• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

Re: SOTU Address:

I agree with you on that one. It is reprehesible the way we are letting them ruin their environment and the world as a whole so we can import cheap **** from them. It is morally wrong. What do the Reps plan to do about it. Forcing them to clean it up?

Question is what are Democrats doing about it? Nothing, and they claim to love the environment more than anyone else. Don't look at Republicans, everyone knows they love drinking dirty water and breathing dirty air. :roll:

BTW, I don't respect you, because you sit there in the middle playing both sides against each other, and doing nothing yourself.
 
Are you kidding me? More than doubling only the bottom wage is never going to happen. Those that now make double the minimum wage would never be content to say that is fair that they then make minimum wage too. Get real!

Of course there will be an increase for the people that will be near the new minimum but it need not double. If the wage is still providing them with a good living there shouldn't be an issue. Are you trying to tell me that in order for people making a middle class wage to be happy, they must make others not happy?
 
No...

I'm saying that in order to meet the required labor costs food prices will have to rise but the amount required will be much less than the difference in wages. Doubling minimum wage does not require a doubling of food cost.

That is quite correct. Considering your previous $16 assertion...restaurant labor generally runs 25-30% of revenue. Assuming a Big Mac cost $4.00 and hourly rates of $8.00 an increase to $16 would result in $1.00 increase price a 20% increase. At what point does a consumer say 'that's just too much for crap food'? And thusly the revenue goes down resulting in an overstaffed restaurant and subsequent work force reductions...does that sound acceptable? Or even McD's comes up with a 'burger machine' to eliminate these labor expenses all together...does that sound better? At some point there is a realization that less workers is cheaper. Is that what you seek? In the end the consumer doesn't care they just want their burger (in my analogy)...
 
If the US had it's own national oil company, we'd have a lot more money too. That's not very "free market".

You don't have to have an American version of Statoil. Some parts of the US - the deep-red Alaska, actually - do rely heavily on the "natural rent". You are surely aware of the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation, and how it works.

I'm just saying that the comparisons with the (relatively) successful Nordic "socialisms" are not valid: their societal evolution was very different from ours, and calling some things by the same names does not actually make them the same, or even similar. Denmark is a more capitalist country than America, right now, if you go by the measures that matter most for this one "capitalist".

P.S. I have spent quite a lot of time in Denmark, working on a number of high-tech small-business projects. Nowhere else, not even in the glorious state of New Hampshire, had I met so many hard-core libertarians. They just don't see their free-marketism as any excuse to distance themselves from their aunties and uncles, siblings and kindergarten firends, etc who may have different political views. It is a country of 5 million. A big family.

Nowhere in the world - except for my own well-feathered American nest - had I felt as comfortable as in Denmark. These people actually seem to enjoy life - while working hard and keeping their streets immaculate clean - wow!

But can we just carbon-copy their achievements here? I don't see how.

Reminds me of the old Soviet joke: "- Why do we have this nightmare version of socialism? Why can't we have the socialism with a human face, like in Sweden?" - " I guess we could, in theory...but there are not enough Swedes in the world to replace all our people..."
 
What makes you an expert on why someone else doesn't take a job? That is your opinion and should be stated as an opinion. Further you believe it should be 16 per hour, why? why not 20 per hour or 30 per hour? You are such an expert so start your own business and pay those wages.

My point is that the market should establish wages and the govt. has no business telling private industry what to pay its workers. Govt. has nothing invested in the business and just sucks out a share in taxes without any of the risk. Obama fits well into that liberal ideology knowing nothing about how to run a business

Because I know many of those people. I've had people come into where I work during an interview where I gave them a tour and when they asked about the pay they were immediately turned off never to be heard from again. I know people who made more on unemployment than a minimum wage job would pay. Now I know you think, well thats reckless government spending. What I think is that it's deplorable that real jobs pay so little.

If the market established wages, many people would be working for even less than what minimum wage is now. You can't live off of current wages yet you think people should make even less? That's just sickening. Truly truly sickening.
 
Of course there will be an increase for the people that will be near the new minimum but it need not double. If the wage is still providing them with a good living there shouldn't be an issue. Are you trying to tell me that in order for people making a middle class wage to be happy, they must make others not happy?

So the "minimum wage" is not to be designed as an entry-level wage ? It is now supposed to be some concept of a "living wage", or as you say, "a good living" ?

What kind of liberal fairness stupidity is that ? Minimum wage is for kids living at home, and folks who better find a couple roommates.
 
