Minimum wage increase?

[GrassMaster]

10 people see the same thing & there's 10 different explanations.

Most of the people you listed in #'s 1, 2 & 3, do not work at all. So minimum wage increase does not effect them. They are entirely different people than the Poor.

We have 2 different points & it's not going to change.

When I see the Poor, I don't jump to conclusions & think this person is on Welfare, SSI, Crack or just another sorry lazy worthless uneducated person?

Evidently several of us had hard times growing up & it effected us differently. I see & understand what's happened to some once I get to know them.

I have a couple of friends that are brothers, 1 a dentist, the other a CPA. They had it hard coming up & they really look down on poor people & think they all want handouts & take us tax payers for a ride.

I've made my point using my real life experiences, my heart & my eyes. There's not a Greedy bone in my body or my immediate families. If I had 1/2 of what I've gave & done for others, I would be a Millionair!

[jagmagic]

What I'm saying is people's actions outside of work, are not always how they act at work. The "poor" people you know of, who you have gotten to know, might indeed be the exceptions, however I doubt it. Just because they tell you a story doesn't mean that story is true. Even if it is true, like the lady with the house for example, should accept responsability for her actions. She should have paid an independent appraisel, that probably would have helped her make a more educated decision.

The main people I'm reffereing to is the people in this statement I made:

Everyone is greedy in this nation, that is also very true. The problem is the people who are greedy, who want it all, and want it all handed to them. I'm not talking about hand outs. I'm talking about people who call in sick to work a couple times per month, then wonder why they get fired, or don't get a raise. I'm talking about the employee that wants to run outside for a smoke break every 20min. and then wonder why they never get permoted, or get a raise. I'm talking about the employee that always shows up late and won't put forth any real effort at work, who then complains about his crappy job and how his pay isn't worth his time. THESE PEOPLE DO NOT DESERVE RAISES, and they make up the majority, not all, but definately the majority of the people you are making excuses for.

I'm not trying to say, all poor people are bad. I'm not being descrinatingly negative towards the finacially challenged. I'm just saying, ANYONE can make it happen for themselves. Or ANYONE can make excuses for themselves.

I know this for a fact. I used to make excuses, my mom made excuses, she still does as she borrows money from me all the time. She is a perfect example for me to use as ANYONE can make it or make excuses to not make it.

She has always been financially strapped. She on a regular basis has her power turned off, or water, or comes over to visit basically just to eat b/c she has no food in her house. Yet, amazingly enough, I have never since my childhood seen her w/o a pack of cigerettes. She at times in her life has made up to $40,000/yr, yet due to her poor management of the funds, always lives like she is broke. She has a run down house, a broke down car and now works two jobs @ about $8.00/hr 60 hours/wk. to pay off old gambling debts. These are the choices she has made, I feel bad for her, but I also know she has had her opportunities to make a good life for herself, but she keeps screwing it up.

I do know others who are poor, but all of them are that way for a reason. Not because they are bad people, but because they made some bad choices.

All this being said, it really has nothing to do with the min. wage increase. A min. wage worker at 40 hours per week will only earn about $10,000/yr. This in not acceptable for anyone. Nobody needs to work for min. wage as their are plenty of jobs for ANYBODY out their that pay better.

Once again I will state that if a person is working for min. wage it is mostly due to their inability to make anything better happen for themselves weather it be b/c of their work habits, their lifestyle, or their inabilty to make decisions that will benefit them. Whichever the case may be, raising the min. wage will not benefit these people as it will not help them get better work habits, make lifestyle changes, or manage their funds any better.

[GrassMaster]

What about the old, the ones stuck between 16 & 18 years of age?

What I'm saying is people's actions outside of work, are not always how they act at work. The "poor" people you know of, who you have gotten to know, might indeed be the exceptions, however I doubt it. Just because they tell you a story doesn't mean that story is true.

I know some of these people, my wife or I is related to some & we know some of their neighbors. The only handouts that I know of is me giving clothes & helping their kids out. On one family, the Daughter & Son are now working as Sheriffs Deputies. I made a difference. Both Received a $100 bill when they graduated, they're now in their mid 30's... There's more like them.

Even if it is true, like the lady with the house for example, should accept responsibility for her actions. She should have paid an independent appraisal, that probably would have helped her make a more educated decision.

This has been all over the media for the past few years, millions fell for what she did. Independent appraisal or not. Millions are involved all over the USA, they'll pay dearly for it later.

I'm talking about people who call in sick to work a couple times per month, then wonder why they get fired, or don't get a raise. I'm talking about the employee that wants to run outside for a smoke break every 20min. and then wonder why they never get promoted, or get a raise. I'm talking about the employee that always shows up late and won't put forth any real effort at work, who then complains about his crappy job and how his pay isn't worth his time. THESE PEOPLE DO NOT DESERVE RAISES, and they make up the majority, not all, but definately the majority of the people you are making excuses for.

I agree with you 100%, the thing is they do not deserve or appreciate their jobs. No way I give a person like that a raise, 2 reprimands in 3 month period, the 3rd one would be their termination? Wait your not talk about certain divisions of civil service workers are you? :laughing:

I do know others who are poor, but all of them are that way for a reason. Not because they are bad people, but because they made some bad choices.

I agree with you 100% all poor people are poor for a reason?

All this being said, it really has nothing to do with the min. wage increase. A min. wage worker at 40 hours per week will only earn about $10,000/yr. This in not acceptable for anyone. Nobody needs to work for min. wage as their are plenty of jobs for ANYBODY out their that pay better.

I disagree, where do single parents between 16 & 17 year olds or main household bread winners that age can get those better jobs? What about the ones over 60 or 65 years old, where do they find these jobs? They are trapped, fortunately the young can get out of it in a few years, the old suffer til they die. I see these folks at work quite often.

[jagmagic]

It is tough out their for 16 and 17 year old parents. I'm 32 with a 14 year old daughter, you can do the math. I worked at a pizza place for 1 month, they told me the only way to get a raise was to work daytime hours. I dropped out of Highschool, switched to days after 3 months and got a $.35/hr raise. I struggled, we had government asst. at the time, but we struggled. I would up stealing just to survive. It wasn't a pretty or proud time in my life.

I started doing odd jobs for people and my wife at the time started cleaning houses at the age of 17. She wasn't making much, but enough with the food stamps and low income housing we could survive. I eventually got a job at a communications company, after putting in several applications to eirtually every place in town. I had applied here over 10 times in just 1 year. I called potential employers back repeatedly until they were sick of hearing from me. It worked. I got a job making $15.00/hr. when I was 19.

I got a divorce from my wife in 1994, I still had my good job, and now a daughter. I got remarried two years later, yeah, talk about repeating your mistakes... ANYHOW, This time I had 3 children with her, then got laid off from my job. We got a divorce, mostly due to financial stress. We would fight constantly. Now I had custody of my oldest daughter and child support on 3 others. That is what led me to get into the lawn business. I tried with my unsupportive ex-wife to start working for myself, but she thought it to be a stupid idea. I was on welfare again for about 2 years, got married a 3rd time to an awesome woman who I'm still happily married to. With her support and an unbeleivable amount of work, we now are supporting our two children, my oldest daughter paying child support on my other 3 children and buying our second home on 2.5 years after being on welfare. I'm not special in any way. I didn't get my GED until May of 2001. I have no post high school education. I make 6 figures now. I'm not bragging, I'm just saying I didn't do anything anyone else couldn't do. I'm not more qualified than anyone else is to pull myself, or themselves up out of a bad situation.

I have had a very rough go of things. I don't want yours or anyone elses pity, I don't want "handouts" from anyone. I relied on the system when I needed it and I give back when I can.

This debate has gone somewhat off track. This is not a debate regarding quality of life, or rich vs. poor, this is about the min. wage increase and how it will affect everyone and everything. If the min. wage were $7.25/hr while I was at the pizza place, the cost of living would have been high enough to make me seek out a higher paying job anyway.

The point is this move is being done by the liberals simply to promote their 2008 candidate so they can control all three bodies of the legislative branch of government.

On top of that, I wouldn't have an arguement with it, if someone could show me an economic benefit to the country as a whole for it. Nobody can b/c their isn't one. The arguements I have heard in favor of it are simply calling the people apposed to it greedy, or stating the economy is in ruins for other reasons so why should the min. wage increase matter.

I've asked before and I'll ask again. Who, how, and why will this change benefit?

I honestly can't see any posative too it, weather I look at it as myself as a 18yr old worker for min. wage, a 19 - 24 yr old worker for over min. wage, or a business owner with people making close to and some well over min. wage.

[Stephen M.]

"Where is the ecomomic benefit?"

Anytime anybody gets a pay raise, they are looking to either save it or spend it. Most people are going to spend it on more goods and services. The ecomomic benefit is also in generating more tax dollars for the economy.

Most "poor" people I know spend a heck of alot of money on their addictions, which is by choice. Alot of middle income people I know are spending a heck of alot of money on their addictions, which is by choice. I don't know alot of rich people, even though I work for some, I can't speak to how much money they are spending on their addiction by choice. But there is ecomomic value in all classes of people spending their money. Its just on different stuff--food or possessions; or on services like daycare.

Everybody deserves a cost of living adjustment at some point. My employees get one every year. So why not the minimun wage earner?

JagMagic, I have known some of those deadbeats that you speak of. And sure, alot of them DON'T deserve more money. But you know what? Those kinds of people don't work for me; and they don't have to work for you! They can be somebody else's problem because you don't have to spend the money on those kind of lowlife. But the hard worker that starts off with minimum wage, its only going to cost you a couple of bucks more per hour, and what's that if the guy or gal turns out to be a keeper? What is an extra 2 bucks per hour when they make you more money?

[sx1100]

"Where is the ecomomic benefit?"

Anytime anybody gets a pay raise, they are looking to either save it or spend it. Most people are going to spend it on more goods and services. The ecomomic benefit is also in generating more tax dollars for the economy.

Most "poor" people I know spend a heck of alot of money on their addictions, which is by choice. Alot of middle income people I know are spending a heck of alot of money on their addictions, which is by choice. I don't know alot of rich people, even though I work for some, I can't speak to how much money they are spending on their addiction by choice. But there is ecomomic value in all classes of people spending their money. Its just on different stuff--food or possessions; or on services like daycare.

Everybody deserves a cost of living adjustment at some point. My employees get one every year. So why not the minimun wage earner?

JagMagic, I have known some of those deadbeats that you speak of. And sure, alot of them DON'T deserve more money. But you know what? Those kinds of people don't work for me; and they don't have to work for you! They can be somebody else's problem because you don't have to spend the money on those kind of lowlife. But the hard worker that starts off with minimum wage, its only going to cost you a couple of bucks more per hour, and what's that if the guy or gal turns out to be a keeper? What is an extra 2 bucks per hour when they make you more money?

He has been given example after example of not only the benefits but reasons for a minimum raise increase. How it will benefit him and his company. He lacks cognitive flexibility, that is to say he has his reality and he must twist everything to fit that reality (I'm not being mean spirited). He will go to the very end thinking that Democrats and liberals forced him to cause inflation by paying his employees $20 dollars more a week, all for the benefit of the Unions.

He and his business will end up working at a loss, when he finally realizes he must raise his prices due to inflation it will be to late, he will have to raise them to far to fast. Not to worry his customers will find someone else to work for free. I think on this board they are refered to as scrubs.

[jagmagic]

He has been given example after example of not only the benefits but reasons for a minimum raise increase. How it will benefit him and his company. He lacks cognitive flexibility, that is to say he has his reality and he must twist everything to fit that reality (I'm not being mean spirited). He will go to the very end thinking that Democrats and liberals forced him to cause inflation by paying his employees $20 dollars more a week, all for the benefit of the Unions.

He and his business will end up working at a loss, when he finally realizes he must raise his prices due to inflation it will be to late, he will have to raise them to far to fast. Not to worry his customers will find someone else to work for free. I think on this board they are refered to as scrubs.

First off, I all ready have my labor costs well at hand. I'm not so concerned about this affecting my personal business, as I have a high enough profit margin no my labor this will have minimal effect. If that's what you think you are far off base.

I understand in debates, when you can't attack the arguement attack the arguer...

Say what you like about me, my first post on this topic I mentioned the only aspect it helps is the goverment as it generates more taxes. If you are going to presume to know my knowlage, then take the time to read what I have posted regarding the topic.

No, raising my employees up by a couple bucks won't kill me, I do regularly anyway. No, starting employess of in "training" at $2.00 more per hour won't kill me or my business.

That being said, I don't want to be forced into doing so, just so the Dems can brag in '08 how they are the compasionate party. Hillary has all ready started her "conversation with the nation" campaign attempting to comfort us into her motherly role.

