Yay! Congressional Dems doing something right! - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-28-2006, 06:44 PM   #16
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 07:54 PM
Nine years is a hell of a long time not to raise the minimum wage.
__________________

__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 06-28-2006, 06:58 PM   #17
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 01:54 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar

yet many families are still stuck in the same wage of 9 years ago.
Just a thought. If you've worked for nine years at a job and have never received a raise, maybe it's time to find a new job.
__________________

__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 06-28-2006, 07:09 PM   #18
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 11:54 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


Just a thought. If you've worked for nine years at a job and have never received a raise, maybe it's time to find a new job.
Where? Another minimum wage job?
__________________
martha is online now  
Old 06-28-2006, 07:10 PM   #19
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 01:54 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


Just a thought. If you've worked for nine years at a job and have never received a raise, maybe it's time to find a new job.
It must be nice to be so privelaged. Some people don't have that option because every paying job at their skill level pays the exact same. Why? Because employers know they can get away with it.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 06-28-2006, 07:22 PM   #20
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 11:54 AM
It's so simple really. Everyone with a minimum wage job can just quit the job they have now, and get better paying jobs!

Why haven't they thought of it already?
__________________
martha is online now  
Old 06-28-2006, 07:51 PM   #21
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 01:54 PM
If raising the minimum-wage from $5.15 to $7.25 is a good thing, Wouldn't $9.00 be better? Why not $15.00

Or try this question. What percentage of American workers 16 and over reported wages at or below the Federal minimum in 2004?
A. 20%
B. 10%
C. 3%

(hint) http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2004tbls.htm
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 06-28-2006, 08:07 PM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Se7en's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: all around in the dark - everywhere
Posts: 3,531
Local Time: 02:54 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500
If raising the minimum-wage from $5.15 to $7.25 is a good thing, Wouldn't $9.00 be better? Why not $15.00

Or try this question. What percentage of American workers 16 and over reported wages at or below the Federal minimum in 2004?
A. 20%
B. 10%
C. 3%

(hint) http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2004tbls.htm
$10 seems about right although it should indeed vary in relation to cost of living. making $7/hr in center city of a major american metropolis is ridiculous.
__________________
Se7en is offline  
Old 06-28-2006, 08:47 PM   #23
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 01:54 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500
If raising the minimum-wage from $5.15 to $7.25 is a good thing, Wouldn't $9.00 be better? Why not $15.00

I love this kind of logic.

If war in Iraq is why not the whole Middle East?
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 06-28-2006, 08:50 PM   #24
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 02:54 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500
If raising the minimum-wage from $5.15 to $7.25 is a good thing, Wouldn't $9.00 be better? Why not $15.00

Or try this question. What percentage of American workers 16 and over reported wages at or below the Federal minimum in 2004?
A. 20%
B. 10%
C. 3%

(hint) http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2004tbls.htm

and is $7.25 enough to live above the poverty line?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-28-2006, 10:35 PM   #25
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 02:54 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500
It's so touching to see Democratic multi-millionaires such as Kerry, Kohl, Kennedy, Feinstein, Lautenberg and John "Jay" Rockefeller
willing to take such a financial hit, just to stand-up for the little guy.
America applauds your courage. And wishes you well on your endeavor to liberate wages from the icy, unsympathetic grip of "market forces."
While I agree in part, it certainly isn't "market forces" when you can set your pay raises by a vote either.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 06-28-2006, 10:39 PM   #26
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 01:54 PM
Minimum Wage, Maximum Folly
by Walter Williams (April 25, 2006)

...Workers earning the minimum wage or less tend to be young, single workers between the ages of 16 and 25. Only about 2% of workers over 25 years of age earn minimum wages.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics: Sixty-three percent of minimum wage workers receive raises within one year of employment, and only 15 percent still earn the minimum wage after three years. Furthermore, only 5.3 percent of minimum wage earners are from households below the official poverty line; forty percent of minimum wage earners live in households with incomes $60,000 and higher; and, over 82 percent of minimum wage earners do not have dependents.

Another issue that's not often taken into consideration is there's a difference between what a worker takes home in pay and his total compensation. Employers must pay for legally required worker benefits that include Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, workers' compensation, health and disability insurance benefits, and whatever paid leave benefits they offer, such as vacations, holidays and sick leave. It's tempting to think of higher minimum wages as an anti-poverty weapon, but such an idea doesn't even pass the smell test. After all, if higher minimum wages could cure poverty, we could easily end worldwide poverty simply by telling poor nations to legislate higher minimum wages.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 06-28-2006, 10:46 PM   #27
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 02:54 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500
Another issue that's not often taken into consideration is there's a difference between what a worker takes home in pay and his total compensation. Employers must pay for legally required worker benefits that include Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, workers' compensation, health and disability insurance benefits, and whatever paid leave benefits they offer, such as vacations, holidays and sick leave. It's tempting to think of higher minimum wages as an anti-poverty weapon, but such an idea doesn't even pass the smell test. After all, if higher minimum wages could cure poverty, we could easily end worldwide poverty simply by telling poor nations to legislate higher minimum wages.
I consider this set of statistics to be a rather misleading charge only used by conservatives who advocate not paying people. Paying taxes is not a "benefit," which is precisely what, at least, the first four items are under.

But I do agree that merely raising the minimum wage isn't a total panacea. However, there is still the fact that even in America, there is a lot of unskilled workers. So you either have to provide more employment opportunities for them, which is difficult when you have a president seeking to legitimize illegal immigrant labor to work those jobs; you have to increase educational opportunities for them, which is increasingly difficult, considering how ridiculously expensive the American educational system is versus the rest of the industrialized world; or you have to make it so that even unskilled labor can live a decent life--which is what the minimum wage theoretically seeks to fulfill. After all, if you educate everyone, not only would you completely destroy the job market for all the existing educated, but then you'd have a bunch of unskilled jobs that are left unfilled.

It tends to tell me that Option #3 is the most realistic, for better or for worse.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 06-29-2006, 12:03 AM   #28
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 01:54 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


I consider this set of statistics to be a rather misleading charge only used by conservatives who advocate not paying people. Paying taxes is not a "benefit," which is precisely what, at least, the first four items are under.

But I do agree that merely raising the minimum wage isn't a total panacea. However, there is still the fact that even in America, there is a lot of unskilled workers. So you either have to provide more employment opportunities for them, which is difficult when you have a president seeking to legitimize illegal immigrant labor to work those jobs; you have to increase educational opportunities for them, which is increasingly difficult, considering how ridiculously expensive the American educational system is versus the rest of the industrialized world; or you have to make it so that even unskilled labor can live a decent life--which is what the minimum wage theoretically seeks to fulfill. After all, if you educate everyone, not only would you completely destroy the job market for all the existing educated, but then you'd have a bunch of unskilled jobs that are left unfilled.

It tends to tell me that Option #3 is the most realistic, for better or for worse.

Melon
I read your thoughts with interest but I feel you miss the most important statistic. (I know the numbers are boring) Only 2% of minimum wage earners are over the age of 25 and only 15% of minimum wage earners have dependents. So basically, we are talking about entry-level or part-time jobs never meant to provide a "living wage" for a family. Hence the demagoguery on the issue.

Wage controls are as pandering and counterproductive as price controls. That's why socialism can't compete in a global economy.

bonsoir à demain
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 06-29-2006, 12:23 AM   #29
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 01:54 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


Only 2% of minimum wage earners are over the age of 25 and only 15% of minimum wage earners have dependents. So basically, we are talking about entry-level or part-time jobs never meant to provide a "living wage" for a family. Hence the demagoguery on the issue.

Where did these numbers come from?

I mean there are a lot of factors. Some don't claim. Some don't have to. Some work multiple jobs and may throw off the numbers yet still they make below the minimum salary. How many are single parents where only one claims dependent. There are far too many factors. All you have to do is look around.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 06-29-2006, 08:06 AM   #30
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 02:54 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500
I read your thoughts with interest but I feel you miss the most important statistic. (I know the numbers are boring) Only 2% of minimum wage earners are over the age of 25 and only 15% of minimum wage earners have dependents. So basically, we are talking about entry-level or part-time jobs never meant to provide a "living wage" for a family. Hence the demagoguery on the issue.

Wage controls are as pandering and counterproductive as price controls. That's why socialism can't compete in a global economy.
Well, a question worth asking is that if your last set of statistics is going to define the minimum wage according to "total compensation," would that explain why "only 2%" are defined as being "minimum wage earners"? Another question worth asking, would someone making $5.20 an hour be considered part of the minimum wage statistics, considering he makes five cents more an hour than the minimum? I'm guessing not. And would someone making $5.20 an hour be any better off than someone making $5.15? Probably not.

But if so few people make the minimum wage, why would a whole myriad of employers and conservative pundits be so outraged over the thought of giving 2% of the population a raise? Probably because of that latter idea; that many employers are really paying about $6 or $7 an hour, which still isn't going to make you afford much, consider how terrible things like gas prices and rent are these days.

Just as unabashed socialism cannot compete in a global economy, complete laissez-faire capitalism was a failure. Just look at Mexico if you want to see a glimpse of America in the late 19th century. The history books are always going to glorify the 1% "robber barons" (comparable to the "oligarchs" in the former Soviet republics and perhaps Carlos Slim in Mexico), but we forget that the vast majority of Americans were anything but. Had the Progessive Era not happened (which, lest we forget, was instigated by the Republican Party of the time, so they weren't always the party of rabid supply-side economics), we could either have become communist later (in keeping with Marxist theory, which had not anticipated the idea that capitalist societies could regulate) or we could be Mexico today, where a minority of people live well and the vast majority are so poor as to be desperate to flee the country.

What concerns me, increasingly, is that the economic policies of the last 25 years are leading us slowly in that direction. By gradually undoing all the regulatory work of the Progressive Era, we're gradually bringing us back to all the problems we faced in the late 19th century. J.P. Morgan, after all, was America's first trillionaire, after adjusting his fortune for inflation.

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com