Re: SOTU Address:

The only reason for raising the minimum wage is to give a HUGE revenue boost to the federal government.

I'm still reading through this thread but wanted to comment on the above before continuing.

So, let me get this straight...Republicans claim they don't want to raise taxes on the rich to generate more federal tax revenue. Instead, they argue that the best way to go about it is through job creation. Thus, more people in full-time employment equals more people paying federal income taxes. Raising the minimum wage rate would not only raise the living standard of the lower middle-class but also take more people out of poverty and possibly have fewer people within that 47% who don't pay federal income taxes. Assuming this is accurate, why would Republicans be opposed to it?

This, ladies and gentlement, is what Gov. Jindal meant when he said Republicans need to stop being so stupid.
 
You don't have to have an American version of Statoil. Some parts of the US - the deep-red Alaska, actually - do rely heavily on the "natural rent". You are surely aware of the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation, and how it works.

I'm just saying that the comparisons with the (relatively) successful Nordic "socialisms" are not valid: their societal evolution was very different from ours, and calling some things by the same names does not actually make them the same, or even similar. Denmark is a more capitalist country than America, right now, if you go by the measures that matter most for this one "capitalist".

P.S. I have spent quite a lot of time in Denmark, working on a number of high-tech small-business projects. Nowhere else, not even in the glorious state of New Hampshire, had I met so many hard-core libertarians. They just don't see their free-marketism as any excuse to distance themselves from their aunties and uncles, siblings and kindergarten firends, etc who may have different political views. It is a country of 5 million. A big family.

Nowhere in the world - except for my own well-feathered American nest - had I felt as comfortable as in Denmark. These people actually seem to enjoy life - while working hard and keeping their streets immaculate clean - wow!

But can we just carbon-copy their achievements here? I don't see how.

Reminds me of the old Soviet joke: "- Why do we have this nightmare version of socialism? Why can't we have the socialism with a human face, like in Sweden?" - " I guess we could, in theory...but there are not enough Swedes in the world to replace all our people..."

The point I was referring to was it was said that Norway is different because they have oil. My point is that we have oil too, but it's owned by private companies that sell it off overseas at inflated prices subsidized by our government through tax breaks. We do the complete opposite of Norway when it comes to oil.
 
........ If the market established wages, many people would be working for even less than what minimum wage is now. You can't live off of current wages yet you think people should make even less? That's just sickening. Truly truly sickening.

What is sickening is that liberals think everyone deserves instant living wages regardless of their aptitude and work ethic. If you legislate such ignorant expectations, the net result is more jobs priced-out of the American market, higher unemployment, and an ever thankful Chinese.
 
Of course there will be an increase for the people that will be near the new minimum but it need not double. If the wage is still providing them with a good living there shouldn't be an issue. Are you trying to tell me that in order for people making a middle class wage to be happy, they must make others not happy?

Wages are not about making people happy, that would be allowances like mommy gives you. Wages are about paying employees what their production is worth, based mainly on their replacement costs. If you advertise a job at $8/hour and no qualified applicants show up then you are paying too low of a wage. If you advertise that same job at $10/hour and ten qualified applicants show up then you are paying a "fair market" wage. If you advertise that same job at $15/hour and 100 qualified applicants show up then you are offering too darned much. Try using an inflation caluculator and you will see that minumum wage has stayed about the same for 50 years, relative to inflation. Most employers will pay over the minumum wage very soon after discovering a "good" employee, with the hope of retaining that person and training them further. Those "workers" that can not keep a job or advance beyond that minimum wage are simply not worth more, pretending otherwise is foolish. There is no reason to pay an entry level McJob worker more than minimum wage, when a much harder job, like construction labor, gets only 1.5x that amount.
 
So the "minimum wage" is not to be designed as an entry-level wage ? It is now supposed to be some concept of a "living wage", or as you say, "a good living" ?

What kind of liberal fairness stupidity is that ? Minimum wage is for kids living at home, and folks who better find a couple roommates.

The majority of people that make minimum wage are over 20. It may have been intended for kids but it's not how it works in real life.

Now I'd be prepared to create a training wage that would be used for kids/young adults that have zero work experience that would end at 1 year experience.
 
Re: SOTU Address:

I'm still reading through this thread but wanted to comment on the above before continuing.

So, let me get this straight...Republicans claim they don't want to raise taxes on the rich to generate more federal tax revenue. Instead, they argue that the best way to go about it is through job creation. Thus, more people in full-time employment equals more people paying federal income taxes. Raising the minimum wage rate would not only raise the living standard of the lower middle-class but also take more people out of poverty and possibly have fewer people within that 47% who don't pay federal income taxes. Assuming this is accurate, why would Republicans be opposed to it?

This, ladies and gentlement, is what Gov. Jindal meant when he said Republicans need to stop being so stupid.

The only stupidity that appears to be on display is yours....

So let me get THIS straight......

You completely fail to understand my statement, then go blindly on misrepresenting what I said, SOMEHOW find a reference to Republicans that doesn't exist, and wind up your display of overt ignorance by calling someone ELSE stupid.........

Do your folks know you're playing on their computer, little girl?
 
Re: SOTU Address:

I'm still reading through this thread but wanted to comment on the above before continuing.

So, let me get this straight...Republicans claim they don't want to raise taxes on the rich to generate more federal tax revenue. Instead, they argue that the best way to go about it is through job creation. Thus, more people in full-time employment equals more people paying federal income taxes. Raising the minimum wage rate would not only raise the living standard of the lower middle-class but also take more people out of poverty and possibly have fewer people within that 47% who don't pay federal income taxes. Assuming this is accurate, why would Republicans be opposed to it?

This, ladies and gentlement, is what Gov. Jindal meant when he said Republicans need to stop being so stupid.

Nonsense. When you continually mandate wage above its level of earned productivity, you make it non-competitive for the employer, and you benefit those elsewhere with lower labor costs. That is not an opinion, it is a dynamic fact.

The stupid is with the low-information Obamabots and liberals, who are blind to tomorrow.
 
Wages are not about making people happy, that would be allowances like mommy gives you. Wages are about paying employees what their production is worth, based mainly on their replacement costs. If you advertise a job at $8/hour and no qualified applicants show up then you are paying too low of a wage. If you advertise that same job at $10/hour and ten qualified applicants show up then you are paying a "fair market" wage. If you advertise that same job at $15/hour and 100 qualified applicants show up then you are offering too darned much. Try using an inflation caluculator and you will see that minumum wage has stayed about the same for 50 years, relative to inflation. Most employers will pay over the minumum wage very soon after discovering a "good" employee, with the hope of retaining that person and training them further. Those "workers" that can not keep a job or advance beyond that minimum wage are simply not worth more, pretending otherwise is foolish. There is no reason to pay an entry level McJob worker more than minimum wage, when a much harder job, like construction labor, gets only 1.5x that amount.

So many wrong things here. First of all minimum wage has NOT kept up. If it had, it would be over $10 right now. Second, you're trying to tell me that someone's full time work is worth so little that they can not possibly support theirself on it? You think so little of people that they're not worth making a living? You continue to sicken me.
 
The point I was referring to was it was said that Norway is different because they have oil. My point is that we have oil too, but it's owned by private companies that sell it off overseas at inflated prices subsidized by our government through tax breaks. We do the complete opposite of Norway when it comes to oil.

In this case, you "point" is entirely wrong. Our "private companies" not "sell it off" overseas at all - the local market is hungry enough. While Norway sells virtually everything - they have abundant hydroelectric energy to satisfy their own needs.

I agree, though, that all and any tax breaks and subsidies have to go. They distort the market.
 
Last edited:
The majority of people that make minimum wage are over 20. It may have been intended for kids but it's not how it works in real life.

Now I'd be prepared to create a training wage that would be used for kids/young adults that have zero work experience that would end at 1 year experience.

Link it, and t make the argument for value. Otherwise, your post is just uninformed liberal rambling.
 
How is it going to be a major stimulus when many companies are reducing worker hours to 29 because of Obamacare regulations

The fact is that that higher wages don’t just help those getting the raise,it also helps the nations economy by increasing consumer spending. I read something about a 2011 study by the Chicago Federal Reserve Bank which shows that every dollar added to minimum wage results in $2,800 in additional spending by that worker’s household. Itsa win, win all the way around.
 
Re: SOTU Address:

OMG you're right. I'm showing my age:)

Call someone an android 20 years ago, he would have thought you were calling him a robot. Today, if you call someone an android, he thinks you are accusing him of having the personality of a telephone.
 
The majority of people that make minimum wage are over 20. It may have been intended for kids but it's not how it works in real life.

Now I'd be prepared to create a training wage that would be used for kids/young adults that have zero work experience that would end at 1 year experience.

I'm calling this claim BS.

There are MILLIONS of kids working every summer, cutting lawns and trimming hedges, who are paid "off the books" so to speak, often for LESS than minimum wage.

