Anonymous wrote:All y'all's arguments are sweet and dandy but as a taxpayer I'm tired of having to pay for the welfare and food stamps of full time employees. I'm tired of subsidizing their employers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you ask someone to work for you for full time hours, but don't pay them enough to reasonably sustain themselves, you've essentially got yourself an indentured servant. Are we really okay with that as a country? Having an underclass of indentured servants that we allow the merchant class to abuse and treat however they want?

If you offer someone a job and tell them upfront the wage you are willing to pay, and the person says YES to your offer, then you’ve got yourself an employee who has entered into an at-will agreement to work for you at the wage you both agreed upon.

And in most cases, the wage is very clearly indicated in the job posting. The “indentured servant” need not apply to that job of the wage is not suitable to them.

Buddy, you ever been hungry?

Or a day away from losing your house? Seriously, everyone arguing against minimum wage needs to 1. Work a full week in a minimum wage job to see what back breaking demoralizing work it can be, and 2. Figure out how they would sustain themselves on the wage. Not just in theory. Find a place to live that allows you to get to work on time, even with minimal access to public transportation. Figure out how you're going to get to the grocery store, let alone pay for the groceries. Figure out who's going to watch your kids and who accepts childcare vouchers.

The point from most everyone here is that you should not be working a minimum wage job as a life plan. Period. Minimum wage jobs are meant to be an entry into the work force wherein you enter with no skills and no experience. A 16-year-old getting his feet wet with a minimum wage job does not need to pay a mortgage. He then gains experience which he uses to get a better paying job. And continues to take on more responsibility and more skills such that he can command an increase for the next job. We are arguing apples and oranges because you think a person should be able to sustain a family on a minimum wage job. I do not. I agree with you that it’s insufficient to do that. I just disagree that the wage needs to change. Why would you want to incentivize someone to work their entire lives in a no-skills-requires job instead of encouraging growth of skills and mind to achieve more and be compensated for that commitment and effort?
To that end, if the goal is equality of outcome, why do we strive for anything? If in the end we will all be assigned a job and wage that is of equal value, then why would one continue to go to school and achieve more education or learn a new skill?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you ask someone to work for you for full time hours, but don't pay them enough to reasonably sustain themselves, you've essentially got yourself an indentured servant. Are we really okay with that as a country? Having an underclass of indentured servants that we allow the merchant class to abuse and treat however they want?

If you offer someone a job and tell them upfront the wage you are willing to pay, and the person says YES to your offer, then you’ve got yourself an employee who has entered into an at-will agreement to work for you at the wage you both agreed upon.

And in most cases, the wage is very clearly indicated in the job posting. The “indentured servant” need not apply to that job of the wage is not suitable to them.

Buddy, you ever been hungry?

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Let them eat cake, right?

That went real well.


This is a classic blunder of the “burn it all down” and “eat the rich” stance.

You think you’re fighting for a noble cause and so you treat “the rich” as a ruling class like Marie Antoinette of France when in reality they are workers in a free land in a government that is OF the people, by the people, and for the people...not some monarchy or dictatorial nation.
The “system” that you think you are fighting actually created opportunity for anyone who want to set high goals and work to achieve them. And yes I do mean anyone. This is why the race wars that the left is attempting to ignite to champion this Marxist movement in the US will eventually fail—even if it destroys our country in the process. There are so many immigrants who came from nothing and built a good life *starting* at minimum wage jobs and refusing to stop bettering their skills, education and lives along the way because America provides that opportunity to those who want it and commit to working for it.
If you keep pretending the US is pre-revolutionary France instead of a country with freedom of opportunity by the people and for the people, then you will eventually chase all the wealthy and educated people who have worked from nothing to create and sustain that opportunity out of the country and will be left with ruin. See Russian revolution. See French post-Revolution era.
It will be a very long, depressing road and in the end you’ll be speaking Chinese and working for far less than the current minimum wage you disdain with no way out.


I think you need to talk to people who are down in poverty and see if they agree with you. Because if you believe this and they do not, then don't be suprized if they fight against you.


Yes but we do know from research how to help future generations to avoid living in poverty even if we change nothing about the wages or the system.
We just aren’t teaching students the things they neeed to know to improve their future conditions. And that is, to live above the poverty line in the US, you must do only these three things:
1. Graduate high school
2. Do not start a family until you are married (or have a two-parent commitment to raising family in one household—for those who object to the “marriage” label)
3. Get a job. ANY job. Even a minimum wage job under those 2 previous conditions will keep today’s high school students out of poverty as adults.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let them eat cake, right?

That went real well.

This is a classic blunder of the “burn it all down” and “eat the rich” stance.

You think you’re fighting for a noble cause and so you treat “the rich” as a ruling class like Marie Antoinette of France when in reality they are workers in a free land in a government that is OF the people, by the people, and for the people...not some monarchy or dictatorial nation.
The “system” that you think you are fighting actually created opportunity for anyone who want to set high goals and work to achieve them. And yes I do mean anyone. This is why the race wars that the left is attempting to ignite to champion this Marxist movement in the US will eventually fail—even if it destroys our country in the process. There are so many immigrants who came from nothing and built a good life *starting* at minimum wage jobs and refusing to stop bettering their skills, education and lives along the way because America provides that opportunity to those who want it and commit to working for it.
If you keep pretending the US is pre-revolutionary France instead of a country with freedom of opportunity by the people and for the people, then you will eventually chase all the wealthy and educated people who have worked from nothing to create and sustain that opportunity out of the country and will be left with ruin. See Russian revolution. See French post-Revolution era.
It will be a very long, depressing road and in the end you’ll be speaking Chinese and working for far less than the current minimum wage you disdain with no way out.

I think you need to talk to people who are down in poverty and see if they agree with you. Because if you believe this and they do not, then don't be suprized if they fight against you.

Anonymous wrote:

The alternative to a higher minimum wage, is UBI. Or societal unrest. Pick.

This is pretty much it (or we keep subsidizing these people through our taxes). People want to believe that anyone can gain more skills and get higher pay, but there are those who, for one reason or another, cannot. At the same time, there are jobs that need to get done that are unskilled. It's humane to pay people a living wage because we are talking about our fellow man. We have seen the situation with wage disparity get worse, not better. It will never be perfect, but let's try to make it better. This is a moral imperative as much as anything else.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let them eat cake, right?

That went real well.

This is a classic blunder of the “burn it all down” and “eat the rich” stance.

You think you’re fighting for a noble cause and so you treat “the rich” as a ruling class like Marie Antoinette of France when in reality they are workers in a free land in a government that is OF the people, by the people, and for the people...not some monarchy or dictatorial nation.
The “system” that you think you are fighting actually created opportunity for anyone who want to set high goals and work to achieve them. And yes I do mean anyone. This is why the race wars that the left is attempting to ignite to champion this Marxist movement in the US will eventually fail—even if it destroys our country in the process. There are so many immigrants who came from nothing and built a good life *starting* at minimum wage jobs and refusing to stop bettering their skills, education and lives along the way because America provides that opportunity to those who want it and commit to working for it.
If you keep pretending the US is pre-revolutionary France instead of a country with freedom of opportunity by the people and for the people, then you will eventually chase all the wealthy and educated people who have worked from nothing to create and sustain that opportunity out of the country and will be left with ruin. See Russian revolution. See French post-Revolution era.
It will be a very long, depressing road and in the end you’ll be speaking Chinese and working for far less than the current minimum wage you disdain with no way out.

I think you need to talk to people who are down in poverty and see if they agree with you. Because if you believe this and they do not, then don't be suprized if they fight against you.

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
If you ask someone to work for you for full time hours, but don't pay them enough to reasonably sustain themselves, you've essentially got yourself an indentured servant. Are we really okay with that as a country? Having an underclass of indentured servants that we allow the merchant class to abuse and treat however they want?


If you offer someone a job and tell them upfront the wage you are willing to pay, and the person says YES to your offer, then you’ve got yourself an employee who has entered into an at-will agreement to work for you at the wage you both agreed upon.

And in most cases, the wage is very clearly indicated in the job posting. The “indentured servant” need not apply to that job of the wage is not suitable to them.


Buddy, you ever been hungry?


Or a day away from losing your house? Seriously, everyone arguing against minimum wage needs to 1. Work a full week in a minimum wage job to see what back breaking demoralizing work it can be, and 2. Figure out how they would sustain themselves on the wage. Not just in theory. Find a place to live that allows you to get to work on time, even with minimal access to public transportation. Figure out how you're going to get to the grocery store, let alone pay for the groceries. Figure out who's going to watch your kids and who accepts childcare vouchers.


The point from most everyone here is that you should not be working a minimum wage job as a life plan. Period. Minimum wage jobs are meant to be an entry into the work force wherein you enter with no skills and no experience. A 16-year-old getting his feet wet with a minimum wage job does not need to pay a mortgage. He then gains experience which he uses to get a better paying job. And continues to take on more responsibility and more skills such that he can command an increase for the next job. We are arguing apples and oranges because you think a person should be able to sustain a family on a minimum wage job. I do not. I agree with you that it’s insufficient to do that. I just disagree that the wage needs to change. Why would you want to incentivize someone to work their entire lives in a no-skills-requires job instead of encouraging growth of skills and mind to achieve more and be compensated for that commitment and effort?
To that end, if the goal is equality of outcome, why do we strive for anything? If in the end we will all be assigned a job and wage that is of equal value, then why would one continue to go to school and achieve more education or learn a new skill?

The alternative to a higher minimum wage, is UBI. Or societal unrest. Pick.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you ask someone to work for you for full time hours, but don't pay them enough to reasonably sustain themselves, you've essentially got yourself an indentured servant. Are we really okay with that as a country? Having an underclass of indentured servants that we allow the merchant class to abuse and treat however they want?

If you offer someone a job and tell them upfront the wage you are willing to pay, and the person says YES to your offer, then you’ve got yourself an employee who has entered into an at-will agreement to work for you at the wage you both agreed upon.

And in most cases, the wage is very clearly indicated in the job posting. The “indentured servant” need not apply to that job of the wage is not suitable to them.

Buddy, you ever been hungry?

Or a day away from losing your house? Seriously, everyone arguing against minimum wage needs to 1. Work a full week in a minimum wage job to see what back breaking demoralizing work it can be, and 2. Figure out how they would sustain themselves on the wage. Not just in theory. Find a place to live that allows you to get to work on time, even with minimal access to public transportation. Figure out how you're going to get to the grocery store, let alone pay for the groceries. Figure out who's going to watch your kids and who accepts childcare vouchers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let them eat cake, right?

That went real well.

This is a classic blunder of the “burn it all down” and “eat the rich” stance.

You think you’re fighting for a noble cause and so you treat “the rich” as a ruling class like Marie Antoinette of France when in reality they are workers in a free land in a government that is OF the people, by the people, and for the people...not some monarchy or dictatorial nation.
The “system” that you think you are fighting actually created opportunity for anyone who want to set high goals and work to achieve them. And yes I do mean anyone. This is why the race wars that the left is attempting to ignite to champion this Marxist movement in the US will eventually fail—even if it destroys our country in the process. There are so many immigrants who came from nothing and built a good life *starting* at minimum wage jobs and refusing to stop bettering their skills, education and lives along the way because America provides that opportunity to those who want it and commit to working for it.
If you keep pretending the US is pre-revolutionary France instead of a country with freedom of opportunity by the people and for the people, then you will eventually chase all the wealthy and educated people who have worked from nothing to create and sustain that opportunity out of the country and will be left with ruin. See Russian revolution. See French post-Revolution era.
It will be a very long, depressing road and in the end you’ll be speaking Chinese and working for far less than the current minimum wage you disdain with no way out.

Anonymous wrote:Let them eat cake, right?

That went real well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you ask someone to work for you for full time hours, but don't pay them enough to reasonably sustain themselves, you've essentially got yourself an indentured servant. Are we really okay with that as a country? Having an underclass of indentured servants that we allow the merchant class to abuse and treat however they want?

If you offer someone a job and tell them upfront the wage you are willing to pay, and the person says YES to your offer, then you’ve got yourself an employee who has entered into an at-will agreement to work for you at the wage you both agreed upon.

And in most cases, the wage is very clearly indicated in the job posting. The “indentured servant” need not apply to that job of the wage is not suitable to them.

Buddy, you ever been hungry?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you ask someone to work for you for full time hours, but don't pay them enough to reasonably sustain themselves, you've essentially got yourself an indentured servant. Are we really okay with that as a country? Having an underclass of indentured servants that we allow the merchant class to abuse and treat however they want?

If you offer someone a job and tell them upfront the wage you are willing to pay, and the person says YES to your offer, then you’ve got yourself an employee who has entered into an at-will agreement to work for you at the wage you both agreed upon.

And in most cases, the wage is very clearly indicated in the job posting. The “indentured servant” need not apply to that job of the wage is not suitable to them.