republicans vote down minimum wage again

[Chicago526]

I could pull statistics out off the internet until the cows go home. The only ones I'm going to give much credence to are from the census bureau and the deparment of labor.

Actually one of my stats was from the census bureau. The other two were from the US Conference of Mayors and Volunteers of America. It's not like I got them from "Bob's House of Useless Data".

 

[Bob Slydell]

It's not like I got them from "Bob's House of Useless Data".

You rang?

Sorry, couldn't help myself

 

[Free4Life11]

Yes, there's a lot of very wealthy people in Congress, but it would be even worse if we didn't pay them a decent wage.

In 2005 they got $162,100 for 154 days in session. Sounds decent to me.

 

[Olaf]

Actually one of my stats was from the census bureau. The other two were from the US Conference of Mayors and Volunteers of America. It's not like I got them from "Bob's House of Useless Data".

And don't you find it just a little bit odd that they don't make mention of the fact that we're talking about 2.7 percent of the nation's workforce? Now why is that? Maybe because the US Conference of Mayors and Volunteers of America are pushing for a higher minimum wage?

 

[Olaf]

In 2005 they got $162,100 for 154 days in session. Sounds decent to me.

Surely you're not ignorant of the fact that congressmen and senators work when the House and Senate aren't in session.

While $161,100 dollar salary might sound like a lot to you and me, you try and maintain two residences, one of them being in or around DC, on that salary. But, maybe the idea of millionaire congressmen and senators doesn't bother you very much. It bothers me.

Here's an article which sheds a little light on the topic.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_18_18/ai_86868904/print

 

[Chicago526]

And don't you find it just a little bit odd that they don't make mention of the fact that we're talking about 2.7 percent of the nation's workforce? Now why is that? Maybe because the US Conference of Mayors and Volunteers of America are pushing for a higher minimum wage?

Ummm, no. I don't find it odd. We are talking about raising minimum wage to help those that earn minimum wage. What differance does it make if it effects 2.7% of the workforce or 27% of the workforce? The goal is to help people who need to earn more money actually earn more money. Is there a magic number we need to reach of people who need help before we can help them?

 

[Bob Slydell]

While $161,100 dollar salary might sound like a lot to you and me, you try and maintain two residences, one of them being in or around DC, on that salary. But, maybe the idea of millionaire congressmen and senators doesn't bother you very much. It bothers me.

Very few congressmen and senators aren't already millionaires anyways. Raising the salary for their positions isn't going to change that. The main reason that most politicians were wealthy before taking office isn't because that's the only way they can afford it, it's because your typical middle-class person doesn't have the financial wherewithal to finance a campaign.

 

[Chicago526]

Surely you're not ignorant of the fact that congressmen and senators work when the House and Senate aren't in session.

While $161,100 dollar salary might sound like a lot to you and me, you try and maintain two residences, one of them being in or around DC, on that salary. But, maybe the idea of millionaire congressmen and senators doesn't bother you very much. It bothers me.

My thoughts exactly. Hey, we agree on something!

I think the original point was that Congress was okay with voting themselves a raise, but not the poorest of Americans. I do find that smacking a bit of hypocracy. But I don't think our Congress is over paid, myself.

 

[Decoy]

Ummm, no. I don't find it odd. We are talking about raising minimum wage to help those that earn minimum wage. What differance does it make if it effects 2.7% of the workforce or 27% of the workforce? The goal is to help people who need to earn more money actually earn more money. Is there a magic number we need to reach of people who need help before we can help them?

Well I hope not, so here it goes, I am just one person and I would like help so let's start petitioning congress to help me out. I know we can do it, so please get calling and writting to your congresspeople. To start with I would like a 20% raise, and an account set up to put my child through college.

Don't read down here, make the calls, write the letters PLEASE!!!

 

[Olaf]

Very few congressmen and senators aren't already millionaires anyways. Raising the salary for their positions isn't going to change that. The main reason that most politicians were wealthy before taking office isn't because that's the only way they can afford it, it's because your typical middle-class person doesn't have the financial wherewithal to finance a campaign.

You're wrong. About half of them are millionaires, and I'd rather not see that percentage increase. I posted my comments in response to the griping about congress voting themselves pay raises. Doesn't mean I necessarily think they need a raise at the moment.

 

[Chicago526]

Well I hope not, so here it goes, I am just one person and I would like help so let's start petitioning congress to help me out. I know we can do it, so please get calling and writting to your congresspeople. To start with I would like a 20% raise, and an account set up to put my child through college.

Don't read down here, make the calls, write the letters PLEASE!!!

If you are making minimum wage then I would be more than happy to write my congress person and senator to have you get a 20% raise (which would be $1 an hour, btw).

As for college for your kids, if you only make $10,000 a year on minimum wage I'm pretty sure they'll qualify for financial aid on their own.

If you disagree with raising minimum wage, that's fine. It's a valid opinion. But sarcasim doesn't really add anything to the debate.

 

[Bob Slydell]

I don't think they're necessarily overpaid (or underpaid) either. I just disagree that decreasing their salaries (short of doing something drastic) would significantly change the economic makeup of the House or Senate.

 

[Free4Life11]

Just so everyone knows, most Senators voted to increase the minimum wage. I think just a handful voted against both proposals. They differ on how much the increase should be and when.

The Democrat backed proposal was to raise it to $5.85, then $6.55 a year later, and $7.25 a year later. This would have started 60 days after the Defense bill goes into place.

The Republican backed proposal was to raise ti to $5.70, then $6.25 a year and a half later. This would have started 6 months after the Defense bill goes into place.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

We've had minimum wages in this country for over 50 years. We haven't turned socialist and our economy over the last 50 years has done pretty well, overall. If having or raising the minimum wage is so destructive, why haven't we seen the damage before this?

Look, at the end of the day, people ARE responsible for making their own lives better. You are 100% right on that point and I have always thought so and I am certainly not argueing against personal responsibilty. All I am saying is that we should help those making minimum wage help themselves, by ensuring that get paid a bit more.

No destruction.

But have you seen the minimum wage earner able to afford more of anything for an extended period of time once their earnings increased since minimum wage began?

 

[Decoy]

If you are making minimum wage then I would be more than happy to write my congress person and senator to have you get a 20% raise (which would be $1 an hour, btw).

As for college for your kids, if you only make $10,000 a year on minimum wage I'm pretty sure they'll qualify for financial aid on their own.

If you disagree with raising minimum wage, that's fine. It's a valid opinion. But sarcasim doesn't really add anything to the debate.

It was but a tool to point out the fact that there is a minimum number of people that must be helped by anything to make it worth the effort, or as indicated by your comments, a certain number who make a given wage.

 

[DISUNC]

In a free market economy, people are paid what their skills are worth. If you're in a job in which you could be replaced very quickly, and there are a dozen people available to fill your job, then you're not going to be paid very much. Welcome to the real world.

What you described here is not "REAL WORLD".....NOT EVEN CLOSE TO THE REAL WORLD! Not only companies I have worked for, but many others...CEO's are a 'revolving door" VERY REPLACEABLE! Every 2 years they are given Millions of dollars to JUST GO AWAY!

 

[Chicago526]

No destruction.

But have you seen the minimum wage earner able to afford more of anything for an extended period of time once their earnings increased since minimum wage began?

Afford more over over time? No, but that's not why it should be raised. It should be raised to keep up with inflation so a person isn't earning less over time. It was last raised about 10 years ago, and I'm pretty sure we've seen some inflation since then!

 

[BuckNaked]

Now that goes two ways: if they are already paying that much, why raise minimum wage OR if they are already paying that much, why do they care if minimum wage is raised.

Easy - because when the minimum wage is increased, other wages increase as well. If a worker is earning $2.00 above minimum wage, and minimum wage goes up $1.00/hour, do you really think that the worker is going to be satisfied now making only a $1.00 more than minimum? Not raising the wages of above minimum wage workers when minimum wages increase would basically be minimizing the value of the above MW workers.

 

[eclectics]

Easy - because when the minimum wage is increased, other wages increase as well. If a worker is earning $2.00 above minimum wage, and minimum wage goes up $1.00/hour, do you really think that the worker is going to be satisfied now making only a $1.00 more than minimum? Not raising the wages of above minimum wage workers when minimum wages increase would basically be minimizing the value of the above MW workers.

Hardly mandatory by the employer though. Not trying to be cynical, but a worker's feeling of worth is most likely not on the top of the typical employer's worry list, unless you have a unusually nice boss.

 

[Tazicket]

I'm trying to find a diplomatic reply to this but there just isn't one and language that springs to mind isn't the sort of thing I like to say. This smacks of moral superiority (which, by the way, you have no claim to whatsoever as your argument in and of itself is immoral and evil.) No one is 'giving' money to these people. They are working as hard and probably a whole lot harder than you are and they deserve a decent wage. It will not hurt the economy, the same number of jobs are still needed and if you and I have to pay more for stuff, too bad. It will be made up for by the millions who will have more buying power because they are making a decent wage. It is just this attitude towards the working poor that is turning this country into a place of the haves and the have nots. How would you like to work very hard for year after year and never get a raise?

There are plenty of people who work very very hard in school and would have loved to go to college but since the republicans have cut almost all funding for that, it's not an option for them. There are those who are not college material. They are working all day at poverty wages and have just as much right as you do to earn a living wage. No family should have to work three or four jobs just to get by. We keep our poor poor by foolish and self righteous attitudes such as this. Since all those working poor are so far beneath your contempt I suggest you stop using their services and see how far you get. You can't buy gas, shop at most retail stores, have your lawn cut, eat out, have your clothes dry cleaned. Oh, eating food is probably out, farm workers are low paying jobs. Try and see how valuable all those services are to you. Maybe you'd just prefer the return of slavery so you won't have to pay those pesky low class people at all?

Did you actually read my post? Did I not say that those who are willing to work should be helped? Why are you claiming otherwise? You seem to be ignoring what I wrote and making up words that I did not say - that you perhaps wanted to read - and then bashing me for your own imagination's sake.

I have no problem with helping out those who are working for it and are willing to work for it. I have a serious problem with helping those who have no desire to help themselves. I have never said more or less. I will never believe more or less. Perhaps you should go back and re-read my posts - and actually read them this time - before you go putting words in someone else's mouth.

If someone cannot possibly work due to a disability, etc. then they should be given every means of assistance within reason. If an able person is legitimately working and trying to better themselves then they should be given every opportunity to do so.

But if someone is just plain lazy and isn't trying to work and is instead trying to mooch off of the generosity of the Democratic party - who seem willing to hand out money or grades or anything else to everyone regardless of merit - then they don't deserve much sympathy or assistance from anyone.