• 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!

It's high-time that we doubled the National Minimum-Wage in America!

Lafayette

Lafayette

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
9,594
Reaction score
2,072
Location
France
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
To at least $15 an hour. Enough is enough ... !

raising%2Bminimum%2Bwage%2Bhelps.jpg


From the Economist: Why American cities are raising the minimum wage - excerpt:
In recent years, several American cities have introduced their own minimum-wage increases. In three big ones on the west coast—Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle—the minimum wage is set to rise to $15 over the next few years, and Chicago will be phasing in a floor of $13 by 2019. More modest raises are coming soon to dozens of other municipalities across America. These local efforts to boost the earning power of low-wage workers have come in response to foot-dragging on wage policy in state legislatures. Advocates pitch the ordinances as targeted solutions that take account of the higher cost of living in urban areas and provide a natural laboratory demonstrating the feasibility and economic benefits of minimum-wage increases.

These reforms have not been universally embraced. Opponents say that however well-intentioned they may be, artificial wage increases distort the labour market and give employers an incentive to make do with fewer workers. When firms hire fewer people, the critique goes, poverty is exacerbated, not alleviated. In response, minimum-wage backers point to evidence showing that most business owners support minimum wages and don’t tend to cull their staff in response to rules requiring higher wages. The numbers in Seattle, where the wage floor began rising a year ago, looked encouraging for a while: last August, unemployment was only 3.6%, the lowest figure since 2007.
Click to expand...
 
HISTORICAL FACTS REGARDING "POWER-POLITICS"

Lafayette said:
When (American) firms hire fewer people ...
Click to expand...

We've just gone through the worst recession since the Great One in the 1930s. Let's remember an historical fact. It was not Roosevelt's efforts that stopped the Great Depression but MASSIVE spending to win WW2.

Let's also remember this historical fact: In 1980, upon entering office, Obama and a Dem Congress, passed the ARRA-bill that spent close to $830B just to spike a skyrocketing unemployment rate at 10% (See BLS infochart here.)

With consummate stoopidity, in 2012 only 41% of American voters (see that here) who bothered to turnout at the mid-term elections gave the HofR over to the Replicants. Who promptly started peddling "Austerity Budgeting" whilst in a full-blown economic calamity called the Great Recession.

With the purpose of unseating Obama in the upcoming 2012 PotUS elections, the Replicant HofR systematically refused any more Stimulus Spending. Why? Because as a consequence what happened from 2010 to 2014 (four longgg years) to the Employment-to-population Ratio? This (from the BLS here):
latest_numbers_LNS12300000_2007_2017_all_period_M06_data.gif


No more jobs were created during that period of 4-years. How stoopid can a country get in terms of economic management? Very.

What happened was a typical "power-play" by sinister political forces who wanted to defeat a sitting PotUS by maintaining high unemployment rates. Didn't work in 2012, did it?

But did the Replicants care about employment of American families who ultimately paid the price for the Replicant's mendacious audacity in the HofR. Nope! (Why should they - in 2016, we the sheeple gave them Total Control of all three ultimate powers of governance (the Executive, the Legislature, and the Judiciary).

MY POINT

Are the Replicants concerned about the Health-Welfare of lower-class American families today? Even by standards of ObamaCare, America's Health Care today does not cover the entire population. Does that bother the Replicants who control both chambers of Congress? Nope.

You the sheeple elected them. Now you live with 'em ...

PS: And don't forget that, whilst sitting in Congress, the health-care (of your representatives) is subsidized 100% by Uncle Sam!!!
 
Lafayette said:
HISTORICAL FACTS REGARDING "POWER-POLITICS"



We've just gone through the worst recession since the Great One in the 1930s. Let's remember an historical fact. It was not Roosevelt's efforts that stopped the Great Depression but MASSIVE spending to win WW2.

Let's also remember this historical fact: In 1980, upon entering office, Obama and a Dem Congress, passed the ARRA-bill that spent close to $830B just to spike a skyrocketing unemployment rate at 10% (See BLS infochart here.)

With consummate stoopidity, in 2012 only 41% of American voters (see that here) who bothered to turnout at the mid-term elections gave the HofR over to the Replicants. Who promptly started peddling "Austerity Budgeting" whilst in a full-blown economic calamity called the Great Recession.

With the purpose of unseating Obama in the upcoming 2012 PotUS elections, the Replicant HofR systematically refused any more Stimulus Spending. Why? Because as a consequence what happened from 2010 to 2014 (four longgg years) to the Employment-to-population Ratio? This (from the BLS here):
latest_numbers_LNS12300000_2007_2017_all_period_M06_data.gif


No more jobs were created during that period of 4-years. How stoopid can a country get in terms of economic management? Very.

What happened was a typical "power-play" by sinister political forces who wanted to defeat a sitting PotUS by maintaining high unemployment rates. Didn't work in 2012, did it?

But did the Replicants care about employment of American families who ultimately paid the price for the Replicant's mendacious audacity in the HofR. Nope! (Why should they - in 2016, we the sheeple gave them Total Control of all three ultimate powers of governance (the Executive, the Legislature, and the Judiciary).

MY POINT

Are the Replicants concerned about the Health-Welfare of lower-class American families today? Even by standards of ObamaCare, America's Health Care today does not cover the entire population. Does that bother the Replicants who control both chambers of Congress? Nope.

You the sheeple elected them. Now you live with 'em ...

PS: And don't forget that, whilst sitting in Congress, the health-care (of your representatives) is subsidized 100% by Uncle Sam!!!
Click to expand...

I see you are trying only to stir discontent again. But tell me please, do they pay you?

;)
 
joG said:
Personally I am more interested in a minimum income than a minimum wage. But in the future MW might turn out to be the best solution. There are largish experiments running for both approaches and we shall see.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with you on that one.

But given present political "conditions", I think the Minimum Wage more effective. The states can do it all by themselves, whilst Congress spins-its-wheels for the next year waiting for the mid-term elections. And the more states that have it, the more congressional representatives will vote for it should it ever become a national question.
 
Lafayette said:
I have to agree with you on that one.

But given present political "conditions", I think the Minimum Wage more effective. The states can do it all by themselves, whilst Congress spins-its-wheels for the next year waiting for the mid-term elections. And the more states that have it, the more congressional representatives will vote for it should it ever become a national question.
Click to expand...

Actually, the US almost introduced a minimum income scheme in the 1970s, I believe it was. There had been largish experiments that show relatively good results. But it was in the middle of the Cold War and I think that the risk of system change was considered too high. But Finland is planing experiments now, so let's see how they work out.
 
joG said:
I see you are trying only to stir discontent again. But tell me please, do they pay you?
Click to expand...

They who?

I'm an All-American boy!

Gimme a megabuck, and (hey!) I'll shut up ... ;)
 
DA60 said:
'It's high-time that we doubled the National Minimum-Wage in America!'

We? You are French, not American. You are not part of 'we' in this example...oui?
Click to expand...

I'm a Yank who lives in France - with an excellent National HealthCare and Nearly-free Tertiary Education.

I happen to vote in the USofA - it's nostalgic sentiment, that's all ...
 
joG said:
Actually, the US almost introduced a minimum income scheme in the 1970s, I believe it was. There had been largish experiments that show relatively good results. But it was in the middle of the Cold War and I think that the risk of system change was considered too high. But Finland is planing experiments now, so let's see how they work out.
Click to expand...

Curious enough, having worked with Finns, they are really quite serious workers. Believe me, it's not out of pity that they are experimenting with a Basic Minimum Income funded by the state. Finnish friends tell me that it costs less than funding the support social-services otherwise necessary to assist those in abject penury.

You know, 560€ a month wont get you very far in neither Finland nor any other western-EU country. It just might keep one out of the gutter with a roof over their head. As for those who don't really need the money, it just might fund a family for an extra week on a south-of-France vacation ... !
 
Last edited:
Lafayette said:
To at least $15 an hour. Enough is enough ... !

raising%2Bminimum%2Bwage%2Bhelps.jpg


From the Economist: Why American cities are raising the minimum wage - excerpt:

Click to expand...

I'm on the fence with this...not because I think a higher minimum wage is bad or anything, but because I believe our problems run deeper. Face it, labor is just not as valuable today as it was in the past. Capital is where all the advantage is at...and, that will only increase as more and more smart machinery is introduced into the system.

IMO, we may have to reallocate resources a little more dramatically than just handing someone $15 an hour to pack groceries or flip burgers. Much more dramatically.
 
joG said:
I see you are trying only to stir discontent again. But tell me please, do they pay you?
Click to expand...

No, it's the abundant appreciation of readers on this forum that warms the cockles of me heart ...

Joke! :doh
 
Lafayette said:
Curious enough, having worked with Finns, they are really quite serious workers. Believe me, it's not out of pity that they are experimenting with a Basic Minimum Income funded by the state. Finnish friends tell me that it costs less than funding the support social-services otherwise necessary to assist those in abject penury.

You know, 560€ a month wont get you very far in neither Finland nor any other western-EU country. It just might keep one out of the gutter with a roof over their head. As for those who don't really need the money, it just might fund a family for an extra week on a south-of-France vacation ... !
Click to expand...

Your freinds are quite right. Finland has found that social democracy is not sustainable much as have the Norwegians. The problem is like we are seeing with that ACA law that once the promises have been made, it becomes almost impossible to correct even major mistakes.
 
joG said:
Your freinds are quite right. Finland has found that social democracy is not sustainable much as have the Norwegians. The problem is like we are seeing with that ACA law that once the promises have been made, it becomes almost impossible to correct even major mistakes.
Click to expand...

Well, of course, the Norwegians have the oil. Finland has ... uh, lots of wood!

ACA was all Obama would get from the Replicant HofR - who wanted him unelected in 2012.

What exists is better than nothing, but not much better. The highest per capita cost of Health Care (by twice that of most of Europe!) and a lifespan that is three years less than Europe.

That's a really Bad Bargain ... !
 
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/02/18/cbo-minimum-wage-jobs/5582779/

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

When you raise wages without any increase in production then you lower productivity and that raises the price of goods (all else being equal).

It's not a theory...it is a 100% fact.

So a drastic raising of the minimum wage would significantly raise the cost of goods/services AND/OR result in fewer people employed.

Like most liberal ideas about the economy - it sounds good but does not work well in practice.


I am not 100% against the idea. But if you think it will help the overall economy, you are dead wrong as proven both by common sense and by the CBO.
 
Lafayette said:
HISTORICAL FACTS REGARDING "POWER-POLITICS"



We've just gone through the worst recession since the Great One in the 1930s. Let's remember an historical fact. It was not Roosevelt's efforts that stopped the Great Depression but MASSIVE spending to win WW2.

Let's also remember this historical fact: In 1980, upon entering office, Obama and a Dem Congress, passed the ARRA-bill that spent close to $830B just to spike a skyrocketing unemployment rate at 10% (See BLS infochart here.)

With consummate stoopidity, in 2012 only 41% of American voters (see that here) who bothered to turnout at the mid-term elections gave the HofR over to the Replicants. Who promptly started peddling "Austerity Budgeting" whilst in a full-blown economic calamity called the Great Recession.

With the purpose of unseating Obama in the upcoming 2012 PotUS elections, the Replicant HofR systematically refused any more Stimulus Spending. Why? Because as a consequence what happened from 2010 to 2014 (four longgg years) to the Employment-to-population Ratio? This (from the BLS here):
latest_numbers_LNS12300000_2007_2017_all_period_M06_data.gif


No more jobs were created during that period of 4-years. How stoopid can a country get in terms of economic management? Very.

What happened was a typical "power-play" by sinister political forces who wanted to defeat a sitting PotUS by maintaining high unemployment rates. Didn't work in 2012, did it?

But did the Replicants care about employment of American families who ultimately paid the price for the Replicant's mendacious audacity in the HofR. Nope! (Why should they - in 2016, we the sheeple gave them Total Control of all three ultimate powers of governance (the Executive, the Legislature, and the Judiciary).

MY POINT

Are the Replicants concerned about the Health-Welfare of lower-class American families today? Even by standards of ObamaCare, America's Health Care today does not cover the entire population. Does that bother the Replicants who control both chambers of Congress? Nope.

You the sheeple elected them. Now you live with 'em ...

PS: And don't forget that, whilst sitting in Congress, the health-care (of your representatives) is subsidized 100% by Uncle Sam!!!
Click to expand...

Obama and the Democrats didnt enter into office in 1980, condsider that a bit while you call GOP voters stupid
 
Fenton said:
Obama and the Democrats didnt enter into office in 1980, condsider that a bit while you call GOP voters stupid
Click to expand...

He is French...forgive him.

Pretty much all they know is good wine, bread so hard it can be used as a weapon and going on strike.
 
Fenton said:
Obama and the Democrats didnt enter into office in 1980, condsider that a bit while you call GOP voters stupid
Click to expand...

Reckless Ronnie came into the Oval Office in 1980, with the intent of lowering upper-income taxation. Which he did admirably well. (See here. Notice in that graphic how he brought Upper-income Taxation down from 70% to around 27%, or minus 43%!)

What happened in terms of Taxed-income that became Wealth for the rich? This happened:
20141108_FNC156.png


Now do you know why the rich pay to erect so many statues of Ronnie? I do ...
 
If you double the minimum wage, then you will cause an increase in unemployment, and most of that unemployment will largely affect young blacks. So, why do you think it is moral to cause unemployment among young blacks? Keep in mind the first people to advocate for minimum wage were racists and they used it to specifically target minorities with high unemployment. A slight increase in the minimum wage may not have much impact on employment, but doubling it will. It will also raise prices of goods and services, which will reduce the real-incomes of poorer people.

Most people on minimum wage who are working adults typically start making more money within a year. Trying to rid the world of poverty by raising the minimum wage will not work, it has never worked, and there is no theoretical reason why anyone should expect it to work now. There are better ideas that people have come up with than the minimum wage.
 
DA60 said:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/02/18/cbo-minimum-wage-jobs/5582779/

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

When you raise wages without any increase in production then you lower productivity and that raises the price of goods (all else being equal).

It's not a theory...it is a 100% fact.

So a drastic raising of the minimum wage would significantly raise the cost of goods/services AND/OR result in fewer people employed.

Like most liberal ideas about the economy - it sounds good but does not work well in practice.


I am not 100% against the idea. But if you think it will help the overall economy, you are dead wrong as proven both by common sense and by the CBO.
Click to expand...

And numerous other studies.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timwor...or-so-why-raise-the-minium-wage/#7e58b1cb1ece

Kids Prefer Cheese: Minimum Wage Hurts Poor People?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom