Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
………………Citing political blogs aren't much to go off of. It's like citing Fox News. And what you cited are taxes that have little to do with the argument at hand, which is the federal minimum wage.
Daddies Girl, you rather than I introduced the question “Shouldn't each state have the right to do that based on how much they spend or take in?"; now you deem the sub-topic as being off topic? Should I respond to what you write or simply wait a few hours or days for your modified positions?
Quote:
Originally Posted by daddiesgirl
It's obvious that states with less population will have less income. You don't really need to cite that and it's obvious people who make less will pay less in taxes.
[I googled ”comparisons of states' contributions to federal revenues and benefits received” and (similar to opinion surveys worded to evoke the desired results) I simply assumed that I would evoke web addresses that would serve my purposes. I didn’t trouble myself to carefully read the web links that were returned to me; I simply cited the first few of those I evoked].
I presumed that most of these opinions are logically valid regardless of population considerations. I’m presuming the majority, (if not almost all) of these cited arguments considered their positions with regard per capita.
….But by making your argument that people will do better if minimum wages are raised doesn't deal with any other problems. If wages are raised, it also means they're paying for more in taxes, inflation will rise and costs go up so businesses have to raise their prices.
Daddies Girl, I did not dwell upon people’s financial condition regarding the minimum wage but clearly the extent of federal minimum wage’s affect upon wages and salaries is inversely related to the differences between the federal minimum and the jobs’ wage rates.
(I.e. those earning lesser wages benefit proportionally more from the federal minimum wage).
The federal minimum wage is much less a cause and much more a victim of the U.S. dollar’s loss of purchasing power. It certainly is not among the primary causes of U.S. dollar’s inflation. Those earning lesser wages are proportionally the most detrimentally affected by any purchasing power reduction of the federal minimum wage. To better protect our working poor, I advocate the minimum rate be annually adjusted to the U.S. dollars’ purchasing power.
…………..WTF communicates a response when someone says something completely out of context or has nothing to do with anything, which was the response most people will have when reading your posts that I quoted.
Daddies Girl, in reply to a good portion of your responses, WTF.
Respectfully, Supposn
Daddies Girl, the short answer is no; we should not be satisfied with only state minimums.
Who is we? Because I honestly don't think anyone on this forum and in this thread is working minimum wage. And that's the beauty with capitalism. If you aren't satisfied with the minimum wage job, find another one. Illinois pays you too little, move to California. Still unhappy, get an education. Uneducated? Vote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn
The federal minimum is only a minimum that does not intervene with any USA state’s determining their minimum should be greater.
Yes, I told you that. Why are you repeating what I said?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn
The federal minimum to some extent prevents the detriment to a state’ economy due to imports from other states that do not share the same regard for their own wage and salary earning citizens.
I think English is not your native language. Because no one speaks this way except PBS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn
I understand that you do not share my approval of this concept. I’m pleased that thus far those who agree with you and disagree with me have been unable to legally eliminate the federal minimum wage laws.
Do you even read or are you just copying and pasting from someone's essays? I don't think any one in this thread knows what your concept is to begin with. And no one is even talking about eliminating the federal minimum wage. You said the federal minimum wage was deducted by $3 an hour, with no proof or cite and I called you on that, but you still didn't provide a cite. You can't make stuff up because posts can't be edited after a few minutes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn
IMO the federal should be “pegged” to the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar. I prefer an annually cost of living adjusted minimum wage similar to the current method of social security retirement benefits’ annual COLA.
Again, you're putting out random thoughts with no hard numbers. Sure we would like all costs to be adjusted. I'd like to make my car payments based on how much I use it. I'd like to pay my car insurance on how often I DON'T get into an accident. Saying that you like minimum wages adjusted to the cost of living. Sure, we'll all agree with that because who wouldn't? The magic question is WHAT do you propose? And that is what we've been debating about for the last 25 pages . . . a specific number. Some has said raise it to $22 an hour. Some said $35 an hour and so forth. Read the posts before you try to copy and paste more essays into your responses.
Daddies Girl, you wrote of not believing “anyone in this thread knows what your. (i.e. my) concept is to begin with”.
I do not doubt that you could understand my position if you wished to do so. Respect leads me to doubt your opposition stems simply due to your dissatisfaction with my manners of expression.
I have never stated the minimum wage was reduced by $3/Hr. I did ask “Due to a reduction of the federal minimum by $3/Hr, what would be any USA enterprises competitive advantage over any other USA enterprise?”.
My last mention of a specific method that would retain purchasing power of the minimum wage rate was within response #240 of this discussion thread. The method has been operating satisfactorily when applied to social security retirement and SSI benefits.
I assume you sincerely wrote, “‘Saying that you like minimum wages adjusted to the cost of living. Sure, we'll all agree with that because who wouldn't? The magic question is WHAT do you propose?”. (Actually it is not the cost of living but rather the retention of the minimum rate’s purchasing power that’s my primary concern. Without such retention, the values of benefits are eroded).
Why would you be opposed to the successfully operating method of adjusting retirement benefits being also applied to retain the minimum rate’s purchasing power?
[Note the annual adjustments of Social Security retirement benefits are described as “cost of living adjustments’, i.e. COLAs). The cost/price index factor is applied to recipients’ prior year’s benefits. It is not unusual for those lifetime earnings to be insufficient and the resulting calculation of a recipient’s first year’s retirement benefits being insufficient to sustain life in our nation.
In cases of benefits that would otherwise be insufficient to live on, recipients receive additional social securities supplemental security income, (SSI) benefits to increase the amount of their monthly benefits. SSI is operated as a federal charity; SSI’s funding and other accounting is separate from the retirement program. The separate retirement and the SSI funds are comingled into single monthly benefit checks.
The annual METHOD of adjusting the check amounts is a method to RETAIN the check amounts’ PURCHASING POWERS. In the case of Social Security checks they have been applied to amounts that in some cases may have been previously augmented to consider the COST OF LIVING; (i.e. they’re applied to the sums of the retirement and the SSI programs).]
The question of what the finite federal minimum wage amount or the cost of living within the USA are two separate issues. My concern is of the third issue; whatever is the federal minimum’s rate’s amount should retain its purchasing power over the years.
Daddies Girl, you wrote of not believing “anyone in this thread knows what your. (i.e. my) concept is to begin with”.
I do not doubt that you could understand my position if you wished to do so. Respect leads me to doubt your opposition stems simply due to your dissatisfaction with my manners of expression.
I have never stated the minimum wage was reduced by $3/Hr. I did ask “Due to a reduction of the federal minimum by $3/Hr, what would be any USA enterprises competitive advantage over any other USA enterprise?”.
minimum wage should be called "starting wage" it should be a probation period wage
then based on merit and job performance, you then should get an increase with more value to the company.
minimum wage was never meant to be a living wage,,,it's a starting point.
minimum wage should be called "starting wage" it should be a probation period wage
then based on merit and job performance, you then should get an increase with more value to the company.
minimum wage was never meant to be a living wage,,,it's a starting point.
Maine Broker Man, as drafted, then federal minimum wage rate laws are is the minimum rate employers are permitted to pay USA employees. Other than the federal minimum, federal law does not .determine employers’ policies concerning labor compensation.
Anyone, (employers, economists, even you or I) can describe the federal minimum rate’s function or purpose however we wish to satisfy our own agendas. It could e described as a probational rate or starting rate or unearned government prescribed charity or shamefully insufficient. As drafted, passed and enacted the federal minimum wage is as the law describes it; it is the federal MINIMUM wage.
I think min wage should be raised to $9-$10 dollars but anything more would be a disaster. Also a negative income tax should be created to help those who are not making enough to get by.
Maine Broker Man, as drafted, then federal minimum wage rate laws are is the minimum rate employers are permitted to pay USA employees. Other than the federal minimum, federal law does not .determine employers’ policies concerning labor compensation.
Anyone, (employers, economists, even you or I) can describe the federal minimum rate’s function or purpose however we wish to satisfy our own agendas. It could e described as a probational rate or starting rate or unearned government prescribed charity or shamefully insufficient. As drafted, passed and enacted the federal minimum wage is as the law describes it; it is the federal MINIMUM wage.
Respectfully, Supposn
Many peoples agenda is obvious they do not like or care for the poor so they will blame the poor and try to make that their opinion that the min wage is not supposed to be a career a fact without showing any evidence and we are supposed to just accept that their opinion is right.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wtf
