Minimum wage

Author: Alec

Posts

Total: 157
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,198
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Nemiroff
The haves are not the ones in control. They exercize power indirectly by using ad money to buy your vote without paying you. But the source of power is still our vote, if we as a collective choose to use it wisely.
Putin use of power is exercisng his influence over how the immoral racists in USA vote.

Im assuming USA. May be different elsewhere.
Some whites  are racist of people of color, all over the world. Some Russian whites  are racist towards the Chinese { yellow } that are gradually taking back Siberia from the Russians.




Nemiroff
Nemiroff's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 232
1
3
9
Nemiroff's avatar
Nemiroff
1
3
9
-->
@ebuc
What do you define as immoral racists?
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,198
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Nemiroff
What do you define as immoral racists?
OMG dude. Get yourself a dictionary for starters. 

Trump, Barr, Sessions and a long list of others going back 1000s of years define what and immoral racist is.  This is minimal brainer.

Nemiroff
Nemiroff's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 232
1
3
9
Nemiroff's avatar
Nemiroff
1
3
9
-->
@ebuc
A handful examples is not a definition. How about the average white person of various backgrounds?


ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,198
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Nemiroff
A handful examples is not a definition. How about the average white person of various backgrounds?
1} Did you check with dictionary as to how immoral and racist are defined? No? I didnt think so.

2} have you ever heard of the south in USA history and of the primary things south is associated with?

3} when martin luther king ---have you heard of him?-- went  north to Chicago, and was attacked in Circero{?} his public statement was, 'people in the south need to come north to learn how to hate'...i.m paraphrasing but is pretty close to that.

If after you done all of the above you still have doubts in how I define an immoral racist, I'm not sure what else there is to offer. Watch the documentary I watched regarding Siberia gradually being taken back by Chinese.




Nemiroff
Nemiroff's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 232
1
3
9
Nemiroff's avatar
Nemiroff
1
3
9
-->
@ebuc
Is there a reason you refuse to share your explicit definition of racism instead of random examples?

Is immoral racism define by a persons actions or their history?
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,198
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Nemiroff
Is there a reason you refuse to share your explicit definition of racism instead of random examples?
See dictionary for starters, I doubt I would disagree with any of those. Is there a reason you refuse to use a dictionary?

Is immoral racism define by a persons actions or their history?
Both as all is relevant to the degree of being an immoral racist.

Nemiroff
Nemiroff's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 232
1
3
9
Nemiroff's avatar
Nemiroff
1
3
9
-->
@ebuc
Dictionaries provide definitions for indivudal words. Immoral racist is 2 words, each with their own definition. I was asking for your defintion of the phrase. 

Do you believe nonwhite people can be racist?
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,073
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Nemiroff
If we're being picky about definition.

It could be argued that as immoral and racist are being regarded as separate words with separate meanings, then the phrase "immoral racist" could therefore be regarded as a double negative. Therefore a racist who is immoral is not necessarily a racist.

But we know what is actually being implied by the phrase "immoral racist" so why bother to be picky about definition?

Nemiroff
Nemiroff's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 232
1
3
9
Nemiroff's avatar
Nemiroff
1
3
9
-->
@ebuc
We do not know what you are *implying* by the phrase immoral racist as you refuse to define it. I have a feeling you define all white people as inherently racist and i suspect you are of the mind that certain people, like black people cannot be racist. I do not like to assume and have been trying to get clarification from you, but you refuse to define your own words. 

What do YOU mean by immoral racists because you seem to think that immoral racists are most americans.
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,198
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Nemiroff
Do you believe nonwhite people can be racist?
Duhh, of course the can and do.  Are you a fifth grader. Dare to be naive...Bucky Fuller
Nemiroff
Nemiroff's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 232
1
3
9
Nemiroff's avatar
Nemiroff
1
3
9
-->
@ebuc
You would be suprised.

Do you believe most white americans are racist because you feel all people are to some degree racist? I can agree with that, but i would disagree on the immoral part. Certainly not virtuous, but not deserving of being called out like that.
Christen
Christen's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 332
1
4
7
Christen's avatar
Christen
1
4
7
-->
@Nemiroff
What will people do if their wages drop?
They should figure out why their wages are dropping? Is it because they're doing something wrong? Is it because they are doing something that isn't making them much money in the first place?

if working a full time job, 40hrs a week, all month doesn't cover the cheapest rent anywhere near work, why bother going to work at all? If your situation is hopeless, why kill yourself trying?
If "working a full time job, 40hrs a week, all month," and then the minimum wage goes up to the point where your boss can't afford to keep paying you, you'll lose your job or have your hours reduced, making your problem worse since you now can't pay for anything.

Shouldn't work be worthwhile, rather then worthless?
Depends on what kind of "work" we're talking about. Working on something like a mud pie that very few people will want does not automatically make your work worthwhile. https://web.archive.org/web/20191021021901/https://www.fff.org/2018/05/14/marxs-fallacious-exploitation-theory/
What makes your work worthwhile is when you work on something valuable that you can make decent money from.

