The Minimum Wage: What's the Big Deal?

[VolnJC]

I don't have a problem with raising the minimum wage if they also eliminated the earned income credit...businesses would absorb the costs thru innovation and competition and it would save taxpayers money.

 

[DC_Vol]

What a smoking crock of bull$h!t. Greed. Greed. Greed.

It's a more complex problem than you make it out to be. But I agree there is a lot of opportunity to improve pay and conditions in many of the international manufacturing communities. Most large US companies that source and manufacture abroad are on board, and there has been very positive progress made in the last decade.

 

[luthervol]

Also, complaining that greed exists is like complaining about rain or oxygen.

It's also like complaining that racism, hatred, lust, envy, murder, rape, brutality, bigotry, and murder exists. Just because something exists, doesn't mean it should be viewed as good or even normal. I've always hated that argument for greed. Greed is not a proper motivator or a trait that should be encouraged and rewarded....but it is.

 

[tumscalcium]

It's also like complaining that racism, hatred, lust, envy, murder, rape, brutality, bigotry, and murder exists. Just because something exists, doesn't mean it should be viewed as good or even normal. I've always hated that argument for greed. Greed is not a proper motivator or a trait that should be encouraged and rewarded....but it is.

Greed is relative.

Poor people think people making 50k a year are greedy because they may have some disposable income.

 

[Orange_Crush]

It's also like complaining that racism, hatred, lust, envy, murder, rape, brutality, bigotry, and murder exists. Just because something exists, doesn't mean it should be viewed as good or even normal. I've always hated that argument for greed. Greed is not a proper motivator or a trait that should be encouraged and rewarded....but it is.

Greed is wrong. Coveting is a specific form of greed. You are a proponent of redistribution of wealth, which is coveting, which is greed, which is wrong.

Therefor, you are wrong.

 

[tumscalcium]

Greed is wrong. Coveting is a specific form of greed. You are a proponent of redistribution of wealth, which is coveting, which is greed, which is wrong.

Therefor, you are wrong.

Indeed. The greediest people are those demanding money for doing nothing from others who earned it.

 

[1972 Grad]

Greed is wrong. Coveting is a specific form of greed. You are a proponent of redistribution of wealth, which is coveting, which is greed, which is wrong.

Therefor, you are wrong.

Yes! Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Luther. If you can't afford a pipe, one will be provided for you.

 

[midnight orange]

It's also like complaining that racism, hatred, lust, envy, murder, rape, brutality, bigotry, and murder exists. Just because something exists, doesn't mean it should be viewed as good or even normal. I've always hated that argument for greed. Greed is not a proper motivator or a trait that should be encouraged and rewarded....but it is.

Greed can be good (everyone has it to a degree) or it can be a character flaw just like vanity, lust, confidence, or other behaviors that make humans human. Racism is a character flaw. Murder and rape are crimes and not the same thing. So yes, complaining that greed exists is like complaing about oxygen.

 

[luthervol]

Greed is wrong. Coveting is a specific form of greed. You are a proponent of redistribution of wealth, which is coveting, which is greed, which is wrong.

Therefor, you are wrong.

Justify however you wish. We all do that to some degree or another.

 

[Orange_Crush]

It's also like complaining that racism, hatred, lust, envy, murder, rape, brutality, bigotry, and murder exists. Just because something exists, doesn't mean it should be viewed as good or even normal. I've always hated that argument for greed. Greed is not a proper motivator or a trait that should be encouraged and rewarded....but it is.

Justify however you wish. We all do that to some degree or another.

Interesting how your staunch views soften when it's you in the cross-hairs and not someone else.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Greed is wrong. Coveting is a specific form of greed. You are a proponent of redistribution of wealth, which is coveting, which is greed, which is wrong.

Therefor, you are wrong.

A proponent of redistribution of wealth is not necessarily coveting.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Indeed. The greediest people are those demanding money for doing nothing from others who earned it.

That is not necessarily true. People want good jobs that pay a fair wage. They want to be able to support their family on a single income like they watched their parents do. They want to be able to afford a college education. They don't like the massive tax bill that is necessitated by years of overspending by the government. They are sick and tired of watching executive pay rise many times over while the average worker's pay remains stagnant.

 

[05_never_again]

That is not necessarily true. People want good jobs that pay a fair wage. They want to be able to support their family on a single income like they watched their parents do. They want to be able to afford a college education. They don't like the massive tax bill that is necessitated by years of overspending by the government. They are sick and tired of watching executive pay rise many times over while the average worker's pay remains stagnant.

A failure to raise the minimum wage is not the reason most people cannot support a family on a single income.

Raising the minimum wage is not really a good anti-poverty program. It only benefits a small subset of the poor, or even the working poor, and harms or has no effect on everyone outside of that subset.

 

[Orange_Crush]

A proponent of redistribution of wealth is not necessarily coveting.

Interesting take on it, I guess. It seems to me that you are sharpening the knife to the point of a nonexistent edge to try to parse things that finely.

To covet is to want what someone else has. I guess your incredibly fine point is that if one is already well enough off so as to not, in the end, receive any of the redistributed wealth, then that person is not (technically) coveting.

Who would take the wealth to redistribute it? The gov't? By electing (supporting, defending, and promoting) the gov't that would take the wealth to redistribute it, are you a part of the machinery that wants the wealth and takes the wealth?

How finely will you sharpen the blade to parse the point?

Secondly, by luther's own words, greed and envy are vices. I add coveting as a combination of greed and envy, which he agrees are vices without defense. Yet, he is a proponent of redistribution of wealth, which is a collection of vices that he claims is without defense.

So, as a proponent of redistribution of wealth, he not only defends greed, envy and coveting, he promotes it. So, by his own judgments, he is hypocritical and wrong.

 

[luthervol]

Interesting how your staunch views soften when it's you in the cross-hairs and not someone else.

I'm not seeing how any view was softened. Everyone believes in the redistribution of wealth on some level. Churches ask for 10% or so. I know.....it's freely given....or it's given out of a wish to avoid eternal damnation.

If you see a starving family, I'm pretty sure you would give them food or money. If a company has a great year, they will probably pay out some type of bonus to their employees. Wealth is constantly being redistributed.

If you think greed is a proper motivator, then we disagree; it's not the first time and it want be the the last.

 

[05_never_again]

So, by his own judgments, he is hypocritical and wrong.

It's easy to be generous with other people's money.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Interesting take on it, I guess. It seems to me that you are sharpening the knife to the point of a nonexistent edge to try to parse things that finely.

To covet is to want what someone else has. I guess your incredibly fine point is that if one is already well enough off so as to not, in the end, receive any of the redistributed wealth, then that person is not (technically) coveting.

Who would take the wealth to redistribute it? The gov't? By electing (supporting, defending, and promoting) the gov't that would take the wealth to redistribute it, are you a part of the machinery that wants the wealth and takes the wealth?

How finely will you sharpen the blade to parse the point?

Secondly, by luther's own words, greed and envy are vices. I add coveting as a combination of greed and envy, which he agrees are vices without defense. Yet, he is a proponent of redistribution of wealth, which is a collection of vices that he claims is without defense.

So, as a proponent of redistribution of wealth, he not only defends greed, envy and coveting, he promotes it. So, by his own judgments, he is hypocritical and wrong.

I'm not seeing how any view was softened. Everyone believes in the redistribution of wealth on some level. Churches ask for 10% or so. I know.....it's freely given....or it's given out of a wish to avoid eternal damnation.

If you see a starving family, I'm pretty sure you would give them food or money. If a company has a great year, they will probably pay out some type of bonus to their employees. Wealth is constantly being redistributed.

If you think greed is a proper motivator, then we disagree; it's not the first time and it want be the the last.

As to the bolded, then you're blind. I clarified with very simple logic in the first quote of this response.

To conflate between charity and forcible seizure is a brain fart so sever that Freak may have to open the windows in all major forums just to air them out.

 

[luthervol]

Interesting take on it, I guess. It seems to me that you are sharpening the knife to the point of a nonexistent edge to try to parse things that finely.

To covet is to want what someone else has. I guess your incredibly fine point is that if one is already well enough off so as to not, in the end, receive any of the redistributed wealth, then that person is not (technically) coveting.

Who would take the wealth to redistribute it? The gov't? By electing (supporting, defending, and promoting) the gov't that would take the wealth to redistribute it, are you a part of the machinery that wants the wealth and takes the wealth?

How finely will you sharpen the blade to parse the point?

Secondly, by luther's own words, greed and envy are vices. I add coveting as a combination of greed and envy, which he agrees are vices without defense. Yet, he is a proponent of redistribution of wealth, which is a collection of vices that he claims is without defense.

So, as a proponent of redistribution of wealth, he not only defends greed, envy and coveting, he promotes it. So, by his own judgments, he is hypocritical and wrong.

That may be one of the worst lines of logic I have ever read.
I guess it made more sense in your head.

 

[Orange_Crush]

That may be one of the worst lines of logic I have ever read.
I guess it made more sense in your head.

Then break down the errors in the logic. I have time. I'm up for the debate.


