I see the arguements to both sides of this story, and agree with some points on either side.

Raising the minimum wage, or "living wage" can be a good thing insomuch that people can make more money to make a living on. Just because a business won't be able to hire as many employees doesn't mean that all of those people will remain jobless. If people make more money, they're going to spend more money. Wether it be retail, construction, or services, ect. Those occupations will need more people employed to keep up with demand.

I disagree with the "raising prices to pay wages" in certain aspects. For a small mom and pop shop on an already slim margin, paying an extra $50 a week per employee might make things a litle tight. That's why I'm for a scaled approach to minimum wage. I.E; $0-$50,000 a year net profit margin, $.75 an hour raise, $50,001-$100,000 - $1.20 an hour raise, ect, ect, ect. That would keep wages realistic and manageable for less profitable business ventures.

BUT, who can honestly say that places such as Wal-Mart, Home Depot, ect, are going to be hurt by a wage increase??? Ventures like these rake in net profits by the BILLIONS every year. It wouldn't hurt to show a litlle compassion and implement some "profit sharing" for the joe average employee. The Waltons are already one of the richest families in the world, Joe Nobody stocking shelves at a store in Timbuktu could use a little extra.

BUT, I also agree with the life descisions arguement. If you're making $6.00 an hour to flip burgers at McDonalds, it probably isn't wise to seek out a loan for a brand new car, try to start a family, or spend next month's rent on a new PS3 and a few games. Basically, you have to be able to live within your means. As was said above, the minimum wage jobs aren't meant to be a lifelong career aspiration. I mean, who wants to take food orders for $2.13 an hour for the rest of their life???

There has to be a fair balance to keep businesses viable, yet support the lower rung employees from becoming indentured servants. The key is finding that happy medium, which unfortunately keeps rising due to energy costs, healthcare, ect. But that's another discussion alltogether.





Currently #4 in Ecotec Forced Induction horsepower ratings. 505.8 WHP 414WTQ!!!
Currently 3rd quickest Ecotec on the .org - 10.949 @ 131.50 MPH!!!

What some of the "more fortunate" people don't realize is that not every Joe Schmoe that wants to go back to school to better their lives can do so.

Not everyone that wants to go back to school to get better skills can do so. "Grants and loans blah blah blah". Well yeah... but there are people that exist that have to work 2 jobs to support their family. Where are they going to find the money to support their family if they go back to school? There's plenty of people that want to further their education and get more job skills to make a better living that can't because they do have obligations.

Just as there's those types of people, yes there are other types who are just too lazy to do something to make their lives better. But the problem with society is that we lump those people in with the ones who WANT to better their lives but just can't get some help so they can do so. So how are those who WANT to get ahead and make a better life going to do so as long as we keep lumping them in with those who just don't seem to care enough to do something???

And personally, I wouldn't mind paying an extra $0.03 for something at Wal Mart or whatever so someone who IS trying to make their lives better makes an extra $1/hr. Not everyone at Wal Mart may be trying to do so... but why hurt those who want to do something?

I don't know, it's a touchy and tough situation... but something does need to be done. Either the Government steps in to help those who want to get more job skills, or the Employers do.

And quite frankly, I'd rather help the little guy that's trying to do better for themselves and their family, than Mr. Corporate Big Shot who sits there and collects millions or billions a year and doesn't do crap to help out anyone else.

We're too greedy as a society. Those who can most afford higher taxes and such get breaks... those who can least afford it get it shoved up their arses. If anything, those Corporate Big Shots that DO give a darn about their employees should be given a break... while those who don't shoudl have to pay the same rate of taxes as everyone else.

Here's a hypothetical idea. Let's take Wal-Mart for example. Wal-Mart decides to offer incentives to those employees who want to and work hard to further their education and job skills... to either be moved up to a higher paying position in the company, or to get a better job and be a more productive member of society and possibly even leave the company. The government, offers them incentives, because they have stepped up to help people get further in life and make a better living, etc.

Now let's take McDonald's. They offer no incentives for people to further or continue their education, and just care about raking in the profits... in essance just keeping people at an "unskilled" level. Don't offer them any breaks, or anything, because they're basically just contributing to keeping "unskilled" labors in the workforce... and in some instances keeping people on Welfare and Government assistance because they cannot afford to make ends meet without them.

If the problem with today's society is "unskilled labors"... do something better to help there be less "unskilled labors", and offer breaks or incentives to those corporations that are helping society get ahead.

Spending also helps drive the economy, and if more people can afford to buy more things without racking up an outrageous amount of debt (not talking BMW's or anything out of the necessary for living and having a decent life). If more people can afford to buy more things, that can increase the demand on those products, needing more workers to make more products to keep up with the demand of the amount of products that are purchased... thus leading to more spending... etc. More people buying more things and being able to afford more things, will also bring more revenue into the government... thus making everyone happy.

Basically... if you want a better life and are working hard to get there... help them. If it's some person just sitting on their arses collecting Government Welfare or whatever, cut them off. If you don't want to better your own life and don't want to work for what you want in life and where you want to be... then why help?

My old boss always said "I'm always willing to help those who are trying to help themselves"

Dave Attell said it best on insomniac when confronted by a homeless person who begged him for change, and said that he couldn't find a job; "I've got five words for you buddy: Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines. There's a job for you."

Sad but true. Air Force is paying my way through college, giving me a nice amount of money each month (to supplement a minimum wage job, of course).


Meh, just me.

T2 wrote:spikej: i've taken classes too...in college

anyone making 5.50/hr x 40 hours a week
blah blah blah
blah blah blah

OOOOhhhhh and your @!#$ point is? JBO is never short of @!#$s.

Quote:

That's why I'm for a scaled approach to minimum wage. I.E; $0-$50,000 a year net profit margin, $.75 an hour raise, $50,001-$100,000 - $1.20 an hour raise, ect, ect, ect. That would keep wages realistic and manageable for less profitable business ventures.

Now that's a good idea.

i think a scaled minimum wage would be a good idea...somone living at home, still in high school shoud have a much lower minimum wage then a person living on their own, trying to support a family, the only problem i see with that is it will prolly be harder for the person with a higher min wage to find a job