People don't get this. FDR, Reagan and BW are but a few handfuls of presidents that could get congress to do most of what they wanted. And just because his own party may control congress don't think Obama will necessarily get his way. Just ask Jimmy Carter.

Like I said, we're already at $7.15 here in NY. Here's a bit more info about it and what they have planned for NYS.

That's a page right out of the John Edwards playbook.

Looks like she's jockeying for his endorsement.

For what it's worth, my opinion is that if you're going to have a minimum wage then it should be at or slightly above the poverty level. What's the point in having a minimum wage if it's not going to keep people out of poverty?

$9+ is where it would be now if it had been indexed to inflation back in the 1960's.

Sorry, but just like we can't call you a niggah, you can't call us crackas.

It's the rules.

no, i just can't post links

you are too negative, yoga works, seriously

dumbass - he doesn't have enough posts to put up a link

I'm giving you an official pass to call me whatever you want.

did i piss in your cheerios or something. i remember only being nice to you?

okay cracka

Wrong...anything over 20 hours per week is considered to be full time.

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?