• 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!

Explaining Why Federal Deficits Are Needed[W:5330]

Conservative said:
My problem is the govt. making that decision. If someone is stupid enough to pay a sub standard wage, they are going to get a substandard employee and go out of business. Forcing an employer to pay any wage goes against the principles of free enterprise, capitalism, personal responsibility, risk taking, making an investment, and the very foundation upon which this economy was built. Too many people have an entitlement mentality and don't give a damn about the business owner, his investment, livelihood, profit demand, monthly expenses, etc.
Click to expand...

Yes, we know. You have a problem with the federal government doing anything. Unless it's something that benefits you personally, or is moral in your worldview.

For example, I'm sure you would have no problem with the federal government banning abortions. Or renovating an interstate freeway. Or creating a new agency called the NSA.
 
Gaea said:
Why $7.50? Why not $7.75? Or $7.30?

That seems like a pretty arbitrary number.

A less arbitrary number would be $8.85. That's roughly equal to the 1981 minimum wage, when adjusted for inflation.
Click to expand...

Have you ever run a business? Why not $20 per hour, $50 per hour? How many small businesses can pay those wages? You really have no concept as to the costs of starting, running, and growing a business. Those are arbitrary numbers as well so why not let the market decide and keep bureaucrats out of it
 
This has to be one the longest threads in debatepolitics.com history.
 
Gaea said:
Yes, we know. You have a problem with the federal government doing anything. Unless it's something that benefits you personally, or is moral in your worldview.

For example, I'm sure you would have no problem with the federal government banning abortions. Or renovating an interstate freeway. Or creating a new agency called the NSA.
Click to expand...

Typical liberal overreaction when confused by logic and common sense. There is a role for the Federal Govt. just not setting the wages of what an employer pays their workers. That is absolutely idiotic, naïve about business and Yes, I do have a problem with abortions as that isn't the role of the Federal Govt. either. You haven't read the Constitution, have you? Do they teach that in California?

You live in such a screwed up state so keep it up as more and more move to TX leaving you with the entitlement crowd that you will be paying for the rest of your life
 
Conservative said:
Have you ever run a business? Why not $20 per hour, $50 per hour? How many small businesses can pay those wages? You really have no concept as to the costs of starting, running, and growing a business. Those are arbitrary numbers as well so why not let the market decide and keep bureaucrats out of it
Click to expand...

If only you could go back to the good old days before all this liberalism when we had sweat shops, 7 day work weeks, and child labor. Let's get all these bureaucrats out of the way, I am sure you could manage to run a successful small business then...
 
Conservative said:
Have you ever run a business? Why not $20 per hour, $50 per hour? How many small businesses can pay those wages? You really have no concept as to the costs of starting, running, and growing a business. Those are arbitrary numbers as well so why not let the market decide and keep bureaucrats out of it
Click to expand...

Weren't the Reagan years the golden years? I think we should emulate the Reagan years by tying our minimum wage to the minimum wage during his presidency.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
If only you could go back to the good old days before all this liberalism when we had sweat shops, 7 day work weeks, and child labor. Let's get all these bureaucrats out of the way, I am sure you could manage to run a successful small business then...
Click to expand...

As I stated just another over reaction when you cannot come up with a coherent reason that the Federal Govt. should tell a private employer what to pay their workers. What I see here are a bunch of kids who have no concept of personal responsibility and an entitlement mentality. You are so smart run your own business and see how much fun it is with people like you telling you what to pay your workers
 
Gaea said:
Weren't the Reagan years the golden years? I think we should emulate the Reagan years by tying our minimum wage to the minimum wage during his presidency.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter as that isn't the role of the Federal Govt. no matter what you claim. Where is that in the Constitution?
 
Gaea said:
Why $7.50? Why not $7.75? Or $7.30?

That seems like a pretty arbitrary number.

A less arbitrary number would be $8.85. That's roughly equal to the 1981 minimum wage, when adjusted for inflation.
Click to expand...

What makes 1981 ground zero? I picked $7.50 per hour because liberals claim that $15 per hour is the living wage for a small family so if both parents work, which is the norm, then each parent only needs to earn $7.50 per hour.
 
Moderate Right said:
What makes 1981 ground zero?
Click to expand...

Supposedly the Reagan years are the golden years. Or so conservatives say. Reagan became president in 1981.

I picked $7.50 per hour because liberals claim that $15 per hour is the living wage for a small family so if both parents work, which is the norm, then each parent only needs to earn $7.50 per hour.
Click to expand...

Tell me, if a small family has two parents working full time, who's taking care of the children?
 
Gaea said:
Well, don't leave me hanging! Elaborate!
Click to expand...

I'm out of town on vacation and I shouldn't really need to elaborate. Obamacare, executive orders and regulaions, huge minimum wage increases in certain areas, certain states that tax businesses to death.
 
Gaea said:
Supposedly the Reagan years are the golden years. Or so conservatives say. Reagan became president in 1981.



Tell me, if a small family has two parents working full time, who's taking care of the children?
Click to expand...

Both parents work in many cases now. Who's taking care of the children now? In many cases relatives actually take care of the children. I've got a few employees now where the parent's mother takes care of the grandkids, usually for free. This whole argument is mostly moot because very few actually make the federal minimum wage anyway. Raising It would be fairly inconsequential.
 
Moderate Right said:
I'm out of town on vacation and I shouldn't really need to elaborate. Obamacare, executive orders and regulaions, huge minimum wage increases in certain areas, certain states that tax businesses to death.
Click to expand...

You're talking as though offshoring of labor began under Obama.

Meanwhile, in reality...

The data shows there were 398,887 private manufacturing establishments of all sizes in the United States during the first quarter of 2001. By the end of 2010, the number declined to 342,647, a loss of 56,190 facilities. Over 10 years, that works out to an average yearly loss of 5,619 factories.
Click to expand...

And then, there's the fact that Obama is the only president besides Reagan to never raise the minimum wage as president.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your beliefs ;)
 
Keynesian sucks donkey and is officially DEAD as a positive growth economic theory. Over the last 8 years, there has been over 30,000,000,000,000 in Gov spending ( over $20,000,000,000,000 in collected revenue spent and $10,000,000,000,000 in additional debt) and has not produced a single year over 3% growth. What a freakin' disgrace to the K Cult.
 
Chainsaw said:
Keynesian sucks donkey and is officially DEAD as a positive growth economic theory. Over the last 8 years, there has been over 30,000,000,000,000 in Gov spending ( over $20,000,000,000,000 in collected revenue spent and $10,000,000,000,000 in additional debt) and has not produced a single year over 3% growth. What a freakin' disgrace to the K Cult.
Click to expand...

No existing economic theory perfectly describes the world. That doesn't mean there is no validity to every economic theory.
 
Moderate Right said:
Both parents work in many cases now. Who's taking care of the children now?
Click to expand...

If you answer this question honestly, instead of making up answer that's convenient, you would begin to understand why low-income families have high unemployment, high crime, and a huge drug problem.

In many cases relatives actually take care of the children. I've got a few employees now where the parent's mother takes care of the grandkids, usually for free.
Click to expand...

That's the best case scenario.

This whole argument is mostly moot because very few actually make the federal minimum wage anyway. Raising It would be fairly inconsequential.
Click to expand...

Yes, very few make the federal minimum wage. But here's the reality: out of the 48,753,000 people who earned less than $15,000 in total wages (2014)... 22,860,000 of them were full-time workers.

That's about 14.4% of the workforce who worked full time, and collected less than $15,000 in total wages. The absolute maximum hourly wage a person could make and be considered a full time employee (35+ hours per week) is $8.57. So, it's clear that a minimum wage hike as I proposed would, in fact, impact tens of millions of people, and not "a very few", as you have contended.
 
Moderate Right said:
What makes 1981 ground zero? I picked $7.50 per hour because liberals claim that $15 per hour is the living wage for a small family so if both parents work, which is the norm, then each parent only needs to earn $7.50 per hour.
Click to expand...
That isn't actually the norm.

It's only one example of the various "norms" that exist today. Families with 2 working parents, families with 1 working parent, families with 1 parent period - all that and more exists in thousands of places today.

I was actually curious, and ran across this article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...nce-the-1950s-there-is-no-typical-u-s-family/

Apparently, today, children are being raised in the following situations.:
22% of families are the "traditional" one working parent household.
34% are two parents working.
23% are a single mother raising a child or children.
7% are a single parent living with an unmarried partner - it's not clear in the article how many of these partners fill a parent-like role.
3% are a single father.
3% are being raised by their grandparents


Based on this it would seem that at least 1/4 of all households with children to support are single-parent. It is possible they could survive on less than $15/hr, if full time, and depending on location, but I don't know if they could survive on 7.50/hr.

And if they can't pay all the bills on $7.50/hr, they'll likely need assistance. Probably from the government, in the end.
 
Gaea said:
If you answer this question honestly, instead of making up answer that's convenient, you would begin to understand why low-income families have high unemployment, high crime, and a huge drug problem.




That's the best case scenario.



Yes, very few make the federal minimum wage. But here's the reality: out of the 48,753,000 people who earned less than $15,000 in total wages (2014)... 22,860,000 of them were full-time workers.

That's about 14.4% of the workforce who worked full time, and collected less than $15,000 in total wages. The absolute maximum hourly wage a person could make and be considered a full time employee (35+ hours per week) is $8.57. So, it's clear that a minimum wage hike as I proposed would, in fact, impact tens of millions of people, and not "a very few", as you have contended.
Click to expand...

I'm going to have to think on all that. Somehow some of that doesn't make any sense but I'm too tired right now to figure it out.
 
The Mark said:
That isn't actually the norm.

It's only one example of the various "norms" that exist today. Families with 2 working parents, families with 1 working parent, families with 1 parent period - all that and more exists in thousands of places today.

I was actually curious, and ran across this article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...nce-the-1950s-there-is-no-typical-u-s-family/

Apparently, today, children are being raised in the following situations.:
22% of families are the "traditional" one working parent household.
34% are two parents working.
23% are a single mother raising a child or children.
7% are a single parent living with an unmarried partner - it's not clear in the article how many of these partners fill a parent-like role.
3% are a single father.
3% are being raised by their grandparents


Based on this it would seem that at least 1/4 of all households with children to support are single-parent. It is possible they could survive on less than $15/hr, if full time, and depending on location, but I don't know if they could survive on 7.50/hr.

And if they can't pay all the bills on $7.50/hr, they'll likely need assistance. Probably from the government, in the end.
Click to expand...

My post clearly said that single parents would be subsidized with social programs. It's not business's fault that people are single parents so why should they foot the bill? It is society's fault so the government should foot the bill.
 
Last edited:
Moderate Right said:
My post clearly said that single parents would be subsidized with social programs. It's not business's fault that people are single parents so why should they foot the bill? It is society's fault so the government should foot the bill.
Click to expand...
Not the post I responded to.

But if you think about it, isn't it society's fault that people aren't paid enough to live without social programs? And businesses are part of society, not separate from it. So while they may not be at fault, can they reasonably expect to continue paying unreasonably low wages simply because they have been for many years?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom