"Reducing the number of people near the poverty line requires increasing the
capacity of the private sector to create jobs and equipping people with the
skills necessary for those jobs."Yes, but where will capital
create those jobs? Our experience of the last 30 years suggests those jobs are
likely to be created in Mexico, China, Southeast Asia or India. That's why
labor has no guarantee its efforts in retraining will benefit them.Look, capital and labor have fundamentally different interests. Capital wants
to pay labor as little as possible. Labor wants to survive if not thrive.
Capitalism rests on this contradiction.Of course in grinding labor
down capital threatens the whole system because profits are mostly made from the
exploitation of labor. Labor has to survive for profits to be made.Nobody at the Deseret News thinks Marx has any relevance. In time you will
see that he does.
Also: "Raising the minimum wage in an effort to increase living standards
is like taking water from one end of the bathtub and pouring it in the other in
an effort to raise the overall water level."But in the case of
minimum wage, the reason for raising it is not to raise the overall water level,
rather the reason is to shift some wealth from the wealthy end of the tub to the
poor end of the tub. And the real minimum wage has declined severely over the
last 30 years. The rich end of the tub can afford it.But, to
continue your physical analogy to economics, the rich (capital) end of the tub
wants all of the water. This is not possible but continuing to demand it
threatens the entire system. Should the rich ever get it all, there will be a
tidal wave back the other direction. So your analogy has some value after all.
Corporate America has already drained most of the water out of the wage end of
the pool and redistributed it into the profits end. It's time to rebalance
Shill and Shrill.I seriously doubt that.Let's ask
the citizens of the State of New Jersey, or those living near Seattle --
minimum wage was raised to $15 and hour, I do not hear one
peep of complaint, nor do hear of one single business going out.Rather than the "opinions" from those living 1,000 to 3,000 miles from
either of them.
For some years now I have watched companies outsource departments in order to
reduce overhead/maximize profits. Sometimes this did not involve a change in
personnel. An arrangement was made for the affected individuals to be hired by
the vendor. Nothing changed except the name of the company issuing their
paycheck - and of course the amount of that check. The amount missing from it
could be found in the pockets of their former employer.I don't
have a problem with this when it's done to keep a company viable, but when
it isn't - when it's done merely to increase one's share of the
pie - it smacks of the powerful taking money from the pockets of the powerless.
So I don't have an objection to increasing the minimum wage.
In some instances this may amount to restoring to the individual the money that
he/she was once earning. Also, if our minimum wage places people
below the poverty line, they then qualify for government assistance. So we pay
for it one way or another, don't we? If we want people off the dole, then
let's pay them a livable wage.
"Raising the minimum wage . . . is like taking water from one end of the
bathtub and pouring it in the other in an effort to raise the overall water
level."Oh good. In other words, at the very worst, it
doesn't hurt anything. . . . Might as well raise the minimum
wage substantially then. Why not?
The writer of this letter is correct in pointing out that business views its
labor force as a commodity. Just like rice, sugar, corn. Something to be
bought at the lowest price possible. And then expected to yield the highest
return. I would suggest that those businesses that wish to do business in the
United States be required to maintain a certain level of pay for its workers.
Limit those at the top to no more than 20x the pay of their lowest paid worker.
Sure the business could try and pass the cost on, what if we just told them they
could not. The wealthy businesses like capitalism when it serves them. And
socialism when it serves them at other times. Private profits and shared risk
seems to be their attitudes. Let’s all remember this during this tax
season. Many multi-billion dollar companies pay little or no income tax. Yet
they expect to sell their goods and services in this country. How about we not
allow those businesses that do not want to pay their fair share in taxes. And
pay their employees a good wage. The privilege of doing business in this
Many thanks to Kyle Scott for stating the obvious – when wages of workers
goes up it has some kind of impact on company profits. The question we need to
ask ourselves is what kind of impact should that have and who should be
impacted.Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont recently gave an eloquent
speech in a Senate sub-committee meeting about this very subject and the Deseret
News covered the story, including a video, in an article on February 22.
Senator Sanders makes a strong case that the Walton Family of Wal-Mart fame,
which has more wealth than the combined wealth of the lowest 40% of all
Americans, is, in fact, the largest recipient of welfare in this country.
Because they pay their workers minimum wage and only allow some of them to be
part time workers, the only way their workers can stay healthy and do their jobs
is by receiving government welfare for food and medical care. Does anyone think
that is a healthy state of affairs for what is considered the most benevolent
country in the world?
With every right comes a responsibility. Individuals, or groups of individuals,
have a right to start a business in this country and they have a right to make a
profit. But they also have a responsibility to give back to the community and
country that grants them that freedom. There is vast evidence illustrating that
many of those companies have failed to give back and have, instead, squandered
that wealth on their own decadent lifestyle. And so their failure to act
responsibly should be met with consequences. Significant taxes for excess
profits have been used in the past during times of war. Today such proposals
face strong opposition from businesses and some economists, who argue that it
would create a disincentive to capital investment. But they are not making
capital investments, they are hoarding their profits and creating a third world
nation here in the U.S. Who in the Congress will have the courage to take a
stand against such aristocratic arrogance.
Many economist feel that moderate raises in the minimum wage have very little
impact on employment. When low wage workers gets a pay hike it goes straight
into the economy, and has a stimulative effect. In addition it eases the burden
of government by reducing food stamps and other social program costs. For
example, many of the people who work at low wage jobs, at places like Wal-Mart,
are also consumers of public services, so increasing the minimum wage reduces
payments to them.
How about setting a MAXIMUM wage?You hit say - $1 billion - and you
win the game.Then step aside, and let someone else have a crack at
it...Your life-style isn't going to change one iota, and
everything after that is just funny monopoly money anyway.
Why not cut YOUR wage to pay those who make less than you? If you think that
the "system" is unjust then why don't YOU give up something to make
it more "just"? Of course you won't do that. You've EARNED
your money. You worked hard for it. You deserve it. But, you think that the
"businessman doesn't deserve his profits. You think that his capital
should not earn him a profit, even though you watch your 401K fund grow -
through no effort of your own. You watch that "investment" grow, month
after month, as the stocks that back your pension fund grow month after
month.Why not give away those 401K "unearned profits"? You
don't deserve them, if the businessman doesn't deserve the profits
that he made on his investments.When a State changes its
"minimum wage" and other States do not, those employees might think that
they're better off, and in relation to other States, they are; but, at what
cost? What is the cost of living in Seattle compared to Jackson, Mississippi?
Costs go up when wages go up. The consumer pays. Always.
Raising the minimum wage creates additional economic activity, whihc is good for
everyone, including business. Despite the theories, reality shows that it is
effective. A well run business will make adjustments and do what is necessary
to be profitable. Besides, more money in customer pockets means more sales.
And don't forget that wages are deductible (and there are other tax code
incentives) and the result is a lower tax burden on business. It is not a zero
sum game like opponents of a higher minimum wage seem to think. When people are
paid much less than in 1960 (adjusted for inflation), we should ashamed of
ourselves. This is a country driven by greed and selfishness, and a system that
serves those who already have.
The letter writer, in the bathwater example, completely ignores the multiplier
effect which means that person lacks even the most fundamental understanding of
economics. Why does the DesNews publish such drivel? Why not publish informed
positions? Mike Richards - Many of us who support increasing the
minimum wage do so realizing that some of our wage, in the form of stock, may
actually be affected in the short term. However, rather than suffer the
current boom and bust lifestyle of hyper-inflated stock prices that are
exclusively driven by quarterly reports, we'd rather have a healthier
business sector in the long term and that requires having a healthy working
class. Raising the minimum wage and pegging it to inflation rates is the most
effective way to ensure that people who work will have expendable income to
purchase more product.Further, your assertion that costs go up when
wages go up is demonstrably false. Nearly all the cities in Silicon Valley and
the SF peninsula have already raised minimum wages above state/federal levels
and, almost without exception, the products we sell consistently get cheaper and
more accessible over time.
marxist,I hate to inform you of this but... the "rich" don't
eat at McDonalds.So this won't take from the "rich" and
give to the poor.===Who mostly eats at McDonalds in
America (not just in SLC)?You guessed it... the poorer people (not
the rich people). So let's do a little economics 101.Raising
the wage of McDonalds workers has to be passed along to the customers (no... the
owners are not going to take it out of their pocket) they will increase the cost
of the product (the food) to pay the higher wages (ever noticed what a Big Mac
costs in Seattle or NYC)? So guess who gets to pay more for their food? You
guessed it... the poor (not the rich).So your pretense that this
will take the money from the "rich end" of the pool, and re-distribute
it to the "poor end" of the pool is a logical fallacy. And the
author's analysis is more correct... it will take more from the "poor
end" of the pool (McDonalds customers) and re-distribute it to the "poor
end" of the pool (McDonalds workers).
Sentinel,What you said is false. The cost of living in "Silicon
Valley" is much higher than the cost of living in Barstow, California. The
cost of products that were created in "Silicon Valley" have become
cheaper because of the lost cost of assembly and/or distribution. The cost of
development is amortised over millions of sales. Automation keeps the cost of
assembly down. (Have you seen Apple's assembly line?) How much human labor
is involved in Internet sales?Pegging minimum wage to the inflation
rate is a sure-fire way to increase inflation. Look at the cost of a meal at
McDonalds. Every time minimum wage goes up, the price of a meal goes up. Labor
is the largest cost at McDonalds. They have to raise prices when they increase
wages. The "laborer" ends up paying more for the essentials of life, so
he does not gain. There is no multiplier effect when expenses drive
up prices. The only one who gains is the Government when they raise taxes on
the middle class, which also gets a wage increase to offset the higher cost of
The only winner in a minimum wage increase is Govt. as they collect more in
taxes. The biggest losers are pensioners. The best anyone else can hope for is
to stay neutral.
When the WORKING poor rely on Government Food stamps, the tax payers pay for it
-- NOT the Corporations who are exploiting those they employ.If
WallStreet had not been making insane Profits over the last 10 years -- I would
hesitate to increase wages, but they are making more money than ever, and
Trickle Down Ain't happen'in! With a minimum wage
increase, Romney's 47% drops in half instantly, Making them tax
Makers and no longer tax takers.[isn't that what conservative
want?]FYI - Ironically enough, Mitt Romney was FOR a rise in
the Federal minimum wage - and keeping it adjusted automatically for
inflation.He increased it in Massachsetts to $8.80 almost 10 years
ago.Either Raise the minimum wage for the works/producers, orIncrease Taxes on the Wealthy and their Corporations.
Raising minimum wage doesn't solve the real problem.Marxist hit
the REAL solution in the quote in his first comment. "Reducing the number of people near the poverty line requires increasing
the capacity of the private sector to create jobs and equipping people with the
skills necessary for those jobs."Just increasing minimum wage
(to yet another wage that can't sustain a family) doesn't solve the
problem. It's a temporary "feel-good" patch, that solves nothing.
