• 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!

Warren Buffett: $15 minimum wage will hurt the working class

Re: Warren Buffett Don't raise the minimum wage

Meh. The education bubble is set to burst, anyway. It will take a lifetime for the current generation of graduates to pay off their student loans, if they ever do, and the edu-crats will be competing with them for jobs at McDonald's.

It took me 25 years to pay off my student loans.

And my first job out of college, was at McDonalds.

So you prediction is pretty darned accurate in my case. And that hasn't been a bad thing, I am better off than 99% of the people in the world.
 
Re: Warren Buffett Don't raise the minimum wage

You are attacking the wrong people.

You should be attacking the people on this thread who claim to be conservatives or libertarians, who are also supporting an increase in means tested welfare.

I could be wrong but I think you are putting words in peoples mouths.
 
Why? Less money to pay out to the government, more money to invest into the company. Why WOULDNT wages rise?
In the words of Cpwill, what would be the forcing mechanism for corps to increase wages, why would they cut profits and raise wages? Would not shareholders scream for not maximizing profits?

Im waiting for your socialist self to explain to me how RAISING taxes and having the highest corporate tax in the world in a benefit to the average worker. Ill watch some paint dry while you desperately search for an answer.
Well, your brethren understand, approve, of redistribution. If more taxes are collected (which they of course want from upper middle earners via the "fair tax", but that is an aside) they can be put into EITC.

Oh, by the way, we are middling when it comes to EFFECTIVE corp taxes......the more you know!
 
Re: Warren Buffett Don't raise the minimum wage

I don't think a CEO is the same as salting fries, no. I also don't think there's any danger of that happening.

Many CEOs look forward to going to work. In a way, they work all the time. It's what they enjoy doing.

Being a CEO for a large company typically pays millions of dollars. Most people could retire if they had a net worth of just a few millions dollars (maybe five million to retire quite comfortably). If the job of corporate CEO was so horrible, then most CEOs would retire after just a year or two or three, because they could afford to retire. But they don't, most CEOs remain CEOs until they are old folks, which indicates to me that they ENJOY their jobs.

I don't know that many fry cooks actually enjoy being a fry cook that they would keep being a fry cook if they had a net worth of millions of dollars.

Thus I being a fry cook, is a job that is less desirable than being a CEO, regardless of the income level.

The next step in logic is to conclude that fry cooks are significantly underpaid, and CEOs are overpaid.

But we don't really like logic do we? Political rhetoric is much better than logical thinking.
 
Re: Warren Buffett Don't raise the minimum wage

So you are saying that in order to have fewer people in the labor force (lower lfpr) we should provide more welfare? It doesn't seem to me that many conservatives would advocate for that position. They are attacking Obama left and right for the declining lfpr (even though it was declining long before he took office).

Maybe your not really a conservative, maybe you are an independent. Independents are allowed to think for themselves and don't have to subscribe to any standard political rhetoric positions

I'm also thinking that if I agree with what you are saying, I would probably be a big supporter of the "BIG" (Basic Income Guarantee) which has been discussed a lot on DP recently.

If you increase welfare, labor supply wil decrease. simply if someone can make the equivalent og 15 dollars on welfare... There is little incentive to take a 20 dollar an hour job. As labor supply decreases, the hourly wage would increase. Or... Welfare to an employe is not subsidy to the employer.
 
Am I the only person who sees the irony in conservatives arguing that we should increase welfare rather than to increase income from actually being productive?

Are conservatives the new progressive-liberals?

I assume this is a complete misunderstanding by you of what is being discussed.
 
Re: Warren Buffett Don't raise the minimum wage

I could be wrong but I think you are putting words in peoples mouths.

No, there were several people posting that they think we need more welfare (specifically the earned income tax credit), who post their leans ans conservative.
 
I assume this is a complete misunderstanding by you of what is being discussed.

I suspect that you are embarised that you advocate for more welfare, rather than wages that are high enough that people can support themselves by work.

My position is that if we get rid of welfare, people will no longer be so comfortable that they will be happy with a low paying job. thus they will tend to look for higher paying jobs, and employers will then have to compete harder for workers. When employers have to compete harder for employees, they tend to offer better wages and benefits.

That's the way that free market capitalism works. And it's a system that seems to work pretty good. But our current system thwarts that by making it comfortable for people to be poor. Low paying employers have figured out that they can take advantage of welfare subsidies, by paying low wages and hiring workers who's life are made more comfortable by welfare.

Any time that government subsidizes something, our system becomes distorted. Some of you guys don't seem to understand this.

The only difference between your position and that of a progressive is that you think we should only hand out more welfare, while most progressies think we need more welfare and higher wages.

I'd be happy with less welfare and higher wages, which seems like the most conservative position.
 
Last edited:
yep, you are wrong on that point.

Thanks for the unnecessary jab and, ironically, a necessary admittance that I am right about everything else. I appreciate it.

I'd be happy with less welfare and higher wages, which seems like the most conservative position.

I think that everyone agrees with that....we just disagree with the correct path on how to get there.

Progressives think more government is the way (name the last time this government was effective...we are even starting to lose wars that we already won now), Conservatives thing less government is the right way.


And from looking at the history of the free market and capitalism being the thing was raised standard of living for the most people, I think Conservatives have this thing right.
 
Thanks for the unnecessary jab and, ironically, a necessary admittance that I am right about everything else. I appreciate it.



I think that everyone agrees with that....we just disagree with the correct path on how to get there.

Progressives think more government is the way (name the last time this government was effective...we are even starting to lose wars that we already won now), Conservatives thing less government is the right way.


And from looking at the history of the free market and capitalism being the thing was raised standard of living for the most people, I think Conservatives have this thing right.

You falsely present liberalism as being in opposition to free markets and capitalism.

Stop letting Rush Limbaugh tell you what liberals think.
 
You falsely present liberalism as being in opposition to free markets and capitalism.

Stop letting Rush Limbaugh tell you what liberals think.

This thread is proof that Limbaugh, who I have never listened to because his show is not available in my area unfortunately, is right on target with that belief.
 
I suspect that you are embarised that you advocate for more welfare, rather than wages that are high enough that people can support themselves by work.

My position is that if we get rid of welfare, people will no longer be so comfortable that they will be happy with a low paying job. thus they will tend to look for higher paying jobs, and employers will then have to compete harder for workers. When employers have to compete harder for employees, they tend to offer better wages and benefits.

That's the way that free market capitalism works. And it's a system that seems to work pretty good. But our current system thwarts that by making it comfortable for people to be poor. Low paying employers have figured out that they can take advantage of welfare subsidies, by paying low wages and hiring workers who's life are made more comfortable by welfare.

Any time that government subsidizes something, our system becomes distorted. Some of you guys don't seem to understand this.

The only difference between your position and that of a progressive is that you think we should only hand out more welfare, while most progressies think we need more welfare and higher wages.

I'd be happy with less welfare and higher wages, which seems like the most conservative position.

I never advocated for such. So, yes. I was right. Complete misunderstanding by you.

If they got rid of welfare, which is also not a position i would advocate, wages would tend down as labor supply would increase. Again, as the expert in mw economist described.

In short, welfare is not a subsidy to employers.
 
Thanks for the unnecessary jab and, ironically, a necessary admittance that I am right about everything else. I appreciate it..
LOL...is that how it works? Anything and everything that is not countered makes you correct!?! WOW! Your inferences RULE!

The more accurate point would be that apparently, all those responses to your posts that you ignore, are effectively just concessions.

PS....I guess your private education did not help with the understanding of what "putting words in your mouth" means.
 
...

Progressives think more government is the way (name the last time this government was effective...we are even starting to lose wars that we already won now), Conservatives thing less government is the right way.

Which is contrary to the position that several self proclaimed conservatives have been arguing in this thread. They were arguing that we need more welfare. And it's not the first time that I have seen conservatives argue for more welfare.

It's ironic that while I take the position that we should eliminate welfare, I have had people who claim to be conservatives accuse me of being a liberal, over and over again.
 
You falsely present liberalism as being in opposition to free markets and capitalism.

Stop letting Rush Limbaugh tell you what liberals think.

Rush publicly calls his followers "ditto heads". they think that is a compliment lol.
 
Which is contrary to the position that several self proclaimed conservatives have been arguing in this thread. They were arguing that we need more welfare. And it's not the first time that I have seen conservatives argue for more welfare.

It's ironic that while I take the position that we should eliminate welfare, I have had people who claim to be conservatives accuse me of being a liberal, over and over again.

More welfare is not a conservative position. You and I both know that. A minute amount of anecdotal evidence does not change that.
 
I never advocated for such. So, yes. I was right. Complete misunderstanding by you.

If they got rid of welfare, which is also not a position i would advocate, wages would tend down as labor supply would increase. Again, as the expert in mw economist described.

In short, welfare is not a subsidy to employers.

What you don't seem to realize is that most people on welfare, something like 98% (except for those who are already seeking a job), WORK.

Eliminating welfare wouldn't increase the number of people desiring to work because most people on welfare already work.

Thus, your argument that eliminating welfare would result in more people seeking jobs, largely fails.

But let's just pretend that you are correct, so that's exactly the reason that it is important that we continue to have a minimum wage.
 
LOL...is that how it works? Anything and everything that is not countered makes you correct!?! WOW! Your inferences RULE!

The more accurate point would be that apparently, all those responses to your posts that you ignore, are effectively just concessions.

PS....I guess your private education did not help with the understanding of what "putting words in your mouth" means.

If every time I refresh I get 12 quotes of my same quote, Im not responding to all 12....especially when they are just saying the same thing. Its clear that I am slapping you around with no effort and I am living in your head rent free. Meanwhile, I cant even tell one of you from the other.
 
What you don't seem to realize is that most people on welfare, something like 98% (except for those who are already seeking a job), WORK.

Eliminating welfare wouldn't increase the number of people desiring to work because most people on welfare already work.

Thus, your argument that eliminating welfare would result in more people seeking jobs, largely fails.

But let's just pretend that you are correct, so that's exactly the reason that it is important that we continue to have a minimum wage.

Because they have 10 kids they cant afford. Life choices are a hell of a drug.... Some people just suck as life, and with our welfare system, its almost like we encourage the suck.
 
If every time I refresh I get 12 quotes of my same quote, Im not responding to all 12....especially when they are just saying the same thing. Its clear that I am slapping you around with no effort and I am living in your head rent free. Meanwhile, I cant even tell one of you from the other.

I thought that you are confused, glad you indicated that I am correct.
 
Re: Warren Buffett Don't raise the minimum wage

Thats nice. So how about free universal higher public education/technical college?

I think they should grant your wish and take all of your earnings to pay for it. How's that for an idea?
 
I suspect that you are embarised that you advocate for more welfare, rather than wages that are high enough that people can support themselves by work.

My position is that if we get rid of welfare, people will no longer be so comfortable that they will be happy with a low paying job. thus they will tend to look for higher paying jobs, and employers will then have to compete harder for workers. When employers have to compete harder for employees, they tend to offer better wages and benefits.

That's the way that free market capitalism works. And it's a system that seems to work pretty good. But our current system thwarts that by making it comfortable for people to be poor. Low paying employers have figured out that they can take advantage of welfare subsidies, by paying low wages and hiring workers who's life are made more comfortable by welfare.

Any time that government subsidizes something, our system becomes distorted. Some of you guys don't seem to understand this.

The only difference between your position and that of a progressive is that you think we should only hand out more welfare, while most progressies think we need more welfare and higher wages.

I'd be happy with less welfare and higher wages, which seems like the most conservative position.

Cutting all welfare, problem is there are specific people that welfare is the only road they have, illness, disability and so on.
As to wage increases, used to be as productivity increased so did wages & that is no longer the situation. Has not been for decades.
Higher paying jobs, one issue are many are without skills or have very basic skill sets. Then training/education is needed.
 
Because they have 10 kids they cant afford. Life choices are a hell of a drug.... Some people just suck as life, and with our welfare system, its almost like we encourage the suck.

That has nothing to do with nothing.

How would eliminating welfare cause an already employed welfare receipient to seek a lower paying job?

Your logic is backwards. Let's work through this again, step by step.

1) most people who receive welfare already work. Most forms of welfare have actually required work ever since it was reformed during the Clinton administration. the earned income tax credit requires earned income (work).

2) Means tested welfare makes low wage workers more comfortable, thus they have little incentive to seek higher paying employment.

3) Low wage paying employers only pay low wages because they can find ample employees who are willing to accept a low wage. the reason that there are lots of people willing to accept a low wage is because those people are receiving means tested welfare (and if they accepted a higher paying job their welfare benefits would be reduced or eliminated)

4) If we eliminated welfare, we would not have more people in the job market, because most welfare receipients are already in the job market.

5) If we eliminated welfare, low wage employees would not be as financially comfortable, and thus they would be more likely to seek higher paying employment. Low wage employers would then have to compete harder for workers, and wages would tend to rise.
 
What you don't seem to realize is that most people on welfare, something like 98% (except for those who are already seeking a job), WORK.

Eliminating welfare wouldn't increase the number of people desiring to work because most people on welfare already work.

Thus, your argument that eliminating welfare would result in more people seeking jobs, largely fails.

But let's just pretend that you are correct, so that's exactly the reason that it is important that we continue to have a minimum wage.

Studies of the 70s welfare impacts, showed an increase of part time work related to the amount of benefits being offered. people wanted less full time work, as they would then be eating into the free money from the govt.
 
Back
Top Bottom