"Why stop at $10 an hour? Why not raise it to $50 or $100 or $1,000 dollars an hour??"

[HughBeaumont]

Of all the ridiculous strawmen the Republicans come up with, regarding the much, MUCH needed raise to the federal minimum wage, this has to be one of the most idiotic.

It's not only being tossed by every Homer, Jabez and Bertha Sue chiming in on the wingnut-laden internets, it's the go-to of right-wing pundits (Kevin O'Leary) and even supposedly educated economists (like Lindsey Piegza, for instance).

But hey, as long as we're playing this card, you know, why not LOWER the minimum wage to 4 bucks an hour?

How about TWO an hour (while I'm being facetious, jerks like Peter Schiff are for real with that figure)? Hey, why hold back and just simply demand workers PAY their businesses for the privilege of working there???

It's re-branded Feudalism, regressive and immoral, that's why.

More buying power in the hands of people who need to spend every dime is simply a smarter long game for economic health, and pretending tax cuts are a viable substitute for an increase in a sustained income is the folly of the Von Mises set.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-zombeck/the-ridiculous-minimum-wage-argument_b_5565074.html

I'm not sure when we became a nation of greedy, hateful pigs, but I do remember a time when a business took pride in not only their workmanship, but in the fact that they were creating jobs in their community. They gave people a purpose and a living wage. It allowed a person the dignity of being self-sufficient and the security of taking care of themselves and their family. In return the company got dedication, loyalty and a product or service that others wanted to buy. Henry Ford, one of the country's biggest manufacturing icons made a point of making sure that his employees earned enough to buy a car. Today, we have Walmart workers, who despite working full time are so poorly paid that they have to rely on taxpayer subsidized food stamps, welfare and Medicare totaling more than $1 million per store.


So, it's interesting that the recent news of job market 'improvement' doesn't mention that of the ten occupation categories projecting the greatest growth in the next eight years, only one pays a middle-class wage. Four pay barely above poverty level and five pay beneath it, including fast-food workers, retail sales staff, health aids and janitors. The job expected to have the highest number of openings is 'personal care aide'--taking care of aging baby boomers in their houses or in nursing homes. The median salary of an aid is under $20,000. They enjoy no benefits and about 40 percent of them must rely on food stamps and Medicaid to make ends meet, plus many are in the 'shadow economy,' vulnerable to being cheated on the already miserly wages.



That means the father or mother with a couple of kids, now looking at the degree they have from some university they probably still owe money to, is going to take whatever they can get to pay for the roof over their head and to put food on the table. They may even need to take two. It also means that the boomer couple who lost their pension, 401k, savings, and home value as a result of the felonious acts of the same corporations who are now opposing a living wage, isn't going to retire when they thought they would and will be looking into landing one of those jobs. That's who members of Congress are giving the finger to. People do what they need to do to survive. It's been that way since the beginning of time and this country has proven time and time again that when the going gets tough, the tough get going, but the argument and the opposition to allowing people a living wage for full time work is frankly embarrassing.

[Robbins]

1. well

Before long there may not be a minuem wage anymore the way things are going in this country.

[Dont call me Shirley]

23. American prisoners are making around 20 cents an hour! Sick!

[Orsino]

2. It's a "further study" excuse.

They want us to believe that the exact amount is a critical decision that would be set in stone forever, but even a moment's thought reminds one that the economy is and always has been a moving target. Why not start with ten bucks and see how that works out?

Because what they're really saying is that we shouldn't do anything at all.

[Laelth]

4. +1. n/t

-Laelth

[HughBeaumont]

14. Some . . . like Kevin O'Leary, for example . . .

think that a city would be better off lowering or eliminating the minimum wage for a year . . . that workers should just be paid what the owner THINKS they're worth . . . or what THE OWNER feels is a fair wage.

Of course, Kevin O'Leary is a RWNJ of the highest order, so I don't even take that seriously.

[Orsino]

19. And you don't see the talking heads dithering.

None of this fake "Why not lower it to $6.50? Why not $5.95?" No, cuts they'll always go for.

[hughee99]

3. It's interesting that the article does nothing to

Address the strawman. If $10 why not $11, 12 or 13? I'm sure you wouldn't have any DUers calling THAT argument ridiculous, especially after making the argument that the more money low income workers have, the better it is. My question has always been, at what dollar value does the argument go from "sure, why not" to "that's just a ridiculous strawman" and why? I think until someone has a logical response for that, you're going to keep hearing that argument.

[Oktober]

7. Yup...

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

9. My reply? As high as enough Congressmen will vote for.

If they actually will vote in a $25, $50, $100, or $1000 minimum wage, I'll be fine with it. So the ball's in their court.

Even with a $10 minimum, prices will adjust accordingly. So if it's higher still, the same thing will happen - employers will simply adjust prices accordingly, as the cost of labour becomes the predominant cost of goods sold.

[hughee99]

10. So for you, it's NOT a strawman or a slippery slope argument, it's a real argument.

The OP seemed to suggest that the people who feel this way are repukes who don't want raise the minimum wage.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

11. No, my argument is 'raise it as high as you will'.

Not 'Don't raise it, because we want to facetiously suggest it will bankrupt the country.'

Start raising it, and stop when you actually see it start to cause damage to 'the economy'.

I don't care if that's 15, 25, or whatever. Just start raising it. 10's a starting point, 15 would be a better one.

[hughee99]

12. It sounds like the same argument, but with different motivations.

The repukes make that argument thinking people will find it ridiculous, you were making the same argument as a "why not"? It's the same argument, though, just with different motivations and intended consequences.

[HughBeaumont]

13. Well, no Republican's SAYing "why not 11, 12 or 13?".

They're performing this ridiculous vaulting to 10, 20 or 100 times the amount proposed and since it's a cutesy Luntz-hatched soundbite delivered by pundits for legitimacy, no one calls them out on it. Like we're all too dumb that we don't understand the concept of hyperinflation . . . .

$10-11: MORE than reasonable, even to economic moderates that think tying minimum wage to production is a bad trail. $10.74-12.00 corrects for inflation and restores buying power to 1968 levels. The minimum wage has actually LOST buying power over a period of 46 years and 40% of workers in 2014 make less than the inflation-adjusted 1968 minimum wage.

$15-16: That's what I think it should be, that's where it is in some industrialized nations, but then you lose the moderates who think minimum wage shouldn't be tethered to overall production. Also, good luck getting that rate through a Milton Friedman-loving congress with incestuous ties to CEOs, conservative small businesspersons and the USCoC.

$20 and up: Pie in the sky, sorry. This ain't Sweden you live in.

[hughee99]

17. It doesn't really matter WHO is making the argument. The problem is the argument itself.

What happens between $16 and $20 to go from "what it should be" to "Pie in the sky"? Is there a specific reason that you consider $20 too much, or is it just sort of a feeling? If there's a specific reason, you have an argument you can make, if it's just a feeling, you're going to have a hard time convincing someone else that your feeling about $20 is right while someone else's feeling of $10 (or $100) is wrong.

[HughBeaumont]

22. To address the last part, their feeling about even $10.00/hr IS wrong.

Chart after graph after data after study nullifies their argument hundreds of times over. The minimum wage has LOST buying power since 1968. Data proves this. There's not a damned thing they can say that isn't laced in logical fallacies that supports their position.

It seems that you're not really reading what I'm saying. What I think should be a reasonable wage and what will get everyone on your side regarding $15 an hour are two different things entirely. Even I'M skeptical that a $15/hr minimum wage is going to happen with the Congress we're stuck with. It has nothing to do with "feeling" but more along the lines of small businesspeople that pay above minimum wage now having to increase their labor costs along WITH the rate of minimum wage. I'm not here to put anyone out of business regardless of political affiliation, and that's where the $16-20 an hour falls short with me. That's where the stagflation we're experiencing now starts to escalate to hyperinflation; which, as more than a few studies have proved, would not happen with 11/hr.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=would+raising+minimum+wage+be+good

If we're serious about this issue and $10.74 should be your STARTING point. THAT at least corrects for inflation. See what happens after that.

I don't really understand why you keep conflating an 11-20/hr range with the exaggerated Republican straw-man of $50-1000/hr. It just doesn't make sense.

[hughee99]

26. You SHOULDN'T be confused. You made an argument here.

This is what I'm talking about, and it's something you often don't see when this discussion comes up. One person says it should be "much higher", and the other says that's "too high" but no one give a number (or any explanation of 1. where that number came from. 2. why it makes sense or 3. if you go even higher, what problems may develop.

FAR too often, people just leave the argument that if you pay workers more everyone benefits with no specifics as to a downside if you pay them more beyond a certain point. (i.e. If you paid them $20 an hour data shows "x" happens, but if you start going beyond that, "y" and "z" will start to become problems). Part of this may just be laziness on peoples part, or a lack of real understanding of what the number should be (and I'll admit, I don't have an exact number in mind, either) but part of it is because the mathematical analysis that would go into determining such a value (or range) can't be easily condensed into a short, easily explainable talking point and until someone figures out how to do that, I think you're going to continue to see this argument.

[delete_bush]

28. A tip of the hat for your reasoned

responses. There was a thread a week or so ago on this very topic along with a poll, and 95% were supporting at least $15 and many over $20 up to $25. I wasn't able to get anyone to come back with other than an emotional response in defense of their number. It's easy to 'feel' that these numbers would work but far different, as you said, when one examines the ramifications of such a huge increase.

[Laelth]

5. k&r for labor. n/t

-Laelth

[yeoman6987]

6. I would add it to the annual Social Security

Raise every year. That way every year is a raise. I really should be a congressional advisor. They act like this stuff is rocket science.

[phantom power]

8. the old slippery slope fallacy

kind of like "if we allow gay marriage, then why not man-on-boxturtle marriage?"

[Octafish]

15. Congressmen make about $83.65/hr.

That is, if their $174,000 salary is divided into 52, 40-hour work weeks.

[HughBeaumont]

16. Chuckles Koch makes $34,000 . . . every 23 MINUTES.

A long yawn by Chuckles Koch = $75.00.

Anyone still believe this ISN'T a plutocracy?

[Octafish]

29. Plutocracy. Oligarchy. Kleptocracy. Kakistocracy.

"One of the things that is interesting about reading conspiracy theory is that much of what folks think is conspiracy is really many people acting in concert to make or protect their money." - Catherine Austin Fitts

'S easy, when you got all four branches of Wall Street on the Potomac on your side.

[Initech]

20. And they also did their jobs.

Oh snap!

[Octafish]

30. Must. Not. Spray. Fluids. In. Public...

The irony of typing that. As if!

[GoneFishin]

18. I first started smelling a strong stench of greedy, hateful, pigs when Reagan was in office.

[SunSeeker]

21. If the minimum wage had COLA increases like SS it would be $22

The decision to not have a cost of living adjustment paired with the minimum wage when it was first passed decades ago meant it would quickly erode. And it did.

If the minimum wage of the 1960s had kept up with inflation, it would be at $22/hour. And all of our wages would have risen accordingly. Instead, corporations and their CEOs sucked up all those wages. That giant sucking sound you hear are your wages going to the .001%.

[abelenkpe]

24. "If the minimum wage had kept pace with productivity growth it would be $16.54 in 2012 dollars."

see:

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/cepr-blog/the-minimum-wage-and-economic-growth

eta: 10 dollars an hour is an ineffective bandaid that will still leave minimum wage workers struggling in our economy. It is absolutely pathetic that there is pushback on this amount when in reality 16 plus would be justified. And honestly democrats should be asking for far far more and then bargain to the middle more justified amount. Again they fail at bargaining offering weak solutions to large problems that plague the working class.

[HughBeaumont]

25. Oh, if only we lived in a more progressive nation run by reasonable people . . . .

. . . yet, sadly, we have what we have: a bunch of centrists to hyper-Teahadists who slobber at the temple of Milton Friedman who would like nothing less than to tear apart all progress our labor movements have given to us with their flesh and blood.

[abelenkpe]

27. Agree

Seems like that is the goal of the right: to undermine all the gains of workers. To undermine the government in general and force people to lose faith in it's effectiveness to create a just and fair society.

[Uncle Joe]

31. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, HughBeaumont.

[pansypoo53219]

32. can we just tie it to inflation? would that be so bad?

it other people wages up they can't stand. profit pigs.

[LanternWaste]

33. "Do not let any calamity-howling executive tell you..."

"Do not let any calamity-howling executive with an income of $1,000 a day tell you that a wage of $11 a week is going to have a disastrous effect on all American industry..."
Franklin D. Roosevelt ~ Public Papers and Address, Vol. VII, p.392.







And it didn't. And in the here and now, raising the minimum wage to reflect the cost-of-living adjustments will not either. Setting a minimum living wage measure and then consistently raising it in accordance with the indices of the Consumer Price Index would result in a negligible rise in unemployment, more than offset by collective standard of living. (OMB, Summaries of Revenues, Expenditures & Fund Balances 2009).

Adjusted for inflation, the federal minimum wage peaked in 1968 at $8.56 (in 2012 dollars). Additionally, the minimum wage should have reached $21.72 an hour in 2012 if it had kept up with increases in worker productivity (Huff. Post).

[Enthusiast]

34. Kicked and recommended!

[IronLionZion]

35. Conservatives and libertarians really do want to eliminate the minimum wage

and eliminate social assistance programs. They would gleefully exploit desperate people who are less fortunate because they like the feudal superiority and gaps in wealth.