The Impending Demise of the GOP (Grand Obsolete Party)

"Honestly Okie! Everyone knows the 17 year old working at McDonalds is as important to society as a neurosurgeon and should be paid an equal amount."

I never heard of a neurosurgeon making $5.25 per hour.

About half the millions receiving a minimum wage are adults. The statement was made that many poor people are not worth much. Most of these people work very hard, and could easily be compensated at a higher rate. For instance, the company employing the burger flipper could raise the cost of burgers a few cents to cover higher pay.

Keep in mind that past increases in the minimum wage have not hurt employers or the economy. The employers easily passed on the additional cost, and did not have to reduce employment.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The Minimum wage sets a lower boundary upon what work is 'worth.' As there is no objective way to judge this, there's a need for a minimum wage.
....
Cycloptichorn

I thought you were an educated person, cyclops? You can't be serious?

Economics 101, cyclops, what is anything worth?

What someone is willing to pay for it. A minimum wage establishes a lower boundary, that any and all work of any type is worth a certain amount of money according to our society. This keeps businesses from colluding in order to make certain jobs extremely low paying, which is a good thing.

Now, I know that you would like to pretend that some work isn't worth the minimum wage. But I don't know why you would say that. You really want people to be working for 3 dollars an hour, at anything? What kind of work would be worth less then minimum wage, Okie?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

"Honestly Okie! Everyone knows the 17 year old working at McDonalds is as important to society as a neurosurgeon and should be paid an equal amount."

I never heard of a neurosurgeon making $5.25 per hour.

About half the millions receiving a minimum wage are adults. The statement was made that many poor people are not worth much. Most of these people work very hard, and could easily be compensated at a higher rate. For instance, the company employing the burger flipper could raise the cost of burgers a few cents to cover higher pay.

Keep in mind that past increases in the minimum wage have not hurt employers or the economy. The employers easily passed on the additional cost, and did not have to reduce employment.

Prices are not pegged to the cost of production but to the vagaries of supply and demand. If the cost of a hamburger goes up, the hamburger consumer may decide to pack a lunch or eat at home. Furthermore, an increase in the minimum wage raises the wage threshold across the board. Therefore, the consumers have more money to spend, so they can afford to eat out more often,.

0 Replies

I've started a minimum wage thread here if anyone is interested in moving the discussion.

0 Replies

I'm amused that Okie is lecturing on free market economics ("the value of a thing is what that thing will bring") while telling us the "free market" valuation on his adored politicians is all out of whack.

I guess the fact that approximately half the population won't buy the Republican bag of chips at any price shouldn't affect the outcome....

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

"Honestly Okie! Everyone knows the 17 year old working at McDonalds is as important to society as a neurosurgeon and should be paid an equal amount."

I never heard of a neurosurgeon making $5.25 per hour.

To be accurate here, a person working at McDonalds is worth just as much as the neurosurgeon in the eyes of God, and in terms of his rights as a citizen. The difference is that his work at McDonalds is not worth as much to society. The person has the same worth as a human being, but the work he does is not worth as much or valued as highly, since it takes little training and there is a much higher supply of people capable of doing that work as compared to neurosurgery.

Quote:

About half the millions receiving a minimum wage are adults. The statement was made that many poor people are not worth much. Most of these people work very hard, and could easily be compensated at a higher rate. For instance, the company employing the burger flipper could raise the cost of burgers a few cents to cover higher pay.

The context of the statement of people not being worth much was the value of the work they do. A bum on the street that refuses to work, but instead lives on handouts, is worth as much as the brain surgeon in terms of rights, but the work he is doing is essentially worthless to society, and in fact he is a drag on society. He does not pull his weight, therefore he isn't worth a nickel in terms of financial value to society.

Quote:

Keep in mind that past increases in the minimum wage have not hurt employers or the economy. The employers easily passed on the additional cost, and did not have to reduce employment.

We don't really know do we, since we cannot rerun history without minimum wage laws. As I've said before, market price of most work is probably near or above minimum wage levels, so they don't hurt us much, you are probably correct. However, if the levels were raised drastically, it would obviously hurt business and society in general. There are some very routine, mundane jobs that would employ more young people if they aren't worth minimum wage, so at the margins of the economy, I think minimum wage laws are detrimental. And where they aren't detrimental, they are essentially superfluous anyway.

I will go to Drewdads thread for this subject from now on.

By the way, aren't those Republicans a great bunch of guys running for president! The party is not going away.

0 Replies

People working, not begging, deserve a minimal wage. the $5.25 per hour is below a minimal wage.

Okie, I understand your concern. Raising the minimum wage might cause Paris Hilton and he other billionaires to take a cut in income.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

A bum on the street that refuses to work, but instead lives on handouts, is worth as much as the brain surgeon in terms of rights, but the work he is doing is essentially worthless to society, and in fact he is a drag on society. He does not pull his weight, therefore he isn't worth a nickel in terms of financial value to society.

Not so. "The value of a thing is what that thing will bring." If people are willing to give someone money in order to feel better about themselves, then so be it. The bum is happy. The giver is happy. Who's harmed? (Other than those of us who miss a green light because the car ahead of us is chatting....)

0 Replies

You have a point, but in reality I don't think the bum is happy. He would be happier if he did something to be proud of, like work at something productive. The person that gives the handout is an enabler. If that person is the government, it is also an enabler. That is why the Republican initiative in the 90's, welfare reform, was a success. It was amazing how many people dropped off the roles just because they were required to come down for an interview.

0 Replies

The Governator agrees, GOP is losing its middle

0 Replies

okie wrote:

You have a point, but in reality I don't think the bum is happy. He would be happier if he did something to be proud of, like work at something productive. The person that gives the handout is an enabler. If that person is the government, it is also an enabler. That is why the Republican initiative in the 90's, welfare reform, was a success. It was amazing how many people dropped off the roles just because they were required to come down for an interview.

Who are you to judge how happy someone is In fact, those who seek material things are only increasing their dukkkha (suffering.)

The 90s, eh? Who was the president then?

0 Replies

Gingrich was the man that pushed welfare reform as part of the Republican agenda, and the president only signed it when he had not much other choice politically.

P. S. Most bums are not that happy, as a high percentage drink themselves to death eventually.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Gingrich was the man that pushed welfare reform as part of the Republican agenda, and the president only signed it when he had not much other choice politically.
.

Clueless

0 Replies

So, who in your opinion, pushed the welfare reform bill?

0 Replies

http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed082406a.cfm

0 Replies

Looks like Monica wasn't the only one that wanted to suck off Clinton. Rector must be one of those closeted homosexuals Roxxxanne keeps mentioning.

Talk about a fluffer.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

You have a point, but in reality I don't think the bum is happy. He would be happier if he did something to be proud of, like work at something productive.

Or fight for his country, as many homeless men have done only to be valued by our society/economy at nearly zero. But hey, that's the free market.

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed082406a.cfm

This quote from your article:
"No, Clinton didn't play a major role in shaping the policy details of the landmark 1996 act."
Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress put it all together and Clinton was dragged kicking and screaming to sign the bill. But Clinton was smart enough to see that when something is going to pass, he liked to get credit for anything good that might happen. The Clintons became masterful at triangulation. Have you ever wondered, Roxi, why nobody can figure out what Hillary's policy is on Iraq now? Its called riding the fence, keeping your options open, triangulation, whatever, so that you can hope to look good regardless of which way events go. If welfare reform had not worked, there would be no credit whatsoever attributed to Clinton. He would have only signed it because he had to, but knew it was a mistake pushed onto him by a Republican Congress.

0 Replies

Rector is a senior researcher at the Heritage Foundation. Yes, the Heritage Foundation.

Have you resorted to launching ad hominem attacks on someone who is obviously a valued cog in the conservative's drivetran?....simply because his opinions don't cohere with your myopic perspective?

Your island is just getting smaller each day McG.

0 Replies

And read what the article actually says:

"No, Clinton didn't play a major role in shaping the policy details of the landmark 1996 act."

Anybody that was around in the 90s knows it was Gingrich and the Republicans that put the legislation together. Clinton rejected first versions of the legislation, and ended up signing it, but even then his own party criticized him for it.

0 Replies

The Impending Demise of the GOP (Grand Obsolete Party)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know