Minimum Wage a winning issue for Democrats

[opebo]

Interesting article on the minimum wage - apparently while Bush was winning Florida, a small increase in the minimum wage passed 72 to 28 percent!
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/01/19/minimum_wage_issue_a_winner_for_democrats/

[A18]

Most Americans seem to have a favorable view of minimum wage, but it's not a "winning issue" for Democrats, because almost no one gets paid minimum wage.

I support specific kinds of ballot initiatives, but ones like this obviously should not exist. One of the nice things about living in VA.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

According to this, FL has no minimum wage law.

All 9 states with no minimum wage, or minimum wage lower than the federal voted for Bush.
12 out of 13 of the states with minimum wage higher than the federal voted for Kerry.

http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm


Interestingly California has $6.75 an hour (not the highest state), but the city, and only the city of San Francisco has $8.50 (the highest in the US).

$8.50 an hour might get you a 1 bedroom apartment in SF, if you work like 70 hours a week.

[WalterMitty]

explain to me how a state can have a lower minimum wage than federal law?

federal law trumps any state law. 

it sounds like that is leftist propoganda.

as for the minimum wage, it should be abolished.  unfortunately, most politicians are too spineless to ever say such a thing out loud. who wants to be labled 'anti poor'?   persoanlly, i dont mind if im labled as such.

the market should always set wages.  period.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

explain to me how a state can have a lower minimum wage than federal law?

federal law trumps any state law. 

it sounds like that is leftist propoganda.

as for the minimum wage, it should be abolished.  unfortunately, most politicians are too spineless to ever say such a thing out loud. who wants to be labled 'anti poor'?   persoanlly, i dont mind if im labled as such.

the market should always set wages.  period.

Of course the federal law overrides the state law.

Do you want to go back to worker condiitions of the the late 1800s?

[WalterMitty]

explain to me how a state can have a lower minimum wage than federal law?

federal law trumps any state law. 

it sounds like that is leftist propoganda.

as for the minimum wage, it should be abolished.  unfortunately, most politicians are too spineless to ever say such a thing out loud. who wants to be labled 'anti poor'?   persoanlly, i dont mind if im labled as such.

the market should always set wages.  period.

Of course the federal law overrides the state law.

Do you want to go back to worker condiitions of the the late 1800s?

if you mean by that getting rid of all labor unions and minimum wages, then yes i would like to go back to that era.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

explain to me how a state can have a lower minimum wage than federal law?

federal law trumps any state law. 

it sounds like that is leftist propoganda.

as for the minimum wage, it should be abolished.  unfortunately, most politicians are too spineless to ever say such a thing out loud. who wants to be labled 'anti poor'?   persoanlly, i dont mind if im labled as such.

the market should always set wages.  period.

Of course the federal law overrides the state law.

Do you want to go back to worker condiitions of the the late 1800s?

if you mean by that getting rid of all labor unions and minimum wages, then yes i would like to go back to that era.

Wow.

How do you feel about the Johnstown, PA flood, and the Triangle Factory Fire?

[J. J.]

explain to me how a state can have a lower minimum wage than federal law?

federal law trumps any state law. 

it sounds like that is leftist propoganda.

as for the minimum wage, it should be abolished.  unfortunately, most politicians are too spineless to ever say such a thing out loud. who wants to be labled 'anti poor'?   persoanlly, i dont mind if im labled as such.

the market should always set wages.  period.

Of course the federal law overrides the state law.

Do you want to go back to worker condiitions of the the late 1800s?

if you mean by that getting rid of all labor unions and minimum wages, then yes i would like to go back to that era.

Wow.

How do you feel about the Johnstown, PA flood, and the Triangle Factory Fire?

JFRAUD, neither the 1889, 1936, nor 1977 (and that one I was in) Johnstown Floods had anything to do with labor unions, minimum wages, or working conditions in or near Johnstown, PA. 

The Triangle Factory Fire, while it did help spur unionization, was probably more of a in creating governmental workplace safety regulations.

[danwxman]

The Johnstown Flood did have to do with greedy corporate pigs, though.

[J. J.]

The Johnstown Flood did have to do with greedy corporate pigs, though.

No, the first one (May, 1889) had to do with a group of people, some wealthy, some not, using the law to avoid liability.  It wasn't business that owned the dam; it was the Southfork Hunting and Fishing Club, and the courts determined that any negligence was that of a company that went bankrupt some decades before.

The second (March, 1936) had to do with the Spring thaw.

The third (July, 1977) had to do with 11 inches of rain in 9 hours (and the fact that Johnstown is in a valley).

[senatortombstone]

The beginnings of minimum wage are rooted in racism.

Back in the early twentieth century, the higher skilled white workers had to deal with competition from the lesser, but adequately skilled, black workers.  The black workers were paid less than the whites and they did the job well enough.  So the unions demanded equal pay for all, a minimum wage.  So now the greedy capitalistic pigs that ran these businesses had to pay blacks and whites equally.  Well, since the whites were generally better workers than the blacks, and since the incentive to hire blacks (lower wages) was gone, they stopped hiring blacks and when positions held by blacks went vacant they filled them with whites.

I read about this in some piece by Walter E Williams.  He compares it to buying chuck steak and fillet mignon.  Now most of us would prefer fillet mignon to chuck steal, just as employers prefered better qualified white workers to black ones.  Both were good, one was better; but the better one was more expensive.  the same applies to chuck steak and fille mignon.  I am not going to balk at chuck steak, it tastes good.  Fillet mignon is better but it is too expensive for me.  WIlliams compared the cost to a pound of chuck steak at $4 and a pound of fillet mignon at $10.  Now say a fillet-loving liberal comes in and wants to eliminate competition of chuck steak. What does he do? He raises the price of chuck steak to $10 a pound!  Now in the past those who preferred fillet mignon, usually didn't buy it because it wasn't worth the higher cost to them.  Now hoever since they are forced to pay the same price for chuck steak, they don't want to buy it because they can get somethig better for the same thing.  It applies equally to lowering the price of Fillet mignon to $4.  now people will start to  by the $4 fillet mignon over the $4 chuck steak.  If companies can get qualifed whites to work as cheaply as lesser qualified blacks, they will.

I finally realize now the empowerment that economic freedom brings and how it restrains itself as long as social freedom is enforced.

[opebo]

The beginnings of minimum wage are rooted in racism.

Who cares if the original minimum wage in the US had a racist purpose? 

Anyway the problem of unemployment for those who aren't 'worth' the minimum can be solved by a generous welfare state. 

[senatortombstone]

The beginnings of minimum wage are rooted in racism.

Who cares if the original minimum wage in the US had a racist purpose? 

Anyway the problem of unemployment for those who aren't 'worth' the minimum can be solved by a generous welfare state. 

taxation is legalized theft, please don't steal from me.  Opebo, if you feel so sorry for the poor, donate to them out of your own pocket, but don't take from mine!

[Moooooo]

taxation is legalized theft, please don't steal from me.  Opebo, if you feel so sorry for the poor, donate to them out of your own pocket, but don't take from mine!

Than you would agree that everyone in this country who opposes the war in Iraq should be able to opt out of taxes that are funding the war? "Donate to them out of your own pocket, but don't take from mine!"

[senatortombstone]

taxation is legalized theft, please don't steal from me.  Opebo, if you feel so sorry for the poor, donate to them out of your own pocket, but don't take from mine!

Than you would agree that everyone in this country who opposes the war in Iraq should be able to opt out of taxes that are funding the war? "Donate to them out of your own pocket, but don't take from mine!"

Iraq is a matter of national/world security.  Paying for tanesha's 8 out-of-wedlock born children is not.

[Moooooo]

Paying for tanesha's 8 out-of-wedlock born children is not.

 

Listening to Reagan's "Caddilac queens" speech again? ::sigh::

[opebo]

taxation is legalized theft, please don't steal from me.  Opebo, if you feel so sorry for the poor, donate to them out of your own pocket, but don't take from mine!

Than you would agree that everyone in this country who opposes the war in Iraq should be able to opt out of taxes that are funding the war? "Donate to them out of your own pocket, but don't take from mine!"

Iraq is a matter of national/world security.  Paying for tanesha's 8 out-of-wedlock born children is not.

