GOP rep.: Keep minimum wage low ‘for minorities’ who aren’t worth more than $7 an hour

a reply to: MOMof3

How bout we force employers to pay a living wage but get rid of all programs? But,but,but😄😄😄🙈

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: EvillerBob

A living wage is what keeps people off welfare. I would rather pay someone a "living wage" who can pay taxes and be independent of welfare programs. Of course, corporations and businesses like government welfare for that reason.

When I was a certified nurse aide, I really could do something with those dime raises every five years. And it was not just me, it was all the aides.

Let's do this. Get rid of all government social services. Welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, etc. ALL OF IT. You don't get a phucking dime from the government for anything (I advocate the same for corporations). Then let's raise the minimum wage to $25/hr.

Let's see what happens over the course of a decade. I'd bet a steak dinner we will still be having the same conversation about how the lowest rung workers still can't afford anything.

California Republican Rep. Tom McClintock said on Thursday that the minimum wage should not be raised because low pay was necessary for minorities and other unskilled workers who were not worth more than $7 an hour.

This guy is a total scumbag and liar.
He must have never heard of Supply and Demand because that has more to do with pay than skill.
If there is no one to do the job at the wages you offer, you raise the wages.
They were paying $15 bucks an hour in North Dakota for Fast Food Workers because you could make a lot more money in the oil fields.
Or you can be a scumbag and buy politicians to rig the supply / demand ratio in your favor through outsourcing and lobbying for amnesty for illegal immigrants


Top Corporate Executives Descend On Washington To Lobby For Amnesty… - See more at: www.teaparty.org...

He is simply playing to his deluded base.

a reply to: Edumakated

You could give everybody a 100
Dollars an hour and they would still be broke the mind and the ability to make money have nothing to do with minimum wage I'm 42 I have not made minimum wage since I was 16 ! I work as a nurse and started my own side business !

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

As it is obvious you have never owned a business I can say that not all jobs are equal and some are more skilled or specialized, and therefore more important, than others. The CNC operator makes the manufacturing plant money, the janitor cleaning the toilets does not. One is a net contributor the other is not. A CNC operator is a skilled, in demand job, a janitor can be found quite easily.

And if the CNC Operators and Office Personnel and so on that make the company money see what a dump the place is, they are going to move on to other companies, so yea even the janitor provides a monetary service.

a reply to: EvillerBob

All I can say is, if you have full time employees who qualify for social welfare, you are receiving corporate welfare.

Sounds like what you're really afraid of is the "trickle-up" effect, where you might feel obligated to also raise the pay of other workers up the chain in order to hold true to your stated belief that they're worth so much more.

a reply to: Flatfish

Lol what you really want is trickle up poverty🙈

originally posted by: rupertg
Nothing new here folks.
The GOP tells millions of people, all the time, to turn against their neighbors.
Blame the illegals with one hand but, reward the corporations and contractors hiring the illegals with loopholes and tax breaks.

Most of our manufacturing jobs were sent overseas because the labor is cheaper.
We don't have capitalism in this country, What we do have is corporatism.

Paying the poor people less does not help the economy. Especially if you want people to get off the government tit.

What we have is Corporate Fascism.
They want to kill all things that dis-empower themselves and bring in things that empower themselves.

They want to kill all unions so that workers have no bargaining power.
They want to own all politicians so the government is only working for them and rigs the market to their benefit.
They want to kill rules and regulations on business while increasing rules and regulations against the citizens and consumers in an ever increasing police state.

It all makes since though in context with David Rockefellers Quote:

The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.

a reply to: Edumakated


Yes, of course. If the wage stays at 25/hr for a decade while housing and food continue to rise, you would be right. Prices are going to rise, so we need to rise with it or go on the government welfare. Which one do you want? Killing the poor is not an option.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: mwood

Thats very clever propaganda to trick you into thinking that the skill of the job is what your paying for but in reality what your paying for is someones time taken away from their personal life, the skill in my opinion is almost relevant. Almost all jobs become redundant at some for whoever is doing them and we have many jobs that are split into multiple jobs for the purpose of keeping people employed for numbers and tax reason among other things.

Its a very clever ploy but its bull# no one is really doing that much more than anyone else except for a small percentage of the population and non of them are middle class, those jobs actually pay, you know ones that require talent and artistic ability.

