"Increasing the minimum wage hurts the poor" & other bullshit I'm tired of

[aden_nak]

It's one of the pillars upon which "trickle down" economics claims to stand, and just about every right wing pundit spouts it as a mantra. Bill O'Rielly talked about it at some length (and Al Franken has given him shit about it at even greater length).

The basic pretense is that Democrats actually HURT the poor by trying to increase their minumum wage. There is one argument that I consistantly hear from right wingers that I NEVER hear a good response to. Here's the right wing argument:

"If you increase the minimum wage, businesses won't be able to create as many jobs. They'll have to hire fewer people and be able to pay them less. Corperations that are paying more per employee have to to close factories and reduce their employment rolls. Therefore, increasing the minimum wage hurts the poor."

I'm getting stretchmarks on my forehead from the veins bulging out just typing that kind of rhetorical crap. And yet, the best counter-argument that I hear is that they are all low-paying jobs anyhow, so people still can't support themselves. Wake up and smell the brainwashing, people.

There is one point in this argument that is always assumed, and we need to start debunking it. Specificly, the point that there is a limited, pre-determined amount of money that companies are able to spend to hire new employees. That number is set based on the amout of profit that the company wants to make, and thus, how much money those that run and own the company want to take home.

It's not a matter of increased payroll costs. It's a matter of CORPERATE RESPONSIBILITY, or the inherent lack thereof. It is incorrigable that anyone should work a 40 hour week and still not earn enough money to place themselves above the poverty line. Yet this argument, that increasing the minimum wage hurts the poor, has been used to shoot down attempted increase after attempted increase.

This has been spun against us, and we need the proper counter-spin. That counter-spin is to turn it into an issue of CORPERATE RESPONSIBILITY (which I type in all caps so that you skimmers can get the gyst of my posting here).

Does anyone honestly believe that if the minumum wage is raised by a dollar an hour that hundreds of companies are just going to throw in the towel and file Chapter 11? Most of these businesses have already cut all the jobs they can afford to and are theoretically already running in the red. But the fact is that these same companies that are reporting corperate losses are paying outrageous fees at the top of the organization.

It is not the government's job or responsibility to govern the way that businesses conduct their itnernal hiring and payrolling. It IS the government's responsibility to provide the working public with a basic sense of financial balance. It IS the government's responsibility to regulate the output of business, and one measure of that output is the treatment of workers.

The government is not doing its job because businesses are threatening to "take their ball and go home" if they have to pay more. It's inherent bullshit. Try to imagine the CEO of Sprint (who I am using as a random example of a large corperation) holding the following press conference:

"Ladies and Gentlemen, thank you for attending. Due to the increase in the federal minimum wage, we've decided to stop providing phone serivce. We're going home now. So everyone is laid off. Sorry."

Not going to happen. There's still far, FAR too much money to be made. Those at the top will simply have to tighten their belts in order to stay competative. And that's not going to happen until the government calls their bluff.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. No, but what does happen is...

everyone increases the costs of their products to keep profit margins stable, making the benefit of increasing the minimum wage very short-lived.

[HEyHEY]

3. agreed it is a tightrope

[aden_nak]

4. Yes, that does happen.

But the wage only gets jacked up every decade or two. . . and then by less than 50 cents. . .

Again, that's STILL an issue of CORPERATE RESPONSIBILITY. ;) Hey, Bush is the one that made the phrase a slogan, I don't see why we shouldn't turn around and bash him over the head with it.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

34. I agree that's the issue

But a minimum wage hike isn't enforcing that in any way. It certainly doesn't instill morals into the CEOs or shareholders that demand profit margins stay high.

[wuushew]

5. That assumes that cost increases can be passed along indefinitely

which is not true of all products because of price elasticity. People are only willing to pay so much for certain things. As many products are not manufactured in the United States they can be immune from inflationary wage pressures here in the United States. If you truly have a competitive market place of course.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

17. That is true, but we don't pass minimum wage hikes fast enough

They can easily hike prices up at the pace with which we raise the minimum wage. It only happens once a decade or so.

[wuushew]

25. All government programs/laws should be tied to inflation

like Social Security is. That way corrupt politicians would not have to revisit laws every couple of years. Look at the travesty that the Alternative Minimum Tax has become.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

29. Agreed

That would make a lot of sense. Too much sense to actually pass, unfortunately. :eyes:

[Hoping4Change]

10. Say what? You are not taking into account the unbelievable huge

pay increases for CEO's. Their enormous pay packages and buyouts are done at the expense of the people at the bottom. Your arguments is simply buying into the lie repukes perpetrate to keep people fearful and grateful for the shit wages being dished out.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

14. I disagree completely.

I'm not buying into anything. I do know for a fact, however, that the CEO is not going to take the hit for a wage increase, and neither is the shareholder. So they pass the hit along to the consumer. I'm saying they're so greedy that they will make it so that they do not lose a single penny.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

15. I AM taking that into account.

Who do you think is more likely to pay for a wage increase: Greedy CEO or unwitting consumer that needs said product?

[Hoping4Change]

24. Costco's founder and president pays himself $300,000 per yr

frontline workers earn something like $12/hr. Costco's stock is skyrocketing. Shareholders will start getting the message that CEOs sitting on Boards and signing off on these pay packages for themselves and their buddies are hurting profit margins.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

32. Yeah, right

They've been doing that for years. They don't care. You're dreaming if you think that's going to mysteriously change all of a sudden.

[Hoping4Change]

37. It won't change all of the sudden but shareholders will wake up

to the fact that $100 million dollar salaries for CEOs are idiotic and cut into their investments.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

They won't.

The ideology is that you need someone capable of running their company, and that does not come cheap. They're willing to pay for these top-notch guys because other companies will if they don't.

[wuushew]

44. CEOs are severally mentally damaged

In addition to being stressed out workaholics they can and often do suffer from failed marriages. Upon reaching retirement they seldom enjoy the quiet life or the money they "earned". For many rich the money has little or no utility but was merely a status symbol at the time of running a company, some sort of psychological inducement that was poorly conceived.

[Hoping4Change]

58. The ideology you refer to is wishful thinking.

In a recent report, proxy adviser Glass Lewis highlighted 25 companies in the S&P 500 that overpaid their executives. Last year on average, CEOs and top five executives of these firms received $13.7 million and $32.7 million, respectively. Simultaneously, those 25 companies saw an on-average drop in earnings per share of 57% and a negative 2% return on equity.

The following are just a few examples of high paid CEOs performing poorly

Viacom (VIA.B:NYSE - news - research), which paid Chairman and CEO Sumner Redstone $35.5 million last year, a 4% raise from the year before even though the company's operating profits fell 21% in 2003 and its stock price underperformed both peers and the broader market.

SBC Communications (SBC:NYSE - news - research), where Chairman Ed Whitacre received $24.8 million last year -- a 20% year-over-year raise -- despite the fact that the company's operating profits declined 25% and its stock fell 4%.

Bear Stearns (BSC:NYSE - news - research), which paid James Cayne $39.3 million last fiscal year, up 32% from the year before, even as the company's stock underperformed many of its peers.
These companies joined chronic offenders such as PeopleSoft (PSFT:Nasdaq - news - research) and Computer Associates (CA:NYSE - news - research).

[sangh0]

66. You are wrong, and history proves it

This is not the 1st time in US history that CEO pay is so high in comparison to their employees. The situation caused outrage, and for decades afterward, CEO was much lower in relation to what the avg worker was paid. The disparities in pay have only returned during the last 10 to 15 years. Your claim that high CEO pay is a "given" and not subject to change is just not true.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

69. If history proves it

perhaps you can cite a source?

[Warpy]

13. Actually, no

As poorer people have more money to spend, they spend it. That increases demands for goods and services that weren't there before. The increased demand leads to increased employment to satisfy that demand, from the supermarkets and on up through manufacturing. In many cases, the increased volume of sales keeps the profit steady, and no increase in price is necessary.

What you think you know about the minimum wage is wrong.

