Democratic agenda Options

[Billy]

Did you ever stop to consider that what's best for the economy isn't always best for the people? Slavery is good for the economy, but it isn't good for those people who are exploited. You cannot just look at numbers. You have to also look at the human part of the issue.


By the way: Dun dun dun

[Dogmeat]

raising the minimum wage is going to give more money to drug dealers and drug smugglers because the vast majority of people who CONTINUALLY make minimum wage are drug users with poor attitudes towards life.

So effectivley the democrats are supporting drug users habits.

[impala454]

Did you ever stop to consider that what's best for the economy isn't always best for the people? Slavery is good for the economy, but it isn't good for those people who are exploited. You cannot just look at numbers. You have to also look at the human part of the issue.

kinda ironic, considering only a few posts ago you said:

Show me facts, not beliefs.

anyhow, you tell me then, how you believe a minimum wage increase is good for the people. how it will help the 'human' part of the issue, and how it will make a worker under $7.25 strive for a better future for themselves.

By the way: Dun dun dun

not really much of a shocker. as was already stated the politicians approve of it because it makes them look good in their elections ('vote for me I increased your wages').

[Seussninja]

raising the minimum wage is going to give more money to drug dealers and drug smugglers because the vast majority of people who CONTINUALLY make minimum wage are drug users with poor attitudes towards life.

So effectivley the democrats are supporting drug users habits.

Last time i checked Heroin and Cocaine were pretty expensive, but i digress.

What you're saying is that most junkies make minimum wage. HOWEVER, not everyone who makes minimum wage is a junkie, hell, probably not even the majority. It'd almost as easy to find coke heads in your preppy high school than workin at McDonalds (who actually pays above minimum wage in most cases, even as much as 6.50 or 7.00(Not like that's that much to make a decent living off of anyways.))

But hey if those lazy asses had just gone to college we wouldn't have this problem! If everyone has a college degree the menial jobs will be preformed themselves! MAGIC MOPS

[Billy]

kinda ironic, considering only a few posts ago you said:
anyhow, you tell me then, how you believe a minimum wage increase is good for the people. how it will help the 'human' part of the issue, and how it will make a worker under $7.25 strive for a better future for themselves.

So which part of that post do you disagree with? Was it the claim that what's best for the economy isn't always best for the people in it? Was it the example I gave? Do you disagree you should not consider the human element of issues?

You cannot rule a country on economics alone. If economists had their way, we'd all be working 80+ hour work weeks (increase in GDP). To answer your last question though: in general, when someone makes more money, they have a higher quality of life (and before you counter with the whole inflation argument and how increasing minimum wage actually means they end up making fewer "real" dollars, think about it: I've yet to see that happen). You believe (and falsely) that an increase in the minimum wage is equivalent to "just printing more money". That is not the case, because more money isn't being printed (yes, I understand your example, but I think the only way to have the effect on the economy your example tries to illustrate is to literally print more money). Instead, what's happening is you're redistributing the wealth from the richest people (corporate leaders), to the poorest (minimum wage workers) [do you understand how this has a different effect than just printing off more money?]. Sometimes this is a good thing to do, other times it is a bad thing to do (need balance). Given that the current minimum wage in buying power is as low as it's ever been since the 1970's, that's a good argument to increase it. But everything is a trade off. If, and only if, those who make more money do not spend it, but instead save it, that is bad for the economy. But lucky for us, the poorest people tend to be bad savers.

I think I've made my case the best I can. I feel your argument is far from convincing and it seems mine isn't much better. I guess we'll just have to see what happens =)

[Hartmann]

Last time i checked Heroin and Cocaine were pretty expensive, but i digress.

What you're saying is that most junkies make minimum wage. HOWEVER, not everyone who makes minimum wage is a junkie, hell, probably not even the majority. It'd almost as easy to find coke heads in your preppy high school than workin at McDonalds (who actually pays above minimum wage in most cases, even as much as 6.50 or 7.00(Not like that's that much to make a decent living off of anyways.))

But hey if those lazy asses had just gone to college we wouldn't have this problem! If everyone has a college degree the menial jobs will be preformed themselves! MAGIC MOPS

Oddly enough, most crack and heroin dealers still live at home with their moms...

[Mommy]

MOM! MEATLOAF! FUCK!

[impala454]

So which part of that post do you disagree with? Was it the claim that what's best for the economy isn't always best for the people in it? Was it the example I gave? Do you disagree you should not consider the human element of issues?

You cannot rule a country on economics alone. If economists had their way, we'd all be working 80+ hour work weeks (increase in GDP). To answer your last question though: in general, when someone makes more money, they have a higher quality of life (and before you counter with the whole inflation argument and how increasing minimum wage actually means they end up making fewer "real" dollars, think about it: I've yet to see that happen). You believe (and falsely) that an increase in the minimum wage is equivalent to "just printing more money". That is not the case, because more money isn't being printed (yes, I understand your example, but I think the only way to have the effect on the economy your example tries to illustrate is to literally print more money). Instead, what's happening is you're redistributing the wealth from the richest people (corporate leaders), to the poorest (minimum wage workers) [do you understand how this has a different effect than just printing off more money?]. Sometimes this is a good thing to do, other times it is a bad thing to do (need balance). Given that the current minimum wage in buying power is as low as it's ever been since the 1970's, that's a good argument to increase it. But everything is a trade off. If, and only if, those who make more money do not spend it, but instead save it, that is bad for the economy. But lucky for us, the poorest people tend to be bad savers.

I think I've made my case the best I can. I feel your argument is far from convincing and it seems mine isn't much better. I guess we'll just have to see what happens =)

this is a perfect example of the argument for the increase. every argument I've read so far, whether on here or some news report or website, takes this extremely narrow minded approach. it says "well they'll make more money so that's good right?" without looking at the effects it has on business. you think it's a take from the rich give to the poor thing? please. you believe someone can't live off the minimum wage at a full time job? this isn't about getting high school & college kids more beer money. Minimum wage is just that, the bare minimum. it's not a "minimum so everyone can have a decent apartment and cable & high speed internet". people who don't strive for more than the minimums won't get more than the minimum. and did you just skim over the part I pasted from that article? here it is again:

The last major increase in the minimum wage was in 1996. After the increase, a survey of 1,000 restaurants by the National Restaurant Association concluded that more than 146,000 jobs were eliminated because of increased labor costs. These same restaurants delayed hiring an additional 106,000 people for a net loss of 252,000 employees in the restaurant industry alone.

how's that for the 'human side' of things?

[impala454]

Oddly enough, most crack and heroin dealers still live at home with their moms...

not that i disagree... but where the hell did you pull this from?

[Billy]

I ignored it because there is another report that claims the opposite that I posted. A book by a couple of economist who did a survey and found jobs actually increased the last time the minimum wage was increased. And since we have two contradicting reports, I don't think either can be used. But I'm not going to go in circles with you.

[Hartmann]

not that i disagree... but where the hell did you pull this from?

Freakonomics. Not a great resource but he uses data collected during some of the worst gang violence in Chicago. He also talks a lot about minimum wage increases and how the peddlers in the drug industry made well below minimum wage just to have a chance at becoming a big dog, the same reason people take crappy paying jobs.

[impala454]

I ignored it because there is another report that claims the opposite that I posted. A book by a couple of economist who did a survey and found jobs actually increased the last time the minimum wage was increased. And since we have two contradicting reports, I don't think either can be used. But I'm not going to go in circles with you.

cool, which book?

[Billy]

It's in the thread. I even gave the ISBN number.

[impala454]

so the book was written in 1997... I guess they didn't see the data used in 1996 which showed 252,000 jobs lost in one industry alone.

and even in the quote from wikipedia you used... it says they showed there was little to no negative impact... so... was there a positive impact? that doesn't sell me to pass a bill- "hey lets pass a bill, it won't have any negative impacts!"

[Billy]

so the book was written in 1997... I guess they didn't see the data used in 1996 which showed 252,000 jobs lost in one industry alone.

and even in the quote from wikipedia you used... it says they showed there was little to no negative impact... so... was there a positive impact? that doesn't sell me to pass a bill- "hey lets pass a bill, it won't have any negative impacts!"

Are you for real? So if the bill doesn't effect you positively, it has no positive impact? I would imagine there is a positive impact on the people who go from making $5.15 to $7.25.