Go.

 

[InVOLuntary]

As someone who employees blue collar, both skilled and unskilled, if I am paying minimum wage, I am truly getting someone that struggles to tie their own shoes. The fact is I have to pay $10 an hour for a kid to take the trash out and sweep the floors. Hardly anyone will work for minimum wage anymore.

As to the poster that said people will work no matter how low the wage was, I was trying to hire some skilled labor in 2009 or 2010. Unemployment was very high in this area of job. I was offering about the going rate for this type of job, probably on the lower end. I had multiple people tell me they'd stay at home and draw unemployment benefits before they'd work for what I was offering.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Interesting take on it, I guess. It seems to me that you are sharpening the knife to the point of a nonexistent edge to try to parse things that finely.

To covet is to want what someone else has. I guess your incredibly fine point is that if one is already well enough off so as to not, in the end, receive any of the redistributed wealth, then that person is not (technically) coveting.

Who would take the wealth to redistribute it? The gov't? By electing (supporting, defending, and promoting) the gov't that would take the wealth to redistribute it, are you a part of the machinery that wants the wealth and takes the wealth?

How finely will you sharpen the blade to parse the point?

Secondly, by luther's own words, greed and envy are vices. I add coveting as a combination of greed and envy, which he agrees are vices without defense. Yet, he is a proponent of redistribution of wealth, which is a collection of vices that he claims is without defense.

So, as a proponent of redistribution of wealth, he not only defends greed, envy and coveting, he promotes it. So, by his own judgments, he is hypocritical and wrong.

Not a bad answer, but there are many people who believe that one of the duties of having wealth is to provide assistance to those less fortunate. Some of these same people are willing to pay more in taxes to achieve that goal.

 

[05_never_again]

If you see a starving family, I'm pretty sure you would give them food or money. If a company has a great year, they will probably pay out some type of bonus to their employees. Wealth is constantly being redistributed.

You seem to dismiss the fact that it is voluntary, as if that isn't a big deal or a borderline irrelevant point. That is the point.

Taxation for redistributive purposes is, by definition, involuntary. That's a big difference from giving your money to a church, working for a company that awards bonuses to employees, or owning a sports team in a league with a salary cap or revenue sharing. Those are all forms of voluntary free association. You are trying to draw some sort of equivalency (i.e., "everyone believes in redistribution") that isn't there whatsoever.

Proponents of large government social welfare programs support trickle down economics, but just of a different kind.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Not a bad answer, but there are many people who believe that one of the duties of having wealth is to provide assistance to those less fortunate. Some of these same people are willing to pay more in taxes to achieve that goal.

I am one of those who believe that a person "with" should support those who are "without". I believe it is a personal heart issue, and I do not believe in forcibly seizing from one to give to another.

(That depends on whether the "with" got their "with" ethically. Thus, I believe that unethical profit is robbery and should be returned. So, I can theoretically see seizing from the wealthy and redistributing it, however the evidence would need to be heavy to do so.)


Long story short, I don't agree with the sweeping statements per greed and envy that luther does. I would be happy to speak to the subtleties of my views in more detail if you're interested. Just know that I'm a little less judgmental on the issue than Luther is toward the wealthy, and a little more judgmental than he is toward himself.

 

[tumscalcium]

I'm not seeing how any view was softened. Everyone believes in the redistribution of wealth on some level. Churches ask for 10% or so. I know.....it's freely given....or it's given out of a wish to avoid eternal damnation.

If you see a starving family, I'm pretty sure you would give them food or money. If a company has a great year, they will probably pay out some type of bonus to their employees. Wealth is constantly being redistributed.

If you think greed is a proper motivator, then we disagree; it's not the first time and it want be the the last.

Do you believe that everyone, regardless of profession should receive the same amount of money at the end of the day?

 

[ClearwaterVol]

A failure to raise the minimum wage is not the reason most people cannot support a family on a single income.

Raising the minimum wage is not really a good anti-poverty program. It only benefits a small subset of the poor, or even the working poor, and harms or has no effect on everyone outside of that subset.

I wasn't arguing pro or con on the issue of raising minimum wage. I was speaking to the general statement made by Tums and really the larger problem in this country. For the most part, the Republican party seeks to demonize the poor. It overemphasizes welfare fraud and points to the poor as the root of all problems in America. The Democrats, on the other hand are demonizing the rich. Those greedy bastards are dining on dry aged steaks while the poor cannot afford rent. Both positions are conveniently positioned so as to allow an examination of the government. The politicians have got the American people so angry at each other that nobody notices the gold going out the back door.