It just keeps you on the treadmill.Who can raise a family even on
$15/hour? You can't! That doesn't fix the problem. These jobs were
not intended to be careers for parents. They are short term, entry level jobs,
for young people who may have no job skills, but want to enter the workforce,
earn some spending money, and develop job skills so they can move up when they
graduate (not necessarily make a career of working at McDonalds).Like the article said, "Reducing the number of people near the poverty
line requires increasing the CAPACITY of people... and equipping people with the
SKILLS necessary for.. better jobs." (not minimum wage inflation)
I have like 1 more comment -- This is about the WORKING poor, not the "lazt free loaders" the right-wing is endlessly harping
about.If Corporations are unwilling [becasue we all know they they
are indeed financially able] to raise the wages for their workers, then it
is the Governments duty to step in and force the issue upon them.Wages -- Just like taxes, Corporations will only pay them if the HAVE
to, not because they want to.
So, here we have the Republican Swiss cheese argument for why we should keep the
minimum wage far below where it was in 1968 when it hit its peak ($10.75 in 2014
dollars). Now it is at $7.25. Not surprisingly, it lost the most ground during
the Reagan and Bush Sr years, rebounded a bit during the Clinton years, then
nosedived again during Bush Jr's reign. Since 1968, profits have been up
and down, but mostly up, hitting record levels in recent years. All statistics
show that a greater share of the pie keeps going to those at the top, thereby
reducing the ability of consumers to purchase all the stuff businesses need to
sell to stay in business. We need a complete overhaul of the capitalist system
before it collapses under the weight of its own excesses and shortsightedness.
Raising the minimum wage is one small piece of that overhaul, but essential if
we dare call ourselves a moral people. How anyone can make a case with a
straight face for keeping the minimum wage at $7.25 is a mystery. But keep
trying, conservatives. It's entertaining, but tragic.
If someone is worth more than they are making then another company will be more
than happy to pay them more.If someone can't find a job for
more than they are currently making - its because they aren't worth it.And whose "fault" is that?its not any corporations
fault.Its the persons responsibility to gain more skills that will
demand a higher wage.Only a lazy person would suggest its rich
people's responsibility to take care of them instead of focusing on how
they can improve their own skill set.Its not McDonalds
responsibility to pay enough for a person to provide for a family.Its only McDonalds responsibility to provide for the work being done.Its the employees responsibility to ensure he/she has skills that will provide
for a family.Only a lazy person would suggest otherwise
The letter-writer seems to be saying if everyone's salary went up, prices
would go up a comparable amount. If everyone's salary were lowered, prices
would go down. In other words, we're no better off either way. Maybe we
ought to pay people nothing. That way, everything would be free, and
there'd be no taxes.
One more point: "Businesses exist to make money."Here is
another conservative myth, which can easily be exposed. A consultant, years ago,
was hired by a corporation to do what consultants do. In the process of his
examination of the business, he asked the board of directors what the purpose of
their business was. "To make money," they all exclaimed. "Then let
me see the books on your prostitution and drug operations," he said. They
were aghast. "Well, if your purpose is simply to make money," he said,
"I figured you'd be involved in two of the most profitable forms of
business possible." That got them thinking. They finally concluded that
maybe their business had other purposes that were more important than making
money. Two of those, for any business, should be to offer a quality
product to society and to provide good jobs for members of society. Remember,
corporations are chartered by government. They are allowed to exist by the
public. Shouldn't they serve some significant public purpose? The tail has
been wagging the dog for too long in America.
So Kyle hits on the central issue but then offers a solution that will do
nothing to address it. He is right to claim that “raising the minimum
wage” will do nothing to help the working class “be better
off,” the problem is “increasing the capacity of the private sector
to create jobs and equipping people with the skills necessary for those
jobs.” Will do anything to address the fact that the current mindset is
that “Businesses exist to make money, and those in the upper echelons of
business like to make money for themselves and their companies,” without
regard for the effects on their workers or society. Until we address this
central issue and are able to get business to see that it is in their overall
best interest to take slightly smaller profits and pay their workers a livable
wage. we can pick around the edges and face raising cost of living with the
raising the minimum wage or add to businesses profit margins with no benefit to
the workers with Kyle’s suggestion. How do we know this? Because we have
tried both and failed to gain any ground.
airnaut,2 problems with your post.1. Nobody said
ANYTHING about "lazt free loaders"... That's just you talking for
them. The Right wing doesn't actually endlessly harping about that.
That's just YOUR impression of them, YOUR image of them, YOUR stereotype
for their type. But if you read all the comments... you will see it's not
there. It's just in your imagination.2. We have totally
different visions of the "proper role of Government". You say,
"it's the Governments duty to step in and force the issue upon
them". I don't think it's the Government's duty to force
things they want upon us (if it is... they are analogous to Satan). They
ENFORCE the law... but it's different. It's not their role to FORCE
us to do everything they think is moral or correct. There's no
"Law" that corporations be willing to raise employee wages...
that's just YOUR morality... with Government force behind it.I
think Ezra Taft Benson (a Prophet in the Church you claim faith in)... had the
role of Government correct. Google "The proper role of Government" and
listen to his speech...Very enlightening.
