GOP Kills Minimum Wage Increase

[Jeanette X]

http://www.wesh.com/helenthomas/5183628/detail.html

Rich Senators Defeat Minimum-Wage Hike
Congressional Pay Rises While Minimum Stays Same
Helen Thomas, Hearst White House columnist

POSTED: 6:12 pm EDT October 26, 2005

Email This Story | Print This Story

U.S. senators -- who draw salaries of $162,100 a year and enjoy a raft of perks -- have rejected a minimum wage hike from $5.15 an hour to $6.25 for blue-collar workers.

Can you believe it?

The proposed increase was sponsored by Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and turned down in the Senate by a vote of 51 against the boost and 49 in favor. Under a Senate agreement, it needed 60 votes to pass.

All the Democrats voted for the wage boost. All the negative votes were cast by Republicans.

Four Republicans voted for it. Three of the four are running for reelection and were probably worried about how voters would react if they knew that their well-heeled senators had turned down a pittance of an increase in the salaries of the lowest paid workers in the country.

The minimum wage was last increased in 1997.

Kennedy called the vote "absolutely unconscionable."

The lawmakers are hardly hurting. They get health insurance, life insurance, pensions, office expenses, ranging from $2 million on up, depending on the population of a state. The taxpayers also pay for their travel, telecommunications, stationery and mass mailings.

AFL-CIO president John Sweeney said the rejection was "outrageous and shocking."

Sweeney said minimum-wage workers "deserve a pay raise -- plain and simple -- no strings attached."

He said it is "appalling that the same right-wing leaders in Congress -- who have given themselves seven pay raises since the last minimum wage increase -- voted down the modest wage increase proposed by the Kennedy amendment."

During the same period since 1997, raises that the Senate has given itself bolstered senatorial pay by $28,000 a year, Kennedy said.

"If we are serious about helping hard-working families, we will give a fair raise to America's low-income workers without taking away essential protections," he added.

The Senate also killed an amendment proposed by Sen. Michael Enzi, R-Wyo., which also would have increased the minimum wage by $1.10 but included drastic measures such as wiping out the 40-hour work week, cutting overtime pay and weakening job safety and health protection.

At the same time, Enzi wanted to sweeten the pot for small business by providing tax and regulatory relief and to exempt small business from the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Kennedy likened the Enzi bill to an "anti-worker poison pill" and said it would "severely hurt millions and millions of workers."

According to the Census Bureau, there are 37 million Americans living in poverty, up 1 million in just a year.

Statements by President George W. Bush since the Gulf Coast hurricane disasters indicate he has a new awareness of the plight of the poor in this country. Katrina and the devastation of New Orleans have made the more affluent realize the hardships suffered by poor families.

When asked about the Kennedy measure, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Bush "believes that we should look at having a reasonable increase in the minimum wage ... But we need to make sure that, as we do that, that it is not a step that hurts small business or prices people out of the job market."

Bush has not weighed in with his own proposal for a pay hike.

The Senate's action comes at a worrisome time when motorists are paying much more for gasoline and heating bills are expected to rise by 56 percent this winter, according to Kennedy.

As a result, families will have to tighten their belts to pay for the basic necessities.

"It is shameful that in America today, the richest and most powerful nation on earth, nearly a fifth of all children go to bed hungry at night because their parents, many of whom are working full time at the minimum wage, still can't make ends meet," Kennedy said.

Kennedy has been in the forefront of the fight for increases in the minimum wage for years, and I don't expect him to throw in the towel now.

Congress still may have a chance to redeem itself in the eyes of the less fortunate -- before the 2006 elections.

[CaptainBubba]

Econ 101 anybody?? Econ 101?

[mburbank]

I just think it's great the way Hurricane katrina woke people up to the problem of poverty in America.

[CaptainBubba]

ECONOMICS 101 ANYBODY? HMM? ANYBODY UP FOR SOME ECONOMICS 101???

[KevinTheOmnivore]

So Bubba, is this one of those times where I shouldn't take what you say seriously??? I mean, I wasn't going to, but I just wanted to be sure.....

Is this really news? Doesn't this happen like every year? Ted Kennedy, either through a rider or a straight-up bill, proposes this, and it fails. Then he calls it "unconscionable," and gets re-elected by a landslide.

Wait until 2006.

[CaptainBubba]

All I'm saying is ya'll socialists sure like the idea that minimum wages don't lead to alot of people losing jobs. I mean, that ridiculous right? Its not like a fundamental aspect of minimum wages. Take me seriously or not but denying that fact is pretty oblivious.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

We already have minimum wages. Why hasn't everybody lost their job?

I understand the side of the spectrum "ya'll's" coming from. But you can't argue that simply establishing a bear-minimum wage leads to massive job loss. It simply hasn't proven to be true. We raised the minimum wage in 1997, as we have in the past. No massive economic collapse. Certainly, we've lost manual labor jobs and manufacturing jobs overseas, but that can't be attributed to a minimum wage. You can't compete with corporations that can pay Indonesians $0.10 an hour, no matter how low your wages are.

If the minimum wage were adjusted to the standard of living or inflation, it would be far higher than the tiny raise ol' Teddy boy wants to add on. Congress has certainly jumped throughout the years to adjust their own salaries to the standard of living, why shouldn't the blue collar worker be allowed to catch up too??? This isn't like the $8/hour hike that guys like Kucinich want, not even close.

Since we last raised it in 1997, six more states have since passed their own minimum wage laws that are higher than the federal. That makes it a total of 12, a quarter of the country.

You can argue all you like about, uh, paying people fairly for the work they do leading to no more work, but i don't think that's what this is.

It won't happen until a new Congress gets in anyway.

[Marc Summers]

ECONOMICS 101 ANYBODY? HMM? ANYBODY UP FOR SOME ECONOMICS 101???

OK. Let's look at the short-run and long-run effects of a minimum-wage increase:

Short-run: Corporations have to pay more money to their low-level employees, which would result in some layoffs and downsizing plus cutting benefits to keep out of the red. This is basically what everyone is worried about :/

Long-run: People who have jobs have more money in their pockets, which means they're able to buy more stuff. That leads to increased profits for corporations, which means they would be able to expand and hire/rehire people back into the corporation, and increase benefits.

Usually minimum wage has to be a good balance between these two forces, or else you have companies with like two rich people working for it or you have companies where you have thousands of poor people working in crappy conditions because the company can't afford to take care of their workers.
Also there may have to be programs for displaced workers during this period to smooth the transition.

[El Blanco]

You also forgot to add in the raise in overhead for companies. This means they have to jack up their prices to maintain their profits. This leads to an increase in cost of living. Suddenly, that minimum wage increase doesn't look so significant.

I know very little about finance. I do know one thing: its never as simple as most amatuers make it to be.

[Marc Summers]

There's always an increase in the cost of living due to inflation, and the minimum wage has not risen to meet it. Since we have waited so long for an increase in minimum wage, things would have to get worse before they get better.

[kahljorn]

Basically, corporation likes their money. K thx.

[AChimp]

Blanco is right. When minimum wage increases, prices always increase to compensate a short while later. The only remedy is for people to get higher paying jobs in general.

[CaptainBubba]

We already have minimum wages. Why hasn't everybody lost their job?


Everybody else has said pretty much what I would've. I just wanted to highlight this quote for future refrence in illustrating a picture of you as completely and totally ridiculous when it comes to logic.

[kahljorn]

I think it's illogical that rich senators/businessmen don't want to increase wages because their company will close down and everyone will need to be laid off. I think it's alot more logical that they want the money to themselves.
Inflation doesn't exist because america has a lack of money it exists so people can become richer. If you don't understand that then you make me sad.
Anyone who honestly believes this has something to do with a one dollar increase closing down every business in the world is a moron. Maybe their profits won't be as high but they will probably still be making a couple billion(depending on the company).
Rich people like poverty because it keeps them rich and in control.

[CaptainBubba]

I'm not saying that is what was stupid about his comment. Its his train of thought.

Itd be like someone arguing that disease was good for thinning out numbers, then someone arguing that dieases don't kill people because then WHY ISNT EVERYONE ALREADY DEAD??

[kahljorn]

Okay then. I really just thought he was joking or something, but i can see your point.

[ziggytrix]

Economic theory unambiguously states that minimum wages should reduce employment opportunities for low-wage workers. However, recent empirical evidence has forced economists and policy analysts to question the validity of this theory. In particular, economists have attempted to quantify the impact recent minimum wage increases have had on employment. Opponents of the minimum wage argue that its negative effect on employment is large and is difficult to detect because some low-wage workers become employed while others become nonemployed following minimum wage hikes. On the other hand, proponents of the minimum wage contend that its impact on employment is small and thus acceptable from a cost-benefit perspective as well as to the American public. In short, most economists agree that the minimum wage reduces employment opportunities for low-wage workers, but they cannot agree on how much moderate minimum wage increases reduce employment opportunities.

A new area of contention centers on what effect minimum wages have had on educational attainment. Recent research by Turner and Neumark and Wascher have produced contradictory findings. Turner contends that minimum wages have no effect on educational attainment, while Neumark and Wascher argue that minimum wages significantly reduce educational attainment, particularly for minority youth. Because economic theory is ambiguous on how minimum wages affect educational attainment, additional empirical research is needed to answer these important questions.

Another new area of research is the effect minimum wages have on welfare participation. Too little research has been done on this subject for economists or policymakers to reach a consensus. In light of recent welfare reform legislation and proposals to increase the minimum wage, additional research is vital.

source: http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/lwlm99/turner.htm


Also, if you like charts, read http://www.swlearning.com/economics/policy_debates/increase_minimum.html

Despite what you've all said, it IS an open debate among economists.

[Supafly345]

The unemployment argument aside, accelerating inflation just isn't something I would be happy about.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Itd be like someone arguing that disease was good for thinning out numbers, then someone arguing that dieases don't kill people because then WHY ISNT EVERYONE ALREADY DEAD??

You made the argument that a minimum wage kills jobs (rather obnoxiously, i might add). If you're going to make a flippant comment like higher wages spells economic disaster, than I'm entitled to make an equally flippant comment. This simply is NOT the case. We have raised the minimum wage in the past, and we raised it during the Clinton administration, a time when the economy historically grew.

I tried being nice to, but you'd rather be a douche bag about it. That's fine, but aside from saying "ECON 101 guys!!" and calling me stupid, you've done nothing to prove your point. This isn't even a minimum wage increase relative to the standard of living. 12 other states have a higher minimum wage than the feds., and some comparative research (http://www.uvm.edu/~vlrs/doc/min_wage.htm) has shown that employment has actually increased in states that took this route. I think the factoid about educational attainment posted by Ziggy is interesting, but regardless, there is evidence of wage increases and job expansion in certain sectors.

I don't dispute anything Blanco has said (and I am with him on the "finance" comment). My point is that this wouldn't be a disaster, if anything, it would put a few more bucks in the wallets of Americans who could probably use it (and who will spend it.

I don't buy the overhead argument, either. At least not in the era of big box stores and Walmart. Any price increases that might occur as a result of a slight increase would re-adjust, if due to nothing else than consumer demands. Again, this isn't the 8.00/hour demanded by guys like Rep. Kucinich. This is miniscule.

[mburbank]

Yeah, I'm sure I'm a huge communist and that this will show I know nothing at all about economics, but here's what I think:

You work a nine to five job, five days a week, you should get paid enough to keep a roof over your head and eat and you should get a week of paid vacation and medical insurance. We're the richest country on earth and we have a buttload of folks so rich you could empty millions of dollars out of their bank accounts and it wouldn't change their life styles one iota. Anyone who works forty hours a week should be able to cover their basic damn needs, and that should be a damn law. If that mean the filthy rich would only get to be a undred times more wealthy than the poor instead of a thousand, well that makes my heart bleed. How many cars can you drive at once, how many mansions can you live in and how the hell do people sleep at night when they horde money they can't even find the time to spend or a single thing to spend it on when other people are one bad week away from homelessness?

Yeah, the minimum wage has a lot of problems. Raise it and it gets shifted to costs, it gets paid to teenagers who's parents cover all their needs, it needs fixing to do what it ought to do, it's a big mess.

But the wealth inequity in this country is a way bigger mess. Basic economics 101? How about basic guillotine 101 Bubba? The fat and happy ought to take a look at their own self interests and the countries and realize tht a growing underclass is a very dangerous thing.

[CaptainBubba]

The actual amount might be "miniscule" from your perspective but percenage wise it isn't really. Really you have little right to criticize my simply yacking on about econ 101 because all you've managed to do so far is formulate your own theories and say you just don't believe ones your opponents present.

Your source is interesting no doubt but there are a myriad of complaints regarding it as well. Regardless of the validity of any of these complaints its pretty obvious something is amiss because no logical argument or explanation could satisfy the link their trying to make, which is that higher minimum wages cause employment. Sure a few have suggested that but their explanations largely rely on a great deal more time than this study spans. One specific major oversight is that if they're were looking at fast food chains then employment is directly tied to one's hours. Its entirely possible they all hired more employees to fill in the gaps in shifts where people nomally overlapped eachother doing the same job.

I find it really wierd that you can actually argue that business would hire more people if their already going by minimum wage just because they have to. Being the defender of the poor on these boards have you yourself ever worked in a minimum wage enviroment? They will try to squeeze every dollar of work out of you that is possible to make a profit out of you. A modest increase like this might mean they eliminate you if it is within reason, and having worked in such an enviroment its really not something hard to imagine.

[kahljorn]

Percentage wise? How many people are working a minimum wage job? What is the population of america? Where do you get your percentage from? Do you really think a one dollar raise for mimimum wage working people will effect the economy that much? How many people have minimum wage jobs? Not alot. How many corporations are out there that have billions of dollars in surplus?

And Max, I think it's a control issue. If the poor begin to have self-respect because they have good living conditions they might stop being gullible idiots. There's really no reason other than to keep things the way they are. Stagnation is the nature of government and power, they strive for it... that's not really much of a stretch.
how does it not bother them? clearly they aren't human. I find it ironic we vote for "Moral catholics" who all have tons of money and the bible says rich people don't go to heaven because they are greedy. I really think government is bullshit, clearly all the problems in america couldbe solved if some of the rich fucks took some money out of their pocket instead of pretending like the government has no money.

[CaptainBubba]

percentage wise:

1.10/5.15 = 21% raise to all employees in the nation earning minimum wage. That is signifigant. Not miniscule.

[mburbank]

"Really you have little right to criticize my simply yacking on about econ 101"

Sure I do. Or maybe I don't, but I will anyway, so lump it.

"I find it really wierd that you can actually argue that business would hire more people if their already going by minimum wage just because they have to."

I can only assume you're talking to someone else here, since I never said anything of the sort. And since you asked, nope, never worked a minimum wage job. My entry level job was seven dollars an hour many yaers ago, and on that it was very difficult to choose between rent and food and I wasn't supporting anyone. Hence, my compassion for those who work for less.

Business will always try to squeeze maximal work out of it employees. The local McDonalds, Subway, Dunkin Donuts are not (at least where I work) known for efficiency through large numbers of staff. I don't think anyone out there is hiring more people than they need to get the job done right now just as a method of improving customer service. Hence I'm not worrie about a huge drop in employment if tey had to pay more, just a drop in their overall profits, which are distributed up in shocking disproportion.

It all depends on what a society wants. Will they work creativly to give a dignified life to anyone willing to work for it, or do they value more the possibility of obscence wealth?

And stop using the word 'They' so often. Left undefined so often it makes you sound paranoid.

Hey, here's thought? How about a maximum wage?

[kahljorn]

Just because it's a 21% wage increase doesn't mean it has that much direct effect on the economy. Quit hiding behind shallow knowledge. It might be a 21% wage increase but there's other ratios to consider, that's only one part of the equation. You have to consider how much money the employers had originally and what percentage of their money was spent on the employees in the first place, what their income was might help with that. Get back to me with some better information.

Thanks for trying to fool me though. I've been in the slums all morning.

[CaptainBubba]

Sorry Max, that was directed at Kevin. You posted while I was typing that up.

And Kahl, I never claimed to have a vast melting pot of information on ever corporation in America. Nor did I claim that this one fact was in and of itself something that would speel the doooom of the world. I'm merely pointing out that it is not an ignorable and minuscule variable. It is signifigant. I said nothing more of it in this sense. Take a chill pill.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Really you have little right to criticize my simply yacking on about econ 101 because all you've managed to do so far is formulate your own theories and say you just don't believe ones your opponents present.

hang on a second.

Bubba says: "ECON 101!!"
I say: "Some studies have shown," etc. etc.

Who's formulating their own theories here??? You can disagree with what I cited, that's all well and good (and you're right about some folks disputing it). But please refrain from crying about what right I or we have to criticize you. :rolleyes

Regardless of the validity of any of these complaints its pretty obvious something is amiss because no logical argument or explanation could satisfy the link their trying to make, which is that higher minimum wages cause employment. Sure a few have suggested that but their explanations largely rely on a great deal more time than this study spans. One specific major oversight is that if they're were looking at fast food chains then employment is directly tied to one's hours. Its entirely possible they all hired more employees to fill in the gaps in shifts where people nomally overlapped eachother doing the same job.

Or, fast food chains raising their wages made those jobs more appealing, thus people took them. That's me speculating upon your speculations.....but wait, you don't speculate and "formulate," you cite resources. I forgot.

The point is that there is research out there (along with what Ziggy posted) that shows lower unemployment due to an increase in wages in shitty jobs (like fast food). This of course can be disputed, but it's a far cry from the straight up contradiction that you seem to think exists between higher wages and unemployment.

Being the defender of the poor on these boards have you yourself ever worked in a minimum wage enviroment? They will try to squeeze every dollar of work out of you that is possible to make a profit out of you. A modest increase like this might mean they eliminate you if it is within reason, and having worked in such an enviroment its really not something hard to imagine.

Once again, 12 states already have a higher minimum wage than the federal level, and unemployment at the very least (taking even your criticisms into consideration) has proven in some sectors to remain steady.

Look, if you're going to take personal jabs at me and be a bitch about it, can't you at least go and cite some data from like the Cato Institute or something? I mean, at least put some effort into being a dick.

EDIT: And regarding your stupid-ass litmus test question, yes, I've worked minimum wage.

[mburbank]

Ha-ha, Kev worked a minimum wage job! NOT ME, BABY!! THASS FO SUCKAS!

[kahljorn]

Is any variable ignorable, and by what scale? If it's barely minisule before, more like on a microscopic scale, does a 21% increase really make that much of an effect. What does 21% of a pound decrease matter if the original mass is 20 million pounds? That is miniscule. That's all I was saying, quit thinking I'm trying to burn you at the stake. You presented information and I asked for it-- sometimes on this message board you don't know who's a genius mathematician and who's slumpy the retarded mule.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Ha-ha, Kev worked a minimum wage job! NOT ME, BABY!! THASS FO SUCKAS!

Yeah, well it needed to be said, otherwise Bubba was going to relinquesh my title as "champion of the poor."

With you I'm too conservative now, and with Bubba I'm apparently a socialist. I can't win. :/

[Preechr]

Well, you always have me over here thinking you're a closet libertarian... and possibly gay.

[kahljorn]

You should bring the bulbasaur back, kevin, that will leave no doubt about your sexuality to preechr >:

Only gay people are vegetarian.

[CaptainBubba]

Is any variable ignorable, and by what scale? If it's barely minisule before, more like on a microscopic scale, does a 21% increase really make that much of an effect. What does 21% of a pound decrease matter if the original mass is 20 million pounds? That is miniscule. That's all I was saying, quit thinking I'm trying to burn you at the stake. You presented information and I asked for it-- sometimes on this message board you don't know who's a genius mathematician and who's slumpy the retarded mule.

I don't need to find this information because its inherit to the argument against me. If there are so few minimum wage employees that a 21% raise to all of them in the entire nation is in itself inconsequential then any argument for minimum wage also becomes a moot point as it must apply to an extremely extremely small minority. Note: I'm aware that every corporation in the nation might be sooo wealthy that even with a 100% minimum wage worker base this wouldn't nessicarily rock the corporate coffers but to save me the trouble of doing actual work for now I'm going to let you get mad at my sweeping generalization and retort with one of your own.

At risk of Kevin calling me a poopyhead or something equally scathing and offensive, I see no more point in going back and forth with this debate because we'll both just declare there is some unseen variable or consideration the other is not considering. Plus I relaize I do come off as an angry Vince type character alot in these discussions and that makes me kind of hate myself. :/

[kahljorn]

"I don't need to find this information because its inherit to the argument against me. If there are so few minimum wage employees that a 21% raise to all of them in the entire nation is in itself inconsequential then any argument for minimum wage also becomes a moot point as it must apply to an extremely extremely small minority."

I don't really understand what you're getting at.
The part about minimum wage arguments being a moot part because of a small minority base is pointless. It's not a matter of how many people are making money, it's a matter of how much MORE money they'd be making compared to how much the company has. I understand you probably understand this, and that is why I don't understand your point.

The variables don't really matter in a case like this, all you need is a general number to satisfy the question of if the economy would collapse or not. Good day.

[CaptainBubba]

The variables don't really matter in a case like this, all you need is a general number to satisfy the question of if the economy would collapse or not.

Lol

[kahljorn]

:LoL
I'm going to make an lol because I'm nervous because I couldn't think of anything good to say but i feel like I've been robbed of my pride.

What I meant is we don't need to know that it's going to be 1,425,892.345287927196417957415642179276 we just need to know if it's going to be roughly 1,500,000 because anything above 5,000,000 is going to fuck the economy over. A simple less than greater than scenario, sorry you find yourself being an asshole for no good reason, mr. ECON 101!@)*@&)*#&@)

[mburbank]

Don't take it personally, Kev. Anyone not frothing at the mouth right now is too conservative for me. If it's any consolation, I hate other liberals almost as much as I hate anybody not frothing at the mouth.

I'm just a crotchety old man.

Compassionate crotchety, though.

[kahljorn]

I bet you grab your crotch alot and mumble praises to Hegel.

[CaptainBubba]

a general number to satisfy the question of if the economy would collapse or not.

Lol.

[kahljorn]

I don't get it but I hope your laughter is making children everywhere feel blissful.

[ziggytrix]

It's funny because economics is part math and part voodoo, so there is no magic number at which the economy breaks. :(



I found an economist/policy maker who says what I feel about the issue though.

Democrats used to talk in moral terms—about fighting for civil rights, for example. What should Democrats say now and in the future about public morality? That it's morally wrong to give huge tax cuts to the rich while cutting social programs for the poor and working class—especially when the gap between the rich and everyone else is wider than it's been in more than a century. That we have a moral obligation to give every American child a good education and decent health care. That it's morally wrong that millions of Americans who work full time don't earn enough to keep their families out of poverty. That corporate executives who steal money from their investors and employees are morally reprehensible. And that it's morally wrong to kill over a hundred thousand Iraqis and send over a thousand young Americans to their deaths for a cause that is still undefined, in a war that was unnecessary.

I'm not saying Democrats have to adopt my particular moral positions. But unless or until Democrats return to larger questions of public morality, they won't inspire the American public. Plans and policies are important, of course. But there's no substitute for offering a vision of what we can become as a nation—and giving citizens the faith we can get there.

Which gets me to the issue of faith. Democrats need to talk more about it, and inspire more of it. But here again, I don't mean the Republican or right-wing evangelical version—faith in a particular religion or god, faith in final judgment. I mean the sort of faith on which all social progress has been based, and must be based—an irrational faith that it is possible, by working together, to create a more just nation and a more just world. This sort of faith is entirely irrational—it defies reason—in the sense that it's often impossible to find hard evidence to justify it. It requires a great leap into the unknown and unknowable. It necessitates boundless energy and absurd optimism even in the darkest times. But without such faith, progress toward a just society is not possible.
- Robert Reich
http://www.slate.com/id/2109190/

[kahljorn]

"so there is no magic number at which the economy breaks."

that's why I said General (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=general) number. Suffice it to say, if minimum wage was increased to a point that companies were paying out 143,431,542,653,875,536 dollars the economy would break. Words like GENERAL (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=general) make the world go around, they are called Adjectives, they help describe a scenario in which your brain can grasp onto it and understand without looking illiterate.
What I said was pretty clear. Anybody capable of thinking knows that there's going to be a certain point where it's going too far. Basically, if the amount being paid is more than the companies have to spend the economy is probably going to get fucked.
Just so you know, it is possible to know that, "An increase of this number to this number would be safe, but anything past this could be dangerous".


Obviously they must have left common sense out of economy 101. :rolleyes

[CaptainBubba]

You have no fucking clue what you're talking about. There is no magical general number at which THE WHOLE ECONOMY COLLAPSES. You really seem to have no grasp of how complex what you'e discussing is.

[ziggytrix]

Nothing you've said makes me think you do either, Bubba. :(

[kahljorn]

Since you seem to say there's no magic number than how do you even know the economy would be fucked from raising minimum wage? It seems like you are arguing with your own opinion. You obviously can know absolutely nothing about it, you are merely regurgitating knowledge you "learned" in a class. By your own admission everything you said was a lie because there's no "magic number at which the economy crashes". You picked 21% as your magic number. :/ Thanks for arguing with yourself, though. I find it entertaining.

"21 % is my magic number!" - captain bubba

Remember, I was only asking for numbers because YOU presented them. Why did you present numbers if there's no magic number the economy crashes? Hypocricy? Stupidity? Ignorance? Please, let me know mr. it's too complicated to know that a number will crash the economy. :lol
Now you have to ask yourself if I knew that there was no magic number and was just waiting for you to say there isn't and make your "21% point" pointless, or if I'm just smart enough to play it off. And what about what you say next, how will that factor in to how i feel about things. Is it what i want you to say? Am I planning out everything ahead of time? How smart am I, really?


"You really seem to have no grasp of how complex what you'e discussing is"

Unfortunately I do, I understand there's tons of companies who have employees hired, some small businesses some huge corporations. I understand they all have a certain amount of money, a certain amount of employees.. some hand out benifits, some rely on resources to gain money, some rely on their employees. Most of the one's that have alot of employees hired(basically, who this would effect the most) are places like walmart and mcdonalds. Do you want to tell me they don't have the money?
Of course the economy is a complicated thing. It's a conglomeration of tons of companies and employees, who may or may not be relying on eachother or other outside influences. Thanks for stating the obvious, jackass. The idea of economy itself is ore of a lucid concept than anything else.
There's also other influences that you haven't considered, especially on minimum wage workers, like welfare. Are you aware that one person can get 150 something dollars in food stamps a month in california? I find that funny since the minimum wage increase would tally out to being about 160 dollars a month. If minimum wage was raised, there's a chance that they would no longer be eligible to receive benefits(although, I haven't looked directly at the magic numbers). Funny how things can often balance themselves out... We have all these programs in place to help poor people, why not just make it so they aren't poor anymore, then all of these shitty programs to help them wouldn't be needed, and they would actually have some respect for themselves. Balance is nice.

[CaptainBubba]

Jesus christ you really are a persistant little child. 21% IS NOT A MAGIC NUMBER IT IS THE PERCENTAGE INCREASE IN PAY OF MINIMUM WAGE WORKERS. HERE, DO IT YOURSELF MORON:

(6.25-5.15)/5.15 = 21.3%

OMG MAGIC NUMBERS!!! WE CAN DO DIVISION HERE AT I-MOCKERY! I'M SUCH A HIGH AND MIGHTY JACKASS FOR THROWING MY DIVISION CAPABLE COCK AROUND BECAUSE I'M MR.NUMBERS HERE THATS RIGHT I CAN DIVIDE.

I NEVER SAID IT WAS A MAGIC NUMBER I DID NOT SAY IT WOULD CRASH THE WHOLE FUCKING ECONOMY. IT IS SIGNIFIGANT. THAT MEANS NOT MINISUCLE AND ABLE TO BE OVERLOOKED.

You are woefully stupid.

[kahljorn]

You mean it's possible to find mathematically significant numbers to calculate how much stress on the economy a certain action might(and i should mention I use the term might here very mightily) bear? Jesus. I didn't learn that in econ 101 and I haven't at all mentioned that in my previous posts at all and it couldn't possibly have been what i meant about a general number or anything like that. It couldn't have possibly been about gathering together the significant numbers.

What you're saying is that this is significant to the employees. No shit, that's why it's a wage increase. You increase the employees wage. Thanks for cracking the mystery though.
But hey, let's go a step further and pay attention to the problem at hand: Will this 21% wage increase effect the economy in a bad way? I doubt it. Nobody cares if this is significant to the employees(which is why it was rejected) they care if it's significant to the economy. So shut the fuck up already, learn to pay attention to what's actually going on.

Everybody knows it's a 21% increase, why? because they said it's a one dollar increase when it was five dollars before(1/5, i think everyone understands fractions). But thanks for enlightening all of us with your magical percentages that are supposed to sway our feelings on this subject.

21% is a magical number because you've shown in absolutely no way how it's relevant to the actual case at hand, you've merely presented shallow knowledge(for no reason, because everybody could tell that the wages were increasing, that's why it was called a wage increase) that has absolutely no detail associated with it and no actual connection to the issue.
It's like you're holding an electric plug in your hand with no socket in sight, wondering why your lamp won't turn on...
My point about 21% possibly being ECONOMICALLY INSIGNIFICANT (notice how i didn't say wagefully insignificant) is like how the gravity of pluto is entirely irrelevant to the sun because the sun's gravity is so much bigger it makes pluto's gravity insignificant no matter how significant it is to the moons. Guberment/corporations=sun -- minimumwageworkers=pluto/moons
I mean, that's just an example.. who knows if it's actually significant, a 21% increase could be very significant, but you can't show how which makes your point insignificant.

I like how you debate an issue about the economy with information that may or may not bear any weight on it, though. That's really clever of you. :posh

[ziggytrix]

Wal-mart CEO Lee Scott says we should raise the minimum wage, but he's smart enough to know where minimum wage earners spend their money. (source (http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/25/news/fortune500/walmart_wage/))

Also, Wal-Mart pays it's lowest paid employee more than the national minimum wage, and it's yet to bankrupt them.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Walmart is going through a massive PR overhaul right now. This same guy was lobbying Congress to reinstate the Voting Rights Act.

Another smart thing Walmart has done-- They have jumped into the check cashing/money order business. Eventually, every Walmart may have a center like this in their big box stores, so when their employees (or anybody who uses it) cashes their check, well hey, look at all of this shit i can buy!

I'm glad to see they aresupporting the increase. Somebody should tell him to re-take Econ 101. :(

[kahljorn]

They pay more than minimum wage? I knew a few people who worked there who said they got no benefits and shitty hours/minimum wage, but maybe they were exagerating because they didn't like working in the worst walmart in town(it was one of the 24 hour ones).
I've also heard mcdonald's pays their managers fairly well, though. Something like ten dollars an hour.

[Preechr]

I'm noticing a pattern in Mr. Bubba's style of argument.

Since no one seems to be able to understand what's being discussed at your admittedly high level, could you please make this easier on all of us and explain YOUR point of view on the topic instead of holding all the correct answers behind your back and making us all guess?

Isn't what you're doing one of those... um... ad hominy thingies?

I mean, I'm no stranger to being ignorant. I'd just love to find someone that both knows everything and is willing to tell me how it all works...

[CaptainBubba]

Hey guys somebody posted back like 5 pages ago that he felt this debate wasn't going to further anyone's intelectual fancy but some other asshole decided to highlight one number that guys posted and arbitrarily decide that he meant it was a magic number and we're all gonna make a big deal out of it because thats how real debates work in the real world.

And come to think of it, just for accuracies sake. My argument was never through the entire ocurse of this trhread about the economy crashing. It was about unemployment resulting. You decided the economy thing for yourself jackass. Econ 101 genrally always teaches that unemployment follows minimum wage increases. That was the purpose of my obnoxious econ 101 statement. But thanks for trying.

So to follow suit in an apparently appropriate debate style since everyone hates mine so awfully much:

Put up or shut up man, where is the solid numerical proof that minimum wages increases cure genital herpes? Huh? lotsa big talk but no answers.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Well, what's really amusing about this is that Preechr probably (if I may make the assumption) would be more inclined to agree with the argument you're making, rather than what me, Ziggy, or Kahl have been saying.

You just sound like a dick making it. :/

[kahljorn]

"...economy crashing. It was about unemployment resulting. "

Economy and employment have absolutely nothing to do with eachother.
Just because the economy isn't completely crashing(which will probably NEVER EVER IN THE WHOLE WORLD HAPPEN, it can ALWAYS recover) doesn't mean it's not taking hits. What form might those hits take? Unemployment, maybe? I don't know what else you'd call a bad economy. Because the economy is so fucked up, in ohio the unemployment rate is shit. I mean come on man, use your fucking brain.
Employment and economy are pretty well connected. Why? Because the economy relies on the employees, and the businesses(which rely on the employees). Remember how complicated the economy is..lots of variables... yea. Mr. econ101.

I don't care about your magic number. I just thought it was funny when you presented it like it was some shocking thing, and wondered how exactly you thought it supported your argument that wages were increased by 21%(or a dollar) which was clearly stated in the article and in everyone else's post.

I think what most people are confused about is the fact that there has been alot of Inflation and bad economy already, and alot of people can't really afford to live. Has there been an increase in wages? Nope.
Like other people have said, there's alot of states where minimum wage is already higher, and most of those states are in better condition than the others. However, alot of states(like nevada) don't really need a higher wage, they already don't have state taxes which kind of balances things out. But then, who knows, even they could still be struggling. I wouldn't know, I don't live there.

"Put up or shut up man, where is the solid numerical proof that minimum wages increases cure genital herpes?"

While there is no cure for genital herpes, it is possible to control it. With an increase in minimum wage, you can afford the medicine you need. Please, vote for Jesus.

[Preechr]

Yep.

[ziggytrix]

Hmm, I didn't really think I'd presented much of an argument.

Personally, I say revoke the minimum wage and provide anyone willing to work with access to food, shelter, medical care, and clothing, and then we all go to a "pretend socialism works" party and dance the night away. La la la.

[Preechr]

That too.

[mburbank]

Make everyone in the top one percent income brackett into Soylent Green.