One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Why isn't the minimum wage at $22.00 per hour
Page <prev 2 of 5 next> last>>
Mar 26, 2013 01:12:33   #
oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)
 
memBrain wrote:
:P


They can't understand any of that stuff since none of the supposed economists who work for I Won will explain it to them and most of them are either well educated left leaners or haven't completed high school. They really are pieces of work.

Reply
Mar 26, 2013 10:09:17   #
Slingblade68 Loc: Charleston SC
 
I am just curios , we have what appears to be a relatively versatile
amount of respondents. All with varying degrees of intelligence. Albeit, formally educated and those like myself , who simply have the due diligence needed to find out the t***h. That being said, this question seems obvious to me. Or for lack of a better phrase an oxymoron or a question that answers itself. The word "Minimum" is the operative word in the above question. You are not supposed to start at the top. You start at a "Minimum" wadge. Then through perseverance and fortitude your earn a higher wadge. The minimum wadge is designed to be promoted. Simply by it's namesake. Geezum, I don't need a Masters in economics to figure out that by increasing the minimum wadge , you undermine the very reason to advance. You remove the incentive. This all boils down to Hierarchy, as I previously stated. For thousands of years, functioning Societies have had a class system. Just take a look at your local "Want ads" a Artisan cabinet maker is only capable of charging what the market will bare. A basic trim carpenter depending upon his geographic location is capable of earning 18-22 dollars an hour. That simply is what the market will bear. I tend to be a little long winded. The point I am trying to make is. A child in High-school working at Taco bell is only there temporarily. Why? because hopefully he desires more. If not, than he has options, choices. To have the government dictate what the free market pay's it's (Basic) employees is absurd. Do I agree with the Minimum wadge? Maybe not. However, it's there for a reason.

Reply
Mar 26, 2013 12:16:23   #
WhoIsJohnGalt
 
oldroy wrote:
I have to wonder if this woman has any ideas about inflation and what causes it. Maybe she only operates on 1/32 of her brain power since she is only 1/32 Cherokee Indian. Those guys using words like inflation seem to be talking with words she just has no understanding of.

http://conservativevideos.com/2013/03/elizabeth-warren-why-isnt-minimum-wage-22/


The real question should be, "Why do we tolerate minimum wage laws at all? Not what the minimum wage should or should not be. Why should our government arrogate to itself the right to set our wages?

Reply
 
 
Mar 26, 2013 15:28:11   #
Slingblade68 Loc: Charleston SC
 
Precisely my point, well , one of them anyway. This is a perfect example of progressives "Government knows best mentality". Our forefathers, mainly Jefferson never intended the Government to have this far of a reaching arm. Especially when it came to a Free market enterprise. The Federal government has 2 basic Functions. Enforce the laws that are currently on the record. Protect our Borders and people from outside attacks. Yes, I realize that is an oversimplification. However, Reagan said " We must put an end to the arrogance of a Federal establishment which accepts no blame for our condition, cannot be relied upon to give us a fair estimate of our situation and utterly reuses to live within it's means.
I will not accept the supposed "Wisdom" which has it the federal bureaucracy has become so powerful that it can no longer be changed or controlled by any administration.
He continues in this same format saying "We must force the government to live in the real world, reduce spending, streamline function etc, But then he brought up the 10th article of the Bill of rights. pointing out that the federal government should do only those things specifically called for in the Constitution. All others shall remain within the states or the people. The federal Government has taken on functions it was never intended to perform and which it does not perform well.

I could go on but why bore you. The most concerning part about this speech is that it wasn't written today, by a viable Conservative Candidate. And no I am not implying that be a republican. They have proven not to be synonymous. this speech was written over 30 years ago.. Now I am becoming a bit hot under the collar , so I better stop. He goes on to talk about Natural gas, oil reserves.. OPEC.. The American people were listening 30 years ago.. They are not today..

Reply
Mar 26, 2013 16:21:01   #
memBrain Loc: North Carolina (No longer in hiding.)
 
Actually, I do support a minimum wage. It should be based on one hour of unsk**led labor. So, a burger flipper (unsk**led labor) would earn $1/hr (the rate upon which all unsk**led labor is based. There should then be an automatic multiplier in effect to account for experience (after all, labor doesn't always stay unsk**led). That modifier would be an annual adjustment (arbitrarily say 25%). So, if a person were to have 2 years experience their hourly wage would be ((($1)*1.25)*1.25), or $1.56. Education should be a one time multiplier (per degree or trade certification earned). In this manner each person would be paid the minimum of what they are worth on paper. After that it's all based on market demand for labor, and the abilities of the individual in question. In short, each person would have a price floor, but no ceiling.

Reply
Mar 26, 2013 17:26:38   #
oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)
 
WhoIsJohnGalt wrote:
The real question should be, "Why do we tolerate minimum wage laws at all? Not what the minimum wage should or should not be. Why should our government arrogate to itself the right to set our wages?


The answer to you has to be because some Democrats believe they should do so. It is part of their take over through making more and more people dependent on them.

Reply
Mar 26, 2013 17:29:28   #
oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)
 
Slingblade68 wrote:
Precisely my point, well , one of them anyway. This is a perfect example of progressives "Government knows best mentality". Our forefathers, mainly Jefferson never intended the Government to have this far of a reaching arm. Especially when it came to a Free market enterprise. The Federal government has 2 basic Functions. Enforce the laws that are currently on the record. Protect our Borders and people from outside attacks. Yes, I realize that is an oversimplification. However, Reagan said " We must put an end to the arrogance of a Federal establishment which accepts no blame for our condition, cannot be relied upon to give us a fair estimate of our situation and utterly reuses to live within it's means.
I will not accept the supposed "Wisdom" which has it the federal bureaucracy has become so powerful that it can no longer be changed or controlled by any administration.
He continues in this same format saying "We must force the government to live in the real world, reduce spending, streamline function etc, But then he brought up the 10th article of the Bill of rights. pointing out that the federal government should do only those things specifically called for in the Constitution. All others shall remain within the states or the people. The federal Government has taken on functions it was never intended to perform and which it does not perform well.

I could go on but why bore you. The most concerning part about this speech is that it wasn't written today, by a viable Conservative Candidate. And no I am not implying that be a republican. They have proven not to be synonymous. this speech was written over 30 years ago.. Now I am becoming a bit hot under the collar , so I better stop. He goes on to talk about Natural gas, oil reserves.. OPEC.. The American people were listening 30 years ago.. They are not today..
Precisely my point, well , one of them anyway. Th... (show quote)


This is two outstanding posts in succession from you. Please don't stop.

Reply
 
 
Mar 26, 2013 17:31:18   #
WhoIsJohnGalt
 
memBrain wrote:
Actually, I do support a minimum wage. It should be based on one hour of unsk**led labor. So, a burger flipper (unsk**led labor) would earn $1/hr (the rate upon which all unsk**led labor is based. There should then be an automatic multiplier in effect to account for experience (after all, labor doesn't always stay unsk**led). That modifier would be an annual adjustment (arbitrarily say 25%). So, if a person were to have 2 years experience their hourly wage would be ((($1)*1.25)*1.25), or $1.56. Education should be a one time multiplier (per degree or trade certification earned). In this manner each person would be paid the minimum of what they are worth on paper. After that it's all based on market demand for labor, and the abilities of the individual in question. In short, each person would have a price floor, but no ceiling.
Actually, I do support a minimum wage. It should ... (show quote)


While I agree with your ingenious plan, I would not make it the law. Why? Because government has no business in business. It is intended to defend our rights from threats outside the nation and from thieves and murders inside our country. It is also supposed to act as an arbiter in honest disputes between individuals, but such an ability does not allow it to regulate business.

Reply
Mar 26, 2013 17:33:02   #
oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)
 
memBrain wrote:
Actually, I do support a minimum wage. It should be based on one hour of unsk**led labor. So, a burger flipper (unsk**led labor) would earn $1/hr (the rate upon which all unsk**led labor is based. There should then be an automatic multiplier in effect to account for experience (after all, labor doesn't always stay unsk**led). That modifier would be an annual adjustment (arbitrarily say 25%). So, if a person were to have 2 years experience their hourly wage would be ((($1)*1.25)*1.25), or $1.56. Education should be a one time multiplier (per degree or trade certification earned). In this manner each person would be paid the minimum of what they are worth on paper. After that it's all based on market demand for labor, and the abilities of the individual in question. In short, each person would have a price floor, but no ceiling.
Actually, I do support a minimum wage. It should ... (show quote)


I can only argue with your words about throwing education into the argument. I don't think that my education a BS and a MS in Education with emphases in history and government should be used to determine what I would earn as a brick layer. Sure the education worked as long as I was in the right kind of work but it sure didn't fit more jobs than it did.

Reply
Mar 26, 2013 17:33:44   #
WhoIsJohnGalt
 
oldroy wrote:
The answer to you has to be because some Democrats believe they should do so. It is part of their take over through making more and more people dependent on them.


So, let's work toward ending this tyranny.

Reply
Mar 26, 2013 18:28:21   #
Slingblade68 Loc: Charleston SC
 
". . . experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government], those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny . .
Thomas Jefferson." A beautiful mind" , comes to mind. Madison
is another example of a brilliant individual we could all learn from. Yes, I may appear antiquated. However, there are few things these men wrote that are not applicable in today's Scociety.

Reply
 
 
Mar 26, 2013 19:35:35   #
grazeem Loc: Arizona
 
Mimiun wage should be raised at the same rate as inflation.

If it always had been, that would make it about 21.87 now.

Reply
Mar 26, 2013 21:16:07   #
Major Bob
 
John,

The minimum wage is not, and never has been, intended for someone who has a mortgage and is trying to raise a family. It is to allow employers to bring on employees who are new to the workplace, do not have work experience, and will be working part-time in order to learn. It is glaringly obvious that many of our esteemed "law-makers" have no clue as to how business operates (much like our President), having never had to meet a payroll or follow a budget. And, my friend, if you are so naive as to believe the government would reduce tax rates in order to let a business pay $22.00/hour for trainee employees, you have a long learning curve ahead, as well, toward understanding how a business and an economy operate.

Reply
Mar 26, 2013 21:29:55   #
memBrain Loc: North Carolina (No longer in hiding.)
 
WhoIsJohnGalt wrote:
While I agree with your ingenious plan, I would not make it the law. Why? Because government has no business in business. It is intended to defend our rights from threats outside the nation and from thieves and murders inside our country. It is also supposed to act as an arbiter in honest disputes between individuals, but such an ability does not allow it to regulate business.


Actually, I have to disagree with you there.
Constitution of the United States; Article 1; Section 8 wrote:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; This one's been violated for decades. The current DHS expansion also constitutes a violation.

To provide and maintain a Navy; The only service (including the Marines) mandated by the Constitution in perpetuity.

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the M*****a to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress I**********ns and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the M*****a, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the M*****a according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
b The Congress shall have Power To lay and collec... (show quote)
Pay particular attention to the areas marked in bold print. This gives Congress the power to legislate over all business conducted EXCEPT business that is conducted by citizens within a single state. So, the government may not make laws governing how you conduct business with a neighbor within your state borders. Once you have established diversity of citizenship (two parties from differing states) then the government has the authority to legislate said business.

Don't take this as support. However, it's in the Constitution. In fact, it's the taxation clause at the beginning that the Supreme Court established the viability of Obamacare.

Reply
Mar 26, 2013 21:32:55   #
memBrain Loc: North Carolina (No longer in hiding.)
 
grazeem wrote:
Mimiun wage should be raised at the same rate as inflation.

If it always had been, that would make it about 21.87 now.


No. That measure will always fail in the long run. You have to attach it to the cost of things people need to survive on a daily basis, or it will always lead inevitably to poverty. That's why an index of necessities and food should be the gauge...if you put such a measure in. My earlier proposed system will be more resilient to such issues, but nothing is perfect.

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 5 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.