It's high-time that we doubled the National Minimum-Wage in America!

For the moronic who think US Taxation is heavy:

Yeah, if you live in Mexico, you think US taxation is "heavy" ...

 

Makes no difference poverty thresholds or minimum wages or whatever games you wish to play...forever and for always people generally earn what they are capable of earning. If someone qualifies only for unskilled labor then that someone must learn some skills in order to earn more. That someone cannot wait for people like you or government to double their wages. If the MW doubles then so does the entire wage scale over time which means those functioning on the bottom rungs will find themselves permanently in those bottom rungs unless they can differentiate themselves from others in order to have more earning potential. There is no entitlement when it comes to wages! Every worker is competing with others for jobs...

 

Just think what we could do with the 20% of Federal revenue that goes straight out the window in interest on the national debt

 

Well no, 85-95% would be more worthy of that description. And that would be good.

Get this: at a recent conference a conversation between big business leaders was over heard discussing the evolution of capitalism and where we are now with it in the US, and one said “we’re in that phase of the economic system where everybody’s job is to grab whatever is not nailed down and RUN”.

That pretty well describes what's happening. Shall we help by giving it all to them?

 

Can't argue with that, although I would say that everyone is 'entitled' to accept or decline a wage another is willing to offer.

 

Nobody likes debt, either personal or public.

But, there is one thing that the one must learn particularly about public-debt. There will be nobody knocking on the door of the White House to repossess it if the US does not want to pay its debt. It will simply cost more in interest to borrow more.

Of course, this means that Uncle Sam need not go on a spending-spree either. Which is characterized indeed by the fact that fully 54% of the National Discretionary Budget is in only one government agency. The one called the DoD! (See that sad fact displayed here.)

The US has no other debt-spinning mechanism as "energetic" as the DoD; which sacrifices the budget of all other agencies by means of which the American people could be bettering their lot in life.

Yes, for example a National Health Care system (for a country killing itself with obesity), and a Free Tertiary-education for our kids who need it (as Hillary promised having adopted an idea from Bernie - who got it from Europe).

Both of those "public services" are far more important to America and Americans than the DoD and its massive expenditures on sophisticated armaments.

My Point? I do not propose that America should not have a DoD, but that it should have one in proportion to OTHER PRIORITIES that are equally or even more important ...

 

Once again if you subtract ALL MEANS TESTED ENTITLEMENTS-SNAP, Federal housing assistance, Veterans benefits, educational funding, Pell Grants, EVERYTHING government does beyond the administrative overhead of actually running the government, defense spending takes the lion's share.

I'm sure it would be great to have more unemployed college graduates and publicly funded medical research which you will bitch and complain about because a private company will profit from it.

 

Dear @LafayetteBis
Democrats can unite to reform the prison system, especially defunding the death penalty to pay for universal care. Cut govt waste and use that to pay for jobs and education in medical care in order to provide the services.

As for doubling the wages, if you allow companies to deduct the higher costs from taxes maybe they could afford it. As it is, cities that pushed for higher wages saw jobs drop that businesses couldn't support, especially the lower pay jobs that students need to pay for school. If they have to pay more, they will combine jobs and create middle mgmt jobs, and expect those people to do more work for less pay to make up the difference.

But if jobs are created out of restitution for crime and abuses that cost money owed to taxpayers, then we can fund education and jobs by collecting back from govt waste.

www.rightsfortheworkers.org www.earnedamnesty.org

 

You must live on another planet...here there is no entitlement to have a job. People must compete for jobs. All workers make the decision to accept or reject the job offer...no one is holding a gun to their head. IMO one major problem we have today is too many people don't wish to compete for jobs...they just think someone else will make it happen for them...

 

WTF??? Did I say anything about anyone having an entitlement to have a job? I simply stated "everyone is 'entitled' to accept or decline a wage another is willing to offer."

I agree with the gist of what you are saying, but in your previous post, where you said "There is no entitlement when it comes to wages!" I was simply pointing out the fact that we are each 'entitled', or to put it another way 'have an unalienable right" to accept or decline an offered wage. A minimum wage, in my opinion, simply reduces the number of offerings available to those seeking gainful employment.

And you disagree with what I am saying?

 

Defense of the 50 States is the primary function for which the government was created, not for the social programs that are unending in their creation of debt beyond our ability to repay.

 

FROM THE INDUSTRIAL TO THE INFORMATION AGE

I don't know how long you have been reading this forum, but I will repeat the principle means (I suggest) for "winning the battle of future employment" given the monumental challenge of Age Change. We are exiting from the Industrial and entering the Information Age.

This is our principle challenge economically. Because American labor in manufacturing has been reduced drastically down to only 12% of the total. Most jobs today are in the Services Industries, which require a higher level of educational competence.

Our present Economic Challenge consists principally of:
*Post-secondary Education must be made free, gratis and for nothing in order for our people (regardless of age) to have the requisite skillsets American labor is seeking nowadays. Those skill sets are significantly more developed than a hundred years ago when the Industrial Age was in full growth.
*Ditto health-care by means of a National HealthCare System (NHS), because the cost is sucking far to much capital out of the market-economy just to keep wages high for a select group of individuals, and higher profits for insurance companies.
*For the first above, the money is already there - except spent foolishly on the DoD that gobs 54% of the nation's Discretionary Budget. See that fact demonstrated graphically here. (Clearly, the Dept. of Education expenditure must be increased significantly.)

None of the above proposals are Mission Impossible. The European Union (EU) has established in each nation both an NHS and free Tertiary Education. (And the EU has a population twice that of the US!)

Both objectives above are simply a matter of national will. Which is lacking in the US ...

 

common sense my friend, min wage needs to go up, but not that much

no on the other hand republicans want to give the filthy rich 100% tax cut

 

Ironic position since the DoD not only provides free education to its members--it pays them to sit in training

 

Yes - and if you survive a bit of combat in Syria/Afghanistan the DoD pays your post-secondary school fees!

Wow! BFD ... !!!

 

As many times as it takes to get the message across to "thick people" reading this forum ...

 

As do most large Corporations. I imagine even McDonalds, Walmarts and nearly any and every business provides some form of training of newly hired employees before putting them to work.

 

Minimum wage going up isn't going to help anyone and will only hurt those that are already there. As we saw in Seattle, when the minimu m wage went up, hours were cut and average weekly wages went down.

What needs to happen is to incentivise companies to bring back paid internships and apprenticeships to give no skill workers a path to better employment in the trades that are hurting for able workers now.

 

You can't deny that it does help politicians who campaign on increasing social spending by the Federal government. Those persons who lose employment, those who find it increasingly difficult to find employment, and those who don't care to be employed are more likely to vote for candidates who will provide some, more, or all of their needs and some or more of their wants.

Businesses, both large and small, remain in business only as long as they can pay their bills. Minimum wage increases burdens small businesses more than large businesses. Large businesses can often increase productivity without increasing the number of employees while small businesses productivity is more often a result of human labour and accounts for a larger portion of their costs.

 

Depends upon "when" they went up in Seattle. If it was in the middle of the Great Recession, the unemployment is due mostly to lack of Demand in a major economic recession.

So, you are blaming the wrong culprit. Just because the increase in the MW had a deleterious effect at the same time as high unemployment does not mean the latter is due simply to the former.

You are "cherry-picking" your arguments. Lot's of nasty things happened during the Great Recession and they carried right through to today.

It took WW2 to put America right after the Great Depression. Shall we presume you think Donald Dork should kick-start the US economy with another war somewhere to correct all the ills of the Great Recession? (Of course, your kids will be unavailable for recruitment!)

 

You are the only one talking about the recession. This article is like 2 months old.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/mone...5-minimum-wage-may-hurting-workers/431424001/

 

The Minimum Wage in Seattle was voted in 2014. From the CNBC:

It was a good move, and - yes - it will take time for it to become workable. But, those with qualification will still get jobs at the low end because the economy is at near bottom unemployment levels. In fact, the economy is gradually improving its Employment-to-population Ratio, which means more and more people are joining the workforce.

Yes, others will loose their jobs, as some small companies/outlets can't afford the increase in pay. Such is life - we should have risen gradually the Minimum Wage as from 2009 (8 years ago). Whilst prices have been increasing during those years since by between 1 and 3.2% EVERY YEAR.

How would YOU like a fixed Minimum Wage whilst the cost of your housing and groceries was rising by 1 to 3.2% a year for 8 years ... ?

 

So the fact that minimum wage increases lowered monthly take home pay for minimum wage workers makes you think we should have raised them earlier?
What would I do for minimum wage workers? I would offer an outlet off menial labor jobs by offering tax credits and the loosening of some labor laws, like unions, for paid interns and apprenticeships.


I will use my employer as an example. We have 3 levels of structures worker. 1 is apprentice, 2 is basic, 3 is senior.

Govt should pass a credit into the tax code to cover wages and employment taxes for 1 year. An apprenticeship for my job wpuld involve 3 stages.

1. Classroom where you learn basic theory and practices. 3 months.

2. Practical shop work where you apply these theories. 3 months.

3. Probationary period on the shop floor. 6 months.

 

You don't have to be exposed to combat to be eligible for the GI Bills. There are 3 types, but your ignorance applies to all of them.

 

I gather you are talking about "apprenticeship programs". The most renowned of which is Germany's.

Yes, for the first-level of Tertiary Education apprenticeship programs work well. Ninety-five percent of apprentices are hired (upon completion of the program) by the companies where they apprenticed ...