Click on the link in my response and it will answer your question.


I am not saying nothing about unfairness, or over/under qualification. My point is very simple, t<span style="background-color:rgb(247,247,247);">here are college grads who have to work minimum wage jobs, sometimes 2 and still live below poverty level. Or worse yet unemployed.
</span>

My counterpoint is also very simple. If they aren't working full time hours at minimum wage, then they deserve to be below the poverty level. 60 hrs per week at minimum wage is breaking the poverty level.

---

The problem is it takes big government to make it happen, and a progressive bent in that big government.


There needs to be import tariffs on items built abroad. Apple is an American company. The iphone should at the very least be assembled in the USA. It's a 60%+ profit margin item for them (less than $250 to build, sold for about $600, and that's the low end ones. Want more storage space on it? Get ready to really get reamed on marginal upgrades) the idea that having to pay an American a livable wage ($15/hr) on the minutes worth of assembly time that each iphone needs would somehow bring trouble to Apple as a company is absurd.


Slap a 20% of MSRP tariff on the iphone and suddenly Apple can't outlay capital to build American production facilities fast enough. Same with everything else.


We don't need $20 shovels made in China, we need $30 shovels made in the USA, and we won't get that as long as "free market" is the topic du jour.

I don't believe in a 100% unregulated capitalist free market system, as I've stated before.


A few anti trust and foreign labor regulations doesn't mean you need big government.

---

I don't believe in a 100% unregulated capitalist free market system, as I've stated before.


A few anti trust and foreign labor regulations doesn't mean you need big government.

 

No, big government is necessary. If you don't have big government ruling you end up with big business ruling, which is what we currently have.

---

No, big government is necessary. If you don't have big government ruling you end up with big business ruling, which is what we currently have.

Well, we disagree.

---

I wonder if oklahomie knows not a single republican voted for the ACA lol

---

I wonder if oklahomie knows not a single republican voted for the ACA lol

 

Depends on if you count the republicans in democratic clothing.

 

No matter who voted for it, it was the republican plan.

---

And you are overestimating how many people rely on minimum wage to support a family.  Look the numbers up. 

 

You're making incorrect assumptions about me in order to make your case.  Nowhere have I said anyone is lazy.

 

There aren't enough good paying jobs because the economy is sputtering on the verge of another recession.  When the economy was going strong, there were plenty of opportunities for people to advance their situation.  Because the current policies of bigger, more encroaching government have put a significant drag on this economy, good paying jobs are more difficult to find.  However, they are not impossible to find for those who are more flexible. 

 

There are absolutely some lazy people, but I'm taking into consideration that most people want to work and to be able to sustain themselves.  However, for those who live below the poverty level, there are programs far and wide to assist them in maintaining a respectable living situation with subsidized housing, transportation, communication, and food.  The poor in our society today don't know the true meaning of "poor" or "poverty" in this country.  There are those who recognize that they're better off taking what the government is willing to give them over trying to get a leg up for themselves. 

 

Those who are willing to work hard and do whatever is necessary to lift themselves up usually do succeed, even if they have to work 3 jobs to do it.  Companies are not obligated to pay them more than they do just so they can cut out an extra job.  If people truly want to improve their situation, they can do so without forcing companies to deviate from what they're doing. 

 

The market can and should determine what someone is going to be paid.  In reality, the best thing that could happen if you want to get people back to work is to do away with the minimum wage all together.  It would allow companies to create more jobs, and I'll guarantee the majority would be paid at rates higher than the currently mandated levels.  Creating more jobs helps lift the economy.  As the economy improves, those lower income earners will have more opportunity to climb.  If you don't think the market should be the vehicle used to set wages, take a look at what's happening in North Dakota with jobs up there thanks to the oil boom they're enjoying.  Even entry level jobs are paying significantly more than minimum wage because there's a demand.  Their state economy is booming. 

This makes no sense. Get rid of minimum wage so companies can pay as low as they can get away with but by doing this will actually increase wages? That makes no sense at all. If that was the case then why don't they just pay a reasonable wage?

 

Regardless, profits have increased massively while wages have barely moved at all. IMO, That is wrong. business>people doesn't work for me. 

---

Depends on if you count the republicans in democratic clothing.


No matter who voted for it, it was the republican plan.

We get it. Democrats do no wrong. Everything they've touched turns to gold, and if it doesn't, well then that was the Republicans.

---

We get it. Democrats do no wrong. Everything they've touched turns to gold, and if it doesn't, well then that was the Republicans.

 

No, the democrats right now are mostly spineless or blue dogs. (republicans that run as democrats)

 

There are very few really principled democrats. Probably the best senator in the country from a progressive point of view is an independent (Bernie Sanders) who the republicans absolutely hate. The R and the D need to go (or at least be realigned), but if you get rid of the D first this country will be far worse off than if the R is the first to go.

---

This makes no sense. Get rid of minimum wage so companies can pay as low as they can get away with but by doing this will actually increase wages? That makes no sense at all. If that was the case then why don't they just pay a reasonable wage?


Regardless, profits have increased massively while wages have barely moved at all. IMO, That is wrong. business>people doesn't work for me.

I believe what FBT is trying to say is without minimum wage you would have more jobs available. Those jobs that would than exist and do not now would indeed be low paying jobs however it would change the amount of jobs available.


If say without minimum wage the economy added 100,000 (low paying) jobs that would mean the jobs right now would be competing harder to find good workers. Competition leads to higher wages.


The argument is the key to hire wages is to create a demand for good workers, more jobs not regulation would force higher wages.

