Rise of Minimum wage?

[BigBallinStalin]

Are we a consumer based economy? Yes. Then the more money consumers have the better economy does.You could have the best product in the world but if no one can afford it your business will fail.Henry Ford gave his workers a unheard of at the time wage increase with the intention that they would be able to buy the product they were making,This was successful.

More money doesn't make us better or the economy better. If we all had double the amount of money, then (basically) we'd get double the inflation. All that money chasing the same amount of goods would wreak havoc on the economy.

What matters is the prices of goods (money, cars, factories, education, etc.), what people are willing to exchange for them (in short, voluntary exchange).

So, if the productivity of the workers at Ford are actually worth the wage increase, then this is fine. If some external organization (the government) imposes those wage increases, then this isn't fine. The government doesn't really care about the consequences of its policies, it lacks the incentive to readjust the problem it creates, and it lacks the local knowledge for making informed decisions over 300+ million people.

Nice theories.

here is reality:

Link: http://www.npr.org/2013/04/10/176677299 ... pay-dearly

Just how cheap is the cheap labor in Texas? Sometimes, it's free. Guillermo Perez, 41, is undocumented and has been working commercial construction jobs in Austin for 13 years.
"[The employer] said he didn't have the money to pay me and he owed me $1,200," Perez says of one job. "I told him that I'm going to the Texas Workforce Commission, which I did. Then after that, he came back two weeks later and paid me."
Perez is brave. Undocumented workers are usually too afraid to complain to Texas authorities, even when they go home with empty pockets. And they almost never talk to reporters.
Widespread Wage Theft
The economic collapse of 2008 brought with it an onslaught of wage theft, according to the Austin-based Workers Defense Project. At the end of the week, construction workers sometimes walk away with $4 or $5 an hour, sometimes less, sometimes nothing.
"Ninety percent of the people who come to our organization have come because they've been robbed of their wages," says Cristina Tzintzun, the Workers Defense Project executive director.
The organization has co-authored a report with the University of Texas, Austin, that examines working conditions in the Texas construction industry. For more than a year, WDP staff and University of Texas faculty canvassed Texas construction sites, surveying hundreds of workers and gathering information about pay, benefits, working conditions and employment and residency status.
Cheated workers keep working, Tzintzun says, because contractors dangle wages like bait from one week to another, paying just enough to keep everybody on the hook.

Enlarge image i
Two workers died when a crane collapsed under windy conditions at a University of Texas, Dallas, campus site in July 2012. OSHA cited the construction company with six serious safety violations and levied a $30,000 penalty.
Jack White/Courtesy of The Dallas Morning News

Two workers died when a crane collapsed under windy conditions at a University of Texas, Dallas, campus site in July 2012. OSHA cited the construction company with six serious safety violations and levied a $30,000 penalty.
Jack White/Courtesy of The Dallas Morning News "We're talking large commercial projects, even state and county projects," she says. "So it's a problem that's widespread in the industry."
If wage theft is a nasty cousin of slavery, Tzintzun says there's a deeper, more fundamental sickness affecting the Texas construction industry: the misclassification of construction workers as independent contractors instead of as employees.
"We found that 41 percent of construction workers, regardless of immigration status, were misclassified as subcontractors," she says.
It works like this: Pretend you're an interior contractor, drop by the Home Depot parking lot and pick up four Hispanic guys to install Sheetrock for $8 an hour.
By law, these men are your employees, even if just for the day. But in Texas, as in many other states, it's popular to pretend they're each independent contractors — business owners. Which means you are not paying for their labor but for their business services.
With this arrangement, the contractor — you — don't have to pay Social Security taxes or payroll taxes or workers' compensation or overtime. Instead, you pretend the undocumented Hispanic worker you've just paid in cash is going to pay all those state and federal taxes out of his $8 an hour himself.
"Our estimation is that there's $1.6 billion being lost in federal income taxes just from Texas alone," says the Workers Defense Project's Tzintzun. The report estimates that $7 billion in wages from nearly 400,000 illegally classified construction workers is going unreported in Texas each year, resulting in billions of dollars in revenue lost owing to institutionalized statewide payroll fraud.
"It's really the Wild West out there," Tzintzun says.
A Dangerous State For A Dangerous Industry
Making a dangerous but profitable living has long been part of the Texas ethos. Handsomely paid and heavily mustached Texas Rangers died atop their horses chasing bandits and Comanches; since 1901, so-called roughnecks flush with cash have lost their fingers, and sometimes their lives, working Texas oil rigs.
But working Texas construction is a good way to die while not making a good living. More construction workers die in Texas than in any other state, the WDP-UT study finds. With 10.7 deaths per 100,000 workers in 2010, construction workers in the lightly regulated Lone Star State died at twice the rate as those in California, with a rate of 5.2. That's compared with the U.S. rate of 8.8 in that same year.
Take the story of 48-year-old Angel Hurtado, an undocumented roofer who died at an Austin warehouse site that had fallen behind schedule. He plummeted 20 feet to a concrete floor, hitting his head on a girder as he fell.
Standing on the back road in the upscale Austin suburb of West Lake Hills where his father died, Angel's son Christian grows quiet and sad. His mother was also working at the site that day and saw her husband fall. She cradled his broken head in her lap, hysterical with grief.
When Christian arrived, the subcontractor took him aside and promised to pay for his father's funeral, Christian says. "The next day, we never see this guy. He never pick up the phone. We never hear anything from him, and he never called us back."
According to the study, 1 in every 5 Texas construction workers will require hospitalization because of injuries on the job. Texas is the only state in the nation without mandatory workers' compensation, meaning hospitals and taxpayers usually end up shouldering the cost when uncovered construction workers are hurt.
And who profits from the system in Texas? Remember that five-bedroom house for $160,000? Customers are the winners, workers are the losers and many construction firm owners have been transformed into the exploiters.
That's not the case for all construction firms, of course. But for many smaller contractors and subcontractors — who together make up the majority of the industry here — it's exploit your workers and cheat the taxpayers or go out of business. Those are the cold hard Texas construction industry facts.

You can pretend all you want that the "market" will work all this out, but your claims are refuted by evidence over and over and over again.

Markets were a great improvement and alternative to monarchies, but using the ideas of a market economy, as you do, as if it were some kind of insalable religion is just stupidity. Markets don't really and truly create better products. They can allow new products to spread, but once the products are no longer new, then the rush is to make them cheaper... and that, eventually always leads to cutting corners one way or another. You can try to find exceptions, but they don't exist, except in the very short term or small niches.

You're responding to monetary theory with some response about minimum wage and worker safety in Texas. Then you flaunt your opinions about how markets don't create better products (good god, lol). How ignorant can you get? When do you stop to think, "gee, I'm not sure about this. Perhaps I should read something credible before I make ridiculous claims and irrelevant points"?

[ooge]

How and when did the middle class grow in the USA? Who opposed the laws that were put in place that allowed for this growth? What reason did they give for opposing these laws?...

[BigBallinStalin]

How and when did the middle class grow in the USA? Who opposed the laws that were put in place that allowed for this growth? What reason did they give for opposing these laws?...

Define "middle class."
Define "grow in the USA."

What do those terms mean exactly?

What are the "laws that allowed for this growth"?

[ooge]

How and when did the middle class grow in the USA? Who opposed the laws that were put in place that allowed for this growth? What reason did they give for opposing these laws?...

Define "middle class."
Define "grow in the USA."

What do those terms mean exactly?

What are the "laws that allowed for this growth"?

nevermind

[BigBallinStalin]

[Symmetry]

Why is bbs posting pictures of white people now? Did someone tell him he was coming off as kinda racist?

[Lootifer]

You are a toilethead Sym.

BBS as always...

[PLAYER57832]

Player, your views of businesses and the economy are fundamentally flawed. Businesses provide a "reasonable wage" based on the skill level of the position and the value it brings to the company. "Reasonable wages" are NOT determined by the lifestyle the worker wants to live. You're trying to force the latter when reality runs on the former.

If my "ideas" are fundamentally flawed, it is because you begin with a base of no morality.

Oh, in other words, "I'm not wrong because you have no morals."

Great reasoning. Got any other gems for us?

You want to pretent that people have no inherent value, that all that matters is the business ability to make money. Giving people no value is pretty much a definition of evil. You can paint it up wiht all the stats and figures you like, but yes, that is a pretty basic point. If people have no value, then there is no value in anything at all.

[PLAYER57832]

By the way, why the eagerness to cause businesses to fail? Isn't an open business that's barely hanging on better than one that fails and closes?

No. Its a neutral matter. What matters is if the business is actually paying its way or not. A failed business is, in most cases better than a business that has to be artificially supported.

The exception is when the business is a fundamental need, including government itself, but you have rejected all such scenarios.

Especially when the only difference between the two is artificially imposed governmental regulations? Also, increasing the minimum wage just makes it that much harder for a business to recover because it raises the costs of hiring a temporary worker who may be able to put them back in the good.

The standards are not artificial. That is the point.

If you want to buy potatoes, there is an inherent value, an inherent bottom price. Water, harvesting, etc all cost a certain amount of money. Try to go below that and the farmer must stop selling potatoes. If someone does go below, then you have to look very, very seriously at why, because the chances are they cut corners somewhere -- most likely flat stole the potatoes or else got them from some kind of discard/reject pile. (potatoes that have been contaminated and were supposed to be removed from the market, for example).

The minimum cost of human being labor is the amount of money it takes to feed, cloth and house those human beings. That is true of slaves, it is certainly true of free human beings. If it takes a government entity to convince business that this is so, then so be it. Sadly, a lot of businesses could care less about the wider impact of their decisions, they just want to fill their own pockets... even it if IS at everyone else's expense.

[PLAYER57832]

Are we a consumer based economy? Yes. Then the more money consumers have the better economy does.You could have the best product in the world but if no one can afford it your business will fail.Henry Ford gave his workers a unheard of at the time wage increase with the intention that they would be able to buy the product they were making,This was successful.

More money doesn't make us better or the economy better. If we all had double the amount of money, then (basically) we'd get double the inflation. All that money chasing the same amount of goods would wreak havoc on the economy.

What matters is the prices of goods (money, cars, factories, education, etc.), what people are willing to exchange for them (in short, voluntary exchange).

So, if the productivity of the workers at Ford are actually worth the wage increase, then this is fine. If some external organization (the government) imposes those wage increases, then this isn't fine. The government doesn't really care about the consequences of its policies, it lacks the incentive to readjust the problem it creates, and it lacks the local knowledge for making informed decisions over 300+ million people.

Oh bull. The government is us. The "government" is those people WE elect, so they absolutely care about what the majority of people want.

Business, on the other hand, cares about making money -- and lacks any mechanism for responsibility outside the direct income line, unless artificially imposed. Business can thrive while polluting the nation. starving people. By the time the consequences impact the business... the owners are too often long gone, perhaps dead.

[thegreekdog]

Oh bull. The government is us. The "government" is those people WE elect, so they absolutely care about what the majority of people want. Unless it's something I don't agree with; then the government is run by evil corporations.

Fixed.

[PLAYER57832]

Oh bull. The government is us. The "government" is those people WE elect, so they absolutely care about what the majority of people want. Unless it's something I don't agree with; then the government is run by evil corporations.

Fixed.

When you have to stoop to lying... well, why even bother.

Except, you cannot point to a single example where the above is actually correct.

That I say big business has too much impact our government and is stifling the democratic process is far less hypocritical than you supposed "idea" that turning the whole mess over to big business without any controls at all except those they are willing to impose on themselves will somehow result in a better result than actually ensuring that people are fed, educated and housed when they work.

[BigBallinStalin]

Player, your views of businesses and the economy are fundamentally flawed. Businesses provide a "reasonable wage" based on the skill level of the position and the value it brings to the company. "Reasonable wages" are NOT determined by the lifestyle the worker wants to live. You're trying to force the latter when reality runs on the former.

If my "ideas" are fundamentally flawed, it is because you begin with a base of no morality.

Oh, in other words, "I'm not wrong because you have no morals."

Great reasoning. Got any other gems for us?

You want to pretent that people have no inherent value, that all that matters is the business ability to make money. Giving people no value is pretty much a definition of evil. You can paint it up wiht all the stats and figures you like, but yes, that is a pretty basic point. If people have no value, then there is no value in anything at all.

haha, YES! MORE GEMS!!!

Thanks.

[BigBallinStalin]

Oh bull. The government is us. The "government" is those people WE elect, so they absolutely care about what the majority of people want. Unless it's something I don't agree with; then the government is run by evil corporations.

Fixed.

Yeah. Don't forget her hated "conservatives" who want lower taxes and who control people's minds with their ideas and stuff. But if they're "liberals" who want bigger government, then that's fine. Or maybe not, she can be fickle at times. If they bankroll her favored programs, then she'll flop on her belly for them and wiggle whichever way they say to.

[BigBallinStalin]

Oh bull. The government is us. The "government" is those people WE elect, so they absolutely care about what the majority of people want. Unless it's something I don't agree with; then the government is run by evil corporations.

Fixed.

At least the fixed quote is her more honest opinion.

[stahrgazer]

Oh bull. The government is us. The "government" is those people WE elect, so they absolutely care about what the majority of people want.

Business, on the other hand, cares about making money -- and lacks any mechanism for responsibility outside the direct income line, unless artificially imposed. Business can thrive while polluting the nation. starving people. By the time the consequences impact the business... the owners are too often long gone, perhaps dead.

Dream on!

Politicians (especially Congress/Senate) do NOT care about what the majority of "people" want. They care only about what the "people with the deepest filled pockets" want. In other words, they care only about making enough money via contributions, to get re-elected. Politicians can thrive while making money hand over fist, starving people.

And here's the only place these politicians seem to differ from big business: the consequence don't impact the Congress and Senate - when it looks like it could, they blame "it" on past congresses or past or present presidents. Individuals may change, election to election, but the bulk of the corrupt ones remain so the process continues to steamroll on.

Raising the minimum is just one more example of a "pretends to do something," policy that actually does nothing to change the status quo or upward shift of the nation's wealth to a select few.

And, those select few are rarely productive businessmen anymore - I mean, are now rarely the kind of businessmen that produce a product so need employees to actually make something to sell.

[Lootifer]

Its not just money at play here. Power is just as, if not more so, alluring than cold hard cash.

Meaning that politicians only listen to people with power; sure that usually co-incides with people who have a lot of money, but not exclusively.

[Juan_Bottom]

You want to pretend that people have no inherent value, that all that matters is the business ability to make money. Giving people no value is pretty much a definition of evil. You can paint it up with all the stats and figures you like, but yes, that is a pretty basic point. If people have no value, then there is no value in anything at all.

Seconded.

Yeah. Don't forget her hated "conservatives" who want lower taxes and who control people's minds with their ideas and stuff. But if they're "liberals" who want bigger government, then that's fine. Or maybe not, she can be fickle at times. If they bankroll her favored programs, then she'll flop on her belly for them and wiggle whichever way they say to.

Honestly this is probably the dumbest thing that I've ever read on this site by someone who is actually respected by the fora users.
You just attacked a woman for forming her opinions on an issue by issue basis. I'm so sorry for you because she considers points and counter points before she takes a stand.
Duh.
Seriously, this is a really stupid personal attack.

Politicians (especially Congress/Senate) do NOT care about what the majority of "people" want. They care only about what the "people with the deepest filled pockets" want. In other words, they care only about making enough money via contributions, to get re-elected. Politicians can thrive while making money hand over fist, starving people.

And here's the only place these politicians seem to differ from big business: the consequence don't impact the Congress and Senate - when it looks like it could, they blame "it" on past congresses or past or present presidents. Individuals may change, election to election, but the bulk of the corrupt ones remain so the process continues to steamroll on.

If you believe that, and you love your country, then you should kill them. Otherwise you're aiding them.

Raising the minimum is just one more example of a "pretends to do something," policy that actually does nothing to change the status quo or upward shift of the nation's wealth to a select few.

We strongly disagree. Australia is a fine example of a country where the minimum wage is protected and successful, and as I already said, each study that I have read (and the poll) all say that the economy would only shed a negligible amount of jobs if the minimum were raised to $10. And that in turn will help to lift everyone out of debt. You yourself said that most minimum wage earners are teenagers. And that the minimum wage is used by businesses to lure good workers, by paying them a certain % above minimum wage. So it sounds like you agree that most workers wages are actually set by the minimum wage value, even if most workers don't make minimum wage.
So this sounds like a very good start for transferring the wealth back and forming a healthier economy.

Its not just money at play here. Power is just as, if not more so, alluring than cold hard cash.

Meaning that politicians only listen to people with power; sure that usually co-incides with people who have a lot of money, but not exclusively.

You know, a young Theodore Roosevelt wrote in his diary and to his family about this. After heading to New York for his first term in politics, he wrote about how his party, the Republicans, had bad politicians in it. But that the good ones are always trying to throw them out. And the Democrats only welcomed the corrupt... but when talking about corrupt politicians, he included those that he believed had a reverence for the powerful. It was a different time, and the rules of politics were different, but he saw that some politicians and toads worshiped the rich and powerful, and only stayed in their stations to serve them. He oft attacked these mean as corrupt in the papers and on the floor, but really they were a different kind of corrupt. Roosevelt was very clever though. He would sometimes attack a lackey just to see who would come and defend him, a perfect trap leading Roosevelt to the snake's head.
And certainly there are politicians who today fit that bill. But the bulk of them, I believe, killed their own political careers under Bush II. Now they're all lobbyists, which is probably worse.
Our United States government is so big that you can find politicians of every color. McConnell is a sell-out, Obama rewards loyalty, Warren is powerless but inspirational, Jeb is self-serving, ect.

The government recognizes national parks.....except now they've grossly expanded that use to block our country from becoming energy independent and to keep land out of the control of the state governments.

What he hell?
EVERYONE SHUT UP
I want to hear more about climate change and managing our resources from the man who thinks that God put all the animals on a boat.

And yet again, we look at the previous debacle of the housing bubble and realize that it was also due to governmental involvement. The government said the banks were being racist by not loaning money to people who were too risky, so the government bought up all that risk so the private market wouldn't have to take on that risk (which is a foundation of economics). And they continued that same policy of removing risk by bailing out the banks, car companies, and installing Dodd-Frank which provides for a permanent bailout opportunity. Government involvement in the free market is what is causing so many of our problems (the rest are caused by the government losing a trillion dollars every year).

If you don't want the government involved in your business, then you need to act responsibly. That's how government has expanded, d*ckheads not acting responsibly. Going back in time, you can find lots of government screw-ups that were well-intentioned (prohibition).... and sometimes ones that were not well-intentioned (the War of 1812). That's not proof that government is bad, and the free market is a savior. To fall back on Teddy Roosevelt again, he actually argued for laissez-faire government during his youth, but then changed his mind towards socialism well before he became president. Many of his early socialist reforms were beaten in court (like ending factory slums & hygiene in food production factorys), beaten away by businessmen who argued that socialism violated the free market. The 40-hour work week was a violation of standard oil's rights. Think about it.
You need to take a step back and argue these things by their merit, not by sticking to the jar-headed POV of some wild-west anarchist wet dream.

[ooge]

[PLAYER57832]

Oh bull. The government is us. The "government" is those people WE elect, so they absolutely care about what the majority of people want.

Business, on the other hand, cares about making money -- and lacks any mechanism for responsibility outside the direct income line, unless artificially imposed. Business can thrive while polluting the nation. starving people. By the time the consequences impact the business... the owners are too often long gone, perhaps dead.

Dream on!

Politicians (especially Congress/Senate) do NOT care about what the majority of "people" want. They care only about what the "people with the deepest filled pockets" want. In other words, they care only about making enough money via contributions, to get re-elected. Politicians can thrive while making money hand over fist, starving people.

And why is that... becuase people keep ELECTING AND SUPPORTING those that make bad decisions. But no, politicians cannot make money hand over fist while starving people. At some point, people do rebel.

And here's the only place these politicians seem to differ from big business: the consequence don't impact the Congress and Senate - when it looks like it could, they blame "it" on past congresses or past or present presidents. Individuals may change, election to election, but the bulk of the corrupt ones remain so the process continues to steamroll on.

Change in Congress and the Senate are EXTREMELY slow, by intent. The current change took over 30 years to get to where it is now. A change will likely not take quite as long because things are moving faster in the internet age.

Still, if people decide to fight, they can change things. The trouble is, people want to believe that all they have to do is ask for lower taxes, fewer regulations and suddenly business will magically flourish in ways it never has before.

The trouble? History shows us that won't work. One of the times when our country made hte most gains was in the 1950's. There was a LOT wrong with that time, but economically, they were prosperous times, and they were also heavily regulated times, compared to preceding decades.

Today, we face harsher regulations because the decisions that have to be made and the things at risk are greater.

But pretending that allowing businesses to pay whatever htey want is part of what is driving us down, just like slavery, while seemingly beneficial in the short term, eventually was part of what drug the south down. Today, it is illegal immigrants and women who are primarily being exploited, and they are getting wages, but conditions are making those WORKING people burdens on society instead of benefits.

Raising the minimum is just one more example of a "pretends to do something," policy that actually does nothing to change the status quo or upward shift of the nation's wealth to a select few.

And, those select few are rarely productive businessmen anymore - I mean, are now rarely the kind of businessmen that produce a product so need employees to actually make something to sell.

Most of the low wage workers actually do just that. Case in point.. contsruction workers.

Also, many workers in cafeterias, restaurants.. not to mention agriculture.

[thegreekdog]

Honestly this is probably the dumbest thing that I've ever read on this site by someone who is actually respected by the fora users.
You just attacked a woman for forming her opinions on an issue by issue basis. I'm so sorry for you because she considers points and counter points before she takes a stand.
Duh.
Seriously, this is a really stupid personal attack.

I have no problem with Player forming her opinions and confronting people on issues. What I have a problem with is the way she uses the "government is controlled by corporations" argument. If she is supportive of a particular law or regulation, she will ignore the "goverment is controlled by corporations" argument. If she is not supportive of a particular law or regulation, she will use the "government is controlled by corporations" argument. My preference would be that she doesn't use the argument at all if she can't use it consistently.

Contrast with you. You use that argument occasionally, but do not have the same level of hypocrisy that Player uses; in fact, you generally apply that argument consistently.

[PLAYER57832]

Oh bull. The government is us. The "government" is those people WE elect, so they absolutely care about what the majority of people want. Unless it's something I don't agree with; then the government is run by evil corporations.

Fixed.

Yeah. Don't forget her hated "conservatives" who want lower taxes and who control people's minds with their ideas and stuff. But if they're "liberals" who want bigger government, then that's fine. Or maybe not, she can be fickle at times. If they bankroll her favored programs, then she'll flop on her belly for them and wiggle whichever way they say to.

Like I said, when you have to be dishonest to refute what I am saying, you have already lost.
Too bad you won't admit it.

In case anyone who has not followed the dialogue pops in -- I am neither for bigger government, nor lesser government. I am for effective and appropriate government. Similarly, claiming to be for "lower taxes" when you are really about foisting your business costs onto the rest of society is extremely dishonest. When you claim that a business can legitimately hire someone for less than it takes them to eat, have a decent apartment or home, clothing, then yes, you are either declaring that work and people have no value and can just starve or you are expecting others to pick up those costs.

[PLAYER57832]

Honestly this is probably the dumbest thing that I've ever read on this site by someone who is actually respected by the fora users.
You just attacked a woman for forming her opinions on an issue by issue basis. I'm so sorry for you because she considers points and counter points before she takes a stand.
Duh.
Seriously, this is a really stupid personal attack.

I have no problem with Player forming her opinions and confronting people on issues. What I have a problem with is the way she uses the "government is controlled by corporations" argument. If she is supportive of a particular law or regulation, she will ignore the "goverment is controlled by corporations" argument. If she is not supportive of a particular law or regulation, she will use the "government is controlled by corporations" argument. My preference would be that she doesn't use the argument at all if she can't use it consistently.

That is utter bull and you know it.

You distort what I am saying so you can pretend it is true.

I have no idea why you have gone from honest debating to simply attacking, personal attacks at that, exaggerations and lies, but what is really scary is how many people are acting and thinking exactly like you. THAT is why we are in the mess we are in, too many people who have plain stopped thinking, who think truth, honesty and facts are some kind of popularity contest where the "winner" takes all. But when its truth that loses, EVERYONE loses.

The Allegheny forest is probably your worst example yet. Despite all of your claims, you still, truly don't bother to get what the real issues even are. Abortion is pretty high up there as well, where you tried to claim I said that every abortion was to save a mother's life.

[thegreekdog]

Honestly this is probably the dumbest thing that I've ever read on this site by someone who is actually respected by the fora users.
You just attacked a woman for forming her opinions on an issue by issue basis. I'm so sorry for you because she considers points and counter points before she takes a stand.
Duh.
Seriously, this is a really stupid personal attack.

I have no problem with Player forming her opinions and confronting people on issues. What I have a problem with is the way she uses the "government is controlled by corporations" argument. If she is supportive of a particular law or regulation, she will ignore the "goverment is controlled by corporations" argument. If she is not supportive of a particular law or regulation, she will use the "government is controlled by corporations" argument. My preference would be that she doesn't use the argument at all if she can't use it consistently.

That is utter bull and you know it.

You distort what I am saying so you can pretend it is true.

I have no idea why you have gone from honest debating to simply attacking, personal attacks at that, exaggerations and lies, but what is really scary is how many people are acting and thinking exactly like you. THAT is why we are in the mess we are in, too many people who have plain stopped thinking, who think truth, honesty and facts are some kind of popularity contest where the "winner" takes all. But when its truth that loses, EVERYONE loses.

The Allegheny forest is probably your worst example yet. Despite all of your claims, you still, truly don't bother to get what the real issues even are. Abortion is pretty high up there as well, where you tried to claim I said that every abortion was to save a mother's life.

I'm not distorting anything. I've used your own typed words. You have a problem with the private companies exploiting natural gas in the Allegheny forest region of Pennsylvania. So do I. And we both know that the reason that private companies can exploit natural gas in the Allegheny forest region of Pennsylvania is because of soft money and lobbying.

What I have a problem with and will continue to have a problem with, is that you then turn around and say that you're okay with minimum wage laws or environmental tax credits or immigration reform because "the government is made up of the people." How can you be consistent when you've just spent time arguing about corporate influence? I can't have a discussion with you any more because you fail to grasp this concept that you're being hypocritical. It is figuratively driving me insane. Unless and until you either acknowledge the hypocrisy or change your argument style in some way, why would I continue to drive myself figuratively insane?

You have painted me with a brush that I'm anti-government... and that's true, except that I'm anti-government as it's currently situated. I don't like rent-seeking. I don't like that the government is essentially controlled by large companies, unions, and special interest lobbies, whether those entities and organizations are conservative or liberal or neither. I don't like that Exxon has a lot of influence. I don't like that the SEIU has a lot of influence. I don't like that NOW, the NAACP, or that group that always complains about sex on TV have a lot of influence. On the one hand, you seem to agree with me that these entities have a lot of influence, at least with respect to large companies. And yet you turn around and denigrate my point of view and hammer home the idea that the government is "of the people" in another post. It's not consistent. You can't have it both ways. Either the government is heavily influenced by large companies, unions, and special interest lobbies, or it's not. If it is influenced by large companies, unions, and special interest lobbies, and you think that's bad, then you should certainly not denigrate me when I come into a minimum wage thread and note that the only reason that minimum wage will be increased is so that employees in the SEIU union can make $25 an hour instead of $23 an hour.

[thegreekdog]

Just a refresher...

This thread is bananas. I've gotten the impression that nobody other than player and myself make less than $25K a year, or aren't CEOs of big dumb companies. Because why would you vote against yourself? Unless you only buy American products so you can feel good about yourself, but you want to pay the cheapest price so you want to keep workers down.... or if you live off of fast food and can't afford to pay more for Burger King.

What would Utah Philips think of all of you? You should feel ashamed.
Also, serious question too - did any of you learn about American Labor History in high school or college? It seems like nobody here ever talks about history when discussing these topics, and everyone on the other side of this debate is pro big business. I feel like that's treason.

Why shouldn't Union workers make more money anyway? Union workers are not overpaid; you are underpaid. Fair wages do not bankrupt a business, poor management is what ruins a business. Each time a Unionized company fails, the Union gets blamed. But each time, as with GM and Hostess we see that the unions make repeated concessions to help the company do better. There's absolutely no reason to be anti-union at all, America is a Union, and look how strong we are. Some of our favorite American institutions are Unionized, like Hershey, Doritos, Pepsi, Coke, Keebler Cookies, Old Spice, Miller High Life, and Budweiser. Our teachers, police officers, paramedics, and firefighters are unionized.
Eric Liu, a popular lecturer and internet author said "Unions lift wages for non-union members by creating a higher prevailing wage. Even if you aren't a union member, your pay is influenced by the strength or weakness of organized labor. the presence of unions sets off a wage race to the top. Their absence sets off a race to the bottom." He's absolutely correct, because while worker pay peaked the same time that the minimum wage did, it's been on the decline ever since, as have Unions. While we had a strength of Unions in America, we all made more money at our jobs, and the economy was healthier.

Why shouldn't college students earn more money? Don't these poor bastards already get hammered enough?

If a business is successful, shouldn't they share that success with the ones who actually created it?

Of course you're not going to find many people working full time for minimum wage. Most of the businesses who hire workers for minimum wage suppress workers hours to less than 35 a week. They also hire teenagers, because only teenagers will work for shit wages with shit hours at a shitty job. That doesn't make the practice good, nor does it make the massive profits of companies like McDonalds or Wal*Mart ingeniously American. It's organized greed perpetrated at your expense. In Australia, for example, fast food workers make $16 an hour. Our ridiculous fake "fair" minimum wage works to protect big business profits only. Our minimum wage remains well below the rate of inflation. Adjusting for inflation the minimum wage should be $10.55 an hour. Now, how many American's work full time for less than $10.55 an hour? A bunch, I'm guessing. For example, according to southernstudies, the majority of construction workers in Texas work 40 hours a week, yet 52% of them live below the poverty level.
Slave wages will do nothing to help the worker or the economy.

Why shouldn't minimum wage be tied directly to inflation? FDR said, quite emphatically, that "No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to it's workers has any right to continue in this country." And remember who FDR was.... the guy who took over during the Great Depression. And again I say that our living wage is $10.55 an hour.
When the minimum wage peaked in 1968, America was in the mist of it's longest period of growth, ever. Unemployment averaged somewhere around 5%, which is similar to the 90s. The economy was robust and healthy. As Henry Ford said, if you want people to buy your shit, then you need to pay people enough to buy your shit. And that's the bottom line.

I would like to thank Juan for talking about the actual issue (unlike Player, I might add).

My response to this is that if union workers don't want their hourly wages tied to minimum wage, they should have demanded that their high priced attorneys draft agreements that did not tie hourly wages to minimum wage. I'm not anti-union. I'm actually very much pro-union. I think it's a form of capitalism or democracy for workers to organize and fight for higher wages. So, the unions have my blessing to go after higher wages in agreements with their employers. Go for it!

And just to be clear, from the SEIU website:

$917 = Median weekly earnings in 2010 of union members.

http://www.seiu.org/a/ourunion/research ... igures.php

That's $47,684 a year.
That's $22.95 an hour (assuming a 40 hour work week). $22.95 an hour is well over federal minimum wage, state minimum wage, and the "living wage" in a city like Philadelphia (according to MIT). And that wage does not count other benefits of being in a union, like for example health insurance benefits.

So yeah, you should be in a union if you can, but union workers are making a living wage and more. So don't feel sorry for them.

In the great state of New Jersey, teachers make on average $61,830 a year. That's $1,545 a week. That's $38 an hour assuming a 40 hour work week AND that the teacher works every week of every year (which usually doesn't occur). $38 an hour is well over federal minimum wage, state minimum wage, and the "living wage" in a city like Newark (according to MIT). And that wage does not count other benefits of being in the union, like only paying 6% or so of your health insurance costs (that number used to be much lower).

http://www.teachersalaryinfo.com/averag ... ersey.html

So yeah, you should be in the teachers union in New Jersey if you can, but New Jersey teachers are making a living wage and more. So don't feel sorry for them.

And lest you think otherwise, I'm not denigrating unions. Good for the SEIU members. Good for the New Jersey teachers. Great job. Keep fighting the fight. But don't expect me to feel sorry for you.

By the way. Juan, Player - you guys should probably look into this union thing. You could double your salaries!