Salary idea from John Stewart. . July 29, 2013 whars. towa,. t/ titians (golfers? Why not "'" ise the minimum. wage to a hundred thousand. dollars? u xiii 1 u 5 Salary idea from John Stewart July 29 2013 whars towa t/ titians (golfers? Why not "'" ise the minimum wage to a hundred thousand dollars? u xiii 1 5
Upload
Login or register
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (460)
[ 460 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
#2 - quitethedelicacy
Reply +507 123456789123345869
(07/08/2014) [-]
User avatar #4 to #2 - rocksygen
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/08/2014) [-]
How long have you been waiting to use that?
User avatar #17 to #4 - quitethedelicacy
Reply +79 123456789123345869
(07/08/2014) [-]
Far too long.
#20 to #17 - fecal
Reply +18 123456789123345869
(07/08/2014) [-]
it is, however, glorious as ****
User avatar #334 to #4 - ciacheczko
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
About (0,33 s) according to google image search, where it's the very fist pic for keyphrase "cocaine unicorn".
#172 to #2 - obxgamer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
Did you think think that picture would be relevant?
#218 to #2 - wardogmac
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
There's an image for everything.
There's an image for everything.

#315 to #218 - greyhoundfd
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
Why wouldn't there be?
User avatar #22 to #2 - sciencexplain
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(07/08/2014) [-]
Would be better if they were snorting coke through a twizzler.
#1 - Daeiros
Reply +310 123456789123345869
(07/08/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#73 to #1 - anon id: cd448fd8
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/08/2014) [-]
why is that a gif
User avatar #38 to #1 - jaggedherp
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(07/08/2014) [-]
I finally realized where the "nobody ever pays me in x" comes from thanks to you. It was really confusing a few years ago when images were appearing with captions like that.
#9 - heartlessrobot
Reply +206 123456789123345869
(07/08/2014) [-]
I remember my little cousin figured out how to fix the world economy.
"Make it illegal to make stuff cost more, then raise how much you have to pay people"
User avatar #77 to #9 - infinitereaper
Reply -23 123456789123345869
(07/08/2014) [-]
The sad thing is that he's right.
#189 to #77 - durkadurka
Reply +16 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
Oh man, this is just rich.
Oh man, this is just rich.
User avatar #197 to #189 - infinitereaper
Reply -12 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
You guys really have no idea. This goes back to the 50s and such, where minimum wage, worker benefits and labor unions were at all time highs, in fact, around those decades the minimum wage was higher than it is today and the economy was all the better for it. There has been a lot of deregulation and taxation changes, all of it points to one thing: record breaking profits for the rich, also look at the stagnation of worker pay in respect to profits, add in a little outsourcing, not to mention inflation, ah economics.

The sad thing is that all you people are pretended to be smart and acting like you know the situation, but you don't. You're just regurgitating popular opinion and **** you see on CNN.

This is a complicated subject, and ******** is everywhere, unfortunately, most people are too ignorant to know the difference.
#205 to #197 - durkadurka
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
Are you trying to say that things were better than, SOLEY based on some arbitrary wage floor? Are you seriously trying to communicate this to me through a massive, insanely complex system that lets you instantly communicate with almost anyone on the face of the Earth? ******* really?   
   
Again, you're implying correlation is causation and convincing yourself that you have solid fact. You're literally looking at a handful of economic conditions and saying one must be causing the others. Do you understand just how flawed this kind of reasoning is? It just doesn't hold up to any scrutiny.    
   
Without getting too much into it, I'll point out that outsourcing and inflation are DIRECT results of government policy. Also note that the amount of regulation is STILL staggering.    
   
"hurr durr you're just regurgitating". Or I don't know, maybe I've read up and learned about these things because they interest me?    
Instantly accusing anyone you talk to of not knowing what they're talking about just makes you seem awfully defensive. I still find this highly amusing.
Are you trying to say that things were better than, SOLEY based on some arbitrary wage floor? Are you seriously trying to communicate this to me through a massive, insanely complex system that lets you instantly communicate with almost anyone on the face of the Earth? ******* really?

Again, you're implying correlation is causation and convincing yourself that you have solid fact. You're literally looking at a handful of economic conditions and saying one must be causing the others. Do you understand just how flawed this kind of reasoning is? It just doesn't hold up to any scrutiny.

Without getting too much into it, I'll point out that outsourcing and inflation are DIRECT results of government policy. Also note that the amount of regulation is STILL staggering.

"hurr durr you're just regurgitating". Or I don't know, maybe I've read up and learned about these things because they interest me?
Instantly accusing anyone you talk to of not knowing what they're talking about just makes you seem awfully defensive. I still find this highly amusing.
#257 to #205 - swagbot
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
GUYS JESUS ****, STOP!! (infinitereaper too)

Do you want to get to the bottom of this, or do you just want a *********?

Chill out and listen:

The main problems with the U.S. economy (and others) are the following:

1. We produce (basically) NO material wealth nowadays. Whose fault? Government rules, and a Beta, weak-titty citizenry that doesn't just DISOBEY and BUILD FACTORIES ANYWAYS.
1.a. inb4 "We have a Tech Sector" I work in the tech sector and i see how it works! Tech companies are supposed to 'add value' by increasing people's Productivity - but there is little of that innovation going on nowadays - its just investor groups building Companies that are Bubbles of Hype, and then selling then for a large IPO.

2. Federal Reserve is printing money at asinine rates, and NOBODY is holding them accountable! Destruction of a Currency destroys the very core of a modern society. And once again, WE are letting them get away with it.

3. A select few people have control over the price of Oil - the true Lifeblood of our entire Economy. By raising the price to the maximum-tolerable level, they fleece us of money and lower the standard of living for all. Did you know that the U.S. overtook Saudi Arabia as the Largest Oil Exporter in the world back in (2012, i believe)? Where's all that oil and money going, and why?

Not saying we 'Deserve Oil' or anything - that's reactionary Socialist missing-the-point ********.

I AM saying...
1. Life has gotten worse since the '50s because Our Citizenry, Government, then Business Culture have become sick. Enterprises that once built things are more interested in EXTRACTING than BUILDING.
2. The fault of this eventually lay the the American people and their inaction.

FYI, I don't give a **** what FOX or CNN or MSNBC say - I unplugged them four years ago and have been thinking clearer each day ever since.
#369 to #205 - camzore
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
Do you have a folder specifically for laughing black men? I like it.
Do you have a folder specifically for laughing black men? I like it.
#379 to #369 - durkadurka
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
Haha I wish. Here's something to add a little variety.
Haha I wish. Here's something to add a little variety.
#253 to #205 - swagbot
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #206 to #205 - durkadurka
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
*much better then
User avatar #216 to #205 - infinitereaper
Reply -8 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
No, but what most people don't realize is that worker pay has stagnated greatly with the growth of the economy, adjusted for inflation we are worse off then we were in the 50s. If you know anything about the global economy you know it's not healthy-oh you know what-why do I even try.

The problem is that this is a complicated and important subject, and I'm trying to simplify it to be people who don't actually know ****.

But it's cool, you're all ******* experts.
User avatar #345 to #216 - awesomanium
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
A word of advice
Don't act like you're the smartest person in the room, all the time
Chances are, you aren't
and chances are, people will hate you for your arrogance
#373 to #345 - infinitereaper
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
I don't even think of myself as smart, it's everyone else who thinks they are smart, which leads us to the irony, most people aren't that smart, and most people are often wrong about ******** popular opinions with little basis or skewed by misconceptions.   
   
In a room full of idiots and a few smart people who is right?    
The majority or the minority?    
   
People hate me? Yes. Of course they do. I don't give a **** about people's egos or politically correct ********, I care about the truth.   
People keep talking about **** they don't know **** about   
   
I'm not arrogant, too many people are just ignorant. Ignorance is a poison, and on a small scale, this is a perfect example of why our world is going to complete ****.
I don't even think of myself as smart, it's everyone else who thinks they are smart, which leads us to the irony, most people aren't that smart, and most people are often wrong about ******** popular opinions with little basis or skewed by misconceptions.

In a room full of idiots and a few smart people who is right?
The majority or the minority?

People hate me? Yes. Of course they do. I don't give a **** about people's egos or politically correct ********, I care about the truth.
People keep talking about **** they don't know **** about

I'm not arrogant, too many people are just ignorant. Ignorance is a poison, and on a small scale, this is a perfect example of why our world is going to complete ****.
User avatar #319 to #77 - yuukoku
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
So, if business owners can't increase prices, then isn't that, y'know, anything but capitalism?

Wouldn't that, y'know, disallow any fluctuation of the economy based on supply and demand?

Wouldn't it just be plain wrong to tell people that they can't run their businesses the way they want to?

More government intervention =/= problem solving

-3/10 try harder infinitereaper
User avatar #372 to #319 - infinitereaper
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
Yeah because deregulation is wonderful, because it didn't directly contribute to the greatest financial disaster in human history where everyone got bailed out, it's not like it led to the mergers of financial corps which became "too big to fail" it's not like looking back at when regulation and taxes on the rich were at all time highs, it's not like minimum wage wasn't better than today, when the cost of living was down, and the middle class more healthy and vibrant, it's not like people don't understand the difference, it's not like the reason small businesses have it rough is because they cannot compete with the monopolies of big business, it's not like this or that at all.

Corporations can basically do whatever the **** they want these days. And do.
#374 to #372 - yuukoku
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
You think I can't observe what's going on around me? Yeah, I get that corporations control everything. It's always been that way, it's just that the ones in power have worn different faces. The world works in cycles.   
   
Used to be the Catholic Church that controlled everything. We dealt with those problems with Enlightenment ideas and fought hard and then they fell out of power. After that, power spread out to all the European governments until most of the power went to the British Empire. Same thing happened; American Revolution because Enlightment, revolutions across the world, etc. Then, the power spread across every westernized nation, then that power accumulated in the Robber Barons, then it spread to all the nations that have nuclear capabilities, and now it's in corporations. See what's happening here?    
   
Injustice always happens when power and influence accumulates in one entity. Sooner or later, corporations will fail and influence will spread out to something more broad and the cycle starts all over again.    
   
Yeah, I get that people with entire families can't support themselves on minimum wage. Well, they shouldn't have had kids before they can support themselves, or they should expect that if businesses must pay them more, they're going to have to let a lot of them go/expect more output from workers to compensate or else they'll have to start raising prices. If this doesn't happen along with several other things  keeping the already mob-like unions together without pissing off the masses, maintaining a steady flow of tax dollars to the government without pissing off the masses (which would not happen when people have no jobs), dispersion of wealth (which just wouldn't happen until **** hits the fan) , **** falls faster than the cycle intends and that creates a longer period of chaos. Quality of life will drop rapidly due to lack of these corporations that's how you get a lot of people killed.
You think I can't observe what's going on around me? Yeah, I get that corporations control everything. It's always been that way, it's just that the ones in power have worn different faces. The world works in cycles.

Used to be the Catholic Church that controlled everything. We dealt with those problems with Enlightenment ideas and fought hard and then they fell out of power. After that, power spread out to all the European governments until most of the power went to the British Empire. Same thing happened; American Revolution because Enlightment, revolutions across the world, etc. Then, the power spread across every westernized nation, then that power accumulated in the Robber Barons, then it spread to all the nations that have nuclear capabilities, and now it's in corporations. See what's happening here?

Injustice always happens when power and influence accumulates in one entity. Sooner or later, corporations will fail and influence will spread out to something more broad and the cycle starts all over again.

Yeah, I get that people with entire families can't support themselves on minimum wage. Well, they shouldn't have had kids before they can support themselves, or they should expect that if businesses must pay them more, they're going to have to let a lot of them go/expect more output from workers to compensate or else they'll have to start raising prices. If this doesn't happen along with several other things keeping the already mob-like unions together without pissing off the masses, maintaining a steady flow of tax dollars to the government without pissing off the masses (which would not happen when people have no jobs), dispersion of wealth (which just wouldn't happen until **** hits the fan) , **** falls faster than the cycle intends and that creates a longer period of chaos. Quality of life will drop rapidly due to lack of these corporations that's how you get a lot of people killed.
#375 to #374 - infinitereaper
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
Indeed it works in cycles. And we're reaching the end of another one, but people forget that sustainability is an illusion. The world is finite and civilization unsustainable. Few people realize or even know what that means.   
   
Here is something interested, around the 50s, tax on the wealthy was high, regulation was high, minimum wage (adjusted for inflation) was higher than it was today, and their were a bunch of labor unions. The middle class was booming The cost of living was less, healthcare less, education less, everything was great.   
   
But then it all went to ****. Taxes down, regulation down, minimum wage down, ******** ******** and ********.   
   
The math has been done, the minimum wage should be around 13$-15$ dollars when adjusted for inflation and compensated for the growth of the economy. Hell, with the increase in worker productivity which has vastly multiplied, even this might not be enough.   
   
The cycle is rotten. The masses deluded.    
So little truth so much ignorance.   
   
People wonder why the world is going to ****, and they forget to look at themselves.
Indeed it works in cycles. And we're reaching the end of another one, but people forget that sustainability is an illusion. The world is finite and civilization unsustainable. Few people realize or even know what that means.

Here is something interested, around the 50s, tax on the wealthy was high, regulation was high, minimum wage (adjusted for inflation) was higher than it was today, and their were a bunch of labor unions. The middle class was booming The cost of living was less, healthcare less, education less, everything was great.

But then it all went to ****. Taxes down, regulation down, minimum wage down, ******** ******** and ********.

The math has been done, the minimum wage should be around 13$-15$ dollars when adjusted for inflation and compensated for the growth of the economy. Hell, with the increase in worker productivity which has vastly multiplied, even this might not be enough.

The cycle is rotten. The masses deluded.
So little truth so much ignorance.

People wonder why the world is going to ****, and they forget to look at themselves.
User avatar #376 to #375 - infinitereaper
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
and of course the rich are now richer than ever as a direct result of all this
#335 to #319 - anon id: 1250a674
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
To add to shadowgandalf's comment (#325), it is especially important to regulate the more expensive services provided by very large companies. Since it would be difficult to start up a new airline, the existing ones pretty much run the show.

We need to ensure that the few, large companies (for banking, airlines, internet, possibly more) do not merge (monopoly) or corroborate (oligopoly) since the consumer would have to pay outrageous rates for necessary services.

If the Guilded Age and the housing bubble have taught us anything it's that we do indeed need government intervention.
#329 to #319 - swagbot
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
Look at my comment #257 below.

IR is saying that the kid is correct in a VERY roundabout and simplistic way (contrary to the foolish-but-well-intentioned Fox News zealots on FJ).

Don't go 'Hurr Durr Minimum Wage Bad'.

The idea of a Minimum Wage IS bad... but if we want to get to the bottom of what's ******* our country up, we need to realize that the Minimum Wage is an Evil-To-Fight-Another-Evil, and that there's a much more massive and complex problem underlying it (as i said, see my comment).
#325 to #319 - shadowgandalf
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
"Wouldn't it just be plain wrong to tell people that they can't run their businesses the way they want to?"

No.
It's very much ******* important, that business owners do not get completely free reigns.
Employers always wants one thing: More profit, for less cost. Which means that if they had free reigns, they would pay you exactly enough to keep you alive and somewhat healthy.
User avatar #256 to #77 - heartlessrobot
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
It would work in theory, but probably piss a lot of people off and **** over the worldwide economy in the long run.
User avatar #258 to #256 - infinitereaper
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
The problem is that people don't realize there is a problem, adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage is lower than it was in the 1950s, during that time, educated persons was up, the cost of education was down, plenty of labor unions and good benefits, the economy was healthy, taxes on the rich were high, and wealth inequality was at an all time low. The middle class was healthy.

These days it's all the opposite. The cost of living is up, worker pay has stagnated, and wealth inequality is at an all time high, and labor unions are pretty much a thing of the past.

Correlations. But people treat this as a circlejerk and bandwagon.
It's fine, I'm going to be thumbed down by people who think they're all experts.

For those of you interested in learning, I suggest checking out Inequality for All narrated by Robert Riech, former Secretary of Labor.

Another interested video on the subject: www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM
User avatar #145 to #77 - infinitereaper
Reply -9 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
You're all idiots spouting the same nonsensical facts you've heard on the news without any basis or knowledge in economics or the history of economics in the US talking about subjects you don't **** about. You all piss me off and disappoint me.
#149 to #145 - clannadqs
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
#153 to #149 - infinitereaper
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
Maybe a little, but this is a very important subject to me.
I mean, most people don't take the time to really study the matter, just look at the deficit, look at what happened in 2008, during the greatest financial collapse in history, for those interested I would suggest checking out a documentary made by former secretary of... labor I believe Reich, it's called Inequality for All

Of course that's just a place to start, here is a good quick thing to look at:

Wealth Inequality in America
#318 to #9 - yuukoku
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
>Fixing problems with laws
>Not giving a **** about what it'll do to business owners

Your cousin is ******* ready for Washington.
#324 to #318 - shadowgandalf
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
Laws are meant to fix problems, especially considering how employers behaved doing the industrial age.

Albeit laws comming from a minor, may not be the best...
User avatar #349 to #324 - yuukoku
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
Laws don't fix problems, they restrict freedoms. Yes, people think up laws in order to counteract a problem, but think about what a law actually does. All a law can do is tell the population that they can't do a specific thing or else the governing body will send people to imprison you. The problem in question has not been solved, the problem has only been addressed and they are experimenting with certain restrictions to see what will happen.

Lawmakers are not gods. They are just as unable to predict the future as you or me.

Yea, conditions sucked in 1920, but just look at unions and socialists nowadays. They're essentially a government-backed mob. All the restrictions and taxes bludgeoned the American Dream over the head and have nearly killed it.

The bottom line is that laws and taxes murder freedom. It's just a game of how much freedom we're willing to throw away in exchange for the feeling of security.
#357 to #349 - shadowgandalf
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
Thats the most ignorant and idiotic thing i've heard since mitt romney thought there was a war on christmas.

1. Laws are not nessecarely restrictions of freedom. The vast majority of laws regarding work, are put in place to ensure that employers don't pay you 3 bowls of rice a day, and to make sure you are not exposed to toxicities without protective gear.

2. The laws regarding any workfield, are mostly agreements between unions and employers.

3. The american dream still exists, now you just have to work hard and be lucky as balls, in contrast to the early days, where people just killed the inhabiitants and took their land.

4. Laws and taxes murders freedom, in the same way that vaccines causes autism.
User avatar #362 to #357 - yuukoku
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
>Disagree
>Call it stupid

Yeah, let's just take it back to kindergarten, then.

Laws, by definition, are set to tell people what is and what is not allowed. How do you think that isn't a restriction of freedom. Before the law, you're free to do that thing, after, you aren't.

You're thinking of Mainfest Desiny, you pretentious ass. The American Dream was a term that got popular in the times after the Great War when technology was on the rise, everybody was buying things on credit, and anybody could live like a happy, comfortable lifestyle. After the Great Depression and World War 2, it became a real Horatio Alger thing where you had to work hard to make your dream. That became the American dream and to be honest it'd wonderful. Nowadays, you have to jump hurtles just to open a business, it's insane. I don't expect you to know how that is.

Lemme give you a little example:
>My grandfather gets off the boat in New York from China
>Works in a factory and sleeps in a church for several years
>Finally makes enough to buy a business
>Unions come and pour concrete all over the foundation because he didn't go through the ******* unions

Now, it's a law that you have to go through unions. They'll throw you in ******* jail. That's what is killing the American dream.

...I don't understand the laws and taxes are like vaccines and autism. How is that even an insult, there's no comparison there. Yeah, laws and taxes murder freedom. WHY IN THE ABSOLUTE **** DO YOU THINK OUR FOREFATHERS FOUGHT THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION!? Oh, maybe you thought it was because "We wanna be indepentend!" Yeah, yeah. That's all well and good, but according to the Olive Branch Petition, we would have been happy to be British if they would just STOP TAXING and STOP PASSING LAWS WITHOUT OUR CONSENT.
#365 to #362 - shadowgandalf
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
1. When all your points are completely wrong, you call it ignorant. When they ontop of being wrong, ooze with arrogance, you call it ignorant AND idiotic.

2. Because one persons unhindered freemdom(like a serial killer), is a detriment to several others freedom. Hence we favor that the killer loses a minor freedom, since we live iin a democracy after all.

3. "Everybody could buy things on credit" Yes, this was the direct cause of a certain crash on a certain street.

4. How is it harder to open a buisnes these days? File a tax formular, take a rent if you need, and voilar.

5. Why the **** would they pour concrete over the foundation? Unless he illegally bought the ground, then they could not have done that legally.

6. They thought the revoloution to become independant. The taxes and laws they wanted to stop, was the ones the english made for them.
The forefathers wanted america to make it's OWN laws and taxes...

User avatar #366 to #365 - yuukoku
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
1) My opinions aren't wrong, they just conflict with yours, or at least I think they do. It's hard to tell what the **** you're trying to convey at this point. It's people like you, people who think that they're unquestionably right, that have/ are currently ruining this country.

2) So, you believe that one freedom can be considered lesser than any other freedom? You think one life can be more valued than another life? You're delusional. Every freedom is sacred, every person should be equally free. Yes, when someone tries to kill, we throw them in jail and thus discard their freedoms.

3) Did you seriously take the part where I was explaining how the great depression happened as a suggestion? No, I honestly believe that you're just doing this to piss me off.

4) You obviously have never had to open a business.

5) NO THEY DIDN'T! No, they ******* didn't! Have you ever even heard about the Articles of Confederation!? "Taxation without representation," do you remember that!? I'm not giving you a ******* history lesson, all I know is that you have absolutely no idea what the American Revolution was fought for let alone the political ideologies pushed at the time. Go suck a cock and talk to it about your half-thoughout, dumbass ideas.
#367 to #366 - shadowgandalf
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
1. No your opinions are stated as facts, and in this case they are wrong.
2. Yes. I think ones luxury is less worth than others lives.
3. Apparently i mis-interprented you point there, as i thought you made it out to be a good thing people bought on unlimited credit.
4. Infact i did. Obviously it did not go well, but i was just a part of a project anyways. I was local it supporter, working on windows 7 machines.
5. was your grandfather born in the ******* 1700's or what?!

6. You are sounding like a ******* fox-newz host.
#370 to #367 - yuukoku
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
1) You're just hiding your ass. The fact is you just think your opinion is right and mine is wrong.
2) Freedom is a luxury now?
3) Well, let's move past that.
4) Family's been running and operating restaurants and businesses for generations. Seen how difficult it is since I was a kid and have done it myself on two occasions.
5) Oh, man, people haven't come here to escape political persecution, starvation, or look for a better life since the 1700s? Geez, we're really going downhill. I guess all those immigrants who come here every other day from all over the world don't exist.
User avatar #74 to #9 - neokun
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(07/08/2014) [-]
God adulthood just ******* ruins everything. The universe made a natural Buzz Killington.
#42 to #9 - majordraco
Reply +19 123456789123345869
(07/08/2014) [-]
You should hand him his liberal economics club card and send him to the Whitehouse.
User avatar #33 to #9 - I Am Monkey
Reply +55 123456789123345869
(07/08/2014) [-]
Welcome to Oh Wait, You're Serious-Tier economics. Where much of the internet resides.
#7 - daddycool
Reply +68 123456789123345869
(07/08/2014) [-]
By raising the minimum wage, you do two things:

#1 Raise the cost of all good produced by minimum wage workers(because how else are they going to pay for their worker's raise?) and #2 **** over the poor and young.

#1 is obvious, but #2 requires some explaining. See, most jobs require work experience. Specifically, experience in working any job, so that your potential employer can gauge your ability to work the job they're offering. The people that need this experience the most are teenagers, since they obviously don't have any. This means that at the lowest end of the employment spectrum you have a lot of people with no experience competing for low wage jobs.

Furthermore, this forces employers to expand what they need individual employees to do. What if a job isn't worth paying someone minimum wage to do it? Well, just get one of your current workers to do it. Sure, that's no fun for them, but you don't have the budget to get a new person in here to do the job. So you get fewer jobs that pay slightly more and demand more. Fewer jobs means fewer poor people getting hired means fewer poor people able to get better jobs due to "lack of experience."

This specifically hurts blacks and is the driving cause of their high unemployment rates.
#14 to #7 - boothead
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/08/2014) [-]
Why don't we make minimum wage for anybody 14-18 5$ an hour, they don't need, in most cases, to support themselves, employers would hire them more, they'd get experience. Since our economy is based on how much money is spent, who pisses away more money than teenagers?
User avatar #25 to #14 - Logicaltightrope
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(07/08/2014) [-]
There would then be an incentive to hire teenagers who, as you said, don't need to support themselves rather than the older yet still not very experienced poor people who still need to support themselves but can't find a job because companies hire their cheaper, younger counterparts.
User avatar #55 to #25 - lolollo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/08/2014) [-]
Jobs will still need to be run, and done by people with more experience than you can manage before you're 18 years old.

Or, what, are they gonna have teenagers running the management positions as well? I see that going over well...
User avatar #65 to #55 - Logicaltightrope
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/08/2014) [-]
Never did I imply that they didn't. I'm referring to low level jobs for inexperienced adults - adults that would be artificially pushed out of the market entirely by the cheaper labor of minors. These people wouldn't be able to gain any experience necessary to compete for those higher-level jobs.
User avatar #259 to #65 - lolollo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
And we're saying that that's fine. The adults are still available for those management jobs over the teenagers are only there for a little change in their pocket and job experience. That's how it should be.
User avatar #433 to #259 - Logicaltightrope
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/10/2014) [-]
So you're saying teenagers can't work higher level and management positions because of lack of experience, yet for adults who are just as inexperienced this is not a problem? I suppose I can understand this for management jobs, as age and basic responsibility and life experience can help there. But that's only a small number of jobs available to inexperienced adults in that case as other higher-level jobs are still not available to the inexperienced adults, despite their ages.

Consider poorer areas where, under current laws, adults do the jobs that many kids do in other areas - grocery store baggers and cashiers and the like. In these areas, the adults are still hired because it's just as cheap as hiring the kids and most of the applicants are adults. However, if kids were able to be payed less, the company would hire almost every highschooler who applies before considering the more expensive adults. There are a lot more subordinate positions than there are management positions, so a lot of these adults who are currently barely scraping by on minimum wage would then be totally out of luck.
User avatar #444 to #433 - lolollo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/10/2014) [-]
Where are we getting that adults don't have work experience? Where did all of that experience go that they got working for $5 an hour in high school?
User avatar #447 to #444 - Logicaltightrope
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/11/2014) [-]
Who's saying every single adult has work experience? As I said before, there are lots of areas in which it isn't kids who are primarily working these low level jobs; it's mostly adults. In these areas, the now-adults likely will have no skill due to the fact that, when they were kids, other, older adults were working in these jobs. With that cycle broken, companies in these areas will hire inexperienced kids rather than inexperienced adults wherever they can solely because the kids are cheaper.
User avatar #448 to #447 - lolollo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/11/2014) [-]
The fact that you haven't realized I've taken the plan that was proposed and projected it out a few years makes me fear for your ability to pay attention.

In the ideal situation created by the plan suggested above, everyone gets their experience as a teenager by motivating employers to hire them for a drastically reduced wage resulting in adults who were able to get their experience out of the way to argue for higher wages and benefits.
User avatar #452 to #448 - Logicaltightrope
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/11/2014) [-]
Ah yes...I missed that like an idiot. However, I'm not sure how willing I am to screw over the current generation of inexperienced adults entirely; aside from that, you've convinced me.
User avatar #463 to #452 - lolollo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/14/2014) [-]
There is a potential risk and controversy with damn near every plan that's meant to improve a system, sadly...

I mean...look at Obamacare.
#28 to #25 - boothead
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/08/2014) [-]
Yes but you can't support yourself working at McDonalds anyway.
User avatar #29 to #28 - Logicaltightrope
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/08/2014) [-]
Agreed...but your proposal solves nothing.
#30 to #29 - boothead
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(07/08/2014) [-]
What are you, a liberal? Do you economy? How do get expierience teens can't hire cheaper Mexican illegals party lets in yours? Im trying to simplify things because I believe you're a retard
User avatar #32 to #30 - Logicaltightrope
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/08/2014) [-]
Don't be an ass. Illegal immigration is a huge ******* problem and I think getting rid of them and their super cheap under-the-table labor will help wages to raise without being forced by a minimum wage law. What the **** are you trying to say?
#190 to #32 - boothead
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
I'm trying to say you're an assblasting retard who doesn't basic economy. On an extremely basic level, raising wages raises cost of living, if wage increase is 5% than cost of living goes up 8% Hypothetical numbers im lazy so in the end the problem gets worse, Libtards like you want to raise minimum wage, take away the second amendment and expect the rest of our rights to remain the same, expect CoL to remain the same and expect welfare to not suck money out of the system while you blame it on Social Security Despite the fact we pay into that ourselves
User avatar #430 to #190 - Logicaltightrope
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/10/2014) [-]
I don't want to raise minimum wage...when did I imply that? I actually just said I'd rather let wages set themselves without the interference of illegal immigrants than raising minimum wage. What the **** are you trying to say?
#431 to #430 - boothead
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(07/10/2014) [-]
I have no idea I go days without sleeping.
User avatar #158 to #32 - BigDoktor
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
It's not as big a problem as people make it out to be. In fact, illegal immigration is at an all-time low. Hiring illegals has no evident hinderance on the economy and if anything, they pay taxes and reap none of the benefits given their status. So who's leeching now?
User avatar #446 to #158 - Logicaltightrope
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/11/2014) [-]
Tell me all about how you can document an illegal immigrant's taxes - an also about why they should reap any benefits in the first place. Hard mode: justify your implication that I'm a leech.
User avatar #24 to #14 - oosulley
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/08/2014) [-]
That is done in some nations, younger people do get paid less than the 'adult' minimum wage.
User avatar #16 to #7 - thegoblingamer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/08/2014) [-]
Not necessarily. The CEO can just pocket less of his several-hundred-million-dollar paycheck. But that's unrealistic. Since when do rich people want to be slightly less rich?
User avatar #21 to #16 - PubLandlord
Reply +13 123456789123345869
(07/08/2014) [-]
You do know that the shareholders own the company, and elect or choose how much the CEO is paid, so when a CEO has a large remuneration package it's because the people who own the corporation have chosen to pay him that much
User avatar #49 to #16 - oceanmist
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(07/08/2014) [-]
Thats the worst logic I've ever heard. If the CEO of mcdonalds gave up his entire paycheck to his employees, he could give them all an extra $20 for the entire year.
User avatar #53 to #49 - thegoblingamer
Reply -8 123456789123345869
(07/08/2014) [-]
I didn't say entire paycheck. There's also more than just the CEO. Minimum wage hasn't been adjusted for inflation. I was pointing out a single source for more money for the workers. Don't be a ******* and take it so literally. I'm not going to make an entire list of changes that should happen.
User avatar #130 to #16 - wolvesbrickwall
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
How's your art degree doing?
User avatar #132 to #130 - thegoblingamer
Reply -4 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
Biology with a focus on pre-med. But thanks for your concern. My 3.8 is holding up fine. Along with my scholarship.
User avatar #133 to #132 - wolvesbrickwall
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
Hope you're better at Biology than economics.
User avatar #137 to #133 - thegoblingamer
Reply -4 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
Sooo, are you gonna suck my dick now or what?
User avatar #142 to #137 - wolvesbrickwall
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
What? You're clearly wrong. I didn't even think I needed to respond. Stick with biology bud, let the big boys deal with the economy.
User avatar #146 to #142 - thegoblingamer
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
Big boys? Yea, right. Minimum wage hasn't even been changed to keep up with current labor productivity.
User avatar #135 to #133 - thegoblingamer
Reply -4 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
Dude, as stated previously, I said it's not the ONLY change. The fact is that the minimum wage has not been changed to account for inflation over the years. That's a ******* fact and if you can't admit that, you are dense as dicks.
User avatar #68 to #7 - romanlettuce
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/08/2014) [-]
Well said. I certainly ran out of patience to explain why these fascist ideas are ridiculous so I can really appreciate when someone lays it out reasonably.

Raising or even having a minimum wage are another one of those ideas that sounds great as long as you don't actually look into the effects it will have. We should pay people great wages because we respect people culturally, not because we'll go out of business if we don't. The businesses that don't pay their workers well should not have any workers or customers. But that requires thinking on the part of people... Not likely.
User avatar #155 to #68 - BigDoktor
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
Oh really? And what incentive would ANYONE have for not supporting employers who pay workers **** wages? Wal Mart is one of the biggest retailers in the world and they're one of the ********* companies to work for. You're right, people won't give a ****, so unfortunately the government has to step in. While it's not ideal, we don't live in an ideal world. People are working two jobs just so they can be poor and we want to argue the semantics of competition here?
User avatar #163 to #155 - romanlettuce
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
Yes. You don't want to hear it but it's the only thing that would work. Locally it works miracles, as in it actually works when competition is a factor. When the government enforces a minimum wage businesses just raise their prices.

The "ideal world" argument is ******* ridiculous. I'd bet everything you willingly and consistently support the businesses that screw their workers if that's your best argument.
User avatar #170 to #163 - BigDoktor
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
Of course I ******* shop at Wal Mart all the time; it's cheap and I'm poor. But I just said that. We shop at Wal Mart because we don't give a ****. So how would you make people give a ****?
User avatar #174 to #170 - romanlettuce
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
For one, you incentivize small and medium business instead of big business like that Wal-Mart. With minimum wage and other absurd labor laws all you serve to do is provide the incentive for big business. For manufacturing big business will simply move everything into another area or country where they don't have to abide by those laws which is exactly the situation we're in now.

I find it hard to believe that you're more poor than I am but I still haven't visited a Wal-Mart or similar in years ever since I understood this. I suppose I work sort of hard to avoid it and get my supplies from local or awesome businesses that treat their employees and customers with respect and generous compensation.

Unfortunately people are not educated in economics in mandatory education here in America, which seems to be the case on purpose. Making people give a **** is almost impossible unless they faced a major crisis which could very well be on it's way because of the economic behavior we've exhibited regarding stuff like this.

#458 to #174 - manufacturing
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/12/2014) [-]
I am sorry but I don't have any big businesses.
User avatar #459 to #458 - romanlettuce
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/12/2014) [-]
Don't take it personally.
User avatar #178 to #174 - BigDoktor
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
You don't know me and I don't know you; but from what it sounds like, you're afforded the luxury of being able to pick and choose what businesses you support, by your own admission because you "work sort of hard to avoid it." And I don't mean to trivialize your hard work. I'll take your word that you work hard. Everybody ******* works hard. Wal Mart still stands.
User avatar #181 to #178 - romanlettuce
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
Honestly it's not that hard at all it just takes a moment of research or consideration for the way a business operates. You made it sound kind of hard with your devotion to the big box Wal-Mart so that's why I only "suppose" and "sort of".

Maybe you really don't have the options where you are and it's a big city or something with bad traffic but most of the places I've gone I have found other options. I also cut back on consuming **** I didn't really need and began to use used goods at any chance I got. If it really is that hopeless where you are you should seriously consider relocating. That dollar vote you place has serious consequences.

Eventually as our currency loses value we will be forced into choices like these so it seems fair preparation to begin now. You can make smarter investments and actually see your money go to work for your community instead of into the black hole of big business.
User avatar #185 to #181 - BigDoktor
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
You don't know what little opportunities people of lower income have, do you? I don't blame you, most people don't. A lot of what we take for granted is a luxury for a lot of people.
User avatar #188 to #185 - romanlettuce
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
Like I stated, i'm about as low income as it gets and so is everyone else here around me. I am just a single man though so I get by without too much bitchin. I've subsidized food with gardens and get meat from a local butcher and farm. That's why part of avoiding bad businesses is creativity and having other people around who agree with you and live the lifestyle.
#246 to #188 - daddycool
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
Allow me to summarize this conversation:

roman: You're right
Big: No he's not, someone has to force people to do what I want!
roman: No, you just need to make better decisions
Big: No! I don't wanna! Make them do what I want!
roman: But it'll work if you make better choices.
Big: Make someone else do it.
User avatar #254 to #246 - romanlettuce
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
lol! That about does it! That is legendary.
User avatar #70 to #7 - krackhead
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/08/2014) [-]
You're wasting your time. People will still believe in these liberal policies because John Stewart tells them to.
User avatar #166 to #70 - romanlettuce
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
You're absolutely right. Stewart has a huge cult here. I've never heard him say anything reasonable or sane in posts like this. It's always a pro-government, guaranteed violent solution to an issue with him.
#399 to #166 - billburr
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(07/10/2014) [-]
First of all Stewart is arguing against a ridiculously high minimum wage and arguing for a reasonable one.
Name one violent solution he has proposed?
He has consistently delivered more accurate news on a comedy show than Fox, CNN or MSNBC have done on the actual news. He was right about Iraq, he challenged Bush, he challenged Obama and he literally raised enough attention about 9/11 rescue workers that a bill got passed to help them.
Jon Stewart is a liberal in the same way that I am, he believes in helping people, the harm principle, and empirically-rooted policies.
User avatar #400 to #399 - romanlettuce
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(07/10/2014) [-]
Clearly you have no concept of how the force of government works. I can tell you are very much a follower of Stewart because of the way you bastardize language in an attempt to pull authority. You claim he's for a "reasonable" minimum wage, which is completely subjective I must add, completely ignoring the fact that a minimum wage has been fiercely contested here by many posters as being entirely ineffective at actually helping the poor. Facts don't matter to you. Snarky attitudes and moral authority does if you're a follower of Stewart.

It's hilarious that you mention "empirically rooted policies". You only made a slight spelling mistake. It's "imperially rooted policies."
#402 to #400 - billburr
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/10/2014) [-]
So you are a troll?
Because none of that was an argument (some of it referenced an argument) and empirical is a word which means based on evidence.
For example, if you look at the empirical research on the minimum wage you will find that it does not increase unemployment. In fact, unemployment tends to decrease slightly. The reason for this is that minimum wage workers spend most of what they earn and when they have more money, the economy improves
User avatar #403 to #402 - romanlettuce
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/10/2014) [-]
Man you're an example if there ever was one. When someone disagrees with you they're immediately a troll. This is Stewartism at it's strongest.

It's obvious that you don't and have never operated a business. I operate a small business right now and I can tell you immediately that if minimum wage increased I would go out of business tomorrow. Now at least 10 people are out of work. Massive corporations with much means might be able to survive a raise in minimum wage but they would still cut back on staff regardless to maintain their bottom line. Small and medium businesses, the backbone of American prosperity, would be absolutely decimated with a raise in minimum wage.
#404 to #403 - billburr
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/10/2014) [-]
I called you a troll because what you said was mostly incoherent and you assumed I'd misspelled imperial when I wrote empirical. Also because you didn't make a real argument or respond to any points.
This time you have made an argument ish , but once again failed to respond to any points.
What I am saying is that when the minimum wage increases, unemployment does not increase and most studies find a slight decrease . That is a fact based on numerous studies. Your business may indeed suffer but the economy will be better off in the long run. The employees will also be better off because not only will they be paid more, it will also be easier for them to get a job because of the slightly decreased unemployment.
User avatar #405 to #404 - romanlettuce
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(07/10/2014) [-]
Studies studies studies. I can't even...

If you're going to go on about studies you have to actually share them and provide compelling evidence that they would apply NATIONALLY, since you're arguing for a federal minimum wage like Stewart. I could go on about studies all day long but I actually operate a business and know what would happen immediately if such a thing was implemented. You don't seem to care about that at all.

You're literally just spitting nonsense. I'll be waiting for every one of those studies you have so much confidence in as well as considerable evidence that they are even applicable. If they're as numerous as you say then it should take only seconds for you to do this. Any reasonable anecdotal experience would also be valuable as opposed to nothing.
#406 to #405 - billburr
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/10/2014) [-]
If your next response does not address at least one point I made, this will be my last post, it's not that much to ask.
davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/njmin-aer.pdf
This is the best known study on the subject but there have been several since, although they aren't publicly accessible because most journals charge a subscription My school has access to most of them which is how I found them
And no, anecdotal evidence has no place in a discussion about national federal wage.
Also, do you think that money works differently in different states? Because I don't know why you'd assume a federal minimum wage would be a bad thing but a state-based one would be ok.
#119 to #7 - anon id: 6429b341
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
or, Or, OR MAYBE blacks are just lazy and its all of the Jews caused these problems. Try actually going to school with 70% blacks and you'll see that they don't care about work or their future. All black people care about is drugs, sex, and sports and also alcohol. They get what they want because of welfare and other BS  help programs that good hardworking people pay taxes for.
or, Or, OR MAYBE blacks are just lazy and its all of the Jews caused these problems. Try actually going to school with 70% blacks and you'll see that they don't care about work or their future. All black people care about is drugs, sex, and sports and also alcohol. They get what they want because of welfare and other BS help programs that good hardworking people pay taxes for.
User avatar #182 to #7 - alonetime
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
inflation
User avatar #54 to #7 - lolollo
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(07/08/2014) [-]
Except the whole "people need years of experience before starting their first job" problem is something that happens today...without the issues of minimum wage.
#209 to #7 - anon id: 130dabae
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
I don't know whose ass you pulled your economic conjecture out of but it's laughably stupid. Minimum wage makes these jobs more demanding so that large franchises like wal-mart and mcdonalds are held to expect more from their workers. The more they break jobs down into tiny, cheap, valueless jobs, the more they degrade our job market. I'd rather have fewer, more demanding, higher paying jobs than thousands of ******** worthless jobs. Throughout the 90's minimum wage was supposed to be increased incrementally in order to compensate for rising food prices and inflation. Unfortunately some less than reputable people in our government brought this change to a halt and here we are. Had it been raised as usual, minimum wage would be something aroun 11 to 13 dollars
User avatar #286 to #7 - elcreepo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
Lack of experience is everywhere...

Thing is, you'd think a company would WANT some people with no experience

Train them up in your image, keep the circle of life in the company going because the forty year olds WITH experience are going to die.
User avatar #422 to #286 - greyhoundfd
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/10/2014) [-]
The sad part is that a long time ago there used to be this sort of idea, and it was because people practiced company loyalty. Businesses really only differed in practices, rather than pay, so when someone found a business they liked they stuck with it, and there were chances for them to move up. Now, with todays "new" economics and how everybody grasps at their next dollar like it's their own child, people are focused more on taking whatever job is available that pays the most, rather than following an ideal that a company sets.
User avatar #288 to #7 - elcreepo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
Also... you don't need to raise the costs of the goods. Those companies make BILLIONS, most of which is going into the pockets of the richest of the rich.

What we need to do is decrease the extraordinary salaries of the wealthiest. Not by so much that they aren't wealthy, because yeah, they earned it, but enough to raise the minimum wage.

Problem is nobody wants to let go of their money.
#343 to #288 - anon id: 8c8a4453
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
That's already being done in the EU, these past few years we've made several laws that make sure CEO'S and such can't be paid more than a certain percentage of the employee directly below them (I think it was like this but I'm not entirely sure).
But, as you would expect, rich people exploit every loophole they see, so it's still not really working.
User avatar #313 to #7 - greyhoundfd
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
However, your entire premise assumes that businesses are in fact totally unable to make a profit if they pay their employees more. The majority of businesses that employ large numbers of employees (and thus will be hit "hardest" by these regulations) are already making a large profit, or could afford to be paying their executives less. The actual small businesses (the ones that are generally family-run, and thus don't have to pay workers, or have a small number of employees) are not going to see a significant enough difference that it will seriously affect them.

What you're also ignoring is that the poor are the most likely to up their spending rate when they have more money, which is likely the reason that most studies on the minimum wage have found that raises have actually increased profits for businesses in the area. When you're limited to $7 an hour, you can't spend all that much on food or utilities. When you double that, you can afford to spend more money which in turn increases the profit of businesses.

That said, I have no idea what the **** the person in the content is talking about (the woman, not John Stewart).
#327 to #313 - daddycool
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
No, my entire premise assumes that companies are run by human beings. Human beings that want to be compensated for their difficult work, long hours, experience, and education. Of course the CEOs could take a pay reduction. And Islamo-fascists could stop being douche bags and murdering each other. "Could," "would," "should," and "will" are all entirely different concepts. We're not talking about what can happen, we're talking about what will happen.

Of course the poor will spend more, they'll have more money! And you know what they'll spend it on? The same stuff that they spent it on before, but this time it'll cost more because businesses will raise prices in order to pay for a higher minimum wage. It will change nothing, except it will hurt the middle class who didn't get a raise, but still have to pay more for the goods and services that they were using before.

If $10 an hour is good, why not $15 an hour? I mean, it'll drastically increase the standard of living. But why stop at $15? Why not $20? $50? $100 an hour! That's what she was saying. If there are no drawbacks to raising the minimum wage, why not just skyrocket that sucker? Give everyone $1,000 an hour and everything will be wonderful!

Because there are drawbacks to the minimum wage. You're exchanging a higher standard of living for the working poor for a higher unemployment rate in the young and in the poor as well as higher priced goods. Maybe it's worth it to you. It's not worth it to me. I see the the minimum wage as inherently unethical, immoral, and flat out evil.

Feel free to disagree.
User avatar #420 to #327 - greyhoundfd
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/10/2014) [-]
Evil? Really? Hitler was evil, Genghis Khan was evil, Stalin was evil, the minimum wage is not "evil".

The prices of good have inflated over the last decade or so, and costs have not gone with them. Another user has already posted this, that the minimum wage, inflated to match the inflation which has occurred since it was introduced, should be $25 dollars per hour. Naturally, that's not going to happen, and obviously though it should be possible other factors are stopping it. That said though, the minimum wage worked when it was introduced, so the only reason it wouldn't work now is because of higher executive payments. Look at the figures, over the past two decades, executive pay has been between 200-300 times the average pay of individual workers. What was the ratio in 1965, three years before the minimum wage was first introduced? 20 times, a reasonable amount. The minimum wage which was introduced in 1968 was $1.60, which is equivalent to $10.79 in today's inflated USD. Now, tell me, where do you see the reports of massive unemployment, rising goods prices, and economic collapses which occurred in the late 1960's? They don't exist. There's a magical way that we can ensure executives are taking a pay cut. It's called federal law. If we can arrest people for ponzi schemes, numbers racketeering, and other ways of cheating the poor out of their money, why the hell can't we arrest the rich people who are just exploiting legal ways of getting more money from the poor?
#160 to #7 - baditch
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
Correct. By setting a price floor (minimum wage) the government is binding the equilibrium point, causing an economic surplus in labor, also known as unemployment. Minimum wage causes inflation and unemployment. That's why 93% of economists think it's retarded. Politicians do it because their voters don't understand this, so they're playing along with the romantic idea of raising wages, while at the same time increasing the cost of living.
User avatar #244 to #160 - metalfreaker
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
You sir, deserve my green thumb. What people don't understand that if minimum wage goes up, the cost of everything else is going to rise(inflation) to meet it.

15 dollars/hour sounds fine, but do you really think that Mr. McDonald is going to maintain the same prices on everything in the store? Or do you think that the price of a Big Mac will increase drastically, so the profit margins aren't affected?
User avatar #168 to #160 - romanlettuce
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
Great point. It's one of those policies that sounds absolutely amazing if you don't think about it. Authoritarians love these policies because it always, always results in more central power for them.
#13 to #7 - anon id: 038f0210
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/08/2014) [-]
None of this is actually true. Minimum wage increases have been studied exhaustively in country after country. The result of increasing the minimum wage is invariably higher employment and more economic activity. The theoretical model you present that argues the contrary does not agree with the observed results.

There is (very obviously) a point where the minimum wage would be too high. We're not near it.
#99 to #7 - billburr
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(07/08/2014) [-]
Empirical research not theory like you're using shows that there is no decrease in employment due to minimum wage increases.
Also, people who earn roughly the minimum wage spend a much greater percentage of their income than people who earn more. When people who spend the most have more money ,the economy is improved.
Much of the outrage about minimum wage increase in the US is funded through PACs which take money from the very rich and who have a direct financial incentive to not increase the minimum wage.
User avatar #193 to #99 - durkadurka
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
>Spending a greater percentage of their income than higher earners
They're spending a greater percentage of the money they make because they have the same expenses as everyone else while making less than other people. There's nothing to suggest that this level of spending would occur with increased wages.

There's backlash to the minimum wage because it makes no ******* sense from an economic standpoint. It's only really an issue because politicians use it as an easy way to get support from the gullible.
#383 to #193 - billburr
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
You are saying these things with such confidence but they are by no means facts.

A. There is a lot of evidence to support the fact that as people move from the lower to middle class they begin to spend more money. Neither the middle or the low class save a significant portion of their money in America, if they get additional money most of it will be spent
B. Politicians did not institute minimum wages, they fought tooth and nail against them until unions eventually won the fight for the working class (AKA you, your family, your friends)
C. Minimum wages are not an economic entity, they are a social creation. Like healthcare in most of the world, foodstamps, stuff like that. They are designed to give the labourers in a country some reasonable pay floor. This prevents companies from abusing their workers as much as they otherwise could.

As a final point, it happens to be empirically true that unemployment and inflation are not wildly influenced by minimum wages, but if this were not the case there is still a moral argument to be made. If you work 40 hours a week, it is my opinion that you should be able to afford food, shelter, basic transportation and basic amenities. In developed countries this can easily be made the case, so I believe that it should be. That is the purpose of government, to protect its people and to give them opportunity to pursue a fruitful life.
User avatar #407 to #383 - durkadurka
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/10/2014) [-]


I drew a simple conclusion based on what was presented to me. Why would the poor spend a higher percentage of their income? Simple, they have to spend more of what they make on the things they need.

Union members typically don't make anywhere close to the minimum wage, yet they support those policies Interesting isn't it? Sounds more like they're attempting to stop competition at the source, which is exactly why they do this. How better to protect your members than keeping low skill workers from being able to compete?

People don't just "get" more money. It has to come from somewhere. Everything has a cause an effect. People suddenly have more money to spend and prices go up because now the people can pay more. Employers are also forced to raise prices or reduce labor costs (either by firing or reducing work hours). At BEST money is just shuffled around.

The simple truth is that minimum wage keeps anyone whose work is not worth at least $7.25 unemployed, the very people who need work experience the MOST. Those people, as it turns out, are typically teenagers and black people. Unemployment for both groups is MUCH higher than the national average because of this. I'm sure you've heard of the complaint that jobs are hard to find without experience. This is why. People whose work isn't worth $7.25 won't get hired in the first place.


You take a moral argument at the end of your post there. Fortunately, you need not worry. Only a few people actually make minimum wage, and not many of those are working 40 hour work weeks. And for those who ARE working minimum wage 40 hours a week, there are a slew of government programs designed to help out with the things you say they ought to have. Don't worry we already have it covered. And if you really still feel morally unfulfilled, go DO IT. Help someone. Don't use government as an excuse to sit around and advocate for these things so you can feel good without doing any actual work.
#436 to #407 - billburr
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/10/2014) [-]
Basically, what you are saying is very reasonable based on the discourse you hear from the news, theoretical economists and here on FJ.
But, in fact, when they increase the minimum wage, none of these bad things actually happens and the economy tends to improve as a result.
This happens for reasons that are beyond my comprehension but essentially the reason is that the economy is incredibly complicated and empirical evidence doesn't always match the theory. For example, look at all of the austerity measures that were enacted based on theory. Conditions worsened after the measures were put in place.
#435 to #407 - billburr
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/10/2014) [-]
Some unions have become corrupt but at that time they were fighting for worker's rights, and fighting hard. The 5-day work week, the 8/8/8 schedule 8 hours of work, sleep and recreation , the minimum wage, etc. are all direct results of their work.
Also, do you disagree with minimum wages in general or simply with the rate it is currently set at? Because it hasn't been pegged to inflation so it has been decreasing in real terms for years
And yes there are a number of government programs to assist people who are barely getting by. If the company pays $7.25 and the government essentially tosses in an extra $4 through these programs then this is a form of wage subsidy.
Basically, the big companies like McDonalds, Walmart, etc. are making huge profits because their employees have their wages subsidized by these programs.

Finally, I live in Canada so the minimum wage is $10.25 or something but we have much higher upward mobility than the US so its not tough to get to the $15-20 range. And I don't do too much to help out now because I'm in debt and about to graduate, when I do have the money I won't be spending it in North America; Asia and Africa are way more in need! We have relatively fantastic lives here, but that's no reason to stop fighting. I'll pursue political action at home and financial action abroad
User avatar #408 to #407 - durkadurka
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/10/2014) [-]
Milton Friedman - No Possible Employer
#207 to #7 - anon id: 130dabae
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
I don't know whose ass you pulled your economic conjecture out of but it's laughably stupid. Minimum wage makes these jobs more demanding so that large franchises like wal-mart and mcdonalds are held to expect more from their workers. The more they break jobs down into tiny, cheap, valueless jobs, the more they degrade our job market. I'd rather have fewer, more demanding, higher paying jobs than thousands of ******** worthless jobs. Throughout the 90's minimum wage was supposed to be increased incrementally in order to compensate for rising food prices and inflation. Unfortunately some less than reputable people in our government brought this change to a halt and here we are. Had it been raised as usual, minimum wage would be something aroun 11 to 13 dollars

User avatar #79 to #7 - infinitereaper
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(07/08/2014) [-]
I love how all of you guys spout the same facts you've heard on the news while having no idea what you're talking about.
User avatar #123 to #79 - apurpleliger
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
So tell me, what do you seem to believe that raising the minimum wage will do?
User avatar #136 to #123 - infinitereaper
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
I think it's better to look at the history of minimum wage, back during the 1950s and onward in america, the minimum wage was higher than it is now adjusted for inflation, not only that, they highest percentage of worker unions were also around during that time. Educated people was up, the cost of education was down. The middle class was vibrant and humming just as capitalism is supposed to do, compare to now, minimum wage is ****, worker unions have been eradicated, corporate profits are through the rough every ******* year and were all peasants.

People are too stupid to realize that the rich mother ******* got so rich by leaching as much money as they could away from their employees, complete with outsourcing and understaffing, no vacation or paid vacation.

Compare with other countries, compare with history, look at the economics, it all becomes very clear.

And yet people talk about subjects they don't know **** about.

Raising the minimum wage isn't supposed to have a harmful affect, the problem is that the rich are greedy ***** who won't stand for loosing a few hundred million out of their billion dollar profits.
#200 to #136 - durkadurka
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
The standard of living has only being going up for everyone. Things are not worse as you suggest. Salary isn't a great way to look at the quality of life people are living. It certainly doesn't paint a complete picture.

Your whole argument is essentially one big mess of improperly implied causation. You can't assume things were great because of a higher minimum wage, especially considering the complexity of the world economy.

For example, our status after WWII has much more to do with economic success in the following years than some arbitrary wage floor.

Also, the rich are just people and are no different than they were 10 years, ago, 100 years ago, etc. They didn't just suddenly decide to be extra evil, they're just behaving as people always have.

Have you really looked at other countries and history? This nation consistently outperforms.

The minimum wage is completely arbitrary and has little basis in economics. It's based mainly off of whatever politicians think will get them votes.
Also note that I'm not saying you think capitalism is evil, the pic was just relevant to the point I wish to convey, minus the last line of course.
#210 to #200 - infinitereaper
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
These are all misconceptions, and a perfect example of "improperly implied causation"
Things are not fine, not by a long shot

www.cdc.gov/workplacehealthpromotion/businesscase/reasons/rising.html
www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-26/college-costs-surge-500-in-u-s-since-1985-chart-of-the-day.html
www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/18/union-membership-middle-class-income_n_3948543.html
www.cnbc.com/id/42130406#.
www.usdebtclock.org/
www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2013/11/inequality-and-growth-what-do-we-know.html
www.businessinsider.com/charts-on-us-inequality-2013-11?op=1
www.nytimes.com/2012/04/24/us/politics/financial-outlook-dims-for-social-security.html?_r=0
www.nytimes.com/2012/04/24/us/politics/financial-outlook-dims-for-social-security.html?_r=0

This is all just the tip of the iceberg, I've been sifting through this **** for years.
A good place to start would be Inequality for All, made by Robert Riech I believe, formor secretary of Labor

But I'm sorry, you guys are all experts,
this is the internet so democracy holds, good god
User avatar #228 to #210 - durkadurka
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
>Healthcare costs =/= lifespan
>Education costs are spurred by an artificial demand and government loans\
>Third link tries to imply that middle class income is driven by union membership. Again, you can't do this with correlation. Also, huffpo is a fun little liberal place.
>Income inequality has jack **** to do with improved standards of living.
> ditto
>Again, not relevant. Besides, the social security and medicare mess is a result of more government tinkering.

I'm not saying there aren't big problems. I'm not saying our monetary policy isn't ****** beyond belief. What I AM saying is that you cannot say that people are worse off with literally everything from food to communications to entertainment etc, etc, being cheaper and more accessible. Despite serious fiscal issues, we STILL have things really ******* good compared to 50 years ago. Did the people of the 50's imagine that one of our biggest issues would be that people are eating too much? Did they imagine carrying computers around in their pockets? I'd much rather be poor now than in the 50's.

It's easy to look back at the past any say "wow, things were so good back then". This perspective is warped and you're taking for granted all we have today.


You're completely forgetting about the millions of low skill workers who have been flooding this country for at least a decade. You cannot have a massive influx of labor AND expect base wages to go up. That completely defies any rational thought.

Striving for some Utopian equality is a fool's goal. Using the force of government to do so borders on tyranny.

And get off your high horse you ******* elitist asshole "ohh you're all suuuuch experts. I ACTUALLY am and I'm just dumbing this stuff down for you plebs."

That's what you ******* sound like. It's fairly obvious you share the Bloomberg mentality. I'm no ******* expert, I just like learning about this stuff. **** off.
User avatar #229 to #228 - infinitereaper
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
In Inequality for All Robert Reich talks about a lot of this ****, he was the former Secretary of Labor for the United States of ******* America. Throughout the documentary he talks about plenty of stuff everyone should know but doesn't.

I've spent years and years learning about this stuff NOT FOR FUN but because I cared about human civilization and wanted to help make an impact, it was life and death for me, it mattered more than my life. I've taken this seriously. I'm not perfect, I don't know everything but holy **** the mass majority, especially those that talk out of their asses, have no clue.

