• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Democrats should immediately confront the minimum wage rate issue.

I'm Supposn

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,663
Reaction score
243
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Democrats should immediately confront the federal minimum wage rate issue.

I’m among those that advocate a minimum wage rate gradually increased to higher purchasing power and thereafter monitored and (when necessary to retain its targeted purchasing power), it should be updated prior to New Year’s date of the following year. In my opinion, annual increases of 12% until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power is reasonable.

It would be possible, but politically problematic for the Republican majority U.S. Senate not to pass an alternative bill responding to the Democratic House’s bill. Usually, there are differences between bills that may, (or may not) be reconciled by negotiators from each chamber. A bill sent to the president for his consideration must be passed by both houses with exactly the same drafted language. That usually requires both chambers to again vote and pass a draft of the bill that’s a mutually agreed upon update.

Possible House’s negotiating positions:

The Senate will be displeased by the concept of pegging the rate’s purchasing power.
The House’s alternative position could be, lose the purchasing power provision but give us 15% annual increase for 10 years.

The Senate may then find the purchasing power concept less objectionable but they're then displeased with the 12%.
The House’s alternative position could be, 8% increase every Labor Day until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power, but the rate’s additionally annually updates reflecting changes in the CPI-U will begin prior to the New Year’s day following the enactment day of the Bill.

I hope the Democratic negotiators would be polite and respectful beyond civility, but FIRM! they should not acquiesce or attempt to placate to the opposition. Democrats should be fully prepared to leave the negotiating table and permit the differences to be resolved by the 2020 general elections.

Respectfully, Supposn
 

Hawkeye10

Buttermilk Man
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 29, 2015
Messages
45,404
Reaction score
11,744
Location
Olympia Wa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Democrats should immediately confront the federal minimum wage rate issue.

I’m among those that advocate a minimum wage rate gradually increased to higher purchasing power and thereafter monitored and (when necessary to retain its targeted purchasing power), it should be updated prior to New Year’s date of the following year. In my opinion, annual increases of 12% until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power is reasonable.

It would be possible, but politically problematic for the Republican majority U.S. Senate not to pass an alternative bill responding to the Democratic House’s bill. Usually, there are differences between bills that may, (or may not) be reconciled by negotiators from each chamber. A bill sent to the president for his consideration must be passed by both houses with exactly the same drafted language. That usually requires both chambers to again vote and pass a draft of the bill that’s a mutually agreed upon update.

Possible House’s negotiating positions:

The Senate will be displeased by the concept of pegging the rate’s purchasing power.
The House’s alternative position could be, lose the purchasing power provision but give us 15% annual increase for 10 years.

The Senate may then find the purchasing power concept less objectionable but they're then displeased with the 12%.
The House’s alternative position could be, 8% increase every Labor Day until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power, but the rate’s additionally annually updates reflecting changes in the CPI-U will begin prior to the New Year’s day following the enactment day of the Bill.

I hope the Democratic negotiators would be polite and respectful beyond civility, but FIRM! they should not acquiesce or attempt to placate to the opposition. Democrats should be fully prepared to leave the negotiating table and permit the differences to be resolved by the 2020 general elections.

Respectfully, Supposn

If the demands are firm then by definition there is no negotiation going on and " polite and respectful beyond civility" would be a farce because the " polite and respectful beyond civility" listen and negotiate..
 

Cameron

Politically Correct
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 26, 2010
Messages
5,137
Reaction score
3,571
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
I support the intentions behind minimum wage hikes, but I feel like in reality such hikes only cause inflation. I think we need to come up with some more effective ways to make sure workers are being fairly compensated.
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Here's a thought. Instead of increasing wages why don't we instead try and find a way to reduce the costs of products?
 

Hawkeye10

Buttermilk Man
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 29, 2015
Messages
45,404
Reaction score
11,744
Location
Olympia Wa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Here's a thought. Instead of increasing wages why don't we instead try and find a way to reduce the costs of products?

We have done that already.......Have you not noticed all of that crap in the stores....CHEAP!

No, we have already taken CHEAP! too far.

You should look for a different plan.
 

Anarchon

Resident Voluntaryist
Joined
Aug 12, 2018
Messages
2,176
Reaction score
425
Location
Rent-free in your head
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I’m among those that advocate a minimum wage rate gradually increased to higher purchasing power and thereafter monitored and (when necessary to retain its targeted purchasing power), it should be updated prior to New Year’s date of the following year.

Why should I have to care what you advocate?
 

I'm Supposn

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,663
Reaction score
243
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I’m among those that advocate a minimum wage rate gradually increased to higher purchasing power and thereafter monitored and (when necessary to retain its targeted purchasing power), it should be updated prior to New Year’s date of the following year. In my opinion, annual increases of 12% until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power is reasonable.

