1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Kerry proposes $7 minimum wage by 2007

Discussion in 'The OT' started by lee635, Jun 18, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jun 21, 2004 #81 of 115
    ypsiguy

    ypsiguy Icon

    864
    0
    Jan 28, 2004
    In repsonse to Bogy being called a socialist:
    Yup, read the New Testament. If Jesus were alive now, he'd be a socialist. Free fish and bread for everyone, man. :D
     
  2. Jun 21, 2004 #82 of 115
    SimpleSimon

    SimpleSimon Hall Of Fame

    5,468
    0
    Jan 15, 2004
    Bogy: You seem to miss the point entirely. "Republican" means "member of the Republican Party". "republican" is a much more general term that may include the people you think it does. Just because the Party doesn't do what YOU want, doesn't have any effect on whether they are Republicans or not. Note the "R" vs. the "r".

    ypsi: You betcha, man. :D
     
  3. Jun 21, 2004 #83 of 115
    Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Wonderful. You neo-cons have won. The party is yours, at least for now. But I'm not the only disaffected Republican out here. There are a lot of us who longer fit under the "big tent" of the Republican party. We are the ones who will be voting for the non-neo-con candidate for president come November.
     
  4. Jun 21, 2004 #84 of 115
    SimpleSimon

    SimpleSimon Hall Of Fame

    5,468
    0
    Jan 15, 2004
    GOTCHA! :hurah: :nono2:

    And don't try to wiggle out of this on semantics. The "You neo-cons" and "party is yours" was certainly directed at me as direct response to my post, as quoted by you.

    Just because someone states some facts does not mean they favor them.

    I am not a neo-con, and will only vote for Bush as a lesser evil than Kerry. I am a fiscal conservative and social libertarian. Small ell. I worked with the Libertarian party for a while, but unfortunately they're useless, at least here in Colorado.
     
  5. Jun 21, 2004 #85 of 115
    Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    I don't know Simon, you're been sounding pretty neo-con in this thread.
     
  6. Jun 21, 2004 #86 of 115
    JM Anthony

    JM Anthony Child of the 60's DBSTalk Gold Club

    3,127
    1
    Nov 16, 2003
    I think Bogy is the voice of reason for many disgruntled voters, both R's and D's. There are a lot of people on both sides of the aisle who are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. There are also a lot of voters who are tired of politicians who say one thing and then turn around and do just the opposite. We need to get the Country back on track. I'm all for citizen activism. Whatever your party affiliation, let's get off our collective butts and do something to make this a better place to live.
     
  7. Jun 22, 2004 #87 of 115
    SimpleSimon

    SimpleSimon Hall Of Fame

    5,468
    0
    Jan 15, 2004
    Bogy: With the possible exception of post #58, my statement of views have been the traditional republican values of being fiscally conservative. Other posts that you might find questionable were theories and statements of fact - nothing to do with my personal views.
     
  8. Jun 22, 2004 #88 of 115
    HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    Then your vote for Bush sells out both of your "convictions" since he is neither.
     
  9. Jun 22, 2004 #89 of 115
    djlong

    djlong Hall Of Fame

    4,343
    57
    Jul 8, 2002
    New Hampshire
    Happy: I'm in similar circumstances - fiscal conservative, libertarian leanings otherwise. I can't vote for either one of them. In such cases, I usually vote for the lesser of two evils but I can't even do that this time.

    I'm told that by going 3rd party, I am, in essence, voting for the GREATER of the two evils (whomever that might be in my opinion) by 'wasting' my vote. I disagree.

    If the 50% of Americans who don't vote found some small 3rd-party candidate to vote for, think of the results.. Bush 25%, Kerry 25%, Other 50% - even if that 'other' vote was split 10,000 ways that would be a HUGE wake-up call to American politics. Think how fast a coalition would form that would be trying to capitalize on the dissatisfaction of the populace.

    I want the government out of my wallet AND out of my bedroom. I agree with the NRA in that we don't need new gun laws but should enforce the old ones - why doesn't our allegedly right-wing government believe this about terrorism? (Hint: the 9/11 hijackers were breaking the law long before they hijacked the planes - if we enforced existing laws, 9/11 would never have happened and we wouldn't have the PATRIOT Act as a result).
     
  10. Jun 22, 2004 #90 of 115
    Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    djlong, you have a lot better chance of keeping government out of your bedroom with Kerry than Bush, and just what proof do you have that Kerry will bother your wallet any more than Bush? Bush is putting a big dent in SOMEBODY'S wallet, somewhere down the line. He is certainly no fiscal conservative. I'm serious, please explain to me how you can see Kerry as no less an evil copared to Bush if you are a social liberal and fiscal conservative? The last Democrat to hold the office of president was much more a fiscal conservative than our present president.
     
  11. Jun 22, 2004 #91 of 115
    JM Anthony

    JM Anthony Child of the 60's DBSTalk Gold Club

    3,127
    1
    Nov 16, 2003
    It drives me crazy that more true Republicans don't go nuts over the way Bush is bankrupting our Country. I live in a pretty liberal area and I'm somewhat encouraged to hear Republicans becoming more vocal with their discontent over Bush, I just wish it was stronger and more widespread.

    I have two teenage daughters and it angers me that their generation and probably a few more thereafter, in real terms, will have a lower standard of living than we currently enjoy.
     
  12. Jun 23, 2004 #92 of 115
    SimpleSimon

    SimpleSimon Hall Of Fame

    5,468
    0
    Jan 15, 2004
    Again, in my opinion, Bush is the lesser of evils. Kerry has already voted against tax cuts, and would raise taxes - and not just on the rich.
    http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=3550
    http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/2/27/221538.shtml
    Don't bother screaming bout the sources unless you have others to refute them.

    And from what I see here (Colorado), the Democrats are the ones passing the intrusive laws that tell me what I can or cannot do with my personal life, business, and property. They're much worse than the wacko far right-wing Christians based in Colorado Springs like Focus on the Family.
     
  13. Jun 23, 2004 #93 of 115
    lee635

    lee635 Hall Of Fame

    2,023
    1
    Apr 17, 2002
    Henry Ford supported increasing wages for workers so that they could afford to buy his cars.

    Another issue with the very low minimum wage is that, in effect, government programs are subsidizing that employee's work. For example, the employer doesn't offer health insurance and pays the employee a low wage so that the employee qualitifes for medicaid, food stamps, etc. Why should my tax dollars be subsidizing the cheap labor pool for some business? It's another example of corporate welfare. If you can't afford to pay a living wage, then we don't want those jobs in the USA.

    A higher minimum wage will spur the development of automated techniques and alternative delivery systems. Hence, you fill your own soft drink cup at the BK lounge. If we dropped the minimum wage, McD would hire people at slave wages to fill that soft drink cup for you, so they can maximize profits on soft drink sales.

    I know some won't agree with me on this, but one of the best things a higher minimum wage does is force businesses to schedule workers to produce higher value output, and to automate or find an alternative delivery system for lower value tasks. Or simply eliminate lower value tasks. As a result we don't see many elevator operators anymore, is that a bad thing? No, because the "utility" or value associated with paying someone to operate a modern elevator is nearly zero. Therefore, we would need to pay someone nearly zero dollars to do the job better than it's being done right now. Why pay someone so little to do such a task, automation is so much better.

    That's a point that's lost on the folks who claim that a higher minimum wage leads to dramatic inflationary pressure. That argument ignores the "next best alternative". The much more profound pressure on the market is in the realignment of jobs to higher value work product and the development of alternative systems or the extinction of work processes that don't "pencil out" at the new wage level.
     
  14. Jun 23, 2004 #94 of 115
    RichW

    RichW Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,526
    0
    Mar 29, 2002
    In 1957, pundits were proclaiming that the $1.25 minumum wage in Illinois would drive businesses out of the state. These naysayers have cried "wolf" so often that they have no more credibility.
     
  15. Jun 23, 2004 #95 of 115
    pjmrt

    pjmrt Hall Of Fame

    3,939
    0
    Jul 17, 2003
    :lol:
    Really!??? Perhaps in the context you're referring to, but Kerry would be far more intrusive in our lives than Bush. I fully expect Kerry to endorse the PC left and tell us we MUST accept as normal lifestyles which are morally abhorent - enforceable by federal regulations. I see no evidence that Kerry is a fiscal conservative, plenty of evidence he is very liberal in social and domestic policy, and has about the same level of integrity as the former president (Clinton). None of this is good - Kerry has not shown me one redeemable characterist worth my vote. I think when the election is held - the majority of the american people will feel the same.
     
  16. Jun 23, 2004 #96 of 115
    Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Not if Bush keeps doing such a great job of campaigning for Kerry.
     
  17. Jun 23, 2004 #97 of 115
    RichW

    RichW Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,526
    0
    Mar 29, 2002
    "I fully expect Kerry to endorse the PC left and tell us we MUST accept as normal lifestyles which are morally abhorent - enforceable by federal regulations."

    Too bad, so sad! Last time I checked, Last time I checked, our Constitution was written to provide equal protection under the law, if that "forces" you to accept other human beings as such... well that is life under these United States.
     
  18. Jun 23, 2004 #98 of 115
    djlong

    djlong Hall Of Fame

    4,343
    57
    Jul 8, 2002
    New Hampshire
    Bogy: I can't vote for Kerry.. He flip flops like crazy - I know his record as I've spent 30 years next door to his Massachusetts (I live in NH). He's not know locally as "liveshot Kerry" for nothing. He's never met a tax he didn't like, can't keep his story straight on his support or lack of it for the Iraq operations - just in all ways as weaselly a politician as there is. He'll think I'm "rich" because (at least when I'm re-employed) I'll make more than the US median and therefore worthy of being soaked.

    Bush? Biggest damn disappointment I ever voted for.

    the question, to me, if I were going to vote for either of the two major candidates would be "can I afford 4 years of Kerry in order to get Bush out". I'm unemployed and the answer is no. Kerry hates small businesses - not by his claims but by what he proposes. He thinks employers ought to support everything. he thinks the minimum wage should be increased "just because". (Never mind the fact that when times were good,the effective minimum wage in southern NH was over $10/hr - now that times aren't so good, I guarantee you there are more people at least pulling in a $6/hr wage than would be pulling in a $10 law-codified minimum).

    Bush could do one thing that would change my mind. I could put up with everything else if he fired John ashcroft. HE is the biggest threat to our liberties and rights.
     
  19. Jun 23, 2004 #99 of 115
    lee635

    lee635 Hall Of Fame

    2,023
    1
    Apr 17, 2002
    Here's my answer. First, your premise is based on a pedestrian rhetorical argument that takes something reasonable and pushes it to its logical but absurb extreme. For example, if 2 aspirins are good, then 10 aspirins would be even better, right?

    To the $20 minimum wage. First, you're talking about a dramatic change in the wage rate. The markets love stability, so a dramatic change such as this will send shock waves through the economy, just as would a policy that says all income over $600,000 per year is taxed at 100% (Does that mean we shouldn't tax earnings over $600,000? No. And by the same token your $20 proposal doesn't mean that we shouldn't raise the min wage by some smaller amount.).

    When the minimum wage is increased the most important change is now jobs must be "retooled" to create a reasonable profit margin. Jobs that were viable at the lower wage rate, but which are not viable at the higher wage rate will have two things happen: they will disappear, or they will be replaced by more efficient or automated systems. Using fast food as an example, if the wage rate were increased to $20 an hour in six months, there would be a mass frenzy of business owners ordering automated french fry frying machines to replace the pimply faced kids who run the fryers today. With such a large change in the minimum wage, the economy would be temporarily disrupted. It would recover, however. Also, note that the price of french fries will not go from $1.50 to $12.00. :rolleyes: It will only rise enough to cover the cost structure of the new frying machine (the next best alternative), say to $1.75. Also, note that businesses that decide that they want to keep the kids at the fryers (maybe they are luddites) will face higher costs than their competitors.

    Now see that in the old system we hired 6 employees per day (3 per shift and 2 shifts a day) to run the fryers. Under the new system we hire only 1 person per shift. But look at the productivity gains that have been made. Two people now produce the same amount of fries that 6 people produced under the old system. Also consider that instead of 6 people with the rather unskilled job of frying french fries and providing a low wage, we now have 2 people who work in skilled positions as "equipment operators" and earn a higher wage rate and have developed specialized skills.

    What would be a more reasonable proposal is if you said that the minimum wage would be increased annually over say 6 years up to $20. That's a more reasonable proposal and allows time for business processes to adjust to the new wage rates. Even 6 years may be too short for such a dramatic increase, but you get the idea that you need to allow time for processes to absorb the new information.
     
  20. Sherlock

    Sherlock Legend

    124
    0
    Mar 24, 2002
    Colorado
    A "minimum wage" is an arbitrary number. It lacks any real meaning. Why not make it $20/hour, it still wouldn't solve anything.

    To raise wages increases costs to the consumer. They may make more money, but it will then cost them $8 for a Big Mac. The same people you would be trying to help by raising the minimum wage would result in no gain for them. Their purchasing power is reduced by the higher costs and the folks making 'minimum wage' aren't the folks saving large amounts of money. They are spending it living paycheck to paycheck.

    It's a game for gaining votes. It's another form of playing the classes against each other to make voters think their politician is on their side.

    If you think outsourcing is a big deal now, anything that can be done using cheaper labor in the global market will put folks out of work here. We have to compete in that global market, not price ourselves out of it.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page