Change of mind on minimum wage

Nickman · Post by **Nickman** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 8:53 pm

The following video is a quick interview with Ted Cruz. Although I am not a fan, this helped me realize something. Especially from the comments section. My YouTube name is Nickoliatan. See my comments there as well.

Raising the minimum wage to $10 an hour won't change anything. The economy will adjust to make $10 unlivable. The correct way, IMO, would be to deregulate the economy and allow social pressure, supply, and demand to determine the wage of workers. Minimum wage was put in place in 1938, and only for specific minority groups. Prior to this, wages grew with the market. Once a regulation was placed on the economy, wages became stagnant and rose only slightly with more regulation. If we get rid of economic regulation, no person will work for low wages for a job that is difficult, when the public demands higher wages. The corporations will have to meet the demand by supplying higher wages, or otherwise lose productivity and thus, revenue.

In North Dakota, wages are high. Why? Because the demand for workers to work hard, tough jobs. These companies couldn't get workers to move to ND and endure long hours, and in difficult conditions, unless they pay well.

If we let the economy move freely, society will be enough regulation, on its own, to make corporations pay descent wages.

I want to hear from Darius and Winepusher here, but also anyone and everyone. I would like to hear from some of my good friends such as Danmark, Goat, and DI. Everyone's input will be valued.

To debate: minimum wage only. Not other regulations, such as environmental. I would like to debate those as well but in their own thread.

[Youtube][/YouTube]

eman · Post by **eman** » Thu Apr 10, 2014 11:13 am

Picture this scenario: A man wants to start a business what does he have to do? He has to jump through all the legal hoops the government puts in the way of his doing that very easily means he has to meet certain building codes, he has to pay license fees, sometimes he has to pay government fees for this allowance or that. Then knowing he has to make a profit to stay in business for his product he has to include a profit enabling him to pay all these gov. fees, he has to hire workers qualified to do the work. Any more expense the government forces him to meet has to be payed for by raising the prices of his product (make sense?) So forcing an employer to pay a certain wage whether he can afford it or not forces him to charge accordingly for his services/products. The more gov't forces him to spend to produce the products the more he has to charge. The more businesses charge for their products the higher is the cost of living. The more the workers get paid the higher will be the cost of living. Minimum wage is an illusion that makes people think they are getting more but with the rise of the cost of living (inflation) comes the devaluation of the working man's (and everyone else's) money. That's why no one is ever satisfied. Greed is mostly the driving force behind everyone working. Everyone wants more than they have. No one is satisfied in this way. Less government force and more power to the people. As long as government forces people to do things people lose the ability to make their own decisions.

eman · Post by **eman** » Thu Apr 10, 2014 12:01 pm

[Replying to post 51 by eman]

As a continuation of my own thread: What the working class don't realize is that in this country the employer is also part of the working class. The gov't has and is doing a good job pitting the workers against their employers. What raising the minimum wage also does is justify paying more to government workers which means collecting more taxes. Government keeps getting bigger and bigger at the expense of the Producing class. Government takes money from both employees and employers to become more and more powerful. Taxes are monies taken out of the economy (your pocket and mine) for the sake of it getting bigger and bigger. This is the real problem with the economy but most people don't realize this they think charging corporate America more taxes will somehow ease their burden. Not so: the more they take the more they want. The more control we give them the closer we come day by day to becoming the very kind of government run society our forefathers tried (with the Constitution) to protect us from. Taxation without representation is the real problem and it has been for a long time. Everything the government promises for "free" cost the workers and employers and thus the economy more and more. Cut government spending first and then we can talk about a free economy.

Goat · Post by **Goat** » Thu Apr 10, 2014 1:06 pm

eman wrote: [Replying to post 51 by eman]

As a continuation of my own thread: What the working class don't realize is that in this country the employer is also part of the working class. The gov't has and is doing a good job pitting the workers against their employers. What raising the minimum wage also does is justify paying more to government workers which means collecting more taxes. Government keeps getting bigger and bigger at the expense of the Producing class. Government takes money from both employees and employers to become more and more powerful. Taxes are monies taken out of the economy (your pocket and mine) for the sake of it getting bigger and bigger. This is the real problem with the economy but most people don't realize this they think charging corporate America more taxes will somehow ease their burden. Not so: the more they take the more they want. The more control we give them the closer we come day by day to becoming the very kind of government run society our forefathers tried (with the Constitution) to protect us from. Taxation without representation is the real problem and it has been for a long time. Everything the government promises for "free" cost the workers and employers and thus the economy more and more. Cut government spending first and then we can talk about a free economy.

We have the lowest taxes now than in the last 75 years. In the 1950's, the time period the Republicans have nostalgia after, the top range for the rich was 90%.

An honest days pay for an honest days work.

eman · Post by **eman** » Sat Apr 12, 2014 7:24 pm

[Replying to post 53 by Goat]

Income taxes are only the tip of the iceburg. You pay about 30% on gasoline. You pay tax on money you save. You (your heirs) pay tax on money you heir to someone, even though it was bought with money that was already taxed. You pay property taxes, you pay local and city taxes, your drivers license, boat license, hunting license, etc. you get the idea. We are taxed on every side. Your local lottery is a tax that was supposed to go to schools now it goes into a "common trust" account the government leaders divide up. The senate who are greatly responsible for the "national debt" decide their own paycheck size and they will never take responsibility for what they and their decisions have gotten the nation into. They, you can bet your bottom dollar, will never lose a penny of their pay over the national debt. You and I haven't done anything to deserve this debt have we? Yet still they get elected into office to either not fulfill their promises, or in some cases fulfilling their promises and really screwing things up for all of us. Open your eyes every time you buy things your paying a tax on what has already been taxed.

Jolly_Penguin · Post by **Jolly_Penguin** » Fri May 02, 2014 2:11 pm

The answer is a minimum income for all. You can do it via the already established income tax mechanisms. Everybody in society is guaranteed $x per year in income. If you earn below that, you get tax "refund" (fund) to bring you up to that. If you earn more than that, you start paying income tax on whatever you made above it.

Then employers no longer can strongarm employees into taking wages less than what the work is worth. Wages would go down, but still need to be enough to attract workers now that the threat of workers starving is no longer an issue if they don't take the job.

Also bring in universal health care. There is no reason why employers should be paying all the social welfare costs. Welfare costs should be shared by everybody. We put way too much of it on employers. Employers SHOULD pay a fair share of income tax, depending on how much they profit, and that along with everybody else's income taxes should be enough to keep everybody afloat.

bluethread · Post by **bluethread** » Fri May 02, 2014 3:48 pm

Goat wrote:
We have the lowest taxes now than in the last 75 years. In the 1950's, the time period the Republicans have nostalgia after, the top range for the rich was 90%.

An honest days pay for an honest days work.

The nostalgia for the 1950's is for less regulation and free market imperialist foreign policy. This permitted us to get something for our military activities. You know, the whole blood for oil thing. Under those conditions even a maximum tax rate of 90% is sustainable, especially since people didn't actually pay that rate due to "loopholes". Now, as in Bengazi and the war that Obama called the good war, Afganistan, we give blood and pay for the privilege. Under that current approach, I am a bit isolationist myself.

Nickman · Post by **Nickman** » Thu May 08, 2014 9:00 pm

Jolly_Penguin wrote: The answer is a minimum income for all. You can do it via the already established income tax mechanisms. Everybody in society is guaranteed $x per year in income. If you earn below that, you get tax "refund" (fund) to bring you up to that. If you earn more than that, you start paying income tax on whatever you made above it.

I see what you are saying and it works but I disagree with the principle. We shouldn't make everyone earn the same. That is what you are essentially doing with this policy. Taxes should only be for things that the country or state uses as a whole. Example: Road Taxes. We should pay only for what we use and that is also used by all. If I work at McDonald's, I should pay for the things I use in my state and the taxes that pay for representatives, roads, and what-have-you. We should be challenging our government on what they spend the money on. If the government wants to bail out a company or give subsidies to a multi-billion dollar corporation, we should stand up and say NO!

Should the rich pay for social security if they will never use it? Or should only those who will use social security pay for it. We have to put ourselves in the shoes of each class. The different classes are the problem that makes things messy and hard to accommodate fairly. I'm not saying that we go to socialism. What I am saying is that each class should pay for what they will use, and neither class should receive special benefits because of status.

Then employers no longer can strongarm employees into taking wages less than what the work is worth. Wages would go down, but still need to be enough to attract workers now that the threat of workers starving is no longer an issue if they don't take the job.

I think that this can be solved with a free wage that is subject to market value.

Also bring in universal health care. There is no reason why employers should be paying all the social welfare costs. Welfare costs should be shared by everybody. We put way too much of it on employers. Employers SHOULD pay a fair share of income tax, depending on how much they profit, and that along with everybody else's income taxes should be enough to keep everybody afloat.

I agree, but everyone, regardless of wealth, should pay an "across the board" percent.

Nickman · Post by **Nickman** » Thu May 08, 2014 9:07 pm

bluethread wrote:
Goat wrote:
We have the lowest taxes now than in the last 75 years. In the 1950's, the time period the Republicans have nostalgia after, the top range for the rich was 90%.

An honest days pay for an honest days work.
The nostalgia for the 1950's is for less regulation and free market imperialist foreign policy. This permitted us to get something for our military activities. You know, the whole blood for oil thing. Under those conditions even a maximum tax rate of 90% is sustainable, especially since people didn't actually pay that rate due to "loopholes". Now, as in Bengazi and the war that Obama called the good war, Afganistan, we give and pay for the privilege. Under that current approach, I am a bit isolationist myself.

What does Benghazi have to do with anything? Benghazi was nothing compared to the botched intelligence that happened during 9/11 when 3000+ were killed due to negligence. The Republicans point the finger to Benghazi yet the Bush administration did nothing when they had intelligence that there would be an attack on the Twin Towers. What history tells us is that intelligence doesn't do anything significant in either administration. Can we name one attack that has been thwarted by intelligence? I don't think so. So shame on Obama and G dub.

Nickman · Post by **Nickman** » Fri May 09, 2014 12:07 am

Minimum wage ruins our economy. It has a three fold effect that affects three tiers of society; employers, employees, and customers.

Minimum wage affects the employee first. When the cost of living goes up, the minimum wage employee is affected tremendously. Their wage is no longer adequate. The cost of living is too high for the minimum wage recipient. The employer is also affected. When the cost of living goes down the employer still has to pay the employee the same amount even though their profit goes down. Lastly, the customer pays the ultimate price. When the prices go up and they make minimum wage they cannot afford what they need to survive comfortably. This all stems from wages.

Goat · Post by **Goat** » Fri May 09, 2014 12:39 am

Nickman wrote: Minimum wage ruins our economy. It has a three fold effect that affects three tiers of society; employers, employees, and customers.

Minimum wage affects the employee first. When the cost of living goes up, the minimum wage employee is affected tremendously. Their wage is no longer adequate. The cost of living is too high for the minimum wage recipient. The employer is also affected. When the cost of living goes down the employer still has to pay the employee the same amount even though their profit goes down. Lastly, the customer pays the ultimate price. When the prices go up and they make minimum wage they cannot afford what they need to survive comfortably. This all stems from wages.

It's one thing to repeat the free market economy , Austrian economics mantra.

But, can you show , with real world examples, that this is true? There have been many times places have raised the minimum wage. Can you show those are the results? Back up your claims.