West Virginia Republican: The minimum wage is archaic

[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.

Car, house, college tuition? I am missing any of these items in my statement.

Edited October 15, 2010 by Mr. Big Dog

[The_Dude 1,142]

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....

Paul, you seem to have a fundamental misconception here. Minimum wage was meant to help improve the standard of living of the working poor, not a tool to help improve the economy. A sliding wage scale according to age and situation would improve the quality of life of a lot of America's working poor.

[Danno 1,228]

Car, house, college tuition? I am missing any of these items in my statement.

Education, transportation, housing are the basics of raising a family.

[Heracles 417]

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....

6% of Americans are self-employed versus 12% of Australians. Not to mention, Australia has three times the franchisees - small business - than any other country.

How can this be considering their higher income tax rate? Or the 30% business tax; or their minimum wage of $14.90 USD; or the 10% federal GST; or the 5% payroll tax.

As noted many times before Paul, things are really cheap in third world countries too. Does that help them in any way? Whereas, in countries with high Q.O.L for a majority of the residents, they are not as cheap and most are doing fine.

Edited October 15, 2010 by Heracles

[Danno 1,228]

6% of Americans are self-employed versus 12% of Australians. Not to mention, Australia has three times the franchisees - small business - than any other country.

How can this be considering their higher income tax rate? Or the 30% business tax; or their minimum wage of $14.90 USD; or the 10% federal GST; or the 5% payroll tax.

As noted many times before Paul, things are really cheap in third world countries too. Does that help them in any way? Whereas, in countries with high Q.O.L for a majority of the residents, they are not as cheap and most are doing fine.

But then again, your Immigration policy does not start with:

Give us your huddled masses yearning to eat free

(little humor)

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Education, transportation, housing are the basics of raising a family.

Yes but college, a late model BMW and homeownership are not. You keep refuting the argument of the necessity of a living wage by opposing that which it's proponents neither favor nor demand.

[Heracles 417]

People just need to look at the facts for this argument. I'll forget about the rest of the first world that clearly discredits many of the opinions from the liberteapartians and use the US.

The United States had its largest boom, with the majority of Americans part of it, during the 50's and 60s. A time when the divide between the rich and poor was at a record low, CEO's salaries were in line with the workers [perhaps 10 times higher] and the high earners paid up to 90% in tax; a rate that is unbelievable by today's standards. America was the leader in almost everything, represented close to 50% of the world's GDP, highest Q.O.L, ranked first in any international ranking and was the envy of the world; an approach that is now utilized in a large number of first world countries and for obvious reason.

Fast forward to 2010 and almost everything has changed. There is a massive divide and growing disparity between the 10% that are wealthy and the rest of the country. The tax rate for anyone earning over $300K is [35%], unemployment is high, the living standard for the average middle-America has dropped dramatically [third world in various areas], the CEO's salary versus their workers is hundreds to thousands time more, America ranks poorly on almost every single international study, represents only 19% of the world GDP and dropping and last but not least, the country is far from the envy of the world. It's actually used as an example in every other first world country of what not to end up. The benefit though is that if you are one of the 1.5% of Americans who makes it to the top, you can earn big bucks; like a third world country of course.

So which period of America do people want?

Edited October 15, 2010 by Heracles

[Danno 1,228]

You keep refuting the argument of the necessity of a living wage by opposing that which it's proponents neither favor nor demand.

You are absolutely right.

How dare you demand I pay someone enough to support a family when they have done nothing to prepare them self for this roll.

What business does someone have starting a family with no ability, even in the most modest sense, maintain it?

I am not so hardline on the issue that I would not perhaps agree to some minimum wage, but to suggest it be a "living-Wage" is where you go too far.

Everytime we hear this term it is always within the scope of supporting a family.

[Heracles 417]

But then again, your Immigration policy does not start with:

Give us your huddled masses yearning to eat free

(little humor)

I do agree on this point. Had Australia had even 1 million illegal aliens to cater for or the equivalent open-house immigration policy, the would be suffering too and wages would be suppressed.

[Heracles 417]

I am not so hardline on the issue that I would not perhaps agree to some minimum wage, but to suggest it be a "living-Wage" is where you go too far.

Everytime we hear this term it is always within the scope of supporting a family.

Sounds like you want America to replicate third world countries or the 1800's, where you had just enough to eat and pay your rent.

As pointed out before to Paul, there are countries that operate [function] like that in 2010, they are classified as the third world; though you are starting to see this throughout middle-America too. To the contrary, wealthy countries where their citizens are living a super high quality of life, mandate that their workers be paid a decent salary. Yes this means I have to purchase a hammer for $6.50 [inc tax] at their hardware stores, rather than the $3.49 [plus tax] here.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

People just need to look at the facts for this argument. I'll forget about the rest of the first world that clearly discredits many of the opinions from the liberteapartians and use the US.

The United States had its largest boom, with the majority of Americans part of it, during the 50's and 60s. A time when the divide between the rich and poor was at a record low, CEO's salaries were in line with the workers [perhaps 10 times higher] and the high earners paid up to 90% in tax; a rate that is unbelievable by today's standards. America was the leader in almost everything, represented close to 50% of the world's GDP, highest Q.O.L, ranked first in any international ranking and was the envy of the world; an approach that is now utilized in a large number of first world countries and for obvious reason.

Fast forward to 2010 and almost everything has changed. There is a massive divide and growing disparity between the 10% that are wealthy and the rest of the country. The tax rate for anyone earning over $300K is [35%], unemployment is high, the living standard for the average middle-America has dropped dramatically [third world in various areas], the CEO's salary versus their workers is hundreds to thousands time more, America ranks poorly on almost every single international study, represents only 19% of the world GDP and dropping and last but not least, the country is far from the envy of the world. It's actually used as an example in every other first world country of what not to end up. The benefit though is that if you are one of the 1.5% of Americans who makes it to the top, you can earn big bucks; like a third world country of course.

So which period of America do people want?

The US is about 5% of the worlds population, 19% of GDP. Every other first world country uses us as a bad example. Right. I just find your logic so strange, why do you and the rest of the world keep comparing yourselves to the obviously inferior US?

[The_Dude 1,142]

LoL, random pic.

[Heracles 417]

The US is about 5% of the worlds population, 19% of GDP. Every other first world country uses us as a bad example. Right. I just find your logic so strange, why do you and the rest of the world keep comparing yourselves to the obviously inferior US?

FFS Get over it. I am not bashing the US.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

FFS Get over it. I am not bashing the US.

I'm just pointing out your bs, no need to get all huffy over it.

[Danno 1,228]

People just need to look at the facts for this argument. I'll forget about the rest of the first world that clearly discredits many of the opinions from the liberteapartians and use the US.

The United States had its largest boom, with the majority of Americans part of it, during the 50's and 60s. A time when the divide between the rich and poor was at a record low, CEO's salaries were in line with the workers [perhaps 10 times higher] and the high earners paid up to 90% in tax; a rate that is unbelievable by today's standards. America was the leader in almost everything, represented close to 50% of the world's GDP, highest Q.O.L, ranked first in any international ranking and was the envy of the world; an approach that is now utilized in a large number of first world countries and for obvious reason.

Fast forward to 2010 and almost everything has changed. There is a massive divide and growing disparity between the 10% that are wealthy and the rest of the country. The tax rate for anyone earning over $300K is [35%], unemployment is high, the living standard for the average middle-America has dropped dramatically [third world in various areas], the CEO's salary versus their workers is hundreds to thousands time more, America ranks poorly on almost every single international study, represents only 19% of the world GDP and dropping and last but not least, the country is far from the envy of the world. It's actually used as an example in every other first world country of what not to end up. The benefit though is that if you are one of the 1.5% of Americans who makes it to the top, you can earn big bucks; like a third world country of course.

So which period of America do people want?

You are right again!

We just need to start another world war wherein all of the industrial countries are left in a pile of ruble so we can benefit from the rebuilding of them.