New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Vote!

What is your preference?

  • The minimum wage should be eliminatedaltogether.

    Votes: 2 16.7%
  • The minimum wage should be reduced.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The minimum wage should remain at $7.25 per hour.

    Votes: 1 8.3%
  • The minimum wage should be increased to $10.10 per hour.

    Votes: 4 33.3%
  • The minimum wage should be increased to more than $10.10 per hour.

    Votes: 5 41.7%

  • Total voters
    12

NightSwimmer

Senator
There is a proposal to raise the federal minimum wage from $7.25 per hour to $10.10 per hour.

Are you for it, or against it?
 
It is an anonymous poll. If you have an opinion, there is no need to fear participating in the poll. Your opinion will not be made public unless you should choose to comment.
 
There is a proposal to raise the federal minimum wage from $7.25 per hour to $10.10 per hour.

Are you for it, or against it?
Employers should be required to pay their employees at least a wage that reflects the cost of living. There is something wrong in a country as rich and powerful as ours that people are working two or more jobs and still can't afford basic necessities. It's shameful that we allow companies to outsource their employee cost to the tax payers and still rake in enormous profits - why should the taxpayers subsidize their payroll costs via food stamps and other forms of assistance? The stock market is doing very well right now, reflecting that companies are doing very well. But people are not, and that's backwards. Companies don't 'create' jobs, consumers create jobs. But we have far fewer consumers than we should because the companies can get away with paying a pittance to their employees, and we let them.
 
Employers should be required to pay their employees at least a wage that reflects the cost of living. There is something wrong in a country as rich and powerful as ours that people are working two or more jobs and still can't afford basic necessities. It's shameful that we allow companies to outsource their employee cost to the tax payers and still rake in enormous profits - why should the taxpayers subsidize their payroll costs via food stamps and other forms of assistance? The stock market is doing very well right now, reflecting that companies are doing very well. But people are not, and that's backwards. Companies don't 'create' jobs, consumers create jobs. But we have far fewer consumers than we should because the companies can get away with paying a pittance to their employees, and we let them.


Passage of a minimum wage increase should be the most important issue in the upcoming midterm elections.
 
I know it isn't arbitrary, and I know where it comes from. You seem uninterested in knowing despite your support for it. That's typical...


I support raising the minimum wage to $12.00 per hour immediately. You are correct in your assumption that I don't really care how the Congress arrived at that particular number.
 
The $10.10 figure in the Harkin-Miller proposal isn't arbitrary. Progressive economists like to point out that if the minimum wage had kept pace with inflation since its high in the late 1960s, it would now be above $10.

Then again, maybe they did what Reagan used to do and consulted an astrologist?

If I inflation adjust the minimum wage I was paid back in '79 to today, I get to about $12.60 per hour.

When I look back to may expenses back in that day, I find that most have increased perhaps equal to or less than the overall rate of inflation, but a few very important ones have exceeded it by the proverbial mile. One is the cost of healthcare, which Obamacare addresses. The other is the cost of education, which we have yet to confront.
 
You're advocating for an American race to the bottom. Races to the bottom rarely turn out well.

The people who live on 'minimum wage' have already reached the bottom. And by increasing that guarantee, we aren't enabling them to climb out but making them more comfortable there.

A completely wrong tack to take on employment.
 
The people who live on 'minimum wage' have already reached the bottom. And by increasing that guarantee, we aren't enabling them to climb out but making them more comfortable there.

A completely wrong tack to take on employment.

You're not alone in your perspective. If people were "enabled" to earn less money, their prospects would improve dramatically!......or not.
 
C'mon...I allowed that some people share your perspective. On that note, would you give me an example of a prosperous socioeconomy today, that doesn't have a minimum wage?

What's your point? That a minimum wage causes prosperity? You'll have a long row to hoe to prove that.

Most prosperous socioeconomic have nuclear/chemical/biological weapons as well.

That doesn't mean it's a good idea.
 
If I inflation adjust the minimum wage I was paid back in '79 to today, I get to about $12.60 per hour.

When I look back to may expenses back in that day, I find that most have increased perhaps equal to or less than the overall rate of inflation, but a few very important ones have exceeded it by the proverbial mile. One is the cost of healthcare, which Obamacare addresses. The other is the cost of education, which we have yet to confront.


The costs of housing, transportation and food have increased significantly as well. So has the cost of basic utilities such as water, electricity, sewerage and garbage disposal. If your laborers can't pay for the basic costs of existing with labor wages, then your economy is dysfunctional. We shouldn't have people who work two different jobs still qualifying for public assistance.

American taxpayers shouldn't be paying Walmart employees' living expenses.
 
Back
Top