• 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 .
That's how it works today in the current system, but maybe that's not how it should work. Why should a basketball player earn more money than a soldier? Why should a lawyer who makes his living suing doctors make more money than a nurse who saves lives for a living?

Because life is about reality. Reality is that outside a purely communist society, your skills are worth what others are willing to pay and how much you are willing to accept. Those questions are like asking how in the world did Billy Bob Thornton score with Angelina Jolie or how the heck did Marilyn Manson hook up with Rose McGowan? Just as in real life, they were willing to accept the services of the other.

Skills are like any other commodity. When I was active duty, I was an EOD (Bomb Disposal) tech. I did not get payed much, but I was happy with my job. When I re-enlisted, I signed up for 6 years and was rewarded with a $3000 bonus for doing so. I retired in 1995. Currently, EOD techs typically see in the neighborhood of 80,000 dollars to re-enlist. In addition, they receive all kinds of incentive pays over and above their salary that I did not. Is that "fair"? My skills where the same. My willingness to work was still the same. The difference is that my skills were not in demand at the time. There was no need to offer me incentive pays to continue doing what I did. Now that Afghanistan is winding down, guess what? They are cutting way back on bonuses and incentive pays because those skills are no longer required as much.
At one point, MCSEs and Novell CNEs where getting paid a pretty good amount. Once the market became saturated with them what do you think happened? The market "equalized". Those that were willing to work for what was offered did so. Those that did not had to look elsewhere.
 
You do know an incredibly sizable portion of minimum wage jobs (perhaps half or less than half) are held by those who do not fit description of "high school" or "college kid" nor will be staffed by "high school" or "college kids", right?

The problem is, they're not supposed to be. That's the point. You have people who are holding jobs that they are not supposed to be holding, they should have learned these basic lessons long ago and moved on. If they haven't done so, whose fault is that? It falls directly in their own lap. So since it is their own doing, and I'm excepting people who are in that situation solely because of the financial collapse, why do we have to pay them more when they shot themselves in the foot?
 
"These jobs are supposed to suck" isn't a compelling argument.

They only suck if you're trying to live beyond your means. For people who have very few expenses and very little experience, they're fine jobs. People ought not do things that they cannot afford.
 
The problem is, they're not supposed to be. That's the point. You have people who are holding jobs that they are not supposed to be holding

Who do you expect to "man the fort" during school hours?

they should have learned these basic lessons long ago and moved on. If they haven't done so, whose fault is that? It falls directly in their own lap. So since it is their own doing, and I'm excepting people who are in that situation solely because of the financial collapse, why do we have to pay them more when they shot themselves in the foot?

I wouldn't be one to argue a doubling of the minimum wage, but if it is becoming harder to sustain one's lifestyle through the minimum wage, making sure it can keep at that base level is important.
 
Who do you expect to "man the fort" during school hours?

Back when I was working minimum wage jobs at the local McDonalds, back before I turned 18, there were always people who went to school at night or who wanted a part time job while their kids were at school, to "man the fort". I can't imagine it's any different today.

I wouldn't be one to argue a doubling of the minimum wage, but if it is becoming harder to sustain one's lifestyle through the minimum wage, making sure it can keep at that base level is important.

If you can't sustain your lifestyle through a minimum wage job, something tells me your lifestyle is excessive. The point is that you set up the foundation of your life, get an education, get a basic job, learn the ropes, develop a work ethic, *THEN* you get married, have kids, move out on your own, etc. There are far too many people who are doing it entirely ass-backwards and they think that because they were idiots, they deserve more money to support a lifestyle they never EARNED in the first place.

Hell no.
 
Back when I was working minimum wage jobs at the local McDonalds, back before I turned 18, there were always people who went to school at night or who wanted a part time job while their kids were at school, to "man the fort". I can't imagine it's any different today.

Night school accounts for far less than you think it does, nor does it answer to high school students. The fact of the matter is, minimum wage jobs are not the "kid" jobs we portray them to be.

If you can't sustain your lifestyle through a minimum wage job, something tells me your lifestyle is excessive.

I'd love you to give people that pitch here. Good luck with that. It's damned difficult to find any housing at all on such a wage. They have to fork out about 1k+ a month with minimum wages just a hair above 7 bucks an hour.
 
Night school accounts for far less than you think it does, nor does it answer to high school students. The fact of the matter is, minimum wage jobs are not the "kid" jobs we portray them to be.

They are the starting job. Most people, in the past, who occupied them were kids. Today, many companies that used to employ kids no longer do because there are plenty of people over the age of 18 who are willing to work for those wages and it's more profitable for these companies not to have to worry about work permits and school schedules and limitations on their employee's ability to work a 40 hour work week.

I'd love you to give people that pitch here. Good luck with that. It's damned difficult to find any housing at all on such a wage. They have to fork out about 1k+ a month with minimum wages just a hair above 7 bucks an hour.

I don't care if people accept it, it is the only sustainable solution available. The country has been liberalized to the point where the majority of people think that the government owes people a paycheck. They're wrong. That's why we need personal and financial responsibility to be the standard that is expected of everyone, but when you have a government that has none of it, regardless of the party involved, and we're sailing north of $17 trillion in debt, what do you expect?
 
They are the starting job. Most people, in the past, who occupied them were kids. Today, many companies that used to employ kids no longer do because there are plenty of people over the age of 18 who are willing to work for those wages and it's more profitable for these companies not to have to worry about work permits and school schedules and limitations on their employee's ability to work a 40 hour work week.

That's your vision of it. It is completely inaccurate. What you are trying to argue here is simply idiotic. A massive portion of minimum wage earners are not, are not youth. It does not matter what you think.

I don't care if people accept it, it is the only sustainable solution available. The country has been liberalized to the point where the majority of people think that the government owes people a paycheck. They're wrong. That's why we need personal and financial responsibility to be the standard that is expected of everyone, but when you have a government that has none of it, regardless of the party involved, and we're sailing north of $17 trillion in debt, what do you expect?

If you can't live on it, it is not a meaningful minimum wage. Again, your statement that someone's lifestyle is too extravagant, when they can't even get a place to live with that money, is beyond idiotic.
 
Nobody is cutting the experienced worker's salaries. What are you arguing - that they would be jealous? Green with envy?

My sympathies lie with the destitute and starving, not with the people who might be jealous that those on the bottom rung of society are getting lifted up to a livable standard.

You missed my point. It is about pay equality for the experienced. If you raise the entry level workers pay, you are devaluing the worth of a more experienced worker with more responsibilities. I thought you would have understood that.

While I can understand your concern for the destitute and starving, there are programs already in place to assist them. Let’s give the teenager who has never had a job, who lives at home and eats the parents food more money. If you think the typical teenagers will save the money for the future or for higher education, I have some beach front property in Wyoming for you to buy.:mrgreen:
 
That's your vision of it. It is completely inaccurate. What you are trying to argue here is simply idiotic. A massive portion of minimum wage earners are not, are not youth. It does not matter what you think.

It doesn't matter what you think either. The only reason that they are not youth, as they used to be, is because the culture has changed to allow people who are older to still hold these jobs. The culture has failed people.

If you can't live on it, it is not a meaningful minimum wage. Again, your statement that someone's lifestyle is too extravagant, when they can't even get a place to live with that money, is beyond idiotic.

You're not supposed to even try to live on it. Clearly you're just not paying attention to anything I'm saying so I won't say any more.
 
Because life is about reality. Reality is that outside a purely communist society, your skills are worth what others are willing to pay and how much you are willing to accept. Those questions are like asking how in the world did Billy Bob Thornton score with Angelina Jolie or how the heck did Marilyn Manson hook up with Rose McGowan? Just as in real life, they were willing to accept the services of the other.

Skills are like any other commodity. When I was active duty, I was an EOD (Bomb Disposal) tech. I did not get payed much, but I was happy with my job. When I re-enlisted, I signed up for 6 years and was rewarded with a $3000 bonus for doing so. I retired in 1995. Currently, EOD techs typically see in the neighborhood of 80,000 dollars to re-enlist. In addition, they receive all kinds of incentive pays over and above their salary that I did not. Is that "fair"? My skills where the same. My willingness to work was still the same. The difference is that my skills were not in demand at the time. There was no need to offer me incentive pays to continue doing what I did. Now that Afghanistan is winding down, guess what? They are cutting way back on bonuses and incentive pays because those skills are no longer required as much.
At one point, MCSEs and Novell CNEs where getting paid a pretty good amount. Once the market became saturated with them what do you think happened? The market "equalized". Those that were willing to work for what was offered did so. Those that did not had to look elsewhere.


You're right, that's the real world. My point is just to say free market capitalism isn't perfect, so sometimes a managed approach is better.
 
You missed my point. It is about pay equality for the experienced. If you raise the entry level workers pay, you are devaluing the worth of a more experienced worker with more responsibilities. I thought you would have understood that.

While I can understand your concern for the destitute and starving, there are programs already in place to assist them. Let’s give the teenager who has never had a job, who lives at home and eats the parents food more money. If you think the typical teenagers will save the money for the future or for higher education, I have some beach front property in Wyoming for you to buy.:mrgreen:

I think an exception should be made for teens with summer jobs, they should continue to make the current salary.
 
It doesn't matter what you think either. The only reason that they are not youth, as they used to be, is because the culture has changed to allow people who are older to still hold these jobs. The culture has failed people.

So you're contradicting yourself openly, but only so as to maintain the incredibly silly notion that you are right.

You're not supposed to even try to live on it. Clearly you're just not paying attention to anything I'm saying so I won't say any more.

A worker who is working over full time hours on minimum wage is not supposed to live on it? Dear lord man, how ignorant you are. The entire time the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 was being created, Perkins was charged with ensuring that cost-of-living was the barometer of the minimum wage drafting.

Your historical ignorance and facile approach to policy just shines, doesn't it?
 
Night school accounts for far less than you think it does, nor does it answer to high school students. The fact of the matter is, minimum wage jobs are not the "kid" jobs we portray them to be.

You are correct.Minimum wage was enacted during FDR's new deal.I seriously doubt new deal democrats were concerned about highschool and college kids and young single adults getting ripped off or exploited businesses,especially seeing how most people back then did not graduate highschool. Many minimum wage increase opponents and minimum wage opponents love to spew the lie that minimum wage is a training wage or only meant for people with no financial responsibilities.

Minimum wage | LII / Legal Information Institute

The national minimum wage was created by Congress under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in 1938. Congress enacted this legislation under its Constitutional grant of authority to regulate interstate commerce. FLSA was a comprehensive federal scheme which provided for minimum wages, overtime pay, record keeping requirements, and child labor regulations. The purpose of the minimum wage was to stabilize the post-depression economy and protect the workers in the labor force. The minimum wage was designed to create a minimum standard of living to protect the health and well-being of employees. Others have argued that the primary purpose was to aid the lowest paid of the nation's working population, those who lacked sufficient bargaining power to secure for themselves a minimum subsistence wage.
 
You're not supposed to even try to live on it. Clearly you're just not paying attention to anything I'm saying so I won't say any more.
That is a blatant lie.

Minimum wage | LII / Legal Information Institute
The national minimum wage was created by Congress under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in 1938. Congress enacted this legislation under its Constitutional grant of authority to regulate interstate commerce. FLSA was a comprehensive federal scheme which provided for minimum wages, overtime pay, record keeping requirements, and child labor regulations. The purpose of the minimum wage was to stabilize the post-depression economy and protect the workers in the labor force. The minimum wage was designed to create a minimum standard of living to protect the health and well-being of employees. Others have argued that the primary purpose was to aid the lowest paid of the nation's working population, those who lacked sufficient bargaining power to secure for themselves a minimum subsistence wage.
 
You're right, that's the real world. My point is just to say free market capitalism isn't perfect, so sometimes a managed approach is better.

Given that you are clueless regarding free market capitalism, your managed logic fails miserably.
 
You're right, that's the real world. My point is just to say free market capitalism isn't perfect, so sometimes a managed approach is better.

While I have the same concerns as you concerning the trulypoor and destitute, I am pragmatic enough to realize that raising minimum wage does not help them in the long term. It simply makes their poverty a little more tolerable for the short term and does nothing to break the cycle.
How about these suggestions:
Offer daycare to these parents so they can attend parent/teacher meetings at their children's school. Ensure businesses make allowances for the parents to attend?How about tutors for school age children? Supplemental income for thise enrolled in apprenticeships/vocational skills programs? Lots of ways we can try to break the cycle.
 
minimum wage--unconstitutional

however minimum wage, is designed for those entering the job market for the first time..

it is for those, who are learning how to work and for a comapny and with other people, how to be responsible, dependable.

it was not designed to be a wage, to live on with a family at all.
 
minimum wage--unconstitutional

Hasn't been struck down yet.

however minimum wage, is designed for those entering the job market for the first time..

Uh, nein.

it is for those, who are learning how to work and for a comapny and with other people, how to be responsible, dependable.

No, it was designed so as to provide a safe wage to workers, accounting for a cost of living.

it was not designed to be a wage, to live on with a family at all.

So, when they were drafting this legislation in '38, this bared no thought whatsoever?
 
Hasn't been struck down yet.

the constitution of the founders applied no force to the people....

Uh, nein.

ok, i will rephrase, it is looked at as an entry level wage.

No, it was designed so as to provide a safe wage to workers, accounting for a cost of living.

what is safe........[subjective]

So, when they were drafting this legislation in '38, this bared no thought whatsoever?

this these were ideas were to help people get elected, many socialist ideas, federal and state were put forth during the 1930's...during america's worst decade.

and are still a tool today to buy votes.............today's new tool name --> income equality
 
the constitution of the founders applied no force to the people....

I am not entirely certain where you are going with this. Are you suggesting there was no force put on to the people in the form of regulations? If so, you would be far mistaken. In regard to the Constitutionality of the minimum wage, it is the duty of the Courts to make that determination (along with the populace to drive a test case forward). As there has been no interest, aside from a minority of libertarians on this matter, any pontification about the unconstitutionality of the minimum wage are null and void of merit.


ok, i will rephrase, it is looked at as an entry level wage.

Meant to sustain cost of living.

what is safe........[subjective]

Indeed, which is why Perkins and her advisers sought to make that determination in the first place, right?


this these were ideas were to help people get elected, many socialist ideas, federal and state were put forth during the 1930's...during america's worst decade.

and are still a tool today to buy votes.............today's new tool name --> income equality

So you are thereby admitting that families were a concern for the legislation in 1938, thereby making your previous statement completely and utterly inaccurate? By all means, make the ultimately hopeless argument that the minimum wage is a horrible, evil concept, but let's not pretend you were in any way on the right track with your arguments.
 
I am not entirely certain where you are going with this. Are you suggesting there was no force put on to the people in the form of regulations? If so, you would be far mistaken. In regard to the Constitutionality of the minimum wage, it is the duty of the Courts to make that determination (along with the populace to drive a test case forward). As there has been no interest, aside from a minority of libertarians on this matter, any pontification about the unconstitutionality of the minimum wage are null and void of merit.

the constitution applies no force to the people and it gave no power to the federal government to apply force to "we the people"

all federal laws, which can be made that pertain the delegated powers of congress, and those powers, have nothing to do with the personal life's of the people.

federalist 45--"The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State"

Meant to sustain cost of living.

not for a family of 4.

Indeed, which is why Perkins and her advisers sought to make that determination in the first place, right?

i never knew government was empowered to make decisions, for the people concerning their personal life's?........which they are not

So you are thereby admitting that families were a concern for the legislation in 1938, thereby making your previous statement completely and utterly inaccurate? By all means, make the ultimately hopeless argument that the minimum wage is a horrible, evil concept, but let's not pretend you were in any way on the right track with your arguments.

no i said, people were elected becuase they created ideas, of giving things to the people in their interest, and people will always work, look for things which are in their interest at the expense of laws, and other people.
 
Last edited:
Once Rush Limbaugh proclaimed that a person can make any income that they want to make. It only takes 10 year of preparation. If a person wants to make $250,000, start preparing now and that person will be there in 10 years. If a person wants to make less it won't take as long. On June 14, 2010 a specific person that earns $16,302 per year made the goal of obtaining an income of $31,200 within by June 14, 2015. This seems to be a realistic goal but is it even a worthwhile goal? If this person's income increases by $14,898 this person's lifestyle doesn't change. Here are the facts conveniently located in this post for easy comparison. The numbers are based upon 2013 federal tax law and 2013 North Carolina tax law. See data below:

Current situation
Salary $16,302.00
Spouse's salary $13,500.00
Social security tax $1,937.13
Medicare tax $432.13
Federal tax $0.00
Additional child tax credit $2,000.00
Earned income credit $3,907.00
North Carolina income tax $830.00
NC Child tax credit $200.00
NC Earned Income Credit $175.82
Total cash received $32,885.62
Food Stamp benefit $1,008.00
Total economic value $33,893.62

Desired situation
Salary $31,200.00
Spouse's salary $13,500.00
Social security tax $2,771.40
Medicare tax $648.15
Federal tax $0.00
Additional child tax credit $307.00
Earned income credit $0.00
North Carolina income tax $1,798.00
NC Child tax credit $200.00
NC Earned Income Credit $0.00
Total cash received $39,989.45
Food Stamp benefit $0.00
Total economic value $39,989.45
 
ok, i will rephrase, it is looked at as an entry level wage.

Who looked at it that way? The people opposed to minimum wage and the people opposed to minimum wage increases?



and are still a tool today to buy votes.............today's new tool name --> income equality

Everything an elected official campaigns on is to buy votes.
 
Back
Top Bottom