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.
Let's face it, if we're allowed to pay people barely enough money to live, then there's going to be some obligation by society to keep a family from starving. So why not raise the minimum amount they're paid, and then we can make huge cuts to welfare while people who get out and work are rewarded by the private sector? Obviously the cost of goods will go up slightly, but isn't it preferable that your money goes to the poor directly through their employment instead of being filtered through layers of Government buildings, salaries, and pensions?
$13.50/hour, perhaps with some cost-of-living adjustment, and then trim SNAP by 1/2 and TANF by 2/3. Kill section 8 fully, the worst of the worst welfare, where a tiny fraction of the poor get to rent a place for <$150.
As is typical of liberals, you seem to think that it is the duty of an employer to pay "a living wage" to each and every employee, regardless of the worth of that position to the organization, or the skill level involved.
You're wrong.
The market should determine the pay scale of any job, based the amount of knowledge and skill required to perform it, and the demand for people with those skills. Fewer available with needed skills (supply), higher wages for those who have them (demand).
Putting government in charge of setting wages ends up resulting in the elimination of some lower skilled workers. It may also boost the wages and salaries of everyone above that lower level employee, because people understand that they (effectively) are required to do more, and have more responsibility, than that lower level employee, for either the same pay, or only slightly more. People aren't dumb.
No. This is a terrible idea and it's one that a person who has no economic education would promote.
For starters the minimum wage is a bad thing, and raising it is only worse. It makes businesses increase their prices (leading to hyper inflation of our currency) and forces business to cut employees.
Cutting welfare I'm okay with, but it should be done smartly. For example I don't have a problem with short term welfare, but long term welfare is a definite no no. That's just being lazy, welfare should not be treated like a career choice as it so often is in this country. Exception to the mentally and physically disabled, society should take care of them.
Also you forget that some people fail to live within their means.
The best thing to do is to create a stronger economy and improve the value of our currency. This can be done by cutting taxes so business can grow and switch to a pure credit system only.
Democrats cannot understand logic. And Democrat politicians know it, so they use this argument to get votes.
Allow producers to produce without the foot of government on their neck.
So we should let business pollute the environment willy nilly Love Canal style, pay workers slave wages and make them work 80+ hours a week while forcing them to live in company towns? Is that your idea of the American Dream?
Let's face it, if we're allowed to pay people barely enough money to live, then there's going to be some obligation by society to keep a family from starving. So why not raise the minimum amount they're paid, and then we can make huge cuts to welfare while people who get out and work are rewarded by the private sector? Obviously the cost of goods will go up slightly, but isn't it preferable that your money goes to the poor directly through their employment instead of being filtered through layers of Government buildings, salaries, and pensions?
$13.50/hour, perhaps with some cost-of-living adjustment, and then trim SNAP by 1/2 and TANF by 2/3. Kill section 8 fully, the worst of the worst welfare, where a tiny fraction of the poor get to rent a place for <$150.
If you raise minimum wage to $13.50 you eliminate any current job that does not pay that. it may not happen overnight but it will happen.
If 13.50 is good why not follow it to it's logical solution? Let's make it $100 an hour? Or $250 an hour?
The best thing we could do for the economy is eliminate minimum wage and the welfare state. Just get rid of them. Where in the Constitution does it say the government should interfere in a persons wages or take money form one person to give to another? It doesn't.
If minimum wage laws and the welfare state worked as people claim then we would no longer need them. No one would be living in poverty. They obviously don't work so get rid of the mother****ers.
So we should let business pollute the environment willy nilly Love Canal style, pay workers slave wages and make them work 80+ hours a week while forcing them to live in company towns? Is that your idea of the American Dream?
Lols.
Any evidence that that is what would happen? lols.
You must be an expert on stuff you make up.
By the way, working at a business is completely voluntary. They can't make you do anything. Only government can force you to do something against your will. That's why they lock you in a cage or fine the hell out of you if you don't do as they say. Can you name one business that locks people up when they don't comply? Nope. Amazing how the big-government types worldview is completely upside-down. They are not living in reality.
One more thing. The overwhelming amount of pollution is done on public property. People tend not to ruin stuff that they own. It's human nature. One way to drastically reduce pollution is to privatize all land. And the federal government is the largest polluter in the country. It aint even close. It makes no sense for the world's largest polluter to regulate other people's pollution. That seems to be your solution. lols.
Last edited by OhioRules; 09-24-2013 at 05:10 AM..
So we should let business pollute the environment willy nilly Love Canal style, pay workers slave wages and make them work 80+ hours a week while forcing them to live in company towns? Is that your idea of the American Dream?
Let's face it, if we're allowed to pay people barely enough money to live, then there's going to be some obligation by society to keep a family from starving. So why not raise the minimum amount they're paid, and then we can make huge cuts to welfare while people who get out and work are rewarded by the private sector? Obviously the cost of goods will go up slightly, but isn't it preferable that your money goes to the poor directly through their employment instead of being filtered through layers of Government buildings, salaries, and pensions?
$13.50/hour, perhaps with some cost-of-living adjustment, and then trim SNAP by 1/2 and TANF by 2/3. Kill section 8 fully, the worst of the worst welfare, where a tiny fraction of the poor get to rent a place for <$150.
Shhhhh....
Business wouldn't like that.... They love having the tax payers subsidize their workforce so they can pocket more...
Quote:
Wal-Mart's poverty wages force employees to rely on $2.66 billion in government help every year, or about $420,000 per store. In state after state, Wal-Mart employees are the top recipients of Medicaid. As many as 80 percent of workers in Wal-Mart stores use food stamps.
Helps them keep the $15 billion in profit they did the other year...
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloridaPirate355
No. This is a terrible idea and it's one that a person who has no economic education would promote.
For starters the minimum wage is a bad thing, and raising it is only worse. It makes businesses increase their prices (leading to hyper inflation of our currency) and forces business to cut employees.
Cutting welfare I'm okay with, but it should be done smartly. For example I don't have a problem with short term welfare, but long term welfare is a definite no no. That's just being lazy, welfare should not be treated like a career choice as it so often is in this country. Exception to the mentally and physically disabled, society should take care of them.
Also you forget that some people fail to live within their means.
The best thing to do is to create a stronger economy and improve the value of our currency. This can be done by cutting taxes so business can grow and switch to a pure credit system only.
^^ Has no economic education.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
As is typical of liberals, you seem to think that it is the duty of an employer to pay "a living wage" to each and every employee, regardless of the worth of that position to the organization, or the skill level involved.
You're wrong.
The market should determine the pay scale of any job, based the amount of knowledge and skill required to perform it, and the demand for people with those skills. Fewer available with needed skills (supply), higher wages for those who have them (demand).
Putting government in charge of setting wages ends up resulting in the elimination of some lower skilled workers. It may also boost the wages and salaries of everyone above that lower level employee, because people understand that they (effectively) are required to do more, and have more responsibility, than that lower level employee, for either the same pay, or only slightly more. People aren't dumb.
Democrats just don't "get it."
You trust in the "free market" far too much (doesn't exist with the stranglehold of today's corporations, or our lack of protectionist policies leaving our economy to the global wolves) and business owners not being greedy.
On a side note; if the corporations lost their stranglehold on labor, the American small business owner would likely raise workers pay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by theunbrainwashed
I agree. We could start with, at least, having a minimum wage equal to about what the minimum wage was in the late 1960s, which is around $10 an hour, I think? Lot of brainwashed Boomers on here say the 1960s were the good ol' days, so what's wrong with having $10 per hour minimum wage then? That's what it was back then then in today's dollars. The economy didn't collapse then, did it, Libertarians? Quite the contrary, it was part of the most prosperous time in American history. But, we're told minimum wage is bad for the economy, bad for the Austrian School, etc. But, let's not let facts and history get in the way
Another tool of big business! Pay them slightly more over the years... but not enough to keep up with inflation... they'll never notice!
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
How about supporting capitalism and free markets?
Doesn't exist in America. Hasn't for a long, long time.
Last edited by LordSquidworth; 09-24-2013 at 06:37 AM..
So we should let business pollute the environment willy nilly Love Canal style, pay workers slave wages and make them work 80+ hours a week while forcing them to live in company towns? Is that your idea of the American Dream?
Of course that's what the right-wing wants: Clear the path for unfettered exploitation of undue power over others that stems from financial wealth. Those people that right-wingers consider "surplus population" are not worthy of their concern, as they practice a generally callous disregard for others as if it were an inviolable religious precept.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioRules
The best thing we could do for the economy is eliminate minimum wage and the welfare state.
I noticed that you said nothing to refute the charge that such perspective intends to simply dump poor people over a cliff. Nothing you said shows that you care about ensuring that what you're suggesting doesn't cause harm to those most vulnerable is society. Nothing you said shows that you care about how your suggestion will cause real harm, perhaps even physical harm, to the working poor. Your comment was completely devoid of anything that could be construed as compassion or even just plain basic human decency toward such folks. Is there any way you could change what you suggest so that it actually ensures that those human beings in our society who are structurally located closest to the razor's edge are not the ones adversely impacted by your ideas?
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioRules
They obviously don't work so get rid of the mother****ers.
Uh huh. Nothing like a little vulgarity to underscore the utterly contemptible immoral content of an expressed perspective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaseMan
We had that in this country at one point. It was called "The Gilded Age" for a reason.
I wonder if anyone else caught the irony of MaseMan extolling a time period named as form of satirical ridicule for how it hid serious social problems, suffered by the vast majority, by a thin gilding of opulence, enjoyed by a few.
Allow producers to produce without the foot of government on their neck.
So you want to go back to the era when businesses treated employees like slave labor?
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.
