Advocates: High court signals it won't stop $15 minimum wage[W:71]

[Taylor]

Re: Advocates: High court signals it won't stop $15 minimum wage

pretty much in line with the forbes article that I posted on the previous few pages.

1 in 3 have a household income over $60k, and 1 in 7 come from households with six-figure incomes - but we need to give them a "living wage" ...uh huh.

 

[matchlight]

Good decision. The way I see it, if McDonald's full time employees are collecting food stamps, they are not being lazy. McDonald's is stealing money from the taxpayers instead. But McDonald's can no longer do it in many cities and in some states. The Ninth Circuit Court decision stands.

Article is here.

I'd be curious to know what legal theory the challenging party relied on. I can't think of anything in the Constitution that prohibits states from making minimum wage laws. Depriving persons of property without due process of law, maybe? In general, the Supreme Court is not willing to second-guess the wisdom of state laws It doesn't--or at least shouldn't--care HOW silly the policy a law implements is, as long as it is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose and doesn't otherwise violate anything in the Constitution.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

I'd be curious to know what legal theory the challenging party relied on. I can't think of anything in the Constitution that prohibits states from making minimum wage laws. Depriving persons of property without due process of law, maybe? In general, the Supreme Court is not willing to second-guess the wisdom of state laws It doesn't--or at least shouldn't--care HOW silly the policy a law implements is, as long as it is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose and doesn't otherwise violate anything in the Constitution.

How about the part where small businesses are specifically given a longer timeframe to implement but all franchises are being interpreted as large businesses when they aren't. Yeah, the actual text of the law is a pretty good legal theory.

 

[Southern Dad]

Re: Advocates: High court signals it won't stop $15 minimum wage

1 in 3 have a household income over $60k, and 1 in 7 come from households with six-figure incomes - but we need to give them a "living wage" ...uh huh.

The left want to make a new middle class by seizing it from those that earn it and giving it to those that didn't. Notice none of them are saying the employer will get twice as much productivity out of the employee. Just what the employees needs are. Walmart raised its minimum wage to $10 per hour. Nearly 30% over the minimum wage, without any law making them do it. Is that enough? Of course not. The left wants $15 per hour. The only thing the employer gets is a higher labor expense line on his or her spreadsheets. Sure makes outsourcing or automation look good.

 

[JasperL]

Re: Advocates: High court signals it won't stop $15 minimum wage

according to the BLS only 2% of the workforce actually earns minimum wage.
of those the majority do not have a high school diploma or only a high school diploma.

It's about 4% according to BLS. http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/min...racteristics-of-minimum-wage-workers-2014.pdf

And that study doesn't include anyone in the 36 states with minimum wages higher than the Federal minimum. So if you're an OH worker making minimum wage in Ohio of $8.10, you're not counted by BLS as making "minimum wage" since it's higher than the federal rate of $7.25. That data also doesn't begin to account for someone making $7.30 an hour but who obviously will get a big raise if/when the Federal minimum is changed.

There are good reasons to favor transfer payments to the poor over increases in the minimum wage, but the BLS study really doesn't provide good reasons because by the way it was designed it captures just that tiny slice in 14 states that make precisely the minimum wage or below.

 

[Thrilla]

No, it's NOT in accordance with their skills. It's in accordance with the lowest they can pay them. The entire problem is that people are not compensated (paid) in proportion to their contribution (work). Their work has value, and they are getting underpaid. This is lucrative for the owner, to pay an employee less than their labor is worth, because they can redirect the resultant surplus into their own pockets.

yo uare arguing emotionally again.
1st, burger flipping, among other jobs, is considered " unskilled labor".. which means their job duties take little or no training.
those position.. the unskilled, are paid at the lowest rate, because , among other factors, their skills do not demand a higher rate of compensation in the marketplace, additionally, the market has a glut of unskilled laborers (there is nothing easier, as an employer, than finding unskilled labor)
2nd, the employer determines the value of the labor, not you, and not the employee ( though they have some say in negotiating compensation)... you have zero standing to arbitrarily declare what anyone else labor is worth.
so yeah, you cannot determine if someone is overpaid or underpaid... that's entirely in the realm of the "payer".

and yes, is is lucrative for the owner to make a profit and not spend all of his profits on labor.... most businesses exist to make a profit, not lavish comfortable lives upon unskilled laborers( sorry man, that will never happen)

I too was once a minimum wage earner ( then I joined the military and earned even less than minimum wage)... the jobs i did required no skill other than breathing and being alive... and yes, it sucked... I thought I was worth more as well.
thinking you are worth more is very different from actually be worth more to someone else...and it took me a little time to realize that i did not set the value of my labor, my employer does.
I didn't command better wages until i developed skills.... that's just how life works.

 

[MrShangles]

What happens to people already making $15 , won't there pay have to go up too.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Deuce]

What happens to people already making $15 , won't there pay have to go up too.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

"Have to" legally? No.

But they will see their pay go up.

 

[MrShangles]

"Have to" legally? No.

But they will see their pay go up.

Don't you think someone that has worked there way up to $15 per hour by actually doing a good job will fill like they should just stop trying to do a good job because the slackers are just going to be handed a raise.
And how can we compete with other countries that pay low wages,
I don't think it's right, but I make way more than $15 per hour , but I have worked hard all my life.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Absentglare]

Re: Advocates: High court signals it won't stop $15 minimum wage

the other person should have negotiated better or found a better job opening.
equal opportunity doesn't not mean equal outcome nor should it.

Don't dishonestly shift the goalposts. Compensation is also based on things other than skills.

I already did a few pages back. the majority of the money goes to people on the in the lower middle income/ middle income than the lower income levels.

That doesn't address what i said in any meaningful way.

yes it does as the economy adjusts upward to face the rising wages. the same as it did every other time they raised minimum wage.
prices just climb to adjust for the extra costs and everything else is left in the dust.

now you have people making 15 an hour and as prices climb to meet the new expenses they are just paying more for the
same and other people suffer wage losses.

You're confused. Poverty is not defined on a solely relative basis so your blathering is faulty.

pipedream stark trek fantasy. appeal to emotion argument as well.

Completely false, it is a tangible, realizable goal. What is lacking is the will to redeploy resources.

It's not an appeal to emotion. You can't say "oh, you want to make society better? That's an appeal to emotion!" No, it's simply the quintessential role of government. What you're demonstrating is a fundamental lack of understanding about some of the most basic facts of reality.

no it isn't it is fully accurate. attempting to take away what someone earns simply because you want it for yourself is more greedy than the person who earned it.
you did nothing to earn what you want to take. so yes you are more greedy.
Using those taxes to benefit the society, by ensuring that money circulates well and the economy grows as a result, spreading resources around so that we can be more productive on the whole, is a worthwhile endeavor.

You're confused here as well. You are oversimplifying the analysis to claim that everyone's income is perfectly appropriate. Look back at slavery, there was a price to pay for a slave. The government took slaves that slave owners "earns" because the government was "more greedy"- hopefully you can see the blatant fault in your pathetically misguided response.

 

[ludin]

Re: Advocates: High court signals it won't stop $15 minimum wage

Don't dishonestly shift the goalposts. Compensation is also based on things other than skills.

IE you can't address the argument or the rebuttal. no shifting of goal posts.
I never said it was just based on skills. I said the person should have negotiated better.
so you just committed a strawman argument please address the argument at hand.
if you can't I understand.

That doesn't address what i said in any meaningful way.

sure it does you just can't address the actual argument which is typical in about every single one
of your posts.

You're confused. Poverty is not defined on a solely relative basis so your blathering is faulty.

again you can't address the actual argument. technically yes it is. some person in a suit goes
yep this is the poverty level.

Completely false, it is a tangible, realizable goal. What is lacking is the will to redeploy resources.
It's not an appeal to emotion. You can't say "oh, you want to make society better? That's an appeal to emotion!" No, it's simply the quintessential role of government. What you're demonstrating is a fundamental lack of understanding about some of the most basic facts of reality.

Actually it isn't false. it isn't a realizable goal because there is no system available for this to occur.
actually going "don't you want to eliminate proverty" (paraphrase) is an appeal to emotion argument.
no that is not the role of government to eliminate poverty.

so far let me know when you post something that actually deals with reality and not some misguided utopia pipe dream.

You're confused here as well. You are oversimplifying the analysis to claim that everyone's income is perfectly appropriate. Look back at slavery, there was a price to pay for a slave. The government took slaves that slave owners "earns" because the government was "more greedy"- hopefully you can see the blatant fault in your pathetically misguided response.

[/QUOTE]

and the Goodwin award winner right here folks. can't address the actual argument so resorts to some slavery argument almost right up there with Nazi.
lol slavery what a losing argument to cover up your greediness.

the fact is trying to take from someone what you did not earn is greed plain and simple. in fact it is more greedy to try and take what you did not earn than
what the other person did to earn it.

it isn't greedy for me to earn 1m dollars. I saved invested worked to get there. what is greedy for you to say you shouldn't have 1m dollars
give some of it to me.

that is greed pure and simple and no amount of crap slavery arguments is going to save you.

 

[Absentglare]

Re: Advocates: High court signals it won't stop $15 minimum wage

IE you can't address the argument or the rebuttal. no shifting of goal posts.
I never said it was just based on skills. I said the person should have negotiated better.
so you just committed a strawman argument please address the argument at hand.
if you can't I understand.

That was just one example of the disconnect between skills and compensation. If i got a job flipping burgers, i wouldn't also be paid for my skills as an electrical engineer, so underemployment is another example. Nepotism is yet another one. There are a myriad of reasons for compensation that have nothing to do with skill.

sure it does you just can't address the actual argument which is typical in about every single one
of your posts.

again you can't address the actual argument. technically yes it is. some person in a suit goes
yep this is the poverty level.

No, what happened is that a huge number of people couldn't afford food and housing, so they created a name for it.

