Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Logo
Search Members FAQ Portal
  • Navigation
  • Our Hoosier Board
  • →
  • Other
  • →
  • Politics
  • →
  • Minimum Wage
Welcome to Our Hoosier Board!

Most of the posters here have been around for nearly a decade now. You'll find their knowledge and insight to be second to none. We have a really strong community and value everyone's opinions.

Feel free to jump into any thread and voice your opinion with conviction. We love heated debates and even some fanbase ribbing from time to time. We pride ourselves on the lack of moderation needed to make this board successful.

Please remember that we have been around many years and have an astute ability to tell the difference between an immature, childish, trash-talking troll and a passionate fan voicing his or her opinion. It is at the discretion of Jazen and myself whether any moderating actions should be taken at any given time. It's a very, very rare thing. In other words, no worries....you'll be fine!

Cheers,
sirbrianwilson

Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • …
  • 17
Minimum Wage; ..for your consumption
Tweet Topic Started: Jul 16 2013, 01:14 PM (1,727 Views)
yawnzzz Jul 17 2013, 11:39 AM Post #16
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
4,964
Group:
Members
Member
#58
Joined:
February 6, 2008
I see no reason why minimum wage shouldn't be set at a point where a single individual would not qualify for government assistance when working full-time. The employees' overall income is not the issue because (ignoring welfare cliffs) they should be receiving the same regardless of whether it comes from the government or their employer.

The problem boils down to who should pay for that employee's wages? It feels to me as if taxpayer dollars that go to welfare programs are really going into the gross profits for these corporations. If we raised the minimum wage, the corporation's profitability would decrease as well as the taxpayer's burden.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Jul 17 2013, 11:47 AM Post #17
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
yawnzzz
Jul 17 2013, 11:39 AM
I see no reason why minimum wage shouldn't be set at a point where a single individual would not qualify for government assistance when working full-time. The employees' overall income is not the issue because (ignoring welfare cliffs) they should be receiving the same regardless of whether it comes from the government or their employer.

The problem boils down to who should pay for that employee's wages? It feels to me as if taxpayer dollars that go to welfare programs are really going into the gross profits for these corporations. If we raised the minimum wage, the corporation's profitability would decrease as well as the taxpayer's burden.
I don't see why employers should exclusively bear the burden of society.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Jul 17 2013, 12:29 PM Post #18
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
Mr Gray
Jul 17 2013, 11:47 AM
yawnzzz
Jul 17 2013, 11:39 AM
I see no reason why minimum wage shouldn't be set at a point where a single individual would not qualify for government assistance when working full-time. The employees' overall income is not the issue because (ignoring welfare cliffs) they should be receiving the same regardless of whether it comes from the government or their employer.

The problem boils down to who should pay for that employee's wages? It feels to me as if taxpayer dollars that go to welfare programs are really going into the gross profits for these corporations. If we raised the minimum wage, the corporation's profitability would decrease as well as the taxpayer's burden.
I don't see why employers should exclusively bear the burden of society.
I don't see why employers should be able to count on the government subsidizing a living wage.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Jul 17 2013, 12:33 PM Post #19
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
Jul 17 2013, 12:29 PM
Mr Gray
Jul 17 2013, 11:47 AM
yawnzzz
Jul 17 2013, 11:39 AM
I see no reason why minimum wage shouldn't be set at a point where a single individual would not qualify for government assistance when working full-time. The employees' overall income is not the issue because (ignoring welfare cliffs) they should be receiving the same regardless of whether it comes from the government or their employer.

The problem boils down to who should pay for that employee's wages? It feels to me as if taxpayer dollars that go to welfare programs are really going into the gross profits for these corporations. If we raised the minimum wage, the corporation's profitability would decrease as well as the taxpayer's burden.
I don't see why employers should exclusively bear the burden of society.
I don't see why employers should be able to count on the government subsidizing a living wage.
They shouldn't. They should decide what they are willing to pay a job and employees should decide what they are willing to work for.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Jul 17 2013, 01:40 PM Post #20
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
Mr Gray
Jul 17 2013, 12:33 PM
brumdog44
Jul 17 2013, 12:29 PM
Mr Gray
Jul 17 2013, 11:47 AM
yawnzzz
Jul 17 2013, 11:39 AM
I see no reason why minimum wage shouldn't be set at a point where a single individual would not qualify for government assistance when working full-time. The employees' overall income is not the issue because (ignoring welfare cliffs) they should be receiving the same regardless of whether it comes from the government or their employer.

The problem boils down to who should pay for that employee's wages? It feels to me as if taxpayer dollars that go to welfare programs are really going into the gross profits for these corporations. If we raised the minimum wage, the corporation's profitability would decrease as well as the taxpayer's burden.
I don't see why employers should exclusively bear the burden of society.
I don't see why employers should be able to count on the government subsidizing a living wage.
They shouldn't. They should decide what they are willing to pay a job and employees should decide what they are willing to work for.
And when you offer a wage lower than the person can live on at bare minimum, then what? Because it's happening.

You complain about people not working and living off the government....but if working means not getting by, why should they?

Are you telling me that if you found yourself in a situation where you were out of work and the options were working a minimum wage job -- but it wouldn't pay the bills -- or receiving government subsidees and making them -- that you would take the minimum wage job? While you decry that we as a society are making it too easy to go on government subsidies and get by, I will decry the fact that is we have made it impossible to get by on even the barest of bones on minimum wage jobs.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Jul 17 2013, 01:43 PM Post #21
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
And don't forget -- as I have said before -- that with the tax credits that employers are gaining for hiring certain employee groups, those minimum wage jobs are already getting subsidized in the form of corporate tax credits.....and it behooves the corporation to have large employee turnover to take advantage of the number of tax credits they receive. Fast food restaurants are infamous for this.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Jul 17 2013, 01:47 PM Post #22
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
Jul 17 2013, 01:40 PM
Mr Gray
Jul 17 2013, 12:33 PM
brumdog44
Jul 17 2013, 12:29 PM
Mr Gray
Jul 17 2013, 11:47 AM
yawnzzz
Jul 17 2013, 11:39 AM
I see no reason why minimum wage shouldn't be set at a point where a single individual would not qualify for government assistance when working full-time. The employees' overall income is not the issue because (ignoring welfare cliffs) they should be receiving the same regardless of whether it comes from the government or their employer.

The problem boils down to who should pay for that employee's wages? It feels to me as if taxpayer dollars that go to welfare programs are really going into the gross profits for these corporations. If we raised the minimum wage, the corporation's profitability would decrease as well as the taxpayer's burden.
I don't see why employers should exclusively bear the burden of society.
I don't see why employers should be able to count on the government subsidizing a living wage.
They shouldn't. They should decide what they are willing to pay a job and employees should decide what they are willing to work for.
And when you offer a wage lower than the person can live on at bare minimum, then what? Because it's happening.

You complain about people not working and living off the government....but if working means not getting by, why should they?

Are you telling me that if you found yourself in a situation where you were out of work and the options were working a minimum wage job -- but it wouldn't pay the bills -- or receiving government subsidees and making them -- that you would take the minimum wage job? While you decry that we as a society are making it too easy to go on government subsidies and get by, I will decry the fact that is we have made it impossible to get by on even the barest of bones on minimum wage jobs.
Your personal views prevent your mind from even attempting to understand free market economic principles, so I'm not really interested in even trying at this point.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Jul 17 2013, 01:52 PM Post #23
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
Mr Gray
Jul 17 2013, 01:47 PM
brumdog44
Jul 17 2013, 01:40 PM
Mr Gray
Jul 17 2013, 12:33 PM
brumdog44
Jul 17 2013, 12:29 PM
Mr Gray
Jul 17 2013, 11:47 AM
yawnzzz
Jul 17 2013, 11:39 AM
I see no reason why minimum wage shouldn't be set at a point where a single individual would not qualify for government assistance when working full-time. The employees' overall income is not the issue because (ignoring welfare cliffs) they should be receiving the same regardless of whether it comes from the government or their employer.

The problem boils down to who should pay for that employee's wages? It feels to me as if taxpayer dollars that go to welfare programs are really going into the gross profits for these corporations. If we raised the minimum wage, the corporation's profitability would decrease as well as the taxpayer's burden.
I don't see why employers should exclusively bear the burden of society.
I don't see why employers should be able to count on the government subsidizing a living wage.
They shouldn't. They should decide what they are willing to pay a job and employees should decide what they are willing to work for.
And when you offer a wage lower than the person can live on at bare minimum, then what? Because it's happening.

You complain about people not working and living off the government....but if working means not getting by, why should they?

Are you telling me that if you found yourself in a situation where you were out of work and the options were working a minimum wage job -- but it wouldn't pay the bills -- or receiving government subsidees and making them -- that you would take the minimum wage job? While you decry that we as a society are making it too easy to go on government subsidies and get by, I will decry the fact that is we have made it impossible to get by on even the barest of bones on minimum wage jobs.
Your personal views prevent your mind from even attempting to understand free market economic principles, so I'm not really interested in even trying at this point.
:facepalm:

In other words, you can't answer my question because they don't fit into your black and white world.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Jul 17 2013, 02:05 PM Post #24
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
Jul 17 2013, 01:52 PM
Mr Gray
Jul 17 2013, 01:47 PM
brumdog44
Jul 17 2013, 01:40 PM
Mr Gray
Jul 17 2013, 12:33 PM
brumdog44
Jul 17 2013, 12:29 PM
Mr Gray
Jul 17 2013, 11:47 AM
yawnzzz
Jul 17 2013, 11:39 AM
I see no reason why minimum wage shouldn't be set at a point where a single individual would not qualify for government assistance when working full-time. The employees' overall income is not the issue because (ignoring welfare cliffs) they should be receiving the same regardless of whether it comes from the government or their employer.

The problem boils down to who should pay for that employee's wages? It feels to me as if taxpayer dollars that go to welfare programs are really going into the gross profits for these corporations. If we raised the minimum wage, the corporation's profitability would decrease as well as the taxpayer's burden.
I don't see why employers should exclusively bear the burden of society.
I don't see why employers should be able to count on the government subsidizing a living wage.
They shouldn't. They should decide what they are willing to pay a job and employees should decide what they are willing to work for.
And when you offer a wage lower than the person can live on at bare minimum, then what? Because it's happening.

You complain about people not working and living off the government....but if working means not getting by, why should they?

Are you telling me that if you found yourself in a situation where you were out of work and the options were working a minimum wage job -- but it wouldn't pay the bills -- or receiving government subsidees and making them -- that you would take the minimum wage job? While you decry that we as a society are making it too easy to go on government subsidies and get by, I will decry the fact that is we have made it impossible to get by on even the barest of bones on minimum wage jobs.
Your personal views prevent your mind from even attempting to understand free market economic principles, so I'm not really interested in even trying at this point.
:facepalm:

In other words, you can't answer my question because they don't fit into your black and white world.
Wrong. I could answer it perfectly, but you refuse to consider anything except government intrusion on individual and economic freedom as the answer.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Jul 17 2013, 02:18 PM Post #25
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
That's what I thought. When you can't answer, put down others.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon Jul 17 2013, 02:25 PM Post #26
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
I remember when aaron said that he understood the need for, and supported, minimum wage laws.
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Jul 17 2013, 02:36 PM Post #27
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
dreachon
Jul 17 2013, 02:25 PM
I remember when aaron said that he understood the need for, and supported, minimum wage laws.
Really? I have always been the one against them on here.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon Jul 17 2013, 02:51 PM Post #28
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
Mr Gray
Jul 17 2013, 02:36 PM
dreachon
Jul 17 2013, 02:25 PM
I remember when aaron said that he understood the need for, and supported, minimum wage laws.
Really? I have always been the one against them on here.
I just went back to try and find the quote, but it must have been deleted. Trust me though. I remember it very clearly.
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
eelbor Jul 17 2013, 03:39 PM Post #29
Member Avatar
Zen Master
Posts:
10,606
Group:
Members
Member
#30
Joined:
February 5, 2008
dreachon
Jul 17 2013, 02:51 PM
Mr Gray
Jul 17 2013, 02:36 PM
dreachon
Jul 17 2013, 02:25 PM
I remember when aaron said that he understood the need for, and supported, minimum wage laws.
Really? I have always been the one against them on here.
I just went back to try and find the quote, but it must have been deleted. Trust me though. I remember it very clearly.
:rofl:
Posted Image

"Liberal, shmiberal. That should be a new word. Shmiberal: one who is assumed liberal, just because he's a professional whiner in the newspaper. If you'll read the subtext for many of those old strips, you'll find the heart of an old-fashioned Libertarian. And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners." - Berkeley Breathed


Meat is Murder. Sweet, delicious murder.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Jul 17 2013, 03:45 PM Post #30
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
eelbor
Jul 17 2013, 03:39 PM
dreachon
Jul 17 2013, 02:51 PM
Mr Gray
Jul 17 2013, 02:36 PM
dreachon
Jul 17 2013, 02:25 PM
I remember when aaron said that he understood the need for, and supported, minimum wage laws.
Really? I have always been the one against them on here.
I just went back to try and find the quote, but it must have been deleted. Trust me though. I remember it very clearly.
:rofl:
Interesting that Aaron's quote was in the same thread when Brum admitted to having a very small penis.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • …
  • 17

Track Topic · E-mail Topic Time: 7:56 PM Jul 10
Hosted for free by ZetaBoards · Privacy Policy