Good grief, is basic economics really that hard to understand? For people
who’ve never worked a day in their life, or ran a business, like Obama, it
most certainly is hard to understand.While it sounds compassionate
and caring, arbitrarily raising the minimum wage will the hurt the very people
it was intended to help. But as with all liberal programs, this is par for the
course. When you tell an employer, as Obama did during his SOTU address, that
they need to (through heavy handed legislation) raise what they pay their
low-skilled workforce (increase in minimum wage from $7.25 to $9.00 per hour),
they will find a way to recoup that cost. The logical choice for most employers
is to simply cut their workforce. How does not working help these people?Okay, if prosperity can be created by raising the minimum wage (as
indicated by Obama), why only stop at $9.00 per hour? Why not mandate employers
pay their low-skilled employees $30.00 per hour? Wow, this would create all
kinds of prosperity!
Marxist said:"Nobody at the Deseret News thinks Marx has any
relevance. In time you will see that he does."The only thing
Marxists/Communists have ever given the world is brutality, lack of
freedom/individualism, and an equal share of misery.Yep, the people
of the former Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Romania (under the Ceausescu's
reign), Venezuela, and other Marxist nations lived just grand lives in their
respective totalitarian economic utopias. It's easy to be a
"Marxist" in the United States, where you live a comfortable life under
the Capitalism you decry. My guess is, you wouldn't survive a month with
people who suffer under the Marxist ideology you seem to love so much. If
it's so great, why aren't you flocking to Cuba...or Venezuela...or
China? Easy to be a "radical" when you don't have to live in those
Mike Richards - Actually, what I said is not false and you fully admitted that
when you stated that the products Silicon Valley creates "have become
cheaper" while we've steadily increased the minimum wage. So, I
appreciate you making my point that while our wages have continually risen in
Silicon Valley we have found a way for our products to become cheaper. Thus,
dispelling the conservative notion that a higher wage means a higher cost of
good. Thanks, Mike. Regarding the cost of living, nothing against
Barstow but Silicon Valley is a far more desirable place to live so it will
inherently be more expensive. One main reason is the fact that we have higher
paying jobs here. Once again proving that a higher collective wage creates more
wealth. Thanks again, Mike.Finally, inflation is caused by various
factors but raising minimum wage is not an immediate indicator. For recent
examples, federal minimum wages were increased in 2007 and 2009 yet we saw a
drop in inflation both years. Further, the states with highest minimum wages
are not the states with the highest inflation. Sorry, your McDonalds experience
is not a good indicator of the world/national/state economies.
Let's understand that raising the minimum wage is not a fix for our
problems. It won't change the top heavy distribution of wealth in this
country. It will however make life a little more tolerable for a significant
number of people. BTW, if the likes of McDonalds can pass along all of the
increased wage in higher prices, why do they fight raising it?We
need to understand that we already have socialism. Government regulates the
money supply. Government rescued the big banks and insurance companies with
sums in the trillions. And government continues to support them with near zero
interest rate money. We have socialism! If things continue as at
present, the United States will be a collection of ownerships and financial
services - money changers - with little manufacturing and an impoverished
working class (most of us). We will be a shell. Can the United States persist
that way? I don't think so.Our socialism serves only the top
1%. I call for socialism which works for all of us. Stay tuned.
It sounds like all the conservatives commenting here are not only against
raising the minimum wage, they are against any minimum wage. Just another
aspect of the capitalistic quest to keep government out of business at all
costs. And we have learned by sad experience that uncontrolled, unregulated
business practices lead to the kind of excesses and maldistribution of income
that we are seeing today. It's too bad that you didn't learn anything
from the greedy robber baron, sweat-shop, child-labor, environment-be-damned era
of a century ago. Why do you think Congress enacted a minimum wage law in the
first place?If you were willing to concede that a minimum wage at
some level is appropriate, then we could have a rational discussion on what that
level should be, and whether it's a positive or a negative thing that the
minimum wage has actually declined in real dollars over the last three decades.
But your laissez-faire arguments against any government interference in the
marketplace have never worked, and will not work now.
Curmudgeon said:"If you were willing to concede that a minimum
wage at some level is appropriate..."Please, we're
breathlessly waiting for you anti-Capitalists to tell us what a "fair"
minimum wage is...? If $9.00 is good, then $30...maybe $75 per hour would be
even better...right? Tell us how you come up with your arbitrary numbers?If minimum wage for low-skilled jobs can be adjusted arbitrarily, there
will be consequences. The workforce will be reduced, and the cost of the goods
or services will go up. Either way, this hurts the people liberals always claim
they want to help. Liberals have destroyed the Black Family with failed cradle
to grave welfare programs. But liberals must never be held to account for their
results, only their "good intentions."Liberals are going to
once again destroy the people they are claiming to help. They will ensure an
equal share of misery for everyone.
@2 bitCottonwood Heights, UTI think Ezra Taft Benson (a
Prophet in the Church you claim faith in)... had the role of Government correct.
Google "The proper role of Government" and listen to his speech...Very enlightening.9:52 a.m. April 1, 2014=========== Just as I thought.an avid Pres. Ezra Taft Benson
fan.Thanks for confirming my suspicions.Did you read his talk,
"Beware of Pride" , April 1989Very enlightening.Our nation is being destroyed by the Rich and Powerful, not the poor,
sick and the needy.You took you eye completely off of the ball.The poor, sick, elderly and the needy are NOT what we need to beware
of.Just the opposite.Keep worshipping the gold an d riches of
Babylon and her mammon.
