• 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!

The Real Argument For Raising The Minimum Wage

The idea that states rights is silly because states best represent the interests of their inhabitants?

States represent the best interests of their inhabitants? Yeah, tell that to minorities in the 50's.
 
States represent the best interests of their inhabitants? Yeah, tell that to minorities in the 50's.

Theyre the minority of the population in the state. Duh.

But the minimum wage has nothing to do with rights being infringed, so that comparison is faulty.
 
Theyre the minority of the population in the state. Duh.

But the minimum wage has nothing to do with rights being infringed, so that comparison is faulty.

So it's ok for states to segregate and mistreat minorities because they're not white? This is why we need a strong federal government.
 
So it's ok for states to segregate and mistreat minorities because they're not white? This is why we need a strong federal government.

No it's not OK for states to step on the fourteenth amendment. But it is okay for states to set their minimum wage laws as they please.

And it was states that have always led civil rights things and what not, the federal government always lagged behind in that regard, and still lags behind in many issues today. This is why we shouldnt have a strong fed.
 
No it's not OK for states to step on the fourteenth amendment. But it is okay for states to set their minimum wage laws as they please.

And it was states that have always led civil rights things and what not, the federal government always lagged behind in that regard, and still lags behind in many issues today. This is why we shouldnt have a strong fed.

:lamo
States have to follow the federal minimum, my point is that removing the federal minimum will simply cause red states to not raise the MW at all. Why should they? They don't tend to give a damn about those in need.
Yeah, liberal states did indeed lead civil right movements. How do you think we force other states to stop being so backwards? The federal government.
 
We could easily get all those jobs back if the stupid American workers would just work at competitive wages with the people in Bangladesh, Pakistan, Vietnam, India or China.

Surely you're joking.

The hourly-wage* on the shop-floor in China varies between 187 and 270 dollars per month (in 2014)!

'Nuff said? Or do you need more explanation as to why we cannot compete with the Chinese in certain manufactured goods ... ?

*From here: A Complete Guide to Minimum Wage Levels Across China 2014 (at 1 CNY = 0.153079 USD).
 
So it's ok for states to segregate and mistreat minorities because they're not white? This is why we need a strong federal government.

Human Rights are universal, as indicated in the UN's Declaration of Human Rights (in 1947) that the United States signed - and promptly dumped into the collective waste-bin of history.

Particularly Articles 22 through 26 of said declaration:
Article 22.

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23.

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24.

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26.

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

It's quite a document - everybody should read it ...
 
Last edited:
Surely you're joking.

The hourly-wage* on the shop-floor in China varies between 187 and 270 dollars per month (in 2014)!

'Nuff said? Or do you need more explanation as to why we cannot compete with the Chinese in certain manufactured goods ... ?

*From here: A Complete Guide to Minimum Wage Levels Across China 2014 (at 1 CNY = 0.153079 USD).

I most assuredly was joking, Lafayette...or more correctly, being sarcastic/ironic.

And don't call me Shirley.
 
Human Rights are universal, as indicated in the UN's Declaration of Human Rights (in 1947) that the United States signed - and promptly dumped into the collective waste-bin of history.

Particularly Articles 22 through 26 of said declaration:


It's quite a document - everybody should read it ...

Not at all, no one here should read it.

The constitution trumps that stupid list full of non existent rights here in the US.
 
so as a business owner, you dont feel it is your responsibility to give youngsters (teenagers in school) a chance at learning what a real job is?

you think mom and pop stores are going to hire them for $ 12-15 hour?

there is a reason lower wage jobs exist....they are low to no skill jobs....beginner jobs....jobs ANYONE can do

they were supposed to be the stepping stones and the learning blocks for our teenagers to have an idea on what having a job, and a boss was like

and in the meantime, it allowed them to earn a few bucks for dates, cd's, whatever teens spend their money on nowadays

every summer i hire 6-8 from the local schools.....and they make a flat $ 8 bucks an hour

they do everything from yard maintenance, to filing, to miscellaneous jobs around the dealership

those that want to are allowed to learn data entry, or basic lube jobs, or how parts are catalogued and maintained

i only hire juniors and seniors....and i always get a few back after graduation looking for real jobs

those positions wouldnt be there at $ 15 bucks an hour....period.

I hope all of you understand business guys like me do what we can....but we arent stupid

And we arent going to give those kids those type of jobs if the wages dont make economic sense for ME
Your post brought Ecclesiastes to my mind.

"If the axe is dull, and it's edge unsharpened, more strength is needed. But skill will bring sucess."

Minimum wage jobs are a place to learn work ethics, punctuality, thrift, budgeting, and should be undesirable enough to fuel the desire to sharpen your axe. Mediocrity should suck.
 
Your post brought Ecclesiastes to my mind.

"If the axe is dull, and it's edge unsharpened, more strength is needed. But skill will bring sucess."

Minimum wage jobs are a place to learn work ethics, punctuality, thrift, budgeting, and should be undesirable enough to fuel the desire to sharpen your axe. Mediocrity should suck.

i agree

it should suck bad enough, that you want to do whatever you can to get away from those kind of jobs

but we need those kind of jobs to give them the first experiences of a real job....

what it means to follow orders, show up on time, do things the right way, and learn new skills
 
The minimum wage is something I have gone back and forth on over the years. One of the reasons for my flip flopping was I was basing my opinions on the politics and ethics of it all rather than the numbers.

Liberals say people deserve a living wage. If you work 40 hrs a week, regardless of what that job is, you should be able to afford the very basics of life. That makes sense to me.

Conservatives say minimum wage jobs are not meant to be careers. They are supposed to be transition jobs for young people or perhaps extra money for the retired. If you want to earn more than a burger flipper than you need to acquire additional skills. That makes sense.

Liberals say but the majority of people working minimum wage jobs are NOT young people. They are often single mothers who can't afford to take the time and expense to pick up new skills. And besides, the economy needs burger flippers. It is a legitimate job so people doing that job should earn a livable wage. I agree with that.

Conservatives say increasing the minimum wage doesn't fix any of those problems. It is just raises costs and devalues the dollar so we are back where we started. That seems rational.

Then I started ignoring my emotions and "common sense" on the matter and began looking at the actual numbers. Increases in minimum wages on the large scale don't seem to result in a loss of jobs. And while prices do go up as inflation trucks along, it isn't a 1 to 1 correlation. So by the numbers increases in minimum wage seem to net a positive impact....so far.

I say so far because our minimum wage increases haven't been extreme. Obviously if we changed the minimum wage to $1,000/hr it would destroy our economy over night. So obviously somewhere between $1,000/hr and $7.25/hr there is a line. At that line there will be zero net effect. Below that line is a positive net effect and above that line is a negative net effect. I am also pretty damn sure that line is much closer to $7.25/hr than it is to $1,000/hr. Does $15/hr cross that line? I don't know. I don't think it does. But it is hard to predict the future. I do think it is worth testing. I think in the long run it would benefit our society to find out where that line is.

Job Losses from Minimum Wage Increases Worse than Reported | NFIB

the job losses are real and the jobs that would have been created and not hurts even more.
you can't demand more pay than the job requires without suffering issues.

More on the minimum wage-related job losses on the West Coast, and why they might be worse than reported - AEI | Carpe Diem Blog » AEIdeas
 
You dont have a right to make your employer pay you a certain wage.

Only because it is not written into law, quite unlike the 192 other countries who have a Minimum Wage.

What's so special about the US? Aside from the 50 million men, women and children incarcerated below the Poverty Threshold, because there is No Minimum Wage.

How comforting it must be to blind oneself of the sad facts of Income Disparity in America.

PS: I suppose you don't think American workers should have the right to unionize either ... ?
 
Job Losses from Minimum Wage Increases Worse than Reported | NFIB

the job losses are real and the jobs that would have been created and not hurts even more.
you can't demand more pay than the job requires without suffering issues.

More on the minimum wage-related job losses on the West Coast, and why they might be worse than reported - AEI | Carpe Diem Blog » AEIdeas

Those job losses were inevitable anyway though, which you're leaving out. Outsourcing and automation are the natural cycle of work in America, regardless of what the wage is.
 
A minimum wage of $15 per hour, results in an annual wage of $31,200, just about $7K above the Poverty Threshold for a family of four.

It's a decent wage, no more nor any less. And it is certainly time for the US to "catch-up" with the rest of the developed nations, including the 192 "other" UN countries that have one ...

If a person cant get a better job than minimum wage they seriously need to be looking at their skill set , or rather the lack of a skillset. And they should be doing that before they have kids. minimum wage jobs are not jobs to live on.
With even just some basic skills a person can get a much better job than min wage. Maybe not everywhere but most places.
 
Sez you.

What consummate ignorance ...

No says the entire American population.

The constitution is the supreme law of our land, not this moronic dump that as you say, we have all but forgotten over here.

What incredible ignorance of the American system of government...
 
Only because it is not written into law, quite unlike the 192 other countries who have a Minimum Wage.

What's so special about the US? Aside from the 50 million men, women and children incarcerated below the Poverty Threshold, because there is No Minimum Wage.

How comforting it must be to blind oneself of the sad facts of Income Disparity in America.

PS: I suppose you don't think American workers should have the right to unionize either ... ?

*bold* I'm not blind to the disparity here; I just don't see it as such an issue. People can get an education and move up, otherwise the bottom is right where they belong.

*underlined* Then you suppose wrong. American workers have every right to band together. Making a union isn't something in which government forces unwilling participants to do something that the government does not have the power to force them to do. A union is workers coming together by their own consent. Minimum wage laws are entirely different from unions. Minimum wage laws are a bastardly over reach of the federal government in which it forces employers to have to pay people beyond what they may be owed. No one has a right to have someone else be forced to pay them more. In fact, that's the very antithesis of rights. Unions are not, and unions are therefor A OK.

Such is why I can't stand snobbish Europeans who look down on a country so bigger than them that they would be quashed if we so chose.
 
Found this article by John Harvey. Been reading some of his stuff lately, I find it very compelling.
Forbes Welcome

All to often, we look at the minimum wage as being negative or positive. We tend to leave it at that.
Here's what we can squash right now:


Virtually all libertarians and some conservatives believe we need to eliminate the minimum wage to "create more jobs." This is laughable:


Can't argue with him there.


That's how I look at it, although I will not deny the fact that giving the people who tend to spend the most of their income more dollars to spend will indeed be helpful.

Republicans want to gut public assistance, not raise the minimum wage, and "balance the budget." Let me make that clear..

well, I'm a Libertarian, and i've never once argued eliminating a minimum wage would "create more jobs"....I've always, for more years than i can remember, argued against arbitrary wage floors, primarily because I believe wage floors gives management a "target" to achieve without further investigation as to whether or not it's a fair wage to pay based on job duties or qualifications.
it's an easy target to hit for lazy management ( the most common kind of management in existence)" oh well ,the law says i have to pay this, so that's what i'm gonna pay".... it replaces critical thought into compensation.

my other argument against minimum wages is that i'm opposed to paying any hourly wage...

in our business, we don't pay hourly wages to anyone, including my low/unskilled skilled positions... not only is that very good for employees, but it's very good for the business.
sure, it takes a lot more thinking and planning to ensure fair compensation is rewarded for production ... but damn it's worth it for everyone involved.....well, except people who are looking to earn money just by being present... those type of employees don't last long at all.
 
Human Rights are universal, as indicated in the UN's Declaration of Human Rights (in 1947) that the United States signed - and promptly dumped into the collective waste-bin of history.

Particularly Articles 22 through 26 of said declaration:


It's quite a document - everybody should read it ...

quite a document but its nothing more than a pipe dream/wish list. Its not a treaty. There is no enforcement mechanism to it. its just a -this is how it ought to be in a perfect world- kinda thing.
 
Those job losses were inevitable anyway though, which you're leaving out. Outsourcing and automation are the natural cycle of work in America, regardless of what the wage is.

this statement has no proof they were not inevitable. so I didn't leave anything out.
considering that job growth outside those area's in those industries is doing just fine.
 
... quite a document but its nothing more than a pipe dream/wish list. Its not a treaty. There is no enforcement mechanism to it. its just a -this is how it ought to be in a perfect world- kinda thing.

Yes, it is not a treaty, because there is no "enforcement mechanism".

How could there be - to do so would interfere with the sovereignty of the nation in question. Which is only possible upon a vote of the entire United Nation's Assembly in a given circumstance.

To date, the declaration has invited no such action.

THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a milestone document in the history of human rights. Drafted by representatives with different legal and cultural backgrounds from all regions of the world, the Declaration was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948 General Assembly resolution 217 A as a common standard of achievements for all peoples and all nations. It sets out, for the first time, fundamental human rights to be universally protected.

Ratification of International Human Rights Treaties - USA

UNITED NATIONS ADOPTION OF THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

On 10 December 1948, the Universal Declaration was adopted by the General Assembly by a vote of 48 in favor, none against, and eight abstentions ...

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE UN DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Excerpt:
The Guinness Book of Records describes the Declaration as the world's "Most Translated Document" (464 different translations). In its preamble, governments commit themselves and their people to progressive measures which secure the universal and effective recognition and observance of the human rights set out in the Declaration. Eleanor Roosevelt supported the adoption of the Declaration as a declaration rather than as a treaty because she believed that it would have the same kind of influence on global society as the United States Declaration of Independence had within the United States.

In this, she proved to be correct. Even though it is not legally binding, the Declaration has been adopted in or has influenced most national constitutions since 1948. It has also served as the foundation for a growing number of national laws, international laws, and treaties, as well as for a growing number of regional, sub national, and national institutions protecting and promoting human rights.

LEGAL EFFECT OF THE DECLARATION

Excerpt:
While not a treaty itself, the Declaration was explicitly adopted for the purpose of defining the meaning of the words "fundamental freedoms" and "human rights" appearing in the United Nations Charter, which is binding on all member states. For this reason, the Universal Declaration is a fundamental constitutive document of the United Nations. In addition, many international lawyers believe that the Declaration forms part of customary international law and is a powerful tool in applying diplomatic and moral pressure to governments that violate any of its articles.

The 1968 United Nations International Conference on Human Rights advised that the Declaration "constitutes an obligation for the members of the international community" to all persons. The Declaration has served as the foundation for two binding UN human rights covenants: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

The principles of the Declaration are elaborated in international treaties such as the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the International Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the United Nations Convention Against Torture, and many more. The Declaration continues to be widely cited by governments, academics, advocates, and constitutional courts, and by individuals who appeal to its principles for the protection of their recognised human rights.

Oh ye of so little faith ...
 
Last edited:
Not at all, no one here should read it.

Any other "dictates", whilst your at it?

Since when are you the Universal High Commissioner for Human Truths ... ?
 
Back
Top Bottom