Jobs like McDonalds were meant for teenagers to get work experience and build up there resumes and whatnot, not for people to work full time for 40 hours a week and depend on for minimum wages. Too many people are depending on entry-level jobs as their only source of income. If you become dependent on those entry-level jobs as your main source of income and now you are struggling to pay for all your expenses, that's your fault/problem. Those kinds of jobs were not meant for people to live off of, only for work experience and resume-building.

How can you save when you live paycheck to paycheck?
It's called minimum wage for a reason. It's meant to be a wage that gives you with the bare minimum amount to survive. You don't have to like it, but it is what it is, and arbitrary laws and/or wage hikes won't really change that. What will change that is if you find a way to make more than the minimum wage so you can save. My problem is when people are trying to turn the minimum wage into a decent wage or an average wage like some of the wealthier workers by raising it every year.

tell me which spendings are excessive, and how much that saving will do?
There are youtube videos talking about the various things that people waste their money on.

Although it would be easier for me to actually pinpoint what the excessive spendings may be if you listed all of the things that said poor person was spending their money on.

We should make work worthwhile.
You don't "make work worthwhile". You DO some work that's worthwhile.
People these days complain about how they aren't making much money, even though they chose to pursue a career in stupid Lesbian Dance Theory and/or work a job that was meant for work experience and not for paying rent/mortgage every month.

Otherwise crime and homelessness will be the result
Crime is happening so much because of the ridiculously strict gun laws that keep good people from acquiring guns to stop the bad guys with guns. https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/blog/chicago-the-poster-child-for-failed-gun-control/#comment-4546854882
The cities with strict gun control laws are the most violent and have the most deaths in the country. Arming good, upstanding citizens that respect the law is how you stop criminals that defy the law. Criminals do not care about laws, so citizens need to protect themselves.

Homelessness is happening so much because of the ridiculous housing restrictions that prevent more housing from being constructed to get homeless people of the streets and house them. https://web.archive.org/web/20191021025651/https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-09-18/trump-housing-homeless-ben-carson-california-deregulation
President Trump’s big idea for fixing California’s homelessness crisis should look familiar to many prominent Democrats: Eliminate layers of regulation to make it easier and cheaper to build more housing.
Trump’s Council of Economic Advisors released a report blaming “decades of misguided and faulty policies” for putting too many restrictions on development and causing home prices to rise to unaffordable levels.

Take away minimum wage and people will likely riot.
Take away minimum wage and prices will likely go down, since employers no longer have to charge as much money for their goods to pay their employees. It's one of the reasons why stores like Walmart have many of their products sold at cheap prices.

Take away minimum wage and more people will likely be able to get hired, reducing the unemployment.

the problem can be solved easily with legislation and have the same end result
We've been increasing the minimum wage for decades, and people today are still homeless and/or poor. We can't just keep doing the same thing that isn't working over and over and expect a different result.

fair wages will be set one way or another
What good is setting a "fair wage" if it leads to you losing your job because your employer can't afford to pay you the new increased wage, because that's what happens, a lot?

Nemiroff
Nemiroff's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 232
1
3
9
Nemiroff's avatar
Nemiroff
1
3
9
-->
@Christen
Wow. So much to address. 
You say gun control is failing everywhere, yet cite only chicago, and from a blog. How about other cities like new york with record low crime rates. If their police chiefs themselves make any complaints is the abundance of guns smuggled from loose gun law states. Unless we start putting customs borders within our nation, looking at other national examples also prove you wrong.

But back to the minimum wage. Many of your concerns were covered when i responded to you in post #56. 

Rather then have an infinity conversation, ill focus on one point. Prices will go down, but people are already struggling with just rent (which is mostly based of land value, not labor, and will not fall). Cheap as the prices of goods may become, who are you selling it to?

Besides, how can we be pricing out labor at record unemployment? Do you think adding the tiny (compared to the overall workforce) homeless population is worth slashing wages? Most people are employed, and rising wages havent stopped that. Your point is as logical as a stationary earth. It works on paper, at first, but not in reality. Just like lowering taxes didnt create any jobs, raising minimum wage has never cost jobs. If your gonna try to prove me otherwise, please cite more then just the restaurant industry.
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Christen
It's called minimum wage for a reason. It's meant to be a wage that gives you with the bare minimum amount to survive. You don't have to like it, but it is what it is, and arbitrary laws and/or wage hikes won't really change that. What will change that is if you find a way to make more than the minimum wage so you can save. My problem is when people are trying to turn the minimum wage into a decent wage or an average wage like some of the wealthier workers by raising it every year.
You previously tied minimum wage to inflation, stating that if minimum wage increases, then the prices of everything else will increase, causing inflation. What you've failed to account for is the fact that inflation happens anyway, and prices are rising anyway, but minimum wage is failing to keep up.

Minimum wage had the most purchasing power at $1.60 in 1968 which would be $11.53 today if it had kept up with inflation. It's estimated that the average cost of living in the US is $16.07 and I'd be very interested to see a proposed budget, by you, of how a person can survive on minimum wage.
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Christen
Here. I'll even do some of the work for you.