And just one more thought - back in the mid-90's a friend of ours served as
the Relief Society President in her ward in New London, Connecticut. Her
husband was in the Navy and was stationed in New London. She stated that most
of the married, enlisted personnel with children (2 or 3) were receiving
assistance from the church because their salaries could not support even a small
family living a modest lifestyle. Even soldiers protecting our country
can't afford to live in our society. I'm thinking we need to re-think
Here is your challenge liberals. How does creating more unemployed people
help.According to the BLS there are currently 144 million workers in
the US. Of those 1.1% earn minimum wage. That means that there is
approximately 1.5 million people earning minimum wage. Of those about 1/3 are
Highschool age. According to the CBO, raising the minimum wage will result in a
loss of 500,000 jobs, which is about 1/3 of all minimum wage jobs.That means that 500,000 people will not get job experience that can lead to
better paying jobs, and that there are more people that not only have no job
skills, but cannot develop job skills.Why do you think it is good to
hurt the future of 500,000 people just to give a few people more money?
FYI -- Our Men and Woman in Uniform make even LESS than minimum
wage.Go figure.Republicans love the Military Industrial
Complex [filling corporations pockets with $], and LOATHE the actual
"People" serving in it.
Sentinel,How many "minimum" wage workers own homes in
Silicon Valley? How many work at high tech businesses (except as janitors)? How
many work at high tech businesses, such as IMFlash or Adobe? How many can
afford to eat a good meal in Silicon Valley? How many people in the vast Central
Valley can afford to live in Silicon Valley?Minimum wage workers did
not create the products of Silicon Valley. They don't make the products.
They can't afford to live there. They can't afford to eat there.
They can't afford the product designed there. I visited Silicon Valley for
twenty years while servicing customers in the San Francisco area. I knew many
of the major developers and visited in their homes. They paid their highly
qualified workers huge wages with stock options. They did not hire unskilled,
unprepared workers. They had no need for anyone who didn't think enough
of themselves and their families to prepare themselves for the responsibilities
of life.Your example has nothing to do with minimum wage workers in
To "LDS Liberal" you are half right. There are the wealthy that are
trying to destroy the US. People like George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, Warren
Buffett, and others that want to transform the US into a socialist utopia where
they rule. You also have the poor that keep voting for politicians because they
are promised more free stuff.You forget the scripture D&C 56:17
"Wo unto you poor men, whose hearts are not broken, whose spirits are not
contrite, and whose bellies are not satisfied, and whose hands are not stayed
from laying hold upon other men's goods, whose eyes are full of greediness,
and who will not labor with your own hands!" You see, greed is not limited
to certain income brackets.Lets also look at Jacob 2:19 "And
after ye have obtained a hope in Christ ye shall obtain riches, if ye seek them;
and ye will seek them for the intent to do good;to clothe the naked, and to feed
the hungry, and to liberate the captive, and administer relief to the sick and
the afflicted." So, riches are a blessing if used to help others. Why not
seek after wealth?
@CurmudgeonRE: "If you were willing to concede that a minimum wage at
some level is appropriate"...I think the wage should be based on
the skill you have, the scarcity of that skill, and the value that skill brings
to the business (not an arbitrary number set by some Government bureaucrat).So... If we could agree on some minimum still level... maybe we could
agree on a minimum wage...=====@LDS Liberal,You seem to think that knowing I agree with Benson's "Proper role of
Government" reveals everything about me. You frequently hear one thing...
and think that tells you everything you need to know about a person, and you can
assume that ALL your numerous stereotypes you have attached to that
"type" of person... now automatically become true about that person. I
call that "judging" people. Something President Benson taught us is
wrong.As for President Benson's views on Pride. I agree with
those views too. Contrary to your assumptions... they are NOT mutually
exclusive (if you agree with one you cant agree with the other).BTW.. I thought you were out of posts... what's up with that?I am out of posts...
Sven says: "Why not mandate employers pay their low-skilled employees
$30.00 per hour?"Using an extreme exaggeration of a modest
proposal does not make a persuasive argument. Its like saying "Utah
can't have a 5% income tax, because just imagine how we destructive a 100%
tax would be", or saying "we shouldn't have any speed limits
because the logical conclusion of regulating speed, is a speed limit of
zero".A modest increase in the minimum wage is probably a good
thing, huge increases would be very bad, no one is arguing for a huge increase.
Sven and 2 Bits:You have confirmed my supposition that conservatives
don't want any kind of minimum wage set by government mandate, so there is
no point in discussing how much or little it should be. You want to return to
the "good old days" of the Great Depression and the robber baron era,
before minimum wage and other worker protection laws were enacted. Back then
employers unilaterally decided, without government interference, how much skill
and value workers brought to the job, and paid them accordingly. The oversupply
of workers, even highly skilled workers, gave employers the ability to pay what
were literally "starvation" wages. What a utopia it must have been for
conservatives such as yourself.
Oh Kyle, You have inflamed the liberals by making too much sense.
They forget that when you redistribute the water in a container, you
don't get more water, or better quality water. What you get is waves,
sloshing water, and liberals know very well that sloshing water is better.
