Raise of minimum wage to $6.25 defeated

The Chicago Sun-Times ^ | 10/20/2005 | Jim Abrams

[NapkinUser]

WASHINGTON -- Senate proposals to raise the minimum wage were rejected Wednesday, making it unlikely that the lowest allowable wage, $5.15 an hour since 1997, will rise in the foreseeable future.

A labor-backed measure by Sen. Edward Kennedy would have raised the minimum to $6.25 over an 18-month period.

[somniferum]

I would refer you to a supply and demand curve.

[John D]

Socialists, will not agree or beieve in it.

[SandwicheGuy]

Inre: post 66. Welcome to the club.

Heh heh heh... I joined good company! Reminds of that old saying, "The enemy of my enemy is a friend." Not that the poster is an enemy... Well, he is an enemy of freedom...

[Hank Rearden]

Why is it that Republicans keep proposing big new government spending programs to address perceived (or nonexistent) problems? Do you think government is insufficiently meddling with our lives and livelihoods?

I thought that was the democRats' job. We certainly don't need two Big Stupid Government parties.

[mc6809e]

Why is it that Republicans keep proposing big new government spending programs to address perceived (or nonexistent) problems? Do you think government is insufficiently meddling with our lives and livelihoods? I thought that was the democRats' job. We certainly don't need two Big Stupid Government parties.

Unemployment and it's consequences are not imaginary problems. And the minimum wage law causes unemployment.

So eliminate the minimum wage, right? Fine by me. The trouble is that 90% of the people out there demand that there be a minimum wage. If the Republicans were to eliminate it, they would certainly be called villains. They would not stay in power.

You don't want that, do you?

Okay. So how do you get rid of the minimum wage without pissing off 90% of the public? I offered a way - a way that doesn't cause the unemployment of minimum wage and spreads the burden around instead of saddling just businesses with it.

What I'm suggesting is changing the form of "government meddling" so that creates less problems. Is that really that bad?

[Young Scholar]

Have you ever tried to make ends meet on $5 an hour? You sound like a former governor of my state. If the surrounding economy was geared to the lower wages it would be one thing but you and I both know it isn't. The economy is geared for profit, as much as possible, as quickly as possible.

That's a red herring. The issue isn't whether it is possible to make ends meet on $5/hour; it's whether a minimum wage makes any economic sense at all, even for people at the bottom of the income scale. If you think people have a problem surviving on $5/hour, give them a little welfare; that's what you're doing in effect anyway. Welfare, at least when it's properly done (which it rarely is), doesn't distort the market the way a minimum wage does.

[1L]

>>The trouble is that 90% of the people out there demand that there be a minimum wage.<<

Can you source this silly assertion?

In reality, 90% don't care.

[John D]

I would say it would be more like 60% do not care. The 30% who create the jobs do care,(they do not want to be forced to waste their money on unproductive workers) and the 10% who are non-producers that want a minimum pay.

[Lurker]

I had something constructive to say, and I said it.

Then I commented on your obvious lack of intelligence.

You made a moronic statement, and I called you on it.

If you honestly feel that it's the FedGovs place to 'guarantee' that you maintain a certain standard of living you're in the wrong place.

Try DemocraticUnderground. What they call 'thinking' seems to track a lot more closely to yours than anyone around here.

L

[Hank Rearden]

Apparently there are a few unacquainted with the trials of minimum wage jobs and the fact that you can't support a family on one even at 40 hours a week.

If you're too stupid to earn more than the minimum wage (assuming you're not just a kid starting out), then why would you assume you're smart enough to have kids, or even be married with any responsibilities at all?

If you're making minimum wage, you're not good enough to support a family. Period.

[Hank Rearden]

If the Republicans were to eliminate it, they would certainly be called villains. They would not stay in power. You don't want that, do you?

I'm not interested in keeping Republicans in power; look what they do with it. I'm interested in strangling government and restoring more individual liberties.

[zip]

Yes, welcome. I can't agree with the posters who want the government to force employers to pay for redistribution of wealth. I know ted "the diver" kennedy would love to see this since he doesn't produce one consumer item that would cost more when minimum forced wage control is foisted upon employers. I guess that I'll have to go to church twice next week to gain forgiveness for my biases, bigotry etc.

[zip]

Hello, my FRiend. (you bigoted, evil "conservative"). I may have to have that engraved on a plaque. lol

[zip]

Between big spending, anti immigratiion control, unknown nominees for SC, Campaign Reform APPROVAL, etc, it's harder and harder to fight with my ultra liberal relatives. I will still pull the GOP lever at the national level elections because I could never vote for communist/anti Americans that control the dimocRat party. (I'll have to hold my nose when I vote for some of our spineless Repubs)

[John D]

(you bigoted, evil conservative)


I am sure you meant (you bigoted, evil Capitalist)

[Hank Rearden]

I will still pull the GOP lever at the national level elections because I could never vote for communist/anti Americans that control the dimocRat party. (I'll have to hold my nose when I vote for some of our spineless Repubs)

Then you're helping to perpetuate the problem - that's what the Republicans expect of you . . . blind loyalty no matter what they do to you.

There are more parties than just the 'Rats and the 'Rats-lite. Consider that next time you're tempted to hold your nose. And remember, you don't have to vote - not for the lesser of two evils (still evil), not for anyone. If you have principles, don't vote for those who don't.

[zip]

OK I'll compromise, you bigoted, evil conservative capitalist. :>)

[zip]

you don't have to vote

I have never missed voting in an election (even when overseas in the Army) because I believe that if you don't vote, you forfeit your right to bitch. I understand your reasoning but I feel I have to vote against those who hate our Constitution, our Country etc. I can always disagree with FRiends without fear of losing their respect for my views.

[Hank Rearden]

Well, my belief is that not voting is far preferable to holding your nose and voting for a sleaze because he's your sleaze.

That being said, I've only missed a primary here and there - there's always the Constitution and Libertarian parties when the Republican sucks . . . which lately is most of the time.

[John D]

That being said, I've only missed a primary here and there - there's always the Constitution and Libertarian parties when the Republican sucks . . . which lately is most of the time.

That is why voting in the primary is SO important. We need to get the best candidate elected. Not the most electable.