Actually it isn't false. it isn't a realizable goal because there is no system available for this to occur.
actually going "don't you want to eliminate proverty" (paraphrase) is an appeal to emotion argument.
no that is not the role of government to eliminate poverty.

The role of government is to govern. That means dealing with poverty. You might prefer to deal with poverty by ignoring it. I don't.

so far let me know when you post something that actually deals with reality and not some misguided utopia pipe dream.

It's not utopian to ensure that our people do not starve to death.

and the Goodwin award winner right here folks. can't address the actual argument so resorts to some slavery argument almost right up there with Nazi.
lol slavery what a losing argument to cover up your greediness.

Slavery and Nazism are two different things. Based on your argument, those slaves were worth the dollars they were traded for. It is demonstrably false- just because a market concocts a price for something doesn't mean it's an appropriate one, it's just the one the market happened to solve for. M

the fact is trying to take from someone what you did not earn is greed plain and simple. in fact it is more greedy to try and take what you did not earn than
what the other person did to earn it.

it isn't greedy for me to earn 1m dollars. I saved invested worked to get there. what is greedy for you to say you shouldn't have 1m dollars
give some of it to me.

that is greed pure and simple and no amount of crap slavery arguments is going to save you.

Okay, so emancipating the slaves was greedy in your "view."

 

[ludin]

Re: Advocates: High court signals it won't stop $15 minimum wage

That was just one example of the disconnect between skills and compensation. If i got a job flipping burgers, i wouldn't also be paid for my skills as an electrical engineer, so underemployment is another example. Nepotism is yet another one. There are a myriad of reasons for compensation that have nothing to do with skill.

yet the strawman continues. you said the same people were applying for the same job with the same skill sets. one gets paid more than the other.
you are not moving the goal posts and introducing irrelevant information since I busted that argument.

The role of government is to govern. That means dealing with poverty. You might prefer to deal with poverty by ignoring it. I don't.

sorry there is no way to deal with poverty. it exists will always exist and there is not much you or anyone else can do about it.
the fact is there will always be people who do the least possible to get buy. there always have been always will be.

It's not utopian to ensure that our people do not starve to death.

please stop changing your argument it is quit dishonest but I understand since I busted the first one all over the place.

Slavery and Nazism are two different things. Based on your argument, those slaves were worth the dollars they were traded for. It is demonstrably false- just because a market concocts a price for something doesn't mean it's an appropriate one, it's just the one the market happened to solve for. M

not really they are a low brow argument because you can't justify your first argument.

Okay, so emancipating the slaves was greedy in your "view."

Thank you for conceding the fact that you can't actually address the topic.

 

[Deuce]

Don't you think someone that has worked there way up to $15 per hour by actually doing a good job will fill like they should just stop trying to do a good job because the slackers are just going to be handed a raise.

No, because their pay will increase and I expect they'll want to keep it that way.

 

[danarhea]

Don't you think someone that has worked there way up to $15 per hour by actually doing a good job will fill like they should just stop trying to do a good job because the slackers are just going to be handed a raise.
And how can we compete with other countries that pay low wages,
I don't think it's right, but I make way more than $15 per hour , but I have worked hard all my life.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

15 bucks an hour is not what you think it is. Back in the 1960's, you had the same purchasing power only making 1.65 an hour. On that kind of money, I put myself through school, easily paid my rent, never went hungry, and had money left over.

 

[Absentglare]

Re: Advocates: High court signals it won't stop $15 minimum wage

yet the strawman continues. you said the same people were applying for the same job with the same skill sets. one gets paid more than the other.
you are not moving the goal posts and introducing irrelevant information since I busted that argument.

You must be confused. I am disagreeing with this claim you made :

wages are technically supposed to be. they are directed by supply and demand of the market place with the knowledge and skill of the employee.

Wages are not simply directed by supply and demand based on an employee's knowledge and skill. You're alluding to some bizarre utopian theory where everything is already perfect and we shouldn't change anything. It's circular logic bull****.

sorry there is no way to deal with poverty. it exists will always exist and there is not much you or anyone else can do about it.
the fact is there will always be people who do the least possible to get buy. there always have been always will be.

You are saying things that are absolutely false. I have already explained how these things are false. We could provide every American with a guaranteed income that puts everyone above the poverty line. That doesn't mean that we should, but we absolutely can. Since your argument is that we somehow can't, you are false by definition. We cannot eliminate that some will be richer than others, and so some will inevitably be poorer and some richer- if you are using this argument, then you are neglecting the meaningful distinction between being poor (in a relative sense) and being in poverty (where one cannot afford to feed and house oneself).

please stop changing your argument it is quit dishonest but I understand since I busted the first one all over the place.

There was no change.

not really they are a low brow argument because you can't justify your first argument.

It is not a low brow argument, i am reducing your argument to its true absurdity. The current price is not necessarily the appropriate price. The market doesn't make all prices magically perfect. Adam Smith knew this. Economists know this. Slavery proves this.

Thank you for conceding the fact that you can't actually address the topic.

No such concession transpired.