• 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

wbreese91 said:
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not the case, but we also still have the minimum wage laws, so there is no way to know what would happen if they were repealed.
Click to expand...

Congress only has the power if it effects most everyone in a negative way.

If it were repealed, some low skill jobs pay just minimum wage would be more flexible and the true equilibrium would be established.

wbreese91 said:
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:
Click to expand...

They don't, I'm a factory worker and the janitors that work around us slowly stroll between the offices, bathrooms and break rooms taking their time and not breaking a sweat.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
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.
Click to expand...

Scarecrow, the Constitution can logically mean what I am saying. Perhaps you should site and explain the parts of the Constitution that prove me wrong, but that would involve you actually backing up your rabid right-wing responses so I will understand if you don't.

Irony: Telling me to learn basic english and read the Constitution and then mispelling Constitution.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Congress only has the power if it effects most everyone in a negative way.
Click to expand...

That is my point. At the time, the problem of sub-livable wages affected almost all of working-class America, which at the time was a massive segment of the United States.

If it were repealed, some low skill jobs pay just minimum wage would be more flexible and the true equilibrium would be established.
Click to expand...

If by true equilibrium, you mean that most employers would drop wages in a perfectly logical move to cut costs that could result in sub-livable wages then yes you would be correct.

They don't, I'm a factory worker and the janitors that work around us slowly stroll between the offices, bathrooms and break rooms taking their time and not breaking a sweat.
Click to expand...

That is only one place. Think of a school janitor. There is no evidence to support your claim.
 
Gibberish said:
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.
Click to expand...

Invaders don't count. Employers of invaders have an artificial and illegal handle on their willingness to work.

We're discussing legal employment.
 
wbreese91 said:
That is my point. At the time, the problem of sub-livable wages affected almost all of working-class America, which at the time was a massive segment of the United States.
Click to expand...

No.

NO ONE was ever intended to live on the minimum wage. As was pointed out, it was a goonion scam.

The problem now it that enormous amounts of money were spent educating children who refused to learn anything useful, and now they're whining about how they can't find a job to feed their family on and they worked so hard at learning nothing in school that it's just not fair that they can't use their vast knowledge of nothing to raise the family of twelve they've created without any help from the rest of us at all.

wbreese91 said:
If by true equilibrium, you mean that most employers would drop wages in a perfectly logical move to cut costs that could result in sub-livable wages then yes you would be correct.
Click to expand...

What's wrong with that?

Employers do not owe employees "livable" wages. If a worker can't live on what he's earning, he needs to find a better job, cut his costs, learn more marketable skills, and otherwise control his own life. If an employer can pay someone to do a job cheaply, he should. If that job is so menial that it can't feed person, then that person shouldn't take that job.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No.

NO ONE was ever intended to live on the minimum wage. As was pointed out, it was a goonion scam.

The problem now it that enormous amounts of money were spent educating children who refused to learn anything useful, and now they're whining about how they can't find a job to feed their family on and they worked so hard at learning nothing in school that it's just not fair that they can't use their vast knowledge of nothing to raise the family of twelve they've created without any help from the rest of us at all.
Click to expand...

It was pointed out by YOU. That's not a reliable source.

We are talking about minimum wage, not welfare. Minimum wage doesn't require the average person to help anyone.

What's wrong with that?

Employers do not owe employees "livable" wages. If a worker can't live on what he's earning, he needs to find a better job, cut his costs, learn more marketable skills, and otherwise control his own life. If an employer can pay someone to do a job cheaply, he should. If that job is so menial that it can't feed person, then that person shouldn't take that job.
Click to expand...

What's wrong with someone not be able to feed their families? Come on.

Someone has to do those bottom level jobs, and they should be able to feed their family on it. I'm not saying they need $7.65 an hour to do that, I'm just saying they should be able to live on what they make.
 
Gibberish said:
What legal employment is paying or is worth $3/hour?
Click to expand...

Hello?

We're discussing the real world, not the phony over-inflated minimum wage world.

Picking strawberries, if the farmer can get someone to do the work for $3 an hour, is worth $3 an hour, for example.

That's how worth is measured. You remove the artifical constraints and allow prices to rise or fall to the level the market commands.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Hello?

We're discussing the real world, not the phony over-inflated minimum wage world.

Picking strawberries, if the farmer can get someone to do the work for $3 an hour, is worth $3 an hour, for example.

That's how worth is measured. You remove the artifical constraints and allow prices to rise or fall to the level the market commands.
Click to expand...

I think capitalism can withstand a reasonable minimum wage requirement. That strawberry picker deserves to be able to feed his family just as much as any other person in the United States. Especially in the current economic situation, jobs are not readily available. He may not be able to find a better one, that doesn't mean his family shouldn't eat.
 
wbreese91 said:
It was pointed out by YOU. That's not a reliable source.
Click to expand...

I'm extremely reliable.

I'm not tainted by socialism.

wbreese91 said:
We are talking about minimum wage, not welfare. Minimum wage doesn't require the average person to help anyone.
Click to expand...

Minimum wage IS welfare.

wbreese91 said:
What's wrong with someone not be able to feed their families? Come on.
Click to expand...

Nothing. I don't have a problem with it, so long as my money isn't stolen to subsidize them.

wbreese91 said:
Someone has to do those bottom level jobs,
and they should be able to feed their family on it.
Click to expand...

Here's a better idea: if someone can't earn enough money to get married and support a family, they should either get a better job or not get married and have a family, especially when the alternative is the theft of money from their betters to pay for their inadequacies.

wbreese91 said:
I'm not saying they need $7.65 an hour to do that, I'm just saying they should be able to live on what they make.
Click to expand...

They should strive to live on what they make, not demand to be paid what they need to live on.

Know how people used to make wage demands on their employers? They'd apply for a job and ask "what's it pay?" If the pay wasn't enough, they'd go apply somewhere else.
 
wbreese91 said:
I think capitalism can withstand a reasonable minimum wage requirement.
Click to expand...

No, it can't.

By definition, wages in capitalism are the agreement between the employer and employee, not the fiat command of the elites.


wbreese91 said:
That strawberry picker deserves to be able to feed his family just as much as any other person in the United States.
Click to expand...

You should read the Ninth Amendment, then the rest of the Constitution.

The "right to feed family" clause isn't in the Constitution, hence the "right to feed family" is not a legitimate basis for a federal minimum wage. The right to feed family doesn't actually exist, since no right exists that commands the interference in another person's private business.

No, Joe the strawberry-picker would do best to keep his pecker in his pants until he can afford to start a family. It's not his employer's problem.

You are aware of what a job is, aren't you? Can you define the term? You socialists seem to have immense difficulty with this concept.

wbreese91 said:
Especially in the current economic situation, jobs are not readily available. He may not be able to find a better one, that doesn't mean his family shouldn't eat.
Click to expand...

Sure it does. It certainly doesn't mean his employer has to pay him more than his labor is worth. The employer's family has to pay their cell phone bills, don't they?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
I'm extremely reliable.

I'm not tainted by socialism.
Click to expand...

No, you aren't. You've been tainted by "holier than thou" right wing propaganda

Minimum wage IS welfare.
Click to expand...

No it is a regulation. The money doesn't come from the government and so is not a social welfare program.

Nothing. I don't have a problem with it, so long as my money isn't stolen to subsidize them.
Click to expand...

Your money isn't being stolen, it is being paid in the form of wages to workers. Minimum wage is not that much to ask. Healthcare benefits and god knows what else, is by far too much to demand of employers.

Here's a better idea: if someone can't earn enough money to get married and support a family, they should either get a better job or not get married and have a family, especially when the alternative is the theft of money from their betters to pay for their inadequacies.
Click to expand...

No human being is worth more than another. Smarter, more successful, more resourceful, maybe, but not more valuable.



They should strive to live on what they make, not demand to be paid what they need to live on.

Know how people used to make wage demands on their employers? They'd apply for a job and ask "what's it pay?" If the pay wasn't enough, they'd go apply somewhere else.
Click to expand...

Except employers generall have no problem screwing their employees over, so if there was no minimum wage, there most likely would be no decent paying job.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No, it can't.

By definition, wages in capitalism are the agreement between the employer and employee, not the fiat command of the elites.
Click to expand...

And employers show concern with their hundreds of employees and actuallly negotiate with them since when? So it should be the fiat command of the rich elites? Give me a break.

You should read the Ninth Amendment, then the rest of the Constitution.

The "right to feed family" clause isn't in the Constitution, hence the "right to feed family" is not a legitimate basis for a federal minimum wage. The right to feed family doesn't actually exist, since no right exists that commands the interference in another person's private business.
Click to expand...

You're right, but the health and well being of a large population of U.S. citizens is a legitimate basis for it.

No, Joe the strawberry-picker would do best to keep his pecker in his pants until he can afford to start a family. It's not his employer's problem.

You are aware of what a job is, aren't you? Can you define the term? You socialists seem to have immense difficulty with this concept.
Click to expand...

I don't deny that the individual needs to be responsible and plan financially to support a family, but if there was no minimum wage law there would not be enough or possibly any decent paying jobs for the average Joe.

Yes I know what a job is. Someone works for someone else and is paid in an amount worthy of that work. I am not a socialist. I support capitalism and a relatively free market. I do however believe in some regulations of that market. Minimum wage is one such regulation I think is necessary to prevent a workforce wide problem of unfair wages. If there is no regulation, companies will undervalue the labor, and other companies will see that they can charge less, so they will. It is a cycle.

Sure it does. It certainly doesn't mean his employer has to pay him more than his labor is worth. The employer's family has to pay their cell phone bills, don't they?
Click to expand...

No they don't. If they can't pay their workers decently and afford their cell phones they should go without cell phones. This fits your mentality. If the worker should go without children because he can't afford them, then the employer should definately have to go without a cell phone.
 
Gibberish said:
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?
Click to expand...

That's nothing but a straw man (because most people in this country make more than minimum wage). I asked why the responsibility for providing for someone's livelihood must be given to an employer and not to the employee. What's the moral justification?
 
wbreese91 said:
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.
Click to expand...

You're making the old fatal flaw. Those wages seemed "unlivable" by today's standards. You have to look in history and see if those people were making more than their parents. If they were, then we were successful, and we didn't need minimum wage.
 
phattonez said:
You're making the old fatal flaw. Those wages seemed "unlivable" by today's standards. You have to look in history and see if those people were making more than their parents. If they were, then we were successful, and we didn't need minimum wage.
Click to expand...

They couldn't afford decent food or a decent place to live. Read a history book.
 
wbreese91 said:
We are talking about minimum wage, not welfare. Minimum wage doesn't require the average person to help anyone.
Click to expand...

It forces the employer to be charitable, and at that point you don't call it charity do you? Sounds like intimidation to me.

Someone has to do those bottom level jobs, and they should be able to feed their family on it. I'm not saying they need $7.65 an hour to do that, I'm just saying they should be able to live on what they make.
Click to expand...

Why is no one speaking for the employer here? He's getting cheated out of his property under such a theft scheme.
 
wbreese91 said:
They couldn't afford decent food or a decent place to live. Read a history book.
Click to expand...

You're still making the same flaw and comparing those living standards to today's standards. You need to compare those standards to the standards of previous generations.
 
phattonez said:
It forces the employer to be charitable, and at that point you don't call it charity do you? Sounds like intimidation to me.



Why is no one speaking for the employer here? He's getting cheated out of his property under such a theft scheme.
Click to expand...

No,he isn't. This is rediculous. It isn't a theft scheme it a regulation designed to protect workers from unfair wages. Name a company that has failed to make a profit because of minimum wage laws. Not healthcare, not unions, just minimum wage itself.
 
wbreese91 said:
No,he isn't. This is rediculous. It isn't a theft scheme it a regulation designed to protect workers from unfair wages. Name a company that has failed to make a profit because of minimum wage laws. Not healthcare, not unions, just minimum wage itself.
Click to expand...

Not a company, but I know a group that has suffered because of the scheme: black teens. Before minimum wage, white and black teens had basically the same employment rate. Nowadays blacks teens have twice the unemployment as white teens.

"Unfair wages" are wages that are nowhere near production levels. If I get paid $10 an hour and only produce $3 an hour then that is an unfair wage by anyone's standards.
 
wbreese91 said:
No, you aren't. You've been tainted by "holier than thou" right wing propaganda
Click to expand...

Nope.

I'm a libertarian.

wbreese91 said:
No it is a regulation. The money doesn't come from the government and so is not a social welfare program.
Click to expand...

No money EVER comes from government.

It's stolen from the taxpayers first.

So, when the government commands that the least paid workers will be paid twice what their jobs produce, that's taking money from the people who earned it and giving it to people who haven't. The money doesn't go through the government, but it's stolen by the government just the same.

wbreese91 said:
Your money isn't being stolen, it is being paid in the form of wages to workers. Minimum wage is not that much to ask.
Click to expand...

Oh. It's a request, is it? What happens when the people who actually have to pay the wage refuse this request?

wbreese91 said:
Healthcare benefits and god knows what else, is by far too much to demand of employers.
Click to expand...

Your logic is inconsistent. If the government can demand (not "ask") a minimum wage payment then using the exact same reasoning it can demand everything else, and nothing is "too much" for a greedy politician using someone else's money to buy votes.

wbreese91 said:
No human being is worth more than another.
Click to expand...

So you won't shoot the man mugging your wife?

What about the guy raping your son?

wbreese91 said:
Smarter, more successful, more resourceful, maybe, but not more valuable.
Click to expand...

So you have no problem with paying the nurse who empties your bed pan the same wage as the doctor who transplanted your heart?

wbreese91 said:
Except employers generall have no problem screwing their employees over, so if there was no minimum wage, there most likely would be no decent paying job.
Click to expand...

Yeah, before the Saints of Humongous Goverment "requested" the minimum wage, no one was getting more than anyone else, and they were all earning peanuts.
 
wbreese91 said:
And employers show concern with their hundreds of employees and actuallly negotiate with them since when?
Click to expand...

When they can't find anyone to do the work for the wages offered.

This is why people learn skills, so they have something to offer in exchange for higher wages. If all a man has to offer is muscle, all he gets offered is low paying muscle jobs.

If the wages offered aren't enough, no one takes the job, the offered wage has to rise, or the job isn't done.

This isn't complicated and there's no mystery.

wbreese91 said:
So it should be the fiat command of the rich elites? Give me a break.
Click to expand...

You mean like the man expanding a landscaping business that needs more muscles on the job?

Is he a "rich elite"?

How about the corner store?

Are those people "rich elites"?

Most of the people in this country work for middle class business owners, not "rich elites". Maybe you need to hang up your class warfare pre-programmed stereotypes and discover who America is.

wbreese91 said:
You're right, but the health and well being of a large population of U.S. citizens is a legitimate basis for it.
Click to expand...

I'm right.

No "buts".

wbreese91 said:
I don't deny that the individual needs to be responsible and plan financially to support a family, but if there was no minimum wage law there would not be enough or possibly any decent paying jobs for the average Joe.
Click to expand...

Hang it up, no one with any sense is buying.

wbreese91 said:
Yes I know what a job is. Someone works for someone else and is paid in an amount worthy of that work. I am not a socialist. I support capitalism and a relatively free market.
Click to expand...

No. If you support a relatively free market, you don't support capitalism, you support government interference in indivdual freedom.

wbreese91 said:
I do however believe in some regulations of that market.
Click to expand...

Only to the extent that fraud is punished.

wbreese91 said:
Minimum wage is one such regulation I think is necessary to prevent a workforce wide problem of unfair wages.
Click to expand...

Can you explain who elected you to the Board of Arbitration of Wage Unfairness? Can you name any of the other BAWU commissioners? Who elected them?

wbreese91 said:
If there is no regulation, companies will undervalue the labor, and other companies will see that they can charge less, so they will. It is a cycle.
Click to expand...

And eventually, the workers say, that's a waste of my time, I'm worth more than that, and the wages find their correct (and hence fair) level.

Right now your insisting that the government intrude it's muscle and it's elitism to command wages to meet some arbitrary notion of "fairness". Which government loves to do, it's not their money.

Want to know who determines what's fair? The worker and the employer. When they agree on a wage, that's fair. If they don't agree on a wage, there's no work done, and hence no worker, and with no worker, there's no employer. There's just people looking for jobs and people looking for people to fill jobs.

wbreese91 said:
No they don't. If they can't pay their workers decently and afford their cell phones they should go without cell phones.
Click to expand...

So, in your view, some people should be denied their earnings, and some other people should be allowed to take unearned money. And when this happens, you call it "fair".
 
Wbreese, companies work together to screw the little guy? You think too much of companies. They don't like each other. In fact, they'll pay their workers competitive wages in order to get the best labor and do better than other businesses.

You may not believe this, but competition actually encourages higher wages.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom