Is US Minimum Wage really $7.25?

ENOUGH!

You all know the rules. Please stick to them.

Thank you.

Minimum wage is 7.25 (just went up a couple years ago from like 5.00, lol) and the Navy is giving a 40,000 bonus and free college and great pay for anyone who signs up to be a Navy SEAL.

The story is similar in the other branches of the military.

Anyone making any connections?

reply to post by JohnnySasaki


you do realize you have to complete SEAL training to get that bonus, right?

Originally posted by steppenwolf86
reply to post by JohnnySasaki

 

you do realize you have to complete SEAL training to get that bonus, right?

Yes, I realize that. Still, that bonus looks awfully good if you're making 7.25 an hour, or even better, if you're out of a job all together. The college you get just for signing up in any of the branches. So that's like 40,000 a year right there. Granted you have to go to a state school, but still.

reply to post by JohnnySasaki


Where did you go to school where is was 40k a year? Anyways, I agree, it IS a wonderful deal. Which is why I took it.
For the record though, you only get a bonus after you have completed basic training. The pay as a single e-2 is not much, but if you are married and your spouse lives off base in a city, that can be as much as 3k a month, plus your 1.5k monthly salary. The BIG bonuses come at re enlistment time. It is not a bribe, however, in fact I would saz half of the people in the military are there for idealistic reasons. However misguided that may be, according to some in this thread.

Actually our minimum wage is keep down by 25 million illegal aliens that simply walked across our southern border. They manipulate our system, drop out a baby ( their anchors). And will work for way less than $7.25.

I have seen it with my own eyes and own expereince. I was a supervisor with a large electrical construction company here in my state of N.C. I had 22 men that worked under my supervision. 16 of those men I could not communicate with, they did not speak english. I now work for myself. My own company.

It's sad that our politicians go along with what the hell ever gets them re-elected. Now I know some will say illegals have nothing to do with this. Your so wrong, when you have an entire workforce standing on a street corner that will work for $5 an hour, why hire the guy that wants $7.25hr or more?

Illegals have brought the wages down in every industry in which they taken over, here in the US. It;s a fact some of you will try to ignore. When the illegal's problem we have is the 800lb elephant in the room...... What does the $15 and hour equate to in American dollars ?

reply to post by openyourmind1262


You are absolutely right. That is one of many reasons why I moved from NC. Got tired of having to deal with illegal mexicans. Won't speak english, and when you get behind them at the store, the female pays for food with food stamps, and the male pays for everything else with a wad of cash. Then they go out and get into their brand new Escalade and drive away fat and happy.

reply to post by JohnnySasaki


It's what we call" socio-economic draft" , No jobs for young people= cannon fodder for old arse politicians.

"Here in Australia it is $15.51 an hour." Well, that's incredible!

If in America, you could just hop out of high school and get a job at a local factory or something like that starting at $15.50, I bet you wouldn't have an unemployment problem. Less people would feel the need to go to college, which would drive those costs back down and help with that debt problem. It would be pretty cool overall.

My plan:
-Raise min wage to $15
-Raise taxes on all imports, especially China, forcing more production in the US.
-End Obama care and also welfare to the unemployed (sounds harsh, but in the long run it would work out)
-End foreign military actions, get rid of bases.

Waabam...

Originally posted by CREAM
"Here in Australia it is $15.51 an hour." Well, that's incredible!

If in America, you could just hop out of high school and get a job at a local factory or something like that starting at $15.50, I bet you wouldn't have an unemployment problem. Less people would feel the need to go to college, which would drive those costs back down and help with that debt problem. It would be pretty cool overall.

My plan:
-Raise min wage to $15
-Raise taxes on all imports, especially China, forcing more production in the US.
-End Obama care and also welfare to the unemployed (sounds harsh, but in the long run it would work out)
-End foreign military actions, get rid of bases.

Waabam...

edit on 14-12-2011 by CREAM because: (no reason given)

There is alot of waste in government that is pure waste.
I think crime would rise and it would be a bit harsh to say the least to cut welfare.
I think you could lower unemployment by opening mines and drilling for oil. It would create a massive amount of jobs. I also think that people are right in blaming illegal immigrants for high unemployment.

