Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Yes

81 (90%)

No

9 (10%)

Total Members Voted: 88

[Cormack]

What do you think - should it exist or not?

Personally I am against it as it prevents employment of young people, and forces those redundant to be sacked as their employer cannot afford their work with already outrageous taxes that in EU cause more and more businessmen to close their small and medium companies. Some of my friends have lost their jobs like that, and it is not fair. They would have gladly worked for less but can't now.

If a person wants to work for less than a minimum wage, how on earth can anyone forbid them from doing so?

[WakeMeUp]

It's like asking - should I be able to steal from my neighbor? No, I should not. 

[martinuzz]

That's why we have laws forbidding people to employ someone for less than the minimum wage, to prevent a race to the bottom that ends in pure slavery.

[WakeMeUp]

That's why we have laws forbidding people to employ someone for less than the minimum wage, to prevent a race to the bottom that ends in pure slavery.

No, we don't. History clearly shows that wages are constantly rising, even in 19th century, even in the beginning of 20th. There may be short periods when this is not the case, but they do rise without theft. Besides, I doubt that people would agree to work for less even without minimal wage. There is always someone who would offer them more and business owners know that their employees would not work well if they would cut their salary below what is now minimal.

Minimal wages doesn't help with that. What it does is it prevents young and unskilled people from finding work, forces some to be fired, ruins small businesses and promotes theft - it is still that - a hideous theft, even if sanctioned by the law. 

[Ekaton]

That's why we have laws forbidding people to employ someone for less than the minimum wage, to prevent a race to the bottom that ends in pure slavery.

I was under the impression tnat Marx's "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer" has been debunked a long time ago for it is truly foolish to believe so despite overwhelming evidence literally everywhere around.

[Sheb]

Well, currently in the US for the last couple of decades the rich have been getting richer while the middle class have had its earning stagnate. Close enough.

WakeMeUp, you should do a better job of differentiating what is your opinion and what is fact in your posts.

[WakeMeUp]

Well, currently in the US for the last couple of decades the rich have been getting richer while the middle class have had its earning stagnate. Close enough.

WakeMeUp, you should do a better job of differentiating what is your opinion and what is fact in your posts.

My arguments are as I've presented them. My opinion is that minimum wage is theft.

As to earnings - here are average earnings in the US in 2004 dollars:
1950 - $17,076
1960 - $22,051
1970 - $28,100
1980 - $27,206
1990 - $28,439
2000 - $31,089
2004 - $30,513

So the answer is - the society as a whole is getting richer but with more and more socialism in the US the process has slowed down quite a lot.

[penguinofhonor]

It's also a tragedy that you have to rent humans by the hour or week instead of being able to buy them outright. All that does is artificially inflate their price.

[Sheb]

So, Socialism started with the Reagan revolution? Also, you're using average instead of median, which mean they get dragged up by the high income.

[WakeMeUp]

It's also a tragedy that you have to rent humans by the hour or week instead of being able to buy them outright. All that does is artificially inflate their price.

Yeah, that it is truly shocking, but still less shocking than that you have to be a slave for the government for a couple of days every week to pay your taxes - like a slave you have no choice in the matter and you can't stop working for it unless you want to be imprisoned. At what point is taxation not slavery?

Not to mention that you can be drafted and send to fight like a slave.

[WakeMeUp]

So, Socialism started with the Reagan revolution? Also, you're using average instead of median, which mean they get dragged up by the high income.

Socialism truly started with FDR's tragedy called New Deal which ruined American economy and prolonged the crisis to last about 13 years and lasts ever since. Reagan was no libertarian, he was socially conservative but economically his presidency was socialist too.

[Moddan]

As to earnings - here are average earnings in the US in 2004 dollars:
1950 - $17,076
1960 - $22,051
1970 - $28,100
1980 - $27,206
1990 - $28,439
2000 - $31,089
2004 - $30,513

Is this inflation adjusted?

[WakeMeUp]

As to earnings - here are average earnings in the US in 2004 dollars:
1950 - $17,076
1960 - $22,051
1970 - $28,100
1980 - $27,206
1990 - $28,439
2000 - $31,089
2004 - $30,513

Is this inflation adjusted?

Of course

Anyway, it is clear that in the day when we had less socialism, no Obamacare and other bullshit, the income grew quicker.

[Sheb]

No it's not. If Socialism started with FDR, why did you guys have great wage growth if the 50's and 60's? Why don't you look at median wages?

[WakeMeUp]

No it's not. If Socialism started with FDR, why did you guys have great wage growth if the 50's and 60's? Why don't you look at median wages?

FDR ruined many things, but in the 1950s the regulations weren't as bad as in the 1930s, though returned to bad afterwards.