• 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!

McJobs and the Minimum Wage[W:123,226]

your point of interest in not part of the founders.

the founders are all dead by then
"Taney decided: "the affirmative of these propositions cannot be maintained." According to Taney, the authors of the Constitution had viewed all blacks as "beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.""
 
I understand your need to misinterpret statistics and try to disprove the law of supply and demand. The law of supply and demand is not a conservative or liberal economic belief; it's a fact.
These are facts, read'em and weep:

If sub-minimal wages increased youth employment, it should work across racial lines, but since 1972 it has not decreased white youth unemployment.

unemp+and+min+wage.jpg


Notice that the increases in unemployment for black youths correlates with recessions. Also notice that Black youth unemployment is at the same level now as in 1972.
 
"Taney decided: "the affirmative of these propositions cannot be maintained." According to Taney, the authors of the Constitution had viewed all blacks as "beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.""

really..... WONDER why did most of the states wanted to abolish slavery.

wonder why Fredrick Douglas thought the constitution a great document.

In fact, Douglass argued, the U.S. Constitution was both the founding generation's greatest achievement and the abolitionists' greatest weapon.

'A Glorious Liberty Document' - Reason.com
 
Re: McJobs and the Minimum Wage[W:123]

Oh? So I can't ask question now? Why? Because you cannot answer them right? Seriously. Give it the old college try and tell me what in the hell you expect an employer to do when you raise the cost of paying his labor force?

As for the link. How does that admit to "fixing the stats?" Does that mean that everyone with an agenda changes the stats to suit their needs? Or do you just not have evidence and data to fend off the studies and claims, so instead you just write them off as "right wing propaganda" because it doesn't support what you think it should?

I'm simply asking you to debate and prove your points rather than throwing out the burden of proof of YOUR claims on someone else. It's a rather ****ty and disengenuous debate move tbh... especially when you then blame the other for not doing your homework for you.
 
really..... WONDER why did most of the states wanted to abolish slavery.
Another non-sequitur! Dred Scott was not based on "popularity"...and until 1846, slave states either outnumbered or were equal to the number of free states.

wonder why Fredrick Douglas thought the constitution a great document.

In fact, Douglass argued, the U.S. Constitution was both the founding generation's greatest achievement and the abolitionists' greatest weapon.

'A Glorious Liberty Document' - Reason.com
Sure, I can argue that the Constitution talked the talk of "all men are created equal", but the facts still are that the founders were slave holders, that they did not hold that Blacks (or Women or non-property holding White males) were equal and that is what was found in Dred Scott.

I just do not understand why you keep ignoring these VERY basic facts.

I do understand why though you have completely dropped the min wage discussion.
 
another non-sequitur! Dred scott was not based on "popularity"...and until 1846, slave states either outnumbered or were equal to the number of free states.


Sure, i can argue that the constitution talked the talk of "all men are created equal", but the facts still are that the founders were slave holders, that they did not hold that blacks (or women or non-property holding white males) were equal and that is what was found in dred scott.

I just do not understand why you keep ignoring these very basic facts.

I do understand why though you have completely dropped the min wage discussion.


because i have stated my case, would it bare repeating.
 
lol..

(that has never stopped you before, you seem to love to repeat the same error filled rhetoric over and over...)

its only an error to you,. As you have demonstration that everyone who oppress your view is wrong.....not just me.
 
Wrong. Listen again. He said the young people were black and he wanted to give a lower wage to blacks so they would have a better shot at jobs.

This is what I call a "reveal". This is a moment when the left wants something so badly to be true, that they are able to convince themselves that it is, even when it is so obviously not. Now, the left does this all the time, but it is rare to get something like this, where they cannot throw misleading charts and statistics at you for cover. You have achieved 1984, 2+2=5.
 
hey, i just stating what i see from you........you profess you are right.......ok...your free to feel that way.
Another deeeeeeerrrrrrrr moment, you profess your views are correct too.

Captain Obvious.
 
A little info:

Mr. Williams distinguished himself in the mid-1970s through his research on the effects of the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931—which got the government involved in setting wage levels—and on the impact of minimum-wage law on youth and minority unemployment. He concluded that minimum wages caused high rates of teenage unemployment, particularly among minority teenagers. His research also showed that Davis-Bacon, which requires high prevailing (read: union) wages on federally financed or assisted construction projects, was the product of lawmakers with explicitly racist motivations.

One of Congress's goals at the time was to stop black laborers from displacing whites by working for less money. Missouri Rep. John Cochran said that he had "received numerous complaints in recent months about Southern contractors employing low-paid colored mechanics." And Alabama Rep. Clayton Allgood fretted about contractors with "cheap colored labor . . . of the sort that is in competition with white labor throughout the country."

Today just 17% of construction workers are unionized, but Democratic politicians, in deference to the AFL-CIO, have kept Davis-Bacon in place to protect them. Because most black construction workers aren't union members, however, the law has the effect of freezing them out of jobs. It also serves to significantly increase the costs of government projects, since there are fewer contractors to bid on them than there would be without Davis-Bacon.
 
A little info:
emphasis on the "little"

Mr. Williams distinguished himself in the mid-1970s through his research on the effects of the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931—which got the government involved in setting wage levels—and on the impact of minimum-wage law on youth and minority unemployment. He concluded that minimum wages caused high rates of teenage unemployment, particularly among minority teenagers. His research also showed that Davis-Bacon, which requires high prevailing (read: union) wages on federally financed or assisted construction projects, was the product of lawmakers with explicitly racist motivations.

when davis-bacon imposes a higher that average "prevailing" (yes, it does mean union) wage rate, do you really think a teenager is going to have an edge over a more experienced worker?

you would have us believe that the south, with the nation's lowest rate of unionization, would politically embrace a program which was beneficial to unions. absurd ... to anyone who chooses to ponder it for more than five seconds. crack a book and find out where and when there was significant labor-management hostility, and compare those dates and times to the foolishness you have presented above

One of Congress's goals at the time was to stop black laborers from displacing whites by working for less money. Missouri Rep. John Cochran said that he had "received numerous complaints in recent months about Southern contractors employing low-paid colored mechanics." And Alabama Rep. Clayton Allgood fretted about contractors with "cheap colored labor . . . of the sort that is in competition with white labor throughout the country."

how is this any different from today's environment where low wage employees have their wage rates depressed only because illegal workers are allowed to displace them on the job
in my state, the republican dominated state government is attempting to ease restrictions on employers who hire illegals

how is your presentation different than the argument that china is displacing our better paying manufacturing jobs with their low-wage labor force?


Today just 17% of construction workers are unionized, but Democratic politicians, in deference to the AFL-CIO, have kept Davis-Bacon in place to protect them. Because most black construction workers aren't union members, ...
by your own post we see that most WHITE construction workers are not unionized
you pretend to make a point when you do not

... however, the law has the effect of freezing them [black construction workers] out of jobs.
notably, davis-bacon was passed in the depression [1932]
that date/era is significant because it predated equal rights legislation for blacks by 30+ years
in 1932 EVERTHING served to freeze blacks out of good jobs. DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

on on a federal work site today who thinks the department of labor would tolerate any inkling of racial employment discrimination at federally funded construction projects these days?
only a white hooded conspiracy theorist would accept that such discrimination is remotely possible at the federal workplace today

It also serves to significantly increase the costs of government projects, ...
yes it does. if tuse it predated iscriminatiany inkling of racial employment duse it predated i am paying my construction workers $20 per hour and no benefits on civilian projects, and the "prevailing"/union rate is $25 per hour with medical and vacation benefits, how would that contractor be able to bring in a federal project at civilian work rates? so, you finally got something right in your post


... since there are fewer contractors to bid on them than there would be without Davis-Bacon.
unfortunately, you got this wrong. VERY wrong
EVERY contractor must bid at least the "prevailing" rate for each labor category. effectively, every bidder knows the minimum rates that each other project bidder is forced to bid under davis-bacon
that gives each bidder information they do not have when pricing civilian construction projects
there is NOTHING about davis-bacon which excludes ANY prospective contractor from bidding
davis-bacon does NOTHING to diminish the pool of contractors


it is admittedly a nuanced outcome, but davis-bacon actually enhances innovation in the construction sector
since ever potential project awardee must pay the same wage rate - or higher, at their discretion - the winning bidder is often the one who figures out how to accomplish the statement of work with the fewest labor hours billed
 
This is what I call a "reveal". This is a moment when the left wants something so badly to be true, that they are able to convince themselves that it is, even when it is so obviously not. Now, the left does this all the time, but it is rare to get something like this, where they cannot throw misleading charts and statistics at you for cover. You have achieved 1984, 2+2=5.

Neocons: Working hard to bring back slavery, get Jesus put on the money and in the schools, and force women to have the babies of their rapists. Next up: stone age revisited.
 
Neocons: Working hard to bring back slavery, get Jesus put on the money and in the schools, and force women to have the babies of their rapists. Next up: stone age revisited.

You are just diggin' that hole deeper and deeper. I mean, do you really think that got you any credibility back?
 
Lol considering Republicans are responcible for 70% of the national debt yeah it was Dems spending all the money under Regan, Bush1 and Bush2. Please stop with the conservative anti everything talking points. Americans have caught on to the whole lets drape oursleves in the flag and call ourselves patriots and do the direct opposite! That is why you guys cant find anyone decent enough to run. They get laughed at.

LOL, okay, I'm just going to pat you on your little head and tell you to run along now. Open up a book or something.

Unfortunately, there's so many of you now, you actually win elections. You're just putting a gun to your own head and slowly pulling the trigger. By the time the light bulb goes on for you, you'll hear a bang, and it'll be too late.
 
Can a current business owner please respond to this.

If the employees pay is raised to $15.00 per hour, how much more does the business have to pay out in payroll taxes and other taxes for that employee at that level.

Thanks in advance.
 
You are just diggin' that hole deeper and deeper. I mean, do you really think that got you any credibility back?

Giving you a piece of your own medicine was definitely worth it. Only a very simple minded person sees the whole world as either "for his view of things" or "some sort of evil liberal". Now everyone got to look at my response and my quote of your first comment; and can see just how infantile your assertion was. But just to keep my responses on a more adult level, I will throw you in my ignore bin and make believe you don't exist so I don't get enticed to lower myself to your level. Feel free to get in the last word though even if I won't see it - others might enjoy it. Take care - stay in school, BTW.
 
Giving you a piece of your own medicine was definitely worth it. Only a very simple minded person sees the whole world as either "for his view of things" or "some sort of evil liberal". Now everyone got to look at my response and my quote of your first comment; and can see just how infantile your assertion was. But just to keep my responses on a more adult level, I will throw you in my ignore bin and make believe you don't exist so I don't get enticed to lower myself to your level. Feel free to get in the last word though even if I won't see it - others might enjoy it. Take care - stay in school, BTW.

Could be the oddest response I've ever seen. God only knows what you are talking about. Oh, well, I better get back to reviving slavery, since, you know, that's what we do. LOL!
 
If sub-minimal wages increased youth employment, it should work across racial lines, but since 1972 it has not decreased white youth unemployment.

unemp+and+min+wage.jpg


Notice that the increases in unemployment for black youths correlates with recessions. Also notice that Black youth unemployment is at the same level now as in 1972.

That's because it was never implemented except for narrowly drawn categories for students and the disabled.:peace
 
Can a current business owner please respond to this.

If the employees pay is raised to $15.00 per hour, how much more does the business have to pay out in payroll taxes and other taxes for that employee at that level.

Thanks in advance.

it varies by benefits provided, but as a general rule of thumb, for a basic employee, each $1 paid to the employee will cost the employer about $1.30
 
it varies by benefits provided, but as a general rule of thumb, for a basic employee, each $1 paid to the employee will cost the employer about $1.30


Thanks Bubba


So the $15.00 per hour will acutally be $19.50. All that has to be added to the cost of the product.

Who is going to go for that?
 
Thanks Bubba


So the $15.00 per hour will acutally be $19.50. All that has to be added to the cost of the product.

Who is going to go for that?

One could make this argument against any wage increase ever. Of course that makes business have to spend more on wages. That's the point.

And no, not all of it has to go into product cost.
 
One could make this argument against any wage increase ever. Of course that makes business have to spend more on wages. That's the point.

And no, not all of it has to go into product cost.

Who do you think is going to pay for this raise?
 
Back
Top Bottom