• 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!

Compromise Proposal on Minimum Wage Hikes

For or against the proposed compromise on minimum wage hikes?

  • Total voters
    15
cpwill

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
75,623
Reaction score
39,896
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Right, so, it seems that the basic argument in favor of raising the minimum wage seems to boil down to:

It is damn nigh impossible to raise a family on minimum wage, yet some people in our economy are forced to attempt to do just that​

and the basic argument against minimum wage is:

minimum wage hikes make labor more expensive, reducing demand by employers - you'll help some workers at the expense of others​

SO

Let's expand the Earned Income Tax Credit, and have it applied on a monthly basis to paychecks (instead of in a lump sum in April), so that it actually helps you live and raise a family throughout the course of the year.

We encourage work, we don't discourage hiring of poorer workers, and we give low-income families the boost they need. Both sides' goals are achieved.





Dammit - Mods, can you add the poll? Forgot to hit the button. Options:

Left-leaning For
Left-leaning Against
Right-leaning For
Right-leaning Against
 
I like the Earned Income Tax Credit. We have seen how increased pay tends to simply reduce the number of hours worked. Working more hours at higher pay simply leads to less government benefits and little change in quality of life. But earned income credit encourages work and adds to one's income in real terms.
 
I'm more in favor of a tiered minimum wage. Set it at $15. 16 year olds can get 7.50 an hour raising 10% per year of the difference until 25. So you can still get cheap labor but it will truly be unskilled.
 
I'm fine with modest updates (dramatic updates tend to produce equally dramatic outcries, and probably less in regard to actual substantive improvements in the quality of living), and at the state level fine with it being checked to cost of living. Your proposal, on the other hand, I am unsure. This is mostly on behalf of it being a matter of uncertainty with practicality, and a lack of knowledge on how it would substantively would work for a person filling out necessary information in order to receive the credits.

As such, it is perhaps my imagination which prevents me from siding positively.
 
Interesting topic. I need to learn more first.
 
Crovax said:
I'm more in favor of a tiered minimum wage. Set it at $15. 16 year olds can get 7.50 an hour raising 10% per year of the difference until 25. So you can still get cheap labor but it will truly be unskilled.
Click to expand...

If you set the minimum wage at $15, then it makes it worth my while to take a 2nd job. Where as right now I cant be bothered.

But for $15/hr, 12-15/week, I'd do so, at least in the winter. That's an extra ~750/month for hobbies.

And thus I would be taking the job of someone that actually might need that job.

Just one reason that raising the minimum wage that high for unskilled labor will not necessarily provide higher paying jobs for unskilled labor...all of a sudden, those jobs are attractive to 'skilled labor.'
 
Lursa said:
If you set the minimum wage at $15, then it makes it worth my while to take a 2nd job. Where as right now I cant be bothered.

But for $15/hr, 12-15/week, I'd do so, at least in the winter. That's an extra ~750/month for hobbies.

And thus I would be taking the job of someone that actually might need that job.

Just one reason that raising the minimum wage that high for unskilled labor will not necessarily provide higher paying jobs for unskilled labor...all of a sudden, those jobs are attractive to 'skilled labor.'
Click to expand...

If someone is only working 12-15 hours a week at minimum wage then they would never be able to support themselves anyways. So them having that job is not helping them and it's definitely not helping the company since since they are probably nearly worthless as an employee anyways.
 
What happened to non-left or right leaning persons?



As I have pointed out many times, according to the federal government, single persons OR married persons (who both work) with up to three children are above the poverty line if they work full time at present minimum wage ($7.25/hr.) jobs.

If minimum wage is enough for people to live above the poverty line then it does not need to be raised on moral grounds.

Minimum wage is not for excelling...it's for surviving.

And according to the government, it is more then enough for responsible people to survive on.


Plus, raising the minimum wage hurts jobs cording to the CBO (and common sense, IMO).

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44995


So the present minimum wqge is sufficient for survival AND raising it largely hurts jobs...both according to the government.

Nothing more needs to be said, IMO.
 
