The Dems will flock to this like a moth to a flame.

This hurts Hillary.

this would hurt everyone.....but wtfe.....dipshites gonna do dipshite things regardless.....

For certain workers, I am good with it. I think a lot of otherwise low paid workers are going to end up on the losing end of the stick. I say that as a person that doesn't buy the "this will kill jobs" Republican talking point.

Here's a radical idea .... let the market decide wages. Everyone should earn an amount in direct proportion to what they contribute to society.

If we did that, the guy who flips your burger would be worth more than $7.25.

(07-22-2015 06:29 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  If we did that, the guy who flips your burger would be worth more than $7.25.

No, he/she wouldn't. If he/she would, then we wouldn't need a minimum wage. Then again, maybe we don't need, or shouldn't have, one.

Just had a thought, reading this. Suppose we end up with:

Hillary as the democrat presidential nominee.
Bernie breaking away and running as a socialist.
Trump breaking away and running on some new party ticket.
The republican nominee, whoever that turns out to be.

In a four-way race, who wins? Does it depend on who is the republican nominee? If so, which republicans win and which ones lose? Could Trump or Bernie win?

(07-22-2015 06:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 06:29 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  If we did that, the guy who flips your burger would be worth more than $7.25.

No, he/she wouldn't. If he/she would, then we wouldn't need a minimum wage. Then again, maybe we don't need, or shouldn't have, one.

Thanks for the "nuh uh" post.

The minimum wage, as it exists today, drives wages down.

As it stands, all that ends up happening with the current minimum wage setup is companies pay nothing and use welfare and other handouts to shore up their payroll. It's the "unknown" subsidy.

People who pay taxes end up subsidizing payrolls. We'd be better off with fewer takers, the folks making $7.25 an hour, and more payers, those earning $15.00 an hour, in the long run.

(07-22-2015 06:39 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 06:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 06:29 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  If we did that, the guy who flips your burger would be worth more than $7.25.

No, he/she wouldn't. If he/she would, then we wouldn't need a minimum wage. Then again, maybe we don't need, or shouldn't have, one.

Thanks for the "nuh uh" post.

The minimum wage, as it exists today, drives wages down.

As it stands, all that ends up happening with the current minimum wage setup is companies pay nothing and use welfare and other handouts to shore up their payroll. It's the "unknown" subsidy.

People who pay taxes end up subsidizing payrolls. We'd be better off with fewer takers, the folks making $7.25 an hour, and more payers, those earning $15.00 an hour, in the long run.

Seattle is raising the minimum wage, as you suggest. Employees are now reducing their hours to keep their income the same, that way they can keep their government subsidies for food, rent, and child care.

(07-22-2015 06:53 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 06:39 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 06:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 06:29 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  If we did that, the guy who flips your burger would be worth more than $7.25.

No, he/she wouldn't. If he/she would, then we wouldn't need a minimum wage. Then again, maybe we don't need, or shouldn't have, one.

Thanks for the "nuh uh" post.

The minimum wage, as it exists today, drives wages down.

As it stands, all that ends up happening with the current minimum wage setup is companies pay nothing and use welfare and other handouts to shore up their payroll. It's the "unknown" subsidy.

People who pay taxes end up subsidizing payrolls. We'd be better off with fewer takers, the folks making $7.25 an hour, and more payers, those earning $15.00 an hour, in the long run.

Seattle is raising the minimum wage, as you suggest. Employees are now reducing their hours to keep their income the same, that way they can keep their government subsidies for food, rent, and child care.

I understand that. It's an adjustment. It's adjusting because the regulations in general have created an artificial wage reality.

Seattle is raising the minimum wage, as you suggest. Employees are now reducing their hours to keep their income the same, that way they can keep their government subsidies for food, rent, and child care.
[/quote]


So, let me see if I get this: If those people that want to reduce their hours get their way it means that now the business would have to hire more workers to get through the full 8 hour day. And to complicate things those new workers would also be eligible for govt. benefits, doubling the govt. handouts because they're only working 20 hour days or so, right?

(07-22-2015 07:01 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Seattle is raising the minimum wage, as you suggest. Employees are now reducing their hours to keep their income the same, that way they can keep their government subsidies for food, rent, and child care.

So, let me see if I get this: If those people that want to reduce their hours get their way it means that now the business would have to hire more workers to get through the full 8 hour day. And to complicate things those new workers would also be eligible for govt. benefits, doubling the govt. handouts because they're only working 20 hour days or so, right?
[/quote]

Those people are probably already receiving government benefits. Who isn't?

(07-22-2015 06:53 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Seattle is raising the minimum wage, as you suggest. Employees are now reducing their hours to keep their income the same, that way they can keep their government subsidies for food, rent, and child care.

Hard to find a stronger indictment of the "welfare trap" than that.

This is why we need to reform our welfare system. Not the democrat approach of throwing ever more and more money into failed programs. Not the republican approach of keeping the failed programs, just spending less on them. But a whole new approach that gets rid of failed programs right and left and replaces them with something totally different.

I propose a single universal program consisting of an guaranteed minimum income based on either Milton Friedman's negative income tax or the Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund, plus French Bismarck health care, funded with consumption taxes.

Makes sense. Uncle, uncle.

(07-22-2015 06:53 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 06:39 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 06:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 06:29 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  If we did that, the guy who flips your burger would be worth more than $7.25.

No, he/she wouldn't. If he/she would, then we wouldn't need a minimum wage. Then again, maybe we don't need, or shouldn't have, one.

Thanks for the "nuh uh" post.

The minimum wage, as it exists today, drives wages down.

As it stands, all that ends up happening with the current minimum wage setup is companies pay nothing and use welfare and other handouts to shore up their payroll. It's the "unknown" subsidy.

People who pay taxes end up subsidizing payrolls. We'd be better off with fewer takers, the folks making $7.25 an hour, and more payers, those earning $15.00 an hour, in the long run.

Seattle is raising the minimum wage, as you suggest. Employees are now reducing their hours to keep their income the same, that way they can keep their government subsidies for food, rent, and child care.

who'd a thunk it?

I see shite like that every day....

it's akin to the manager that spoils as described in the one min mgr....

nothing but wasting time yappin' at this point....

go way back.....too many spoiled people....to many worthless people....to many.....

capitalism is great until the numbers overwhelm......

costa, don't let me down biatch....

(07-22-2015 06:53 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 06:39 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 06:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 06:29 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  If we did that, the guy who flips your burger would be worth more than $7.25.

No, he/she wouldn't. If he/she would, then we wouldn't need a minimum wage. Then again, maybe we don't need, or shouldn't have, one.

Thanks for the "nuh uh" post.

The minimum wage, as it exists today, drives wages down.

As it stands, all that ends up happening with the current minimum wage setup is companies pay nothing and use welfare and other handouts to shore up their payroll. It's the "unknown" subsidy.

People who pay taxes end up subsidizing payrolls. We'd be better off with fewer takers, the folks making $7.25 an hour, and more payers, those earning $15.00 an hour, in the long run.

Seattle is raising the minimum wage, as you suggest. Employees are now reducing their hours to keep their income the same, that way they can keep their government subsidies for food, rent, and child care.

I have never been more pissed off while reading the news when I read that earlier today on Fox News.

(07-22-2015 09:34 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 06:53 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 06:39 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 06:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 06:29 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  If we did that, the guy who flips your burger would be worth more than $7.25.

No, he/she wouldn't. If he/she would, then we wouldn't need a minimum wage. Then again, maybe we don't need, or shouldn't have, one.

Thanks for the "nuh uh" post.

The minimum wage, as it exists today, drives wages down.

As it stands, all that ends up happening with the current minimum wage setup is companies pay nothing and use welfare and other handouts to shore up their payroll. It's the "unknown" subsidy.

People who pay taxes end up subsidizing payrolls. We'd be better off with fewer takers, the folks making $7.25 an hour, and more payers, those earning $15.00 an hour, in the long run.

Seattle is raising the minimum wage, as you suggest. Employees are now reducing their hours to keep their income the same, that way they can keep their government subsidies for food, rent, and child care.

I have never been more pissed off while reading the news when I read that earlier today on Fox News.

yep, gettin' pissed will solve the problem.....like a pistol whippin' by a piggie....

$15/hr minimum wage. It's all relative. If you owe money (like students and people with mortgages) then ultimately this will help in the long run. Everything else has dramatically increased in price over the last 15 years, minimum wage has not kept pace. On the other hand if you are older and trying to save money, it's horrible because your dollar will become less valuable. Ultimately, I think that you have to lean toward the side of the younger worker because they are the future. As a business owner, I would not mind raising my prices significantly which have not changed in 20 years.

(07-23-2015 05:44 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  $15/hr minimum wage. It's all relative. If you owe money (like students and people with mortgages) then ultimately this will help in the long run. Everything else has dramatically increased in price over the last 15 years, minimum wage has not kept pace. On the other hand if you are older and trying to save money, it's horrible because your dollar will become less valuable. Ultimately, I think that you have to lean toward the side of the younger worker because they are the future. As a business owner, I would not mind raising my prices significantly which have not changed in 20 years.

huh????

and I want to know why a min wage earner should have a mortgage.....

at least your one-liners can be funny at times.....

(07-23-2015 05:56 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(07-23-2015 05:44 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  $15/hr minimum wage. It's all relative. If you owe money (like students and people with mortgages) then ultimately this will help in the long run. Everything else has dramatically increased in price over the last 15 years, minimum wage has not kept pace. On the other hand if you are older and trying to save money, it's horrible because your dollar will become less valuable. Ultimately, I think that you have to lean toward the side of the younger worker because they are the future. As a business owner, I would not mind raising my prices significantly which have not changed in 20 years.

huh????

and I want to know why a min wage earner should have a mortgage.....

at least your one-liners can be funny at times.....

I'm not talking about min wage earners.

Minimum wage increases cause increases in wages down the line. Once you raise it to $15/hr, you then have to pay the current $15/hr employee a lot more (~$30) to keep pace. If you are an employee making $50,000 and have a $200,000 mortgage, it will be much easier paying that off when the minimum wage increases because your salary will increase.