I believe the Government should raise the Minimum Wage

[iMikeT]

Originally Posted by astrorider

Life's not always easy. In many cases, pay scales with the difficulty level to attain or perform the job. If you want to get paid more, those steps are available.



I'm not sure what you mean by "scenario", as though it's some far off idealistic place and not reality, but here's a breakdown of who currently works them:


http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2001/06/who-is-paid-the-minimum-wage

Life is also not black and white. Reality has too many shades of grey where one individual's solution does not work for another.

Of course, you cite a hard right-wing libertarian think tank funded by oil barons known as the Koch brothers.

----------

Originally Posted by rdowns

Totally throwing **** at the wall here but what about legislating a living wage and eliminating corporate taxes?

You mean eliminating the loopholes in the corporate tax code right? We can't get rid of the taxes because we need the revenue.

[webbuzz]

Originally Posted by iMikeT

How about we refrain from the denigrating, juvenile and immature name calling and have some intellectual discourse?

You mean like this?

I am in no way defending Democrats here because they are also guilty at gerrymandering districts but what the Repukelicans are doing goes over the top.

Since the right-wing crazies can't win in a fair fight, they decide to rig the game. Just when you thought the GOP can't get any more underhanded in their tactics.

[rdowns]

Originally Posted by iMikeT

You mean eliminating the loopholes in the corporate tax code right? We can't get rid of the taxes because we need the revenue.

No, I mean eliminating the tax. Better they spend that money on wages for employees who, by virtue of making more money, will pay more taxes to make up for the loss of corporate taxes. Of course, it may not be an even trade so maybe taxes would be much lower. Just throwing an idea out there.

[Muscle Master]

Originally Posted by rdowns

No, I mean eliminating the tax. Better they spend that money on wages for employees who, by virtue of making more money, will pay more taxes to make up for the loss of corporate taxes. Of course, it may not be an even trade so maybe taxes would be much lower. Just throwing an idea out there.

And unless the government would require proof they did so... That money would go right back in their pockets

[astrorider]

Originally Posted by iMikeT

Life is also not black and white. Reality has too many shades of grey where one individual's solution does not work for another.

Of course, you cite a hard right-wing libertarian think tank funded by oil barons known as the Koch brothers.

It's just a breakdown by percentages of who's working minimum wage, the first link I found...they're just numbers, they won't bite.

[rdowns]

Originally Posted by Muscle Master

And unless the government would require proof they did so... That money would go right back in their pockets

If only the government had a way to know how much each of your paychecks was for.

[Muscle Master]

Originally Posted by astrorider

Life's not always easy. In many cases, pay scales with the difficulty level to attain or perform the job. If you want to get paid more, those steps are available.



I'm not sure what you mean by "scenario", as though it's some far off idealistic place and not reality, but here's a breakdown of who currently works them:


http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...e-minimum-wage

And I call Horse **** on this... 10 percent raise my ass.. More like $.25 every 6 months to me

[webbuzz]

Originally Posted by rdowns

No, I mean eliminating the tax. Better they spend that money on wages for employees who, by virtue of making more money, will pay more taxes to make up for the loss of corporate taxes. Of course, it may not be an even trade so maybe taxes would be much lower. Just throwing an idea out there.

Your idea is good in theory. The issue is that nothing will prevent a corporation from "hoarding" the extra cash, or issuing higher dividends to investors.

[Muscle Master]

Originally Posted by rdowns

If only the government had a way to know how much each of your paychecks was for.

It's called the IRS unless there was a hint a sarcasm there

[rdowns]

Originally Posted by webbuzz

Your idea is good in theory. The issue is that nothing will prevent a corporation from "hoarding" the extra cash, or issuing higher dividends to investors.

You would tie the lower or elimination of taxes to a company's payroll and headcount.

[astrorider]

Originally Posted by Muscle Master

And I call Horse **** on this... 10 percent raise my ass.. More like $.25 every 6 months to me

10% was the median/yr, meaning half will be below and half above. For you, apparently it's 7%/yr.

[webbuzz]

Originally Posted by rdowns

You would tie the lower or elimination of taxes to a company's payroll and headcount.

I am not sure that I want the government in control of headcount. However, a lot of companies receive tax incentives from state and local governments, based on the promise of maintaining a certain headcount.

Unfortunately, there are companies that do not honor those agreements.

[Aspasia]

Originally Posted by iMikeT

I'm insinuating that you are a defender of the rich and that they own you.[

While I'll defend anyone who works hard and achieves success against those underachievers who believe they are entitled to a share of another's earned wealth, that doesn't mean I'm "owned" by the rich.

I just don't believe in class warfare nor do I covet what other people have honestly earned.

[iMikeT]

Originally Posted by webbuzz

You mean like this?

I stand by what I said because it was a generality and not directed to an individual, unlike that guy directing his remarks toward me.

Originally Posted by rdowns

No, I mean eliminating the tax. Better they spend that money on wages for employees who, by virtue of making more money, will pay more taxes to make up for the loss of corporate taxes. Of course, it may not be an even trade so maybe taxes would be much lower. Just throwing an idea out there.

Originally Posted by webbuzz

Your idea is good in theory. The issue is that nothing will prevent a corporation from "hoarding" the extra cash, or issuing higher dividends to investors.

I agree that large corporations can do better by spending more money on their own workers and less on their executives. However, it does society as a whole no good by having them take a tax holiday.

Keep in mind that many of these corporations are the biggest recipients of welfare in our country with so many subsidies that our government gives them. Is it right that GE gets a tax rebate of $160 million from the tax payer when they generate $1 billion in profit?

Like webbuzz said, they'll do nothing but hoard the cash and line the executive's pockets with it.

----------

Originally Posted by Aspasia

While I'll defend anyone who works hard and achieves success against those underachievers who believe they are entitled to a share of another's earned wealth, that doesn't mean I'm "owned" by the rich.

I just don't believe in class warfare nor do I covet what other people have honestly earned.

I don't covet what others have made either so what's your point? The point that I was trying to get across is that anyone who works for a corporation at a low wage is owned by that corporation because that low wage dictates that person's quality of life and social mobility.

The notion that an individual can start a company in a garage and turn it into the the world's most successful company is 1 in 1,000,000,000 and not an everyday occurrence. Even Steve Jobs would not have been successful without the people around him to help him build Apple into the company that it is today. Had things been different for Jobs, we probably wouldn't even know who he was and Apple would not be in the spot it's in now.

Bottom line, the self-made-man is a myth. Sure, one person may take the credit. However, it took a team of people working together to become successful. And since the wealth is earned collectively, it should also be shared collectively.

[Squadleader]

Originally Posted by Muscle Master

I'm curious is to why the government hasn't raised the minimum wage. $7.25 x 40 hours every two weeks for a year is $6,960!

How is someone supposed to live of off that. In Philadelphia, housing for a single person would coast at least $600-$800 bucks.. utility's run about $250 a month.. that's without cable, food cost at least $200 (Well, I can make it stretch) Transportation cost on the bus, train etc. is at least $90 a month

I mean.. do okay, but its just seem like everyone around me is just struggling to make ends meet. its so hard out here

All these company's that are doing so well start off at 7.25 and give you no more than 30 hours and punish you for a second more!

its maddening.. okay, simple logic say if you can't make ends meet with one job, get another. fine. done deal so you working 50-60 hours a week, wanna better yourself and go to college.. How, wheres the time? gotta eat and pay rent. wheres the time to study

My point is... the quality of life just sucks right now. I feel as though the Government should do something about it. too little people are working or not making enough!!! and its just sad

Not trying make this another "The Rich vs. Poor Thread" but there really need to be some balance. I feel as though the Government should raise the minimum wage to at least $11.50-$13.00 and I fail to see how companies would go broke... More people working, the more people who buy stuff, the more people who buy stuff.. the more money corporations or whatever make.. and overall.. the more tax revenue the gov. will have.

just dont get how everything turn to ****

Last time the Gov't interjected itself into private business by raising the minimum wage it caused massive layoffs and non hires as predicted..Sorry, your not suppose to raise a family on minimum wage...Micky D's isn't gonna hire at 13 bucks an hour and keep the menu cheap...Its not the Gov't job to subsidize your living habits which really means WE capitalist do not want to subsidize you....Open your own biz and get back to us....The market decides what your worth....

