West Virginia Republican: The minimum wage is archaic

[^_^ 5,021]

Raese, a multimillionaire running against Democratic Gov. Joe Manchin, has long said the minimum wage isn't working. It was created by the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and Raese called it "archaic" in an interview with ABC News' Top Line posted Tuesday.

"It didn't solve any problems then and it hasn't solved any problems in 50 years," he said.

"The minimum wage is not something that you want to stay on as a permanent basis," Raese continued. "For example, if you have a minimum wage job, you don't stay there 20 or 30 years. You don't put your children through college working on minimum wage."

Government should stop micromanaging the economy, he said.

"You don't want government to set price controls, you don't want government to set wage controls," he said. "It's an archaic system that frankly has not worked."

http://www.wvgazette.com/News/201010121023

[Heracles 417]

The country is honestly going backwards with these c--ts. You cannot use international examples which [all] illustrate otherwise either, as they have covered that angle too, with a this is Americans and we don't want to be like no stinking Europeans. You mean wealthy with a much higher Q.O.L? Communist! Socialist!

How do you honestly even engage or battle that? WV for example, has been kept dirt poor because of this attitude and many don't even realize it. Perhaps they would wake up and realize it if someone advertised that their equivalent in AUS, mining coal too, earn up to $2K a week.

Edited October 15, 2010 by Heracles

[Heracles 417]

PS Is this not the same candidate that hired actors to make it out as if they are all just hillbillies?

America does need a new revolution, one based on IQ levels and a simple questionnaire.

For example:

1. Based on the actual teachings of the bible, would Jesus be a Democrat or a to-each-his-own / ####-all liberteapartian?

2. If the liberteapartain way works so well, why would only third world countries use it? Furthermore, why would those actually doing well and delivering a high Q.O.L to their average Joe the plumbers, use the total opposite approach?

3. Do you even grasp the concept of Q.O.L? Hint: does not pertain to owning guns.

Edited October 15, 2010 by Heracles

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The general idea behind the minimum wage is that one ought to be able to live and support one's family on the take from an honest day's work. With the actual value of the minimum wage having decreased over the decades, that's no longer possible. From that perspective, it is indeed archaic. Given the vast cost of living differences across the country, a federal standard is really doing no good. There may indeed still be places where one can live on $300.00/week or whatever a f/t minimum wage job would pay. But those places are few and far between.

[Heracles 417]

The general idea behind the minimum wage is that one ought to be able to live and support one's family on the take from an honest day's work. With the actual value of the minimum wage having decreased over the decades, that's no longer possible. From that perspective, it is indeed archaic. Given the vast cost of living differences across the country, a federal standard is really doing no good. There may indeed still be places where one can live on $300.00/week or whatever a f/t minimum wage job would pay. But those places are few and far between.

The reality is a national minimum wage lifts the entire country's standard of living. It's simply a bare minimum, that should be paid, for a days work. I personally believe this should be set at $13 an hour.

What this attack on minimum wage illustrates to me is that Repubs were not really interested in so-called slackers, they are attacking the middle to lower class. This shows that realistically they don't care about how hard you work, it's all about allowing the wealthy to get wealthier and the poor to become poorer. It's why their sole focus is on the tax the wealthy pay - the 2% of the country. Maybe they are fooling some naive and ignorant person in the woods or middle-America, but surely cannot fool a convict. We can spot scams a mile away.

It's why they have no qualms with the wealthy doing absolutely nothing [FA] and collecting dividend checks, while cruising on their yachts.

Edited October 15, 2010 by Heracles

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The reality is a national minimum wage lifts the entire country's standard of living. It's simply a bare minimum, that should be paid, for a days work. I personally believe this should be set at $13 an hour.

I agree with the first part of the statement but the latter is where I have problems. $13.00/hr may be decent pay in Buttfcuk, AL but it doesn't get you very far in NYC, Chicago, Seattle or LA. Minimum wage should be driven by an areas specific cost of living. Then it would make perfect sense - that's the living wage concept which, in my opinion, is much better handled on a level below the feds.

In order to ensure that appropriate levels are set and regularly reviewed / adjusted locally, it would very likely take some push from the feds. For example: no federal wage supplement benefits (food stamps, medicare, etc.) to residents of areas that do not enforce a living wage. Would be fun to see Repulicans run on their anti minimum wage message when the local electorate works all day and still can put food on the table for their kids.

[Danno 1,228]

The general idea behind the minimum wage is that one ought to be able to live and support one's family on the take from an honest day's work.

So someone teenager starting out in the job market should be paid enough to pay for a house a car and put three kids through college?

In todays environment, one in which hundreds of millions of illegals pour across our border with little resistance, I say we do need a Minimum wage standard but to suggest people should start out in life making enough to raise a family on is looney.

It is a "minimum" wage... the bottom of the barrel... the unskilled worker.

[^_^ 5,021]

I agree with the first part of the statement but the latter is where I have problems. $13.00/hr may be decent pay in Buttfcuk, AL but it doesn't get you very far in NYC, Chicago, Seattle or LA. Minimum wage should be driven by an areas specific cost of living. Then it would make perfect sense - that's the living wage concept which, in my opinion, is much better handled on a level below the feds.

IMO - even federal tax schedules are poorly designed for a country as diverse as this. What the Feds should do is simply institute a 'chargeback' scheme which makes each state send revenue to DC in an amount that matches Federal expenditure on that state and its residents. Then let the state collect revenue however it wants.

[Heracles 417]

I agree with the first part of the statement but the latter is where I have problems. $13.00/hr may be decent pay in Buttfcuk, AL but it doesn't get you very far in NYC, Chicago, Seattle or LA. Minimum wage should be driven by an areas specific cost of living. Then it would make perfect sense - that's the living wage concept which, in my opinion, is much better handled on a level below the feds.

In order to ensure that appropriate levels are set and regularly reviewed / adjusted locally, it would very likely take some push from the feds. For example: no federal wage supplement benefits (food stamps, medicare, etc.) to residents of areas that do not enforce a living wage. Would be fun to see Repulicans run on their anti minimum wage message when the local electorate works all day and still can put food on the table for their kids.

The $13 would be a national base. Naturally, in large cities they will need even more. NYC, DC, Chicago, LA etc need a minimum of $18+ an hour. Once that is the base, the rest of the countries salaries will naturally rise for all.

Considering the dollar is now at parity, minimum wage in Aus is about $14.9 an hour USD. However, the average salary there is now $25 an hour. When you raise the minimum bar, every salary raises accordingly.

The right wing here believe in cuts cut cuts. The right in AUS believes in growing the country, and growing they have done.

Edited October 15, 2010 by Heracles

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So someone teenager starting out in the job market should be paid enough to pay for a house a car and put three kids through college?

I don't recall having suggested any such thing.

[Heracles 417]

IMO - even federal tax schedules are poorly designed for a country as diverse as this. What the Feds should do is simply institute a 'chargeback' scheme which makes each state send revenue to DC in an amount that matches Federal expenditure on that state and its residents. Then let the state collect revenue however it wants.

Actually the best thing to do to eliminate wastage and bureaucracy is move taxes to a federal level. The feds would collect income tax and have the GST/VAT, and then distribute the tax collected back to each state. Not only does this eliminate the tens of billions lost in tax loopholes, it's a much more efficient - business oriented - approach to tax collection; sure as hell works well abroad.

[Heracles 417]

So someone teenager starting out in the job market should be paid enough to pay for a house a car and put three kids through college?

In todays environment, one in which hundreds of millions of illegals pour across our border with little resistance, I say we do need a Minimum wage standard but to suggest people should start out in life making enough to raise a family on is looney.

It is a "minimum" wage... the bottom of the barrel... the unskilled worker.

Actually, they also have a age based pay structure in AUS, for anyone under 21, for that very reason. At 15 you start on ~$8 an hour and then this slides to ~$15 after 21.

The economy needs money danno. Therefore, it's not rocket science that the more Americans with money in their hand, the better the American economy does. Perhaps you would like to go back to the days when 90% of the country was basically poor, waited with their hands out for Mr Potter to spend his money, I do not. America was built by the sweat of the poor and middle class, not on the backs of the wealthy. If it was the other way round, then third world countries would be rich, rather than the offer the worst Q.O.L known to man. And we would all be marrying them instead.

Why are they the bottom of the barrel? Do I work harder than the guy who collects my trash or stacks the shelves at my grocery store. I spend half my days chatting on VJ yet am paid six figures. It's amazing that the people who built this country, aka not the wall-street types, are now seen as the bottom of the barrel.

I am guessing you feel The Situation from 'Jersey shore' worked hard for his 5 million last year? That's when you know a country has it's priorities and values screwed up. Funny how Beck and Rush never touch that topic.

Edited October 15, 2010 by Heracles

[Danno 1,228]

The general idea behind the minimum wage is that one ought to be able to live and support one's family on the take from an honest day's work.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

The reality is a national minimum wage lifts the entire country's standard of living. It's simply a bare minimum, that should be paid, for a days work. I personally believe this should be set at $13 an hour.

What this attack on minimum wage illustrates to me is that Repubs were not really interested in so-called slackers, they are attacking the middle to lower class. This shows that realistically they don't care about how hard you work, it's all about allowing the wealthy to get wealthier and the poor to become poorer. It's why their sole focus is on the tax the wealthy pay - the 2% of the country. Maybe they are fooling some naive and ignorant person in the woods or middle-America, but surely cannot fool a convict. We can spot scams a mile away.

It's why they have no qualms with the wealthy doing absolutely nothing [FA] and collecting dividend checks, while cruising on their yachts.

Then you personally believe in killing small businesses in the United States.

Minimum wage is a nice idea, but it's a fantasy land idea of it actually helping the economy.

The problem of course is and never has been the "wage" of people. The problem is cost of goods...... Which you inherently increase by raising wages.

What good is raising minimum wage to $13 an hour when the price of something like bread would jump to $5 a loaf from less than $2 now? The "poor" would still be "poor" by those standards....

[Danno 1,228]

Actually, they also have a age based pay structure in AUS, for anyone under 21, for that very reason. At 15 you start on ~$8 an hour and then this slides to ~$15 after 21.

The economy needs money danno. Therefore, it's not rocket science that the more Americans with money in their hand, the better the American economy does. Perhaps you would like to go back to the days when 90% of the country was basically poor, waited with their hands out for Mr Potter to spend his money, I do not.

Why are they the bottom of the barrel? Do I work harder than the guy who collects my trash or stacks the shelves at my grocery store. I spend half my days chatting on VJ yet am paid six figures. It's amazing that the people who built this country, aka not the wall-street types, are now seen as the bottom of the barrel.

I am guessing you feel The Situation from 'Jersey shore' worked hard for his 5 million last year? That's when you know a country has it's priorities and values screwed up. Funny how Beck and Rush never touch that topic.

They are on the bottom of the barrel because of their worth.... not as people but as assets to an employer.

HIghschool drop outs with no skills and no desire to even take advantage of programs to train them are "Bottom of the barrel" in terms of worth as an employee..... and should be paid accordingly.

Even when I was a teen I made a little more than the minimum wage, I guess it's possible in this Obama/ Bush economy it's possible some people are making Min. but I bet if I checked, I would easily find unskilled jobs making more than the minimum wage even today.