spurgeonryan said: Soleron said: spurgeonryan said: Why do they need higher wages? For doing what? Are they charging extra for cumming on my triple burger? On their current pay, they currently don't earn enough to live (house, utilities, transport, food) without working a second job or getting handouts from the state. why is that any of our problem?   they made the poor choices in life. they stand there and flip a burger patty and repeat. why do they need more than minimum wage? they did not work hard in schoolb or did drugsb or got kidsb or etc. get a second job then. you pay for your choices in life.

Because a lot of people then apply for benefits, thus costing you, the tax payers, a fuck ton of money. I think it's hard to blame them entirely for working there, we are in a global depression. I have a friend who got her masters a few years ago and she still ended up working in a cloths shop for 3 years, because finding a job can be insane.

The $15 is not the amount they likely intend on getting, but when negotiating you always start at the top end.

Hmmm...lets see....people want to talk about socialism and the ills it will bring.

We have a over 40 million collecting unemployment which means 15% of the country is not able to afford healthcare which is just terrible. The jobs come and go like winter wheat and the lobbyists try to keep the minimum wage down so the companies can enjoy their ever increasing profits. We have a central bank in a capitalist nation that was built not to have one. We have a dollar that has been diluted for almost a full century. We no longer have a AAA credit rating. Our public education system is funded but poorly managed. We had a housing bubble because for nearly forty years public and private banks gave out loans to individuals who could not pay them back under order of the President Carter. Our treasury is owned by the Asians (I use Asians loosely because its not just the Chinese). Detroit needs to be bailed out....yes...a very socialist thing to do...a federal bailout, kind of like the socialist bailout we did for the banks and automotive companies in 2008. 



Yeah... if we don't go semi-socialist....

The camels back will be broken.

The way things are going it's either mend it with socialist ideals until a remedy can be found or allow the corporations to figure out a fascist solution themselves. This is what lobbyists are for.

S.T.A.G.E. said: Hmmm...lets see....people want to talk about socialism and the ills it will bring. We have a over 40 million collecting unemployment which means 15% of the country is not able to afford healthcare which is just terrible.  The way things are going it's either mend it with socialist ideals until a remedy can be found or allow the corporations to figure out a fascist solution themselves. This is what lobbyists are for.

Not sure where you are getting 15% of the country from that...

Best i can find the number of uninsured is ~46 million.

Which is 6.8% of the country uninsured. (313 million)  

 

Of course that's not can't afford it either...

 

since around 14 Million people qualify for Medicaid or other government programs and just aren't enrolled.

 

10 Million are illegal aliens, which, you may or may not count.  If you don't that's... down to 22 Million.

 

That's down to 3.25% of Americans.

 

 

Edit: Or really this breaks it down more indepth with actual numbers.

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-300985

 

 

Now if instead of affording health insurance you wan to make a specific minium level of healthcare you consider adequate... that could definitly get you up to that number.  To say they can't afford healthcare at all though isn't true.

the2real4mafol said: A country is either socialist or it isn't. America isn't, i wouldn't even say most of Europe is (maybe some of the Northern European countries). But honestly, if look at democrats or republicans they are both conservatives, one is just conservative lite. The left or socialism doesn't exist in America. Stuff like obamacare or any work benefits in America could be considered socialist but it don't make the whole country socialist

Sorry the world isn't that black and white. The welfare parts of the US government are definatly socialist traits. Most countries are a mix of both socailism and capitalism. Not either or. China while socailist, also has capitolist policies too. I cant think of a single country that is pure socialism. Can you?

thranx said: the2real4mafol said: A country is either socialist or it isn't. America isn't, i wouldn't even say most of Europe is (maybe some of the Northern European countries). But honestly, if look at democrats or republicans they are both conservatives, one is just conservative lite. The left or socialism doesn't exist in America. Stuff like obamacare or any work benefits in America could be considered socialist but it don't make the whole country socialist  Sorry the world isn't that black and white. The welfare parts of the US government are definatly socialist traits. Most countries are a mix of both socailism and capitalism. Not either or. China while socailist, also has capitolist policies too. I cant think of a single country that is pure socialism. Can you?

Not even the countries that claim to be socialist are really that "socialist". I suppose it's really just a label that i misused, although there are huge differences between how things are run in every country. North Korea- a country that is really based on Social Darwinism and very authoritarian values. China- Socialism, Capitalism and Authoritarianism mixed together. Cuba/ Vietnam/ Lao- kept their authoritarian governments from the revolution but have some sort of free market today. All but North Korea have embraced State Capitalism recently. But i wouldn't call America socialist on it's own but Capitalist with some socialist traits as you said. China is obviously more Socialist with the state heavily involved in the economy but yeah there is free trade in some parts now. 

Cubedramirez said: nuckles87 said: I know exactly what socialism is. I'm not saying America is on the level of Denmark or France, but America has PLENTY of socialist institutions in its own right. So saying "America isn't socialist" is just wrong. It's just not AS socialist as the countries you mention. Cubedramirez said: nuckles87 said: spurgeonryan said: We are not a socialist/communistic society. It would be nice for everyone to make doctor salary. But is not right. Sorry mr. Khan. I am in your boat. Several degrees plenty of experience, crap or no jobs. But mcdonalds should not have to pay these workers extra for this. We ARE a socialist society. We have social security, public roads and highways, a publically funded military, foodstamps and a variety of other social welfare programs that essentially subsidize the low wages of corporations like Walmart and McDonalds. We've funded a variety of public works, given government money to a variety of start ups and corporations. No, not everyone should make a doctor's salary, but you are just intentionally trying to blow out of proportion what SHOULD be done: we need a higher minimum wage. It didn't used to be like this. We didn't used to have to work two jobs to survive. In fact in the 1960s we were heading towards a less then 40 hour work week. One of the big problems right now is that the minimum wage isn't worth what it used to be worth. It's currently at $7, but 40 years ago in today's dollars it would be well over $10. THAT is what these people should be making. That is what anyone with a job should be making. Without a living wage, people either get subsidized by the government (socialism) or they starve and die in the street. I'm afraid to ask which one you prefer. Personally, I would prefer private companies pay their employees enough to survive, not have them rely on, as you would probably call them, "socialist government handouts" which is what is currently going on.   insomniac17 said: Cubedramirez said: Kudos for mentioning Mises and Hayek. That was a pleasant surprise. @general; If you raise the minimum wage in order to provide a "living wage" for people, then you will also have to ensure that inflation does not take place. Otherwise, all raising the minimum wage will do will be to drive up the cost of everything else. Other people will get a pay increase, because they don't want to work for minimum wage; many of these people got a degree or some training and have knowledge in their field that the average person does not (thus, there is more demand for these people, because there is a lower supply of qualified workers). The effect of that, of course, is to drive up prices across the board... putting you back to square one, where you find yourself in need of raising the minimum wage again. The problem with preventing inflation is that you'll basically have to freeze wages and prices for everyone. After raising the minimum wage, of course. But this harms everyone too, because businesses will get less profit. That might sound good at first, but less profit for a business means less room to expand, less motivation to expand with lower returns, fewer jobs being created, and an overall loss of wealth by everyone in the economy. Increasing the minimum wage sounds nice, but it's really just kicking the can down the road. I can sympathize with low wage earners, as I am one myself (making less than the apparent average of $9.02/hr for fast food cooks). But I understand that my job is something that could be done by literally anyone with hands, feet, and a semi functional brain. It's a temporary job while I seek to improve my skills that will hopefully lead to a better job down the road. Certainly, we need more then just a higher minimum wage. We need to figure out how to train our work force to take higher paying jobs in a changing economy. But at the same time, a higher minimum wage IS needed because its simply better for people and the economy in the long run. Attaching it to inflation would be a good way to keep inflation from devalueing it in the future. Cubedramirez said: Mr Khan said: Cubedramirez said: spurgeonryan said: 15 dollars is idiotic. They place it that high so there is some wriggle room, if mcdonalds doe snot just fire them and hire someone else.   That's what the Golden Arches should do. Its ENTRY level work, that means ANYONE can fill it and if they took a simple class in economics they'd understand that salary and wages are paid based on the available pool of prospects. The larger pool the less you pay, the more exclusive the pool the greater the salary/wage Why is this so hard for people to understand? Because some people have to make a living off of that, and dignity is more valuable than private property. Pointless and irrelevant Increasing the cost of labor without an increase in productivity devalues the money used to purchase the labor, the effects on everyone through increase prices and reduced value of their savings. It’s not rocket science but sadly it seems people in our country believe in fairy tale economics and false altruism rather than reason and logic. It’s not McDonald’s responsibility to provide a living wage. It is the responsibility of the employee to take advantage of the opportunity working there provides and use that experience to move on from that restaurant.     The problem with this argument is that productivity HAS been going up....and wages have been stagnating. http://rortybomb.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/epi_productivity.jpg So I think we're about due for an increase in the minimum wage regardless, especially going by the logic that an increase in productivity should lead to an increase in the value of work. Raising the wage will do nothing but have a negative rippled effect through the market, cost will go up, quality of life will require that much more capital than before and now we're at a place where a 15 dollar hour job at an entry level pushes wages up for other sectors and now the purchasing power of that 15 dollar an hour buys what 7 dollars an hour used to. It's a never ending cycle. The only way to address this is for the employee to grow out of entry level positions. That responsibility falls squarely on the employee, not the business. We can also debate the devaluing of the dollar which has a disproportionate impact on lower income earners. That’s the real boogie man here, not Ronald McDonald. So I guess we're just ignoring your whole argument over wages needing to go up with productivity then, right? Given I just showed that productivity HAS been going up and wages haven't? Alright, just checking. In any case, the problem with your argument here is that, in jobs like McDonalds, there is pretty much nothing but "entry level positions". That makes up nearly 90% of McD's entire workforce. http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1261828/original.jpg So really, this ISN'T on the employees, because the vast majority of the employees in the fast food industry simply have no place to advance. And with that, I'm kinda done with this thread. I was hoping for a little more then the usual conservative boogie man "higher wages will crash the economy" response.   The naivety displayed is overwhelming to my senses. Entry level work by definition means anyone can do the work. Due to the fact the job does not require previous job skills or experience to do. Hence, because you’re not compensating an employee for their past experience you go ahead and pay a wage which takes into account the lack of experience and understanding the new employee would bring to the position. No equity, so no premium.   I don't expect much from a gaming board, what saddens me is that I live in a country where false altruism and the 'entitlement' mind set take precedence over reason and logic.  I agree, this thread has gone on long enough.

Yes, but if everyone is that much more productive at entry level work, they deserve to be further rewarded. Higher productivity should command higher wages, because that's what is both fair and expected.

CDiablo said: Wouldnt this just be a food industry subsidization? Places like Applebees, Red Lobster, Fridays , ect. and grocery stores would get more business cause they cost near the same as the new prices of McDonalds and the like.

No, that would be if the government were giving McDonald's money to force their wages up. This is the government forcing them to do it themselves.

People seem to be under the impression that you can live on 7.50 an hour. okay sure.

Figgycal said: People seem to be under the impression that you can live on 7.50 an hour. okay sure.

That's why you leave those sort of jobs to teenagers and basement nerds. Both still live with their parents. If you're trying to make it on your own, you go for something better.

the2real4mafol said: thranx said: the2real4mafol said: A country is either socialist or it isn't. America isn't, i wouldn't even say most of Europe is (maybe some of the Northern European countries). But honestly, if look at democrats or republicans they are both conservatives, one is just conservative lite. The left or socialism doesn't exist in America. Stuff like obamacare or any work benefits in America could be considered socialist but it don't make the whole country socialist  Sorry the world isn't that black and white. The welfare parts of the US government are definatly socialist traits. Most countries are a mix of both socailism and capitalism. Not either or. China while socailist, also has capitolist policies too. I cant think of a single country that is pure socialism. Can you? Not even the countries that claim to be socialist are really that "socialist". I suppose it's really just a label that i misused, although there are huge differences between how things are run in every country. North Korea- a country that is really based on Social Darwinism and very authoritarian values. China- Socialism, Capitalism and Authoritarianism mixed together. Cuba/ Vietnam/ Lao- kept their authoritarian governments from the revolution but have some sort of free market today. All but North Korea have embraced State Capitalism recently. But i wouldn't call America socialist on it's own but Capitalist with some socialist traits as you said. China is obviously more Socialist with the state heavily involved in the economy but yeah there is free trade in some parts now.

Well this saved be an explanation I thought shouldn't even be needed. Yes, exactly. There is no such thing as a purely capitalist, socialist, or communist society, simply because these are ideals, more so then something that can be adhered to strictly. America is a LOT less capitalistic then it was in the 19th century, when their were far fewer social programs and far more debters prisons and poor houses. These days America has PLENTY of socialist institutions. Likewise, it is a requirement in the European Union for any prospective future members to have viable capitalist economies. Europe HAS capitalism. There is no either/or here. So when someone says "America isn't socialist" or "Europe doesn't have capitalism", I have to point out that they are wrong, as I am tired of seeing these terms misused. Now, I hope that's the end of this.

burninmylight said: Figgycal said: People seem to be under the impression that you can live on 7.50 an hour. okay sure. That's why you leave those sort of jobs to teenagers and basement nerds. Both still live with their parents. If you're trying to make it on your own, you go for something better.

If life were that simple, I'm sure they would. Unfortunately it isn't and for many people these are the only sorts of jobs available to them. I would fully support a new minimum wage only for people 18 and up.