Last edited:
Allowing lower skilled work to yield higher pay is not a good goal regardless of how that is to be forced by the gov't. The idea is to get folks to be more productive in order to get that bigger paycheck - not to simply make a (part time?) McJob into a lower middle class career.
 
cpwill said:
Right, so, it seems that the basic argument in favor of raising the minimum wage seems to boil down to:

It is damn nigh impossible to raise a family on minimum wage, yet some people in our economy are forced to attempt to do just that​

and the basic argument against minimum wage is:

minimum wage hikes make labor more expensive, reducing demand by employers - you'll help some workers at the expense of others​

SO

Let's expand the Earned Income Tax Credit, and have it applied on a monthly basis to paychecks (instead of in a lump sum in April), so that it actually helps you live and raise a family throughout the course of the year.

We encourage work, we don't discourage hiring of poorer workers, and we give low-income families the boost they need. Both sides' goals are achieved.





Dammit - Mods, can you add the poll? Forgot to hit the button. Options:

Left-leaning For
Left-leaning Against
Right-leaning For
Right-leaning Against
Click to expand...

If I understand you correctly, you are proposing that the government should abandon their attempt to fix prices and just create another government entitlement program.

Frankly, I don't support either alternative.
 
Crovax said:
If someone is only working 12-15 hours a week at minimum wage then they would never be able to support themselves anyways. So them having that job is not helping them and it's definitely not helping the company since since they are probably nearly worthless as an employee anyways.
Click to expand...

It's part time and they could have 2 or 3 people doing that instead of 1. 2 or 3 people, skilled or unskilled....so nobody gets a living wage job (regarding that position/time slot).

These days, very very few hourly jobs are 40 hr/week. Most employers keep it below 32 so they dont have to pay the benefits for a 'full time' employee.

And btw, the skilled employee, even with other skill sets, is probably more valuable and can often do a better job. "Unskilled labor" should not remain unskilled. If they do, there are usually reasons.
 
Last edited:
I am largely for expanding the EITC, but I am not sure how we can afford to do so.
 
Lursa said:
It's part time and they could have 2 or 3 people doing that instead of 1. 2 or 3 people, skilled or unskilled....so nobody gets a living wage job (regarding that position/time slot).

These days, very very few hourly jobs are 40 hr/week. Most employers keep it below 32 so they dont have to pay the benefits for a 'full time' employee.

And btw, the skilled employee, even with other skill sets, is probably more valuable and can often do a better job. "Unskilled labor" should not remain unskilled. If they do, there are usually reasons.
Click to expand...

The "skilled" employee in this scenario is also working another full time job so the energy level and stress level is not what is should be not to mention since it is just extra spending money there is no investment in the job. I would much rather hire a full time or full part time (34 hours) than 2 or 3 people at 15 hours. It takes too much time to train and most people flame out anyways and have all sorts of BS to deal with. If someone applies at my store with a second job it's a given that they are pretty much worthless, I haven't seen many people with 2 jobs last more than a month.
 
Crovax said:
The "skilled" employee in this scenario is also working another full time job so the energy level and stress level is not what is should be not to mention since it is just extra spending money there is no investment in the job. I would much rather hire a full time or full part time (34 hours) than 2 or 3 people at 15 hours. It takes too much time to train and most people flame out anyways and have all sorts of BS to deal with. If someone applies at my store with a second job it's a given that they are pretty much worthless, I haven't seen many people with 2 jobs last more than a month.
Click to expand...

The jobs dont take that much 'investment' and working smarter is usually more efficient. And how much someone discloses and how they come across in interview AND how they do jobs is an individual thing. Perhaps you hired poorly.

Alot of people actually take pride in their work, no matter what it is. Those people tend to get ahead and become 'skilled' workers. Hence, a track record in quality.
 
Lursa said:
The jobs dont take that much 'investment' and working smarter is usually more efficient. And how much someone discloses and how they come across in interview AND how they do jobs is an individual thing. Perhaps you hired poorly.
Click to expand...

I hire what breathes (and can pass a drug test), I've got about 20 full time openings right now. So I've seen it all and the ones with 2nd jobs just never last.

