• 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!

McJobs and the Minimum Wage[W:123,226]

That is a false dichotomy, and further I don't think it's worth either of our time for me to explain to you why government providing for any unmet individual needs is not conducive to capitalism.



You have it perfectly backwards, and there is no disputing it. It indeed is the responsibility of the elected government now, thanks to our burgeoning welfare system, to administer these benefits. The laws have been passed and the government departments have been created.

On the other hand, employers have zero responsibility to pay a wage that meets the particular individual needs or budgetary concerns of the worker. The only wage responsibility ANY employer has (whether you're the employer of someone remodeling your bathroom or a corporation is the employer of you to perform a set of tasks) is to uphold the terms of the employment contract that is developed and signed by both parties.

Well it's not conductive to capitalism because it isn't setting a fair market price.

It is only their responsibility when a person is reaching below poverty wages. People with full time employment should not be making lower than poverty wages. Even working two part time jobs that amount to full time plus hours should not equal below poverty wages from a multibillion dollar industry. If it isn't the responsiblity of the employers to pay a wage decent for a country than why don't we all operate like China? We should expect better standards otherwise we get what we deserve.
 
Well it's not conductive to capitalism because it isn't setting a fair market price.

Fair market prices refer to the price at which willing buyers and willing sellers agree. You're advocating a third party (government) meddle in this discussion, which just distorts any determination of what is considered "fair." You don't decide what is "fair" because you have political opinions (nor do I, for that matter). Who decides fairness of a given transaction are the buyer and seller.

It is only their responsibility when a person is reaching below poverty wages. People with full time employment should not be making lower than poverty wages.

You know what, I agree, but I would frame this slightly differently: in my opinion, people should typically not be willing to work more than 2,000 hours per year for that amount of money (less than $20,000), as I find that to be borderline irrational --- but if they really want to make that trade, how is it fair, in a country that has any value for liberty, to interfere in their affairs and prevent them from doing so?

If it isn't the responsiblity of the employers to pay a wage decent for a country than why don't we all operate like China?

Huh? Employment is a contract between two adult parties -- a buyer of labor and a seller of labor. Employment is not a parent-child relationship in which one party is responsible for providing for the other. Until you can acknowledge this, your opinions on this issue will continue to appear rather bizarre.
 
:lamo Addressing fairness? Really? The US Tax Code? US Tariffs and Customs Duties? Really? I'll grant you that at its best government can act to promote fairness. But at least as often it acts to promote the interests of the most powerful lobby at the moment.:shock:

Sorry. You've served up some red meat and some softballs buti can't do them justice as I drive frol fla to Carolina on my phone.
 
Sorry. You've served up some red meat and some softballs buti can't do them justice as I drive frol fla to Carolina on my phone.

I assume you're driving in your car and posting on your phone. You should not post and drive. Travel safely.:thumbs:
 
:lamo Addressing fairness? Really? The US Tax Code? US Tariffs and Customs Duties? Really? I'll grant you that at its best government can act to promote fairness. But at least as often it acts to promote the interests of the most powerful lobby at the moment.:shock:

Exactly. Fairness is not an absolute. What seems fair to you or a company may not seem fair to me or the employee. It's up to us all to debate and decide how to define it for the greatest good.
 
Fair market prices refer to the price at which willing buyers and willing sellers agree. You're advocating a third party (government) meddle in this discussion, which just distorts any determination of what is considered "fair." You don't decide what is "fair" because you have political opinions (nor do I, for that matter). Who decides fairness of a given transaction are the buyer and seller.



You know what, I agree, but I would frame this slightly differently: in my opinion, people should typically not be willing to work more than 2,000 hours per year for that amount of money (less than $20,000), as I find that to be borderline irrational --- but if they really want to make that trade, how is it fair, in a country that has any value for liberty, to interfere in their affairs and prevent them from doing so?



Huh? Employment is a contract between two adult parties -- a buyer of labor and a seller of labor. Employment is not a parent-child relationship in which one party is responsible for providing for the other. Until you can acknowledge this, your opinions on this issue will continue to appear rather bizarre.

The government (as in we the people) have a right to have sway in policies. Since some wealthy corporations are undercutting their workers wages, and we have to subsidies it we have a say on what we think is fair.

Also, exploiting workers (as in working many hours and getting very low compensation) is not right on any level. Sure there are people around the world willing to make a dollar a day but just because they are willing to take a dollar rather than nothing it doesn't make it right. It's the defintion of exploitation.

I never said it was a parent child relationship but it is not a fair negotiation process between an already exploited worker and an employer. The power structure is uneven. That is not bizarre but true.
 
McJobs and the Minimum Wage[W:123]

The government (as in we the people) have a right to have sway in policies. Since some wealthy corporations are undercutting their workers wages, and we have to subsidies it we have a say on what we think is fair.

Also, exploiting workers (as in working many hours and getting very low compensation) is not right on any level. Sure there are people around the world willing to make a dollar a day but just because they are willing to take a dollar rather than nothing it doesn't make it right. It's the defintion of exploitation.

I never said it was a parent child relationship but it is not a fair negotiation process between an already exploited worker and an employer. The power structure is uneven. That is not bizarre but true.

I can't really reply to this without repeating my earlier posts. You seem to think the voting public is able to right this supposed wrong, but you are not acknowledging all the ways this backfires (especially on the people you think it's helping). The closest you've come to admitting it is saying "well if the industry fails, the food is crap anyway." So if the idea fails miserably to do what you say you want it to, you'll just flip the script and find the silver lining, which displays your reckless disregard for the consequences of your policy idea.
 
I can't really reply to this without repeating my earlier posts. You seem to think the voting public is able to right this supposed wrong, but you are not acknowledging all the ways this backfires (especially on the people you think it's helping). The closest you've come to admitting it is saying "well if the industry fails, the food is crap anyway." So if the idea fails miserably to do what you say you want it to, you'll just flip the script and find the silver lining, which displays your reckless disregard for the consequences of your policy idea.

They can and policy can reflect a different minimum wage. The workers also agree since they apparently have started a movement. That is the great thing about our system. We can still speak out about bad public policy. I doubt McDonalds will fail because they have to pay a higher minimum wage. The reckless consequences of today's policy is low wages and government subsidies that allow workers to survive and wealthy corporations that take advantage of that system. Someone has to speak out.
 
McJobs and the Minimum Wage[W:123]

They can and policy can reflect a different minimum wage. The workers also agree since they apparently have started a movement. That is the great thing about our system. We can still speak out about bad public policy. I doubt McDonalds will fail because they have to pay a higher minimum wage. The reckless consequences of today's policy is low wages and government subsidies that allow workers to survive and wealthy corporations that take advantage of that system. Someone has to speak out.

We're reduced to repeating ourselves. You're so blinded by your advocacy you don't care if your policy ultimately hurts the people you claim it intends to help. You haven't acknowledged that possibility, so we go around and around.
 
I gave you a bit of your own medicine.

Well it was so suttle, I didn't even notice.

And the facts remain that only a small portion of America produces something. There are plenty of Americans in support roles or in a services role.

I am not sure what you mean by production. Are you including only tangible objects that take up space, anything else doesn't count? Because that's not really how it works, companies pay for intellectual output all the time, as I'm sure you have also. As this is a discussion about the minimum wage, you need to include anything of value that an employee produces. So, let's just stick with the standard definition that everyone uses when discussing the economy.

If you believe this guy's assertion is correct then you have the same issues he has - the lack of understanding that not everyone produces something, and yet still has a wage value. "To achieve that minimum wage, how much value do you calculate the worker must produce for his employer? Wages aren't based on need. They are based on production.". -- SAWDUST

I believe I addressed all this, and I can reply to him, or he to me, if needed. As I said, I think we need to use the standard, acceptable definition of production, and stop arguing about the trivialities.

Also note, you have yet to respond to any of the points I made, choosing to dwell on silliness. If we are discussing the minimum wage, why are you so preoccupied with what production is? It's not like it's some sort of mystery.
 
We can all agree obesity is bad. Glad the AMA is on board. Your challenge (unmet thus far) is to tie obesity to McDonald's.:peace

Obesity is caused by high fat, high sugar foods. McDonald's food is high fat and therefore their food is a cause of obesity. McDonald's food not only causes obesity when consumed on a regular basis, but a whole host of other medical problems. And then taxpayers like myself pay for those issues. We pay in higher fees to insurance companies, we pay in taxes that the government uses to subsidize hospitals that are not making a profit, we pay in taxes that the government uses to make citizens aware of the dangers of obesity, etc. McDonald's makes profit on the weak will of over-eaters by offering extremely unhealthy meal choices at very inexpensive rates during a weak economy. They are exploiters and cause higher taxes and higher costs for those of us that are not obese binge eaters addicted to fast food.
 
Also note, you have yet to respond to any of the points I made, choosing to dwell on silliness. If we are discussing the minimum wage, why are you so preoccupied with what production is? It's not like it's some sort of mystery.

His assertion was that minimum wage *must* be based on how many widgets a person can produce in an hour and the value of the widget. That is not what minimum wage should be based on. Minimum wage should be based on what Uncle Sam determines is needed to exist in USA without costing taxpayers money to subsidize that worker's life. Congress says poverty for a family of three has a threshold of $19,090. As such, if someone makes less than $19,090 then I personally have to give tax money to Uncle Sam so they can hand it to this poor person in the form of food stamps, section 8, free medical, and other entitlements. My argument is if the person makes some amount beyond that, I am relieved of the burden of carrying someone else through life. So I want minimum wage to be the correct amount so an American can pay his own way through this world. McDonald's for example wants to pay the person $13K a year or less so that they can sell their burger for $1 and I can pay the person another $10K in salary through my taxes so the person has a life equal to or better than what Congress says is the minimum quality of life in USA. Well I personally do not want to pay half of that person's salary; and I do not eat their disgusting, unhealthy crap they try and push as actual food.
 
All you've done is taken an adage, "life isn't fair," and accepted that as fact. Why isn't it fair? For whom? Does it have to be?

Governments pass laws addressing fairness all the time. It's kind of what they do.

Really? Where in the Constitution does the government have that power? No, it's kind of not what they (are supposed to) do. Government has expanded so far beyond what it was created for that they have their tentacles into everything. And it is hurting this country.
 
Obesity is caused by high fat, high sugar foods. McDonald's food is high fat and therefore their food is a cause of obesity. McDonald's food not only causes obesity when consumed on a regular basis, but a whole host of other medical problems. And then taxpayers like myself pay for those issues. We pay in higher fees to insurance companies, we pay in taxes that the government uses to subsidize hospitals that are not making a profit, we pay in taxes that the government uses to make citizens aware of the dangers of obesity, etc. McDonald's makes profit on the weak will of over-eaters by offering extremely unhealthy meal choices at very inexpensive rates during a weak economy. They are exploiters and cause higher taxes and higher costs for those of us that are not obese binge eaters addicted to fast food.

Consumers have many choices, both between restaurants and within the menu of a specific restaurant. Please identify the research results that show a causative relationship between McDonald's and obesity. Then stop whining.:lamo
 
Really? Where in the Constitution does the government have that power? No, it's kind of not what they (are supposed to) do. Government has expanded so far beyond what it was created for that they have their tentacles into everything. And it is hurting this country.

Would you agree that the primary purpose of government is to protect the law abiding citizens of a country? Would you further agree that there is a very strong relationship between crime and poverty? And if you agree with those two points, would you conclude that if a government reduces poverty, they also reduce crime and make the country safer for the law abiding citizens?
 
Consumers have many choices, both between restaurants and within the menu of a specific restaurant. Please identify the research results that show a causative relationship between McDonald's and obesity. Then stop whining.:lamo

I already did. If you don't like my posting style then put me on ignore.
 
His assertion was that minimum wage *must* be based on how many widgets a person can produce in an hour and the value of the widget.

Not really concerned with that, I did not make that point.

That is not what minimum wage should be based on. Minimum wage should be based on what Uncle Sam determines is needed to exist in USA without costing taxpayers money to subsidize that worker's life. Congress says poverty for a family of three has a threshold of $19,090.
Well, at least now I know what you think. You are taking an anti-free market position and aligning with the government, wanting the government to dictate and to force businesses to pay more than the market has determined what a job is worth. Right so far?


As such, if someone makes less than $19,090 then I personally have to give tax money to Uncle Sam so they can hand it to this poor person in the form of food stamps, section 8, free medical, and other entitlements. My argument is if the person makes some amount beyond that, I am relieved of the burden of carrying someone else through life.

Let me clear one thing up for you, no matter what the minimum wage, if you think that your tax liability will be lowered because of it, you need to get back to reality. No way on Earth that that is happening.

So I want minimum wage to be the correct amount so an American can pay his own way through this world. McDonald's for example wants to pay the person $13K a year or less so that they can sell their burger for $1 and I can pay the person another $10K in salary through my taxes so the person has a life equal to or better than what Congress says is the minimum quality of life in USA. Well I personally do not want to pay half of that person's salary; and I do not eat their disgusting, unhealthy crap they try and push as actual food.

Well, I guess that is where our biggest disagreement is. To me, minimum wage is necessary for those situations where jobs are so scarce (as in an Obama economy) and there are hundreds and hundreds of applicants for a single opening, that the market drives the wages for that job so low that it is not acceptible, and society wants to put a floor, as in bottom, or minimum, to the wages. As such, it is also unfair for the government to force employers to pay wages that are so inflated and destructive to their businesses and the economy as a whole. As I said before, if you believe in this, then you should have no problem whatsoever with them surcharging your $100 bill to $200.
 
Really? Where in the Constitution does the government have that power? No, it's kind of not what they (are supposed to) do.

Where in the constitution does it say that the government can pass laws? Here's a refresher if you need one:

 
Would you agree that the primary purpose of government is to protect the law abiding citizens of a country? Would you further agree that there is a very strong relationship between crime and poverty? And if you agree with those two points, would you conclude that if a government reduces poverty, they also reduce crime and make the country safer for the law abiding citizens?

I was responding to the assertion that it is the job of government to make things fair. Now, you are asking if it's primary purpose is to protect law abiding citizens. That is quite a general statement, and I would say no, that's not a power granted to government in the Constitution. It is way too vague, and the Constitution grants specific powers to government, if it doesn't specifically grant a power then, no, they don't have that power.

So, no, I don't agree.
 
Where in the constitution does it say that the government can pass laws? Here's a refresher if you need one:
Don't need a refresher, just need to look at the Constitution, Sections 7 and 8 of Article 1. Only took a minute to look up, you're not telling me you didn't even bother looking?
 
Don't need a refresher, just need to look at the Constitution, Sections 7 and 8 of Article 1. Only took a minute to look up, you're not telling me you didn't even bother looking?

i take it you disagree wholeheartedly with the concept of implied powers.
 
There's been a lot of talk about strikes in the fast food industry. Who among you can blame them? They're only getting paid minimum wage? You call that some standard of living? Can anyone here honestly say the standard of living for the average employee of the fast food industry?

McDonalds makes a fortune in sales every day, but it treats its workers like lint. Would it go bankrupt over paying each employee, say, 10 bucks an hour? Do those employees deserve that money. Well they worked for it so they're entitled to it. It's their money, not McDonalds. McDonalds makes so much money it could be considered its own economy? Where did you get that fact?

Its not just McDonalds, whether you work and Taco Bell or Arbys, you can expect your wages to be VERY low. Will the wages go on strike if the minimum wage isn't rise? A rise man once said.

Personally I don't even blame for these workers for going on strike because 7 bucks is too low for minimum wage because there's lots of mandatory payments these days, like smartphone payments. Not only do people have bills, like utilities, electricity, water, vehicle, insurance, but there's also, like nice threads and looking good.

Finally there's the objectification issue because let's face it Wendys has not had a good track record lately when in comes to its portrayal of men lately. GUTS Headquarters' Jeffery Tolman found this interesting bit of concept art from Wendy's Cheeseburger Pretzel Burger commercial and posted it on Wendy's Facebook page. Take a look at this side by side comparison:

http://oi44.tinypic.com/t857vs.jpg

In the finished commercial, the actress playing Wendy is sitting on some sort of bean bag, but in the original conception, she is sitting on the back of a man, whose on his hands and knees. So men are suppose to be furniture?

Now I see fast food workers are striking.
 
I was responding to the assertion that it is the job of government to make things fair. Now, you are asking if it's primary purpose is to protect law abiding citizens. That is quite a general statement, and I would say no, that's not a power granted to government in the Constitution. It is way too vague, and the Constitution grants specific powers to government, if it doesn't specifically grant a power then, no, they don't have that power.

So, no, I don't agree.

going to disagree with you , governments primary duty is the protection of the people [meaning rights], as sited in the DOI, and by the father of the Constitution, James Madison.

James Madison-- "if men were angels no government would be necessary"--- but because men are not angels .......we have government.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
 
Last edited:
Don't need a refresher, just need to look at the Constitution, Sections 7 and 8 of Article 1. Only took a minute to look up, you're not telling me you didn't even bother looking?


Is your position that unless the Constitution explicitly states that Congress can enact a specific kind of law, that it can't? I didn't see anything in the Constitution about enacting a law that says school buses must stop at railroad tracks, like in the Schoolhouse Rock video. Is that unconstitutional? Was the creation of a minimum wage itself unconstitutional?
 
Back
Top Bottom