Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Tucker Carlson: Dems Don't Care About Workers Wages" video.

  1. Dan P I agree that society does better when everyone is succeeding.  If everyone succeeded than society will be basically perfect.  But you have to earn it.  Like in sports just giving everyone a gold medal for participating doesn't mean everyone succeeded.  Paying people an artificially high wage doesn't mean they are doing well.  You have to earn it.  Either find a way to earn more or cut expenses.  Ask friends or family for help.  Really, if society helped out each other more as opposed to passing laws to force others to do charity work (businesses in this case) than society will be better.  
    2
  2. Dan P A wage is the price of labor, if you can't under stand that than it is hard for you to understand basic economics.  Go ask any almost any economist and they will agree with that. 
    2
  3. Democrats support the min. wage because they have not other answer to increasing higher wage jobs, they must do it by force.  And if you are not worth a min. wage than you don't get a job than you collect welfare.  Democrats don't care about wages, if they did they would find a way to allow for the creation of higher waged jobs.
    1
  4. thewanderandhiscomp Actually incomes have gone up for everyone.  One, people are paid more in benefits, another is that the median income has gone up, it only dropped in 2007. Another issue is how good are our goods and services?  It isn't really about money but the purchasing power of it.  Cars these days are safer, last longer, and more amenities than 30 years ago.  Computers are more available, and better than 30 years ago.  Phones are better now than 30 years ago.  Overall society has it better now than 30 years ago.  In 2008 I bought a 256 Mb flash drive for around $12, they now sell smaller flash drives that hold more at the same price only 6 years later.  Income isn't the only part of trickle down, it is material wealth and we are more wealthy now as a society than 30 years ago. 
    1
  5. Ylze Tyr Well you have yet to prove that I know nothing about the economy.  I remembered our little min. wage debate, you were easily shot down when I gave you questions you couldn't answer.  The most recent one was this, if raising the min. wage led to job growth, or worse didn't kill jobs, then why set the bar so low, why not raise it to $50/hr?   
    1
  6. Ylze Tyr I didn't ignore it, I addressed it.  Furniture is better than it was in the past.  Food is up because of a higher min. wage.  When you increase the min. wage prices will go up  http://www.bls.gov/news.release/prin2.t02.htm Look at all the food service places, the unit labor cost for those places are positive meaning that wages are outpacing productivity.  It comes back to that if you artificially pay people more than they are worth than something has to give, in this case higher prices.  You also have to realize that prices have gone up due to shipping cost and more regulations.  We haven't open a new refinery in 40 years.  That is the reason why gas prices, thus shipping costs have gone up even though we are drilling a record amount of oil.  Even with that we have more disposable income now than in the past, people are able to afford more now than in the past meaning they are earning more. In addressing the issue in that the min. wage is successful, than why not $50/hr?  Why set the bar so low?  You are ignoring that.  I am not ignoring what you are telling me, I am just telling you that you are wrong. 
    1
  7. Ylze Tyr As I said before, you yelling that I am wrong doesn't make it true.  You acknowledging that we can't talk about a $50 and feel that $50 isn't a "decent" min. wag means you know that there are negative effects to raising the min. wage, you just don't want to admit it.  Also, what is a "decent" min. wage?  To me it could be $50/hr?  That sounds "decent".  That is another problem with your argument, you don't define anything.  You are so set on supporting the min. wage and so set on wanting to be right that you start to bring up broad arguments to support your case.  If you want a "decent" min. wage than why not $50/hr?  Or how about we lower it, $20/hr? 
    1
  8. Ylze Tyr I have stated that we shouldn't have a min. wage, I support that.  That is considered an exaggeration to others.  I can stand by that argument on the basis that it will benefit the economy in that a min. wage in itself does harm to the economy.  You have the argument that he min. wage behooves the economy, but you can't stand by the $50/hr one in that you realize that the min. wage actually is harmful, you just don't want to admit it.  You can't even name what the min. wage should be, you just said it should be a "decent" but not giving a definition of what "decent" is in this case. 
    1
  9. ***** And good for them.  I don't support the min. wage but as a moderate, and someone who supports state rights I accept it when a state passes a domestic policies, even if it does more harm than good for them.  That is their issue, I will worry about my state and home town since I don't have a voice there.  
    1
  10. ***** There are several factors that effect overall job growth, it isn't just the min. wage.  If raising the min. wage led to more jobs than why keep the bar low?  Why not push for a $50/hr min. wage? 
    1
  11. ***** I am for eliminating the min. wage because I recognize that it has negative effects and there is no reason, at least to me, that we should have one.  That is an extreme viewpoint I am willing to stand by. You not willing to stand by a $50/hr min. wage means you recognize that even having a min. wage has negative effects.  This despite everything you telling me that it leads to job growth, a better economy, and reduces poverty.  If that is the case than we shouldn't be setting the bar low.  We should not only eliminate poverty, but give people the ability to enjoy luxury items, time off, vacations, lower stress and increase health.  That can be done with $50/hr. if raising the min. wage does lead to positive results like you claim.   
    1
  12. Ylze Tyr Ah, the fox news/rush Limbaugh name calling is coming out.  You see, I don't watch fox or listen to Rush.  Even if I did what you just pulled is a genetic fallacy.  You are making the comment that anything that comes from Fox or Rush is wrong.  I can do the same and say that you get all your spew Huffington Post crap but I don't, because I actually like to stick to the argument and remain the intelligent one in the debate. 
    1
  13. Ylze Tyr Now you switch to reasonable.  What is "reasonable"?  Really, what is it?  You are sticking to vague terms. As I said, I stand by eliminating the min. wage because I see that it has negative effects.  You won't stand by raising the min. wage to $50/hr because it isn't "reasonable" making your argument weak.  Everything you showed me was how raising the min. wage increases jobs, lowers poverty, and helps the economy.  So if that is the case than why not $50/hr?  It will eliminate poverty, create more jobs, help the economy even more, and require people to work less thus lowering stress, increasing health and allowing them to pursue hobbies.  I mean, why not support it?  Because you know that in reality the min. wage has negative effects and you admitting to them will debunk everything you showed me and said. 
    1
  14. Ylze Tyr It is a genetic fallacy, look it up. Also, I have backed up my claims, I have backed it up a lot.  I also stand by my stance of that there shouldn't be a min. wage and I use my data and sources I have read, and given to you as reasoning.  You can't stand by your claim of raising the min. wage or your sources that say raising the min. wage doesn't hurt the economy, or jobs, or prices.  As I said, if what you say is true, and if you really support the evidence you gave me strongly, than why not support a $50/hr min. wage? 
    1
  15. ***** If you lower the purchasing power of the dollar enough than people will be working for nothing.  It is up to you to earn more, if you can't than you need to find a way to make yourself more marketable.  In some cases that means working for nothing.    
    1
  16. ***** Yeah, but artificially raising wages doesn't help it. 
    1
  17. Ylze Tyr Because I have gave evidence in the past, you just ignored them.  There isn't any point in giving you more info at this point.  All you do is yell as loud as you can that I am wrong and a moron.  You have dropped down to that level in your arguments. 
    1
  18. ***** Because it contributes to prices going up and jobs being lost.  Money doesn't have value until it is invested.  Making a poor investment doesn't help the economy. 
    1
  19. Ylze Tyr Oh, so now you are playing grammar police on a youtube comment page, nice. Also, as I said before, I am pursuing a PhD in Physical Chemistry, writing isn't my strong skills, math and science is.  I openly admit that a lot and am not ashamed of it. 
    1
  20. ***** I never graduated high school?  Ok, yep, I got into graduate school without a high school diploma.  Funny when all else fails you attack my grammar on a youtube comment section.  I spend like a few minutes on these comments, this isn't my PhD dissertation.  
    1
  21. Ylze Tyr And your source is a government source that right now has an administration that is pushing for an increase in the min. wage. They are being bias in their report.  It is funny how they don't show evidence against the min. wage in their sources.  And it comes back to, why set the bar so low, why not $50/hr? 
    1
  22. Ylze Tyr Seems to me only yelling others are wrong is your strong skill. 
    1
  23. Ylze Tyr It isn't hypocrisy, it is questioning a source.  I am not saying it is automatically wrong, just that when you have an administration that is pushing for a min. wage increase they are going to give out info to support it.  If you read that site they specifically talk about $10.10, the wage that is being pushed.   
    1
  24. Ylze Tyr The Obama administration, plus 51 senate democrats led by Tom Harkin  http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/113/senate/2/117
    1
  25. Ylze Tyr Unless a "couple" means 51 to you there is push by the democrats to pass it. 
    1
  26. Ylze Tyr If you read my link it showed 51 senate votes, if didn't receive enough votes to make it to the house, thus it was 51 out of 100.  I guess you can't read also. 
    1
  27. baserocklove I don't know if you are referring to me or Ylze Tyr.  I have the feeling that Ylze Tyr is a troll who is just baiting me and I am starting to ignore him. 
    1
  28. Ylze Tyr I feel that you are a troll because you keep claiming that I am not giving you any sources, I am and I will post it again following this comment.  I have debunked what you have said and posted a source and either you have ignored it or said I didn't post it which is making your a troll. I am trying to display info here and you are either lying or maybe you need a new computer.  You mentioned earlier how you are unable to bring up PDFs which is hard to believe with most computers these day.  I guess you need a min. wage increase to afford a new computer.  So either you are a troll who is lying about not seeing my sources or you need a new computer since you can't seem to see my link I post.  Now who is looking foolish? 
    1
  29. Ylze Tyr The link is to a youtube video called "What You Weren't Told About the Minimum Wage" by Skyler Lehto 
    1
  30. Matt R Prepare to get told that you didn't post any sources.
    1
  31. Ylze Tyr But Pakman is an expert?  Someone who cries when republicans win and calls the voters dumb?  Right, ok.  There are comments on that video that debunked him easily, read them. 
    1
  32. Ylze Tyr You alluded to Pakman being an expert.  You also took his side when Lehto stated his case with numerous citations along with MrLibertarian94 did in the comment section.  Pakman cited who?  Dr. Dube who was brought up in the beginning of the video and later on?  Not a strong source.   
    1
  33. Ylze Tyr Than why bring the other video up?  You did so to allude to Pakman being and "expert". Also, I saw the npr link, employment is brought up in the video by Lehto, you would know that if you watched it. 
    1
  34. Ylze Tyr I also mentioned employment earlier, you would know that if you can read.  I said that there are several factors that play a role in overall employment, it is the employment of the unskilled that are hurt.  And this this comes back too if the min. wage helped employment and didn't hurt the unskilled, than why set the bar low, why not $50/hr? 
    1
  35. Ylze Tyr And the video and the commenter had citations with facts. 
    1
  36. Ylze Tyr Watch the video, see the citations he sights, he posted them under the video.   
    1
  37. Ylze Tyr And you come from the viewpoint that raising the min. wage is good.  You are proving it when you call those citations opinion pieces when they clearly aren't.  I have told you that I am for eliminating the min. wage, I support that.  I have looked at both sides of the issue and came up with that decision.  Like everything I look at both sides of the issue and I have come up to the conclusion that we need to abolish the min. wage.  And it swings back too that if raising the min. wage doesn't lead to negative results like you keep pushing than why not $50/hr?  Really, why not?  Raising the min. wage according to you doesn't do any harm, so why not $50/hr?  Why not $100/hr?  You refuse to answer that because doing so will be admitting that the min. wage does harm which supports what I have given you and debunk what you told me.
    1
  38. Ylze Tyr Baby steps I guess.  I got you to at least get to the video, and now you admitted that there are negative effects to raising the min. wage.  But now you are lying saying that "most" of the data says there are more positive effects and the negative effects are myths.  The best you can say that there is a push in that you provide a link from the DOL (which I told you why it is deceptive) and I gave you a video that cited numerous of peer reviewed sources.  How can you say that "most" data supports your case? 
    1
  39. Ylze Tyr We have tried it both ways.  Here is a little history lesson for you, this country has seen numerous recessions and recoveries in the past.  Most recessions we recovered from in around 5 years or fewer.  The two recessions where we saw the slowest recoveries were at 1929 and 2007, they were also times where we saw the largest involvement of federal government trying to "fix" it (and in both cases we saw the min. wage involved, establishing it in 1938 and raising it in 2007).  All the other recessions saw little to know federal government involvement and we recovered quickly.  Now the two times we saw the slowest recovery was when the federal government was trying to "fix" the economy.  You never hear that.  Now if in 1929 and 2007 we saw federal government programs getting cut, along with taxes and regulations and no raises in the min. wage (basically little to no government involvement) you bet people on the left, including you, will be screaming that at the top of their longs.  Thing is that isn't the case.   It isn't that change is bad or feared, it is that changing to something that doesn't work is bad. 
    1
  40. Ylze Tyr And when did I say that I didn't support the legalization of marijuana.  That is another part of your problem, you are grouping me in with conservatives, I am a moderate.  I supported leaving the marijuana issue up to the states and if I had to make a yes or no decision on it than I would say yes, marijuana should be legal.   
    1
  41. Ylze Tyr When I looked at people who support raising the min. wage the same talking points come up they are -People who work min. wage jobs are poor -Businesses are greedy and should be forced to pay more -It creates jobs -It doesn't hurt employment -It helps solve poverty -And inflation I criticized those arguments, the first 2 are purely emotional based.  The next 3 are if the min. wage does all of that than why not $50/hr?  I bring that up because it is showing that there will be job loss with a higher min. wage, it will kill jobs, and doesn't solve poverty. And inflation I said that not everything inflates.  As a whole the argument from the left on the min. wage is weak.  We can abolish it and we will be better off. 
    1
  42. Ylze Tyr I does have to do with what we are talking about.  You said we tried it one way before and it didn't work.  You say it as that we have tried the free market before thus we need to get to more regulations, one of them being price control (the min. wage).  I am telling you that federal government involvement doesn't work, one form of that is price control.   
    1
  43. Ylze Tyr And what about workers who have no job?  Why can't they work for less than the min. wage? It would make their lives better.  Even some of the most liberal individuals admitted that prices go up with an increase in the min. wage.  Any small increase is devastating to low income individuals.  Someone could be low income and still earning above the new min. wage, they are now worse off.   
    1
  44. Ylze Tyr If a business can raise prices and not see loss in customers than why doesn't it raise prices anyway and make that much more in profits?  The fact is that it isn't that simple.  And there are low income people who simply wouldn't be able to afford higher prices. A few cents here and a few cents there will hurt people.  The grocery bill of my girlfriend and myself is high, about the same as our rent, around 2/3 of our expenses go to groceries and rent, an increase in groceries will hurt us. 
    1
  45. Ylze Tyr You are now going back to that there is nothing negative about the min. wage and raising it leads to nothing but positive results.  That is why I always bring up the $50/hr min. wage, if the arguments from the right are supposedly weak, and the left is strong, than clearly we need more from the left.  Clearly we need an even higher min. wage. As a whole my stance is this, we shouldn't have a federal min. wage.  It violates state rights.  It should be left up to the states to establish a min. wage.  I feel that any type of min. wage is not good for the economy, you think it is.  Establish it in your state, don't mess with the whole country though.  If it works than other states will establish it, if not than they won't.  There is a correlation between higher teenage unemployment and a higher min. wage.   In the end there isn't one single good reason to even have a min. wage. 
    1
  46. Ylze Tyr As I said before, there are several factors that are involved in job growth and the economy as a whole.  Raising the min. wage a couple dollars won't have a huge impact on the economy as whole, but there is a correlation between that and teenage unemployment. In the 90s the federal min. wage was raised less than a dollar.  There wasn't any job loss because one, the economy was booming, two, the percent of those making at or below the min. wage was dropping, and three, it was a small amount in  terms of dollar amount at the time.  But it goes back to why not raise it to $50/hr if we don't see any negative effects? All of his is covered in the video I told you to watch. 
    1
  47. Ylze Tyr Watch the video "What's The Right  Minimum Wage" posted by PragerUniversity.  There you have American economist David R. Henderson talking about the min. wage. 
    1
  48. Ylze Tyr Yes, a video which has an economist talking, one that was editor of The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics doesn't know reality, right. As Dr. Henderson said in the video, government can control pay per hour, but not pay per week. He spoke of an incident in a state where when the min. wage went up a lady working at a doughnut shop saw her hours get cut from 35 a week to 27. Not really making more money. How do the rich get rich?  By investing their money correctly.  Same way a society gets rich, allowing money to be invested correctly and not setting artificial prices. You are once again lumping me in with conservatives when I am not one. 
    1
  49. Ylze Tyr There comes a point when a company simply can't afford higher wages.  I remember when Bill Clinton and Herman Cain got into a discussion in 1994 over healthcare. Cain, using numbers, showed how a company like his, and others similar, simply can't afford higher wages (in that case it would have been paying for healthcare benefits), you can find the video on youtube.  What that worker needs to do is find another job.  I worked at a restaurant for years and maxed out at $8/hr.  After I got my undergraduate degrees they could no longer afford me so I got a higher paying job. A lot of businesses work on thin profit margins, they simply can't afford higher wages.  Even at that, less profits means less investment and overall less growth.   And raising prices means less customers thus less profits, just like a higher wage means less of a chance in getting a job. We have had a min. wage for over 70 years now, this isn't a new thing. 
    1
  50. Ylze Tyr Lower turnover means lower job opportunity in entry level jobs for those just entering the workforce.  The video I told you to watch (the first one) mentions that with a research study supporting it. Just because low wage workers work for larger businesses doesn't mean we have to make a one size fits all law that effects everyone.  Also, less profits means less investment and less results.  In all business simply can't afford the higher wages. 
    1
  51. Ylze Tyr Turnover happens because there are some jobs that simply are not worth much.  When someone goes from working at $8/hr and then gets a job working $20/hr that is good for the economy.  That means they have develop a skill to create that much more capital. I work a job right now that we see high turnover.  It is a campus job that we see our students leave when they earn a college degree.  They go from being low skilled/low wage to high skilled/high wage quickly.  One recently got accepted to med. school.  One just recently worked the Super Bowl.  High turnover when people go from low skilled job to higher skilled ones is good. 
    1
  52. Ylze Tyr Yes, raising the min. wage does lower turnover, that also hurts jobs for low skilled individuals just entering the workforce.  As I said before, the video I told you to watch mentions that. Every business would like to hold onto their good employees which is why they give them raises.  The problem is that they can only afford so much, at that point than that person will find another job that pays more.   A small business that can only afford to pay low wages recognizes that and adjusts for it.  A problem I have is that when the min. wage does go up it hurts raises for workers at lower skilled jobs that do work there full time and during more demanding hours.  Instead of paying a more veteran member of the staff that work full time more, they have to pay some new employee who works part time  and less demanding hours less.  I saw it happen personally.  I was getting constant raises until the min. wage went up.  The company couldn't afford to pay me, or fulltime workers more due to having to pay some new worker more to just do dishes on a Tuesday night.   
    1
  53. Liberals don't understand the economy.  They feel that if the government passed a bill than magically things will get better. 
    1
  54. justin smith It is actually true.  Raising the min. wage leads to an increase in prices and less jobs for the low skilled.  There isn't a single good reason to even having a min. wage considering how it does harm and not good. 
    1
  55. justin smith Congratulations, you just found a government website who is right now run by an administration that is pushing for an increase in the min. wage, of course they are going to post info trying to increase it. Once can find research that refutes that as well, like this  What You Weren't Told About The Minimum Wage If raising the min. wage really helped than why set the bar so low?  Why not $50/hr?
    1
  56. ***** That can be debated.  The economy crashed in 2007, the economy always faces dips, it is the evolution of the economy.  Since 2007 democrats have always had control of at least one area of congress, and since 2009 the presidency.  We haven't recovered yet from the recession of 2007.  Seems like they are not doing something right.   
    1
  57. ***** If all it took were more money than why not raise the min. wage to $50/hr?  Or just give the poor $50,000?  More money means more demand, right?  In reality demand is infinite, people always demand better goods and services.  It is consumption that is limited.  You can't consume what you don't produce.  Raising the min. wage and not increasing production of those workers either raises prices in what they produce or out prices them out of the market thus they lose their job. 
    1
  58. unun septium Ah, the productivity argument.  First, here are some stats from the BLS  http://www.bls.gov/news.release/prin2.t02.htm Basically with that you can see that not every job is created equal.   While some jobs have increased in productivity others have remained basically stagnate or dropped.  Some jobs have increased in productivity and have increased in wages.  This is because of technology and skills and something called Skill Bias Technological Change.  Technology and increasing skills have increased productivity.  You also have to realize that some jobs have lost productivity and have become obsolete.  My friend's family own a movie rental store.  He gained a lot of business in the 90s.  They had to close down their business a few years ago.  A reason why is because of Netflix and Redbox which made access to movies cheaper and easier compared to going to a movie rental store, renting a movie, and than returning to the same store a couple days later. With Netflix you get a movie quickly and with Redbox you can rent a movie and return it to another redbox.  Basically that place, and those workers saw their productivity drop and thus their job became obsolete.  So should we pay them $18/hr?  You can't compare the min. wage to productivity because the min. wage is the minimum.  Productivity is as a whole. 
    1
  59. Dan P The problem with tying the min. wage to inflation is that you are suggesting that the price of everything goes up, it doesn't.  While the price of some forms of labor has increase, some forms of labor have decreased in prices and are almost obsolete.  Same is with goods.  Do they even make VHS tapes anymore?  If they do it is not nearly as much as in the past.  Look at the pocket calculator, it cost $200 in the 80, for $200 you can get a smart phone with a calculator and camera on top of other amenities. Cars are better now than in the past thus they are more affordable.   The same is with labor.  Look at Blockbuster or other movie rental companies.  My friend's family owned a movie rental place in town, it closed a few years ago.  It use to be booming but with Youtube, Netfilx and Redbox the demand, and thus the value of a business like that went down meaning all those workers' values went down.  There was a batter factory in town that employed 800 people in the 90s.  Demand for batteries were high with cordless phones and walkmen.  When the factory closed down a couple years ago it employed 200 people.  Due to more appliances having batteries on board that are rechargeable the demand for batteries went down meaning those workers' values went down.  Farmers use to use hoes to plow the field.  The plow replaced them and eventually the tractor replaced the plow making those workers' value at zero so they had to find other work.  Tying the min. wage to inflation means that all of those workers would have seen an increase in value and thus will not only still have jobs, but will also be paid at least $22/hr.  The reality is they don't have a job there and a job like that had lowered in value.  That is why you can't tie the min. wage to inflation. 
    1
  60. Dan P The biggest problem you have here is that you need to understand what money is.  Giving it away to someone who isn't worth that much ruins the value of the dollar which increases prices.  If all it took was more money to make the economy better than why not print more and give it away?  Because in the end you can't consume money, you consume what you buy with money.  More money doesn't mean more supply, thus more money will lead to an increase in prices which is devastating to those who are low income. This idea of subsidizing the poor as opposed to pushing them to take on more skilled jobs that will benefit society is hindering the growth of society and is contributing to the larger income inequality gap people complain about.  It would be great if everyone were able to get a high paying job in their life, you don't do it by paying them an artificial amount, you do it by pushing them to increase their market value. And look recently, the economy was after Carter (a democrat) which Reagan helped lead us in improving, and was fine until 2007 when we saw a recession.  We always see recessions, we saw them under Clinton and Bush, but since 2007 until now the democrats have always had control of at least on part of congress (and both for 4 years) and control of the presidency since 2009, we still haven't recovered from the recession.  Democrats don't help the economy.  The last time we had this much democrat control was under Carter and the economy suffered, there is a correlation there. When the republicans have control of one part of the government, as in the presidency under Reagan in the 80s or congress in the 90s with Clinton, the economy does fine. 
    1
  61. Gasai Yuno If raising the min. wage lead to more job growth due to higher demand than why not raise it to $50/hr?  Why set the bar so low?  The reality is that you can't consume what you don't produce.  Demand is actually infinite. People demand better goods and services thus businesses are pushing to offer them at an affordable price.  It is consumption that is limited.  Giving more money to people to increase consumption will increase prices and lower jobs.  But if it didn't according to you, than why not raise it to $50/hr? Also, if all it took was a small increase in prices with no loss of customers for Walmart than why don't they just raise prices anyway and collect that much more profits?  The reason is because it isn't that simple.  Plus any increase in prices, even small, would hurt those who are low income a lot.   
    1
  62. ***** What is a "livable wage"?  Problem with that term is that it is subjective.  On can live off of $2/hr if they have another job that pays more or if they are just supplemental income in a household with a primary earner.  You can't use "living wage" in this issue because one can't precisely define a "living wage".  And what are you going to do with the people who while they receive a "living wage" choose to squander it on alcohol and strippers, or other forms of waste?  Is that the point you finally bring up personal responsibilities? On top of that, if raising the min. wage led to a lot of benefits as people claim than we should be pushing for $50/hr, or more.  Refusing to do so is admitting to the fact that having a min. wage at all has negative effects.
    1
  63. ***** Why 40 hours a week?  Why not 30 hours a week?  More free time and thus less stress leading to a healthier lifestyle.  That should benefit society.  Where do you get 40 hours?  Why not 20?  People can find a hobby and maybe during that time find a hidden talent. What are the basics of life?  A car?  What if you are able to walk everywhere?  AC?  What if you don't need it due to where you live?  Living on your own or a roommate?  You are making a vague argument here with no clear definition, and when you made one you lack reasoning behind it. 
    1
  64. ***** The math is vague.  One's transportation can be zero, one's food can be low, one's shelter can be low based if they have roommates or not.  Subsidize employers is basically saying give them money.  Why not give everyone more money?  Why bother with wages at all?  Why not give every a basic income?  Why not go above that so we increase more money and the economy all together?  
    1
  65. Brad B You can't tie the min. wage to inflation because not everything inflates.  There are certain goods that lose values over time such as VHS tapes or home phones.  The same is with labor.  Certain jobs have decreased in value and in some cases have become obsolete.  Look at blockbuster or other movie rental places.  They were big in the past but now with Netflix and Redbox they are gone meaning those employees are not worth anything.  A local battery factory in my hometown employed 800 employees in the 90s.  Batteries were in high demand than with walkmens and cordless phones.  Now with batteries on board that are rechargeable the demand for them dropped.  When that plant closed 2 years ago it employed only 200 people.  Those workers value dropped. Not every job is the same and thus we can't say that the min. wage should go up due to inflation in that not every job increases in value. 
    1
  66. ***** I took Discrete Math for my math minor, that is a logic course.  In electronics we use logic problems.  What logic course do you want me to take? Plus, what are the "basic needs"?  That is a vague statement again.  Your idea of basic needs and mine could be different. 
    1
  67. Brad B Jobs are lost all the time.  If it weren't for higher taxes and regulations than the job lost will slow down easing the economic shift more, but in the end jobs are lost all the time.  When the plow was invented the need for farmers with hoes digging the ground dropped so those workers had to find another job.  And technology grows some jobs disappear but others are created.  We have high skilled jobs available that are not being filled because people don't have the skills to fill them.  Holding onto unproductive low skilled jobs, and artificially paying them a higher wage doesn't help the economy.  What helps the economy is pushing people and training them to take no higher skilled jobs with progresses society.  Those 600 jobs that were lost due to lower demand for batteries. Yes they are made in China now but the jobs were also lost due to demand in batteries dropping.  The jobs were cut, than the factory closed and then moved to China.
    1
  68. Brad B Is the cost of living really high in the US when compared to other countries?  That is a legitimate question because from what I have seen is that cost of living is low in the US. If you are making to little money than either you need to find a way to earn more or cut expenses.  But you are right, there is corruption and too much money involved at the federal level.  This wouldn't be a problem if the federal government didn't have power that can be bought to begin with and we had state rights.   
    1
  69. Brad B They were making a nice wage at that factory, with vacation time and benefits.    There are jobs for high skilled individuals out there.  They exist in the medical and tech field, people just don't have the skills to do them.  We will always have low skilled jobs that pay a low wage, those jobs can be done by individuals just entering the workforce, a part time job or a retiree all earning supplemental income for a home. That list with all those employers, how many off them hire part time, short term workers?  Like the Yum Brands, or McDonalds?  They have a high number of part time employees.  Turn those part time into fulltime and eliminate a lot of those workers than you see those numbers drop.
    1
  70. Dan P Businesses give out raises because their workers are worth more because of experience.  If they don't give out raises than those workers will go someplace else.  Cost of living has nothing to do with it, more experience means the worker is able to sell himself for more. Obsolete jobs is a good argument.  Some jobs no longer exist due to technology, that means those individuals need to find other line of work.  But as a whole not every job has increased in value, some have, others have remained stagnate and others have dropped.  It is called skill bias technological change. More money doesn't mean more supply to consume.  I can explain money but there exist a video on it  Why Not Print More Money? In short, more money doesn't mean that there will exist more food, or gas, or clothes, etc.  Since consumption is limited that means prices will go up.
    1
  71. ***** Actually no they don't.  If the did than they would be paid more. 
    1
  72. Dan P With raises there are limitations, a company can only afford so much.  With Subway the company can only pay so much and in reality a sandwich maker can only produce so much.  Unless the Subway employee finds a way to develop technology to make sandwiches on it's own than their productivity, thus their worth plateaus.  It happened to me at my low wage job, the company could no longer afford me after I finished college so I went to a higher paying one.  But in the end employers do give out raises due to more experience, failure to do so will lead to loss of employees and thus loss of good employees hindering their business. For someone who supposedly has a major in financial planning you should realize that when raising the min. wage the market will stabilize leading to higher prices and job lost.  In the end those with low skills and low income get hurt in the end. 
    1
  73. Brad B Medical and tech a liberal thing?  If so then why are they so concerned about raising the min. wage and spending money on welfare programs?  Why did they contribute to cutting research funding in science?  The market and local governments will fund those programs just fine, we don't need the federal government to fund it. Them funding it actually hurts it in that it makes money political and hurts progress, such as Obamacare and the website and Solyndra.   
    1
  74. Brad B My point was that if those places such as Walmart and McDonalds hired all full time than they would have less employees as to opposed to now when it is mostly part time workers they hire. Most workers earning the min. wage don't work full time.  The majority of those earning $9.50/hr or less are not poor.  And I do live in a city but I don't see any uproar on raising the min. wage to $15/hr.  I haven't seen any fast food strikes either beyond on the news which few people don't even talk about. 
    1
  75. Dan P When the min. wage was first introduced it didn't cover every sector of the workplace until the late 1970s.  With that, and several other factors tied into the economy we can have a booming economy and raise the min. wage.  It did come at a cost with an increase in teenage unemployment, especially amongst blacks.  People who just enter the workforce are "desperate" for a job. We see that still with volunteer internships and people paying to go to college to improve their market rate.  They are willing to make an investment to be worth more out of desperation.  When I finish my graduate studies I will be looking to work almost anywhere.  Now I will have more flexibility due to having an advance degree, but I will be willing to work at a place and for a wage that isn't ideal to me. 
    1
  76. Brad B The arguments for having the min. wage is that one, businesses will pay little if it didn't exist.  That isn't true.  Less than 5% earn at or below the min. wage.  The average wage in the US is over $24/hr.  Within a year 2/3 of min. wage workers get a raise.  Businesses would love to pay little but can't due to competition in the market. When one looks at that it is hard to argue for raising the min. wage.  We don't even need one since business already pay more due to competition.  If we remove the min. wage there would be workers making $4/hr, but they will be individuals working part time or can't even get a job. 
    1
  77. Dan P Artificial prices come from price control.  The min. wage is price control.  That is the government coming in and saying that this job is worth this much which is based on ........?  The market determines prices.  What people are will to pay or work for.  How much supply there is and consumption and demand.  It is a complicated thing that works itself out well.  The government coming in and saying that fast food workers are worth $15/hr is artificial if the market says they are only worth $7/hr. Businesses are not hiding their profits.  Either they invest which is more progress and more jobs overall, or they save it in the bank which they invest it which leads to more growth and progress.  Any business that just stashes cash is doing itself a great disservice and hurting it's value. 
    1
  78. Brad B You are right, it is hourly earnings http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t19.htm Not everyone is paid an hourly rate.  The median income for a household is over $50,000. The problem is that there are jobs who are below average.  There are some jobs that simply are not worth $7.25/hr unless the market changes in some way which usually hurts the poor.  As a whole, the min. wage keeps people from volunteering or taking a lesser pay to get a job, earn experience, or gain supplemental income.  People pay to go to college to gain experience, people take volunteer internships to do that, but yet we don't allow people to work for $4/hr if they simply want to work part time, with flexible scheduling for supplemental income?  I would work for $4/hr if I were to have a very flexible schedule. 
    1
  79. Dan P What is a wage?  A wage is the price of a worker. Like a store is willing to sell and item for a certain price, a worker is willing to work for a certain price.  If the worker sets the price too high than they don't get a job, just like if a store owner tried to sell, let us say an apple for too much than it won't get sold.  If too little than the store owner will lose money, if the worker worked for too little than they will struggle.  The market in the ends sets the balance. If taxes were not so high than businesses will keep their money here, they will also be less willing to move jobs overseas.  Jobs disappear, but new jobs take their place.  Instead of holding onto archaic jobs we should allow for new ones to be created and push people to be more skilled. Smaller businesses are hurt by the min. wage.  Walmart and Costco support a min. wage, Costco supports one as high as $15/hr because they pay their workers more than that already.  It is a way to hurt small businesses.   
    1
  80. Dan P A wage a price of labor. It is a cost to who ever is paying it.  Just like you paying a price on food or clothing, or you paying for someone to fix your car, there is a price on labor.  You pay someone to cut your hair, that is the price you are paying just like when a company pays someone to work at their business. That is true that a min. wage worker earns the minimum wage because they have not power to earn more, it is their responsibility to find a way to earn more.  2/3 of min. wage workers get a raise within a year, the reason why is because they have experience and thus have the power to set their price higher.  Just like someone with a college degree has that power.  And you can't protect the worker if the worker doesn't have a job because the min. wage out priced them out of the job market. We shouldn't have a federal corporate tax rate. Every small business I have seen is forced to pay the min. wage.  If their sales are less than $500k than they are not much of a business, and if that is the limit than you will see businesses cutting back to get under that mark.  My state almost passed a tax on businesses that raised rates on profits over $1 million, if it would have passed businesses in the city would have closed down their doors an hour earlier to limit profits to avoid the tax because it would have saved them money.  Increasing the pay of low skilled jobs to an artificial amount doesn't push people to obtain skills, it encourages them to hold themselves back.  Plus, doing price control doesn't help the economy or individuals.  
    1
  81. Dan P Now what is the definition of price:   the amount of money that you pay for something or that something costs : the thing that is lost, damaged, or given up in order to get or do something : the amount of money needed to persuade someone to do something The last definition is key, along with the first definition in the word "pay".  A price is something you pay.  A wage is a payment for labor.  Your payment is the price.  That is why a wage is a price of labor. If you overpay a worker you don't add value to the company.  If you pay a worker $10/hr and they only produce $8/hr, than the value of that company is dropping.  There comes a point in time when a company simply can't afford to pay a higher wage in that they will lose money.  They would love to pay little but competition prevents that, if a company pays to little than they won't get good workers. You go to a restaurant, you buy a hamburger.  Not only are you buying the hamburger, you are paying for someone's services to cook it.    When you buy hamburger in the store it is cheaper since you don't pay for someone's services to cook it.  The store you bought it from has a checker running the cash register, the store owner is paying for their services.  We do have a problem with those with resources having influence in DC.  If the federal government didn't have so much power than they couldn't be bought to begin with.   That is why I am for removing the federal corporate tax rate.  You can have the states decide to keep a state corporate tax rate, but there shouldn't be a federal.  Giving the federal government that much power means they can be bought and corrupted.  And if you increase taxes on corporations they will just pass the cost onto the consumer and workers. And I agree, we should have parents who spend more time with their children.  We do have that with better technology at our disposal.  We can achieve that even more by allowing progress to take place, not rewarding people for refusing to take on higher paying jobs.
    1
  82. Dan P A wage is payment, and what is paid is the price of labor.  Yes, legislators do just pick a number when determining the min. wage.  When Obama was pushing for $9.50/hr the fact was that there were more people who were poor earning over $10/hr than earning $9.50/hr or less.  The min. wage was pushed by union workers because their pay is based on it.  If you can only do $5/hr worth of work the min. wage says it is illegal for you to work, now how does that help?  When the min. wage was created there was a law in place that said anyone who is disable may work for less than the min. wage because due to their disability they would not be able to do work to justify a min. wage.  Even the government understood there was work and there were people that simply were not worth the min. wage. A higher min. wage also has led to high teenage unemployment because teenagers lack skills and experience to be worth the min. wage. 
    1
  83. Dan P Tom Harkin is he one pushing for the $10.10 min. wage, the same Harkin that pushed for restricting those dangerous ATM fees.  eEconomics - ep.13 - Financial Regulation
    1
  84. Brad B The idea that businesses will pay less if we had no min. wage is wrong.  Less than 5% earn at or below the min. wage.  The average hourly earnings in the US is over $24/hr.  2/3 of workers making the min. wage receive a raise within a year.  There will be people who make less than the current min. wage if we abolish it, but who will they be?  They will be the disable, those currently not working, or those looking for a part time job with very flexible hours to earn supplemental income.  You have to also consider that the government passing a low requiring more pay per hour doesn't mean they can require more pay per week.  Business can cut hours to adjust to a new min. wage.   You mention being fair and moral to the workers.  Is it fair and moral to price workers out of the job market, or prevent them from negotiating wages to obtain a job?  The min. wage does those things.  It hurts the workers. When broken down point by point there isn't a single reason to even have a min. wage. 
    1
  85. Dan P Prices as a whole are derived from the market.  The market settles down on a price on goods and services based on several issues.  The reason why businesses don't raise the prices of their products to gain more profits is because they will lose business, same as if a worker asks for too high of a wage or salary, they won't get a job.  A business can't sell for too little because if they do than they will have a loss.  Just like a worker doesn't want to make too little or they will be poor.  For a business to have better workers they will have pay well, but there comes a point where they will pay too much and thus they can only pay so much. What the min. wage does is make it illegal for people to work for less than $7.25/hr.  That means someone with no work experience, or someone wanting part time work with flexible hours can't work for $5/hr.  That is illegal for the business and worker to make that agreement.  I am not saying they are stealing from employers because employers can just simply not hire someone.  I am saying that it is illegal for businesses and workers to agree on a wage. A business making only $500K is very small, not a major job creator, mostly family owned.  Making them the exception of the min. wage doesn't do anything.   Your argument involved money in politics.  Consider this, money in politics wouldn't be an issue if federal politicians didn't have power to begin with.  You can't buy off power if they don't have it. 
    1