[anonymouslurker]

Originally Posted by iMikeT

I don't covet what others have made either so what's your point? The point that I was trying to get across is that anyone who works for a corporation at a low wage is owned by that corporation because that low wage dictates that person's quality of life and social mobility.

Seriously? Don't like it, get a new job, get an education, better yourself. It's all within your control.
My first job was at $4.50 an hour. I'm comfortable making six figures now. I guess that low wage I had all those years ago really held me back.

Originally Posted by iMikeT

The notion that an individual can start a company in a garage and turn it into the the world's most successful company is 1 in 1,000,000,000 and not an everyday occurrence. Even Steve Jobs would not have been successful without the people around him to help him build Apple into the company that it is today. Had things been different for Jobs, we probably wouldn't even know who he was and Apple would not be in the spot it's in now.

Bottom line, the self-made-man is a myth.

Absolute horse****.
Yes, there are astronomical odds against starting your own company and having it be one of the largest in the world, but "self-made" doesn't have to mean "biggest ever." PLENTY of people are doing very comfortably having started from scratch.

Originally Posted by iMikeT

Sure, one person may take the credit. However, it took a team of people working together to become successful. And since the wealth is earned collectively, it should also be shared collectively.

Karl? Is that you?

[iMikeT]

Originally Posted by anonymouslurker

Seriously? Don't like it, get a new job, get an education, better yourself. It's all within your control.
My first job was at $4.50 an hour. I'm comfortable making six figures now. I guess that low wage I had all those years ago really held me back.



Absolute horse****.
Yes, there are astronomical odds against starting your own company and having it be one of the largest in the world, but "self-made" doesn't have to mean "biggest ever." PLENTY of people are doing very comfortably having started from scratch.



Karl? Is that you?

$4.50 in a better economic environment and student loans that don't leave you with a mortgage by the time you graduate, good for you old timer. Try doing that today. By the way, only fools ever compare raw numbers and don't account for other variables.

I'm sure plenty of people out there have some amount of success but it's still not as many as you would like to think. On top of that, they probably made their success by stepping on the little guy by paying him $4.50.

Not Karl because I don't misrepresent my intentions by switching around words.

[Muscle Master]

Originally Posted by Squadleader

Last time the Gov't interjected itself into private business by raising the minimum wage it caused massive layoffs and non hires as predicted..Sorry, your not suppose to raise a family on minimum wage...Micky D's isn't gonna hire at 13 bucks an hour and keep the menu cheap...Its not the Gov't job to subsidize your living habits which really means WE capitalist do not want to subsidize you....Open your own biz and get back to us....The market decides what your worth....

No one said anything bout rasing a famliy!!!

If one had to work at micky d's. one shouldnt have to pick whether to have food to eat or a roof over their head

The point im trying to make is, the quality of life is crap right now. and the road to suscess for most is a never ending road. If I had half a mind I would invest in a ski mask and a couple pistols and go show a local PNC how frustrated I am

[anonymouslurker]

Originally Posted by iMikeT

$4.50 in a better economic environment and student loans that don't leave you with a mortgage by the time you graduate, good for you old timer. Try doing that today.

G.I. bill payed my way after military service. Pretty sure the benefit is way better today than when I used it.

Originally Posted by iMikeT

By the way, only fools ever compare raw numbers and don't account for other variables.

So now I'm a wage slave and a fool? Boy, you're just on a roll with those assumptions!

The only other variable that really matters is personal drive. What's it worth to you to better your position? What are you willing to sacrifice now to reap benefits later? Again, it's all within your control to do something about it if you're not happy.

Originally Posted by iMikeT

I'm sure plenty of people out there have some amount of success but it's still not as many as you would like to think.

Just like there isn't as much small business in this country as I'd like to think? Pretty sure I posted some numbers that showed your assumptions to be fairly wrong about that one... do I need to find numbers to prove you wrong again? How about you do the homework on this one, and show some numbers for your claim? Maybe you'll learn a little something in the process.

Originally Posted by iMikeT

On top of that, they probably made their success by stepping on the little guy by paying him $4.50.

There will always be people making minimum wage, whatever that wage is, because there will always be jobs that are only worth paying minimum wage for. Don't like earning minimum wage? Then don't!

Originally Posted by iMikeT

Not Karl because I don't misrepresent my intentions by switching around words.

What are you even talking about?

[Aspasia]

Originally Posted by iMikeT

Bottom line, the self-made-man is a myth. Sure, one person may take the credit. However, it took a team of people working together to become successful. And since the wealth is earned collectively, it should also be shared collectively.

I don't buy that fallacy. A person who creates a successful business took the risks, made the investment, and worked hard and long to make it succeed. Individually, not collectively.

You're riding a dead donkey called From each according to his ability, to each according to his need

[balamw]

MOD NOTE:

There is far too much name-calling going on in this thread. I'm closing it for now.

A quick reminder of our forum rules:

Direct personal insult of another forum member (e.g., "You are an idiot.") and other name-calling. Why? Because this isn't grade school. People should be able to discuss or even dispute other's posts without insulting people. You may dispute somebody's opinion but not attack/flame the person who stated it. There are a lot of other non-direct-personal insults that won't necessary get you banned instantly, but depending on the context/nature may lead to post editing, post deletion, warnings, or time-outs. They include telling people to shut up and being extremely or repeatedly rude or sarcastic. It's not your place to tell other users they are not welcome; if they follow the rules, they are welcome. Bottom line -- don't try to tick off others and don't make discussions unnecessarily personal. If somebody else insults you, report their post; their post does not give you a license to break the rules by returning their insults. Although we do not read Private Messages sent between forum members, the rules for appropriate and inappropriate content apply to them as well.

B

[annk]

ADMIN NOTE:

It's been cleaned up now, so we're reopening. Please heed the mod note.

Carry on...

[Zombie Acorn]

You can change the end of the title to unemployment rate because it will mean the same thing.

[samiwas]

Sometimes the arguments over wages really start to tick me off.

One person argues for a living wage for people who are actually working jobs. Someone else says "If you want to make more money, then you need to bust your ass, sacrifice a lot, and do whatever needs to be done."

That's a cop-out response.

I believe that if you are working full time (like 30-40 hours a week), doing pretty much anything, you should be making enough to afford a decent place to live (a small apartment in a decent neighborhood maybe), utilities, food to eat, and a few small luxuries (a tv, a phone, maybe a small vacation here and there) without having to worry every month whether you're going to make it.

You bust your ass, sacrifice a lot, and do whatever needs to be done if you want a 5000 square foot craftsman bungalow in an upscale neighborhood, a couple of BMWs, a vacation home on the beach, a boat, two-week vacations to France, and a large retirement account.

You shouldn't have to bust your ass, work multiple jobs, and sacrifice everything in life for a livable wage.

This is one of the major disconnects in the these arguments. Those who have everything seem to think that those who have nothing or very little want what they have without working for it. Rarely the case. Those working as shelf stockers or burger flippers simply want to be able to not have to choose whether hey are going to eat that day because it may cut into the rent money. They aren't saying that they should make $100,000 a year and have a luxury car and use champagne as mouth wash.

If you ask me, a lot of those who have "made it" don't want people at a lower pay grade to have anything, because it makes their accomplishments seem lesser. If the poor guy has a cell phone, then their cell phone isn't as worthy. If the poor guy has a 30" TV, then their 60" TV isn't as impressive. But, keep in mind that the poor guy doesn't have (or shouldn't have) a fancy car, probably doesn't have money for a nice vacation, probably eats at cheaper restaurants, and probably lives in a small apartment instead of a big house.

And would higher wages hurt some businesses? Of course. But, if your business can't operate without paying people wages that they can't live on, then maybe you shouldn't be in business or maybe your business isn't worth it. And maybe, just maybe, if more people were making better wages, they could afford to shop at these very businesses, increasing their revenue so that they can pay those wages.

You can't argue for non-livable wages AND argue against government welfare and decry those who need it. If you support non-livable wages, then you support government subsidy of business.

[macbook yes]

Originally Posted by iMikeT

$4.50 in a better economic environment and student loans that don't leave you with a mortgage by the time you graduate, good for you old timer. Try doing that today. By the way, only fools ever compare raw numbers and don't account for other variables.

Community colleges give you the same degree as an expensive university that leaves you with a "mortgage". My brother is about to graduate from a community college with less than 10k in debt. He has worked a minimum wage job while in school, and lives with roommates. It is definitely do-able.