No clue at all,
and so they circle jerk and regurgitate "smart stuff"
even though it's based on misconception, politics, and plain ********

the world falls apart not because of war or evil

it falls apart because of this kind of ******** ignorance
User avatar #234 to #229 - durkadurka
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
Clearly I'm ignorant because I disagree with you.

Again, here's more of the Bloomberg mentality. You're just so ******* great that you decided to learn about this stuff out of the kindness of your heart. Now that you know it all you're going to bring this knowledge to the masses who are too ******* stupid to understand this brilliance.

I'm (apparently) ignorant because I think people should be paid what their labor is worth. I'm ignorant for not instantly trusting everything to a central bureaucracy. **** me right? Your way or the highway.

How can you accuse people of regurgitating things based on politics when you're defending a concept that exists almost purely for political expediency?

There are a lot of ignorant people out there sure. I don't consider you one though, I just think you're wrong. I don't immediately accuse you of not knowing what you're talking about and pretend that economics is some mystical force that only myself and a handufl of geniuses understand.
User avatar #238 to #234 - infinitereaper
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
Dude my main issue with all of this doesn't even have to do with my own ego or attacking anyone, my main problem with this is that, man you have to understand, you've got a dark enough name to have been here long enough to know what I'm talking about. This website is full of such ******** all the time. Especially with red thumbing and popular opinions, bandwagons, circle jerking-this labor thing is in the same boat.

I'm not wrong dude, and I'll trust someone who worked for former presidents more than the people that use this site. If you haven't realized, these comments are all politics.

So many misconceptions and lies-its just, you just have to understand. The truth is important to me, but there is just so much ******** people keep feeding to each other.

And like I've mentioned before, people should be paid what their labor is worth, but they aren't. Minimum wage adjusted for inflation stacked with the growth of the economy, do all that and the actual minimum wage is around 14-15$

that's not ******* too much, and it isn't too little, it's what should be normal

whats going on now isn't normal

most people don't know or realize the science behind any of this, they just believe the ******** they've been told because they're used to being lied to and manipulated
User avatar #239 to #238 - durkadurka
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
I just have trouble believing that, considering that you told someone else that inflation as a result of artificially increased wages is not actual economics.

I think you're heavy on the statistics, but lacking in comprehension of how core market forces actually work.
User avatar #240 to #239 - infinitereaper
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
I never said that, what I said was that we are already suffering inflation,
and I talked about adjusting for inflation two different things
A lot of what I know comes from the real experts, people who are very very smart and plenty of other sources
A lot of people are just confused/lack the real know how, that's why like parrots everyone says the same thing, but just because everyone thinks its right doesn't mean it is

this is a case of people being wrong. Yes you can't just jack up the minimum wage without consequences, but should it be-no is it lower than it should be when adjusted for inflation?

yes it ******* is

Most people don't even know THAT much

most people don't really understand minimum wage at all
User avatar #409 to #240 - durkadurka
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/10/2014) [-]
>A lot of what I know comes from the real experts, people who are very very smart and plenty of other sources
Whereas I'm clearly not doing the same thing, I'm just talking out of my ass, right?

Honestly, if you're only running into economists who have the save views on minimum wage, you're clearly only looking for what you WANT to hear.

Ever stop to think that maybe if everyone is telling you one thing but you're insistent on the opposite that maybe the issue is you, not everyone else? Sure the mob isn't always right, but if you're running into the kind of resistance you say you are, then you ought to examine what you believe. The fact that you just outright dismiss anyone who disagrees with you shows that you aren't actually examining what you believe.

"The minimum wage should be higher". Why? Most people make above the minimum wage. The market essentially has done what you're advocating.
By increasing the minimum wage, you're solving a symptom. You're hurting the ones you're trying to help the most. How are low skill workers supposed to get jobs at $15/hour if they struggle to now?

There's no such thing as a free lunch. Keep that in mind.
User avatar #410 to #409 - infinitereaper
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/10/2014) [-]
I highly suggest watching Inequality For All, it's really great and talks all about wealth inequality, labor, and wage

minimum wage should reflect worker productivity it doesn't, just stagnation
User avatar #437 to #410 - durkadurka
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/10/2014) [-]
Minimum wage doesn't have to reflect anything. It's an artificial construct.

I decided to look into this guy since you keep mentioning him. I didn't find his video, rather I found an hour long interview in which his video is the subject matter. I think this will do. www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-rpkZe2OEo

I'm going to write what I'm thinking about the video I watched as I watch it:

They spend most of their time essentially saying the same thing "there's more income inequality and that's bad". It feels like an appeal to emotion, rather than a discussion of how the economy is functioning. What I'd like to see a more mechanical approach.

I don't like how he's equating middle class wealth solely with income. Wealth is measured by more than simply income.

He's focusing a lot on the what (which he's not wrong about), but really isn't focusing on how the economy is working, or how this mess gets fixed.

I do like how he understands that the tea party and occupy movements were actually pretty similar in terms of what they were upset over. He seems to get that the issues we have are a result of government-business collusion. I also like that he holds back from assigning blame.
I also like how he recognizes that we (as a whole) are not doing our jobs as citizens and holding our government accountable. He gets that we need to step up.

Again, I'm seeing a lot of vague concepts rather than specifics.
For example, he talks about creating a tax code that's equitable for all. Sounds great, but I don't know what he's really talking about because what he considers to be equitable may not be what someone else would consider equitable. I do really like that he's in favor of keeping a portion of everyone's income exempt from income tax (he cites the first $15000 as the cutoff point).

More to follow.
User avatar #439 to #437 - durkadurka
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/10/2014) [-]
I don't like his push for unions. Not necessarily because of what unions are supposed to do, but rather what unions have become (ie massive political entities. Unions, at one time, protected their workers. Now they play politics just like lobbying groups, use their members' dues to back political candidates, etc).

I don't find his comparison of 50's GM to Walmart to be fair. One employed skilled laborers to produce a product during its heyday, the other hires people to stock shelves and run cash registers in stores that sell cheap products at low prices. You can't make a fair comparison here.

Final thoughts:
I think that he does a good job of outlining what the problems are and with demonstrating how we know those problems exist.

There really wasn't much explained in terms of actual economics. He brought up some great subjects, but I found myself hoping he'd go deeper. Now it's true I didn't see the actual movie you're referring to, but I'm fairly confident that this is not the way to get an understanding of how economies work. He talks more about the results, the things we see on the surface. I think you need to have a grasp of the mechanics that go on behind the scenes.

I'd suggest watching some really dull economic videos. They're boring as hell but you learn about the nuts and bolts. It's like learning HOW to think instead of WHAT to think. Milton Friedman is really good with that kind of thing, but definitely look at more than him.
User avatar #438 to #437 - infinitereaper
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/10/2014) [-]
*****, that's an interview about the documentary Inequality for All

watching it is pointless, the documentary is what you want to watch, heres the review:
www.rottentomatoes.com/m/inequality_for_all_2013/
User avatar #440 to #438 - durkadurka
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/10/2014) [-]
I'm not going to pay for it just out of curiosity. While I'm sure what I watched wasn't as detailed, it gave me an understanding of who the economist was, what his movie was focused on, etc.

I'll also point out that these kinds of movies don't really go deep enough. You don't watch Bowling For Columbine if you really want a solid understanding of gun violence in America. I look at some real boring ****: economic theory and it's effect and such.
User avatar #441 to #440 - infinitereaper
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/10/2014) [-]
unless you watch you have no right to say anything about it, since the detail is in it, just download the movie with a torrent
User avatar #442 to #441 - durkadurka
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/10/2014) [-]
I'll try to watch it at some point. Really the point I want to make is that I'll look at things I might disagree with and you should do the same, though I doubt you will.
User avatar #179 to #136 - apurpleliger
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
Raising the minimum wage doesn't hurt the large corporations. That's not the problem. It hurts the small businesses that are only able to budget so much towards their employees already. Raising the minimum wage doesn't mean that they can raise their budget, it just means that they are forced to employ fewer people in order to not lose money on the business. That means more independent businesses and small franchises will be run out of business because they can't afford to employ enough people. So raising the minimum raise, looking towards a more extreme end, means that eventually the only businesses out there will be Walmarts and McDonald's. Now, obviously that's a generalization, but hopefully you see my point.

Minimum wage isn't a goal, it's a starting point. Keep raising it and you'll eventually need to get 3 or 4 promotions before the company has a good enough reason to increase your pay.

Going off of the "corporate profits are through the roof" idea, have you taken a look at the standard of living? It's been increasing. Growing the economy creates value, so as the rich get richer, the poor do too, albeit at a slower rate. There's always going to be a disparity in wealth because some people are more educated/talented than others, and their families will reap the benefits sown by those. Some people will never become educated or skilled enough to come close because they'll struggle to get the first job. Increasing the minimum wage only makes it harder to get that first job.
User avatar #202 to #179 - infinitereaper
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
It's not just a matter of minimum wage, the fact that everything is outsourced, and that the United States is a major importer, heavily contribute to the problem, tax changes and deregulation **** things up as well. Small business in general have rough time because of all the monopolies.

Basically, everything wrong with capitalism took root and ****** things up.

"Standered of living" what hte **** are you talking about? healthcare costs, education cost, the cost of living, ******* **************

You know what, why should I waste my time?
User avatar #211 to #202 - apurpleliger
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
So you're against large corporations running monopolies? And how are you still thinking raising the minimum wage is a good idea? It can only hurt small businesses even more. They have a rough time because they already struggle paying to afford the staff they have. Understaffed businesses don't tend to do well, and neither do businesses that are losing money. That's the option given to small business owners by an increased minimum wage. Choose how you die out.

Standard of living as in our lower class is living how a most other countries' middle classes live. Middle class families in other countries are the ones living in small apartments, owning a single car for a family of four. That's considered lower class here. People living below the poverty line can still do alright for themselves here.
#213 to #211 - infinitereaper
Reply -5 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
This is your logic:
Dictatorship, if you say something against it you die.
your solution: don't say anything bad, all praise to the great leaders

What I'm talking about is the nature of our broken system, pay and minimum wage should increase with the growth of the economy

the problem is that it hasn't

Worker pay and benefits have stagnated immensely

and the economy is ****

I'll say it again

YOU PEOPLE HAVE NO CLUE WHAT THE **** YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT
User avatar #222 to #213 - apurpleliger
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
Not seeing where that first part came from at all. Care to elaborate?

Yes, pay should increase with the growth of the economy, in the sense that the value paid in return to your labor should increase. Minimum wage does not fall under that, though. If the economy grows, everyone grows with it. That doesn't mean that the number of dollars you get put into your bank account will increase. It means that you'll be able to purchase things of higher value with your paycheck than you could before. How about the fact that technology costs a fraction of what it used to when adjusted for inflation? I think that's a pretty good example of how the same dollar amount can represent much more value.

And, oh hey, isn't it strange how the pay hasn't increase lately? Oh, that's right, because the economy hasn't been growing. So, unless I misunderstood and pay/minimum wage should increase both with the growth of the economy and without it, the system is still following your idea of how it should work.

Pay increases with the growth of the economy, yes. The economy does not, however, increase as a result of pay and/or minimum wage increasing. If that were the case, the US could just print more money and give it out to everyone so that they have more money to spend. At best, the effect is the same: people have more money in their wallets, but products cost more so you end up spending the same portion of your money on the same items. That's best case scenario, assuming that companies increase the price of their product to make up for the increase wage instead of decreasing the amount of people they employ.

So, at best, forcing an increase in the wage rates of entry level employees causes no difference in the value earned by those employees. At worse, there are fewer of those employees and more people without enough skill or experience to be worth hiring.
User avatar #224 to #222 - infinitereaper
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
Please just stop right there.
Holy **** you have no idea how wrong you are, yes you are misunderstanding, a lot of things.

You can't solve a problem without solving the problem, stuff like "it would make **** cost more" are excuses not based on actual economics, but politics.
You have to adjust to inflation to understand that difference in growth, so yes you do misunderstand, worker pay has stagnated when compared to the growth of the economy and adjusted for inflation. Purchasing power is also in jeopardy because of this and the huge deficit.

The Economy has been growing, profits are and always have been through the rough, in the past 10 years have been ******* GREAT for lots of major corporations.

Print more money? Seriously? That's a primary cause of inflation and exactly what the U.S. has been doing.

holy ******* ****
what the **** are you talking about

education is important

If you want to have an opinion that isn't full of ****, learn, so you know what the **** you are talking about
User avatar #226 to #224 - apurpleliger
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
Oh hey, you actually understood this part: "Print more money? Seriously? That's a primary cause of inflation and exactly what the U.S. has been doing. "

Unfortunately, you don't understand that this is exactly what will happen if you make companies pay their workers more for the same job.

Get off your high horse and come down to the real world please.
User avatar #231 to #226 - infinitereaper
Reply -4 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
I'd rather be correct than politically correct. I can't even begin with the stupidity flying around here.
User avatar #138 to #136 - thegoblingamer
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
Thank you! You mention anything about not lining the pockets of the extremely wealthy and people get into a pissyfit. I don't know why, either. The community on FJ definitely doesn't include the wealthy that'd be affected by this
User avatar #140 to #138 - infinitereaper
Reply -5 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
Uh. What? Sorry but your English is a bit hard to follow. At anyrate, the wealthy won't be that hurt, they're just to greedy to give up any more of the pie. Like a fat **** who eats and takes more than his fair share.
#129 to #7 - anon id: f3e2b192
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
Because every other country that has a higher minimum wage has such a huge gap between the poor and the rich, right?
Raising minimum wage is one step in the right direction to make the 1% less wealthy and the rest 99% (mostly the poorest ofc) more wealthy.
User avatar #203 to #7 - ablock
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
Disagree. Putting more money in the hands of middle class / poor citizens drives the economy, as THEY are the major spenders. These massive corporations continue to get tax breaks and dissolve unions to make even more money that they aren't going to spend, unless you count lobbying to by our government. Yay America!
#243 to #203 - daddycool
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
By raising the minimum wage, you're not putting money in the hands of the middle class. You're taking money out of their hands and putting it in the hands of the lower class(you know, the people to whom you just gave a raise).

Furthermore, no one is making money that they're not going to spend. Everyone is going to invest that money in stocks/bonds/commodities/luxuries. This is the economy. This creates jobs.
#221 - zzRedzz
Reply +53 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
Just buy more money
Just buy more money
#255 to #221 - swagbot
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
git wrecked, proletariat peasants
git wrecked, proletariat peasants
User avatar #31 - I Am Monkey
Reply +40 123456789123345869
(07/08/2014) [-]
$15 is double the minimum wage where I live. A lot of employers aren't going to be willing to pay double for a lot of these jobs. They're either going to hire less staff to perform the same tasks or automate the jobs. The people that want this come from the "government is magic" branch of economics, where there's no such thing as repercussions for their actions. They think you can just make a economy-altering decree and businesses aren't going to adjust accordingly.

Politicians touting the $15 minimum wage know that it's not going to happen. It's just a ploy to get poor people to vote for them believing that they're going to get their wages doubled. They might as well be offering $40 minimum wage. It's just as likely and instantly wins low information voters over to your side.
#91 to #31 - supercookieduster
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/08/2014) [-]
#109 to #31 - icouldgetsome
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/08/2014) [-]
because having an enormous class of "working poor" who work full time at mcdonalds for slave wages but are still on medicaid and foodstamps and social security and it is costing us taxpayers a **** ton of money. All while corporations make record profits. The businesses should be required by law to take a small hit on those profits so our country doesn't go bankrupt paying for a permanent underclass. They can start by providing health insurance. Also there's some evidence that paying workers more will grow the economy via increasing consumer spending.
User avatar #151 to #109 - I Am Monkey
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
You didn't address the problem at all. Unless you're going to somehow legislate your idea with a law that says that they can't fire people, the businesses are still going to make ends meet on their own terms. If you make it a burden for them to have workers, then they're going to have less workers. Whether it's mandatory higher wages or health insurance, they're not going to just "take a hit" without compensating for it somehow.
#225 to #151 - anon id: ac98240b
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
You do realise that the megacorporations are making absolutely immense profits?

They're well past the stage of making ends meet. It's local businesses that will suffer, but Americans really only have themselves to blame for that, with their obsession with multinationals.

In my opinion, it's a matter of time before they all start going to India and other countries where there will be a hell of a lot of people willing to do the same work for a lot less.
User avatar #111 to #109 - tealcanaan
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
>enormous class
>2% of americans

Reminder that this is just a useless political stunt.
#114 to #111 - icouldgetsome
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
I don't know where you got 2% from but it's actually more like 15%. about 50 million americans living below the poverty line.www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/

But never let facts get in the way of a conservative argument.
User avatar #115 to #114 - tealcanaan
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
We're talking about WORKING poor, the rest are unemployed or not seeking employment according to government statistics.
#125 to #115 - icouldgetsome
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
Sorry bud, according to BLS working poor rate is about 7% as of 2009, or 20 million Americans.
www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2009.pdf

Your ideology is bad and you should feel bad.
User avatar #128 to #125 - tealcanaan
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
So we are both moving stats, my initial stat was for people working on minimum wage, my bad. together," these 3.8 million workers with wages at or below the Federal minimum wage".www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2011.htm. So about 1% of the population make at or below minimum wage, the previous one was from the 2009 census. BTW there was a new census in '11.

User avatar #52 to #31 - lolollo
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(07/08/2014) [-]
When's the last time you worked a minimum wage job? Employers are doing that **** without the threat of an increase in minimum wage. The wing place I used to work at overstaffed when they opened, and are now trying to cut it down to where only one poor ****** is running the entire kitchen at any given hour of the day.
#72 to #52 - iworkforlaughs
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/08/2014) [-]
Well lets be honest here, how much do you think making wings should pay?
User avatar #261 to #72 - lolollo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
How much I think they should be paid is irrelevant to what I'm talking about. What I'm saying is that this problem you think will magically pop up from an increase in minimum wage is already happening today, with minimum wage the way it's at. Businesses have been employing techniques to pay less people less money for the same job since employment was what it is.
#83 to #72 - anon id: 0f113d06
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/08/2014) [-]
Enough to pay bills and not go hungry would be nice.
User avatar #165 to #72 - BigDoktor
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
that question isn't valid anymore in this day and age
User avatar #208 to #165 - durkadurka
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
When did economics stop happening? This is news to me.
User avatar #212 to #208 - BigDoktor
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
Why should it matter what making wings should pay? It should pay minimum wage. Minimum wage should be higher. What's your point
User avatar #215 to #212 - durkadurka
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
In an economic system that makes sense, you get paid what your work is worth. That's why the question is important. A business doesn't hire you as some favor.
#227 to #215 - anon id: ac98240b
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
Do tell, how does one accurately measure what payment is equal to the work done?

I mean, in that case, I know a few people (coughcoughkardashians) who sure as hell don't do enough work to justify their millions. I know a lot of dumbass yuppies who got their management jobs through rampant nepotism who deserve to spend a few years working for someone they're not related to.

But nooooo, the people who make your food and clean up your messes don't deserve enough money to survive on, whatever you say.
User avatar #230 to #227 - durkadurka
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
The market determines this in roughly the same way it determines how much things are worth. Supply and demand. If the work you do is in low supply, you'll get paid more. This is why engineers and doctors make more than burger flippers. Their skills are simply worth more.

In North Dakota, the minimum wage is effectively $15. This has nothing to do with the government. Rather, businesses are having to pay workers this much because labor is in low supply. They're paying more to keep their employees from going to other companies. Thus the market is measuring what those people's labor is worth.

A few anecdotal examples don't change that this is how things as a whole (are supposed to) work.
#248 to #230 - iworkforlaughs
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
Thanks for bringing that up I was about to being I just came from North Dakota doing pipeline inspection.
User avatar #220 to #215 - BigDoktor
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
Then skilled labor should be paid higher as well. I don't think anybody's arguing against that
#59 - swedishassassin
Reply +35 123456789123345869
(07/08/2014) [-]
A raise in the minimum wage is fine... at maximum $11. Any further, and you do break the wage system. Inflation demands a raise in minimum wage, but the (and I'm sorry for getting political) liberals take it to the over-extreme with $15 and refuse any reason to lower that price, which would lower the dollar and the wage-cost of those paid $18 and up per hour.
Limbaugh is wrong to say no raise; he's just way too black an white. But those demanding 15 are delusional or completely ignorant of economics. Minimum wage was never meant to be a wage to raise a family with; that's why you see teenagers getting paid minimum. If your career puts you at minimum, you better be looking for a better job instead of asking for unstable wage increase.
#87 to #59 - anon id: 0f113d06
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/08/2014) [-]
Did you do any research to get to the conclusion that $11 is a good place to stop? Or is that just a random number you made up?
User avatar #110 to #87 - swedishassassin
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
No, I didn't just make up a number, though good on you for questioning. $11 is the closest number (11.43 at the moment), for the maximum amount that inflation won't be radically affected.
User avatar #162 to #59 - BigDoktor
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
>looking for a better job

***** are you being serious? Do you know what year you live in? Teenagers aren't the only ones getting paid minimum. And don't you dare say older people living under poverty are too lazy to look for a better job. How can you tell people to get a better job when there aren't any?
User avatar #393 to #162 - swedishassassin
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
Dude, it took me a week after I graduated to get a job in between my career job, paying me over minimum. It's hard as hell, but that's why I get paid more and didn't choose a cashier.
User avatar #434 to #393 - BigDoktor
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/10/2014) [-]
And that's great for you. You were lucky. And when I say that I am not negating your hard work. When I say that I mean you were lucky enough to have an opportunity and you were smart enough to take it. Problem is, too many people don't have these opportunities.
User avatar #445 to #434 - swedishassassin
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/11/2014) [-]
Not denouncing you, but often I think too that's it's a lack of experience in finding jobs. They don't really teach people well enough at all.
User avatar #451 to #445 - BigDoktor
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/11/2014) [-]
That falls under opportunity as well. But you agree that there aren't jobs for everybody, right?
User avatar #456 to #451 - swedishassassin
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/12/2014) [-]
Yeah, but I wouldn't agree at the level that I think you believe.
Let me put it this way. There was a year where heavier focus was put against illegal immigrant work, since people were saying that they were taking jobs others could have. That same year, the fruits literally rotted on the trees because no one would accept the work.
Now, that wouldn't be the best job, but if it gets to that point of desperation for farmers, a person could negotiate a higher wage in that situation to do that work.
User avatar #180 to #59 - vanver
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
Well ****, someone already beat me to it. So much for showing off my economic knowledge >.>
#233 to #59 - anon id: 382899e1
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
Being someone who has worked several jobs all over the pay scale (I went from bagging groceries at 7.25 to managing a pizza joint for 8.60 to being a head cashier elsewhere for 11.28) My big issue is full time employment. As a young twenty-something it is impossible to find full time work. I have never had a "full time" job, I worked full time hours (Pizza place, head cashier) but I haven't been a full time employee. After the AHCA My hours went from close to forty to twenty five. That is a huge pay cut. I feel that if companies are going to have the mentality to hire two part time people to work in place of one full time person then we need higher wages to compensate for a loss of hours. I'm not really bitching because most of my financial woes come from mismanagement, but I have had people who worked for me whose lives depended on a good paycheck as a part timer. and these don't happen anymore.
User avatar #263 to #59 - godtherapist
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
Adjusted for inflation from the 1950's minimum wage should be 25$ an hour.
User avatar #391 to #263 - swedishassassin
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
Incorrect
User avatar #317 to #59 - greyhoundfd
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
>Just look for a better job

Yes, because people obviously choose minimum wage jobs over jobs like teaching, doing research, desk jobs, or ***************** else that pays more money.

>Colleges cost more
>People lose all their money taking college courses
>Said people have kids
>Said people can't afford to pay college costs for their kids because colleges cost too much.
>Kids can't get a good degree
>Kids go into minimum wage jobs (unless they're really lucky)
>Kids eventually have a family, whether by accident or purposely
>Can't afford to pay their kids college costs
>Cycle repeats

Just raising the minimum wage isn't the solution, but it's a better solution than telling them to just "get better jobs". It is, in essence, the joke about the rich telling the poor to just "buy more money".
User avatar #321 to #317 - xxiixx
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
If you know you can't afford children and don't want to struggle don't have them.
If you can't afford college out of pocket take out loans. You are investing in yourself so it should be a very safe investment.
Getting a non-minimum wage job isn't "really lucky", only 4.3% of workers make minimum wage or below. Jobs are out there. I went job hunting for my first job this Summer and had an interview scheduled after an hour. I make $10.50/hr with no experience or qualifications.
User avatar #418 to #321 - greyhoundfd
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/10/2014) [-]
Except the issue is that you can't just "take out a loan" because loan repayments, especially for college loans, tend to be very high. Yeah, you can take out maybe 20,000, but the people who want to go to good universities often have to take out 90,000 or more to attend.

I specifically meant those who only graduated with high-school degrees. Poor phrasing on my part, my fault. You also can't expect people to just not have children. Yeah, a lot of people do wait, but remember that we're talking about a portion of the population which tends to be poor, often relatively unintelligent, and most likely has not been educated as to the costs which go into raising children. Surprise surprise, we live in this magical thing called society, where when people **** up, we actually help them instead of leaving them for the wolves and saying things like "Well you should've planned better" when they're forced to live on the streets.

User avatar #421 to #418 - xxiixx
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/10/2014) [-]
If you can't afford to go to a top University then don't. If you have the merit to be there then you should be able to get some scholarships, and you can seek out private loans after you have exhausted the federal ones. My brother had to seek out private loans such as Sallie Mae to finish his degree at Georgia Tech after he lost his scholarship and I think he has accrued upwards of $60,000 in debt, but he is making $70,000 a year right out of college so it worth it. If you aren't willing to invest that much into yourself then go to a community college or something.
Society does help those with children. They get tax breaks and public schooling. If you are very poor, you get things like food stamps and medicaid. It is true that we won't pay 100% of the costs of you having children, but it is also true that you control your own reproduction. Myself for example, I can not afford to have a child at all with my ambitions and current income. I choose to not engage in casual sex to avoid the risk. It isn't hard.
#388 to #321 - swedishassassin
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
This. You've made me very happy
This. You've made me very happy
#71 to #59 - daemus
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(07/08/2014) [-]
Good show sir, good show. I agree with $11 at the most. That provides more expendable income for people new to the workforce that are trying to get by while in school or training for a specific position. In areas where the cost of living is pretty low, it may even be able to support a family of two or three.
User avatar #69 to #59 - azumeow
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(07/08/2014) [-]
I think maybe a minimum wage of 9 would be alright. But you ARE right, minimum wage is not something you're supposed to be able to raise a family on or anything.
User avatar #450 to #69 - godtherapist
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(07/11/2014) [-]
But there ARE people who raise kids on it. What do you suggest we do about that? Kill the children?
#184 - AztecJew
Reply +25 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
Or we could just stop granting tax breaks to businesses and corporations who gross over $1 million (reasonable?) a year and make corporate lobbying illegal. Then we could instill responsible spending and allow inflation to balance out and gradually reach economic equilibrium as products prices come to represent their intrinsic value as opposed to just what people are willing to pay. Should a pair of jeans cost $200? No. Never. Do people need to make $100/hour minimum so that those are obtainable? No. Economics don't work that way. It could also be an idea that if a business profits over a certain amount that their minimum wage is proportional to their annual income. E.g. $100 million a year with 1,000 employees at the entry level making maybe $15-20/hour. Just a thought.

mfw no philosophers legacy to bail us out
User avatar #280 to #184 - tkfourtwoone
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
And then China simply says "Taxes too high? We no have taxes, come to us!"

Seriously, keep coming up with these retarded ideas and people like you WILL lead US to economical collapse.
User avatar #385 to #280 - AztecJew
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
Well if you present me with a well thought out counter-argument to responsible spending then I'd be happy to read, otherwise you're just another archetypical angry internet guy screaming at everyone else's opinions while presenting none of your own.
User avatar #394 to #385 - tkfourtwoone
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
"otherwise you're just another archetypical angry internet guy screaming at everyone else's opinions"

Yeah, the difference is - I'm right, others aren't

What more of an argument do you want?!
Chinese sweatshops cost WAY less than the McDonalds fan, who wants at least $20k dollars per month. End of ******* story.

Oh, you want to contradict me?! OK, fine, tell me where General Motors has its factories today! Tell me where Apple has its factories today! Tell me where ANY big US corporation has its factories today!

Chinese are competitive, you ******* aren't. End of ******* story. Enjoy your ******* bankruptcy, you obese pieces of lazy fat sacks!
User avatar #397 to #394 - AztecJew
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
I'm gonna reply with this and nothing more.

You're nowhere near as intelligent as you'd like to think you are. When discussing opinions "right" and "wrong" aren't relevant. No one was discussing chinese sweat shops, that's completely off the wall and you speaking like this is a screaming match. If you have to resort to insults and profanity to get your inane point across then you have nothing important to say. You're just making an ass of yourself so take a step back and try to gather your thoughts with some real research and facts so you can formulate a solid, well informed opinion and then perhaps I'd be more inclined to take you seriously.
User avatar #426 to #397 - tkfourtwoone
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/10/2014) [-]
"When discussing opinions "right" and "wrong" aren't relevant."

******** they aren't.

"No one was discussing chinese sweat shops, that's completely off the wall"

It's not completely off the wall, and I shall resort to just one main, simple argument: ******* DETROIT.
Why do you think it's the bankrupt ******** it is now?! Because Chinese sweatshops.

If you aren't able to collerate the 2, I feel sorry for you
#449 to #426 - AztecJew
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/11/2014) [-]
all your doing is cussing and repeating yourself. Nothing you say has any weight or value to it. You'll have to find your sense of validation somewhere else.
all your doing is cussing and repeating yourself. Nothing you say has any weight or value to it. You'll have to find your sense of validation somewhere else.
User avatar #196 to #184 - sinconn
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
NO!

What you're doing is looking for a solution. That is not allowed.
I'm reporting you.
User avatar #214 to #184 - pwnagraphy
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
B-b-but then Congress and other rich people aren't going to pocket as much every year on top of their salary.....
#249 to #214 - shadowbreech
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
As sad as it is, that's exactly why they don't do that...
That's what happens when those in power start ******* around, there's nobody to stop them but each other, and that's not about to happen anytime soon...
User avatar #386 to #249 - AztecJew
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
yeah, because the American people are content to complain and carry on with their day. It's too much of a bother to be politically aware or active, let alone stand up as a people to remind the government that they work for us and we are not obliged to stand idly by while they act of their own fruition regardless of how it effects us.
#195 to #184 - jzpotter
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
I know, right?
User avatar #5 - thedungeonmaster
Reply +12 123456789123345869
(07/08/2014) [-]
Was this a legitimate argument she was trying to make? Because if so, someone needs to slap her in the face with a table and just get her off this planet.
#6 to #5 - anon id: 526452f1
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/08/2014) [-]
It was a badly made point about how when minimum wage increases, prices increase as cost of business increases. She's talking about people saying just pay more and people will buy more. My old "Political Science" professor always did the same ****, talking about taking an argument to an unrealistic extreme to see if it still holds water.
#8 to #6 - daddycool
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(07/08/2014) [-]
Which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do with logic. If the minimum wage being at $100 an hour is bad, then at what point, specifically, does the whole thing fall apart? Is $50 an hour too much? $20? $10? When does the minimum wage stop being a good thing and start being a bad thing? If $7 is good, then why not $8? Or $10? $20? $50? $100? It's a simple logical progression.

Let's take it out of the economy and apply it to food. If one piece of cake is good, why not 2? 5? 10? Why not? Well, because cake isn't really good for you, it's something that you eat because your body craves sugar which is quick energy. Eating one piece of cake is acceptable, because even though it's bad for you it's not so bad for you that it'll cripple you. Eating too much cake is bad for you. That's why you stop at 1 piece(or 2 or 5 or whatever number you stop at). It's the exact same thing with the minimum wage.

The minimum wage is horrible. It hurts poor people and it hurts the economy.
#223 to #8 - anon id: 526452f1
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
But by that logic, medicine is bad, because too much medicine has some pretty serious side effects. Many things work better on the small scale than, keyword, unrealistic extremes.
That said, I agree about the minimum wage. The only thing I disagreed with was the argument.
#331 to #223 - daddycool
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
No, by that logic medicine isn't bad, but at some point becomes bad. I'm against the minimum wage on pure principal, but using this logical progression highlights the negative effects of the minimum wage. Once you figure out what harm will come from having a $100 an hour minimum wage, you can then apply that to a smaller minimum wage and see when the negative consequences come into action.

Let's say, for the sake of argument (these numbers are completely made up and are not representative of reality) , that there's no adverse effects on the economy with a minimum wage of $10. There's no increase in unemployment like there would be at $11 an hour, there's no raising of the price of goods like at $15 an hour, and so on. Then, let's say the current minimum wage is at $7 an hour. Thus, we could easily raise the minimum wage to $10 an hour with no problems, give everyone a nice boost in their income.

It's the same as eating cake. You can eat one slice of cake with no problems. When you start increasing the number of slices then you start running into problems. The idea is to find the correct number of slices that you can eat without suffering the consequences for eating cake.
#10 to #8 - anon id: 2697fd69
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/08/2014) [-]
You raise it slowly and check what happens. Besides, companys don't care about "whole thing falling apart", they don't want to pay more, because it would mean owners will earn less. No scary armageddon, just less money for them. And trying to do that is the biggest crime there can be. Greed rules.
#12 to #5 - anon id: 038f0210
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/08/2014) [-]
There are non-stupid arguments against a minimum wage, like the idea that minimum wages reduce employment and raise prices. They turn out to be incorrect when applied to the real world, where minimum wage increases generally result in higher employment and more economic activity, but they are not stupid arguments.

This woman, on the other hand, really is that stupid.
#27 to #12 - anon id: d06ccb2b
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/08/2014) [-]
Except for the fact that raising minimum wage makes stuff very hard for small businesses. You can talk about greed all you want, but when a small Mom and Pop shop can't hire more than a single overworked store clerk due to increase in minimum wage and can barely pay themselves, it becomes difficult for them to succeed. Also, increase in minimum wage decreases the amount of low-tier jobs that become available due to companies not wanting to pay more, thereby increasing competition for those jobs and, consequently, unemployment.
#19 - katarinaismywaifu
Reply +11 123456789123345869
(07/08/2014) [-]
They will soon start to be content with $1 an hour. Seriously. Their jobs are so easy that they will soon be automated in the near future.
#35 to #19 - roneffinswanson
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/08/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #58 to #19 - notthepedobear
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/08/2014) [-]
Someone has to maintain those machines. JustSayin.jpg
User avatar #60 to #58 - katarinaismywaifu
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(07/08/2014) [-]
It won't be someone who want wage increase
User avatar #61 to #60 - notthepedobear
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/08/2014) [-]
Then they should go finish high school and get a real job. There is no one, who can't get a decent job somewhere. Moving maybe required, but in my experience, I only had to move a hour and a half away from my parents house. To get a job that pays very well.
User avatar #64 to #61 - katarinaismywaifu
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(07/08/2014) [-]
Way to misunderstand what I'm saying