It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
posted by timski
May I contribute?
I believe that the minimum wage offered by an employer is to reduce a cost-factor of production. Rather than increase wages through the employer, banks have stepped in to offer credit-cards and loans to those on the lowest incomes with a seeming disregard on ability to repay . . you could look at it as a privatization of the pay-rise
Originally posted by RRconservative
The only solution to minimum wage is to abolish it all together!
Let the market decide what the prevailing wage is.
The minimum wage is $5.15 an hour, yet in New Orleans you can get on at Burger King for $10.00 an hour.
Let the market decide! If a business pays too little they won't get quality workers!
Abolish the minimum wage and we won't have to hear the whining and crying every 4-5 years!
manipulation of a malfunctioning economy
REPLY: Hmmm... a $13 TRILLION GDP is a malfunctioning economy???
it's not reasonable to think that we can do without having kids. our paychecks should reflect that fact! the simple fact is, that for many occupations, not just the burger flippers, the paychecks are not covering the living expenses.
REPLY: Many of those living expenses are based on "want" not "need." Do we need kids for our future, most definately; but common sense has to be the deciding factor. East of the big river, it requires an average of $110,000.00 to raise a boy child from birth to the age of 18 (a girl is much higher). That's $6111.00 per year just for the kid. Add to that: housing, utilities, phone, car payments, taxes, food, etc. One has to plan ahead to guarantee they can AFFORD to have a child. I have no sympathy for those with no common sense. Your paycheck reflects nothing more than an indication of your education, the job you are able to do, and what the market will bear to pay for the job you have.
encouraging higher education as the answer and all you are gonna do is and make degrees a dime a dozen and next to valueless.
REPLY: Exactlyfalse. It is the lack of educated people which is a large part of jobs going overseas. Corporate state and federal taxes is the other reason.
".... that way, she could get the help that was needed from the government.
REPLY: She's not getting it from the government! Government doesn't have any money it doesn't get from us. So I'm helping pay for what she "needs" and I don't even know her, let alone the possibility of having another kid with her (if we could afford it, of course).
"....their trickle down economics leads more to socialism than anything that the liberals could ever think up!!!
REPLY: It would be very difficult to explain 30 years worth of economics to you, but your statement above is totally false. It's the "trickle-down" economics that, unfortunately, PAYS for those programs; it doesn't start them
[edit on 25-7-2006 by zappafan1]
Originally posted by The Vagabond
Can Ray Croc make his money move? He doesn't have to spend it all and he's not going to spend it all. Which brings us to what Ray Croc's money is doing instead of being transacted among a broader middle class that would be created by well-targeted minimum wage increases. Ray Croc's money is in banks and investments.
posted by Spades:
Well, what if instead of giving 9 Billion dollars to Billionaires we put it in Social Security? But no, giving money to billionaires makes much more sense.
Also, isn't THAT Communism? I mean, in a capitalist society we are supposed to be why are Billionaires being given Billions more by our government? Or is Socialism a good thing when the money doesn't go to the poor who needs it?
".... and as far as the idea that people should be planning and waiting till they afford to have kids, well, in the present situation, this sounds like a feeble attempt to do a little bit of genetic cleansing on your part.
".... more and more and then even more people have been put in a position of having to depend on these handouts!!!
Programs that grew over the past five years are aimed at the under-65 population, especially families earning less than $40,000 a year. For example, the number of mostly low-income college students receiving Pell grants rose 41% over five years to 5.3 million.
Expanded eligibility: Congress has expanded eligibility for programs in ways that attracted little attention but added greatly to the scope and cost of programs. Congress added food stamp eligibility for 2.7 million people by ending a rule that disqualified people from receiving food stamps if they had a car or truck worth $4,650 or more. The change, one of a series of expansions in 2001 and 2002, was designed to make it easier for food stamp recipients to work.
Increased participation: The government has made applying for benefits easier, prompting more eligible people to get them. Forms have been shortened, office visits reduced and verification streamlined.
Welfare reform: The 996 overhaul pushed millions of people off cash assistance and into the workforce. Congress expanded eligibility for benefits to support people with low-wage jobs.
by Dawnstar: the money isn't trickling down!!!