Minimum Wage

[bobbylien]

Do you support an increase in the federal minimum wage and why. Simple question.
I believe its an issue that should be left to the states. Most states have higher rates anyways. I believe this is and always has been a ploy by the democrats to get votes. It was also clever of them to attach it to the Iraq war resolution so they can accuse anyone who votes against it of opposing an increase to the minimum wage.
I do think we should consider implimenting some sort of cost of living/inflation automatic increase. 10 years without a raise is just ridiculous. I also think it would be a good idea to have the minimum wage based on the gross income of the company.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5f/History_of_US_federal_minimum_wage_increases.svg

[lily]

Do you support an increase in the federal minimum wage and why. Simple question.
I believe its an issue that should be left to the states. Most states have higher rates anyways. I believe this is and always has been a ploy by the democrats to get votes. It was also clever of them to attach it to the Iraq war resolution so they can accuse anyone who votes against it of opposing an increase to the minimum wage.

While I will agree with you that it was unfair to attach it to the Iraq war spenind bill (I didn't know), it seems that's pretty much SOP. As for a vote getter, I don't understand? Most politicians are pretty much for it and I guess if you want to accuse one side of using it as a vote getter, you'd pretty much have to include both sides.

I do think we should consider implimenting some sort of cost of
living/inflation automatic increase. 10 years without a raise is just ridiculous. I also think it would be a good idea to have the minimum wage based on the gross income of the company.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5f/History_of_US_federal_minimum_wage_increases.svg

While it is a nice thought that left on their own most companies would adjust their wages to their profit, it's not going to happen unless someone forces them to do it by making it a law. Hey, everyone loves profits, otherwis they wouldn't be in business.

[bobbylien]

While I will agree with you that it was unfair to attach it to the Iraq war spenind bill (I didn't know), it seems that's pretty much SOP. As for a vote getter, I don't understand? Most politicians are pretty much for it and I guess if you want to accuse one side of using it as a vote getter, you'd pretty much have to include both sides.
The republicans didn't campaign on it though, they couldn't have because people would simply ask why they only brought the issue up come election time.

While it is a nice thought that left on their own most companies would adjust their wages to their profit, it's not going to happen unless someone forces them to do it by making it a law. Hey, everyone loves profits, otherwis they wouldn't be in business.

Thats what I meant. I know that companies wouldn't do it unless public opinion forced them to.

[Stoner]

Raising the minimum wage hurts more than it helps.

[bobbylien]

Raising the minimum wage hurts more than it helps.

Hurts who? That money that these workers get will be spent, therefore creating more jobs. It doesn't hurt, it just causes change, which businesses can't stand. My only problem with the minimum wage is that many of the people making it are kids. They don't need to be making $7.50 an hour. I would love to see a minimum wage based on age but that just wouldn't work at all.

[micfranklin]

Raise it. End thread.

[bobbylien]

Raise it. End thread.

Wow, a libertarian saying that we should raise the minimum wage? Maybe you should get a different party card. :P

[micfranklin]

Raise it. End thread.

Wow, a libertarian saying that we should raise the minimum wage? Maybe you should get a different party card. :P


I'm mostly libertarian, but like every other party there's like one or two things I can't agree with.

[Mayberry]

Raise it. End thread. Raise it, kill business. This argument has been rehashed several times already. Minimum wage is not meant to be a living wage. It's for teenagers who sack groceries or flip burgers. If you're 35 years old and still on minimum wage, you've apparently got bigger problems than salary. Hell, daytime burger flippers can get $8 an hour around here. Guess it's those darn Americans doing the jobs the illegals don't want to. :rolleyes: Deport the illegals, and minimum wage will raise it's self.

[lily]

The republicans didn't campaign on it though, they couldn't have because people would simply ask why they only brought the issue up come election time.

You're right, the Republicans didn't run on this issue. Minimum wage isn't their, for lack of a better word, "thing". But as I mentioned out of all the complaining about what was attached to this bill minimum wage wasn't even mentioned, shows me that it's a universal issue.

[lily]

Raise it. End thread. Raise it, kill business.

This argument is used every time minimum wage is mentioned. Everything works out in the end, otherwise we'd all still be making a quarter an hour.

This argument has been rehashed several times already. Minimum wage is not meant to be a living wage. It's for teenagers who sack groceries or flip burgers. If you're 35 years old and still on minimum wage, you've apparently got bigger problems than salary. Hell, daytime burger flippers can get $8 an hour around here. Guess it's those darn Americans doing the jobs the illegals don't want to. :rolleyes: Deport the illegals, and minimum wage will raise it's self.

That is a nice sentiment, but sdaly it isn't true. This effects most single mothers who dropped out of school or were otherwise left by the father of their children. It would be nice to live in the Utopian world where everyone is educated and can make the big bucks, but sadly that isn't going to happen, and living in the richest country in the world, no one should go hungry and everyone should be paid enough to buy the things they make.

[micfranklin]

Raise it. End thread. Raise it, kill business. This argument has been rehashed several times already. Minimum wage is not meant to be a living wage. It's for teenagers who sack groceries or flip burgers. If you're 35 years old and still on minimum wage, you've apparently got bigger problems than salary. Hell, daytime burger flippers can get $8 an hour around here. Guess it's those darn Americans doing the jobs the illegals don't want to. :rolleyes: Deport the illegals, and minimum wage will raise it's self.


Raise minimum wage, and people will get more money, which could mean they'll get more incentive to work more, which leads to be bigger paycheck in the end.

[firefox]

I'm actually writing a very annoying, very crappy paper about this topic for a class at this very moment. To make a VERY long story short, labor price fixing is detrimental to employment at the margins (the disabled, minorities, teens, the elderly), and does next to nothing for the majority of Americans. For a more detailed economic analysis, please see http://www.mises.org/story/2130.

We should be in support of job opportunity for everyone, not in support of outlawing labor under certain conditions.

[Pookie]

Well then, here's a question:
Could you live on the current minimum wage?
Purrs,

[Buck Laser]

Raising the minimum wage hurts more than it helps.


Yeah, I heard that song back when they raised the minimum wage from 40 cents to 75 cents. It was bullshit then and it's bullshit now.

[Mayberry]

Well then, here's a question:
Could you live on the current minimum wage?
No, you can't. And you won't be able to live on $7.25 or whatever they're wanting either. This effects most single mothers who dropped out of school or were otherwise left by the father of their children. They made their own bed. The fathers should be tracked down and made to pay. You sire a child, it's your responsibility. I have no problem with work camps for deadbeat dads.

[Stoner]

Well then, here's a question:
Could you live on the current minimum wage?
Purrs,


Minimum wage isn't designed to be the sole source of income. Minimum wage jobs are usually entry level jobs. Very few jobs in America start out at minimum wage. I don't have the exact number but the percentage of those who make minimum wage in this country is extremely low. And the vast majority of those people will receive a raise within the year.

[lily]

They made their own bed. The fathers should be tracked down and made to pay. You sire a child, it's your responsibility. I have no problem with work camps for deadbeat dads.


I agree with you on deadbeat dads and I wish you luck with your work camps, but right now those mothers are living in the real world where if you don't work, you don't eat and neither do your children.

[Jaysun]

When minimum wage goes up the cost of everything else goes up. (ie: food, gas, cost of living, etc) The only thing that doesn't is my take home pay. Most companies don't raise those that are above the minimum wage limits.

My vote is do away with it...

[Pookie]

No one answered my question. So if all you can get is a minimum-wage job, can you live on it?
Purrs,

[lily]

No

[Jaysun]

No you can't live on minimum wage, that is why I said to do away with it. A person nor a family can live on $5.75 an hour. I am stating that everytime it goes up the prices of everything else goes up too. Leave it alone or do away with it.

[micfranklin]

No one answered my question. So if all you can get is a minimum-wage job, can you live on it?
Purrs,


If your minimum wage is like $450.50, then yeah you could. But it's not that, so no you can't.

[potter]

Does everyone agree that a person deserves a livable wage for an honest days work?[/align]

[Mayberry]

So if all you can get is a minimum-wage job, can you live on it?
Nope. Nor are you supposed to. I know there are some hard luck cases out there, but just 3 short years ago I was laid off from my $75,000 a year job. My wife didn't want to move, so I decided on a career change. I started working for a boat builder..... for 5 bucks an hour and 10% of each boat. I busted my butt, proved myself, and within 6 weeks I was making $10 an hour, plus 10%. You only stay at minimum wage if you choose to do so. Hard work and just a little common sense will quickly bring you up.

[piratemonkey]

Raise it. End thread. Raise it, kill business.



Tell me,

How was business doing in the Nineties when the minimum wage was the same as it is today, but was much, much higher in inflation-adjusted dollars?

Was it dead?

[firefox]

Not as well as it could be ;). Over the long haul, minimum wage locks out some people from the workplace, temporarily helps some, and doesn't effect the vast majority of people at all.

[Oedipus Rex]

Raise it. End thread. Raise it, kill business.

This argument is used every time minimum wage is mentioned. Everything works out in the end, otherwise we'd all still be making a quarter an hour.

This argument has been rehashed several times already. Minimum wage is not meant to be a living wage. It's for teenagers who sack groceries or flip burgers. If you're 35 years old and still on minimum wage, you've apparently got bigger problems than salary. Hell, daytime burger flippers can get $8 an hour around here. Guess it's those darn Americans doing the jobs the illegals don't want to. :rolleyes: Deport the illegals, and minimum wage will raise it's self.

That is a nice sentiment, but sdaly it isn't true. This effects most single mothers who dropped out of school or were otherwise left by the father of their children. It would be nice to live in the Utopian world where everyone is educated and can make the big bucks, but sadly that isn't going to happen, and living in the richest country in the world, no one should go hungry and everyone should be paid enough to buy the things they make.



So, you're saying those drop-out mothers are victims? Personally, I don't care anymore. I sold my business at the close of last year and I don't have to put up with the Libs telling me how to run my business anymore. And you guys wonder why many companies are moving offshore. Go figure!

[Oedipus Rex]

Does everyone agree that a person deserves a livable wage for an honest days work?[/align]






I believe if you don't like what you do, who you work for, or how much you make... you should move on. There's no reason to stick around and piss everybody else off with your whining and bad attitude. Just leave, dammit.

[piratemonkey]

Those of you who are against a minimum wage.

Tell us one time/place in modern history where there wasn't a minimum wage and there also wasn't wide-spread poverty or social unrest as a result.

Give us just one example.

[Mayberry]

Tell us one time/place in modern history where there wasn't a minimum wage and there also wasn't wide-spread poverty or social unrest as a result.
Are you saying there isn't now? That has been your argument, right?[/b]

[piratemonkey]

Tell us one time/place in modern history where there wasn't a minimum wage and there also wasn't wide-spread poverty or social unrest as a result.
Are you saying there isn't now? That has been your argument, right?[/b]


Ummm... no. I didn't say the converse is true. What you just typed above is a logical falacy.

I'm saying no minimum wage always leads to wide-spread poverty or social unrest.

Name a time/place in modern history where it hasn't.

Prove me wrong.

[Mayberry]

I'm saying no minimum wage always leads to wide-spread poverty or social unrest. Not necessarily. Name a time/place in modern history where it hasn't.
Restricting parameters to suit your desired outcome is not conducive to good debate. One could argue that "quality of life" was much better 150 years ago, well before any minimum wage, but you've precluded it from discussion. Of course, "modern history" is subjective.... So I will say that in the latter half of the 19th century, well before the slightest notion of minimum wage, that there was not wide spread poverty or social unrest. Nor was there until the Great Depression.

[lily]

So, you're saying those drop-out mothers are victims? Personally, I don't care anymore.

Actually, no I wasn't saying that those drop out mothers were victims. I was saying that those drop out mothers need the minimum wage lifted.

I sold my business at the close of last year and I don't have to put up with the Libs telling me how to run my business anymore. And you guys wonder why many companies are moving offshore. Go figure!

Well, I can see why you had a problem. Most people in business don't let it bother them what political side of the aisle their customers are, they just care how green their money is.

[Oedipus Rex]

So, you're saying those drop-out mothers are victims? Personally, I don't care anymore.

1. Actually, no I wasn't saying that those drop out mothers were victims. I was saying that those drop out mothers need the minimum wage lifted.

I sold my business at the close of last year and I don't have to put up with the Libs telling me how to run my business anymore. And you guys wonder why many companies are moving offshore. Go figure!

2. Well, I can see why you had a problem. Most people in business don't let it bother them what political side of the aisle their customers are, they just care how green their money is.


1. Yet, had those drop-out mothers stayed in school, more than likely, they'd be earning way more thn minimum wage. Why shouldn't they be required to get an education to warrant a pay increase? Why should businesses foot the tab for those people who wouldn't do for themselves? Heck, from where I'm sitting, the businesses are the real victims in all of this.

2. Businesses are for profit. They're not an extension of the welfare system.

[firefox]

Actually, no I wasn't saying that those drop out mothers were victims. I was saying that those drop out mothers need the minimum wage lifted.


What about the mothers who lost work, or had a much harder time finding work after a minimum wage increase? These demographics are small in proportion to the vast majority of employees, but the problem is significant enough that I believe that minimum wages are detrimental to economic development. When you get down to it, who owns the business? The employer or the state?

I sold my business at the close of last year and I don't have to put up with the Libs telling me how to run my business anymore. And you guys wonder why many companies are moving offshore. Go figure!

Well, I can see why you had a problem. Most people in business don't let it bother them what political side of the aisle their customers are, they just care how green their money is.


No kidding. Shouldn't that be how it is? Politics is destructive and divisive.

[piratemonkey]

I'm saying no minimum wage always leads to wide-spread poverty or social unrest. Not necessarily. Name a time/place in modern history where it hasn't.
Restricting parameters to suit your desired outcome is not conducive to good debate. One could argue that "quality of life" was much better 150 years ago, well before any minimum wage, but you've precluded it from discussion. Of course, "modern history" is subjective.... So I will say that in the latter half of the 19th century, well before the slightest notion of minimum wage, that there was not wide spread poverty or social unrest. Nor was there until the Great Depression.



There was also slavery and subsequently indentured servitude.

What percentage of African Americans do you think were poor in between 1850 and 1900?

Plus, I disagree with your historical facts.

By the early nineteenth century, many craftsmen and farmers displaced by the mechanization of agriculture and goods production struggled to earn a living, as did unskilled laborers. These groups constituted an economically insecure "floating proletariat," some of whom traveled extensively to find jobs. Some also became "tramps"—jobless men and, to a lesser extent, women who moved continuously from place to place in search of employment.

That sounds like a GREAT standard of living! :rolleyes:

Michael Katz recounts how in an 1854 annual report, as head of New York City's Children's Aid Society, Charles Loring Brace argued that the "greatest danger" to America's future was the "existence of an ignorant, debased, and permanently poor class in the great cities. . . . The members of it come at length to form a separate population. They embody the lowest passions and the most thriftless habits of the community. They corrupt the lowest class of working-poor who are around them. The expenses of police, prisons, of charities and means of relief, arise mainly from them."

S. Humphreys Gurteen, a writer and preacher, also decried the problems of both poverty and pauperism in his 1882 description of poor city districts: "large families huddled together in tenements and shanties which barely afford protection from wind and storm; dwellings where the laws of health are defied, where the most ordinary sanitary arrangements are unknown, and where 'boards of health' fail to penetrate; . . . human forms, even those of children, shivering in rags; hunger written upon care-worn faces; and despair everywhere triumphant."

Katz ventures that perhaps half the population of typical nineteenth-century cities were poor

Half the population.

Quite bluntly, I believe that you are wrong.Â*Â*Poverty was wide-spread in America during the late 1900's.

http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/10049/10049.ch02.html

[potter]

Well, I can see why you had a problem. Most people in business don't let it bother them what political side of the aisle their customers are, they just care how green their money is.



I find it amazing that someone would blame their own poor business practices on "libs" as a reason for the failure of thier business. What ever happened to personal responsibility.

[potter]

1. Yet, had those drop-out mothers stayed in school, more than likely, they'd be earning way more thn minimum wage. Why shouldn't they be required to get an education to warrant a pay increase? Why should businesses foot the tab for those people who wouldn't do for themselves? Heck, from where I'm sitting, the businesses are the real victims in all of this.

2. Businesses are for profit. They're not an extension of the welfare system.



I'm not sure education in these low paying jobs is an issue. With more technical jobs it would be.Â*Â*Some folks just don't have the capacity for technical education and work better with their hands at tasks the better educated are too haughty to do. Some folks take pride in making it on their own without a formal higher education, and many succeed. Some folks self educate themselves and are very successful. I know well educated men who do yard work because they don't like the fast paced work of an office and I know well educated men who are incompetent and couldn't change a light bulb. That degree doesn't mean much unless it is specialized.Â*Â*The better educated tend look down their noses at the counter workers, yard workers and cleaners of our society whom we couldn't do without.Â*Â*That attitude is nothing but snobbery.

Perhaps business needs to quite being so tight and realize that many of the businesses would go out of business without that cheap labor. Could Mc'donalds operate without front line employees?Â*Â*This could relate to any business.Â*Â*Sure, be cheap with your labor and your result will be front line employees who don't give a shit and speak poor English as your prime first encounter impression with your customers.Â*Â*You take your own risks with that game.

As far as minimum wage, I think very few businesses actually pay minimum wage, they are smarter than that and they pay minimum at their own peril.Â*Â* You can really tell when some is earning minimum wage too...by their attitude as they "serve" you.

[lily]

1. Yet, had those drop-out mothers stayed in school, more than likely, they'd be earning way more thn minimum wage.

Oh, let's take this one step further, if those drop out mothers aborted their babies, stayed in school and went on to higher education, then they wouldn't be looked down upon by you.




2. Businesses are for profit. They're not an extension of the welfare system.

This one sounds like a personal problem to me.

[firefox]

Weird. Who's for small business and against corporate welfare? I am.

[Oedipus Rex]

1. Yet, had those drop-out mothers stayed in school, more than likely, they'd be earning way more thn minimum wage.

Oh, let's take this one step further, if those drop out mothers aborted their babies, stayed in school and went on to higher education, then they wouldn't be looked down upon by you.




2. Businesses are for profit. They're not an extension of the welfare system.

This one sounds like a personal problem to me.


1. 1 out of every 5 viable babies are aborted. Did you know that? That aside, people should be responsible for the choices they make in life. Why should I be saddled with the expense created by others who choose poorly? If you feel badly for them, open your own wallet and home. Just leave my wallet alone.

2. And you sound like a socialist. So what? Keep your grubby paws outta my wallet.

[Labrocca]

Raise it. This coming from a former small business owner.

[lily]

1. 1 out of every 5 viable babies are aborted. Did you know that? That aside, people should be responsible for the choices they make in life. Why should I be saddled with the expense created by others who choose poorly? If you feel badly for them, open your own wallet and home. Just leave my wallet alone.

Well then I guess those 1 in five women won't have to work at minimum wage. The mother could also have the baby and give it to the father to raise and he could work at minimum wage. How ever you want to do it, there will always be someone with no education that depends on minimum wage and let's face it, this country has become dependent on them.

2. And you sound like a socialist. So what? Keep your grubby paws outta my wallet.

My hands weren't even close to your wallet, dear!

[Mayberry]

there will always be someone with no education that depends on minimum wage and let's face it, this country has become dependent on them.
I know several people with no "education" that are doing quite well, thank you. That is not an excuse. I'm sure there are plenty of folks out there who consider me "uneducated" because I chose not to fork over $30,000 (at the time) to some university for a piece of paper. Your life is what you make of it, and it is not the responsibility of everyone else to pay for your mistakes. I've said it a hundred times, if you're making minimum wage, it's because you have no ambition, no drive for something better, and that is no one's problem but your own.

[lily]

Your life is what you make of it, and it is not the responsibility of everyone else to pay for your mistakes. I've said it a hundred times, if you're making minimum wage, it's because you have no ambition, no drive for something better, and that is no one's problem but your own.


Yes, Mayberry your life is what you make of it. I still don't understand why you are so against minimum wage should not be raised to meet the rate of inflation. It's way past time.

[firefox]

Lily... What have you learned from this thread as far as marginal employment goes? If wages need to go higher, they will over time in the marketplace. You don't need to pass a law about this kind of thing.

[Elrathin]

If wages need to go higher, they will over time in the marketplace. You don't need to pass a law about this kind of thing.


Yes just take a look at the very happy child workforce in China. :rolleyes: If corporations had their way they would have everyone at that status just so they can make a buck.

Let's face it, people need jobs and some simply cannot afford education either because of money or time. It's kinda hard to go to college when you're working two jobs to make ends meet for your family. Some people are just heartless bastards I swear.

[askates]

hey , im a server and this law passing has screwed me out of so much money, i still dont get a paycheck but its recording that i make almost twice as much on my taxes, thanks govt officials/hedonists

[lily]

Lily... What have you learned from this thread as far as marginal employment goes? If wages need to go higher, they will over time in the marketplace. You don't need to pass a law about this kind of thing.


Sorry firefox, I just don't buy that. I don't have that kind of faith in mankind. Sad I know, but I've been around the block a couple of times.

[Oedipus Rex]

The unions have killed the manufacturing sector in America. Its cheaper to 'outsource' these jobs overseas. Now, the socialists among us, want to do the same with what's left of our economy. Where the F does it end?

[Mayberry]

Where the F does it end? When all the tird world countries have money, and America is broke. That seems to be what libs want.

[Elrathin]

Its cheaper to 'outsource' these jobs overseas. Now, the socialists among us, want to do the same with what's left of our economy. Where the F does it end?


Wait a minute, so if unions weren't around are you actually saying that jobs wouldn't be going overseas? They are going overseas because they can get workers to work for FAR LESS than minimum wage.

You are obviously advocating work slavery programs then.

[Elrathin]

When all the tird world countries have money, and America is broke. That seems to be what libs want.


And you conservatives want to turn America INTO a third world country by allowing third world wages to be dictated to workers.

[Mayberry]

And you conservatives want to turn America INTO a third world country by allowing third world wages to be dictated to workers. You just said yourself that the current minimum wage is higher than tird world wages. :rolleyes: You see, it's simple. Refuse to work for low wages, and wages have no choice but to go up. Also, smart business people know that to recruit and retain quality employees, they've got to pay well. Henry Ford demonstrated this. When Ford Motor Company started, Mr. Ford paid workers well above the going rate because he knew one of the keys to his own success was keeping well trained employees. Turnover can become very expensive due to training costs, and Ford wanted to avoid that.

[Elrathin]

You see, it's simple. Refuse to work for low wages, and wages have no choice but to go up.


If it truly were THAT simple then those living in third world countries would be doing just that. They're not, because it doesn't work that way.

[piratemonkey]

You see, it's simple. Refuse to work for low wages, and wages have no choice but to go up.

Exactly, El.

When you're starving, any wage is better than no wage.

Does that make it ethical to pay someone below subsistance-level?

[Mayberry]

If it truly were THAT simple then those living in third world countries would be doing just that. They're not, because it doesn't work that way. Tird world countries do not have free market economies for the most part, either. Corrupt governments keep their countries in poverty. The people are easier to control that way. Why worry about overthrowing your friendly neighborhood dictator when just getting something to eat is a struggle?

[piratemonkey]

Mayberry,

Still waiting for you to name a time/place in the modern world when no minimum wage didn't lead to wide-spread poverty or social unrest.

Your example of the late 1800's wasn't so good, since 50% of the population lived in poverty.

Wanna try again?

[Mayberry]

Katz ventures that perhaps half the population of typical nineteenth-century cities were poor
One guy speculates that perhaps half of city dwellers were poor. That's your evidence? What about the rest of the country? I believe at that time most of the population was rural.

[piratemonkey]

Katz ventures that perhaps half the population of typical nineteenth-century cities were poor
One guy speculates that perhaps half of city dwellers were poor. That's your evidence? What about the rest of the country? I believe at that time most of the population was rural.


So you're claiming that rural populations in the 1800's were more wealthy than urban population?

Sounds like a nice theory.Â*Â*But since rural populations are almost always less weathy than urban populations, do you have and evidence to back up your postion?

A link?

A quote?

Anything?

Mayberry, I have a lot of sympathy for your positions.Â*Â*I used to hold many of them, until I started looking at the facts.Â*Â*Reality gets in the way of idealistic theory in many of your positions.

[Mayberry]

But since rural populations are almost always less weathy than urban populations, They may not have been "wealthy", but they weren't living in squalor either. They were self-sufficient. Grew their own crops, raised animals, built their own homes with whatever was at hand, traded for what they needed...... Money is not the sole source of "wealth".

[piratemonkey]

[quote] Money is not the sole source of "wealth".


So you're admitting that they were poorer... at least when it comes to, say, money. :rolleyes:

Your position is that the poor should be happy because they have other "riches."

Tell me when you convince a subsistence farmer that he's wealthy. :rolleyes:

[Mayberry]

Tell me when you convince a subsistence farmer that he's wealthy I'm sure there are many who think so. Hey, I'm not "wealthy", but I've got a great family, a home, a job I love, a few toys, and lots of free time to do what I like. Like sitting here arguing with you :D. So I consider myself wealthy in the fact that I'm not chained to a desk, I'm not slaving away to make some a$$hole rich, I can pretty much do as I please. I'm free. The ultimate wealth.

[piratemonkey]

Tell me when you convince a subsistence farmer that he's wealthy I'm sure there are many who think so. Hey, I'm not "wealthy", but I've got a great family, a home, a job I love, a few toys, and lots of free time to do what I like. Like sitting here arguing with you :D. So I consider myself wealthy in the fact that I'm not chained to a desk, I'm not slaving away to make some a$$hole rich, I can pretty much do as I please. I'm free. The ultimate wealth.


I think we see where your position is.

The poor are not really poor, as long as they are happy.

I'm just saying that most poor people, as well as the dictionary, would disagree with you.

[Mayberry]

I'm just saying that most poor people, as well as the dictionary, would disagree with you. That's your opinion. I live in South Texas, I'm surrounded by "poor" people. The only thing I really hear them complain about is gas prices. They want to go to the lake and BBQ, but can't because the gas prices are too high. Other than that they seem pretty happy.

[piratemonkey]

I'm just saying that most poor people, as well as the dictionary, would disagree with you. That's your opinion. I live in South Texas, I'm surrounded by "poor" people. The only thing I really hear them complain about is gas prices. They want to go to the lake and BBQ, but can't because the gas prices are too high. Other than that they seem pretty happy.


WOW!

'nuf said.

[piratemonkey]

I guess these people are just giggly about their position in life:

35.1 million people lived in households considered to be food insecure.
http://www.frac.org/html/hunger_in_the_us/hunger_index.html

Hunger makes one happy, doesn't it, Mayberry?

I'm sure these people are "rich" in hugs. :rolleyes:

[Mayberry]

What a bunch of bullsh1t. There are "food stamps" out there for anyone who doesn't make enough money. I see it almost every day. Hell, the people on food stamps eat better than I do! Shrimp, steaks, ribs.... all on their "Lone Star" foodstamp card. Meanwhile I'm eating chicken and hamburgers trying to save a buck. I "splurge" on a brisket or fajitas once or twice a month. The only people who are hungry are those who choose to be. Try again.

[piratemonkey]

What a bunch of bullsh1t... The only people who are hungry are those who choose to be. Try again.


Wow.Â*Â*

You're the one accusing me of being young and naive?

You actually saying that 35.1 million people "choose" to be hungry?!?

Wow.

[Mayberry]

You actually saying that 35.1 million people "choose" to be hungry?!? No, I'm saying that figure is bullsh!t. I don't buy it.

[piratemonkey]

What a bunch of bullsh1t. There are "food stamps" out there for anyone who doesn't make enough money. I see it almost every day. Hell, the people on food stamps eat better than I do! Shrimp, steaks, ribs.... all on their "Lone Star" foodstamp card. Meanwhile I'm eating chicken and hamburgers trying to save a buck. I "splurge" on a brisket or fajitas once or twice a month. The only people who are hungry are those who choose to be. Try again.


Just because I enjoy using raw facts to shoot your theories out of the water, let's look at some facts, shall we?

Using the Texas Food Stamps Benefit Estimator
for Federal Fiscal Year 2007, let's see how much money a disabled mother of two has to spend on "shrimp."
http://www.hhsc.state.tx.us/programs/FoodStamps/estimator/index.html

$408 is the maximum paid out in Texas per month for a family of three, according to this website.

That's approximately $4.39 per day, per person.

Not going to buy you much steak, is it?

[piratemonkey]

You actually saying that 35.1 million people "choose" to be hungry?!? No, I'm saying that figure is bullsh!t. I don't buy it.


This is why we need facts in order to have an educated discussion of the topic.

Do you have any evidence that this figure is incorrect, or do you just feel like it is?

If it's just a feeling, you've gotta ask yourself... why do you feel in a way contrary to the factual evidence?

[Mayberry]

$408 is the maximum paid out in Texas per month for a family of three, according to this website.
Which is about $100 a month more than my family of 4 eats on for a month. Groceries are relatively cheap in Texas. This is why we need facts in order to have an educated discussion of the topic.
OK, prove your "facts" then.

[piratemonkey]

$408 is the maximum paid out in Texas per month for a family of three, according to this website.
Which is about $100 a month more than my family of 4 eats on for a month. Groceries are relatively cheap in Texas.

Bullcrap.

You seriously expect us to believe that your family only eats $2.48 per person per day.... every day.

Let me say that again... bullcrap.Â*Â*If that's true, you should be getting another job (or getting on food stamps) rather than screwing around debating people on the internet all day, since you are obviously capable of working.

So, just to be clear, how many steaks and shrimp can one eat on $4.39 per day, as you claim people on food stamps eat?

This is why we need facts in order to have an educated discussion of the topic.

OK, prove your "facts" then.


Umm... I gave you a source.

Here it is again:
http://www.frac.org/html/hunger_in_the_us/hunger_index.html

If you think my source is wrong, give me a source that shows it to be wrong.

Just claiming that my figures are wrong without any evidence, when I've supplied you with evidence of it's truth, isn't going to win many debates.

[Mayberry]

You seriously expect us to believe that your family only eats $2.48 per person per day.... every day.
Yup. Though we do eat a lot of fish, so add $33 a year for a fishing license, and about $100 a year for lures and tackle. I guess I could amortize my fishing rods and boat if you'd like. Let me say that again... bullcrap. If that's true, you should be getting another job Why? I have one, and so does my wife. I also repair boats on the side. We're doing just fine, thank you. So, just to be clear, how many steaks and shrimp can one eat on $4.39 per day, as you claim people on food stamps eat?
Apparently, nearly twice as much as we do. Umm... I gave you a source.
One single, solitary source. A look at the United States reveals a wide gap between the goal of universal access to adequate nutrition, and the reality of hunger that plagues millions in this country alone. The number of hungry people in the United States is greater now than it was when international leaders set hunger-cutting goals at the 1996 World Food Summit. The pledges by United States government leaders to cut the number of Americans living in hunger-from 30.4 million to 15.2 million by 2010- are lagging behind. An estimated 35 million Americans are food insecure with food insecurity and the necessity of food stamps being experienced by at least 4 in 10 Americans between the ages of 20 and 65. That's 50% of Americans!

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1210-22.htm Same number you quoted as going hungry, but here it says they are getting food stamps. That's a skewed number though, as their is a lot of fraud in the food stamp circles. On any given day in Louisiana, there are hundreds of impoverished people desperately scheming to sell their food stamps for 50 cents on the dollar. All it takes is a dishonest retailer who is willing to pay cash for the food stamps and then pocket the difference. Known as "discounting," food stamp fraud in Louisiana costs federal taxpayers about $28 million annually. And that's just one state.

http://www.cioinsight.com/article2/0,1540,1741913,00.asp Another example. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-12-11-fraud_x.htm Not to mention that I regularly see these shrimp and steak eaters climbing into Escalades and Navigators. If you can afford that, you don't need foodstamps.

[piratemonkey]

Umm... I gave you a source.
One single, solitary source.
Finally!
Doesn't it feel good to actually quote some facts, finally? ;)
Let's look at your facts:
A look at the United States reveals a wide gap between the goal of universal access to adequate nutrition, and the reality of hunger that plagues millions in this country alone. The number of hungry people in the United States is greater now than it was when international leaders set hunger-cutting goals at the 1996 World Food Summit. The pledges by United States government leaders to cut the number of Americans living in hunger-from 30.4 million to 15.2 million by 2010- are lagging behind. An estimated 35 million Americans are food insecure with food insecurity and the necessity of food stamps being experienced by at least 4 in 10 Americans between the ages of 20 and 65. That's 50% of Americans!

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1210-22.htm Same number you quoted as going hungry, but here it says they are getting food stamps. [/quote]

No, it doesn't.Â*Â*
It says 40% of Americans between 20 and 65 need food stamps.
It says separately that 35 million Americans are food insecure (that's <10% of Americans).
Those are two different statistics.

Plus, I love how your own source confirms my statistic of 35 Million, which you claimed was "bullsh!t."


Not to mention that I regularly see these shrimp and steak eaters climbing into Escalades and Navigators. If you can afford that, you don't need foodstamps.

So occasional fraud in a food stamp program means that nobody's food insecure, even though your own sources say that's not true?

Your facts aren't helping your argument.

[Mayberry]

It says 40% of Americans between 20 and 65 need food stamps So they don't have them? It doesn't say that. Plus, I love how your own source confirms my statistic of 35 Million, which you claimed was "bullsh!t."
Again, it doesn't say they're going hungry. So occasional fraud in a food stamp program means that nobody's food insecure, even though your own sources say that's not true?
I'd say it's a lot more than "occasional". food stamp fraud in Louisiana costs federal taxpayers about $28 million annually. And that's just one state.

That's a hell of a lot more than "occasional".

[piratemonkey]

Again, it doesn't say they're going hungry.
"Food insecure" is a term with a very specific definition.Â*Â*I don't think anyone here is arguing with that definition.

Food insecurity has been described as "a condition in which people lack basic food intake to provide them with the energy and nutrients for fully productive lives."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_security


food stamp fraud in Louisiana costs federal taxpayers about $28 million annually. And that's just one state.

That's a hell of a lot more than "occasional".


What percentage is that of the total program?

And how does that show that people aren't food insecure?


Also, explain how this whole discussion shows that a minimum wage isn't necessary?

Oh, yeah... those poor people aren't really poor, because they're flush with kitties, flowers and love.

[Oedipus Rex]

Its cheaper to 'outsource' these jobs overseas. Now, the socialists among us, want to do the same with what's left of our economy. Where the F does it end?


Wait a minute, so if unions weren't around are you actually saying that jobs wouldn't be going overseas? They are going overseas because they can get workers to work for FAR LESS than minimum wage.

You are obviously advocating work slavery programs then.


You haven't a freakin' clue. Look at what the unions have done to the American manufacturing sector. Better quality cars can be bought from overseas, cheaper/well built manufactured electronic goods are foreign made, etc. This has nothing to do with your anal so-called 'slavery programs', it has to do with the unions hijacking employers and putting out sub-standard products. That, in turn, makes the consumers seek out cheaper and better quality products... typically from overseas.

[firefox]

IBM just announced that it may lay off up to 100K US employees in the next year or so. I'm not sure what unions have to do with this specifically (if at all), but we can say that labor restrictions are a significant factor here. In this case, probably not minimum wage so much as OSHA regs, various mandatory benefits, etc.

[Mayberry]

IBM just announced that it may lay off up to 100K US employees in the next year or so. That is sad. I'm not sure what unions have to do with this specifically (if at all), but we can say that labor restrictions are a significant factor here I think it's probably because they are outsourcing the jobs to China. Unions still have their place, but they have destroyed US manufacturing by becoming too greedy. You can't have $20 an hour janitors and remain competitive. probably not minimum wage so much as OSHA regs, various mandatory benefits, etc. That has something to do with it also. I worked in a power plant, and in refineries, and some of the OSHA regs are just ridiculous. Some jobs that should take 15 minutes consumed a 12 hour shift due to these regs.

[firefox]

Damn. I wonder what special interest pushed for THAT reg! ;)

[lily]

I think it's probably because they are outsourcing the jobs to China. Unions still have their place, but they have destroyed US manufacturing by becoming too greedy. You can't have $20 an hour janitors and remain competitive.

I'm not sure what you mean here Mayberry......how does outsourcing Americn jobs to China help the union? The union is not getting dues from the Chinese workers and the fired union workers are no longer paying dues.

[stannis]

Speaking from a foreign viewpoint I think the minimum wage is a very just and necessary measure for workers and should be put as the most optimal level possible without causing too much strain on business' ability to employ.