was....

Rune said:
Since no americans have legally travelled to Cuba in over 50 years...
Click to expand...

Your premise remains, and was flawed. You tried to imply that no Americans travel to Cuba, and used the term "legally" to mask your lie. The truth of the matter is that there are, and always have been legal trips to Cuba...Here is some of the ways that people from the US travel there...

General licenses for Travel: General licenses are granted to the following categories of travelers, who are permitted to spend money to travel to Cuba and to engage in other transactions directly incident to the purpose of their travel, without the need to obtain a specific license from the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) :

Persons visiting a close relative (any individual related to a person by blood, marriage, or adoption who is no more than three generations removed from that person or from a common ancestor with that person) who is a national of Cuba, and persons traveling with them who share a common dwelling as a family with them. There is no limit on the duration or frequency of such travel. (According to the Cuban Assets Control Regulations, third country nationals who reside in Cuba are considered Cuban nationals.)

Journalists and supporting broadcasting or technical personnel (regularly employed in that capacity by a news reporting organization and traveling for journalistic activities).

Official government travelers on official business.

Members of international organizations of which the United States is also a member (traveling on official business).

Religious organizations, including members and staff, traveling for the purpose of participating and engaging in religious activities. Organizations may open accounts at Cuban financial institutions for the purpose of accessing funds in Cuba for transactions related to such activities.

Students and all members of faculty and staff of accredited U.S. graduate and undergraduate degree granting institutions can participate in academic activities in Cuba through any sponsoring U.S. academic institution, not only through the accredited U.S. academic institution at which the student is pursuing a degree, if the traveler’s study in Cuba will be accepted for credit toward the student’s degree.

Persons teaching at a Cuban academic institution if regularly employed in a teaching capacity at the sponsoring U.S. academic institution and provided the teaching activities are related to an academic program at the Cuban institution and the duration of the teaching will be no shorter than 10 weeks.

Full-time professionals, whose travel transactions are directly related to research in their professional areas, provided that their research: 1) is of a noncommercial, academic nature; 2) comprises a full work schedule in Cuba; and 3) has a substantial likelihood of public dissemination.

Full-time professionals whose travel transactions are directly related to attendance at professional meetings or conferences in Cuba that are organized by an international professional organization, institution, or association that regularly sponsors such meetings or conferences in other countries. An organization, institution, or association headquartered in the United States may not sponsor such a meeting or conference unless it has been specifically licensed to sponsor it. The purpose of the meeting or conference cannot be the promotion of tourism in Cuba or other commercial activities involving Cuba, or to foster production of any bio-technological products.

Employees of a U.S. telecommunications services provider or an entity duly appointed to represent such a provider traveling incident to: 1) the commercial marketing, sales negotiation, accompanied delivery, or servicing of authorized telecommunications-related items; or 2) participation in certain telecommunications-related professional meetings for the commercial marketing of, sales negotiation for, or performance under contracts for the provision of telecommunications services, or the establishment of facilities to provide telecommunications services.

Individuals regularly employed by a producer or distributer of agricultural commodities, medicine, or medical devices or an entity duly appointed to represent such a producer or distributer traveling incident to the commercial marketing, sales negotiation, accompanied delivery, or servicing in Cuba of such items.

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1097.html
Click to expand...

As Reuters reported there has been quite a bit of legal travel to Cuba from the US here...

Some 63,000 U.S. citizens visited Cuba in 2010, up from 52,500 the previous year and 41,900 in 2008, according to a report by the National Statistics Office (here).

U.S. citizens are forbidden from travelling to Cuba without their government's permission under a wide-ranging trade embargo against the island imposed nearly five decades ago.

In the years following Cuba's 1959 revolution the highest known number of U.S. visitors peaked at 70,000 under U.S. President Bill Clinton, then dropped to an average of 30,000 in the last term of U.S. President George W. Bush.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/23/uk-cuba-usa-tourism-idUSLNE75M02K20110623
Click to expand...

So your statement was just plain wrong....
 
cawacko said:
I asked the question from a discussion perspective. I mean $10, $15 or $20 an hour would really boost a workers spending potential. The question doesn't have to do with being liberal or conservative and isn't a gotcha question. It was simply a question for discussion.
Click to expand...

Actually I was referring to j-mac's comment about getting $20/hour for flipping burgers.

Btw, I know the MW can vary, so it seems at least some of it depends on where you live and the economic conditions of that area. CA's is higher than PA's.
 
j-mac said:
I would love to see an experiment where all the liberals, socialists, communists, and anarchists all go to a determined part of the country, and we could split them off into their own country where they could be free to institute all sorts of regulation, top down control, high taxes on wealth, and huge welfare state commitments, and see how that works out for them....

Oh wait, we do....California....It's broke.

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/3888699/californias-money-problems/
Click to expand...

Simplistic.
 
j-mac said:
No Americans? While I agree that Michael Moore is NOT an American, in the sense that he hates his own country, what you say here is simply NOT true, it is a bold faced lie.

Thousands of Americans travel to Cuba each and every year.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: Another example of why I can't take extreme right-wingers seriously. If liberals don't agree with you, we're unAmerican and hate our own country.
 
christiefan915 said:
:rolleyes: Another example of why I can't take extreme right-wingers seriously. If liberals don't agree with you, we're unAmerican and hate our own country.
Click to expand...

While I would agree that the whole "they hate their country" bit is overboard, I can understand where they come from when guys like Moore point to places like Europe (you know, what we sought to escape) as the design we should now follow. When they talk with such vitriol about how half of the country are knuckle daggers for voting for the other side...and both sides do this.....I can see why they do go overboard with words.
 
christiefan915 said:
:rolleyes: Another example of why I can't take extreme right-wingers seriously. If liberals don't agree with you, we're unAmerican and hate our own country.
Click to expand...

Well, I was obviously being a little tongue in cheek there, but another example of why emotion driven liberals can not debate intellectually...Thanks for proving the point.
 
christiefan915 said:
...a fifty-cent increase, for example, doesn't cost the employer that much in total dollars but it makes a big difference to the employee. And I defer to your pops and am only trying to get educated and fully understand the others' views on the MW. So what I'm hearing from everyone is that there are a lot of conditions in the market that cause price increases. So it's hard (for me anyway) to see that increasing the minimum wage alone will tip the economy negatively.
Click to expand...

Money has the same value to the employer as the employee. It therefore, makes the same amount of difference to each. You want to view the employer as somehow not deserving of his profits which he gained from the efforts of the employee, and therefore, it is somehow justified that we take from the employer and give to the employee. But there is a mutual cooperative happening here. The employer is providing a job and income, the employee is providing productivity or creativity. The employee is compensated, and the employer reaps a profit from their production by investment of capital, marketing, assuming risks and liability, etc. Money is just as important to the employer as it is the employee.

Now, what happens when we increase the "bottom rate" for labor, or "minimum wage" is that all lower-level income will precipitously increase, because that is the natural order of things... If Joe was making $7.25 and get's increased to $7.50, then Jim who makes $7.50 will demand $8.00... and so on. We can argue back and forth as to how much this would actually cause consumer prices to rise, or jobs to be lost.... but the bottom line is, it will ALWAYS be a negative effect. Regardless of how little or how much, is not the point. At this time, we don't need to be doing ANYTHING to cause a negative effect on business or hiring. If we were in a robust period of economic expansion, perhaps that would be an appropriate time to consider such a thing, because the negative effects would be inconsequential, and we could live with it. Right now, we can't live with what we have, we don't need to make things WORSE!
 
j-mac said:
Illegal yes, however your original claim was....


I knew you weren't brilliant, but I didn't take you for full retard either.


Your premise remains, and was flawed. You tried to imply that no Americans travel to Cuba, and used the term "legally" to mask your lie. The truth of the matter is that there are, and always have been legal trips to Cuba...Here is some of the ways that people from the US travel there...

OK, trying to follow your logic here; You agree that it is illegal to travel to Cuba from America, yet I lied about it and tried to cover my lie using the (true) decriptive term (legally)? Who are you, Jethro Bodine?



As Reuters reported there has been quite a bit of legal travel to Cuba from the US here...

Yes, I was wrong. Being wrong is not lying, idiot.



So your statement was just plain wrong....
Click to expand...

Thanks, but I thought you said it was a bald faced lie?

j-mac said:
No Americans? While I agree that Michael Moore is NOT an American, in the sense that he hates his own country, what you say here is simply NOT true, it is a bold faced lie.
Click to expand...

So, am I a liar, or are you an idiot?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dixie said:
Money has the same value to the employer as the employee. It therefore, makes the same amount of difference to each. You want to view the employer as somehow not deserving of his profits which he gained from the efforts of the employee, and therefore, it is somehow justified that we take from the employer and give to the employee. But there is a mutual cooperative happening here. The employer is providing a job and income, the employee is providing productivity or creativity. The employee is compensated, and the employer reaps a profit from their production by investment of capital, marketing, assuming risks and liability, etc. Money is just as important to the employer as it is the employee.

Now, what happens when we increase the "bottom rate" for labor, or "minimum wage" is that all lower-level income will precipitously increase, because that is the natural order of things... If Joe was making $7.25 and get's increased to $7.50, then Jim who makes $7.50 will demand $8.00... and so on. We can argue back and forth as to how much this would actually cause consumer prices to rise, or jobs to be lost.... but the bottom line is, it will ALWAYS be a negative effect. Regardless of how little or how much, is not the point. At this time, we don't need to be doing ANYTHING to cause a negative effect on business or hiring. If we were in a robust period of economic expansion, perhaps that would be an appropriate time to consider such a thing, because the negative effects would be inconsequential, and we could live with it. Right now, we can't live with what we have, we don't need to make things WORSE!
Click to expand...

