The fear of doing away with minumum wage is that the bottom would fall out of the economy. The work force would become over saturated and underbid itself to a point of poverty. My standpoint, and maybe this is very naive, has always been that anybody who really wants a job can get a job, as long as they are not overly selective. And as it is, they would be assured of making at least $6.75/hr.(or so it is in Ca.) rather than $6.75/day.

your example is laughable and it's 100% unrelated with the min. wage of the employees. You don't even gave a some kind of accurate parallel example.


"Now then - how about we institute a minimum per signup so that YOUR 300 highly targeted signups per week won't get you any special bonuses and will only pay you a flat rate with no hopes of ever increasing if you do better?"

min wage = no less than X amount
minimum per signup should be no less than X amount. Having minimum wage limit for an employee doesnt mean he can't earn more than the limit. The difference is that you can't have him as an employee paying him less than the min wage stated by the law. So obviously, your example is not valid.

I bet a lot of people would like to employ others for way less than the min wage. People that due to bad life circumstances have to get a low-paid job and because of the lack of min. wage they would get paid even less, but they'll do it because of obligations and need. No other choice. Personally I deny to get someone with a wage equal to poverty stantards. I'm glad the min. wage exists, it's a right that employees gained through time and it wasn't an easy accomplishment in many countries.

As said before, if you can't afford to hire someone for the min wage you suck 14" cock and you should better reconsider your business abilities than seeking to avoid few bucks from someone that will work in order to support his family. Unemployment will always exists and min wage definetely is not one of the reasons.

i'm out bitches :-)

The richest country on earth wasn't built on handouts.

I hear too many people who feel all is lost if someone doesn't offer them a job, like they can't sit down and think of a business they could start or a service they could offer on a freelance basis. If a company doesn't offer them a job, they're ready to start digging themselves a grave. How did our country ever reach the point where people just gave up if they couldn't get a salary out of someone else?

And, as I say elsewhere, the only source of income doesn't have to be a salary from a job in a company. They can make employment for themselves by offering something on a freelance basis. They can offer to help people garden, they can write how-to booklets (I get a helluva a lot of income from some I wrote).

Where is it written that the only way to make money is to get a paycheck from a company? Fuck! Start a business! Offer a service!

Of course unemployment will always exist. A certain amount of unemployment is actually a healthy, desirable situation.

Too bad you can't refute the original post with real facts instead of "I think minimum wage is good because I like it and it makes me feel good about the world" type of arguments.

Would you rather have one unmotivated, uneducated, person working making $6/hour or two unmotivated, uneducated people with no ambition making $3/hour? You can't have both working at $6, so now the arbitrary, feel good, minimum wage number has contributed to unemployment. How can you even deny that?

The bottom will always be the bottom, and there will always be a way out for people who want the way out, regardless of arbitrary minimum wage figures.

sure you have two people making 3 bux an hour, but they'll need welfare so they can actually afford a dump to live in. instead of one person on the system who needs a job, you have two who work all day and still need assistence.

I think anyone advocating paying someone $3 an hour should be forced to live on it themselves. People need to be paid a wage they can live on and it's the governments responsibility to see that employers do the right thing.

After all, we all know that given the chance, most companies would be sending eight year olds down mines for eighteen hours a day like they were in England during the industrial revolution in the 19th century.

Yes, but then suppose there is no assistance? Hmm, maybe they'll have to go to Plan B: think of something to do that makes money, and maybe it'll turn out to be something that makes a helluva a lot more than minimum wage.

What's a livable wage? $5/hour? $10/hour? $500/hour?

Set minimum wage to whatever you want. Everyone will end up in the exact same situation they're in right now. No one's actual purchasing power will increase. Standards of living won't change.

A static barrier in a relativity based situation is pointless.

Good standard of living = 2.5 x minimum wage (for example)

not

Good standard of living = $X so set minimum wage = $X.

Change the minimum wage to $100/hour, you change the amount required for a decent standard of living and accomplish nothing. But everyone will feel better knowing their guaranteed making $100/hour at least. Weeeeeeeee......

btw, if McDonald's could pay it's French Fry Engineers $2.00/hour, Big Mac's wouldn't cost $2.00 each.

its not possible for every single person to do that. its a nice thought in theory but won't happen in reality. fact is a lot of people are just plain stupid.

Sure they would. And the execs would buy Gulfstream IV's instead of Jaguars.

No they wouldn't. Because Burger King could pay it's Fryolator people $2.00 an hour, too. If McDonald's kept charging $2.00 per Big Mac, BK would see a great opportunity to increase it's market share by cutting the price on it's Whopper to $1.00. They'd still be making hte same profit per unit sold, but now they would be increasing market share and pulling in more money than ever.

McDonald's could either stand by and watch, or lower it's prices to compete.

There has been a federal minimum wage since the 1930's. The United State's wealth and power has grown exponentially since then. Your statement, if you are calling minimum wage "handouts", is simply wrong. The current wealth and power of this country were, in fact, built during a time where the government supported a minimum wage.

The correct statement would be:

The richest country on earth got that rich while supporting minimum wage (and welfare too).

i don't think it would have that much of an effect on prices. people making under min wage would barely be able to afford a place to stay let alone food. you'd have much less income being spent meaning lower demand.

there's a ripple effect that needs to be considered.

A liveable wage is exactly that - it's a wage a person can live on. Nobody can live on $3 an hour. It's not possible.

Mind you, I think part-time workers and teenagers (who don't have to support themselves necessarily) should be treated differently. But if you employ someone full-time, yes that person should be paid a wage they can live on. Employers should be held accountable.

Just on CNN right now...30 years ago, the average CEO made 42x the wage of an average production worker. Today, it's now 400x. That is sickening. I could tell you why, but Isomeone dosed me with PCP on monday, and my IQ has dropped 80 points. When it returns, I'll make more of an effort.

What's the minimum wage for an adult webmaster?

Or they could just call each other on the phone, and say, "Heh heh, my fellow rich bastard! Keep them prices up, and ride the train to an extra billion dollars!" Not in America, you say? Put "Archer Daniels Midland" and "price fixing" into google, and you'll see why a farmer makes 10 cents off a gallon of milk, and you still pay 3 bucks for it. If the government could kill that type of behavior, your arguement is true. But they'll just take a nice campaign donation instead.

Yes, and the liberal sees stupid people as more people needing their life handled by the government. Beautiful. How typical.

$5 dollars per hour .... I would die.

You forgot what I was responding to. Someone referred to people on sub-poverty-level wages as requiring welfare. Welfare is a handout, not minimum wage. Minimum wage is government interference in a market.

would you rather people live on the street or in shacks like in some 3rd world countries?

Speaking of government handouts, why do we never hear conservatives bitching about the billions of dollars in agricultural export subsidies handed out to farmers every year (remember, these people are land owners). These industries are obviously inefficient and are propped up year in and year out with huge government handouts.

Yes, me, too. That's why I'm self-employed.

people already do. I live 2 blocks from cabrini green and some of those people would never be hired at any minimum wage job. Living conditions are horrible. Yet the govt supllies them with money and they continue to live there with no ambition of ever leaving. Welfare is lees than minimum wage and people will stay on it without ever trying to get a job. PLent of people here in this country are happily content living at below minimum wage income levels.

Yes, me, too. That's why I'm self-employed.

there will always be poverty and homeless people. but you need to provide things like welfare to help those who are in an unfortunate position better themselves. there will always be abuse of the system, but it needs to be there regardless.

take out min wage and companies will pay less to people. those people might as well be on welfare because they won't have any money to get ahead if they desired. min wage is nothing to be proud of, but its certainly better than 2 or 3 bux an hour and at least someone working full time can actually live on that wage.

I don't count myself as a "conservative" per se. I'm more libertarian than conservative. However, you'll never hear libertarians arguing in favor of price supports like that.

Agriculture is probably the single most important industry in the US. It is nearly impossible to run a profitable farm as an individual. The subsidies are there to encourage farmers to work the land.

without the subsidies, they'd prolly make a nudist camp or something

Farm subsidies are just as dumb as minimum wage rates.

I guess I don't understand. Why would removing subsidies force farmers to work the land as individuals?

Yep, no motivation to improve your skills/techniques, just like minimum wage wont motivate people to improve themselves if they are content on that.

Australian sugar cane farmers have to survive on $160 (no subsidies) a tonne or whatever it is and the US farmers get $900 because of subsidies - why would they bother improving when they are guaranteed $900 no matter how badly they do it.

I meant that an individual farmer (not corporate run farms) needs these subsidies in order for it to be worth it to them to work the land. Generally, at least here in illinois, crop profits are just barely enough to pay property taxes. But since we need food the government offers the farmers incentives.

Gee, ya mean like the webmasters here have done? Because they weren't happy with what they were making at their jobs?
And look at them all talking about how minimum wage is so great, LOL.
They are making your point for you, and don't even realize it.


:winkwink:

"a wage that people can live on.... a wage that people can live on..."

How can you keep repeating that over and over?
Minimum wage is not MEANT to be a wage for people to live on. It's meant to be an ENTRY-LEVEL wage.
As in no skills, no experience, never-had-a-job-before wage.

People are not supposed to LIVE on minimum wage. This is the feel-good bullshit that keeps getting the wage hiked up and pushes people out of jobs each time.
Teenagers getting out of school, co-eds in college - THESE are the people who get ENTRY LEVEL jobs. Because they have no job skills. Because they've never had a job before. Because they are not WORTH more money with nothing to bring to the table.

And here's a fucking clue for you - teenagers and co-eds do not live on minimum wage!!! They live on mommy and daddy's dollar, they live in a dorm, they live with roommates.

If someone is 30+ years old and the only job they can get is an ENTRY LEVEL position, then that's their own damn fault. They don't have a RIGHT to be paid a "living wage" - no one has a RIGHT to be paid a "living wage". Those people had the opportunity to learn a skill, learn a job, get some experience - and evidently they wasted it.
Rather than just handing them more money that their non-skilled asses do NOT deserve, make them get two jobs!
Maybe they'll learn a thing or two about job skills then.

You cannot honestly sit there and tell me that EVERY person that walks through your door is worth $6.75 per hour. Especially when they are unskilled, have no idea what the concepts of being punctual, professional, and reliable are; when you're going to have to spend at least two weeks training them to do their job - if not more...
Earning a minimum wage is not a RIGHT. Earning a "living wage" is not a RIGHT.
It is something that you EARN. Hence the word, WORK!!
Get it? Earning? Work?

You are talking about money for WORKING. If you want more money, you EARN it. By showing your employer that you are going to stick around, that you are going to be there faithfully every day, on time, that you are going to do your best to do your job correctly, that you are serious about having the job. You EARN a higher wage.
No one is ENTITLED to a higher wage.

CARRIE CARRIE CARRIE

What is this thing you have about minimum wage/living wage? I don't know anyone who can live on a minimum wage. You seem to be prejudiced against people with an education and those with parents who help their kids get through college.

Having a college degree means nothing. I know people on the internet who have nothing but a HS degree, and they are making more than my relatives who have degrees out the kazoo!

Do you have a degree? Does your husband? Did the degrees help, if you have them?

Take a deep breath and get back on the Prozac and life will look brighter in the AM

Amen. Another form of welfare.