Nah, Iraq is a mistake, not unlike getting pregnant.  Besides, your racist implication is inaccurate - many more poor whites, particularly in rural areas, recieve welfare than do blacks. 

[senatortombstone]

Paying for tanesha's 8 out-of-wedlock born children is not.

 

Listening to Reagan's Caddilac queens speech again? ::sigh::

How funny that you should use an analogy of a vehicle.  Thank you! You have inspired me to do the same.

Ok, let's say that you and I were walking down a street and we came across Tanesha, who just missed her bus.  Now, as we walk past Tanesha, she tells us her sob-story and that she needs to get home pronto!  You feel sorry for her and want to help her.  I have a vehicle, you don't.  That, however, doesn't stop you from saying "hey! Don't Worry!  Senatortombstone can take you home!" Now, I do feel for this woman, I have a car she doesn't.  She has a long way to get home, so do I.  So thanks to you, I am coerced into taking her home.  The woman isn't grateful; she doesn't offer to pay for the gasoline or other wear and tear done to my vehicle.  In fact, she even has the audacity to ask me to take her to a few places on the way home and you follow her lead and insist on it.  By the time everything is done, my time and gasoline are spent, my car has less overall available miles it that I can drive according to my desires and then Tanesha asks if I can give her a ride tomorrow.  Once again you volunteer my services, at no cost or expense to yourself and once again I am left working and driving for someone else.

The analogy here is quite simple:

Tanesha represents the non-tax paying poor who are the ungrateful beneficiaries of......

you, who represents the liberal left.  You feel sorry for the poor and the have-nots and in order to help them you forcibly take money from.......

Me, I who represent the conservative wage-earning American.  I who was a victim of you and Tanesha, who deprived of my...........

Private property, in this case be it my car, my time, the continued perishable resources need to empower my vehicle.

Now, I, the conservative wage-earner, don't impose on you, I am not eligible for free transportation, food or medical services because I make enough so that I don't qualify for such things.  However, I can hardly afford them for myself because you keep taking the money I would spend on such things and giving it others who, for one reason or another, don't have enough money as well.

Now this is a problem, their problem, and I should not be held responsible for them anymore than they are for my problems.  I like to help people, but I have to help myself first, I have to be responsible for myself and my family, like Tanesha should for hers.  Unfortunately, because i am responsible and believe in taking car of my own, i do not yet have a family.  Unlike Tanesha who recklessly engages in sexual intercourse with whomever she pleases, with no regard to the consequences that such actions will have on those whom she as brought into the world and the ones she will.  I and every other responsible person have been forced to be responsible for her.

[senatortombstone]

taxation is legalized theft, please don't steal from me.  Opebo, if you feel so sorry for the poor, donate to them out of your own pocket, but don't take from mine!

Than you would agree that everyone in this country who opposes the war in Iraq should be able to opt out of taxes that are funding the war? "Donate to them out of your own pocket, but don't take from mine!"

Iraq is a matter of national/world security.  Paying for tanesha's 8 out-of-wedlock born children is not.

Nah, Iraq is a mistake, not unlike getting pregnant.  Besides, your racist implication is inaccurate - many more poor whites, particularly in rural areas, recieve welfare than do blacks. 

please, don;t bring racism into this, try to mature.  I, and most others, are sick and tired of race being brought up when it is not relevant.

I could and next time will use the example of Cletus, the slacked jawed yokel to prove my point.

[opebo]

taxation is legalized theft, please don't steal from me.  Opebo, if you feel so sorry for the poor, donate to them out of your own pocket, but don't take from mine!

Than you would agree that everyone in this country who opposes the war in Iraq should be able to opt out of taxes that are funding the war? "Donate to them out of your own pocket, but don't take from mine!"

Iraq is a matter of national/world security.  Paying for tanesha's 8 out-of-wedlock born children is not.

Nah, Iraq is a mistake, not unlike getting pregnant.  Besides, your racist implication is inaccurate - many more poor whites, particularly in rural areas, recieve welfare than do blacks. 

please, don;t bring racism into this, try to mature.  I, and most others, are sick and tired of race being brought up when it is not relevant.

