Forums | MacLife

iBubba wrote:

macnuke wrote:

I am a commodity.
and I am scarce.

[Veruca]But I want a macnuke NOW, DADDY![/Veruca]
http://1902victorian.com/veruca_salt.jpg

I'm not cheap daddy

i ain't easy either girlie girl.

Tallgeese wrote:

You're wavering back and forth. It's a political decision when a minimum wage IS proposed but it's a free market decision when it is NOT proposed. I'm just trying to argue with you on either frame of reference since I think I'm right on both.

OK, now I think I better understand your argument.  First of all, let me note that I don't think I ever denied that electing to have, or not to have, a minimum wage is a political decision.  That's certainly true.  But I'm talking about what the wage itself is.  I'm saying that shouldn't be legally limited, one way or another, but rather should be left totally to employers and employees to decide in the market.

Now, if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that bargaining goes on as well within Congress, so that if the minimum wage is injuriously high, employees can lobby to bring it back down.  In a very loose sense I suppose that's right, but that ignores that the minimum wage applies to an entire host of employees in very different situtations with very different interests who are very differently affected by the minimum wage.  A high-wage worker most likely benefits because the minimum wage eliminates some of the competition.  A low-wage worker who keeps his job, after the passage of a minimum wage, benefits because his wage just went up.  And the unemployed lose, since it's now harder to get a job.  There very well may be more people who win than lose, and the losers include some of the least politically powerful people. 

So there's good reason to think that democracy doesn't lead to the best outcome in this case.  It certainly doesn't in many other cases, such as censorship, which is why it's a good thing we have constitutional limits in that case.  We used to have some constititutional limits on minimum wage laws, as well, until the Lochner era ended (and, of course, a national minimum wage law would've been impossible until the Court blew up the Commerce Clause).  (Under your logic, would that imply that the minimum wage didn't serve workers well back then?  Your response to my censorship analogy seems like a non sequitur.)

Last edited by charon (2005-11-23 8:06 am)

Whaddabout a MW based on age and/or # of dependents? I'm not necessarily advocating such a plan - just kind of tossing it out there for discussion.

charon wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

charon wrote:

I don't think I can add much beyond what others have said in criticizing the minimum wage, except to note that it's not a simple "workers vs. employers" issue.  The minimum wage is as much a restriction upon workers as upon employers; it basically tells workers that it's illegal for them to work below a certain wage.

Odd that you never hear the actual working class complaining that it's illegal for them to make less money.

Says who?

Supreme Court wrote:

In the second case the appellee, a woman 21 years of age, was employed by the Congress Hall Hotel Company as an elevator operator, at a salary of $35 per month and two meals a day. She alleges that the work was light and healthful, the hours short, with surroundings clean and moral, and that she was anxious to continue it for the compensation she was receiving, and that she did not earn more. Her services were satisfactory to the Hotel Company, and it would have been glad to retain her, but was obliged to dispense with her services by reason of the order of the board [imposing a minimum wage] and on account of the penalties prescribed by the act. The wages received by this appellee were the best she was able to obtain for any work she was capable of performing, and the enforcement of the order, she alleges, deprived her of such employment and wages.

Adkins v. Children's Hospital, 261 U.S. 525 (1923)

They exist, I think we just tend not to see them.  That, and I'm sure a lot of workers, like the rest of the population, honestly believe that there's no connection between the minimum wage and unemployment.

Interesting, Charon, you don't mention that this case was heard in 1923.

like i said before...
you want government subsidization of people that have no job skill..
not from my tax dollars.
you want more pay?
free market pricing.
unskilled labor is just that.. no reason to pay extra or be taxed for it.
there is plenty to go around.
but then many would rather be a welfare slug and not try to get ahead.
I worked for what I have and goddam if i wanna give it to someone who is unskilled just so they can "catch up" to me.
learn some smurfin skills and you won't be at the bottom of the totem pole getting it shoved into you.
bad enough the welfare system is so smurfed up anyone that wants to sit on their ass and watch deputy dawg on the cartoon network can apply and get it.
don't tell me it can't be done.
it's hard, you have to sacrifice, so suck it up, do the right thing and you can get ahead.
or you can go live in your welfare home, collect a welfare check and food stamps and stay outa the working peoples way. just don't biitch to me that you can't get cable or a nice car.

bottom line, you work, your pay should be what the market allows, not what the government says you should make. if it isn't enough for "your needs", learn some skills.


::sits back down in corner::

Last edited by macnuke (2005-11-23 1:13 pm)

your read.. not my words.

macnuke wrote:

your read.. not my words.

So if people who don't make a lot of money "deserve" their situation, then if they can't afford health care they "deserve" to be sick and die. If they can't afford to support children they don't "deserve" children.

I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm saying what your statements mean.

So again,  you're saying that if someone can't afford something, they don't deserve it, right?

macnuke, what of those intellectually incapable or physically unable to attain your stratosphere of financial success? There are those who - due to social stratifications and/or lack of opportunities who simply - no matter how hard they are willing to try - can "make it."

Just because people don't have the "tools" necessary to make it as a big shot [fill in the blank], does NOT mean they are leeches and they are no less entitled to earn - at the very LEAST - a living wage.



BTW - you're freaking hot when you talk all "open market and stuff."

heh, nice avatar change.

no problems with helping those that are physically, mentally or age impaired.
I am just saying if you can work.. work.
and i have no problems with giving the "tools" to help those that are willing to use them.
people migrate all the time to where the work is. so that's not an excuse either.
it's my understanding Ca has plenty of people that move with the work.
they aren't high paid, yet I respect them as they do as they can. it's also unfortunate that they are considered "outsiders" when they have been doing it for generations. it's they way of life hey choose. and they do have some that move out and move up.

a leeches sucks the blood and gives nothing back.
they are a natural order of things.
my problem is with leeches that want nothing but suck and are mentally and physically capable of working for their own money.
salt em down and let em melt I say.

iBubba wrote:

macnuke, what of those intellectually incapable or physically unable to attain your stratosphere of financial success? There are those who - due to social stratifications and/or lack of opportunities who simply - no matter how hard they are willing to try - can "make it."

Just because people don't have the "tools" necessary to make it as a big shot [fill in the blank], does NOT mean they are leeches and they are no less entitled to earn - at the very LEAST - a living wage.



BTW - you're freaking hot when you talk all "open market and stuff."

How do you separate those people we all want to help and the lazy bums that just want to get by?
Where is the incentive/necessity to want to better yourself?

Tallgeese wrote:

macnuke wrote stuff and tallgeese said this:
I'm not sure who advocates raising minimum wage to the level where unskilled labor can afford a "new mercedes" or "new G5 quad." I work a good job and I can't afford those things.

You're simultaneously contemptuous of those on welfare and you're also advocating it as a way for people to get essentials they deserve. I don't get it.

welfare is a fact.
i dislike they way it's abused, but it's there. with proper use, those that really need it, would get more if it wasn't for many that abuse the hell out of it.
it's also some of my tax dollars.. so I can bitch about it.

I'm a cheap bassid. I have no mercedes. but I do have a few new G5's.
I went for a great paying job, to being one of ten thousand looking for one of the same 5 jobs in the only city with that industry. (ex oilfield trash )
all this plus a divorce.. left me with zero funds available, zero credit, zero home.
two more years of school, a new job, new city, lived in my families hunting camp for 2 years while I paid back every penny on the loans I signed in blood with family to get to pay for school. plus the gov loans for school and yes, I ate off the welfare card as well. it's also one of the reasons i drink alcohol as little as i do. couldn't afford it and the rare drink habit stuck with me.
and other than a mortgage which is at a premium (for the bank) I have no debt.

and i stand on free market..
the business is looking out for bottom line.
as long as someone will do it cheaper, that's who's getting the work.
what if walmart was one of my competitors?
I need fixed costs as low as I can get them.
now the gov says i have to pay more to my employees and I cannot compete with the now lower prices at wallyworld.
so now we are all spending our foodstamps at wallyworld. my business just couldn't take the hit to pay my employees what the government said i should pay them.
and go figure, they were all part time high school and college students and were just looking for a little extra pocket money. none were dads, moms, or a self supporters.