Two things Dix; You really believe that money has the same value to one who has more than he needs as it does to one who doesn't have enough?

Please provide some proof that when the minimum wage is raised, all other wages rise accordingly. The last company I worked for had no minimum wage earners. The lowest paid fellow made $4.50 more than Mass minimum wage, which is higher than federal. How could raising the minimum affect anyone there? I suspect there are many similar situations.
 
Rune said:
Two things Dix; You really believe that money has the same value to one who has more than he needs as it does to one who doesn't have enough?

Please provide some proof that when the minimum wage is raised, all other wages rise accordingly. The last company I worked for had no minimum wage earners. The lowest paid fellow made $4.50 more than Mass minimum wage, which is higher than federal. How could raising the minimum affect anyone there? I suspect there are many similar situations.
Click to expand...


Here is one way...

"Where minimum wage does have an impact is with union contracts that are based on minimum wage," Blankenship said. "There are union contracts where they tie the wage scale to a percentage of the minimum wage. For example, it might be an entry-level position, maybe 115 percent, 120 percent or 200 percent of the minimum wage, so if you hike the minimum wage, you're basically raising the scale for a lot of union workers - and that is one of the reasons why politicians continue to go back to the well on that particular issue. It's a way of buying off union support.

http://www.ibjonline.com/federal_illinois_minimum_wage.html
Click to expand...
 
j-mac said:
Mark the day folks....I somehow think we may not see this candor short of the next equinox...
Click to expand...

Too bad...you had a chance to recant your charge of lying (admit you also were wrong) but you let it slide, choosing belittlement over rightousness.
Oh well, sad but hardly unexpected.
 
Rune said:
Too bad...you had a chance to recant your charge of lying (admit you also were wrong) but you let it slide, choosing belittlement over rightousness.
Oh well, sad but hardly unexpected.
Click to expand...

I would, if I were, but sadly for you, like Andrew Wilkow - 'We are right, and you are wrong'....heh, heh...
 
Rune said:
Two things Dix; You really believe that money has the same value to one who has more than he needs as it does to one who doesn't have enough?
Click to expand...

Who has determined he has more than he needs? Him? If so, then, maybe. Ask him!

For the most part, money means the same thing to me as it does to you or to anyone else. I don't know about you, but I can never seem to "have enough" when it comes to the stuff... I don't know, I guess MAYBE someone could get there? I haven't ever. I will always take more money, if you have any. In fact, even if I didn't have room in my house, I would build an extra room to put the money in, if you want to get rid of any.

Please provide some proof that when the minimum wage is raised, all other wages rise accordingly.
Click to expand...

Well my proof is, there is no such thing as a magical money tree. The increase in money which will come with the paycheck, has to come from somewhere... and without magic money trees.... the ONLY place it CAN come, is from the consumer. There is no other possibility, unless you believe in the magic trees. You can make all kinds of stupid superficial arguments as to how MUCH it will effect prices of this or that, or overall... but the bottom line is simple economics... the money has to come from someplace, and it will ultimately come from consumers. Unless there is a magic money tree.

[Edit: Sorry I misread your comment, I thought you asked me to explain how it would increase prices.]

The last company I worked for had no minimum wage earners.
Click to expand...

Most companies don't, and that's the whole point... it doesn't HELP very many people, when you raise it. It HURTS a whole lot of people, because it causes inflation in prices across the board and it eliminates possible jobs. The minimum wage is used as a 'bottom rung' as it were, a 'first step' into viable and gainful employment. It is through these lowly 'shit jobs' that inexperienced workers can 'prove themselves' by showing up for work, and conforming to some manner of company guidelines and standards. Once those are established and you have met that level, you generally advance onward, to bigger and better things in life. It is NEVER something that is intended to be a means of support or livelihood for anyone. If it is, they need more help than a fity-cent raise!

The lowest paid fellow made $4.50 more than Mass minimum wage, which is higher than federal. How could raising the minimum affect anyone there? I suspect there are many similar situations.
Click to expand...

Yes, there are LOTS of similar situations. Some people are just above minimum wage... well, when the minimum wage is increased to what they are currently making, they are going to expect to still be valued above the minimum wage, are they not? Therefore, you have to increase their pay accordingly, otherwise... they are made into minimum wage workers again, and take a step backwards. Okay, ya following so far? So we go next to one of the other many similar situations, the guy or gal who's making just above the next level of pay... and suddenly, the level below them are now making just as much! Well, their value is still worth more than the level below, so they have a right to ask for a pay increase too! And this goes on up into management... and sometimes all the way up to the CEOs.

Again... the problem is not solved. We have had this 'minimum wage' idea for how many years? And how many times have we increased it, supposedly, to help the poorest among us, to make things better for those who are struggling.... are we seeing any results from that? Are people somehow struggling less, after 40 years of trying to help by increasing the minimum cost of labor?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top