• 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!

Washington to California: Drop dead

But why should am employer be forced to pay that when he is not even getting that level of production from the worker? Sure, everything seems great for the worker, but what about the employee? Who speaks for him?

Their representative in the House and Senate. Small business costs has always been a huge issue. I believe with the last hike in minimum wage was accompanied with a number of small business tax breaks.
 
But why should am employer be forced to pay that when he is not even getting that level of production from the worker? Sure, everything seems great for the worker, but what about the employee? Who speaks for him?

The employer is the big, bad, greedy meanie that is getting rich on the backs of others. It's not PC to stick up for him.
 
The employer is the big, bad, greedy meanie that is getting rich on the backs of others. It's not PC to stick up for him.

If the employer doesn't like the work the person is performing then he should fire that person. If the employer wants higher quality workers then go hire higher quality workers.
 
If the employer doesn't like the work the person is performing then he should fire that person. If the employer wants higher quality workers then go hire higher quality workers.

Sometimes that easier said than done. I own a fleet of trucks and you can't imagine how hard it is to find someone that wants to do something more than just hold a steering wheel. I've got a good crew, now, but I've gone through my fair share of losers.
 
Sometimes that easier said than done. I own a fleet of trucks and you can't imagine how hard it is to find someone that wants to do something more than just hold a steering wheel. I've got a good crew, now, but I've gone through my fair share of losers.

That area of transition until you get the right group happens for most companies. Imagine how much worse it would have been if you, as an employer, chose to higher illegal workers just so you could pay them less.
 
Their representative in the House and Senate. Small business costs has always been a huge issue. I believe with the last hike in minimum wage was accompanied with a number of small business tax breaks.

I've been asking for a moral justification, and I still haven't seen one. It's not the responsibility of an employer to make sure that his employees can live. All the employer cares about is retaining his employees by paying them competitive wages that are still lower than the production he gets from them.
 
I've been asking for a moral justification, and I still haven't seen one. It's not the responsibility of an employer to make sure that his employees can live. All the employer cares about is retaining his employees by paying them competitive wages that are still lower than the production he gets from them.

Well go start a thread about the minimum wage in the Economics thread. As stated before, as it is related to this thread the minimum wage exists, like it or not.
 
Well go start a thread about the minimum wage in the Economics thread. As stated before, as it is related to this thread the minimum wage exists, like it or not.

But I was arguing that minimum wage hurts the state. It's not practical, and I'm trying to show that there is no moral justification either. It is very related.
 
But I was arguing that minimum wage hurts the state. It's not practical, and I'm trying to show that there is no moral justification either. It is very related.

Well the main purpose is to attempt to keep working families out of poverty. Of course an argument can be made that it hurts the economy my increasing labor and costs of goods.

I highly doubt minimum wage is the cause of California's woe's as it has thrived with minimum wage for decades.
 
Well the main purpose is to attempt to keep working families out of poverty. Of course an argument can be made that it hurts the economy my increasing labor and costs of goods.

I highly doubt minimum wage is the cause of California's woe's as it has thrived with minimum wage for decades.

Well, in the real world the minimum wage is the tool the goonions use to jack up the overpaid wages they extort from their employer.

If the minimum wage goes from $7.25 an hour to $7.65 an hour, that's a 5.5% increase, and by golly, it's NOT FAIR for the bottom wage earners to get such a huge increase while the goonions get none, so the goonions extort a 6% increase or more for their goons.

THATS what the minimum wage is all about.

Absolutely no one is supposed to be raising a family on the minimum wage.

And, if you'd care to check, you'll see that there's absolutey no authority in the Constitution for the Congress to interfere in private sector wage scales.
 
And, if you'd care to check, you'll see that there's absolutey no authority in the Constitution for the Congress to interfere in private sector wage scales.

I agree with most of your other statements, but I have to take issue with this one.

Article I, Section 8-Powers Granted to Congress
1.Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

Although this power pertains mostly to taxes it also implies the power to provide for the general welfare. At the time the minimum wage law was passed, workers needed this kind of government action to make wages that were actually sufficient to support thier family. If we removed the law, we might see a resurgance in un-sufficient wages, though this is unlikely. However, it remains true that providing for the security of workers lively-hoods does qualify as providing for the general welfare.

As proof that Congress can pass minimum wage laws to carry out it's power to provide for the general welfare I submit the following.

Article I, Section 8- Powers Granted to Congress
18-To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers and all other powers granted by this Constitution in the Government of the United Statees, or any Department or officer thereof.

This excerpt reinforces my point my indicating that Congress can pass laws to provide for the general welfare as that is one of the powers granted in the first excerpted section.
 
I agree with most of your other statements, but I have to take issue with this one.

Article I, Section 8-Powers Granted to Congress
1.Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

Although this power pertains mostly to taxes it also implies the power to provide for the general welfare. At the time the minimum wage law was passed, workers needed this kind of government action to make wages that were actually sufficient to support thier family. If we removed the law, we might see a resurgance in un-sufficient wages, though this is unlikely. However, it remains true that providing for the security of workers lively-hoods does qualify as providing for the general welfare.

As proof that Congress can pass minimum wage laws to carry out it's power to provide for the general welfare I submit the following.

Article I, Section 8- Powers Granted to Congress
18-To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers and all other powers granted by this Constitution in the Government of the United Statees, or any Department or officer thereof.

This excerpt reinforces my point my indicating that Congress can pass laws to provide for the general welfare as that is one of the powers granted in the first excerpted section.

He doesn't believe that Wickard v. Filburn occurred. Don't bother.
 
He doesn't believe that Wickard v. Filburn occurred. Don't bother.

I don't really expect a decent response, I just thought I might use the Constitution to prove he was wrong to everyone else in the tread :lol:
 
Well the main purpose is to attempt to keep working families out of poverty. Of course an argument can be made that it hurts the economy my increasing labor and costs of goods.

But why do they deserve that when they don't produce that much for their employer? It sounds more like theft/abuse.

I highly doubt minimum wage is the cause of California's woe's as it has thrived with minimum wage for decades.

No, but it doesn't mean that it doesn't hurt this state.
 
I agree with most of your other statements, but I have to take issue with this one.

General welfare is a very vague term that has been exploited by Democrats for years.
 
But why do they deserve that when they don't produce that much for their employer? It sounds more like theft/abuse.

I guess because it's thought increased poverty levels in the country would be worse for the economy? How is it theft if the individuals are performing work for the employer? What jobs other then those that require the competency of an 8 year old offer minimum wage?

Should we eliminate the minimum wage and start building massive cardboard slums like Mumbai to house those making an unlivable means at work?
 
I guess because it's thought increased poverty levels in the country would be worse for the economy? How is it theft if the individuals are performing work for the employer? What jobs other then those that require the competency of an 8 year old offer minimum wage?

Should we eliminate the minimum wage and start building massive cardboard slums like Mumbai to house those making an unlivable means at work?

If the job is worth three bucks an hour (that means the employer is able to find someone willing to do it at that wage), then being forced to pay eight bucks an hour by the government with the machine guns is a theft of five bucks an hour, plus taxes on that five bucks.
 
I agree with most of your other statements, but I have to take issue with this one.

Article I, Section 8-Powers Granted to Congress
1.Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

Although this power pertains mostly to taxes it also implies the power to provide for the general welfare. At the time the minimum wage law was passed, workers needed this kind of government action to make wages that were actually sufficient to support thier family. If we removed the law, we might see a resurgance in un-sufficient wages, though this is unlikely. However, it remains true that providing for the security of workers lively-hoods does qualify as providing for the general welfare.

As proof that Congress can pass minimum wage laws to carry out it's power to provide for the general welfare I submit the following.

Article I, Section 8- Powers Granted to Congress
18-To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers and all other powers granted by this Constitution in the Government of the United Statees, or any Department or officer thereof.

This excerpt reinforces my point my indicating that Congress can pass laws to provide for the general welfare as that is one of the powers granted in the first excerpted section.


Yeah, the usual tardish abuse and ignorance of what the phrase "general welfare" means, as expected.

Sorry, your argument is sooooo old, soooooo refuted, soooo tarnished, that I'm not wasting my time with it today.

The Constitution does not simultaneously LIMIT government authority to specific areas and grant it a blank check to do everything.

Your argument suffered MASSIVE fail.
 
Since California dug its own hole, they can dig themselves out of it. No sympathy from me.
 
If the job is worth three bucks an hour (that means the employer is able to find someone willing to do it at that wage), then being forced to pay eight bucks an hour by the government with the machine guns is a theft of five bucks an hour, plus taxes on that five bucks.

The job is worth what the lowest person is willing to work for it and the quality of work the employer is willing to accept.

It's worth $3/hour to illegal immigrants. It may be worth $10/hour to legal workers.
 
Yeah, the usual tardish abuse and ignorance of what the phrase "general welfare" means, as expected.

Sorry, your argument is sooooo old, soooooo refuted, soooo tarnished, that I'm not wasting my time with it today.

The Constitution does not simultaneously LIMIT government authority to specific areas and grant it a blank check to do everything.

Your argument suffered MASSIVE fail.

The usual complete lack of evidence to back up your point. Where is it refuted, and by whom? You? Sorry, not a legitimate source.

The Constitution left the governement space to do what it needed to to protect U.S. citizens, while limiting some of its scope. The Supreme Court disagrees with you friend, and they have a great deal more knowledge on the matter than you do.

Your disagreement doesn't make my comment a massive fail.

General welfare means the general well-being of the United States and its citizens. Minimum wage falls under this.
 
The usual complete lack of evidence to back up your point. Where is it refuted, and by whom? You? Sorry, not a legitimate source.

The Constitution left the governement space to do what it needed to to protect U.S. citizens, while limiting some of its scope. The Supreme Court disagrees with you friend, and they have a great deal more knowledge on the matter than you do.

Your disagreement doesn't make my comment a massive fail.

General welfare means the general well-being of the United States and its citizens. Minimum wage falls under this.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here, general welfare and minimum wage have no connection to each other.

If everyone were paid an unlivable wage you would have a point, but some jobs are not worth minimum wage.

One job in particular is a janitor, it is an incredibly easy job that doesn't require any training to do.
 
I'm going to have to disagree with you here, general welfare and minimum wage have no connection to each other.

If everyone were paid an unlivable wage you would have a point, but some jobs are not worth minimum wage.

One job in particular is a janitor, it is an incredibly easy job that doesn't require any training to do.

I am not arguing that our particular wage rate is reasonable, I am arguing that Congress has the authority to pass a minimum wage law. It does qualify as for the general welfare, because at the time it was passed, nearly every industrial worker in the entire United States was being paid an unlivable wage. Now, this is not the case, but we also still have the minimum wage laws, so there is no way to know what would happen if they were repealed.

I would also tell you to spend a week as a janitor and see how "easy" it is. Then tell me if they don't deserve minimum wage :2wave:
 
The usual complete lack of evidence to back up your point.

Sorry, the Constitution exists on line and I'm not your mother and I don't hold hands.

Learn basic english, read the Constituiton, and the refutation of the nonsense you spew is right there.

So long as you continue to read into the Constitution things it does not say, things it cannot logically mean, you'll continue to be wrong.
 
Back
Top Bottom