My crap -- not your crap. It might be political, social, or personal. If you don't like it, leave. Comment if you want. I might reply or I might not, but I do read them.
I just looked up at http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/america.htm#NewYork minimum wages in each state. NY is only 7.25. Wow, I thought it would be higher than that amount. It is also says there are 5 states without any minimum wages? AL; LA; MS; SC; and TN. I wonder how that affects people to not even have a minimum wage. This is interesting: 'The State of Washington has the highest minimum wage at $9.04/hour. The states of Georgia and Wyoming have the lowest minimum wage ($5.15) of the 45 states that have a minimum wage requirement. "
Except the CEOs and Upper Echelon executives earn their money by eliminating needless costs. You know like American jobs...
Kinda like "advances" in the internal combustion engine. A few weeks ago I was looking at an old Time magazine I have from 1975 or so, and saw a Toyota advertisement touting thirty-some-odd MPG on one of their cars.Nice blog. I've linked it to mine. Thanks for dropping by mine, by the way.
I would have thought the minimum wage would be higher than $23 if it was tied to executive salaries, just because of how executive salaries have multiplied and exploded in the last 20 years.Still, this is very eye-opening. Or "class warfare" for the benefit of any conservatives reading this.
A $23 an hour minimum wage would have hugely deleterious effects on the economy and the politicians know it. That's why none of them, not even the socialist, Bernie Sanders, have ever even suggested such a thing....I mean, I don't know what the ideal rate would be, but it certainly wouldn't be $23 an hour for teenagers and entry level folks.
No, Will, the politicians "know" no such thing, and you should keep your right-wing talking points to yourself, since they are so easily debunked.When I was a teenager, a person could afford both food and shelter on a minimum-wage job. All of the "deleterious" economic damage I've seen has been SINCE then.
What an paranoid asshole you are. I have a consistent record of criticizing both sides and was recently attacked by a conservative physician for simply saying that I was "considering" voting for Obama. I've also been banned from Tammy Bruce dot come for too strenuously criticizing Sarah Palin. My lifelong voting record is probably around 60(D)-20(R)-20(I) and I haven't voted Republican for President since 1988.......And I ask you, you smart-assed, unable to think outside the partisan box, stooge, name me ONE instance of ANY politician of EVER suggesting that the minimum-wage should be even remotely close to $23 an hour.......And your other assertion is ludicrous, too. When I was a teenager, I worked at McDonald's for $.91 an hour and there is NO WAY IN HELL that I could made it on my own with that type of wage. You're flaming crazy, ass.
Well said Jolly Roger. Will fancies himself a "moderate" but mostly spouts Right-wing talking points. Bernie Sanders is a pragmatist and wouldm't waste time suggesting something that had no chance of passing. I'm positive, however, that he'd be in favor of raising it by quite a bit, and would not object if $23/hour were a possibility.I think a 23/hour minimum wage would have a very positive effect on the economy.
I disagree, wd. I think that we should make it 100.
Yes, wd, compared to you, I'm VERY CONSERVATIVE. But, then again, so too are Karl Marx and Frederick Engels.
Will: We should make it $1200 an hour. I envision an America in which everyone's a millionaire. This will make it happen.
I guess what we are saying is, any minimum wage at all does not safely increase anyone's standard of living. That someone earning a nickle per hour, would not have his standard of living increased by earning 8.00 per hour. How do we know? Simple, because if you can increase someone's standard of living by raising his income from a nickle to eight dollars per hour without shutting down the system, then you can do the exact same thing by increasing his income to 1200.00 per hour. How do we know this? Because we don't understand slippery slope fallacies or reductio ad absurdum.
To say that minimum wage should be 7.25 per hour is to suggest that either A. A person can have the most basic of needs met on that hourly rate, which is usually false, or B. that a the fact that a person cannot have basic needs met on that rate, and that their children will be impoverished an hungry is better than the alternative, a higher minimum wage, which is false so far as I can see. I agree that there is no legitimate correlation in the minimum wage and the top pay of executives. Both should be considered independent of the other. However, to say that 7.25 per hour is “OK,” is no different than saying “let the children starve if their parents cannot do better.” The primary rebuttal I see is that someone can start bragging about the value of food stamps and welfare to solve the problem. It did not solve my families. I remember the last slice of cheese falling in the floor, contaminating it beyond reasonable consumption in my family view, and me going hungry that night. This was when the minimum wage was a considered useful, valid and the right thing to do. Intentional poverty in America is not good for America, no matter how loud rich men claim the contrary. I would love to discuss this more, but I don’t want to get into a huge debate about the false religion of Supply Side Economics. I just don’t have the time.
The hell of it is, if our poorest-paid workers were making $23 an hour, most of our wealthiest would be better off as well. Some of the wealthiest individuals and families, and some of the corporations, wouldn't be quite as well off as they are now, but would still have scored steady, substantial gains.What Will doesn't comprehend is that we all do better when we all do better. The wealthy do things like build apartment complexes. When minimum-wage workers can afford to move into those apartments, guess who does better? And that's just one possibility.
Myste, there's no point debating about supply-side economics. It's nothing but a scam — a thoroughly discredited scam. So, debating about it would be like debating about turning lead into gold.
Lets see, $23 per hour would mean $15.00 for a Happy Meal and $10.00 for a gallon of milk. Who will that hurt, take a guess and you will come up with the middle class. Who will not be affected much, the rich.Instead of a give-a-way how about promoting Get-a-skill. With some skill a person can earn what they are worth, but they would have to go to work which is just not right for some.
This comment has been removed by the author.
skudrunner, you are finally coming around. Glad to,see that you support a jobs training program to help lift people out of poverty. But we need to work on your sensitivity a little. To imply that people working for minimum wage are not really working but getting a give away is just wrong.
Skudrunner, Wow, that is an impressive rebuttal. I did not realize that McDonald's uses the minimum wage as part of its pricing algorithm. Thank you for this. In my ignorance, I was just about to accept a pay increase at work, foolishly unaware that the increase may not even be adequate to offset the resulting cost of a McGriddle. What if we raised the minimum wage, but also stopped eating McGriddles when the price gets too high? We could include this strategy in a larger economic philosophy. Let's see, we will call it capitalism. Hmmm, not really good, because there are no real capitals involved. How about, Free Market Competition. Hmmm. That idea is illogical because I require McGriddles, and McDonald's seems to have has a monopoly on them. Hmmm. I guess I am content to make 7.25 per hour to keep inflation in check. I have observed others who make minimum wage, and they seem to have no financial problems whatsoever. Everything they buy is cheap cheap cheap. I always wondered how they managed to get all their goods so cheap from stores they call things like “The Dollar Store,” and stuff, while I pay higher prices at Target and Macys. Now I understand. They are simply better off financially because they make less.
But we need to work on your sensitivity a little. To imply that people working for minimum wage are not really working but getting a give away is just wrong. Jerry, I think you misunderstood what he was saying. If you re-read his comment, it will become clear. What he intended to say was that those who earn minimum wage, aren't worth very much. Once you understand him, then it is clear that it would not make sense to use precious funds to train a worthless person when there are so many valuable people in need in other ways. For example, the funds you use to train the worthless could better be allocated to tax relief given to those who are utterly valuable, say those who earn over 250,000 per year? Sorry, Skudrunner, I know you are completely capable of defending yourself, but I resist straw men wherever I find them, so I felt compelled to come to your defense in this matter.
I do appreciate you clarifying what I said and for you accepting agreeing there should be a difference between skilled and non-skilled workers.I am sensitive to those who choose to work but I have little compassion for those who could work and choose not to. How much should a job at McD's or ar Dollar General be worth?
How much should a job at McD's or ar Dollar General be worth? The minimum amount one can pay to get the job done, which should be more than 7.25 per hour, as that is exploitation.
I guess that was an answer but not a very compelling one. Exploitation is using people unfairly to benefit others, welfare comes to mind. Paying someone to work is providing opportunity but that must be something you are against.
Interesting, Skud. When did I say that there was no difference between skilled and unskilled workers?
A job is not the "best self help program" unless it pays enough to live within the current economic situation. America cannot work, with a work force making minimum wage.Capitalists need to understand the Henry Ford philosophy; If I pay my employees enough to buy the product I (they) am/are making, I will make 1,000 times more profit.How long will companies survive when they are getting their profit from a smaller and smaller percentage of the American people? That situation, is not even capitalism.Capitalists have a responsibility to the community they do business in.
"Exploitation is using people unfairly to benefit others, welfare comes to mind."So skud, are you saying that welfare is exploitation? Really?!?
Jerry, Like Skud always says, in the welfare system, children are exploited into eating and living in solid structures, whereas left to their own devices, they would have freely gone without food, medicine and housing. As Skud would put it, children should never be exploited.
Myste wrote: "Once you understand him (skudrunner), then it is clear that it would not make sense to use precious funds to train a worthless person when there are so many valuable people in need in other ways."Skudrunner's drift seems to be: 1, minimum wage doesn't reflect the true value of the work people do to earn it'; and 2, people making minimum wage are doing so for lack of willingness to earn more in higher-value work.The free market remedy for No. 1 is to eliminate minimum wage laws and let McD's find how little it can pay and still get sentient beings to go to work for the company. This remedy brings with it the specter of McD's employees packing PB&J's to eat during their breaks because they can't afford happy meals.No. 2 reflects woeful ignorance about people generally and about the U.S. economy and labor market as they have evolved over the last 30 years.Forty or 50 years ago, a typical high school graduate could join a union and go to work in a factory, mill or mine, and within six years support a wife and two kids, and make payments on a new or newer car. Within 12-15 years of graduation, the family could move into a home of their own. And after some raises, bonuses and promotions, by the time the oldest child graduated high school, his dad could send him to a good state college or university on money he had saved for that purpose.Was that typical young man of 40 or 50 years ago more industrious than his counterpart today? No, not at all. The difference is that that young man came of age at a time when opportunities for family-supporting jobs abounded. He got established in a career at a time when good workers enjoyed excellent job security, good pay that actually increased with advances in productivity or company profit making, and generous benefits.Large numbers of young people today aren't stuck at miniumum wage because they're unwilling to work or incapable of being productive. Their country and economy have failed them in a thousand ways — ways that have made millionaires billionaires by destroying jobs here and selling out current and future generations of American workers. By selling out their country to add to their personal wealth.The poverty of low-skill, low-pay workers and millions who can't even get a dependable minimum wage job reflects a poverty of opportunities in what America's economy has become.
Sorry, S.W.A. Your comment was temporarily misdirected.
Anderson, I saw your comment in e-mail, but I don't see it here. I found your response confusing. Can you please very carefully differentiate between the worthless people and the non worthless people in future commentary? I and Skud get confused when you lump them altogether. We have taken great pains to make the distinction ourselves and we don't like seeing it undone with an overtone of respect for all American workers. Thanks in advance.
I guess that you favor determining someones worth instead of allowing someone to determine their own worth. Establish a minimum wage, that will never be enough, determine that people deserve that minimum wage and they don't have to try for more and take personal responsibility for their life. If they get a skill they can join a union and the union will determine their worth and they don't have to try for more. Relax Big Brother in the form of the Federal Government will take care of you and you don't have to make any decisions. You want to work they will say how much you make, you don't want to work they will pay you to not work, you get sick they will take care of you.
Skud, I did not realize that you oppose the minimum wage out of altruism directed toward those receiving it.
Anyone who recognizes my altruistic attributes must be exceptionally bright and as such agrees that the minimum wage does not work for the benefit of the employee. Nice to see you are enlightened.
of course we would need min wage to be high so we can support all those who will be unemployed because of it
You are a Peace Patroller, also known as an anti-war liberal or neo-hippie. You believe in putting an end to American imperial conquest, stopping wars that have already been lost, and supporting our troops by bringing them home.
Take the quiz at www.FightConservatives.com