So if you get rid of the illegal mexicans and open up mines,drill for oil,I think it would do alot to turn things around. Both those things would increase the amount of unskilled/low skilled jobs by alot. I cant see the sense in sitting on all those resources.

I agree with your thoughts on the military. If you only had to defend your borders it would cut alot from the budget.

Originally posted by Misoir

The United States minimum wage has now risen to the same level (adjusted for 2009 $) as 1984. Between 1968 and 1990 the minimum wage had steadily dropped from its peak at just over $10 an hour at the end of Lyndon Johnson’s second term as President.

This guy kinda gives it to me because I dont mention liberals in the opening post. I give it to the neocons calling them psychopaths because they dont seem to care about the poor. He points out that it is pretty much the neoliberals that are to blame for low min wage due to them encouraging immigration. But also the right-wing for supporting free trade. He says a win for the elites,a lose for the worker.

I think its the best response.

And I agree immigration is a problem.
Free Trade is a problem.
Corporate globalisation is a problem.

Maybe the best thing we could all do is close our borders and work towards bringing about
'national economic independance'. The first thing to attack to achieve that would be multi-national corporations. And the IMF

Anyway,like I said,the above post explains things pretty well. And is the best reply Id say.

reply to post by theovermensch


Neoliberal is not specifically for any one political party. As I had said in my post, Neoliberalism arose with the Reagan-Thatcher revolution, the rise of monetarism. It was generally accepted by the ‘Left’ as well, this created what we now refer to as ‘Third Way’ or New Democrat (US) and New Labour (UK). They did not pursue the previous leftist economic model but instead seemed to accept the general premise of neoliberal economics. This includes, but is not limited to; free-trade, corporate globalization, ‘open borders’, military interventionism, low taxes (plus loopholes), and basically the economic policies of the past 30 years.

With the rise of Obama many on the Left had hoped for the conclusion of this era, a return to an emphasis of native labor, return of manufacturing, raising taxes on the wealthy and other core policies of the Keynesian model. These hopeful supporters were let down; within 3 months of inauguration Obama declared himself a “New Democrat” and continued down the same path we had been going since Reagan. This can be observed with an emphasis on a close cooperation between corporations and government (i.e. the Obama health care reform, Solyndra scandal).

But, why did the New Democrats arise in the first place? Well with Reagan coming into office he, and the entire GOP, became a magnet for Wall Street investors, this left Democrats in the cold with low financing because Reagan busted up their core financiers; the unions. With the demise of big labor and the rise of big business as the core group to receive financing from, if the Democratic Party were to remain competitive it would need funding. From this a new group of Democrats arose led by Al Gore in the Senate to create Democratic policies favorable to business which would lure in investors.

It was a successful move with the first of their kind being nominated in 1992, Bill Clinton, who ran on a populist platform yet governed much more to the right (economically) than he had previously promised. This brought in a large new base of supporters and further alienating the white working class due to a combination of cultural liberalism and economic neoliberalism. The professionals, specifically white collar, who made up the core constituency of pre-Reagan GOP, became firm Democrats during the ‘90s. It is quite clear that Bill Clinton governed, economically, much further to the right than even (Republican) Gerald Ford.

Murray Rothbard in the 1990s declared that we were about to break the clock of social democracy, little did he know we would do so only by installing the clock of corporate capitalism. Until we move past this era of neoliberal economics, which is the ideology of both the Third Way (Left) and the Neoconservative (Right), we will be stuck in a series of rotations between Bill Clinton’s and George Bush’s. It is not a fun place to be.

Also, your assumption that I am a Conservative is correct. I am very much Culturally Conservative but not a big fan of Capitalism. The general premise of the economic policy has proven to be the most successful, I believe we functioned better in a Social Market Economy like the 1950s and early 1960s rather than an overregulated welfare state (1965-1980) and a under regulated corporate state (1981-present). I would personally support the growth of labor unions, a higher minimum wage, and implementation of fair trade, protect the environment but don’t kowtow to environmentalists, a more progressive tax structure, and elimination of all money in politics to replace it equal funding by the state.

All are left-wing economic policies but I want policies that will make America more stable and secure not some ideological purity experiment.

reply to post by Misoir

Text All are left-wing economic policies but I want policies that will make America more stable and secure not some ideological purity experiment.

You will come around eventually Surley the whole thing will collapse on its own soon. Maybe then.

I am happy to agree to disagree. I am still up for a purity experiment.(something socialist)

# and thanks for the input. You seem to know your stuff. I will follow your threads.

Text The general premise of the economic policy has proven to be the most successful, I believe we functioned better in a Social Market Economy like the 1950s and early 1960s rather than an overregulated welfare state (1965-1980) and a under regulated corporate state (1981-present). I would personally support the growth of labor unions, a higher minimum wage, and implementation of fair trade, protect the environment but don’t kowtow to environmentalists, a more progressive tax structure, and elimination of all money in politics to replace it equal funding by the state.

Not that I disagree really. All this sounds good to me. I think I am a bit more radical in what I want though

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by theovermensch

 

Neoliberal is not specifically for any one political party. As I had said in my post, Neoliberalism arose with the Reagan-Thatcher revolution, the rise of monetarism. It was generally accepted by the ‘Left’ as well, this created what we now refer to as ‘Third Way’ or New Democrat (US) and New Labour (UK). They did not pursue the previous leftist economic model but instead seemed to accept the general premise of neoliberal economics. This includes, but is not limited to; free-trade, corporate globalization, ‘open borders’, military interventionism, low taxes (plus loopholes), and basically the economic policies of the past 30 years.

With the rise of Obama many on the Left had hoped for the conclusion of this era, a return to an emphasis of native labor, return of manufacturing, raising taxes on the wealthy and other core policies of the Keynesian model. These hopeful supporters were let down; within 3 months of inauguration Obama declared himself a “New Democrat” and continued down the same path we had been going since Reagan. This can be observed with an emphasis on a close cooperation between corporations and government (i.e. the Obama health care reform, Solyndra scandal).

But, why did the New Democrats arise in the first place? Well with Reagan coming into office he, and the entire GOP, became a magnet for Wall Street investors, this left Democrats in the cold with low financing because Reagan busted up their core financiers; the unions. With the demise of big labor and the rise of big business as the core group to receive financing from, if the Democratic Party were to remain competitive it would need funding. From this a new group of Democrats arose led by Al Gore in the Senate to create Democratic policies favorable to business which would lure in investors.

It was a successful move with the first of their kind being nominated in 1992, Bill Clinton, who ran on a populist platform yet governed much more to the right (economically) than he had previously promised. This brought in a large new base of supporters and further alienating the white working class due to a combination of cultural liberalism and economic neoliberalism. The professionals, specifically white collar, who made up the core constituency of pre-Reagan GOP, became firm Democrats during the ‘90s. It is quite clear that Bill Clinton governed, economically, much further to the right than even (Republican) Gerald Ford.

Murray Rothbard in the 1990s declared that we were about to break the clock of social democracy, little did he know we would do so only by installing the clock of corporate capitalism. Until we move past this era of neoliberal economics, which is the ideology of both the Third Way (Left) and the Neoconservative (Right), we will be stuck in a series of rotations between Bill Clinton’s and George Bush’s. It is not a fun place to be.

Also, your assumption that I am a Conservative is correct. I am very much Culturally Conservative but not a big fan of Capitalism. The general premise of the economic policy has proven to be the most successful, I believe we functioned better in a Social Market Economy like the 1950s and early 1960s rather than an overregulated welfare state (1965-1980) and a under regulated corporate state (1981-present). I would personally support the growth of labor unions, a higher minimum wage, and implementation of fair trade, protect the environment but don’t kowtow to environmentalists, a more progressive tax structure, and elimination of all money in politics to replace it equal funding by the state.

All are left-wing economic policies but I want policies that will make America more stable and secure not some ideological purity experiment.

reply to post by theovermensch


I am a former Democratic Socialist but abandoned both Marxist inspired politics (Socialism/Communism) and Lockean inspired politics (Liberalism/Capitalism) as I view them both as materialistic concepts completely at odds with the long established concept of hierarchy, organicism, and transcendental order. They are, to me, completely destructive philosophical constructs which reject the fundamental importance of the divine and other important components of society which are beyond modern scientific inquiry.

They reduce everything to the lowest common denominator by advocating individualism, class warfare, liberal attitudes, statism, atheism/secularism, and relativism. These concepts can all be traced back to the Enlightenment, of which I am not a fan, but from that grew into the general idea upon which the 19th century into present has functioned on: utility. It describes the best public policy is the one that results in the most happiness, basically consequentialism whereby the moral worth of every action (especially by government) is judged solely by its outcome.

The above ties in with the necessarily flawed constructs of democracy and egalitarianism; both of which fail to recognize the natural character of humanity. Individuals are regularly short-term thinking creatures that are rather foolish and act upon impulse or emotion, this can lead to temporary happiness (thus the fulfillment of utilitarianism) but then we become disengaged with our environment demanding change again, to which public policy must bend without responsibly planning for the future.

We fail to understand that the entire construct of society is an arrangement of our ancestors, the present, and future generations, and because of this we cause immeasurable damage by creating theoretical nations based on a social contract which is signed only by the present generation, at that time, which signs involuntarily the unborn and the dead to the same contract. Yet again, this constitutes another failure of foresight among the intelligentsia that led us into this mess and among the revolutionaries that demanded these reforms.

All of society is organic, not mechanical; it cannot be ordered top-down but instead must grow bottom-up. A community is built by its parts coming together to function, like the necessary parts of the human body which come together to make us fully functioning. Today we have the ‘state’, a disgusting inanimate name for what should be a personal body, which shapes society rather than society shaping it. Thus we must ask who leads the ‘state’. It is the elite, non-elected, thus in absolute authority over our lives. How we permitted this society to reach this point is beyond belief.

I would recommend, if you are interested in further reading into this subject, some of the links below. But also know some Traditionalist Conservatives were also Socialist.

Traditionalist Conservatism
One Nation Conservatism
G.K. Chesteron
John Ruskin – Traditionalist and Socialist
C.S. Lewis
Peter Hitchens
Debating Conservatism

Originally posted by steppenwolf86
reply to post by JohnnySasaki

 

Where did you go to school where is was 40k a year? Anyways, I agree, it IS a wonderful deal. Which is why I took it.
For the record though, you only get a bonus after you have completed basic training. The pay as a single e-2 is not much, but if you are married and your spouse lives off base in a city, that can be as much as 3k a month, plus your 1.5k monthly salary. The BIG bonuses come at re enlistment time. It is not a bribe, however, in fact I would saz half of the people in the military are there for idealistic reasons. However misguided that may be, according to some in this thread.

That's right, I almost forgot. I can't be certain, but I heard the SEAL's were getting pretty serious bonuses for re-enlisting. Up to $150,000 with a minimum of $60,000. They deserve it for sure, but it's still a lot of money.

Also:

It's what we call" socio-economic draft" , No jobs for young people= cannon fodder for old arse politicians.

Yea, that's the point I was trying to make essentially. I guess paying the troops well is a much better way of instituting a pseudo draft, rather than just making everyone join.

reply to post by theovermensch


Remember its alot cheaper in the Us,the 7.25 might seem abit low,but compared to the prices its doable,so all in all it gets evened out. Also remember that the US has always been called the land of opportunity, wich is very much correct. If you got a decent education and are an smart guy,you can increase your wage by ALOT.You start out small, and rapidly increase your wage. Many private people in the us with no education has started from nothing and now got more money than the US government itself,and that is a fact. Some can actually pay out the entire EU debt and still live like kings. This can ofc be found everywhere in the world, BUT not at the same high rate.

The Us is also a huge Country,and all huge places will naturally gain poverty and dark zones,where its harder to controll the public and whats going on.

The us also got the federal reserve. Wich prints out money out of thin air and loans the Us money whenever they are getting broke. Recently the Us had 4 trillion dollars in debt. The debt shortly after got payed off with 7 trillion,wich gives the us a + in the checkbook. However a natural cause of that will ofc give inflation wich makes almost everything financial suffer for a period of time.

Wage example:

Atm i am staying in norway, and the mininum wage here atm is 27$. But on the other hand,the prices in this country is sick. So all in all the norwegian minium wage compared to the rest of the world is perhaps a 1%above normal. That only counts if you LIVE in that country ofc.

Hope that made sense,just woke up,not 100%yet

Tell Me About It !!!!!! RIDICULOUS! That's why the OSW is the TRUTH! standing up for injustices happening to the every day person and it normally would happen without anything being sad!