To "Curmudgeon" I hate to break it to you, but the minimum wage laws
were enacted as a form of racism. Yes, minimum wage was implemented as a racist
policy. In New York in the 1930's, the construction companies were
bringing in non-union blacks onto their construction sites. The blacks would
work for less money than their white counterparts. So, to stop this practice
they implemented a minimum wage.The amazing thing is that before
minimum wage laws were passed poverty rates were about the same as they are
today. So again, what good are minimum wage laws besides holding people
down?What highly skilled field is there that has an oversupply of
workers? Since only 1.1% of workers are paid minimum wage, why isn't that
number larger, there is nothing preventing employers from paying all of their
employees minimum wage.Should we adopt the liberal Utopia where it
doesn't matter how much you work or how valuable your skills are or the
value you bring to a job, everybody gets the same? Does that sound like a
I'm all for doing away with ALL wages, period.Nobody works for
money, but all for the betterment of humanity.FROM each
according to his ability, TO each according to his need. Having ALL things in common, And having NO poor amongst us.call it United Order, Law of Conscetration, Zionism, Socialism, Communism....I don't really care what
it's called, it's the end result I'm only interested in.
To "LDS Liberal" you should care what it is called.Only
under the Law of Consecration (United Order) will you be able to obtain that
goal peacefully. When this has been tried, the worst that happened was that
people began to starve. Plus, this is a voluntary system that you can enter
into with your community, or not. You have the choice here. You will also
maintain ownership of your property.Under Socialism, Communism,
Marxism, and other collectivist philosophies you subjugate yourself to a
dictator who will end up killing a lot of people because of rebellion or because
the excess population had to be reduced. This is a system of force, where your
rights and needs are determined by the state. You will also give up all claim
to personal property.The results are quite different. Under the Law
of Consecration all people prosper. Under Socialism, Communism, and other
similar collectivist ideals all end up poor and struggle.
LDS Liberal,And let me guess, you know this omniscient
'guy' in Farmington UT who you think should be in charge of managing
all the goods (i.e. wealth). We aren't stupid enough to put you in charge
of everyone's everything. Sorry to break this to you, but we
have seen in history that corruption and wealth inequality in communism and
socialism are worse than in capitalism. I don't see any
connection between minimum wage and the creation and promotion of a Jewish
nation. Your use of the word Zionism makes no sense.The other 2 you
mention only work if an Omniscient God is at the head, and if every person in
the group is all in, and doesn't ever fall to resentment, a natural human
emotion. So far no group has had everyone be that good. Zionism
(which is not an economic or political system) is the only one of those that has
been successful, and you liberals decry their success.
Mike Richards - It seems you unintentionally proved my point. While I don't
see your analysis as accurate, you do realize that when you list basic
necessities such as food/shelter that cannot be met by working class American
incomes you are undermining your own position, right?I also believe
you should be more cautious when determining hard working people to be
"unskilled, unprepared." In the Bay Area, we generally try to value
everyone and work to create a society that reflects that. Indeed, the
"unskilled, unprepared" guy flipping your burger is one "ah ha"
moment away from the next billion dollar company and our region of the country
has the infrastructure in place to realize that. What's more, we actually
create wealth rather than exploit Mother Earth like conservative demigod oil
companies.Redshirt - Your seminary teacher is shaking his/her head
in disappointment right now. The word "poor" from D&C 56:17 has
footnotes and the word essentially refers to the idle. The working class are, by
definition, not an idle lot.But please, tell us more about how
self-made industry titans like Warren Buffett admire socialism, I love a good
To "Stalwart Sentinel" what scriptures are you using. The footnotes
make no such reference. It has some scriptures listed in the footnotes, but
they all refer to helping the poor. It also includes a Topical Guide reference,
which again refers to needy.What version of the Doctrine and
Covenants are you using? The LDS version does not have the footnote you refer
to.As for Buffett, look at who supports what he says. Socialists.
If he wasn't a socialist or believed in socialism, why would the socialists
support him on so many fronts? Just look at the man's statements on
taxation, and you see that he supports socialism, except for himself.
Sentinel,You keep changing your point. At 8:38, you
wrote about a "multiplier effect" that is caused when the minimum wage
is increased. That is not true. When the minimum wage is increased, prices
increase. There is no "extra" money floating around the community. At 10:33, you inferred that minimum wage workers in Silicon Valley made
"products cheaper". They did not. Minimum wage workers did not develop
those products nor do they manufacture those products.At 4:14, you
told us that minimum wage workers cannot afford the basic necessities of life.
Minimum wage is not supposed to be a "living wage". It is an entry
level wage. It is a "starting" wage that allows untrained, unskilled,
unprepared workers to enter the workforce so that they can receive on the job
training. AFTER they are trained, either by completing a degree or receiving
higher education either on the job or at a "trade school", they can
command a higher wage.Minimum wage workers cannot expect to buy a
home in Silicon Valley. They cannot expect to drive an expensive car. They
have not yet prepared themselves for "success".
Redshirt: It is you who must have an incomplete copy of the D&C, or
you are just ignoring what is plainly there. In D&C 56:17, footnote
"a" to the phrase "poor men," it lists several references,
including two that specifically mention and condemn idleness, not poverty:
D&C 42:42 and D&C 68:30-32. Thus "poor men" in your favorite
scripture (D&C 56:17) is linked with idleness, as Sentinel correctly noted.
But you don't need to even look at the footnotes, as verse 17 specifically
condemns those "who will not labor with your own hands!" That's
not the working poor, that's the idle. And the "idle" could
include the idle rich, "whose hearts are not broken, whose spirits are not
contrite, and whose bellies are not satisfied, and whose hands are not stayed
from laying hold upon other men's goods, whose eyes are full of
greediness." That's a pretty good description of a lot of rich people.
