Forum Discussion

There are a plethora of reasons not to raise the minimum wage. There are too many to count. But everyone knew they were going to do it...and that it would pass. It's pure politics. There isn't an economist worth their weight in salt that thinks it could help, but it just HAS to be done because we haven't done it in SO LONG!

It's almost like saying, "Mr President...we in Congress know it's a bad idea to periodically bomb a few thousand small businesses, and it may be true that there is indeed evidence that destroying these small businesses MAY have an adverse effect on the economy, but hey...when was the last time we did it....aren't we due?"

I guess you feel about this the way I feel about Airline buyouts.

I'd agree with good will, were it not for the fact that the airline buyouts became necessary because of the no-fly imposed by the government right after Sept 11. The airlines lost millions because of the security lockdown. Keeping thousands upon thousands of people from losing their jobs was the only responsible thing to do. (Note: I am not saying the lockdown was a bad idea after what had just happened.)

So basically when some poor person loses a job through no fault of their own (lets say they got replaced by a machine, or jiob has been outsourced) he does not deserve help.
But air lines that were hurt through no fault on their own do deserve it.

Do you see a problem here. You are advocating CORPORATE WELFARE, for big rich companies. I am advocating help for poor people.

And I'm advocating for capitalism to be left alone to provide new jobs on it's own, as it's done for over two centuries now, most of it without government help.

If you'd been around at the turn of the 20th century when cars were replacing carriages, you'd probably be advocating government-funded welfare handouts for the employees of the now-defunct buggy whip makers. I suspect most of them probably walked next door and signed up to work for Mr Ford. Problem solved.

What minimum wage advocates consistently fail to understand is that forcing employers to pay their employees more does not increase those employees' buying power, since prices simply rise across the board to meet the increase. Why should grocery stores and the like take it in the shorts?

Besides, it's unfair to people who make higher wages. THEY started at the bottom and worked their way up, and THEY didn't get a government-mandated raise...so why give one to the bottom rung? And why should they be forced to pay more for milk just because some dumb politicians wanted to show society how "compassionate" they are.

Your position is untenable, as the world does not run on compassion. It runs on dollars and sense.

>And I'm advocating for capitalism to be left alone to provide new jobs on it's own, as it's done for over two centuries now, most of it without government help.

You did not at all address my response to you saying its ok to do buy outs for airlines. I'll remind you to revisit it, lest you think you a debate is simply stating a point with no rebutal.

>If you'd been around at the turn of the 20th century when cars were replacing carriages, you'd probably be advocating government-funded welfare handouts for the employees of the now-defunct buggy whip makers.
It is a dangerous thing putting words in another persons mouth.
And I have no idea how the buggy and carriage analogy works.
At the beginning of the century I would have been advocating help for the poor.

>Besides, it's unfair to people who make higher wages. THEY started at the bottom and worked their way up, and THEY didn't get a government-mandated raise...so why give one to the bottom rung?

Who is "THEY"? Please be more specific with statistics. For example, George W. Bush, never start on the bottom and worked his way up.

>Your position is untenable, as the world does not run on compassion. It runs on dollars and sense.
It runs on both. Ultimate compassion like ultimate greed are the end of the stick. Most people fall in the middle. Sense? Who's sense?