• 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!

Is minimum wage a lot?

Assuming a 40 hour work week, is minimum wage a lot?


  • Total voters
    42
  • Poll closed .
Because that's completely possible when you are working a minimum wage job.

Like I keep saying, many of these people working minimum wage jobs have no business doing so, they are only working them because they have failed to be responsible their entire lives. Other than for reasons entirely beyond one's control, no adult ought to be working a minimum wage job.
 
this means congress........not the executive branch
No one said anything about the executive branch. I see you're still digging up irrelevant side shows in an attempt to divert from a losing battle.


i stated general authority,congress .........if you violate a federal power, or federal law thats pertains to a federal power, or commit treason, the government can punish you, because the constitution states it, however they cannot make federal laws, which are not listed in article 1 section 8 over the people like discrimination laws ....for one.


if you counterfeit, you are violating a federal power

if you commit piracy, you are violating a federal law

if you dont pay income tax you are violating federal law

if you commit treason against the u.s....you can be punished by congress

all of these are listed in the constitution, other then these 4 the congress has no authority over the people


To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason
I see you've finally seen the light. The Fed does, indeed, have authority over the people by your own admission. Your claim is refuted - and that's in your limited little fantasy world that ignores 200+ years of legal decisions and challenges. Case closed.
 
Last edited:
many of these kids might already have college degrees but cannot find employment because there are no openings.
Thats one of those things we like to call "their problem". An employer is not obligated to base their wage levels on whether or not someone was stupid enough to run up 4-5 years of student loan debt to complete a degree in a Liberal Arts field with no plan on how to make that work for themselves.
 
The Rule of Capitalism: Might Makes Right!

So you can call it tyranny if you prefer. Either way, it's not a place where most of us would want to live.

You're still wearing those green colored glasses.

Nope. Might makes right is the progressive mantra, as in "you have something I want, so we'll get the government to take it from you by force."

Capitalism is what happens in an environment of freedom and secure property rights, the exact opposite of slavery and tyranny. Capitalism is what happens when people voluntary trade for mutual benefit rather than initiate violence to take what they want.
 
Nope. Might makes right is the progressive mantra, as in "you have something I want, so we'll get the government to take it from you by force."

Capitalism is what happens in an environment of freedom and secure property rights, the exact opposite of slavery and tyranny. Capitalism is what happens when people voluntary trade for mutual benefit rather than initiate violence to take what they want.
:lamo Physical force isn't the only form of violence, a mistake you and yours constantly make.
 
Physical force isn't the only form of violence, a mistake you and yours constantly make.

You're saying that capitalism is based on violence, and you're full of it.

Capitalism is what occurs when people are secure in their property rights and voluntarily cooperate for mutual benefit.

Violence is what progressives do, which is using force to take from others and using force to punish people for victimless crimes.
 
You're saying that capitalism is based on violence, and you're full of it.
There's those green colored glasses getting in the way, again. It's obvious to anyone who's willing to look that Might Makes Right in a purely capitalistic world - or don't you believe that money is power?

Capitalism is what occurs when people are secure in their property rights and voluntarily cooperate for mutual benefit.
Stand-alone capitalism doesn't provide for security of any kind unless you can buy it. Again, in unfettered capitalism, Might Makes Right.

Violence is what progressives do, which is using force to take from others and using force to punish people for victimless crimes.
Victimless crimes - prostitution, drugs, etc - are one thing. Unfettered capitalism is another. You seem to be confusing the two.
 
There's those green colored glasses getting in the way, again. It's obvious to anyone who's willing to look that Might Makes Right in a purely capitalistic world - or don't you believe that money is power?

Capitalism is what happens under a government that protects property rights and individual liberty. That is the exact opposite of might makes right.

Might makes right is the philosophy of progressives who use the government to take what belongs to others and to punish them for victimless crimes.

Stand-alone capitalism doesn't provide for security of any kind unless you can buy it. Again, in unfettered capitalism, Might Makes Right.

No, that's chaos. Capitalism can only occur in an environment in which government protects property rights and individual liberty.

Capitalism is what happens when people are secure in their property rights and undertake mutually beneficial trade. Secure property rights are the exact opposite of might makes right.

Victimless crimes - prostitution, drugs, etc - are one thing. Unfettered capitalism is another. You seem to be confusing the two.

The term unfettered capitalism is meaningless gibberish. Capitalism can only exist when property rights and individual liberty are secured by the government.
 
Other than for reasons entirely beyond one's control, no adult ought to be working a minimum wage job.

How much money should an adult ought to be making? Follow up question: where can this rule be found?
 
The term unfettered capitalism is meaningless gibberish. Capitalism can only exist when property rights and individual liberty are secured by the government.
Apparently your English and/or internet skills are lacking so I'll help you out. 'Unfettered' means 'without restriction'. Unfettered capitalism is a (real) "free market" system, what you seem to want. Throwing government into the mix is obviously not a "free market".




Capitalism is what happens under a government that protects property rights and individual liberty. That is the exact opposite of might makes right.

Might makes right is the philosophy of progressives who use the government to take what belongs to others and to punish them for victimless crimes.

No, that's chaos. Capitalism can only occur in an environment in which government protects property rights and individual liberty.

Capitalism is what happens when people are secure in their property rights and undertake mutually beneficial trade. Secure property rights are the exact opposite of might makes right.
And this nebulous "government" to which you refer doesn't cost anything? Somehow I just can't see that. Someone, somewhere along the line, has to be paying for this "government" that theoretically protects us from the free marketeers. I just can't see people donating sufficient funds to keep it alive and healthy enough to fight the MegaCorps with (in some cases) their trillions of dollars.



In addition, someone - most likely not the people that need protection by said government - are also paying said government to define what these nebulous "property rights" are.

Should we still be paying Carver's heirs and assigns for each ounce of peanut butter sold? If not, then why can't Google copy parts of the Windows OS to produce a better OS?

Is it OK for my neighbor to crap in his front yard, thereby creating a health hazard for me? It is, after all, his yard regardless of the fact that we share the same water table and breath the same air.

Take off those green glasses and look at the real world for a change.
 
Last edited:
The amount of money a minimum wage pays is the wrong question. The right question is how much profit does and minimum wage job produce. If the return is modest, the wage is fair. If the return is great, there is room to raise the wage. It's all about maintaining a sustainable business model. If the model doesn't sustain it's labor cost, there is no business.
 
The amount of money a minimum wage pays is the wrong question. The right question is how much profit does and minimum wage job produce. If the return is modest, the wage is fair. If the return is great, there is room to raise the wage. It's all about maintaining a sustainable business model. If the model doesn't sustain it's labor cost, there is no business.
What do you call "modest" and "great"? Nebulous terms to say the least.


If all businesses are operating under the same rules then where's the problem? Those businesses with the better model will have more profit and thrive - just as it should be. Minimum wage isn't part of that issue as long as all businesses are subject to it.
 
No one said anything about the executive branch. I see you're still digging up irrelevant side shows in an attempt to divert from a losing battle.


I see you've finally seen the light. The Fed does, indeed, have authority over the people by your own admission. Your claim is refuted - and that's in your limited little fantasy world that ignores 200+ years of legal decisions and challenges. Case closed.

you do not have the ability to refute anything becuase you do not even understand what has been posted.

if you had read it correctly, you would have seen i said legislative authority [congress] , has no general authority over the people.......the executive branch is not congress, and if you violate a federal power article 1 section8 or commit treason, the feds can arrest you.

talk about other people's lack of reading comprehension....look at yours!
 
Apparently your English and/or internet skills are lacking so I'll help you out. 'Unfettered' means 'without restriction'. Unfettered capitalism is a (real) "free market" system, what you seem to want. Throwing government into the mix is obviously not a "free market".

Unfettered capitalism is an oxymoron. If people are lawless and unfettered there can be no secure property rights and individual liberty, and without secure property rights and individual liberty there cannot be capitalism.

You seem to be confusing capitalism with lawless chaos, which might explain your negative opinion of it.


And this nebulous "government" to which you refer doesn't cost anything? Somehow I just can't see that. Someone, somewhere along the line, has to be paying for this "government" that theoretically protects us from the free marketeers. I just can't see people donating sufficient funds to keep it alive and healthy enough to fight the MegaCorps with (in some cases) their trillions of dollars.

In addition, someone - most likely not the people that need protection by said government - are also paying said government to define what these nebulous "property rights" are.

The function of government is to protect the person and property of the citizens so that capitalism can function properly. Without secure property rights, it would be unfettered chaos.

Your comparison of capitalism to slavery is bunk.
 
What do you call "modest" and "great"? Nebulous terms to say the least.


If all businesses are operating under the same rules then where's the problem? Those businesses with the better model will have more profit and thrive - just as it should be. Minimum wage isn't part of that issue as long as all businesses are subject to it.

Actually if you can read a P&L they are quantifiable. Most businesses try to attain a 20% bottom line. Many fast food operations as an example attain a fraction of that. Lots of chains only attain four or five percent. I would think a business with an EBIDTA in excess of 20% shouldn't have minimum wage workers.
 
Actually if you can read a P&L they are quantifiable. Most businesses try to attain a 20% bottom line. Many fast food operations as an example attain a fraction of that. Lots of chains only attain four or five percent. I would think a business with an EBIDTA in excess of 20% shouldn't have minimum wage workers.

i had heard the other day on varney and company., that out of McDonalds revenue:

29% goes on pay

30% on food and paper products/materials

30% on rents.
 
i had heard the other day on varney and company., that out of McDonalds revenue:

29% goes on pay

30% on food and paper products/materials

30% on rents.

I'd have to look at a statement. The standard in the restaurant industry is 10% occupancy costs, 25% labor, 25 to 32% food depending on menu, and a varying percentage of fixed overhead for insurance, utilities ect. McDonalds ends up with a very low profit margin. The truth is they don't make any money on food. The bulk of their profit comes from the sale of soda which has a very high margin, being mostly water. McDonalds corporate is more of a real estate company than a restaurant company. They derive much of their corporate revenue from their real estate holdings.
 
Apparently your English and/or internet skills are lacking so I'll help you out. 'Unfettered' means 'without restriction'. Unfettered capitalism is a (real) "free market" system, what you seem to want. Throwing government into the mix is obviously not a "free market".

You seem to be down on the word "unfettered", but statists like yourself don't mind giving that kind of power to a centralized oppressor. Also, pretty much nobody here wants a market that's completely free. That's a trait of anarcho-capitalism, which very, very few here adhere to. Even the laissez-faire crowd, especially those well-versed in economics, know what market failures are, and the existence of such.

It sounds like you're wanting federal totalitarianism to determine winners and losers. How you consider that to be better is beyond me.
 
How much money should an adult ought to be making? Follow up question: where can this rule be found?

They should be making enough to support themselves and any family they have. It's what being conservative is all about. You know, fiscal responsibility? Seriously?
 
They should be making enough to support themselves and any family they have. It's what being conservative is all about. You know, fiscal responsibility? Seriously?

In theory, that could be $15,080 per year. There really isn't a magical number. You seem reluctant to provide a magic number.

I have never heard of a dead 4 year old that died of starvation because his parents only maybe $15,080 between the two of them. You probably haven't either. I'm not saying it hasn't happened but it hasn't made headlines.
 
if you are 40 and still making minimum wage, you have other problems.

Are you suggesting that a 40 year old man with two kids who quits a job making $55,000 per year in order to get a new job making $15,080 per year is mentally ill or physically handicapped?

Same question, slightly different:

Are you suggesting that a 40 year old man with two kids who is fired from a job making $55,000 per year, then gets a new job making $15,080 per year is mentally ill or physically handicapped?

The logic seems very simplistic.
 
Are you suggesting that a 40 year old man with two kids who quits a job making $55,000 per year in order to get a new job making $15,080 per year is mentally ill or physically handicapped?

Same question, slightly different:

Are you suggesting that a 40 year old man with two kids who is fired from a job making $55,000 per year, then gets a new job making $15,080 per year is mentally ill or physically handicapped?

The logic seems very simplistic.

What in the hell are you talking about?
 
Back
Top Bottom