The present minimum wage basically says that if your labor can't generate consistently a minimum of $13.00 an hour in revenue, then its value is ZERO. A $10/hour minimum wage basically says that if Joe Smith can't generate a minimum of $25 an hour for his employer, then Joe Smith should not be hired, and Joe Smith earns an hourly wage of $0.00.
There are MANY people who cannot generate that kind of revenue on a constant basis. What do you propose to do about them? Shoot them? Force the people who DO get work to pay for the care and feeding of those who don't?
You only seem to approve of contracts when they help you out.
I seek to get the best return on my time and efforts, as does the guy I'm contracting with. If I do not consider the return on investment to be high enough for what time, talent, and treasure I put into the contract, then I will contract with someone willing to meet my requirements. If the other party decides that I'm either asking too much or not offering enough, then he can decline to contract with me. That's the nature of free enterprise.
Government is a contract. Government has the right, even obligation to assure that none starve to death.
Are you sure you're on the right website?
Government protects the people in exchange for taxes and the right to make laws. This includes laws that protect the poor from people like you.
Again, I'm not doing anything to harm poor people.
If you don't like America get the he!! out.
If you don't like freedom, then kindly go elsewhere.
Contract with some other country.
Well, why don't you move to Sweden, or some Euro-peon country?
But you know what? People did not simply starve to death before the government got in the business of preventing it; at least not in a greater percentage than can be explained by the worse technology of the day. People will prevent people from starving even if the government does not take their money to try to do it for them.
In other words, I am on board with you. Those arguments are emotional appeals that aren't based on reality.