Skip to comments.CA: The Minimum Wage Calamity
Posted on 01/05/2006 9:06:49 AM PST by NormsRevenge
click here to read article
Make the minimum wage $20.00/hr and they will be happy........
It's enough to make you cuss.
As a former employer, I can say that by the time you pay a wage, a social security contribution equal to the wage-earner's contribution, unemployment tax, pension fund contribution, and health insurance, you have nearly paid enough to hire another entire worker (sans those contributions).
If you raise the minimum wage, you are going to create LESS jobs, not more (as you will be further hiking all those other payments which are dependent upon the amount of the wage)
Oh what a lot of poo-poo!
Paying your workers enough to stay alive is not a bad thing.
Conservatives should be in favor of EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITY,
not in favor of employer looting. Looting is what happens when you
pay a worker too little to live on and expect the taxpayer to pick up the difference.
parsy, who has some sense.
I know, I was being sarcastic............
If you raise the minimum wage, you are going to create LESS jobs...
The libs know that but THEY DO NOT CARE. They are BUYING VOTES, while they are destroying businesses that need minimum wage workers and making ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION for jobs more attractive to Mexicans...Vincente and El Presidente Jorge are smiling!!!
They will be happy until all the prices for goods and services triple. Then they will be screaming that they can't make ends meet on just $20 an hour!
Mr. Haynes is a smart man.
Then make it $50.00/hr!..........
If not this year, in 2010 he should be considered for the GOP ticket for either Lt Gub or Gub.
He isn't perfect and doesn't have a huge Q factor , but he shoots as straight as he can. We could do a lot worse.
Newsflash: Employers don't owe you a job.
parsy, who has LOST YOUR senses
I agree with you. I used to go for the line that it will hurt employers but I see to much gouging by employers to belive that anymore. I see employers living the extremely high-life while they pay their employees a meager salary. The first example I could give of that would be nursing home owners, but I could go on.
This is not looting. This is one of two things. (1) The employer is paying less-than-market rates, and will soon find that his best employees are leaving for greener pastures. (2) The work done by the employees is not highly valued by the market, and the employer cannot afford to pay higher-than-market wages.
... and expect the taxpayer to pick up the difference.
Why should the government force taxpayers or businesses to subsidize poor people? If there were no minimum wage and no welfare, people would work hard enough to eat and live. Some people would choose to work harder for the rewards of a larger paycheck; some people would work just hard enough to feed themselves. Why does government need to stick its nose in the equation?
Uh, huh. And is it looting when you don't hire that worker at all? Who picks up that difference in that case, do you expect?
BREAKING NEWS - we don't live in the old Soviet Union. The government should not be "setting wages." Wages are set by the competitive marketplace.
Please see 'Capitalism & Freedom' by Milton Friedman if you need further reading on this subject.
All the arguments you are hearing are the same ones you hear all the time. I think, in my opinion, that it hurts Republicans when we don't think people that work in hotels, nursing homes, fast-food,etc....deserve to be paid better. We all talk advantage of the services they provide, or probably will one day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.