---

No, the democrats right now are mostly spineless or blue dogs. (republicans that run as democrats)


There are very few really principled democrats. Probably the best senator in the country from a progressive point of view is an independent (Bernie Sanders) who the republicans absolutely hate. The R and the D need to go (or at least be realigned), but if you get rid of the D first this country will be far worse off than if the R is the first to go.

Exactly, any bad democrats are really republican wolves in sheep's clothing.


All hail, Nancy Pelosi... Unless she messes up on something and the dems don't protect her... In that case, she's really a conservative republican infiltrator.

---

No, the democrats right now are mostly spineless or blue dogs. (republicans that run as democrats)


There are very few really principled democrats. Probably the best senator in the country from a progressive point of view is an independent (Bernie Sanders) who the republicans absolutely hate. The R and the D need to go (or at least be realigned), but if you get rid of the D first this country will be far worse off than if the R is the first to go.

The socialist Bernie sanders?


What planet are you from?

---

The socialist Bernie sanders?


What planet are you from?

 

Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus.  Oklahomie is from some bizzare planet deep within the multiverse.

---

The argument is the key to hire wages is to create a demand for good workers, more jobs not regulation would force higher wages.

 

But it would be incredibly unlikely for the wages to reach what they are now.  Even with more competition for employees -- those jobs could not create a level of competition to raise the wages to the current minimum wage.  If they did, the competition would exist now as well.

 

Assuming (and I don't mean to presume anything about your opinions, rather going by what many libertarians beliefs are) that you are anti-union, you're also giving little bargaining power to the people.  Meaning as long as employers found workers that were willing to do the job for less, they could set the wages as low as they like.

 

And honestly I don't believe that businesses can't afford to hire more workers.  It's that they don't need them.  Which means that it wouldn't really create many jobs at all.  (And the jobs it did create would be sub-minimum wage, and mostly unlivable) 

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

I believe what FBT is trying to say is without minimum wage you would have more jobs available. Those jobs that would than exist and do not now would indeed be low paying jobs however it would change the amount of jobs available.


If say without minimum wage the economy added 100,000 (low paying) jobs that would mean the jobs right now would be competing harder to find good workers. Competition leads to higher wages.


The argument is the key to hire wages is to create a demand for good workers, more jobs not regulation would force higher wages.

I understand the theory behind it but I just dont understand how people can put all this faith in businesses to not take advantage of people. They do it now whenever they can, why would they do it with even less regulations/rules? Small local businesses will sure, in fact I see them doing it every day around town here. Small businesses wont thrive if you allow the market to run rampant. They will not last. 

---

I understand the theory behind it but I just dont understand how people can put all this faith in businesses to not take advantage of people. They do it now whenever they can, why would they do it with even less regulations/rules? Small local businesses will sure, in fact I see them doing it every day around town here. Small businesses wont thrive if you allow the market to run rampant. They will not last. 

 

Some economic theories are really just about belief. You either believe them and no mounting pile of evidence against them will dissuade those who already hold the belief or you simply don't believe them because you've never seen any proof that they are correct. In cases where the tenets have failed it's not the fault of the ideology, it's either the fault of those implementing it not going in hard enough, or outside forces causing problems.

 

Hence how we currently have republicans who are seen as liberal when in fact all ideology in the USA is further to the conservative side now than it's ever been, in spite of the unending failings of those beliefs to improve the socioeconomic situation of the vast majority in the country.

---

Some economic theories are really just about belief. You either believe them and no mounting pile of evidence against them will dissuade those who already hold the belief or you simply don't believe them because you've never seen any proof that they are correct. In cases where the tenets have failed it's not the fault of the ideology, it's either the fault of those implementing it not going in hard enough, or outside forces causing problems.

 

Hence how we currently have republicans who are seen as liberal when in fact all ideology in the USA is further to the conservative side now than it's ever been, in spite of the unending failings of those beliefs to improve the socioeconomic situation of the vast majority in the country.

 

This guy would give Saul Alinsky a run for his money.  You should write a book, man.  

---

This guy would give Saul Alinsky a run for his money.  You should write a book, man.  

 

Who says I haven't?

---

Who says I haven't?

 

*popcorn*

 

And the plot thickens!

---

But it would be incredibly unlikely for the wages to reach what they are now.  Even with more competition for employees -- those jobs could not create a level of competition to raise the wages to the current minimum wage.  If they did, the competition would exist now as well.

 

Assuming (and I don't mean to presume anything about your opinions, rather going by what many libertarians beliefs are) that you are anti-union, you're also giving little bargaining power to the people.  Meaning as long as employers found workers that were willing to do the job for less, they could set the wages as low as they like.

 

And honestly I don't believe that businesses can't afford to hire more workers.  It's that they don't need them.  Which means that it wouldn't really create many jobs at all.  (And the jobs it did create would be sub-minimum wage, and mostly unlivable) 

 

I'm only against Public Unions, because it's organized labor against the tax payer.

 

As a Libertarian I don't see any problems with private unions or individuals bargaining on a collective place, but it's when government get's involved that I object.

 

Again the relation to the amount of jobs and the wages paid is easily observable. If you look at the Median Income (that's the average) and also look at the Employment Ratio you'll see an undeniable correlation that as jobs decrease or become in demand by the worker the median income gradually decreases. As job's increase and workers become in demand by the employer median income increases.

 

 

I understand the theory behind it but I just dont understand how people can put all this faith in businesses to not take advantage of people. They do it now whenever they can, why would they do it with even less regulations/rules? Small local businesses will sure, in fact I see them doing it every day around town here. Small businesses wont thrive if you allow the market to run rampant. They will not last. 

 

It's not faith in business, it's an observation in the laws of economics. Supply and Demand, if you want to drive the price of something up (in this case wages) you need to create a demand ( in this case workers). The only way to create a demand for workers is to create more work. Regulation does not create work.

---