I started at about 12 myself.

They're washing cars, and shoveling snow, too....

There's NO way to get an actual realistic figure on your claim.
 
The fact is that that higher wages don’t just help those getting the raise,it also helps the nations economy by increasing consumer spending. I read something about a 2011 study by the Chicago Federal Reserve Bank which shows that every dollar added to minimum wage results in $2,800 in additional spending by that worker’s household. Itsa win, win all the way around.

It doesn't increase consumer spending. It creates more unemployment. The fact of the matter is, businesses are reducing workers to 29 hours a week because of Obamacare regulations. Raising the minimum wage will only hurt these workers more, while at the same time it will crowd out young unskilled workers and minorities out of the Labor Market. You are not calculating the opportunity costs associated with a minimum wage increase. For every household that sees a 2800 increase, another has lost their income as businesses adjust to increased costs. They also charge more for their Goods and Services. It hurts the economy. It doesn't help it.

Consumer spending is on the decline as well - Retail sales growth slows as higher taxes kick in | Reuters
 
Link it, and t make the argument for value. Otherwise, your post is just uninformed liberal rambling.
Myth: The only Americans working for the minimum wage are teenagers.

Reality: 63 percent of minimum-wage workers are adults age 20 or over. (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics)

Contrary to popular opinion, the average worker affected by an increase in the minimum wage is not just a teenager flipping hamburgers. Only one in fourteen is a teenage student from a family with above average earnings.

The fact is, almost two-thirds of minimum wage workers are adults, and four in ten are the sole bread winner of their family.

The Case for Raising the Minimum Wage
 
Re: SOTU Address:

The only stupidity that appears to be on display is yours....

So let me get THIS straight......

You completely fail to understand my statement, then go blindly on misrepresenting what I said, SOMEHOW find a reference to Republicans that doesn't exist, and wind up your display of overt ignorance by calling someone ELSE stupid.........

Do your folks know you're playing on their computer, little girl?

Instead of attempting to hurl insults, why not expand on your comment. If you meant it as a blanket truism - that raising the mimimum wage WOULD generate more tax revenue by having MORE employees paying federal income taxes, then we agree. But if yours was an attempt at sarcasm, a hidden segway if you will as if to say, "the only reason the President suggested raising the minimum wage rate was so the fed could generate more tax revenue so they could then spend it," you'd basically be playing both ends against each other. Think it through...

If Republicans had their way they wouldn't raise taxes on anybody for any reason - PERIOD! Yet their leadership has constantly said that the best way to raise revenue is by having more people employeed who would then pay into the federal tax system. Thus, I ask again, why would Republicans be opposed to this measure? You're fighting against your own anti-tax (increase) idealogy.
 
So many wrong things here. First of all minimum wage has NOT kept up. If it had, it would be over $10 right now. Second, you're trying to tell me that someone's full time work is worth so little that they can not possibly support theirself on it? You think so little of people that they're not worth making a living? You continue to sicken me.

Yes, minimum wage is not designed to support "independent living". Minimum wage in 1970 was $1.25/hour, if I remember correctly, and adjusted for infltion that is now about $7.40/hour. When I worked at that wage I needed a roommate to get a small appartment and afford a barely running used car. After four and a half years I had a much better job and an AA degree in Comptuer Data Processing from a local community college. I worked full time and took classes part-time, still lived with roommates and bought a small 3/bedroom 1/bath house - renting out two rooms.

CPI Inflation Calculator
 
The fact is that that higher wages don’t just help those getting the raise,it also helps the nations economy by increasing consumer spending. I read something about a 2011 study by the Chicago Federal Reserve Bank which shows that every dollar added to minimum wage results in $2,800 in additional spending by that worker’s household. Itsa win, win all the way around.

And an increase in COSTS for that family's household well in excess of that.....

It's not ABOUT higher wages.

If it WAS, they'd seal the border, making "cheap" labor EXPENSIVE when it became rarer, and wages would go up NATURALLY....

What it's REALLY about is a tremendous boost in tax revenue to the Federal government, as they can now apply their percentage of tax to a higher gross across the land, or so they think.

But what really happens is less people get hired, and more family members become employees, because it;s cheaper than hiring someone.

And a lot more of the work in America is done "off the books."
 
Re: SOTU Address:

Actually, gas prices are at record highs.....

Does the President set gas prices? Does speculation increase gas prices? Do you have a solution that will bring gas prices down?
 
Back
Top Bottom