You can get an apartment for $650/month in Columbus Ohio.
Monthly pass for public transportation: $85
Let's put food at $250/month.
Clothing: $50/month.
Health (insurance averages around $200)

At $7.25, it'll take you 170 hours to match that. There are an average of 173 work hours in a month, so you get 173 - 170 = 30 * $7.25 = $21.75. A whopping $21.75 left over.

And, remember, we haven't allocated any money for emergencies or other amenities that, while not strictly necessary for living, make it a hell of a lot better (phone, entertainment, etc.)

Oh, not to mention no money for savings or schooling, the exact things we'd need if we want to improve our situation and ever get into a better job.
Christen
Christen's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 332
1
4
7
Christen's avatar
Christen
1
4
7
-->
@Nemiroff
Nemiroff

You say gun control is failing everywhere
Gun control does not fail everywhere, sure, but you have to remember that it does not succeed everywhere either. If Canada, United Kingdom, and Australia can ban guns and it works for them, that's fine, but if our states are banning guns and it isn't working, we have to try something else. We can't keep doing the same useless thing over and over and expect a different result.
We have to stop focusing so much on excessive "gun control," and start focusing on why people are forming/joining gangs, and dealing drugs, in the first place. It could be because of poverty. It could be because they don't see any other option available to them besides joining a gang to survive. It could be because of homelessness. It could be because children are growing up with only 1 parent. It could be because of poor education. It could be because of poor healthcare. It could be because of some other horrible influence that we don't know about.
We're focusing only on gun control, and not on drug control, gang control, homelessness control, poverty control, wage control, illegal immigration control, unemployment control, depression control, or something different that could help us achieve better results.

How about other cities like new york with record low crime rates
New York is fairly strict on guns, yes, but is that the only reason crime is so low, or could it also be because our community is better, our culture is better, our education is better, our people are more mature, our government is better, our police force is better, our health care is better, or that our homelessness is not as bad?

the abundance of guns smuggled from loose gun law states
That's strange.
If the issue is guns brought in from those loose gun law states, then how come those loose gun law states themselves don't have high crime, like the strict gun law states smuggling the guns do?
Also, if those loose gun law states do not have high crime, why would they need to tack on extra "gun control" because of what's happening in a different state.
Plus, even if indiana, a state close to chicago, were to pump out more strict "gun control" like chicago did, wouldn't that lead to a chain of events where criminals simply go to a different place to get guns, forcing that place to heavily regulate guns, resulting in criminals just going to someplace like Mexico to get a gun, and then to a different place after that when Mexico starts regulating guns? Why should all these other places with low crime rates start pumping out gun control laws too, simply because of chicago? Why should everyone be punished because of the actions of criminals in a different state, instead of addressing that state with the high crime?

Prices will go down, but people are already struggling with just rent (which is mostly based of land value, not labor, and will not fall).
Rents are so high in the first place because of low supply and high demand. When you increase the supply (build more housing units) the price can go down. I've explained how this happens in California, where there are ridiculous restrictions/regulations that make it hard to build more housing units.

Cheap as the prices of goods may become, who are you selling it to?
To whoever wishes to buy them.

Most people are employed, and rising wages havent stopped that.
Raising the minimum wage won't hurt those who can afford to pay the new wage, but it hurts those who cannot afford to pay the new wage, since they would have to reduce hours, raise prices to transfer the cost to the consumer, or fire employees.

lowering taxes didnt create any jobs
Lowing taxes allows people to have more money to invest back into their business and do things like hire more employees. http://archive.fo/wCPSM

raising minimum wage has never cost jobs
Raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2025 would increase the pay of at least 17 million people, but also put 1.3 million Americans out of work, according to a study by the Congressional Budget Office

drafterman

What you've failed to account for is the fact that inflation happens anyway, and prices are rising anyway
So let's address why inflation is rising anyway, and why prices are rising away, as opposed to simply raising wages to hurt businesses that cannot afford to pay it.
Is it rising because the government is printing money? If so, then the government should stop printing money.
Is it rising because the government keeps borrowing money recklessly and increase it's national debt? If so, then that should be addressed, not the minimum wage.
Is it rising because the demand for things like housing/rood increases while supply stays the game? If so, then let's figure out how that supply can be increased.
Christen
Christen's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 332
1
4
7
Christen's avatar
Christen
1
4
7
-->
@drafterman
What you've failed to account for is the fact that inflation happens anyway, and prices are rising anyway
So let's address why inflation is rising anyway, and why prices are rising away, as opposed to simply raising wages to hurt businesses that cannot afford to pay it.
Is it rising because the government is printing money? If so, then the government should stop printing money.
Is it rising because the government keeps borrowing money recklessly and increasing it's national debt? If so, then that should be addressed, not the minimum wage.
Is it rising because the demand for things like housing/rood increases while supply stays the game? If so, then let's figure out how that supply can be increased.

Nemiroff
Nemiroff's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 232
1
3
9
Nemiroff's avatar
Nemiroff
1
3
9
-->
@Christen
Ill just say that chicago seems to be one of the few, if not the only place in usa where crime is rising, meanwhile many cities have strict gun control. With that out of the way, lets focus this thread to min wage.

Lowing taxes allows people to have more money to invest back into their business and do things like hire more employees. http://archive.fo/wCPSM

That sounds like an apriori theory, kinda like a stationary earth. We have minimal unemployment and previous min wage boosts resulted in no overall job loss, and coincided with massive gdp growth the following years. Evidence in my debate on min wage with athias.

Prices will go down, but people are already struggling with just rent (which is mostly based of land value, not labor, and will not fall).
Rents are so high in the first place because of low supply and high demand. When you increase the supply (build more housing units) the price can go down. I've explained how this happens in California, where there are ridiculous restrictions/regulations that make it hard to build more housing units.

Cheap as the prices of goods may become, who are you selling it to?
To whoever wishes to buy them.

The problem isnt a lack of people who desire the goods, its a lack of people that can afford to buy the goods. I believe that would have been clear if you would have quoted the previous sentence as well.

What ludicrous regulations? California is not the only place with an affordabe housing shortage, every major city has it. And i dont think regulations that keep contruction materials from falling on pedestrians or keep people from hammering 24 hours a day for several years when others live nearby as well is wrong. You have to protect the interests of all people in those densely packed cities. That means alot of rules and regulations. Without them, it would be dysfunctional chaos.
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Christen
You didn't address a single thing I said. You are not having this conversation honestly. Have a good day.
Christen
Christen's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 332
1
4
7
Christen's avatar
Christen
1
4
7
-->
@drafterman
Isn't the whole point of a minimum wage to give you the bare minimum amount of money needed to survive? Isn't that why it's called the minimum wage in the first place?

So it makes sense that you are not left with much to invest in health care, enemergencies, amenities, savings, or schooling, after paying for the bare minimum amount to survive, doesn't it? It makes sense to find better work or work more hours if you want more in return, right?

Then if you want to just give out more money per hour so that people can afford themselves all of these extra things, why bother calling it the minimum wage? Why not start calling it the comfortable wage or something, where you get enough to live very comfortably instead of getting enough to afford the bare minimum amount of needs to survive.

It seems like people are trying to twist the whole definition of a minimum wage now, to mean something it's not.
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Christen
Isn't the whole point of a minimum wage to give you the bare minimum amount of money needed to survive? Isn't that why it's called the minimum wage in the first place?
No, it isn't. The "minimum" part of "minimum wage" means that is the minimum employers are allowed to pay you.

So it makes sense that you are not left with much to invest in health care, enemergencies, amenities, savings, or schooling, after paying for the bare minimum amount to survive, doesn't it?
No, that doesn't make sense. You cannot survive without health or emergency savings, nor can you ever hope to get out of that situation without savings or schooling. The current minimum wage is not enough to survive off of, let alone attempt to work your way to a better job.

It makes sense to find better work or work more hours if you want more in return, right?
Yes, but that is impossible to do when you can't afford to better yourself by doing things like going to school.

Then if you want to just give out more money per hour so that people can afford themselves all of these extra things, why bother calling it the minimum wage?
Because it should be the minimum wage employers are allowed to pay you.

Why not start calling it the comfortable wage or something, where you get enough to live very comfortably instead of getting enough to afford the bare minimum amount of needs to survive.
I haven't said anything about people living comfortably. You're putting words in my mouth, please don't do that.

It seems like people are trying to twist the whole definition of a minimum wage now, to mean something it's not.

It seems like you don't know what the term is, its purpose or its history. It also seems like you've never had to live off of a minimum wage job, either.
Christen
Christen's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 332
1
4
7
Christen's avatar
Christen
1
4
7
-->
@drafterman
What if I want to work for someone for less than the minimum wage? What if I agree with the employer to work for a lower price just to get some work experience and build up my resume?

Why does the government have to step in and make it illegal for me to acquire work experience and build up my resume?

The current minimum wage is not enough to survive off of
Weren't minimum wage jobs like McDonalds meant for young adults to get work experience and build up their resumes, as opposed to surviving off of?
Weren't minimum wage jobs like McDonalds meant to serve as a stepping stone to a much better, much higher paying job?
Why should I be blocked from working someplace and gaining work experience simply because someone else can't "survive" off of it?
What if I'm not currently concerned with survival, and only concerned with gaining work experience?

let alone attempt to work your way to a better job.
Why does the government have to force my employer to pay me an arbitrary minimum wage for me to gain work experience to get a better job? Couldn't I work for whatever the employer and I agree to, and still gain work experience?

Another major problem with minimum wages you should know about is that minimum wages needed to survive can vary from person to person, and the governments that set these minimum wages often don't take that into account.
Let's say I live by myself, working for 7.25 an hour, and I choose to delay myself gratification, and purchase the cheapest things, so I can save every possible dollar to achieve a better life later on.
Now let's say my next door neighbor makes the poor decision to have some kids that they can't afford to raise.
If the government raises the minimum wage, they could have that extra money to raise their kids, but I could lose my job if my employer can't afford to pay me that much, so I would suffer.
People with children are going to need a higher minimum wage than those without, so you can't have a one-size-fits-all minimum wage that works for everyone.
Why should I suffer because of their poor choices? Most importantly, what if they end up losing their job too, since their employer also cannot afford to pay them the minimum wage? Now we both suffer, and for what? Minimum wage that has not helped either of us?

The best way to help these poor people is by figuring out why costs are rising so much and then figuring out how to bring costs back down, such as by increasing the supply of things.
Why put people at risk of losing their jobs due to an unafforable wage increase, when you can address the root of the problem, which is the rising prices, and low supply of things like housing units?
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Christen
What if I want to work for someone for less than the minimum wage? What if I agree with the employer to work for a lower price just to get some work experience and build up my resume?
If it is one of the exemptions to minimum wage law, then you are allowed to do that. Nothing in stopping you. In fact, nothing is stopping you from working less than minimum wage, just employers from paying you less than minimum wage. If you want to have less money you can always donate it or throw it away.

Why does the government have to step in and make it illegal for me to acquire work experience and build up my resume?
It isn't illegal to acquire work experience and build up your resume.

Weren't minimum wage jobs like McDonalds meant for young adults to get work experience and build up their resumes, as opposed to surviving off of?Weren't minimum wage jobs like McDonalds meant to serve as a stepping stone to a much better, much higher paying job?
Why should I be blocked from working someplace and gaining work experience simply because someone else can't "survive" off of it?
You said the minimum wage should be survivable. Are you retracting that claim?

What if I'm not currently concerned with survival, and only concerned with gaining work experience?
Then you die.

Why does the government have to force my employer to pay me an arbitrary minimum wage for me to gain work experience to get a better job?
Because if the government didn't do that, they wouldn't pay you enough to be able to get a better job.

Couldn't I work for whatever the employer and I agree to, and still gain work experience?
As long as that agreed amount is compliant with the law, yes.

Another major problem with minimum wages you should know about is that minimum wages needed to survive can vary from person to person, and the governments that set these minimum wages often don't take that into account.
I agree! As it is, the minimum wage right now isn't enough for anyone to survive off of.

Let's say I live by myself, working for 7.25 an hour, and I choose to delay myself gratification, and purchase the cheapest things, so I can save every possible dollar to achieve a better life later on.
Then you still wouldn't be able to survive off of minimum wage.

Now let's say my next door neighbor makes the poor decision to have some kids that they can't afford to raise.
If the government raises the minimum wage, they could have that extra money to raise their kids, but I could lose my job if my employer can't afford to pay me that much, so I would suffer.
People with children are going to need a higher minimum wage than those without, so you can't have a one-size-fits-all minimum wage that works for everyone.
Why should I suffer because of their poor choices? Most importantly, what if they end up losing their job too, since their employer also cannot afford to pay them the minimum wage? Now we both suffer, and for what? Minimum wage that has not helped either of us?
Higher minimum wages haven't increased unemployment. Your fears are unfounded.

The best way to help these poor people is by figuring out why costs are rising so much and then figuring out how to bring costs back down, such as by increasing the supply of things.
Sure. In the mean time, until we find the source of the problems and fix them, we should increase minimum wage.

Why put people at risk of losing their jobs due to an unafforable wage increase, when you can address the root of the problem, which is the rising prices, and low supply of things like housing units?
No one is suggesting putting people out of jobs due to an unaffordable wage increase.

Christen
Christen's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 332
1
4
7
Christen's avatar
Christen
1
4
7
-->
@drafterman
@Nemiroff
nothing is stopping you from working less than minimum wage, just employers from paying you less than minimum wage. If you want to have less money you can always donate it or throw it away.
"Just employers from paying" me less than the minimum wage?
Does that mean I can have my employer pay me the minimum wage while I "donate" some of what I'm paid back to my employer in order to circumvent the arbitrary minimum wage law?

You said the minimum wage should be survivable. Are you retracting that claim?
You said "At $7.25, it'll take you 170 hours to match" costs for living expenses, and that, after paying for all living expenses like food, clothing, and rent, you would "get 173 - 170 = 30 * $7.25 = $21.75. A whopping $21.75 left over."
That means that the minimum wage is already "survivable" and that it does not need to be raised, since that's all it needs to be. Minimum and Survivable. Except, you want it to be more "survivable" since $21.75 isn't "survivable" enough? How much more "survivable" does the minimum wage have to be?

Sure minimum wage jobs can be survivable and be enough to allow people to afford to save and have health insurance, but they should also be good for young people to start gaining work experience. If you raise it to try and make it "more survivable," then it will be harder for young people to work for low pay and get work experience to get to a better job where they can get paid a much better wage.

That's another problem with minimum wage increases. They discourage/disincentivize people from working harder or looking for better jobs that pay more. If my current minimum wage is 10 dollars an hour, and I want to be paid 20 dollars an hour, I could see if I could work harder to earn more money, or see if there are better jobs available that pay more, but if the minimum wage gets raised to 20 dollars an hour, then there's no reason for me to work harder or find a better job since I'm already getting paid more money not because I worked harder or found a better job, but because the government randomly decided that I should be paid more, and that's assuming that I don't lose my job, have my hours reduced, or have prices raised to compensate for the wage increase.
Minimum wage increases should reward people for working harder and making smarter life choices, as well as encourage them to use that extra money to save up, not promote laziness.
When you raise wages because people worked harder, saved up every possible penny, or made smarter life choices, that encourages them to keep doing those things. When you raise wages because the government said so, that encourages them to rely on the government to keep saying so.
It's also insulting to those that did work harder, and to those that demonstrated that they deserve to be paid 20 dollars instead of 10. They worked hard for their wage increase, while those that were lazy and/or making poor life choices still get a wage increase.


What if I'm not currently concerned with survival, and only concerned with gaining work experience?
Then you die.
I guess I should have phrased that question better.
Let's say I'm in high school or college part-time, going to enter the workforce pretty soon after I graduate, and I want to start gaining work experience early on, and make a little money while I'm at it. I still have my family to take care of me, but pretty soon, I'm gonna have to take care of myself.
Why does the government have to make it illegal for me to gain work experience, earn a few dollars, and be able to use that experience and money to get into a good job that pays me a decent living wage later on, simply because the amount that my employer and I agree to be paid is not equal to or greater than the random arbitrary amount that the government established?

if the government didn't do that, they wouldn't pay you enough to be able to get a better job.
What if $7.25 an hour is all I need to be able to get a better job, and the government decides to raise it anyway because someone else needs more money since they made the poor decision to have kids they couldn't afford, putting me at risk of losing my job, having my hours reduced, or having prices go up?

Also, if the whole purpose behind raising the minimum wage is so that people can get a better job, why can't the government bring the minimum wage back down after people get better jobs? Why does the government have to keep increasing it constantly?

Not only that, but, even if your minimum wage does go up so you can now afford savings and a higher education to get a better job, wouldn't other's also raise prices too, so you now still cannot afford said savings and higher education? If I am left with $21.75 after paying all my expenses, and then I get a wage increase so that I am left with $43.50, wouldn't the price of other things also go up to compensate for the wage increase, so I still wouldn't be able to save much?
Christen
Christen's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 332
1
4
7
Christen's avatar
Christen
1
4
7
Higher minimum wages haven't increased unemployment.
Even if raising the minimum wage does not lead to job loss, doesn't it lead to employers reducing hours or raising prices to transfer the extra cost to the consumer?

Also, if raising the minimum wage to $15 does not increase unemployment, then why stop at $15? Why not raise the minimum wage to a thousand dollars an hour and bring everyone out of poverty?

until we find the source of the problems and fix them, we should increase minimum wage.
I've already identified and explained some of the sources of these problems with Nemiroff.

We need to build more affordable housing, especially in places like California, which will increase the supply and lower the costs of rents. 
We need to get rid of as many of the illegal aliens in this country as we can so we can stop wasting tax dollars on them, and instead put that money towards helping our poor citizens. http://archive.fo/k7kBy
We need to improve our education system so we don't have so many people graduating high school and/or college, not knowing any valuable life skills that can help them get into a good paying job. http://archive.fo/XgA9e
We also need to do something about the government's out-of-control spending, and put more of that money towards helping poor people improve their situation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0LYm2fIEeo

What ludicrous regulations? California is not the only place with an affordabe housing shortage, every major city has it. And i dont think regulations that keep contruction materials from falling on pedestrians or keep people from hammering 24 hours a day for several years when others live nearby as well is wrong.
Some people on Reddit were talking about "a famous saga in San Francisco where a laundromat owner wants to replace the laundromat with an apartment building. The government has blocked the development at every step of the process, including trying to declare the laundromat a historic structure, enforcing a shadow study and then blocking development because a new building would cast a shadow." https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/comments/b1uxfi/what_are_the_causes_of_californias_housing/eiogwvy/

They also talked about "how insane California regulations were, some guy detailed the process in a shipping container home video. Cost more to acquire the permits than the entire build did." https://www.reddit.com/r/GoldandBlack/comments/b3uwrv/if_you_were_ever_wondering_how_insane_california/

This article also talks about how most of California is "zoned to limit building height to 40 feet." https://www.businessinsider.com/san-francisco-density-thought-experiment-2014-5
Also, this is what 40 feet looks like compared to the size of humans. https://archive.fo/jfrfe/2963ea1357c84cae0bf381b8040afcb142c1a3f2.gif

Those are just a few examples some of California's "ludicrous regulations".
It's one thing to regulate falling construction materials and excessive hammering noise, but how do you justify a useless shadow study, a so-called historic structure, making costs to acquire all these permits more than the building itself, and limiting building height to the size of a dinosaur, for no reason?

drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Christen
@Christen,

Does that mean I can have my employer pay me the minimum wage while I "donate" some of what I'm paid back to my employer in order to circumvent the arbitrary minimum wage law?
Once the money is in your pocket it's yours to do with as you please.

You said "At $7.25, it'll take you 170 hours to match" costs for living expenses, and that, after paying for all living expenses like food, clothing, and rent, you would "get 173 - 170 = 30 * $7.25 = $21.75. A whopping $21.75 left over."That means that the minimum wage is already "survivable" and that it does not need to be raised, since that's all it needs to be. Minimum and Survivable. Except, you want it to be more "survivable" since $21.75 isn't "survivable" enough?
I provided those numbers to highlight the fact that it isn't survivable. Those numbers were cherry picked from a place reported as having a very low cost of living. Everywhere else, it's much higher.

How much more "survivable" does the minimum wage have to be?
For the US, studies put that around $16/hr.

Sure minimum wage jobs can be survivable and be enough to allow people to afford to save and have health insurance, but they should also be good for young people to start gaining work experience.
No, currently minimum wage jobs aren't survivable. That's the point.

If you raise it to try and make it "more survivable," then it will be harder for young people to work for low pay and get work experience to get to a better job where they can get paid a much better wage.
That's another problem with minimum wage increases. They discourage/disincentivize people from working harder or looking for better jobs that pay more. If my current minimum wage is 10 dollars an hour, and I want to be paid 20 dollars an hour, I could see if I could work harder to earn more money, or see if there are better jobs available that pay more, but if the minimum wage gets raised to 20 dollars an hour, then there's no reason for me to work harder or find a better job since I'm already getting paid more money not because I worked harder or found a better job, but because the government randomly decided that I should be paid more, and that's assuming that I don't lose my job, have my hours reduced, or have prices raised to compensate for the wage increase.
You made this up.

Minimum wage increases should reward people for working harder and making smarter life choices, as well as encourage them to use that extra money to save up, not promote laziness.
No, minimum wage increases should implemented to keep it consistent with the cost of living. If the cost of living increases, the minimum wage should increase. It's not a reward, like a raise or bonus.

When you raise wages because people worked harder, saved up every possible penny, or made smarter life choices, that encourages them to keep doing those things. When you raise wages because the government said so, that encourages them to rely on the government to keep saying so.
And when you fail to raise minimum wage you're keeping them reliant on the government anyway, from your own link:

"People earning minimum wage are qualified for free health insurance, food stamps, free lunch at school for kids, earned income credit, and multiple other benefits."

It's also insulting to those that did work harder, and to those that demonstrated that they deserve to be paid 20 dollars instead of 10. They worked hard for their wage increase, while those that were lazy and/or making poor life choices still get a wage increase.
You made this up.

Let's say I'm in high school or college part-time, going to enter the workforce pretty soon after I graduate, and I want to start gaining work experience early on, and make a little money while I'm at it. I still have my family to take care of me, but pretty soon, I'm gonna have to take care of myself.
Minimum wage laws aren't just for jobs intended for teenagers and young people looking to get a start on their career. You just made that up.

Why does the government have to make it illegal for me to gain work experience, earn a few dollars, and be able to use that experience and money to get into a good job that pays me a decent living wage later on, simply because the amount that my employer and I agree to be paid is not equal to or greater than the random arbitrary amount that the government established?

Also the "random arbitrary amount" is something you made up.


What if $7.25 an hour is all I need to be able to get a better job,
It isn't.

and the government decides to raise it anyway because someone else needs more money since they made the poor decision to have kids they couldn't afford, putting me at risk of losing my job, having my hours reduced, or having prices go up?
That isn't how this works.

Also, if the whole purpose behind raising the minimum wage is so that people can get a better job, why can't the government bring the minimum wage back down after people get better jobs? Why does the government have to keep increasing it constantly?
Because the cost of living has continually increased.

Not only that, but, even if your minimum wage does go up so you can now afford savings and a higher education to get a better job, wouldn't other's also raise prices too, so you now still cannot afford said savings and higher education? If I am left with $21.75 after paying all my expenses, and then I get a wage increase so that I am left with $43.50, wouldn't the price of other things also go up to compensate for the wage increase, so I still wouldn't be able to save much?
No, since the implementation of minimum wages in the 1930's, this scenario hasn't panned out.
Christen
Christen's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 332
1
4
7
Christen's avatar
Christen
1
4
7
-->
@drafterman
Those numbers were cherry picked from a place reported as having a very low cost of living. Everywhere else, it's much higher.
For the US, studies put that around $16/hr.
No, currently minimum wage jobs aren't survivable. That's the point.
$16? So why are people advocating for $15 an hour then, and not 16?
Also, if higher minimum wages are supposed to help those struggling, why are governments waiting until 2030 to raise that wage? https://www.michamber.com/michigan-chamber-supports-senate-changes-minimum-wage-law

minimum wage increases should implemented to keep it consistent with the cost of living.
Cost of living for who? The 1 guy who lives by himself, buys only cheap stuff, saves every possible penny, lives in the cheapest apartment possible, or the family with 4 kids who needs money for a nice car, nice clothes, money to pay for those kids' college tuition, and money to live in a higher quality apartment?
Like I said, not everyone needs the exact same amount of money to survive, and "cost of living" can vary from family to family. There is no such thing as being "consistent with the cost of living" unless you either 1) make the minimum wage match the cost of living of the family with the highest cost of living, or 2) calculate the cost of living for every family in the state/country and make the minimum wage the average cost of living for all of them.

It isn't.
But do you really need that much money to learn the necessary skills to get a better job? With a cheap smartphone, with internet/youtube, you can learn a wide variety of different skills for a better paying job. You don't necessarily need to go to an expensive college for all that.

the cost of living has continually increased.
Which I've already given some solutions to, in post #86 https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/529/post_links/123734

drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Christen
$16? So why are people advocating for $15 an hour then, and not 16?
Because the things we are talking about aren't strictly quantifiable and not everyone agrees on what the "right" amount is.

Also, if higher minimum wages are supposed to help those struggling, why are governments waiting until 2030 to raise that wage? https://www.michamber.com/michigan-chamber-supports-senate-changes-minimum-wage-law
They aren't.

Cost of living for who? The 1 guy who lives by himself, buys only cheap stuff, saves every possible penny, lives in the cheapest apartment possible, or the family with 4 kids who needs money for a nice car, nice clothes, money to pay for those kids' college tuition, and money to live in a higher quality apartment?
No one is arguging that the minimum wage should support buying nice cars, nice clothes, children's college tutition and high quality apartments. You made that up.

Like I said, not everyone needs the exact same amount of money to survive, and "cost of living" can vary from family to family. There is no such thing as being "consistent with the cost of living" unless you either 1) make the minimum wage match the cost of living of the family with the highest cost of living, or 2) calculate the cost of living for every family in the state/country and make the minimum wage the average cost of living for all of them.
Sure, I'm fine with either of those.


But do you really need that much money to learn the necessary skills to get a better job?
Yes.

With a cheap smartphone, with internet/youtube, you can learn a wide variety of different skills for a better paying job. You don't necessarily need to go to an expensive college for all that.
I provided my numbers to show why the minimum wage isn't livable. And that didn't include Internet connection or a phone plan. Please provide your budget that shows a livable lifestyle on minimum wage alone that includes those things.

Which I've already given some solutions to, in post #86 https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/529/post_links/123734
I will agree that if the need for a higher minimum wage is eliminated, then it shouldn't be raised. But that need hasn't, in fact, been eliminated and implementation of those solutions would take time. Until we actually reach that state of affairs, raise the minimum wage.

Christen
Christen's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 332
1
4
7
Christen's avatar
Christen
1
4
7
-->
@drafterman
not everyone agrees on what the "right" amount is.
How can the government set the correct minimum wage when nobody can agree what the correct minimum wage is? How do they know if they're setting the correct minimum wage? How can we trust that they know what they're doing if nobody can agree on it? 

I provided my numbers to show why the minimum wage isn't livable. And that didn't include Internet connection or a phone plan.
You say this, but then say:

when you fail to raise minimum wage you're keeping them reliant on the government anyway, from your own link:

"People earning minimum wage are qualified for free health insurance, food stamps, free lunch at school for kids, earned income credit, and multiple other benefits."
So there's no need to raise the minimum wage then! The minimum wage is already enough to afford people housing, clothing, and transportation, while the government covers food and health costs. The minimum wage already is "livable," public libraries exist, and public education is free until 12th grade, so even without a phone, you could still get a library card, use their library computers, and borrow books to read and learn valuable things that can help you improve your situation.
Is there something else missing that isn't covered by the minimum wage nor the government?
Why raise the minimum wage and risk hurting those businesses with already-thin profit margins? They will have to fire employees, reduce hours, and/or raise costs. If those employees lose their jobs, they will be worse off, since they not cannot work and have to depend on others even more. Many businesses are even replacing workers with automation/robots.
Those people won't be able to earn money to afford anything, their work won't be worth at least the minimum wage, it will be illegal for anyone to hire them, and they will be screwed.
Those who still manage to keep their jobs would have their hours reduced or prices raised, in order for the business to stay in profit.
If too many people get fired, or if prices are raised too much, the entire business could go out of business.

What does a minimum wage increase do for all those homeless people in America? They already can't get jobs since they won't get hired. Many of them are drug addicts too. https://www.foxnews.com/us/seattle-homeless-crisis-historic-cemetery-overrun-with-drugs-and-prostitution-amid-worsening-problem.amp
You can't say "oh, if only they had higher wages"
Increasing the minimum wage only covers up the problem. It doesn't fix it. We've been increasing wages to "keep up with costs of living" for decades, and we have to try something else.