It would be possible, but politically problematic for the Republican majority U.S. Senate not to pass an alternative bill responding to the Democratic House’s bill. Usually, there are differences between bills that may, (or may not) be reconciled by negotiators from each chamber. A bill sent to the president for his consideration must be passed by both houses with exactly the same drafted language. That usually requires both chambers to again vote and pass a draft of the bill that’s a mutually agreed upon update. ....
If the demands are firm then by definition there is no negotiation going on and " polite and respectful beyond civility" would be a farce because the " polite and respectful beyond civility" listen and negotiate..
Hawkeye10, refusing to compromise is not insincere or illegal, but that's not what I advocated.
... Possible House’s negotiating positions:
The Senate will be displeased by the concept of pegging the rate’s purchasing power.
The House’s alternative position could be, lose the purchasing power provision but give us 15% annual increase for 10 years.

The Senate may then find the purchasing power concept less objectionable but they're then displeased with the 12%.
The House’s alternative position could be, 8% increase every Labor Day until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power, but the rate’s additionally annually updates reflecting changes in the CPI-U will begin prior to the New Year’s day following the enactment day of the Bill.
I hope the Democratic negotiators would be polite and respectful beyond civility, but FIRM! they should not acquiesce or attempt to placate to the opposition. Democrats should be fully prepared to leave the negotiating table and permit the differences to be resolved by the 2020 general elections. ...
The afore mentioned are negotiating positions and strategy that are sincere compromising offers.
Respectfully, Supposn
 

Jesse Booth

we live in a society
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 12, 2014
Messages
11,036
Reaction score
6,696
Location
https://www.debatepolitics.com
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Why should I have to care what you advocate?

...I know what you're going for, but it seems a bit disingenuous to go into someone else's thread where they advocate for a specific policy, then ask them why they're telling you what they're advocating for. I mean, what were you expecting? Did you think OP was looking for some boys to crack open a cold one with?
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
71,545
Reaction score
40,700
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Democrats should immediately confront the federal minimum wage rate issue.

I’m among those that advocate a minimum wage rate gradually increased to higher purchasing power and thereafter monitored and (when necessary to retain its targeted purchasing power), it should be updated prior to New Year’s date of the following year. In my opinion, annual increases of 12% until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power is reasonable.

It would be possible, but politically problematic for the Republican majority U.S. Senate not to pass an alternative bill responding to the Democratic House’s bill. Usually, there are differences between bills that may, (or may not) be reconciled by negotiators from each chamber. A bill sent to the president for his consideration must be passed by both houses with exactly the same drafted language. That usually requires both chambers to again vote and pass a draft of the bill that’s a mutually agreed upon update.

Possible House’s negotiating positions:

The Senate will be displeased by the concept of pegging the rate’s purchasing power.
The House’s alternative position could be, lose the purchasing power provision but give us 15% annual increase for 10 years.

The Senate may then find the purchasing power concept less objectionable but they're then displeased with the 12%.
The House’s alternative position could be, 8% increase every Labor Day until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power, but the rate’s additionally annually updates reflecting changes in the CPI-U will begin prior to the New Year’s day following the enactment day of the Bill.

I hope the Democratic negotiators would be polite and respectful beyond civility, but FIRM! they should not acquiesce or attempt to placate to the opposition. Democrats should be fully prepared to leave the negotiating table and permit the differences to be resolved by the 2020 general elections.

Respectfully, Supposn

I am somewhat in agreement in that the federal MW should be permanently indexed for inflation much like Social Security retirement benefit levels are. Where I disagree is with selection (cherry picking?) of the 1968 MW level (the inflation adjusted, historical high plus some arbitrary percentage) as the baseline value for the federal MW.

The initial (1938) MW value was too low and was immediately (1939) doubled. I suggest using its current value (established in 2009) as the baseline. Adjusted for CPI nflation that would be 8.50/hour today.

https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=7.25&year1=200907&year2=201809
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
71,545
Reaction score
40,700
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I support the intentions behind minimum wage hikes, but I feel like in reality such hikes only cause inflation. I think we need to come up with some more effective ways to make sure workers are being fairly compensated.

I disagree that adjusting something (like Social Security benefit levels) for CPI inflation causes inflation. I do agree that raising something (like the federal MW) above its losses to inflation would be inflationary.
 

TrumpTrain

Banned
Joined
Nov 9, 2018
Messages
419
Reaction score
146
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Raising the minimum wage only puts people out of work, usually the poorest among us, which proves that Democrats don't give a crap about the poor.
 

Roadvirus

Heading North
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 19, 2014
Messages
21,892
Reaction score
10,541
Location
Tennessee, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The Federal minimum wage should be abolished and the States should set their own MWs, hiked or cut determined by either state legislatures or ballot initiative.
 

Helix

Administrator
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
75,514
Reaction score
59,404
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
i'm for guaranteeing debt free post secondary education / job training. mandating that burger flipping jobs pay twenty five bucks an hour will just mean that we'll see a lot more robots sooner. train people into the roles that we need so that they can support themselves without incurring crushing debt. that's the smart way to do it, IMO.
 

TrumpTrain

Banned
Joined
Nov 9, 2018
Messages
419
Reaction score
146
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Raising the minimum wage only puts people out of work, usually the poorest among us, which proves that Democrats don't give a crap about the poor.

Let me add to my other post: Almost all state and local minimum wages are already higher than the federal minimum wage anyways, so this is all just a bunch of hot air.

i'm for guaranteeing debt free post secondary education / job training.........

Why should I have to pay for someone else's education
 

TrumpTrain

Banned
Joined
Nov 9, 2018
Messages
419
Reaction score
146
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Here's a thought. Instead of increasing wages why don't we instead try and find a way to reduce the costs of products?

Whenever government interferes in that way it never comes out good. They are too stupid to anticipate negative ripple effects. The free market is not the problem.
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent

Here's a small example of what I'm talking about.

When the Xbox One first came out they had a limited supply and as such charged $500-$600 for each one. Despite having the capability to match the demand that they had for them. By doing this they artificially inflated demand for the consoles and therefore the the price of the consoles to higher than what they could have charged if they had supplied the actual amount that they had the capability of doing so from the beginning.

When most people speak of price gouging they envisage one company undercutting the price of another company. But this to me is another form of price gouging. Only its the company "undercutting" its customers by limiting the supply of a product in order to increase the price of the product. Something which the Federal Government actually supports mind you. It is in fact why the commerce clause was extended beyond what it originally meant. I can't remember the case name but the government prevented farmers from supplying their own feed for their own animals and themselves via growing it on their own land because it "affected national prices" or some such. Can't remember the exact details, sorry. But that was the gist.
 

Bullseye

Fund police; Defund the politicians
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2018
Messages
34,146
Reaction score
11,352
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Democrats should immediately confront the federal minimum wage rate issue.

I’m among those that advocate a minimum wage rate gradually increased to higher purchasing power and thereafter monitored and (when necessary to retain its targeted purchasing power), it should be updated prior to New Year’s date of the following year. In my opinion, annual increases of 12% until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power is reasonable.

It would be possible, but politically problematic for the Republican majority U.S. Senate not to pass an alternative bill responding to the Democratic House’s bill. Usually, there are differences between bills that may, (or may not) be reconciled by negotiators from each chamber. A bill sent to the president for his consideration must be passed by both houses with exactly the same drafted language. That usually requires both chambers to again vote and pass a draft of the bill that’s a mutually agreed upon update.

Possible House’s negotiating positions:

The Senate will be displeased by the concept of pegging the rate’s purchasing power.
The House’s alternative position could be, lose the purchasing power provision but give us 15% annual increase for 10 years.

The Senate may then find the purchasing power concept less objectionable but they're then displeased with the 12%.
The House’s alternative position could be, 8% increase every Labor Day until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power, but the rate’s additionally annually updates reflecting changes in the CPI-U will begin prior to the New Year’s day following the enactment day of the Bill.

I hope the Democratic negotiators would be polite and respectful beyond civility, but FIRM! they should not acquiesce or attempt to placate to the opposition. Democrats should be fully prepared to leave the negotiating table and permit the differences to be resolved by the 2020 general elections.

Respectfully, Supposn
Wages and benefits are growing because of economy growth. It's time to get the government out of it.
 

Bullseye

Fund police; Defund the politicians
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2018
Messages
34,146
Reaction score
11,352
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Here's a thought. Instead of increasing wages why don't we instead try and find a way to reduce the costs of products?
LOL, and how would yo do that? Since labor costs are factored into the price of the goods or services in question wouldn't reducing the price force a reduction in labor cost?
 

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,928
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Democrats should immediately confront the federal minimum wage rate issue.

I’m among those that advocate a minimum wage rate gradually increased to higher purchasing power and thereafter monitored and (when necessary to retain its targeted purchasing power), it should be updated prior to New Year’s date of the following year. In my opinion, annual increases of 12% until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power is reasonable.

It would be possible, but politically problematic for the Republican majority U.S. Senate not to pass an alternative bill responding to the Democratic House’s bill. Usually, there are differences between bills that may, (or may not) be reconciled by negotiators from each chamber. A bill sent to the president for his consideration must be passed by both houses with exactly the same drafted language. That usually requires both chambers to again vote and pass a draft of the bill that’s a mutually agreed upon update.

Possible House’s negotiating positions:

The Senate will be displeased by the concept of pegging the rate’s purchasing power.
The House’s alternative position could be, lose the purchasing power provision but give us 15% annual increase for 10 years.

The Senate may then find the purchasing power concept less objectionable but they're then displeased with the 12%.
The House’s alternative position could be, 8% increase every Labor Day until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power, but the rate’s additionally annually updates reflecting changes in the CPI-U will begin prior to the New Year’s day following the enactment day of the Bill.

I hope the Democratic negotiators would be polite and respectful beyond civility, but FIRM! they should not acquiesce or attempt to placate to the opposition. Democrats should be fully prepared to leave the negotiating table and permit the differences to be resolved by the 2020 general elections.

Respectfully, Supposn

Yeah, go ahead and start sabotaging the economy from the git-go.
 

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,928
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Here's a thought. Instead of increasing wages why don't we instead try and find a way to reduce the costs of products?

That'll mean cutting government regulations and taxes. Neither party will do that.
 
Top Bottom