Alot of people actually take pride in their work, no matter what it is. Those people tend to get ahead and become 'skilled' workers. Hence, a track record in quality.
Click to expand...

If you are getting ahead why would you need the 2nd job any energy should be expended to further your career at your 1st job. Very few have the stamina to work 60 hours a week especially if a chunk of it is manual labor and the ones who do usually won't do it for 7.25 an hour
 
Crovax said:
I hire what breathes (and can pass a drug test), I've got about 20 full time openings right now. So I've seen it all and the ones with 2nd jobs just never last.



If you are getting ahead why would you need the 2nd job any energy should be expended to further your career at your 1st job. Very few have the stamina to work 60 hours a week especially if a chunk of it is manual labor and the ones who do usually won't do it for 7.25 an hour
Click to expand...

LOL

Office workers? No energy left for exercise after work? Many do, paid or not

And it's ALL about motivation. Our winters are dark and wet and I dont have that much to do in those evenings....and I have some very expensive hobbies. I would seriously consider a job at a check out register (and yes I do know how stringent the requirements are for the big chains) or customer service, etc.

Not only that, I would be very professional and have a high standard of quality for anything I do. And I'm not an exception.
 
What is needed is for the government to employ everyone who wants to work who cannot find work. Use the Federal Reserve printing press for something constructive.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Allowing lower skilled work to yield higher pay is not a good goal regardless of how that is to be forced by the gov't. The idea is to get folks to be more productive in order to get that bigger paycheck - not to simply make a (part time?) McJob into a lower middle class career.
Click to expand...

the point being that by increasing the return, you encourage more to actually labor. Better EITC than Unemployment, TANF, etc. as a way of life.
 
Crovax said:
I'm more in favor of a tiered minimum wage. Set it at $15. 16 year olds can get 7.50 an hour raising 10% per year of the difference until 25. So you can still get cheap labor but it will truly be unskilled.
Click to expand...

The results of this system will be to disadvantage low-education adults in favor of middle-class white kids.
 
In theory as it would not change anything other than timing it could make sense.
But in reality the company is obliged to provide funds with no means of recovering it. And its figured annually as its very possible that the person's income varies at any given point in the year. And there could be multiple employers if the person has a series of seasonal jobs. Now ee need some sort of tracking.
As the average time in minwage is 2 months is any of this important ?

All that being said you have to be applauded for out of the box thinking. You should run 4 congress. Obviously smarter than the guys there.
 
cpwill said:
Right, so, it seems that the basic argument in favor of raising the minimum wage seems to boil down to:

It is damn nigh impossible to raise a family on minimum wage, yet some people in our economy are forced to attempt to do just that​

and the basic argument against minimum wage is:

minimum wage hikes make labor more expensive, reducing demand by employers - you'll help some workers at the expense of others​

SO

Let's expand the Earned Income Tax Credit, and have it applied on a monthly basis to paychecks (instead of in a lump sum in April), so that it actually helps you live and raise a family throughout the course of the year.

We encourage work, we don't discourage hiring of poorer workers, and we give low-income families the boost they need. Both sides' goals are achieved.





Dammit - Mods, can you add the poll? Forgot to hit the button. Options:

Left-leaning For
Left-leaning Against
Right-leaning For
Right-leaning Against
Click to expand...

That's a very interesting proposal, sir. One that hadn't crossed my mind. I'd like to learn more about it, but I think I'd be totally cool with that.
 
I don't see proposals to raise the minimum wage as anything but a sham to get more votes for the politicians that support it. In the end, after the inflation that raising the minimum wages causes, the only thing that changes is the value of money and we're back where we started.
 
cpwill said:
the point being that by increasing the return, you encourage more to actually labor. Better EITC than Unemployment, TANF, etc. as a way of life.
Click to expand...

That sounds wonderful but those programs will not end - it will simply make a McJob pay some[/i} folks better at the expense of others.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That sounds wonderful but those programs will not end - it will simply make a McJob pay some[/i} folks better at the expense of others.
Click to expand...


...you are correct that the programs will not end, their need will simply lessen, as it did when we enacted pro-work welfare reform in the 90s.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom