I'm just going to sit back on this and let others pick apart your fallacy.

dumbass it's not my job to see who has enough posts or what color they are before I post about them. go continue to suck goat cock.

Where is this at? Which planet?

Why can't a make any observation without you taking it personally? If I had seen cherrylula's comment first I would have addressed her instead.

Now, instead of taking it personally, you tell me . . . if you were making $9.15 an hour, how much porn would you be purchasing? I doubt many people on minimum wage are dining at Buca di Beppo either . . . unless they are someone's guest.

It is not fallacy...it is fact.

Pigshit.

Really? When did that happen?

I'm the last person who wants to defend Hillary, but put your conspiracy theory hat away.

I seriously doubt that what you're implying is actually the case, I just don't think she's going to go into all of the mind numbing details of her proposal during a campaign rally that the cable news networks were carrying live.

My best educated guess is that her proposal will have a different minimum wage for people who are full time students.....or workers under 18 years old...... or something like that. That's something business owners have been asking the government for since the 1970's, and it's probably the carrot you'd need to keep the republicans from filibustering a bill with a 9.50 minimum wage.

Well it seems lately I post you quote it but you have a point.

I am doing a little looking around and it appears that the employer can make 20 hours a week full time if they want to.

Actually it's better for business for it to not go up for a long time and then go up alot than it is to have it go up in small increments.

For instance, that's 20 cents per hour, per year that they don't have to spend for every employee working for them. Then 40 cents an hour the 2nd year, 60 cents the 3rd year.

That adds up to ALOT of money over a 10 year period.

I agree that the minimum wage should be indexed to inflation and then we wouldn't ever have to talk about it again. Unfortunately, Republicans don't want their business constituents to have to pay mandatory wage increases every year....and democrats need the issue to get the working poor to show up and vote for them on election day, so neither party wants to fix it for good.

I do not know when and I am not going to research when...but it is fact. When the government issues unemployment/employment stats it issuing stats on those employed under/over 20 hours per week. Employers that have benefits do not have to pay benefits to those that are employed less than 20 hours per week but do have to pay benefits to those employed more than 20 hours per week because anything over 20 hours per week is considered to be full time employment. There may be some variance on this from State to State but I think not.

Actually the reason FDR and Reagan (I can't figure out who BW is) were able to get congress to go along is because they won in landslide elections. They had a clear mandate from the people so congress does what it always does....looked out for their own ass.

If a president wins in a very close election, they don't have as much of a mandate and congress feels free to stand up to them.

That's the argument Barack is making against Hillary. She "may" be able to win a 50% + 1 majority in November and get elected, but she'll never bring in the independents and moderate republicans that he will to win in a landslide and have the mandate and political capital to make sweeping changes in Washington.

You're probably correct, but SOMETHING kicks in once a worker hits 40 hours a week that is significant...If you work more than 40 hours, that is overtime....and I know for a FACT that NUMEROUS employers limit your hours to just under 40 hours a week in order to avoid paying 'full time' benefits....

I will try to find someone after you that is saying the same thing, and quote them instead. I would hate for you to get a complex about it. :winkwink:

Cherrylula, I meant to quote you.

President Reagan wanted to eliminate the minimum wage...as he felt small businesses would hire more people if they could pay them less.

Well if we get a national health care system then that won't matter much anymore.

I was referring to congress when I was saying that nobody wanted to fix the issue. Reagan could only get re-elected once, congressmen have to run for re-election every two years....they're the ones who need either the financial support of the local business community, or turnout on election day from the working poor.
Hence, neither of them want to index minimum wage to inflation.

Up until the Republican controlled congress...if you were employed over 20 hours per week anything over eight hours per day was overtime pay. The Republican controlled congress changed it to be anything over forty hours per week...which screwed a major portion of the working people out of extra income.

every job I ever had before adult purposely limited hours to just under 40 to avoid full time status. Then I got into adult and went on a contract basis and then now independent. So I've never had the benefits of being a full time employee...

Wow, I didn't know that...I guess I was the one who was conveying the fallacy.

You really need to back this up with data.

I had my first job during the George H.W. Bush administration and the democrats controlled congress....and the law was that overtime was for over 40 hours a week....there was nothing in the labor laws about over 8 hours a day.

Now alot of union contracts call for overtime for anything over 8 hours a day, and some employers may voluntarily offer that to their people. But not since I had my first job in 1990 was that ever federal law.

The republicans didn't take control of congress until 1994. :2 cents:

yep. We should have never sucked china's little dick.

Law is law but not everyone abides by the law and this includes employers. I for example once belonged to the Laborers union and worked for a contractor that decided he would work the crew for 12 hours per day without the four hours overtime pay. I for one went along with his program but kept track of the hours that I worked and when I quit the job I turned it over to the union as well as labor and they saw that I was paid for all of my overtime hours and fined the contractor. I have also known of employers that do not even pay the Federal minimum wage let alone the State minimum wage which is...in many states...higher...but for the wise person there are remedies to this problem.

Actually the employer sets his own definition of full/part time, this classification only comes into play when determining who is eligible for certain company benefits. The only things the Feds are involved in is minimum wage and if time and a half applies.

As I previously stated there may be some variance from State to State.

You are at the least...partially correct...as different States also have...State labor laws/regs that determine what an employer may or may not define.

Wrong, the classification of full/part is up to the business owner. The government uses 20 hours as their own benchmark for compiling stats.

ummm . . . where is that?

As I stated already...you are partially correct...but State labor laws also dictate what an employer can classify/define...not just federal law.

:Oh crap

Every state in the union...congressmen...who are members of the house...have to be reelected every two years.

No one should ever work at McDonalds except at the executive level. It's a demeaning, dehumanizing experience.
Uh.. so they tell me. I wouldn't know personally. :winkwink:

it is I believe $8.00 here in Ontario Canada. They were saying something about bringing it up to $10.00 as well very soon.

Well I think that is great and dandy..but the problem is.. wages go up.. then so do prices on EVEYRTHING.

This is why some things are cheaper in the US. Since wages are less.


Here are Canada's wages to date.
http://canadaonline.about.com/library/bl/blminwage.htm

woot? Minimum wage her in norway is 15$ I think... But only 18 year old kids make that...

I'm torn on this topic, but what I think sucks is (for example--yep, I have a friend that works at walmart)... He started out at 6/hour and gets 10 cent raises here and there, been there for four years almost and these new kids coming in are hired in way above him. I personally think companies should adjust and reward loyal employees before bringing in fresh/clueless meat and paying them way more than the ones that have been there all along.

9.50 seems fair for minimum wage. Someone made a point, if you keep MW too low, then we all pay for the welfare, food visa cards (new food stamps) etc. I personally think anyone on welfare for more than 3 months that claims they can't find a job because of this or that, boo-fucking-hoo...... the government should give them jobs picking up trash at parks or whatever, but make them work for their welfare check, period! Might make them think twice about picking up dog shit in Central park and getting a job slinging hotdogs....... at least it would be an honest living.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that you made a long ass post before where you just made shit up.

You said that overtime law was for anything over 8 hours a day until the republican congress changed it. That is patently false.

If you're going to make shit like that up why should we believe anything else you say?

ummmmmm....in the United States of America.

Time and a half over eight hours a day has to be something from that particular unions labor agreement. It is NOT from the Federal Gov.

Fact...the Republican Congress did change it and not that long ago. I did not make anything up and there is nothing patently false in anything that I said. There was a major outcry about the change in the law specifically from Nurses. So check your facts before you speak.

It may have been the Fair Play act passed in 2004 (but as I stated I am not going to research the matter so I am not certain about the specific act or when it was passed) that according to the Republicans was designed to provide overtime pay for more than forty hours per week of work that previously employers were not required to pay to certain employees...but in essence what it really did was give an out for employers not to have to pay overtime for working more than eight hours per day. Some employers took advantage of this...some did not...but overall it hurt the working man.

Good! That way you get less fat fucks weighing down the health care system. They can work longer, pay more taxes and spend more money instead of being a burden with clogged arteries and shit like that.

Less fat fucks = good.

The only people complaing about this are fat fucks and people that sell fat fucks because their production costs rise :1orglaugh

:2 cents::2 cents::2 cents::2 cents:

wouldn't you rather some clean cut "passing grade" high school students handed you your food....instead of some fucking hood rats?

well i sure prefer it that way.....

$10 minimum wage would push the crack heads out & put decent middle class children in the jobs :thumbsup

they said it was bad news when there was a hike in the minimum wage in england, yet everything played out well and I think everyone benifited well.

No they shouldn't, what are you smoking? Your pay should be based on demand for your skills... minimum wage is really no different than welfare, except employers pay the tab, instead of the government...

That'll suck for small businesses who have to increase wages for employees even if they can't afford to do so.

How about explaining what's wrong with my logic instead of posting some lame pic? Someone's skills are for example worth $5/hr, can you explain why the employer should be forced to pay $9.50/hr for work that is worth $5/hr?