geebeebee said:However, there is a big difference, security-wise, between HAVING to live on $5 an hour and choosing to. I know of very few minimum wage jobs that provide insurance. Do you include decent insurance in your $800/month, or does your job provide it? I just don't buy your 90% can live on $800 figure, including food, utilities, insurance, transportation, etc., if you are living in any decently-sized metropolitan area, at least one that is even reasonably safe.

To declare that you're not talking about a potential family on that; well, that's just not being realistic. Hey, it's great you can do it, but do you really think comparing a college-educated single person (with what I'm assuming is a decent job) with a typical person facing a minimum-wage job a fair comparison? I don't, because a typical person making minimum wage isn't equipped with the same potential to earn as you are, and have any of the safety nets you have.

For as much as everyone here gripes about deadbeats, it's amazing how little support is given to those that do actually try to work to get by. I thought people here liked those that tried to be responsible. By paying people a fair wage, it would encourage work, and make social programs less attractive. You're moving the goalposts in almost every single statement in this post. You also put words in my mouth (I never said 90% can live on $800/mo, I said individuals can live on $5/hr in 90% of the country, which is where people of little means should be living). You ought to be ashamed for wasting everyone's time in yet another thread. But I guess I should be thankful you haven't gotten it locked yet.

Well we know Congress won't be taking part in this: (from awhile back, but still a good video to watch)

Nancy Pelosi on Minimum Wage

ProfitAfterRebates said:Was it a real big problem LAST SUMMER when the minimum wage went to $6.55?

Will this mean that the Double Stack is going to fall off the 99 cents menu at Wendy's?

Nope! It means that if Wendy's was hiring a shift of 5 employees at a given time, instead they lay one off, and use 4. So your wait times in line may be longer and the fatigued employees may mess up your order because they are overworked and now we increased unemployment by 1.

ProfitAfterRebates said:Was it a real big problem LAST SUMMER when the minimum wage went to $6.55?

Will this mean that the Double Stack is going to fall off the 99 cents menu at Wendy's?

It measn that their drive through order taking will get oursourced. First to a call center in the middle of the US, then to another country.

"Why stop at $7.55? Why not make minimum wage $10? or $20? Or even $100? "

Why do you take 2 tylenols, not 100?

"Businesses and jobs are already struggling as it is. At the very least, the government could delay this increase until a time when businesses are better able to absorb it."

If you avearge out the short term noises, over the long term wage has been declining, profits have been increasing, as shares of GDP.

nycll said:"Why stop at $7.55? Why not make minimum wage $10? or $20? Or even $100? "

Why do you take 2 tylenols, not 100?

"Businesses and jobs are already struggling as it is. At the very least, the government could delay this increase until a time when businesses are better able to absorb it."

If you avearge out the short term noises, over the long term wage has been declining, profits have been increasing, as shares of GDP.

Doing 100 grams of an addictive narcotic would be very bad for someone and probably cause them to die. Doing 7.55 grams wouldn't be as bad, but it's still causing them harm on a smaller scale. Minimum wages at $7.55 creates unemployment just like it would at $100, just on a smaller scale. But at either dosage it's ultimately bad.

brettdoyle said:nycll said:"Why stop at $7.55? Why not make minimum wage $10? or $20? Or even $100? "

Why do you take 2 tylenols, not 100?

"Businesses and jobs are already struggling as it is. At the very least, the government could delay this increase until a time when businesses are better able to absorb it."

If you avearge out the short term noises, over the long term wage has been declining, profits have been increasing, as shares of GDP.

Doing 100 grams of an addictive narcotic would be very bad for someone and probably cause them to die. Doing 7.55 grams wouldn't be as bad, but it's still causing them harm on a smaller scale.But the 7.55 grams also serves a purpose. The reason it is recommended is because the pros outweighs the cons.

We can discuss the merits, but your logic of using $100 to debunk $7.55 is flawed. That's all.

nycll said:brettdoyle said:nycll said:"Why stop at $7.55? Why not make minimum wage $10? or $20? Or even $100? "

Why do you take 2 tylenols, not 100?

"Businesses and jobs are already struggling as it is. At the very least, the government could delay this increase until a time when businesses are better able to absorb it."

If you avearge out the short term noises, over the long term wage has been declining, profits have been increasing, as shares of GDP.

Doing 100 grams of an addictive narcotic would be very bad for someone and probably cause them to die. Doing 7.55 grams wouldn't be as bad, but it's still causing them harm on a smaller scale.But the 7.55 grams also serves a purpose. The reason it is recommended is because the pros outweighs the cons.

We can discuss the merits, but your logic of using $100 to debunk $7.55 is flawed. That's all.

$100 was just an extreme example that you cherry picked. I also mentioned $10 and $20.

You can say my logic is flawed without basis but at the end of the day you have to contend that minimum wages cause unemployment.

nycll said:Stop the bickering about the teenagers' wages. Look at the big picture:

Wages are at their lowest percentage of GDP on record; corporate profits are at their highest level since 1960.
That is misleading. Record profits at Goldman Sachs mean nothing to a local business that depends on unskilled labor to earn small profit margins.

Who was receiving record profits in 2006?

1. Banks / finance companies
2. Big Insurance
3. Big Oil
4. Health care companies
5. Conglomerates
6. Big Tobacco
7. Big IT
8. Outsourced manufacturers
9. etc.

Record profits in the Fortune 500 have little to do with "sharing" those profits with minimum wage workers, because those companies use a much smaller proportion of minimum wage workers compared to small business. Your local cleaning services and restaurants are the ones who pay for this, not the big corporations that reaped record profits.

brettdoyle said:
At the end of the day this will do more harm than good. Businesses currently struggling to make ends meet may throw their arms in the air and decide to close shop. Hiring managers will certainly think twice before they even consider hiring anyone. Higher labor costs will get passed on to consumers, which will reduce demand. More jobs will be outsourced overseas where there is no minimum wage.
Blah, blah, blah. They say this every time there is in increase in the minimum wage. It has yet to happen on a large scale. You really want to know what is going to happen? Your Big Mac value meal is going to cost $0.03 more.