Republicans successfully block minimum wage bill

[Elegiac]

We need to take steps to curb some of the abuses of welfare, find ways to increase the available jobs for unskilled individuals that will allow them to get some training and develop transferrable skills (that's a tough one, I know), reduce the ways for corporations to essentially buy and sell political power, and put more spending money in the hands of the poor and lower middle class.

Welcome to the left wing. Here's your first lesson.

Welfare queens are by and large a myth.

[RaenavenBlacksun]

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal.

Yes, because that retail company is going to outright admit that this is a part of their current business model. You have obviously never worked for a retail company, let alone the largest in the US. It's more than anecdotal. It's an unfortunate reality for a lot of people who are barely scraping by. Give me a good comeback before throwing your desk chair economic expertise around.

[Orlong]

No, No, sort of, sort of?

I'm surprised you think Australia is European.

Its not, but Its socialist

[Endus]

Starting minimum wage hasnt kept pace with inflation maybe, but people who were making minimum wage when it became $7.75 arent still making minimum wage unless they are a shitty worker or are constantly job hopping. If you got hired at $7.75 when it became minimum wage and stayed at that company, youre likely making at LEAST $10 now and probably more with promotions. Its only people getting their first job or shitty workers who get a new job every 6 months that are actually getting minimum wage. In fact places like McDonalds give out raises after 90 days if you stay there that long, and work harder than just enough to get by

You do realize this is directly contradicting your prior claim, that increasing the minimum wage will just end up with everyone who makes more than that making proportionally less, right?

All those raises and such take into account things like cost of living. That's the point. You can't argue for wage inertia while also pointing out the regular pay bumps that go on.

[Orlong]

That infographic was not a "list of countries likely to go bankrupt". And many of them are less likely to do so than the US, despite higher minimum wages and so on.

Not only does it not support your claim, but the correlation you're claiming to see doesn't even exist in the data it presents.

Seems funny the title of the infographic is titled. 14 countries likely to go Bankrupt

[Endus]

Its not, but Its socialist

You say that like "socialist" is a bad word.

I'm a liberal market socialist, by ideology. There's nothing wrong with socialism.

And if socialism were the cause, then either the US wouldn't be at risk according to your infographic, or at least Canada would be higher, since Canada is objectively more socialist than the US, yes? The opposite is true; the US is at risk (3% chance, according to your source), while more-socialist Canada is not.

[Katchii]

You do realize that you're talking about putting people on welfare right? We want people off government assistance not on it

We also want companies to keep jobs in the US, and keep living breathing human beings working rather than machines.

Bill Gates made a good point a few months back about what could hape if it's raised.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/bill-ga...rs-in-poverty/

I'm not saying there isn't a problem, but simply raising the minimum wage is not the way to do it because it destabilizes the economy for a while and during that time, smaller businesses or non profit organization can't cope with the higher operating costs and would be forced to reduce hours, lay people off, or shut down which is a bad thing.

[Druidjezus]

I am all for getting abusers off of welfare. My problem is that the system is rigged for getting people currently on welfare, that need it, trying to get them off.

Corporations will pay as low as they can, because their main concern is profit. Not the welfare of their employees. So the government (the people) stepped in, and said no, thats not right, you have to pay X amount. That is the bottom that is legal. But this amount is not chained to inflation. So as inflation goes up, the people that are already getting paid a small amount now have even less buying power.

Inflation will happen regardless of the minimum wage being raised or not.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...-minimum-wage/

We pay people less now, adjusted to inflation then we did in 1968.

I'm not sure what corporations you deal with on a regular basis, but based on my experience that is just plain untrue.

Before Obamacare was based, my brother was acting all 'the sky is falling' because he saw a study that showed his company could make more money by cutting their healthcare plan and just paying the fine every year. And he was positive that's what was going to happen. I then proceeded to point out to him that they never HAD to have the plan before, but they did it anyway because it made them more competitive as a place to work.

There are, most assuredly, corporations who pay people the bare minimum, but there are also a lot who pay people above market value because they want to attract the best. Look at companies like Google, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, GE, Intel, Oracle, etc. Now I know these are all 'tech' corporations and maybe they're a bit ahead of the curve on hiring practices, but they pay really well and it's because they know that, ultimately, the talent they attract will pay more dividends than hiring people to work for the minimum.

So, some corporations suck, but keep in mind some are championing paying people higher wages much more than we as individuals can do.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

Yes, because that retail company is going to outright admit that this is a part of their current business model. You have obviously never worked for a retail company, let alone the largest in the US. It's more than anecdotal. It's an unfortunate reality for a lot of people who are barely scraping by. Give me a good comeback before throwing your desk chair economic expertise around.

Except your ancedotal evidence isn't going to cut it in a debate. Sorry.

[Orlong]

Europe also has fairly stringent privacy standards. I don't believe businesses are allowed to ask you about your personal life there.

If they dont ask if you have kids, then how are they to know if they have to pay you the single rate or person with kids rate?

[Elegiac]

Yes, because that retail company is going to outright admit that this is a part of their current business model. You have obviously never worked for a retail company, let alone the largest in the US. It's more than anecdotal. It's an unfortunate reality for a lot of people who are barely scraping by. Give me a good comeback before throwing your desk chair economic expertise around.

Alright, let me just be clear.

Anecdotal evidence like "I have worked in X" means absolutely nothing when discussing points of economic policy.

Vous comprenez-ca?

[Mavick]

The greater good, projections said up to 500,000 jobs could be lost. But 15% of the population is considered in poverty, or 46,500,000. A minimum wage increase would half that.

As for the 'catastrophic' effect you think it would have, pretty sure businesses would prefer to remain functioning at a minimum increase to operating costs, versus firing staff and not being able to function.

When you sit back and look at that hopefully you see how much theory is involved in what you're saying. You compare that to the situation as it is now and you wonder if it's really worth it to take that step without knowing how much impact it may have and how utterly wrong you may be.

[matt4pack]

The same chart shows the US has a 3% chance of the same.

And yet, Canada's not at risk at all.

It's almost like it doesn't support what you're claiming it does, at all.

So what's happening in France? They support all the same policies you are supporting but are struggling. People just keep using Canada as an example which by the way has a housing bubble. If that ever bursts then things could change there as well.

[Endus]

Seems funny the title of the infographic is titled. 14 countries likely to go Bankrupt

No. It's titled "14 countries on the verge of bankruptcy".

And it doesn't agree with your claims; it places the blame on national debt and world economy, not on socialist policies or higher minimum wage.

[Kezmaefele]

I've already refuted it. It hasn't happened in countries that have far higher minimum wages.

What hasn't happened?

This is what I linked:

1. It’s a big country. The costs of living, especially housing, vary widely in America from state to state and city to city. If the point of raising the minimum wage is to provide a “living wage,” why should the minimum wage in low-cost areas such as Texas or Oklahoma be the same as in high-cost areas such as San Francisco or Manhattan?

2. The states are already taking care of it. Twenty states and the District of Columbia already have minimum wages higher than the current federal minimum of $7.25 an hour.

3. Private industry and the free market are already taking care of it. Even low-skill, entry level positions in many areas already pay higher than minimum wage.

4. As an anti-poverty tool, it is a blunt instrument. A post by David Henderson cited by the chairman of the Harvard Economics Department, Greg Mankiw, points out that a lot of minimum wage earners are second or third-job holders in households with other income. That could include a teenage summer employee whose parents both have jobs. Other minimum wage workers may include retirees with income from savings and Social Security who own their homes mortgage-free.

5. It’s not clear that it’s constitutional. The Supreme Court, in its opinion in the 1923 case Adkins v. Children’s Hospital of District of Columbia, made a strong argument that a minimum wage was a violation of the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of contract embedded in the Fifth Amendment’s language about due process and the deprivation of liberty and property: “To the extent that the sum fixed exceeds the fair value of the services rendered, it amounts to a compulsory exaction from the employer for the support of a partially indigent person, for whose condition there rests upon him no peculiar responsibility, and therefore, in effect, arbitrarily shifts to his shoulders a burden which, if it belongs to anybody, belongs to society as a whole.” The Court later, in the 1937 case West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, reversed Adkins by a five to four margin. But maybe the court was right the first time around.

6. Even if the freedom of contract isn’t protected by the Constitution, it’s a natural right that should not be infringed. As President Kennedy put it in his inaugural address, “the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.” If two free people want to enter into a voluntary, consensual agreement that doesn’t infringe on anyone else’s rights, why should the government stop them? If someone wants to work for $5 an hour, and someone wants to hire that person for that much, and no one is forcing either one of them to enter into the agreement, by what authority does government step in and stop them?

7. It would eliminate jobs. Ordering businesses to pay entry-level workers more will make them hire fewer of them, and consider replacing more workers with robots or computers. That’s good if you are in the robot or computer business, but not so good if you are trying to combat unemployment. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that President Obama’s proposed $10.10 wage, once fully implemented, “would reduce total employment by about 500,000 workers.”

8. It would reduce the incentive for low-wage workers to get an education and move up to a higher-paying job. The lower the minimum wage, the more eager a minimum wage worker would be to enroll in a community college course at night, improve his or her skills, and apply for a higher-paying job. Making the entry-level jobs higher paying increases the risk that workers will get stuck in them for longer instead of moving on to something more rewarding.

9. It’s a sneaky way to increase welfare spending and raise taxes. Raising taxes to spend more on welfare is a political loser. But raising the minimum wage puts money in the pockets of working poor people, at the expense of business owners (and of consumers who would pay in the form of higher prices). If politicians want to increase the earned income tax credit or other work-related welfare benefits, they should do the hard work of building political support for such policies, rather than choosing the roundabout approach of a minimum wage increase.

[Elegiac]

We also want companies to keep jobs in the US, and keep living breathing human beings working rather than machines.

Bill Gates made a good point a few months back about what could hape if it's raised.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/bill-ga...rs-in-poverty/

I'm not saying there isn't a problem, but simply raising the minimum wage is not the way to do it because it destabilizes the economy for a while and during that time, smaller businesses or non profit organization can't cope with the higher operating costs and would be forced to reduce hours, lay people off, or shut down which is a bad thing.

And then increased buying power will generate new jobs to replace them.

[Mavick]

Alright, let me just be clear.

Anecdotal evidence like "I have worked in X" means absolutely nothing when discussing points of economic policy.

Vous comprenez-ca?

And just so you know, misquoting facts and straight out making stuff up as you have repeatedly has less than nothing to do with anything, period.

[Cthulhu 2020]

We all have mixed market economics. Some aspects of free market capitalism, some aspects of socialism. Using socialist or socialism as a demeaning insult is only insulting your own intelligence when you use it.

[Gadfly]

This is both bad and good. People can't live on $7 an hour. It's not possible. Companies don't want to hire people at $15 an hour to flip a burger. You raise the min wage less people get hired. And those that do get hired have to do more work. On the other side people still can't live on $7 an hour. It's literally a no win situation. Of course all while the CEOs of these companies buy another yacht and live the good life, but nobody is going after those guys.

I heard something before where some countries, or maybe it was just a company, have a policy that is percent based.
Like the minimum pay at the company can't be less than 2% of the CEO's pay.
I think that should be a law.
If some huge corporation is paying their CEO 150 million a year, plus bonuses, they should be able to offer $10 starting wages.
(It would also stop them from doing that, and having much more reasonable compensation with the top spots)
And inversely, it protects small/new companies. Like if the CEO of a start up only makes 50k, then its ok to pay the $7 min wage.
It would require them to more evenly distribute the money the company makes, instead of the big wigs taking everything the workers earned.

[Elegiac]

And just so you know, misquoting facts and straight out making stuff up as you have repeatedly has less than nothing to do with anything, period.

I haven't made anything up, actually.