• 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!

Liberal Mayor Vetoes $15 Min Wage

MrWonka said:
Oh look, all the same dumb arguments that have been made for almost a century now and never happened. We've raised the minimum wage over 22 times since 1938, and your predictions have never once come true. I can already see these facts just will not matter to you though.
Click to expand...

How many of those times was the MW increased by 100% or more? Yep, once in 1939 (from $0.25/hr to $0.50/hr) and if that (1939) rate was simply adjusted for inflation then it would be about $8.50/hr today. I think that annually adjusting the federal MW for CPI inflation, just as is done for social security benefits, is a good idea.
 
jonny5 said:
I do like it when reality meets politics. Much like GOP trying to get rid of Obamacare, liberals have their own struggles with trying to pass things that will harm some people and be politically unpopular. In this case, its this idea of choosing an arbitrary wage and thinking that govt can control a businesses actions. In reality, raising the wage would have a combination of causing business to fire people, go under, raise prices, or move. The end result being no one is really helped and things balanced back to a status quo. Higher wages, higher cost of living.
Click to expand...

RAISE WAGES, KILL JOBS? SEVEN DECADES OF HISTORICAL DATA FIND NO CORRELATION BETWEEN MINIMUM WAGE INCREASES AND EMPLOYMENT LEVELS

The results were clear: these basic economic indicators show no correlation between federal minimum-wage increases and lower employment levels, even in the industries that are most impacted by higher minimum wages. To the contrary, in the substantial majority of instances (68 percent) overall employment increased after a federal minimum-wage increase. In the most substantially affected industries, the rates were even higher: in the leisure and hospitality sector employment rose 82 percent of the time following a federal wage increase, and in the retail sector it was 73 percent of the time. Moreover, the small minority of instances in which employment—either overall or in the indicator sectors—declined following a federal minimum-wage increase all occurred during periods of recession or near recession. That pattern strongly suggests that the few instances of such declines in employment are better explained by the overall national business cycle than by the minimum wage.
Click to expand...
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
RAISE WAGES, KILL JOBS? SEVEN DECADES OF HISTORICAL DATA FIND NO CORRELATION BETWEEN MINIMUM WAGE INCREASES AND EMPLOYMENT LEVELS
Click to expand...

Harvard study finds increased minimum wages contribute to restaurant failures in California's Bay Area » Publications » Washington Policy Center

A new study by the Harvard Business School has found that higher minimum wages in California’s Bay Area have resulted in an increase in overall restaurant closures in the region. The less expensive and lower rated the restaurant, the greater the impact. The study also found higher minimum wages caused fewer new restaurants to open.
Click to expand...
 
ttwtt78640 said:
How many of those times was the MW increased by 100% or more?
Click to expand...
First, I personally don't advocate a national $15 minimum wage, but if major cities which have higher costs of living want to do it I have no problem with that. I personally would prefer a move to $10 nationally over the course of two years.

ttwtt78640 said:
I think that annually adjusting the federal MW for CPI inflation, just as is done for social security benefits, is a good idea.
Click to expand...

The problem with this is that if you're not careful raising the minimum wage will cause a degree of inflation. If done wrong it would be like a dog chasing it's tail with exponential growth of inflation and wages.
 
ludin said:
actually they have.
Click to expand...

No, they haven't. We are currently sitting at full employment today in this country. We have so many jobs available that we have no choice, but to give a lot of them to illegal immigrants.
 
MrWonka said:
First, I personally don't advocate a national $15 minimum wage, but if major cities which have higher costs of living want to do it I have no problem with that. I personally would prefer a move to $10 nationally over the course of two years.



The problem with this is that if you're not careful raising the minimum wage will cause a degree of inflation. If done wrong it would be like a dog chasing it's tail with exponential growth of inflation and wages.
Click to expand...

You have me confused here - why would a national MW increase based on a cost of living (CPI) increase be any worse (different?) than a state or city doing exactly the same thing?

One of the problems with the current "safety net" is that it offers more than any work that the recipient is capable of doing (alone) does. This creates downward pressure on wages since many can (and do) accept jobs that can never actually support them if not for the additional "safety net" assistance offered to them. If one requires $X, in order to live comfortably, then they really don't care how much of $X is from their paycheck and how much of $X is added by the "safety net".
 
ttwtt78640 said:
You have me confused here - why would a national MW increase based on a cost of living (CPI) increase be any worse (different?) than a state or city doing exactly the same thing?
Click to expand...
Because the cost of living in a city and in certain states are radically different than other parts of the country. $15 minimum wage makes a lot of sense in San Fran, New York, Chicago, Seattle. Probably not in Bee, Iowa though.

Also I'm not advocating that anything be based upon CPI per say.

ttwtt78640 said:
One of the problems with the current "safety net" is that it offers more than any work that the recipient is capable of doing (alone) does. This creates downward pressure on wages since many can (and do) accept jobs that can never actually support them if not for the additional "safety net" assistance offered to them. If one requires $X, in order to live comfortably, then they really don't care how much of $X is from their paycheck and how much of $X is added by the "safety net".
Click to expand...

This is largely just a figment of the Rights imagination. Nobody wants to be on public assistance. If people can find work that pays better they will almost always take it regardless of what benefits they might lose. Higher paying jobs are almost always easier and offer better perks than any crap minimum wage job does. People who have the skills necessary to game a system like this rarely need the system.
 
MrWonka said:
Because the cost of living in a city and in certain states are radically different than other parts of the country. $15 minimum wage makes a lot of sense in San Fran, New York, Chicago, Seattle. Probably not in Bee, Iowa though.

Also I'm not advocating that anything be based upon CPI per say.



This is largely just a figment of the Rights imagination. Nobody wants to be on public assistance. If people can find work that pays better they will almost always take it regardless of what benefits they might lose. Higher paying jobs are almost always easier and offer better perks than any crap minimum wage job does. People who have the skills necessary to game a system like this rarely need the system.
Click to expand...

That (bolded above) is nonsense. I could get better pay (per billable hour of work) if I commuted to/from a city yet that causes me to lose the benefits of reduced unpaid "windshield time", vehicle longevity and lower fuel costs. My point is that the "safety net" allows many to accept jobs that pay less than they need thus allowing employers to get takers while offering those lousy wages. To say that a construction trade or landscaping job is easier than a McJob is nonsense - even more so if the "safety net" makes them yield the same standard of living.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That (bolded above) is nonsense. I could get better pay (per billable hour of work) if I commuted to/from a city yet that causes me to lose the benefits of reduced unpaid "windshield time", vehicle longevity and lower fuel costs.
Click to expand...
this is nothing like what I'm talking about and you know it. People do not want to be on welfare.

Furthermore even if you believe there are some people that are in this situation the correct solution is to improve the pay at jobs to motivate them not reduce welfare benefits.
 
MrWonka said:
this is nothing like what I'm talking about and you know it. People do not want to be on welfare.

Furthermore even if you believe there are some people that are in this situation the correct solution is to improve the pay at jobs to motivate them not reduce welfare benefits.
Click to expand...

Wrong - that simply raises the cost of all goods/services making all of those with lower incomes, including the retired and disabled, require even more "welfare" assistance. The solution is to cap "welfare" at the rate of a single, full-time, job at the MW - in other words, any full-time job is as good or better than "welfare".
 
MrWonka said:
That's what I Just said. Except bring full-time jobs up to welfare, not welfare down to full time jobs.
Click to expand...

That is basically impossible since "welfare" is dependent on household size and household income. That would also require similar COLA additions to social security which is nearly broke now. The idea that an entry level job should pay enough to support a family of 4 (or more?) is ridiculous and would drive up the cost of many goods/services causing many retirees to join the ranks of the "welfare" dependent not to mention accelerating the use of more self-service and automation. Think, before you drink - even if its koolaid. ;)
 
MrWonka said:
this is nothing like what I'm talking about and you know it. People do not want to be on welfare.

Furthermore even if you believe there are some people that are in this situation the correct solution is to improve the pay at jobs to motivate them not reduce welfare benefits.
Click to expand...

There is a segment who does not want to work and prefers to play video games off the taxpayer's dime. And, the solution is to not let them do it if they are physically able to work. Having kids is not a reason to not work. It is a reason to work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom