ikol Posted July 30, 2006 Share Posted July 30, 2006 That's from an extremely biased source.Guess what? Another extremely biased source. I'm not sure where first site got its numbers, but the second one got its numbers from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Of course, those numbers were brought to your attention by me, a very biased source, so I guess you should just go on disbelieving them. Do you have any statistics that conflict with mine? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cryptique Posted July 30, 2006 Share Posted July 30, 2006 I'm not sure where first site got its numbers, but the second one got its numbers from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Of course, those numbers were brought to your attention by me, a very biased source, so I guess you should just go on disbelieving them. Do you have any statistics that conflict with mine?Even if the BLS figures are correct, they're far too limited in scope to constitute an argument against raising the minimum wage. One of the usual arguments is that people will lose jobs if the minimum wage is raised. This is a scare tactic, and false. Burger King will still need workers -- they won't close stores just because the minimum wage is raised. Also, the figures on minimum wage workers receiving a raise within one year -- that's just the way business works. If you have a minimum wage worker who stays with your company for a year, you typically give that worker an annual review and, in most cases, a raise (usually a few cents an hour). Suddenly, that worker no longer fits into the narrow criteria for the minimum wage statistics utilized in the BLS figures. If the minimum wage is $5.15 an hour, and you're earning $5.30 an hour, you're no longer earning minimum wage -- but that extra fifteen cents an hour isn't lifting you out of poverty any faster. Townhall.com has cherrypicked certain figures to try to support its position. The problem is, their interpretation of those figures is superficial and inadequate. I'd be more interested in seeing figures about people who earn less than the proposed new minimum wage. Those figures would provide a much more useful look at who would really be helped by a raise in the minimum wage. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted July 30, 2006 Share Posted July 30, 2006 What about this? The average family income for employees who would Quote Link to post Share on other sites
caliber66 Posted July 30, 2006 Share Posted July 30, 2006 In order for a person who is single, without children, to earn $45,558 even with the new minimum wage, he would have to work more than 120 hours a week. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
explodo Posted July 30, 2006 Share Posted July 30, 2006 In order for a person who is single, without children, to earn $45,558 even with the new minimum wage, he would have to work more than 120 hours a week.Sweet. Where do I sign? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cryptique Posted July 30, 2006 Share Posted July 30, 2006 What about this?The average family income for employees who would “benefit” from the proposed $2.10 minimum wage hike is $45,558. Why? Nearly six out of seven of these employees either live with their parents or relatives, have a working spouse, or are single and don't have children.Again, these are cherrypicked statistics that are used to manipulate people's opinions. I would suggest that, for the most part:Those who live with relatives do so because they can't afford to live on their own.Those who are single and don't have children are barely supporting themselves at best.Those who have a working spouse are typically trying to increase the family income because that spouse isn't earning enough to keep up with the bills.Those who live with their parents ... meh. They're called high school students, for the most part. And they probably are responsible for much of that $45,558 figure. Cut this group out of the mix, and that average family income will plummet.I have no problem with high school students making minimum wage -- at its present level or the new level. Why should businesses be able to pay kids less just because they still live with their parents? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mountain bed Posted July 30, 2006 Share Posted July 30, 2006 In order for a person who is single, without children, to earn $45,558 even with the new minimum wage, he would have to work more than 120 hours a week.I have a friend from work that works 2 jobs,one full,one part time,who AVERAGES around 102 hrs. per week and makes nowhere near 45K wow.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest baseball bobblehead Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 It's appalling to think that someone wealthy beyond most of our wildest dreams would have to opt for the non-heated leather seats because they're required to pony up their fair share. heated leather seats really aren't that much $. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tweedling Posted July 31, 2006 Author Share Posted July 31, 2006 I think its a good thing. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 Even a broken watch is right twice a day ... Share Our Wealth As an alternative to what he called the conservatism of the New Deal, [Huey] Long proposed legislation capping personal fortunes, income, and inheritances. He used radio broadcasts and founded a national newspaper, the American Progress, to promote his ideas and accomplishments before a national audience. In 1934 he unveiled a full plan he called Share Our Wealth. Long argued that there was enough wealth in the country to allow comfortable living for everyone, but that it was unfairly concentrated in the hands of a few millionaire bankers, businessmen and industrialists. Long proposed a new tax code which sharply increased the tax rate on personal fortunes over $1 million, and confiscating any annual income and inheritances above $1 million. The resulting funds would be used to guarantee every family a basic household grant of $5,000 and a minimum annual income of $2,000-2,500. Long supplemented the plan with proposals for free primary and college education, old-age pensions, federal assistance to farmers, public works projects, and limiting the work week to thirty hours. Denying that his program was socialistic, Long stated that his ideological inspiration for the plan came not from Marx but from the Bible and the Declaration of Independence. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
anodyne Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 sean penn is in a new biopic about the kingfish. john goodman played him very convincingly somewhat recently as well. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Beltmann Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 sean penn is in a new biopic about the kingfish. john goodman played him very convincingly somewhat recently as well.The 1949 film of All the King's Men is really great, too. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
WilcoFan Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 I think the dollar amount should be based on some economical study, not just pulled out of the air. I also think that the minimum wage has been raised before and the world didn't end, it can be done again. One last thing, if someone is trying to make a career on minimum wage, then they should go back to the drawing board. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Reni Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 One last thing, if someone is trying to make a career on minimum wage, then they should go back to the drawing board. well, some people don't have that luxury......and with cuts to student aid, and other educational programs, it may be even more of a luxury than it is now. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest ScottHoward Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 Who possibly tries to make a career out of minimum wage? If you are serious about a career, even if it happens to start at minimum wage, you would still get a raise/promotion eventually. If you are flipping burgers for 5 years without an increase in pay, you're a fucking idiot. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Reni Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 some people don't think in terms of "career" they think in terms of "making the next rent and hoping the electricity doesn't get turned off in the meantime" Quote Link to post Share on other sites
IRememberDBoon Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 Amen.This sounds an awful lot like the argument that a former German teacher used every day. I'm sure everyone's heard it before: "90% of the wealth is owned by 10% of the people." First off, I like to keep my money when I make it. I'm sure the 1% you're talking about, as well as the 10% I mentioned, feel the same way. For someone like myself who used to make less than three dollars an hour inserting newspapers, taxes hurt. But at the same time, I'm not going to claim that people who make more than me or own more than me are keeping me from making more money. If those people made their money, who am I to say that they should be taxed more than me so our earnings will be closer together? Let's just face it, the 10% who own 90% of the wealth also pay 90% of the taxes. Let's just leave them alone and all try to work together and make America great again. fukk them. They got sickeningly wealthy by living in this country and using its infrastructure. They need to shut the fukk up and pay their taxes and trust me I pay out the tailhole. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 Of course people get raises from the minimum wage. The minimum wage, however, is the starting point from which those raises will be made. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest ScottHoward Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 some people don't think in terms of "career" they think in terms of "making the next rent and hoping the electricity doesn't get turned off in the meantime"If by some stroke of misfortune one ends up in this position, it is possible to increase the amount of money you make over time. In some cases, short periods of time. No one is locked into minimum wage for an extended period of time. Minimum wage is starting pay. If you are content with that, so be it - I have no sympathy. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
IRememberDBoon Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 If by some stroke of misfortune one ends up in this position, it is possible to increase the amount of money you make over time. In some cases, short periods of time. No one is locked into minimum wage for an extended period of time. Minimum wage is starting pay. If you are content with that, so be it - I have no sympathy. So by your argument there should be no minimum wage then. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest ScottHoward Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 Of course people get raises from the minimum wage. The minimum wage, however, is the starting point from which those raises will be made.What's your point? You want people to get more money for having no other employment options? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 You could say the same thing if the minimum wage were $3. It's only to start! No reason to raise it, it's only for people who have to pay their dues. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
WilcoFan Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 fukk them. They got sickeningly wealthy by living in this country and using its infrastructure. They need to shut the fukk up and pay their taxes and trust me I pay out the tailhole. Not only does that 10% have money, they have power. If you think that redistributing their wealth is going to work you better think again. If they were forced to pay more taxes then they will just lay people off. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
IRememberDBoon Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 Not only does that 10% have money, they have power. If you think that redistributing their wealth is going to work you better think again. If they were forced to pay more taxes then they will just lay people off. Huh? Who said anything about more anything?? I just don Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 What's your point? You want people to get more money for having no other employment options?Yes, that's exactly what I meant. All pay should be inverse with employment opportunities. Line cooks should make six figures, etc. etc. I don't want people to get paid more because they have limited employment options, simply an honest pay for an honest day's work. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.