I could and next time will use the example of Cletus, the slacked jawed yokel to prove my point.

You brought up race with your racist comment.  I was merely responding.

[dazzleman]

When it comes to the poor, here are the realities:

-There are some poor people who are deserving of help.  But there are many who are poor at least partly because they have an entitlement mentality, and aren't willing to do anything for themselves.  Many have made one disastrous life decision after another, and have no intention of changing their behavior patterns.

-I have observed a pattern of behavior with animals as well as humans.  Once you do something for them once, you owe it to them.  This is not confined to the poor; I see this at work all the time.  It never pays to do somebody a favor; once you do their job once for them, it becomes your job, and it takes a big fight to get them to take it back.  This is what has happened with many of the poor - society has accepted more and more responsibility to do for these people what they should be doing for themselves, and now it wouldn't even occur to many of them to help themselves.  More generous welfare programs only deepen their dependency and therefore poverty.  Anybody who can't see this by now is either a nitwit, or wearing blinders.  Incidentally, this is the same reason why it's a bad idea to feed wild animals.  They lose the ability to get the food on their own, and they become very angry and demanding if you try to stop feeding them.  This behavior is not confined to humans.

-While in overall numbers, there are more whites who are poor and on welfare, on a percentage basis, the percentage of blacks who are poor and on welfare is much higher than whites, or any other large-scale ethnic group.  These negative statistics spill over into other social problems that are linked, such as illegitimacy (which is the cause of most of it), crime rates, educational failure, etc.  It is not racist to say or imply this, because it is true.  We'll never solve these problems if everybody who points out these truths is called a racist.  We all know these things.  You couldn't possibly live in this society very long without figuring it out.  Even hypocritical liberals who refuse to admit these things know them and act upon them, so who's kidding who here?

I actually believe in some level of minimum wage, but I don't think it should be at a very high level.  Most people who are making minimum wage are not looking to raise a family on it.  Many are teenagers, and while they are gaining valuable work experience, their services are just not worth what would be a "living wage."  If employers are forced to pay a 16-year-old a living wage, they simply won't hire them.  They don't have the work habits or work experience to justify that level of pay. 

As far as the stereotypical single mother who is trying to raise her kids on the minimum wage goes, the answer is simple: (1) Don't have kids with a man who is unwilling or unable to provide some level of support, preferably as a husband (a foreign concept to most of the poor, which has a lot to do with why they are poor) and (2) quite frankly, if you only make the minimum wage, you have no business starting a family.  Get better job skills before having kids.  Take some responsibility - don't start a family you can't support.  I'm sick of being told that it's my responsibility to underwrite other peoples' stupid decisions, and I'm sick of being told that the problems that result from their stupid decisions are my fault.

[Nym90]

I agree with much of what you said in principle, Dazzleman, but the sad fact is that these people have already made their bad decisions, and they aren't just going to go away and die. In the long run, it may well be cheaper to have them on welfare then to have them turning to crime instead. Sad, but true. I realize that's a bad choice to have to make, but if forced to choose, I'd rather have a person be on welfare rather than becoming a criminal.

Eliminating poverty is in the best interests of everyone, not just the poor. People will ultimately do whatever they have to do to survive.

But yes, we definitely need to encourage responsibility within our society. No question about that. And it's not at all racist to point out basic truths.

Obviously the best option is to ensure high-quality education for all, and the opportunity to learn job skills. I strongly support greater funding for public education as I feel that the vast majority of schools would be greatly improved with smaller class sizes and hiring better teachers by offering better pay.

I actually think that we agree philosophically on a lot of things, but in my opinion, the vast majority (certainly not all, but most) poor people are trying their best to get ahead, but lack the opportunity to do so. As opposed to your view that social liberalism breeds irresponsibility which economic liberalism then must fix, I feel that economic conservatvism causes a massive gap in not only income but also in opportunity to succeed, which social conservatism then must fix ("tough on crime", trying to enforce morality, etc.). Most of the problems that social conservatives are trying to fix are, in my opinion, caused by the massive opportunity gap that economic conservatism creates.

[dazzleman]

I agree with much of what you said in principle, Dazzleman, but the sad fact is that these people have already made their bad decisions, and they aren't just going to go away and die. In the long run, it may well be cheaper to have them on welfare then to have them turning to crime instead. Sad, but true. I realize that's a bad choice to have to make, but if forced to choose, I'd rather have a person be on welfare rather than becoming a criminal.

Eliminating poverty is in the best interests of everyone, not just the poor. People will ultimately do whatever they have to do to survive.

But yes, we definitely need to encourage responsibility within our society. No question about that. And it's not at all racist to point out basic truths.

Obviously the best option is to ensure high-quality education for all, and the opportunity to learn job skills. I strongly support greater funding for public education as I feel that the vast majority of schools would be greatly improved with smaller class sizes and hiring better teachers by offering better pay.

I actually think that we agree philosophically on a lot of things, but in my opinion, the vast majority (certainly not all, but most) poor people are trying their best to get ahead, but lack the opportunity to do so. As opposed to your view that social liberalism breeds irresponsibility which economic liberalism then must fix, I feel that economic conservatvism causes a massive gap in not only income but also in opportunity to succeed, which social conservatism then must fix ("tough on crime", trying to enforce morality, etc.). Most of the problems that social conservatives are trying to fix are, in my opinion, caused by the massive opportunity gap that economic conservatism creates.

Welfare and crime are not an either/or thing.  You usually get both, and the slovenly mentality behind welfare also contributes to the idea that crime is OK.  So giving people welfare does not mean that they won't also commit crimes.  I would bet that the crime rate is much higher among welfare recipients than it is among the working poor.  And by rewarding people for bad decisions, as our social welfare programs have done, we have greatly expanded the problem, created a mutation of poverty that is far more intractable than the poverty of 50 years ago, and initiated a vicious cycle of subsidized social breakdown.

I think it is in everybody's interest to minimize poverty, but not the way we chose to do it from the 1960s forward.  And I am also a realist - we will never eliminate poverty.  There will always be people who for various reasons can't make it in society.  We should seek to minimize the ranks of these people, not greatly expand them as we have been doing.

I agree that there is a huge opportunity gap, but not that it is caused by economic conservatism.  I don't believe that it is the result of economics at all.  It is the result in my opinion of bad upbringing and bad family structure, with the economic consequences being the results of those things.  Education is the great panacea given, and I believe that if it could be delivered effectively, it would bring great benefit.  But parents are the primary educators, and it is very hard to deliver education to children whose parents have never instilled in them the value of education.  Becoming educated is a choice, and it takes work.  The school can't do it all, as we expect them to do.  We don't even expect these lazy welfare parents to give their kids a bowl of cereal in the morning; do you think they're going to go over their kids' schoolwork with them?

In areas where family and social dysfunction is the norm, such as the inner cities, it is absolutely impossible to provide good education within a traditional public school structure.  The only option in these situations is to remove those who really want an education from that envirnment and put them somewhere else.  If we did this, we would at least be saving a percentage of these children, and maybe we could create some positive momentum if enough people saw the results.  In inner city schools, you only get the "crab bucket syndrom" whereby any time a crab tries to escape the bucket, the others reach up and pull him right back down.  It's tragic.  And one of the reasons we have failed to solve this problem is that we continue to insist on addressing it in terms of race, rather than behavior.  This is a behavioral problem masquerading as a racial problem.  Liberals who throw out the word "racist" any time somebody tries to address these issues are primarily responsible for this state of affairs.

I don't mean to sound overly harsh toward all the poor.  I think that there is a certain percentage who are willing to try to improve their circumstances, and we should help them to help themselves.

It is true that lower-skilled workers are worse off economically today than was the case, say, 30 years ago.  However, I don't believe this is the result of conservative economic policies, but global forces beyond our control, and I don't believe that liberal economic policies can fix this problem.  In my opinion, we are better off bowing to the inevitable, and trying to adjust to it, than trying to turn back the tide through populist economic policies that I believe will hurt those they are trying to help.

[opebo]

Dazzleman, you're quite wrong in depicting the face of poverty in America as someone who 'doesn't try', or makes errors.  In fact the great majority of poor people work - they're the people you see behind the counter at the gas station, retail store, and fast food restaurant.  I understand it makes it easier for you to accept inequality to believe there are all sorts of good reasons for it.  In fact of course ones economic position is almost entirely dependent upon one's birth - what economic class do one's parents come from?  To a lesser extent, if one is from any of the classes below upper-middle, race becomes a major factor.

Life is short, dazzleman, and most of social identity carries through from generation to generation.   Inequality is inherent to capitalism, and ingrained in American society.  Horatio Alger stories are just atypical anecdotes. 

I agree with you this much - in these days of declining wages, having children when one is in any class below Upper-Middle is likely to produce progeny that will be very likely to be poor through out life.  Hence one could blame these working class parents for the child-harming decision of reproducing.  Or one could blame the system itself. 

I have nothing against inequality - in fact it is very handy for me.  But lets at least be honest about it. 

[dazzleman]

Dazzleman, you're quite wrong in depicting the face of poverty in America as someone who 'doesn't try', or makes errors.  In fact the great majority of poor people work - they're the people you see behind the counter at the gas station, retail store, and fast food restaurant.  I understand it makes it easier for you to accept inequality to believe there are all sorts of good reasons for it.  In fact of course ones economic position is almost entirely dependent upon one's birth - what economic class do one's parents come from?  To a lesser extent, if one is from any of the classes below upper-middle, race becomes a major factor.

Life is short, dazzleman, and most of social identity carries through from generation to generation.   Inequality is inherent to capitalism, and ingrained in American society.  Horatio Alger stories are just atypical anecdotes. 

I agree with you this much - in these days of declining wages, having children when one is in any class below Upper-Middle is likely to produce progeny that will be very likely to be poor through out life.  Hence one could blame these working class parents for the child-harming decision of reproducing.  Or one could blame the system itself. 

I have nothing against inequality - in fact it is very handy for me.  But lets at least be honest about it. 

Your own circumstances have led you to overemphasize the effect of family history on one's own economic status, in my opinion.

I agree that circumstances of birth have a big impact on a person's opportunity in life.  There is little we can do about that.  But it is quite common for a person born into limited economic circumstances to break out of it, if they take make the right decisions.  I don't say it's easy, but it is possible.  I am only one generation out of poverty myself.  My father grew up poor, and went on to become upper middle class.

The problem is that our social programs, while well-intentioned, have created a strain of poverty, through rewarding destructive behavior, that has made it harder for the children of the poor to make it.  We have rewarded destructive behavior but have found it so intolerable to live with that we have now isolated the poor from mainstream society to the greatest degree ever.  It's like the parent who refuses to discipline his kid until his behavior is so bad that he just locks him away because he can't live with him.  That isolation makes it harder for the children of the poor to be exposed to the right values that will lead them out of poverty.  This is a major difference between the poor today and those of 50 years ago.

In my area, most of the people working in gas stations, stores, etc. are doing it as transitional work; i.e., they are mostly teenagers or young adults working there while they are getting an education or other work experience.  There is less and less of a path for people who are unskilled, so the answer is to help people see the need for better skills and help them to get those skills.  But if they refuse to acknowledge the need for greater skills, and blame others for their problems, there is little we can do about that.

Contrary to what you say, wealth goes through a cycle.  People who are poor or of limited means develop a hunger for the better things in life, and those who succeed try harder than the average person.  This is how wealth is created.  Once people become too accustomed to wealth, and take it for granted, they eventually lose it because of their unwillingness to work to maintain it.  Eventually, a certain percentage of the poor become wealthy, while a certain percentage of the wealthy become poor.  The best off people over the long run are the middle to upper middle class, who have some wealth but not so much that each generation is not required to work to maintain it.  These people know they have something to lose, and have the best chance to learn what they must do to maintain their position.  On the other hand, those wealthy enough not to have to work quickly lose touch with reality and the money becomes a crutch that temporarily conceals their dysfunctionality.  Once the money is gone, which depending on how much, may take anywhere from a decade to a few generations, they are reduced to poverty status because they never learned the skills necessary to survive without money being handed to them.  In that sense, the very poor and the very rich are quite similar, and both are radically different from the middle classes.  This probably explains why the rich and and the poor vote similarly, while the middle classes vote the other way.