Posted on 08/16/2019 6:30:54 AM PDT by central_va
With the “Fight for $15 External link ” making headlines, opinions abound about whether raising the federal minimum wage will have a positive or negative effect on unemployment rates. Advocates of an increase cite the impossible task of making ends meet on today’s paltry sum of $7.25 an hour and say an increase would have little effect on the overall economy. Those against such a move predict that doing so would cause employers to lay off more and hire less—raising unemployment rates as a result. As is often the case with such emotionally charged issues, especially in an election year, the broader conversation about the minimum wage tends to involve more feeling than historical fact. To balance such a dynamic, we decided to turn to the data to see what it reveals.
(Excerpt) Read more at onlinebusiness.syr.edu ...
The federal government has the right to regulate interstate commerce, which includes the right to regulate or to not regulate.
The states, having general police powers, has that same right.
Is that more clear for you?
No it isn’t. It is simply making your contract “illegal”. The same way that your contract with Bambie Delight for her to provide sexual services to you for money, illegal. Except in Nevada.
The same as requiring you to use a certain mininum gauge of electrical wire in your home is not “dictating” what kind of home you can build.
Did you not read any of this above???
Once the government got involved, it ceased to be a “Free Market”.
Blah blah blah the “free market.” Face it, you do not have any valid arguments and now you are doing the equivalent of throwing up your hands and waving them about to distract from that. Governments have always regulated businesses. From the earliest civilization to now, and to the future.
You obviously pine for some sort of Garden of Eden where nobody can tell you that you have to do nothing, or refrain from doing nothing. You can have that sort of life! Go to South Georgia Island and learn to like fried penquin and roast seals. Or, Somalia. Your choice. I bet you even object to the Ten Commandments!
Consider tech jobs. When I was a kid there weren't any tech jobs... well, there was ONE company - (listed below). They had fewer than a hundred employees. In the fifties and sixties there was talk computers would replace everyone and destroy all our jobs.
The people who thought that were wrong.
Computers created jobs. Robotics will be the same - we're not at the end of invention and innovation - we're at the beginning. Robotics will create more jobs.
If people in the past had your outlook on innovation we'd still be using blacksmiths for our horse's shoes...
The first computer company
https://www.computerhope.com/issues/ch000984.htm
The first computer company was the Electronic Controls Company and was founded in 1949 by J. Presper Eckert and John Mauchly, the same individuals who helped create the ENIAC computer. The company was later renamed to EMCC or Eckert-Mauchly Computer Corporation and released a series of mainframe computers under the UNIVAC name.
I do not believe you! That could not have happened! Back then in 1949, and in the 1950s, they had a minimum wage that was actually “livable”! And all the experts here have weighed in that having “livable” minimum wage is a really really bad double-not-good thing! So that kind of thing that you posit happened simply could not have happened, right??? Because.Government.
A reason for that, was women still weren't in the workforce to the degree they are now. More women in the workforce means a higher supply of labor, meaning downward pressure on wages.
Ridiculous, you say. If so, you should have no problem explaining why.
If the minimum wage is $3.00 per hour, then any additional workforce must be paid that same amount per hour. Period.
I think you are just flailing around trying to not have to come to grips with the fact that minimum wages are legal, and a good thing, and even better if a livable amount.
Minimum is the operative term. If 1 Billion women join the workforce, and the Minimum wage is $3.00 per hour, what is the least amount the women must be paid per hour??? (This is NOT a trick question!) The answer is $3.00 per hour.
Downward wage pressure may indeed impact wages above the minimum wage. Which is why the HB1s
Both of which are irrelevant here. You're right, that was easy.
I got this one CV!
Because $500 per hour minimum wage is not an argument. It is an irrelevant statement thrown out to mischaractarize a minimum wage as an arbitrary amount, just plucked out of thin air. It is a deceptive argument
Any reasonably cogent person on this thread is quite capable of figgering out the minimum needed at 40 hours per week to pay for food, basic rent, basic utilities, and a basic vehicle. If you think it is $500 per hour, then you are either not cogent, or an officer in a publicly held corporation who is lying to get an unreasonably large salary.
OK??? Please explain.
Nope, I'm done here.
Don't take this personally, because I assure you it is not, but based on our exchange(s) up to this point I can't see that I could present you with any facts that would alter your viewpoint.
I think a beer right now is more productive (and maybe even more enlightening ha ha) than this discussion. I have a Yuengling Black & Tan that is calling my name.
I will offer this. Study the Federalist Papers if you want to get into what constitutionality really means. The fact that the federal and state governments have ignored with extreme disdain the meaning and intent of the Constitution does not alter the Constitution. It does mean we have lawless government.
Not answering is your option. But let me recap thus far. I told you/others that the Constitution allows the Federal government to regulate interstate commerce, and also grants or allows the states what is known as “police powers.” Thus providing the legal basis for minimum wages.
You basically said, “does not either!”, and I asked you for an explanation. You have responded with “The Federalist Papers”, which is not statutory law. They are letters, and of importance in determining “intent”, but they are not per se a part of the law.
I suspect like one of your buds here, you are simply flailing about and waving your hands in the air and throwing out whatevah, rather than coming to grips with the rather sensible basis for a livable minimum wage law. This is simply an act of cognitive dissonance on your part, and you would be a happier person if you just admitted you have been wrong.
Just because the government can do something, doesn’t mean that it should.
True. But that does not have any real relevance to the argument at hand. Minimum wages are dictated by law, and the question is whether they should be “livable” or not.
Once, they were livable, and our economy flourished. As GOPwhatever pointed out above. This was in the 1950s and most of the 1960s.
Then, minimum wages fell behind inflation, and the public at large began subsidizing employers with Food Stamps, housing vouchers, Medicaid, etc.
I submit that is a bad thing, and that all businesses should provide a livable minimum wage and cut out the monkey business.
You have responded that you just don’t like the laws.
Which, I think is not much of a reasoned response, particularly since you have failed to answer any of the information provided by c-v, or myself. Like I said before, you are flailing about. Why not just admit that we are on to something?
It was more “livable” because back then there simply not as much “stuff” that people needed to buy. It was housing, either in the form of rent or a mortgage, or food, which was much cheaper because people actually used to cook from scratch, clothes, and a radio for entertainment. You didn’t even necessarily have to have a car.
In other words, minimum wages were once livable, and now they are not. And back then, our economy did not crash because of livable minimum wages. I am glad that you are coming around!
Just because you can’t afford a cell phone or have Cable TV doesn’t mean a wage isn’t “livable”.
And you are living in Karl Marx Stadt.
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.