• 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!

Consequences of eliminating the federal minimum wage rate

It should be $156,964/hr. so people only have to work one hour every three years and can dedicate the rest of their time to making the world a better place.

a liberal IQ does not enable them to understand why govt doesn't make $300k/yr the law for all employees so no one has to work unless they want to. Accordingly, to a liberal govt is magical and good so should always do more things.
 
FMW, the federal minimum wage rates a minimum “safety net” within the USA. Is does not prevent states from determining greater minimum rates within their own jurisdictions and does not prevent employers from paying greater rates.

The federal minimum wage only intervenes with attempts to pay less than the minimum rate. It affects but does not otherwise determine wage rates. What’s the point of your post?

Respectfully, Supposn

a minimum wage is evil since it makes it illegal to hire someone not worth the minimum wage.
 
Correction to prior post:

Originally Posted by DA60
Minimum wage advocates always seem to use the 1960's version - which was the high point. ...

... Personally, I think the MW should equal the poverty line if one were employed at the MW full time.
The current poverty line for the lower 48 states is $12,060. That equals $6.03/hour.
https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines

But I can live with $7.25 and have it go up each year based on the inflation rate. ...
DA60, the federal minimum wage rate has never been detrimental to our nation’s economy. It has always been insufficient and would have been of greater benefit to USA’s economy if it’s purchasing power were greater. The minimum rate was insufficient when the rate’s purchasing power was at its 1968 $1.60/Hr. peak.

I advocate until the rate’s purchasing power’s equal to that of $2.50. in 1968, we annually increase the rate by the greater of 15% or no less than what’s necessary to retain the prior year’s purchasing power. When the rate’s purchasing power’s equal to that of $2.50. in 1968, we should thereafter annually adjust it to retain that purchasing power.

Respectfully, Supposn

I'm Supposn the simple fact of the matter is that you are Accurate.

The Right wants to lie and repeat the same twaddle again and again until those of more malleable character conform to their expectations.

Do not waver, O Intellectual. The sage is so outnumbered by the trollish and puerile mind of lessers.

Every year the Minimum wage is put in its place, the year after that the Big Businesses of America are subsidized by the annual inflation differential.

The 7.25$/hr Federal Wage is worth 25% (actually much more) less in real terms since its introduction.

Here in NJ we raised the Wage to 8.38$, indexed to a CPI. New Jersey, as most TAXED LEFT WING BLUE STATES, contribute in net more to the federal government than they recieve. And despite having a terrible, absolutely abhorrent Red government (Christie is awful. Still Einstein compared to who Racisted his way into a presidency) our state government has no imploded in joblessness, crime and general miasma.

Compare that to net capital drains like many Red TAX FEARING states.

Us Left Wing True Blooded God Fearing Patriotic Americans need to stop paying the Red states and their constituency for being ignorant.

We have to stop subsidizing the Rednecks' way of life. We must compel States to meet their own financial obligations. Do that and see with what celerity the Red unAmerican party falls.

Supposn, look at any graph of real wages and real non farm productivity since the 60s. Real wages have been essentially stagnant since 1973.

Credit cost has gone down. Credit availability has increased, and leverage is at an all time high for the consumer.

These additional service and interest costs go into the capital accounts of Big Business USA.

Increased real wages would lead to Americans more capable of servicing debt, perhaps even more prone to spend their hard currency versus the need to purchase a new crib on Credit.

Look at the Psychology of Wages.

We don't want Money, WE WANT MORE MONEY THAN SOMEONE ELSE.

Money is a metric.

A high minimum wage may be the only alternative to automation's efficacy. It is increasing the necessity for a basic income guarantee.

The Right wing does not understand what it means to be inure.

Listen with deaf ears at the scurrilous nonsense they launch with such vitriol and conviction.

They are wrong, my friend. Full Stop.
 
Last edited:
It is one way to look at it but it fails to include the effects of free market forces. I think the minimum wage defines what employers should pay people. Without it market forces would determine what that is. Wages could likely increase by eliminating the government definition.

BASELESS AMPHIGORY.

PLEASE CITE A REPUTABLE SOURCE FOR THIS CLAIM.

Please, set a standard for your fellow Right wingers. Stop the Calumny. Be a true, patriotic American. You must understand these Fascist pro-Special Interest lies are debasing and raping this Immigrant Country we call the USA.
 
It should be $156,964/hr. so people only have to work one hour every three years and can dedicate the rest of their time to making the world a better place.

If only you knew how, historically, close we actually are to such a precedent. The irony of your sarcasm is wonderful.
 
Minimum wage advocates always seem to use the 1960's version - which was the high point.

I say compare it to the original version - 1933's $0.25/hour.

With inflation, it would today be roughly $4.75/hour.

Inflation Calculator | Find US Dollar's Value from 1913-2017

Plus, the original MW was abolished and was re-instated in 1938 at $0.25/hour. Which today only equals $4.31/hour.

By the terms of the original minimum wage, the currently one is FAR higher than the original and has more than kept pace with inflation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_in_the_United_States


Personally, I think the MW should equal the poverty line if one were employed at the MW full time.

The current poverty line for the lower 48 states is $12,060. That equals $6.03/hour.

https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines

But I can live with $7.25 and have it go up each year based on the inflation rate.


And please save the old 'well, that won't support a family of 5' nonsense. Any parents that are so pathetic as to be trying to support a family of 5 or more on MW should have their children taken from them by the state and deem them as unfit parents.

Say the conservatives that believe in every Freedom, so long as your a wage slave and don't complain about it or try to not get an abortion because contraceptive devices are relatively much more expensive for the poor.
 
BASELESS AMPHIGORY.

PLEASE CITE A REPUTABLE SOURCE FOR THIS CLAIM.

Please, set a standard for your fellow Right wingers. Stop the Calumny. Be a true, patriotic American. You must understand these Fascist pro-Special Interest lies are debasing and raping this Immigrant Country we call the USA.

Cite it yourself. It is an opinion. Am I not allowed to have an opinion? Sheeeesh.
 
It should be at least 12$. But that's for rural areas. It should be higher in the urban centres and in between in the metropolitan areas.

Minimum wage more pure libsocialist ignorance:

1) makes it illegal to employ people not worth minimum wage
2) raise prices for poor people who often shop where minimum wage folks work
3) speeds up automation and replacement of minimum wage jobs
4) teaches people that you get ahead with govt violence rather than being worth more
5) raises prices, reduces demand, and thus reduces employment
6) makes American workers even less competitive with foreign workers
7) makes a huge % of work force (42%) minimum age workers with no incentive to improve their skills.
 
Minimum wage more pure libsocialist ignorance:

1) makes it illegal to employ people not worth minimum wage
2) raise prices for poor people who often shop where minimum wage folks work
3) speeds up automation and replacement of minimum wage jobs
4) teaches people that you get ahead with govt violence rather than being worth more
5) raises prices, reduces demand, and thus reduces employment
6) makes American workers even less competitive with foreign workers
7) makes a huge % of work force (42%) minimum age workers with no incentive to improve their skills.

1 LIE
2 Show me a credible citation. Otherwise LIE
3 Yes. That's a good thing. Your point?
4 What? Please, for those of lower intellect please use this world's rationality and facts.
5 A mix between 3 and a Lie. And redundant.
6 Nope. In fact the side effect of 3 would make the opposite true. You sure I am the ignorant one here?
7 Except that people are assholes and selfish and social. Meaning that even if you pay them 15$ an hour, they will want more RELATIVE TO WHAT OTHERS MAKE. Also, the marginal lazy pricks? Well, no matter how much you pay them they'll always be lazy pricks, but its better than them scamming Unemployment, read MY TAX DOLLARS.

Tbh if you increased minimum wage, since wages are relative, you push All wages upwards (also because those at the top have a disproportionate percentages of income from nonwage activity)
 
REAL POVERTY AND THE MINIMUM WAGE

Except that people are assholes and selfish and social. Meaning that even if you pay them 15$ an hour, they will want more RELATIVE TO WHAT OTHERS MAKE.)

Pure fantasy. There is no historical reason for this to happen. What will happen, though, is those making already $15 an hour will clearly move to jobs offering more for their skills. That movement upward will happen in the above payment strata, but not through out. It WILL raise the cost of products/services in the country somewhat but not overall; but the higher prices (to cover the higher costs) will likely be a wash given that the additional consumer spending (from additional revenues) will lower Unemployment Rates in the lower classes.

The minimum wage applies almost uniformly to the non-skills class of worker, who (at the present national MW) is making $7.25 an hour) and living nonetheless precarious lives in poverty.

They will spend their additional revenue - just like any other American consumer - and thus help rebuild clearly devastated employment roles. And they will do it a lot quicker than Donald Dork and his White House machinations ...

For your edification: America’s Poverty Problem Hasn’t Changed (Sept. 2015), excerpt:
... the Census Bureau released its latest data on income and poverty for the country, and despite a falling unemployment rate and a rising GDP—two promising macroeconomic signs—things haven’t improved all that much for American families in the past year.

In 2014, median household income was reported as $53,657—statistically the same as it was in 2013. The same stagnation held when it came to the poverty rate, with about 14.9 percent of Americans, or almost 47 million people, falling below the poverty threshold of about $24,000 for the year.

The news was, of course, worse for minorities and women. The rate of poverty among blacks and Hispanics was well over 20 percent. Women, too, remained more likely to struggle to make ends meet, especially elderly women, whose poverty rate was nearly double that of men in the 75 and older age group. And though more women than ever are participating in the workforce, with 61 percent of women employed full time in 2014, their earnings remained about 79 percent of their male colleagues.

That’s why for the first time, the bureau released a supplemental poverty measure along with its official figures. According to the supplemental data, the poverty rate in the U.S. was about 15.3 percent—0.4 percentage points higher than the report’s official rate. But the additional measure shows differences in age groups. For instance, those under the age of 18 have a poverty rate of 16.7 percent—quite a bit lower than the 21.5 percent reported in the main findings. For older Americans, the tweaked metrics paint a grimmer picture, with the share of seniors living in poverty reported as nearly 5 percentage points higher than the official measure.

713271073.png

NB: Try to remember that this is an Economics Forum and statistical fact is ALWAYS much better than cerebral masturbation.
 
Last edited:
Moreover, the matter of poverty is also clearly Race Related:
210575be2.png


And that America's Great Divide of Poverty as shown above between Black/Hispanic and non-Hispanic White/Asian is clearly racial in nature.

The former must get a handle on their lives by getting higher academic credentials. Which would have happened if we had adopted Hillary's proposal (borrowed from Bernie) of government-funding Tertiary Education making it free, gratis and for nothing for those families earning less than $100K a year. (The average American salary-revenue being $54K and thus about $100K for two working family-heads.)
 
Last edited:
There are people who were possibly brought up by decent, competent, and caring parents. They were well schooled, held responsible positions in many different fields of endevour; some were appointed or elected to high government offices. At some point in their lives it became apparent that they were putzes. I’m unaware of any putz recovered to be a fully functioning human.

But Putzes, just as all other people can have a sense of humor. I encountered a post that stated “Minimum wage more pure libsocialist ignorance: makes it illegal to employ people not worth minimum wage”.

I don’t doubt that the Putz is aware that it’s legal to employ any adult.
I doubt if someone the putz considers to be unworthy of the federal minimum wage rate had aced the putz out of the janitorial position in the toilet of a whore house.
The putz is just mean and contends it should be illegal to employ anyone that doesn’t qualify to this putz’s standards.

I’m a populist and have reason to believe a putz could consider me to be a liberal. I’m certainly more libral and thus more tolerant than this putz. Although I’m permitted to doubt that this putz is worth spit, I believe that anyone that will accept the putz is and should be free to employ the putz.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
REAL POVERTY AND THE MINIMUM WAGE



Pure fantasy. There is no historical reason for this to happen. What will happen, though, is those making already $15 an hour will clearly move to jobs offering more for their skills. That movement upward will happen in the above payment strata, but not through out. It WILL raise the cost of products/services in the country somewhat but not overall; but the higher prices (to cover the higher costs) will likely be a wash given that the additional consumer spending (from additional revenues) will lower Unemployment Rates in the lower classes.

The minimum wage applies almost uniformly to the non-skills class of worker, who (at the present national MW) is making $7.25 an hour) and living nonetheless precarious lives in poverty.

They will spend their additional revenue - just like any other American consumer - and thus help rebuild clearly devastated employment roles. And they will do it a lot quicker than Donald Dork and his White House machinations ...

For your edification: America’s Poverty Problem Hasn’t Changed (Sept. 2015), excerpt:


NB: Try to remember that this is an Economics Forum and statistical fact is ALWAYS much better than cerebral masturbation.

Pure Fantasy?

This is about what percentage of gross profits does our labour capture. That's all.

And a higher minim wage disproportionately.benefits the poor, I.e rural southern whites, blacks and Hispanics.

What's the issue?

I also support semi free tuition and heavy college autonomy in regards to wages and such
 
LIE:1) MW makes it illegal to employ people not worth minimum wage

Lie??????? If MV is $10/hr it is illegal to hire someone for $9.00/hr if they are only worth $9.00/hr to you. This is logic a liberal can grasp.

PS: it makes sense to lean socialist given that socialism slowly starved 120 million death!!
 
Show me a credible citation. Otherwise LIE: MV raise prices for poor people who often shop where minimum wage folks work

you want a citation to show that raising MW raises prices rather then lowers them for poor people? Don't poor people work and buy at McDonalds and Walmart?????? This is logic a liberal can follow!
 
That's [speeds up automation and replacement of minimum wage jobs] a good thing. Your point?

replacing MW jobs rendering MW workers unemployed is considered a bad thing for MW workers.
This is logic a liberal can follow!
 
What? Please, for those of lower intellect please use this world's rationality and facts.

If you get ahead in the work place through govt liberals holding a gun to employers heads forcing you them to pay $15/hr you learn that violence not, say, a college degree is the way to get ahead. This is logic a liberal can follow?
 
And a higher minim wage disproportionately.benefits the poor, I.e rural southern whites, blacks and Hispanics. What's the issue?


"Disproportionately" benefits the poor?

The Poverty Threshold is at $24K for a family of four. At the present national MW ($7.25/hour) one is earning $15k a year!

What planet do you live on ... ?
 
"
The Poverty Threshold is at $24K for a family of four. At the present national MW ($7.25/hour) one is earning $15k a year!

figure a family of 2 people working 70 hours each. Even at minimum they are far richer than 99.9 % of the humans who have even lived on this planet. If rich people must work long hours so must poor people!
 
"Disproportionately" benefits the poor?

The Poverty Threshold is at $24K for a family of four. At the present national MW ($7.25/hour) one is earning $15k a year!

What planet do you live on ... ?

I do not understand what were Disagreeing about?
 
I do not understand what were Disagreeing about?

Neither do I, if you are a "socialist".

I would have one comment however. The definition of socialism is this:
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Clearly, the government owns the means of production and it is the negation of capitalism, where the means of production are "private property".

The definition of Social Democracy is this:
Social democracy is a political, social and economic ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a capitalist economy, and a policy regime involving a commitment to representative democracy, measures for income redistribution, and regulation of the economy in the general interest thus assuring the welfare* of the greatest number.

That is, the means of production remain privately owned, but the government has a very large say over how they are employed. For instance, all the EU are Social Democracies (some more than others), but they all have a very common core in terms of the principles of assuring that public-services (notably Health Care and Education) remain available to the largest number of citizens possible towards assuring their well-being.

The nuancing between both political ideologies is subtle but very important. It took me a while to understand the important difference between the two - and I had to come live in Europe to understand fully both. (Moreover, over the years, I have rarely found an American who lives in Europe for a sufficiently long period of time who cares really to go back.)

Just a thought - my apologies for any confusion that may have arisen ...

*Definition of "welfare":
-The health, happiness, and fortunes of a person or group.
-Statutory procedure or social effort designed to promote the basic physical and material well-being of people in need. This basic need is traditionally the first two bottom rungs of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.
 
Last edited:
Neither do I, if you are a "socialist".

I would have one comment however. The definition of socialism is this:

Clearly, the government owns the means of production and it is the negation of capitalism, where the means of production are "private property".

The definition of Social Democracy is this:

That is, the means of production remain privately owned, but the government has a very large say over how they are employed. For instance, all the EU are Social Democracies (some more than others), but they all have a very common core in terms of the principles of assuring that public-services (notably Health Care and Education) remain available to the largest number of citizens possible towards assuring their well-being.

The nuancing between both political ideologies is subtle but very important. It took me a while to understand the importance of the difference between the two - and I had to come live in Europe to understand fully both.

Just a thought - my apologies for any confusion that may have arisen ...

Unfortunately I would quote and bold the important part of your quote I wish to elucidate.

However, you seem much more than intelligent enough to understand me even when you are not spoon fed so let me try.

There are many different definitions of Socialism, but perhaps there is an internationally recognized definition I am ignorant of. If so, and the one you provided Is that universal definition I have this to say:

a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

My personal, perrenially evolving understanding of true Socialism (I.e., what is best for Society at large/a social polity, given a Global context [be it Capitalist context or not]) would be in line with a system that Regulates the Means of Production, Distribution and Exchanges.

We Regulate every last one of these, in the form of overt regulation or a covert scheme of taxation.

Like in the US laws are made that make Second homes easier to purchase and incentivize them, this increases property values and thus increases the property tax revenue which is often divided by State and Municipality in the US. How we tax goods directly affects the Means of Production. Thus we, indirectly, regulate the Means of Production. Further, a Progressive Taxation scheme is redistribution.

Even when the Community as a Whole, read Government, decides Not to Intervene in the Means of Production we actually mare Regulating it, via an Omission of Regulation/Control. Imho

Finally we regulate Exchange, even the Exchange of Information so that it is forthright and beneficial to Both Parties, and thus the greater benefit of society.

Socialism does not *need* Capitalism, it simply apportions the most useful aspects of it for the greater good of some polity(ies).

Thoughts? Am I wrong?




P.S. its good ettiqute to cite external quotes. Just nitpicking, not trying to start a fight.
 
Last edited:
My personal, perrenially evolving understanding of true Socialism (I.e., what is best for Society at large, given a Global context [be it Capitalist context or not]) would be in line with a system that Regulates the Means of Production, Distribution and Exchanges.

Thoughts? Am I wrong?

You have every right to believe however you feel. No one should detract that right from you (or me or anyone).

To date, the experience with socialism in eastern Europe (once the Soviet Union demised) was to adopt Social Democracies. The internal socialist mechanism of deciding "who gets what, how and why" proved insurmountable to achieve. People must be allowed to pursue their lives with only the basic-minimum of "state control".

The proof is always in the pudding ...
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom