Featured My minimum wage rant.

I agree with all of this. It's just such a bandaid concept and the Democrats never really dig into the weeds enough to see that it isn't some catch all solution. Every time I see this argument from the left my eyes roll so far back into my head I see grey matter.

 

Thanks. I need to stop getting sucked into fights with people that I know are going to end badly but I'm in progress!

 

That's what the Demorats don't see. Not all minimum wage jobs are created equal. It's insane if you think about it. How do they not see this?

 

What's absolutely amazing to me is that I am living off of less than the proposed minimum wage hike. And I have a house payment and a car payment, three kids, a wife, and am working out of debt.

 

Truth is, and Washington and all those in public office know all too well, that $15.00 an hour will not make that much a difference in the living conditions of those making that kind of wage.

They know it is only a cosmetic thing, and a rose in their political vase. And $15.00 an hour will not pay for the day care, rent, food utilities, etc., never has and never will. These people will still be dependent on government programs to get them past the things they still can't afford. It merely places them in a higher tax bracket.

Plus like you say, once a business is forced to pay that kind of money, the quality and quantity of services and products will go down hill, because the owner will have to unload help in order to make a certain dollar figure stretch to meet the rise in wage. That means more people without jobs, and less quality from that business because they are making to do with less Manpower, in order to pay their employees the higher wage.

It's a never-ending war, and those on the bottom will still have to work two or more jobs to get by, or they will simply go on welfare where phones, rent, medical care, food, etc., are paid for by taxpayers, and they can sit back and be more entrenched in the world of entitlements, which means they will be hell-bent on voting for the politician that is probably not going to cut out their free ride during their term in office.

The answer for a fair wage is not a minimum wage increase, but rather a program that supplements the employers of the low-income folks with Government paid benefits, paid to the employer to pass on to the employee, making the low-wage job equivalent to a middle class or higher job that meets the needs of the employee, so they maintain dignity. And by the way, one of the benefits built into the low-income government handouts should be guaranteed benefits that permit the employee to qualify and attend school to improve and gain new skills that will give them a career type of upper ward mobility leading to a better job down the road! And challenge them to take on the paid training, instead of forcing them to work two of three jobs to make ends meet!

The low income job must never become a lifetime pit, but rather the place where the unemployed, under-employed may begin building towards a better tomorrow!

I submit that welfare should be a working welfare program, that leads people off public assistance and into the low-income jobs that eventually help them to move up the career ladder to escape low income status and at least be able to function in the middle class range, thus we as a nation is now rebuilding the middle class that has been eroding away over the last few generations!

Bro. Curtis .... I :applause: you for your rant. It is needed to shake us, as a nation, loose from pie-in-the-sky legislation that only puts a few more dollars in the pockets of a burger flipper, and puts us on track to do better for our safety net income folks, buy helping them escape a lifetime of low income living, which is in itself a form of social hoeplessness! :tear:

 

So your solution is that tax dollars should just be handed out to anyone making a "low wage". This is a terrible idea. A typical liberal and big government idea.

So a person working at McDonalds for $8.00 gets how much automatic money from the tax payers? Do you differentiate between the high school kid, the mom pulling some Christmas money, and the crack head who can't get a better job?

We have more than enough "programs" around. We don't need another one, especially one that gives more free handouts.

 

I didn't say that the single mom should get more than the teen, but the purpose of this program was:

"supplements the employers of the low-income folks with Government paid benefits, paid to the employer to pass on to the employee, making the low-wage job equivalent to a middle class or higher job that meets the needs of the employee, so they maintain dignity"

I was wondering if the program would find the need to give the teenager working at McDonalds his "dignity" back and a "middle class wage".

I was simply pointing out a flaw in the system and one that would be easy exploited (as with all government programs).

I do take issue with your statement "The pay scale should be based on the worth of the job, not the need of the individual."

The pay scale should be based on the worth of the job and the worth of the individual. Different people shouldn't necessarily be paid the same wage for the same job.

 

My point was not that there is no ceiling for a particular job, but that there is not a set pay rate for a particular job. The rate should not be determined by the job alone, but by a combination of the job and worth of the individual.

Of course, all this is personal preference on pay rates, some other manager/company may decide that they have a single rate for all individuals in a particular job.

For the record, I am against any minimum wage or any regulation of wages by the government. I'm also against any supplementation of wages by government.

 

My buddy had a thought. What about no minimum wage, but wage ceiling on the corporation (including bonuses - I know that's been used as a cop out before) that's based on the lowest paid member. Something like the highest paid person can only make 10x what the lowest person does?



The idea's not fully fleshed out, but it's an interesting thought. What says the board?

 

Politically, we can't get to where we need to go.

Wage increases due to a shortage of labor are a good thing... but not according to Keynesians who believe gov't should "run" the economy. So, artificial unemployment is assured by policy... which drives wages down... which is then remedied by... you guessed it.

But as everyone seems to see, it doesn't work because just like every other attempt at a "command economy" no one is actually smart enough to make it work. Even if they were, they'd have NO CHANCE even in this age of possessing and processing enough information to be effective.


Eve demonstrated from the very beginning that our attempts to play God are not only bound to fail... they are bound to destroy. No different with attempts to "play God" over the economy.


Where we need to go is a return to the use of tariffs to prevent countries with unfair business and labor practices from taking jobs from us. We then need free market changes en masse to gov't regulations and policies. We need a return to a backed currency... if not gold then potentially convert the massive land holdings of the US Gov't. Basically, we need to take the gov't fetters off of "free people"... and take away the safety net. But that gov't DOES have a responsibility to protect US from cheaters.

 

I'm actually having this conversation with somebody on another board right now.

As wages rise, costs for goods and services also rise, thus negating the increase in wage.

Progressives wrongly calling themselves "liberals" just don't get this.