This is a mistake in every aspect of it's idea. It is not going to benefit those who need it, as within a few years the inflation will have caught up to it and mad the change mute. This will simply give the dems a stronger platform to run on and change the topic to one in '08 they feel they can win on.

This is a subtle way the dems have of generating tax money w/o actually raising tax rates, which won't take place till they get their head honcho in office.

What is the example after example anyway?

The only benefit I have heard or read about in this post of who it will benefit is the government and tax generation which I mentioned in my first or second post.

[sx1100]

First off, I all ready have my labor costs well at hand. I'm not so concerned about this affecting my personal business, as I have a high enough profit margin no my labor this will have minimal effect. If that's what you think you are far off base.

I understand in debates, when you can't attack the arguement attack the arguer...

HAHAHAHA.

Say what you like about me, my first post on this topic I mentioned the only aspect it helps is the goverment as it generates more taxes. If you are going to presume to know my knowlage, then take the time to read what I have posted regarding the topic.

Proof that you have listened to no one. as the dollar loses value (inflation) everything must go up (nominally), in other words the governments revenues buy less. Everyone raises prices every year. Minimum wage hasn't been raised since what 1997? Ford, Gm, John Deere, Caterpillar, Toro, Stihl, everyone! Inflation is not caused by raises, Otherwise if your argument was true, there would not have been any inflation since 1997!

No, raising my employees up by a couple bucks won't kill me, I do regularly anyway. No, starting employees of in "training" at $2.00 more per hour won't kill me or my business.

That being said, I don't want to be forced into doing so, just so the Dems can brag in '08 how they are the compasionate party. Hillary has all ready started her "conversation with the nation" campaign attempting to comfort us into her motherly role.

If you do regularly, you are not being forced. And Hillary won't win anything, even with Murdock's support. It is not likely that she would be able to run a balanced budget like Bill did. Republicans have all ready Maxed out the credit cards

This is a mistake in every aspect of it's idea. It is not going to benefit those who need it, as within a few years the inflation will have caught up to it and mad the change mute. This will simply give the dems a stronger platform to run on and change the topic to one in '08 they feel they can win on.

Inflation has already caught up and pass the 1997 minimum wage level. If we would do it automatically like we do for SSI the jump wouldn't be so high.

This is a subtle way the dems have of generating tax money w/o actually raising tax rates, which won't take place till they get their head honcho in office.

Complete BS!

What is the example after example anyway?

The only benefit I have heard or read about in this post of who it will benefit is the government and tax generation which I mentioned in my first or second post.

Please reread any of my post, this time open your eyes

[jagmagic]

Proof that you have listened to no one. as the dollar loses value (inflation) everything must go up (nominally), in other words the governments revenues buy less. Everyone raises prices every year. Minimum wage hasn't been raised since what 1997? Ford, Gm, John Deere, Caterpillar, Toro, Stihl, everyone! Inflation is not caused by raises, Otherwise if your argument was true, there would not have been any inflation since 1997.
Here is the porblem with what you have to say here. I didn't say that inflation would not change w/o the min. wage increasing, that would be ignorant. I said that it does lead to an increase in basic cost of living which in turn makes the dollar less valuable, so it's a change that mearly creates a circle that will never allow the "poor" ,the people in the most need of change, make a better life for themselves.

My arguement is and has been that people should make what their employers think their value is, not what the government dictates it should be. My employees are worth more than min. wage to me. If I owned a Mcdonalds or a Movie theatre, my employees would not be. The pay should be based on the job being done and the ability of those who do the job, not some contractual agreement between a union or government. This should not be dictated by the fed. gov. as it is, for the most part, all ready governed by the states.

The reason for this is while a single person could survive here in Oklahoma at $200 - $300/wk, people in New York, Florida, California, and most new england and east coast states could not. This should be determined on a state wide level. Tell me how a person in New York City will survive any better on $1,000/mo. vs. $800/mo. I bet they still can't pay their rent much less utilities, while here in Oklahoma a single person could pay rent and utilities for about $300 - $400/mo.

It's simply not logical to make a change of that magnitude nationwide when it simply won't solve the problem. The problem is the lack of education, not the lack of decent paying jobs.

[rustyt22]

Most of this entire discussion comes into how you see people who are making minimum wage. People, like GM, who see min. wage earners as people that bust their tail everyday for the "rich business owner," who can't get ahead even if they try and work in what he practically described as sweat shops are always going to say what he said, "They DESERVE their raise."

Other people who see minimum wage earners making bad decisions, not moving up in companies because of their laziness, and not taking advantage of opportunities that are before them are naturally going to be against giving them a raise. That's just the way this argument seems to be going.

I, personally, must live in a wonderful economy that doesn't reflect America's full economy. As prviously stated, we have McDonalds begging for employees at $7.50 and $8 an hour (25-40hrs per week) for starting positions (not mgt). We have lawn businesses (more than just mine) begging for good employees that will come to work everyday that start at $7-8 per hour (45-55 hrs per week)with no experience. We have Union jobs at Georgia Pacific begging for employees at $9-14 per hour (40-60hrs per week). Yet, we still have people who'd rather work at Ace Hardware for minimum wage (40 hrs per week) because they only actually work 3-4 hours in a 8 hour day. The rest of the day they play cards and gamble $$ behind the lumber barn. Of course, that's not how most minimum wage laborers work. Most of them work in sweat shops supporting for 60-70 hrs a week supporting 4 kids and a disabled wife that's too honorable to ask for welfare or other government support. (Sounds a little sarcastic, doesn't it?) :laughing:

Ever thought about the fact that whether these people came from poor families, rich families, smart families, dumb families, college degrees, high school dropouts, easy work or sweat shop work, they all have the same opportunity to switch jobs for a higher paying job with more of a future? Of course you might come back with the fact that working 60-70 hours a week doesn't allow someone enough time to look for a job....but I would return with the point that if you're working that many hours, youre making almost double the previously stated $250/week.

The funny thing is that politicians (Im not getting into party line crap anymore unlike sx) will complain one minute about how all of our manufacturing jobs are going overseas, and how the middle class is disappearing in part due to that, yet they will turn around and put more governmental restrictions on those same manufacturing companies that are still in the USA forcing them to move out too.

Im done with this to be honest, Ive got to be up at 5am tommorrow and am goign back to my previous post about not wasting my time.....hahaha....sorry for not finshing my thoughts, but I just figured Id at least post what I was thinking towards....Hope y'all have a good Monday!

[Stephen M.]

...Say what you like about me, my first post on this topic I mentioned the only aspect it helps is the goverment as it generates more taxes.

...That being said, I don't want to be forced into doing so, just so the Dems can brag in '08 how they are the compasionate party. Hillary has all ready started her "conversation with the nation" campaign attempting to comfort us into her motherly role....This is a mistake in every aspect of it's idea. It is not going to benefit those who need it, as within a few years the inflation will have caught up to it and mad the change mute. This will simply give the dems a stronger platform to run on and change the topic to one in '08 they feel they can win on.

This is a subtle way the dems have of generating tax money w/o actually raising tax rates, which won't take place till they get their head honcho in office.


The only benefit I have heard or read about in this post of who it will benefit is the government and tax generation which I mentioned in my first or second post.

1. I don't disagree, but this is American Politics as usual, so GET OVER IT!
If you are a student of U.S. History, this party crap is nothing new!

2. The more a person works past 40 hrs per week, the more the Government takes. The more dollars per hour a person makes, the more the Government takes. DUH! but I'm not working for free which equals no taxation.

3. You've been making the case that you don't want your money spent in ways you don't agree with.

In the world of Utopia, that would be great to have that kind of control; but we don't live in Utopia. Once I pay my taxes, it isn't up to me anymore, but its up to the people who represent me.

4. You've made the case that you don't want to be forced to pay higher wages by the Government and it should be the market that decides.

You need to revisit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage and you will have learned that the United States of America is just one of 90 Countries that have a minimum wage and we didn't decide to sign onto the concept until 1938. You would also have learned that "Norway, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, Germany, Austria, Italy, and Cyprus have no minimum wage, BUT rely on Employer Groups and Trade Unions to set minimum wages through collective barganing".

HMMM, not exactly the free market as you have indicated. The free market is at work in the other 235 Countries, but most of them represent the Third World.

[jagmagic]

1. I don't disagree, but this is American Politics as usual, so GET OVER IT!
If you are a student of U.S. History, this party crap is nothing new!

2. The more a person works past 40 hrs per week, the more the Government takes. The more dollars per hour a person makes, the more the Government takes. DUH! but I'm not working for free which equals no taxation.

3. You've been making the case that you don't want your money spent in ways you don't agree with.

In the world of Utopia, that would be great to have that kind of control; but we don't live in Utopia. Once I pay my taxes, it isn't up to me anymore, but its up to the people who represent me.

4. You've made the case that you don't want to be forced to pay higher wages by the Government and it should be the market that decides.

You need to revisit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage and you will have learned that the United States of America is just one of 90 Countries that have a minimum wage and we didn't decide to sign onto the concept until 1938. You would also have learned that "Norway, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, Germany, Austria, Italy, and Cyprus have no minimum wage, BUT rely on Employer Groups and Trade Unions to set minimum wages through collective barganing".

HMMM, not exactly the free market as you have indicated. The free market is at work in the other 235 Countries, but most of them represent the Third World.

Based on the link provided, I would not at all have a problem with a system such as Canada has set up. Honestly, I would love if we incorporated some of their "sin" taxes as well on tabacco and alcohal that could go towards funding a nation wide medical coverage program.(but that's a different debate)

1. I won't get over it, just as I was outspoken on other sights when I see blatant disregard for common sense in law making that will in some ways affect me, people I know, or a segment of the general population. Being vocal about political issues is one thing that keeps us a great nation.

2. I can't figure out what you are talking about with this one, must have been a typo. Don't understand the part about you not working for free and no taxation???

3. I haven't asked that my tax dollars be controlled. I don't know what you are talking about. I want to make sure that money I spend at the store on groceries, gas, equipment, vehicles, tools, etc aren't going to go up just because someone needs some votes.

4. Just because a government has a min. wage doesn't mean anything.

Just some points from your link.

1. Ireland gives reduced min. wage for employees in 1st, 2nd, or 3rd year of employment. EXCELLENT IDEA

2. Canada lets it's provinces (states) decide.EXCELLENT IDEA

3. In the U.K. they don't get full min. wage until they are 22yrs. old. EXCELLENT IDEA.
Other categories of worker who are exempt include au pairs, share fishermen, clergy, those in the Armed Forces, prisoners and some people working in family businesses. (don't know how good of an idea this is, but The U.K. has aparently decided the list of employee types above don't qualify for min. wage.) Also, anyone in an intership, or apprentice level (training status) are not qualified for min. wage.

4.Brazil ($164.38/MONTH!!!) that's not even worth calling a min. wage.

5.China (where I might add all of our labor is going to) .25 - .60 /hour.

Let's just take China for an example here. HOW THE HELL ARE WE SUPPOSE TO COMPETE WITH THAT IN THE GLOBAL MARKETPLACE???

China, the worlds second largest, highest earning, and fastest growing economy is raping the world of manufacturing jobs. While companies around the world, especially in the U.S. are looking to trim the fat and save money, who wouldn't ship all industrial or manufacturing jobs to the Chinese?

Raising the min. wage will not give us an edge in the global economy or our internal economy. It will not secure jobs for Americans, in fact it will reduce the jobs for Americans. It will not help us in ANY way.

now, back to my original point. WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD ANYONE WANT TO PASS A MEASURE SO COUNTER PRODUCTIVE TO THE GOAL WISHING TO BE REACHED BY THE MEASURE IN THE FIRST PLACE??

[Stephen M.]

Hey, Jag you opened the door and back yourself into a corner.

The point about working for free, gee whiz, you are dense! What's the opposite of working and getting taxed? Its working for "free" and having no tax to pay. You've been belly aching that paying more minimum wage equals more money to the Government. Hey, just pointing out that is true, and if you don't want to pay more money to the Government, then free work would accomplish that end? LOL, I'm just being a smarta$$!


Now you are switching your arguement regarding min wage on point 4; is that because you are running in circles?

The article does explain the min wage systems of the other 89 Countries and how they do it, plus it explains why the "earned income tax credit" of our Country is more fair than doing a higher min wage. But that isn't my point according to what you have been arguing. My point is that there are a total of 90 Countries that have some form of a minimum wage and that Government is dictating that wage. I'm not concerned with how they do it; just that they Do it! The other Countries w/o min wage laws rely on employers fighting with labor unions to set the min wage. You are now changing your arguement from not wanting Government tell you what to do to leting the States call the shots. Well, you can't have it both ways!? These 90 Countries are part of the "Free Market System". But the "Free Market" only exists as economic theory. That's why we have WTO trying to make sure that tariffs, duties, regulation and subsidies are fair in "free trade". Labor/wages is a part of that "Free" market.

You've missed the boat on some of these places like Brazil. They don't have the same standards of living that we have in the U.S. and yet, true to your personality, you are judging these people from an American prospective! There was a book called "The Ugly American"; it would be an eye opener for you.

I think Rusty22 is wise in his summation and I will take his advice and not wasting anymore energy on this topic.

[jagmagic]

Hey, Jag you opened the door and back yourself into a corner.

The point about working for free, gee whiz, you are dense! What's the opposite of working and getting taxed? Its working for "free" and having no tax to pay. You've been belly aching that paying more minimum wage equals more money to the Government. Hey, just pointing out that is true, and if you don't want to pay more money to the Government, then free work would accomplish that end? LOL, I'm just being a smarta$$!


Now you are switching your arguement regarding min wage on point 4; is that because you are running in circles?

The article does explain the min wage systems of the other 89 Countries and how they do it, plus it explains why the "earned income tax credit" of our Country is more fair than doing a higher min wage. But that isn't my point according to what you have been arguing. My point is that there are a total of 90 Countries that have some form of a minimum wage and that Government is dictating that wage. I'm not concerned with how they do it; just that they Do it! The other Countries w/o min wage laws rely on employers fighting with labor unions to set the min wage. You are now changing your arguement from not wanting Government tell you what to do to leting the States call the shots. Well, you can't have it both ways!? These 90 Countries are part of the "Free Market System". But the "Free Market" only exists as economic theory. That's why we have WTO trying to make sure that tariffs, duties, regulation and subsidies are fair in "free trade". Labor/wages is a part of that "Free" market.

You've missed the boat on some of these places like Brazil. They don't have the same standards of living that we have in the U.S. and yet, true to your personality, you are judging these people from an American prospective! There was a book called "The Ugly American"; it would be an eye opener for you.

I think Rusty22 is wise in his summation and I will take his advice and not wasting anymore energy on this topic.

That's fine, it's not my job to convince you either way. I do want to clearify a couple points you made though.

I never said a Min. wage was a bad thing. I never said we shouldn't have one. I am apposed to raising it again as doing so won't be constructive and I have been VERY consistant on that point.

I find brazil's min. wage laughable, in the nature of my debate listed in the post you were referring to as I was speaking of the World economy. With the land and people Brazil and China have, any company could save a buttload of money by sending simple manufacturing jobs over to those countries.

WHERE DOES THIS LEAVE THE AMERICAN WORKER???

Their are not enough "service" related jobs to keep all Americans employed. Their won't be manufacturing jobs if we keep raising our min. wage and companies can save millions in labor cost by having Brazilians and Chinese manufacture their goods at 1/28 the cost. Those of you who don't understand where I'm coming from are either too blind to see it, or simply don't care about American and Americans in general.

STEPHEN, Did you even understand the point I was making?

I do think the EIC is a much better tool to help the financially challenged of the country. I say, increase that two or three fold. They could fund it by adding a .005 nationwide sales tax rate.

I'm not apposed to helping the poor, I'm apposed to mis-leading people into the idea that we are trying to help the poor when the change being suggested will do no such thing.

I do, and have beleived states, even possibly county or city officials should be the ones who determine min. wage as they are the best judge of the cost of living in their area, therefore, can determine what a "min. wage earner" would need to make to survive. I have also been constant on this arguement throughout my posts.

Is our system perfect, NO absolutely not, but that doesn't mean making bad decisions are acceptable or are going to some how save us from ourselves.

You want a counter Idea to offset the min. wage increase?
How about a government sponsored adult education system that can be, like medical benefits, offered to employees who make under a certain $ amount. This will be paid for by the employer and the government as to help make the employee more beneficial to America as a whole. Companies who follow this could be eligable for tax breaks based on the % of employees attending school.

How about increasing the EIC to include funds for adult education instead of a tax break for funds used for education. The problem with how it is set up now is that you get credit for money you spend on education and child care. Well, most who qualify for EIC can't afford to spend $ on child care or education, b/c their funding goes to support the household. The tax breaks and bonuses should be pro-active not reactive.

These again could all be paid for by a .005% national sales tax. Those ideas while again have flaws would be much more productive to the economy and the country as a whole than simply raising the min. wage. don't you think?