Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

Every time in the past that an increase in the minimum wage was proposed, the Republicans predicted major economic decline. As we know, the opposite has occurred.

Somebody said that the government should not, through the estate tax, make money on his demise. Well, I think the government should not, through the income tax, make money on my hard earned pay.

I say the government should hold bake sales to raise funds.

I guess the government could just borrow more. Maybe it could just print more money to replace taxes.

Why don't they just raise the minimum wage to a decent living wage, maybe at least $15.00 an hour? Otherwise, whats the point? That way, nobody would need to go to college or get technical training, life becomes simpler, and the evil companies paying subsistence poverty wages will be forced to be decent fellow citizens instead of treating people like slaves.

Actually, most jobs, even fast food, pay over minimum wage now don't they? This is little more than do-gooder politicians acting like they care.

The minimum wage will be raised, politicians will gloat about their accomplishments, and meanwhile nothing will have happened of any importance.

To provide a decent minimum wage, I am willing to pay an additional dime for a burger, or an additional buck for a hotel room. Why not?

Many reasons really. Pertinent questions can be asked:

Does the minimum wage law actually decrease the number of jobs available to high schoolers and other young people simply wishing to have a job to earn some spending money?

Does a minimum wage present a perception to more young people that extra training and college may be unnecessary? Perhaps they think they can get by in life always working minimum wage jobs?

Does the above factor actually cause too many people to vy for low wage jobs, thus actually depressing the wages offered for such jobs?

I don't know the extent of the above factors, but I do believe they exist to a degree. Bottom line, if we have a free market, what is wrong with actually believing in it, by allowing a willing employer employ willing employees at whatever wage they agree upon? In the long run, I suspect the job market would end up finding its most healthy natural balance, that is work will be paid according to what it is worth according to supply and demand.

Having been in a position of hiring fairly large numbers of employees in the past, including teens, I can tell you that how much I am required to pay these people is a huge factor in how many and who I will hire.

No way I'll hire an inexperienced kid with a huge attitude but no skills or work ethic if I can find a capable adult to do the job for the same money. But let me pay a significantly lower training wage to train that kid, I have a fair chance to turn him/her into a productive employee with skills and a work ethic plus a semblance of customer service and sense of professionalism.

At that point, s/he is no longer earning minimum wage nor will need to for any length of time ever again.

Issue Brief from www.americanprogress.org

March 1, 2006

Franklin Roosevelt stated that, "No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to exist in this country." Nothing more eloquently captures progressives' value of rewarding hard work with a living wage.

It has been nine years since the conservative-led Congress last raised the federal minimum wage (currently set at $5.15 per hour).

During the same period, Congress has given itself eight cost of living pay increases and CEOs are receiving record pay.

In fact, if the minimum wage were raised at the same rate as CEO salary increases, the minimum wage today would be $23.03/hour.

With conservatives obstructing a raise at the federal level, progressives are turning to the states to fight for fair wages. Since 1997, progressives have successfully fought for increases in the minimum wage in eighteen states and the District of Columbia. In 2006, progressives are looking to extend this success to at least a dozen more states.

This issue brief provides an overview of states that have increased the minimum wage and those looking to do so in 2006. In addition, it debunks conservative rhetoric about the issue and outlines why raising the minimum wage benefits all Americans.

States Take the Lead in Increasing the Minimum Wage

Since 1997, 18 states and the District of Columbia have raised their minimum wage above the federal level. A map from the Department of Labor outlines those states with wages above the federal minimum as well states with a minimum wage matching the federal level, states with a minimum wage lower than the federal and states with no minimum wage at all.

Note: On January 1, 2006, minimum wage increases went into effect in seven states. Washington, which has the highest minimum wage in the nation, jumped to $7.63/hour. Oregon is now at $7.50/hour. Vermont is at $7.25/hour. Connecticut is now at $7.40/hour. New York and Hawaii are now both at $6.75/hour and Florida is at $6.40/hour. On Jan. 17, Maryland became the eighth state to raise its minimum wage this year when the Maryland General Assembly voted to override Gov. Robert Ehrlich's veto of a bill raising the state's minimum wage from $5.15/hour to $6.15/hour.

I don't see how anyone in America can afford housing at this low rate of pay.

By John W. Schoen
Senior Producer
MSNBC
Updated: 2:39 p.m. PT July 13, 2005

With the cost of a new house seeming to defy gravity, many would-be home buyers suffering from sticker shock are baffled by the relentless run-up in prices. The explanation may, however, be simple ?- houses have gotten bigger.

Twenty-five years ago, the average price of a new home in the U.S. was $76,400, according to the National Association of Home Builders. By last year, the price had shot up to $274,500

*******
How does a couple make payments of over a thousand a month and have anything left over for car pymts, food, utilities, insurance, medical insurance? I guess that's what charge cards are for eh? Pretty sad commentary.

There was a time, since I've been alive, that a couple was expected to have finished their education, learned a trade, learned basic economics of managing a household, and achieved the ability to support themselves before they married and set up housekeeping. There were exceptions of course, but pretty much that's the way it used to be.

People still on minimum wage have not yet achieved the education and/or skills to support themselves and have no business getting married, buying a house, or any of the other things that you're supposed to be grown up beforeyou do..

Nobody who has achieved a reasonable education, paid their dues developing a work ethic and credentials and learning a trade or marketable skills is working for minimum wage.

The minimum wage was NEVER intended to support people. It was purely a means of not allowing employers to exploit trainees by paying no wages at all. When the government starts setting the real wages paid to people however, you take wages out of the area of normal supply and demand with disastrous results.

Careful Dys -- you're beginning to talk like Ayn Rand.

How many Americans were starving to death in the year he stated that?

holy ****!

Okie, keep in mind that about half the people getting the minimum wage are adults. Further, I doubt that kids would not seek self-improvement because they are rolling in dough with $7.15 per hour. Moreover, in our plutocracy, higher education and training often doesn't help a person.

Fox, unfortunately, the free market doesn't always work. There was a free market in Russia under the Czars that led to mass starvation and revolt. There was a free market here in 1929, and it took Roosevelt's state programs to prevent starvation and revolt. We have a free-market health-care system in which people can't afford adequate care and medicine.

Gleen Greewald nails it.



Read on at,

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/02/do-bush-followers-have-political.html

This disconnect from reality between the neo-con apologists that frequent this site is truly one of the great mysteries of life. How would their postings read if it was Clinton in power and he had pulled off these, ooone after the oooother, lunatic policies?

Well, as long as we're posting 'blogs', here's an interesting statement from a Democrat who has definitely become disallusioned with his party. I wonder how many more are out there.

I am no longer a Democrat

Obviously cross-posted with Ticomaya. Sorry.

(Still, it's an interesting message from a former Dem)

Must've touched a nerve with Tico

No, but a certain poster seems to be following me around the site this morning, spamming and generally being a troll.


That poster is not you, McT.


(Or Mr. Hinteler. :wink: )