In which case the adjective "poor" could mean someone to be pitied, as
in "you poor soul," not someone in physical poverty
@marxist"Yes, but where will capital create those jobs? Our experience
of the last 30 years suggests those jobs are likely to be created in Mexico,
China, Southeast Asia or India."If jobs are created in Mexico,
China, Southeast Asia, and India it's because that's where competitive
labor is found."Look, capital and labor have fundamentally
different interests. Capital wants to pay labor as little as possible."Nay. Capital's (businesses) interest is to maximize profits for
the owners/stockholders. Capital's interest is not to be dictated to by
labor."Of course in grinding labor down capital threatens the
whole system because profits are mostly made from the exploitation of
labor."If the 'system' is threatened, it's
because labor is driving jobs overseas. Today, we live in the global market.
This means that labor has to compete with the rest of the world for jobs.
"Businesses exist to make money ... for themselves and their companies. To
say otherwise is naïve."And employer and stockholder Greed
is an epidemic in this country. To say otherwise is to be in Denial. It is the doctrine of Korihor, in full bloom: "...but every
man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore
every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered
according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was NO CRIME [no moral
crime].And this:"And there shall also be many which
shall say: ... TAKE THE ADVANTAGE of one because of his words [e.g., because in
his utter despair, he agrees to cheapskate wages], dig a pit for thy neighbor
[i.e., pay him peanuts, and then rationalize, "Well it's not like
anyone is FORCING him to work for me]; there is no harm in this..."We increase the capacity of the private sector by increasing Americans'
ability to purchase. Then everyone wins. No use denying it: In-N-Out Burger
proves that it IS possible to pay one's employees better while STILL
keeping retail prices low AND by not cutting corners.
@Mike Richards"Costs go up when wages go up. The consumer pays.
Always."A lie. In-N-Out Burger's business model of higher
wages, lower retail prices, and no compromising the quality of product,
SINGLEHANDEDLY refutes that propaganda. @2 bits"These jobs were not intended to be careers for parents. They are short
term, entry level jobs, for young people..."SAYS WHO.Another of the standard RATIONALIZATIONS for taking advantage of one's
fellow man and oppressing him in his wages.@Christopher B"If someone is worth more than they are making then another company will
be more than happy to pay them more."So if you're certain
that "another company" will, then why wasn't the first company
"happy to pay them more?" Because what you are saying is
not true, that's why. It is only one more example of the elaborate
sophistry developed by greedy businessmen to rationlize oppressing the hireling
in his wages. "If someone can't find a job for more than
they are currently making - its because they aren't worth it.A
lie.No wonder Jesus spoke of Camels, and of Eyes of Needles.
To "Curmudgeon" again you are wrong. SS said "D&C 56:17 has
footnotes and the word essentially refers to the idle". That is not true.
I looked up each of the footnotes, and it does not say connect poor to idle
workers. In the scriptures you reference, it does not say connect poor people
to idle workers.Either way, you only confirm my point. That is that
greed is not limited by wealth. There are poor that are greedy, lazy people
that are greedy, and people that are both poor and lazy that are greedy. No
matter how you look at it, the Lord has little tolerance with those that want
others to support them.
Warren Buffett is a socialist! Haha, good one! I love it.
RedShirt - You're mistaken. You appear to have viewed the footnote for
"poor" in verse 18. Please check the verse you actually cited: 17. Re: Buffett - Again, you're mistaken. His public statements on
taxation directly targeted the rich (ie himself) - please see the Buffett Rule.
And no, 30% taxation is not socialism, it's America pre-Reaganomics.Mike My point remains the same: increase the minimum wage.
I'm simply making an attempt to address all your random questions. We've already established that as the minimum wage increased in the
Bay Area, prices for goods actually dropped. Please stop perpetrating lies.The multiplier effect is not debatable, I'm sorry. If you and I
both have a dollar but you stow yours away in your mattress whereas I spend mine
at a local store, which uses it to buy product, and it is then used to purchase
more inventory, my dollar is creating more commerce than yours. My
10:33 post made no such direct or indirect inference. It merely reiterated the
points you unintentionally admitted.Actually, minimum wage was
designed specifically as a living wage - See the FLSA of 1938 and pay particular
mind to Section 202(a).
To "StalwartSentinel" whatever you want to believe, that is up to
you.The point that I made, and that you cannot refute is the simple
fact that greed knows no economic bounds. Poor people can be just as greedy as
rich people. It doesn't matter how you define poor, greedy poor people
that demand to be supported by those who work is against God's desires.Yes, look at the Buffett rule, tax those who produce more. According to
the Socialist Brotherhood web site, that is precisely what they want. So are
you saying that you agree that Buffett wants to be part of the socialist ruling
class that has all of the privelages?
So let me get this right. Buffett wants to be taxed more. Therefore he is a
member of an elite class that wants more for himself??? I don't know how
you could possibly twist logic any more than that.
"According to the CBO, raising the minimum wage will result in a loss of
500,000 jobs"Yeah, except they did NOT say this. You
shouldn't just make stuff up.
"Minimum wage workers did not create the products of Silicon Valley. They
don't make the products."Well, you are right there,
Richards, minimum wage workers don't make the products. People making far,
far less then minimum wage make the products. People basically making not much
more then slave wages, in shops with hardly any protections for the workers make
the products. But you are right, the people that make these products do not have
minimum wage protections. "You also have the poor that keep
voting for politicians because they are promised more free stuff."Now that's funny. You act like conservative politicians don't
promise free stuff. I remember Romney saying how he would not cut entitlements,
and that he would INCREASE defense spending, AND cut taxes. Talk about promising
free stuff. You get a massive military, but you don't have to pay the taxes
for it. Oh yeah, and if you own a business, just look at the free stuff you are
going to get. Get rid of your regulations, pollute away, as long as it saves you
money. We will get rid of those pesky labor regulations also. Too
To "mark" actually, they did. See the CBO report title "The Effects
of a Minimum-Wage Increase on Employment and Family Income". On page 1 of
their report they state "Effects of the $10.10 Option on Employment and
Income. Once fully implemented in the second half of2016, the $10.10
option would reduce total employment by about 500,000 workers, or 0.3 percent,
CBO projects."That is directly from their report. You can
either believe it or not, but that is what the CBO states.You seem
to forget the video's of the people declaring how Obama is going to pay
their mortgages, fill their gas tanks, and so forth. Those were the people
voting for Obama.
RedShirt Uhm, no - it is not whatever I want to believe. D&C
56:17 clearly has a footnote defining "poor" that you failed to account
for and, when I notified you of your error, rather than correct your ways, you
proceeded to make an additional mistake by referencing a footnote from a
completely different verse. There is no "belief" involved here. You
were mistaken the first time and the second, show some integrity and own up to
it. The point you made that "greed knows no economic
bounds" was never part of the conversation, LDS Liberal didn't even
suggest it. Your point was a non sequitur and is irrelevant. Again, if you're going to disparage people, at least try to be accurate.
This is about the minimum wage so those folks are not looking for a handout from
"those who work" - the working class is categorically constituted by
people who work. Re: Buffett - He's asking to be taxed more -
he does not want special socialist elite "privelages (sic)". You
literally contradicted yourself in the space of three sentences.Finally, your blanket assumption that the rich "produce more" is
Yeah, see the problem is that you cherry pick. What they actually
said, not cherry picked:"Once fully implemented in the second
half of 2016, the $10.10 option would reduce total employment by about 500,000
workers, or 0.3 percent, CBO projects (see the table below). As with any such
estimates, however, the actual losses could be smaller or larger; in CBO’s
assessment, there is about a two-thirds chance that the effect would be in the
range between a very slight reduction in employment and a reduction in
employment of 1.0 million workers."They also said with a minimum
wage increase to 9.00 an hour the effect might be a very slight increase in
employment to a 200,000 loss. Those are broad ranges, and absolutely
not what you claimed, that they said there WOULD be a 500,000 job loss from a
minimum wage increase. Also the report discusses various methods and
thinking that come to very different conclusions about the effect a minimum wage
increase would have. It really does not come to any hard conclusions.
When wages are low turnover rate is high, absentee workers, loss of production,
cost of retraining, mistakes happen more frequently, on the job accidents are
more frequent, medical costs are much higher........I guess the employer is
willing to accept these costs.
@Redshirt1701" Yes, minimum wage was implemented as a racist policy.
In New York in the 1930's, the construction companies were bringing in
non-union blacks onto their construction sites. The blacks would work for less
money than their white counterparts. So, to stop this practice they implemented
a minimum wage."Let me get this straight... increasing wages to
people is a racist policy? Hey, do you think the same about conservatives saying
that illegal immigrants are driving down wages because they work for less under
the table, is that racist policy too? Then again it must be even more racist
since your example involves increasing black wages while the other involves
booting people out of the nation.
To "Schnee" it is a racist policy when you enact it to prevent blacks
from being brought into the city. What would you call a law designed to make it
so that you could keep out a specific group of people?
Problems, however, had emerged with respect to construction of a federal
hospital in Bacon’s New York district. Local contractors, he explained,
had submitted bids on the project that reflected local standards. But the
contract was awarded to an Alabama firm. The latter, Bacon noted, “...
brought some thousand non-union laborers from Alabama into Long Island, N.Y.;
... They were herded onto this job, they were housed in shacks, they were paid a
very low wage and the work proceeded.” In Bacon’s view, the least
government could do, when contracting, was “to comply with the local
standards of wages and labor prevailing in the locality where the building
construction is to take place.” His measure did not seek to inflate wages
artificially but, rather, to assure that government respected the existing local
standard. The bill was not adopted.. . . In a note to Labor Secretary
James J. Davis, “The essence of the thing as I see it is: Is the
Government willing for the sake of the lowest bidder to break down all labor
standards and have its work done by the cheapest labor that can be secured and
shipped from State to State?” - Whittaker
Redshirt - Sorry, but Sentinel is winning the discussion here. I am also in
favor of a minimum wage increase. You say only teenagers work minimum wage
jobs. WRONG. I know college educated individuals who cannot find work, try as
they might. Sending out hundreds of resumes. They are supporting families and
in some cases they can't even find a minimum wage job. You know,
"we'd love to hire you but you're overqualified." They
aren't lazy, shiftless bums who want a handout. They have earned a right to
a decent paying job but they can't find one. Corporate profits
are at an all time high. Real unemployment is incredibly high. Corporations
stockpile billions in cash reluctant to hire anyone. In my current employment
overtime is mandatory. Why, because they won't hire anyone. We'd
rather see them hire more people. But they won't.An increase
in the minimum wage is not only the right thing to do, it's the moral thing
to do. It's not going to break anyone. Idaho has more
minimum wage workers than any other state. We're very proud of that here.