Wake up, time to get out of bed and put your thinking caps on and sit down and get to the nitty gritty.

I forgot to mention that every job you do for a team or company is only 1 cog in the wheel of jobs that need to be done in order for the company to continue to profit. In this way every job is as essential as the other in order for the system to work. So cleaning toilets may not be worth jack # but that persons time is worth enough in order for that guy to enjoy quality time with his family and afford basic living costs with a little extra spending for quality of life.

This is America, im disgusted by how selfish some of you think. I cant believe your justifying such a low wage in todays day and age.

Your selfish, totally selfish.

So an unskilled worker with a 7th grade education working at McDonalds because he has no drive to better himself should make the same wage as a heart surgeon who worked extra hard, did many more years of education, worked his way up through the medical profession to get where he is with the skills he has?
By your logic it seems if they are both taken away from their families and life for 50 hours a week they both deserve the same pay? Is that correct or did I misunderstand you?

I make A LOT more than minimum wage because I learned skills and I am skilled carpentry, masonry, welding, auto repair, roofing, plumbing, electrical work, irrigation, I am a certified Arborist, I drive 18 wheelers, backhoes, dozers, graders, operate cranes.

Thats how I got a job working for a city municipality where I use those skills to make 5 times the minimum wage. If you don't want to learn anything or better yourself then you only deserve to work at Burger King for $7 an hour.


For all the whiners, get off ATS and other sites for awhile and take some classes, get some training, or a second job and better yourself. There is no big plan to keep you poor, it's just laziness and lack of incentive that does it.

a reply to: tiberius10721

Every family have relatives that are sick, mentally or physically, and part of the losers club. With a living wage families could take responsibility for the losers in their family instead of welfare programs. Like a place to live and a dinner. Not all, but most want to take care of their families.

a reply to: MOMof3

You know one question no one has ever answered is when one loser inpregnates another loser why do I always have to pay for it with my tax dollars. I don't care who screws who or who shakes their booty at the club I just don't want to pay for it. No one else has ever paid for my lifestyle but me!

a reply to: tiberius10721

I hate war. Protested Viet Nam, the Gulf, Iraq, Afghanistan, where americans are killed and maimed. Why do I have to pay for wars that corporations want? Babies are a lot cheaper than war and more fun.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: EvillerBob

A living wage is what keeps people off welfare. I would rather pay someone a "living wage" who can pay taxes and be independent of welfare programs. Of course, corporations and businesses like government welfare for that reason.

When I was a certified nurse aide, I really could do something with those dime raises every five years. And it was not just me, it was all the aides.

And you are working in a profession that absolutely deserves a decent wage. It's not just the training that you need to get there, it's the fact that your role brings with it professional expectations and responsibility - and liability too if you make a mistake.

I understand - and in most ways agree with - your point about giving people a wage that would enable them to be self-sufficient rather than reliant on welfare. My issue is the unrealistic expectation that every job is going to be worth enough to achieve that. There are also the economic implications of artificially inflating wages which will leave the poor still poor. I would prefer to say, however, that people should be encouraged to seek out those jobs with a living wage, rather than turn every job into one with a living wage. That of course would need to be part of a much broader economic and regulatory change.

The world isn't split into those with opportunity and those without. It is split into those who are bothered and those who are not. "Living wage" is simply telling people that they don't need to be bothered anymore. The person who isn't bothered can take a lemonade stand and turn it into a part-time job for life. The person who is bothered can take a lemonade stand and turn it into a soft drinks empire within a generation.

The problem will never be solved by shoring up those who have no incentive. The only effective way to mitigate it in the long term is to make people care about finding work that carries a "living wage", and to have an environment that makes it possible for enough of that work to be created - or even for them to create work themselves if they can't find it from anybody else.

a reply to: EvillerBob

"The world isn't split into those with opportunity and those without. It is split into those who are bothered and those who are not. "Living wage" is simply telling people that they don't need to be bothered anymore. The person who isn't bothered can take a lemonade stand and turn it into a part-time job for life. The person who is bothered can take a lemonade stand and turn it into a soft drinks empire within a generation."

Romantic idea but not reality. I have a large family and friends. I know one person in that group who does not work. He does not take welfare because he moves from friend to friend, family to family. He is not a bad guy, but something is wrong in the head. Do you want a worker like that or would you rather we handle him? People who do not want to succeed or work are mentally ill.

I remember when my dad wanted to start a business in the 1960's. It was family that gave him the start up money. No family in my world can do that now. Food and housing take everything. The rest of your life, is staying up at night trying to figure out how to pay the rest of the bills.

originally posted by: Edumakated
Let's do this. Get rid of all government social services. Welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, etc. ALL OF IT. You don't get a phucking dime from the government for anything (I advocate the same for corporations). Then let's raise the minimum wage to $25/hr.

Let's see what happens over the course of a decade. I'd bet a steak dinner we will still be having the same conversation about how the lowest rung workers still can't afford anything.

Actually, that would probably still be preferable to continuing with the welfare programs. Inflation would balance out the numbers, until that $25 was worth the equivalent of $5/$6/$7(or whatever it is) today. Lack of welfare would be a powerful incentive to people to project themselves into the labour market, which means education would be taken more seriously.

Provided the taxation and regulatory systems were overhauled at the same time to make it easier for businesses to start up or expand, you would probably doing the country a massive favour.

There will always be poor people who will struggle, no matter how rich or successful an economy. I firmly believe that this is the domain of communities and charities, not government. The more people actually in full time employment, the lower the burder on the community and the higher the amount of disposable income available to those people who want to donate.

a reply to: MOMof3
Actually war has been responsible for many innovations that have made country's ,corporations and factory workers a lot of money and have im the long run greatly improved our standard of living. The need for air power in ww2 sped up development of airline industry ,invention of v2 rocket got us into space where many other inventions were discovered,the need for tanks improved tracked vehicles for comercial use,invention of submarine for war is technology now used in submersibles,gun powder on its own was one of the biggest factors in building our modern transportation system.All advancements in nuclear energy and nuclear science started from ww2,modern day emergency rooms use procedures developed from the battlefield so actually in the long run the taxpayer has had a huge return from war unlike welfare recipient! Research financial benefits of war lol!

I love how noone seems to even be discussing the aspect of it that an elected politician is saying that non-whites are inherently undesirable employees that are worth less...no big deal...

a reply to: TheJourney

Most of the time they are more undesirable if I want a job done right I either want an Asian or white person doing it sorry but that has been my experience I know that makes me racist but I have worked with Mexicans and blacks and except for the rare exception you have to double check everything they do or do it yourself!🙈

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: EvillerBob

"The world isn't split into those with opportunity and those without. It is split into those who are bothered and those who are not. "Living wage" is simply telling people that they don't need to be bothered anymore. The person who isn't bothered can take a lemonade stand and turn it into a part-time job for life. The person who is bothered can take a lemonade stand and turn it into a soft drinks empire within a generation."

Romantic idea but not reality. I have a large family and friends. I know one person in that group who does not work. He does not take welfare because he moves from friend to friend, family to family. He is not a bad guy, but something is wrong in the head. Do you want a worker like that or would you rather we handle him? People who do not want to succeed or work are mentally ill.

I remember when my dad wanted to start a business in the 1960's. It was family that gave him the start up money. No family in my world can do that now. Food and housing take everything. The rest of your life, is staying up at night trying to figure out how to pay the rest of the bills.

I hope the next post I made addressed that in part. I agree with the points you make. Yes, it is romanticised to a degree, but only because we have become so used to the current way of doing things. Unleash businesses and entrepreneurs, instead of keeping them tied up in red tape. Increasing the need for employees (thereby increasing the value of employees to the employer) will always be the single best way of increasing wages.

There are people who genuinely will never be in a position to earn their own way. I believe that this is where the family and the community are best involved. I would rather see your family in a position where they can make enough to support themselves and still help him. More than that, I would like to see your community be in a position to help out.

Just to clarify, in that sort of situation I'm not saying someone should be denied access to professional help as well, but I think that the day to day needs should be supported by the people around them.

I'm a big believer in charity. I support locals ones, not just with money but also with my time. I'm much happier voluntarily donating my money to them than handing it over to the government, but that isn't feasible unless enough people in the community are making enough money to be able to support the charities.

I fully appreciate that my position will not be popular here, but I'm prepared to stand by it.