[sandnsea]

63. Really? Prices are plummeting????

Where the fuck have I been since the 70's? Seems to me prices go up, up, up, and it doesn't matter whether they're made here at home at $5.00 an hour or overseas at 5 cents an hour. Up, up, up, everything goes.

Why? STOCKS. Any profit that the worker doesn't get goes to the stockholder. The price of a product is set by the market for the product, NOT the cost of goods sold. If wages go up, the stockholder's income goes down.

This wages causes prices to go up is the biggest economic lie floating today.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

70. Perhaps you need to re-read my post...

because it doesn't sound like you're replying to me AT ALL. Nowhere did I say or imply prices have been going down. What I said was that if corporations are forced to spend more on labor, they will simply jack up prices on their products in order to ensure that their profit margins will remain stable because CEOs and shareholders are greedy fucks that refuse to let that money come out of their own pockets.

Wanna revise your post now?

[Sandpiper]

2. One of the funniest things

In a sick, sad sort of way was when Linda Chavez was on Dennis Miller parroting this same, tired crap about how raising minimum wage would be bad for the poor.

When she was asked what the current minimum wage was, she didn't know.

And she was going to be Bush's Secretary of Labor.

Wealthy wingnuts don't like minimum wage increases because they're afraid it will hurt the bottom line.

[Killarney]

6. Two things

First, we can point to the min wage increase in the 90's and how it did not cause a decrease in jobs. Actually 23 million new jobs were added in the same period that Clinton increased the minimum wage so that argument is moot.

Secondly, saying that when companies have to pay their workers more that they will automatically raise their prices is asinine. There are many ways in which a company can pay their employees more and not raise prices. If a company wants to remain competitive, they won't raise their prices. They can increase efficiency, reduce advertising, etc. There are literally thousands of ways to reduce costs that would not force a company to raise their prices in response to a wage hike. That's bunk.

[aden_nak]

9. Exact;y , my point.

It is the responsibility of these companies to see to it that their employees are paid. It's the responsibility of the government to see to it that they are paid fairly. What we're doing now is akin to only serving a child ice cream because the child threatens not to eat anything else. You know the kid might be stuborn for a brief period, but eventually will cave in and eat. It's all about calling absurd bluffs.

[wuushew]

20. The Clinton era increase was largely illusionary

because the minimum wage has not kept up with inflation for a long long time

Because of inflation coupled with inaction by the federal government, the value of the minimum wage has plummeted.
The federal minimum wage is not adjusted for inflation, and it has not been increased since 1997. Each year the President and Congress neglect the minimum wage, low-wage workers fall further and further behind. If the minimum wage had just kept pace with inflation since 1979, when it was $2.90 per hour, it would now be over $7.65.1 Without an increase, the real, inflation-adjusted value of the minimum wage in 2004 will be lower than in all but one year (1989) since 1955.



http://www.cfpa.org/issues/workcompensation/minwage/index.cfm

The situation regarding the labor market in the 1990's is a good point to raise since because of tight labor market wages rose. Combined with high interest rates and cheap energy prices inflation was hardly a problem. With the continuing deteriation of the American economy the booming tight labor market of Clinton seems a remote possibility in the future. Those that work should be able to earn a liveable wage while the government attempts to create a better social safety net and tighten the lax labor market through education and job creation programs.

[RedStateDem]

43. Um, with respect,... you're just proving the point here

> They can increase efficiency...

But by increasing efficiency (basically getting each individual to be more productive), they need fewer people to do the same amount of work, resulting in layoffs. And because everyone is forced to do this by the wage increase, you have more layoffs across the various sectors, and no new jobs available, making people willing to accept *lower than minimum wage* just to get a job because they can't get a job.

QED

After all, what's the point of increasing efficiency if you're just going to keep the same number of people employed? In the end, there is no net increase in efficiency.

Funny thing about this, Henry Ford attempted this and more than doubled wages for his employees. Why? Because he wanted his employees to be able to afford a Model T, which in 1914 cost $550. And sure enough, his employees were able to buy Model T because by 1922, the cost of a Model T had dropped to $300. (The drop in price was not because of the wage increase but because of the productivity increase and the demand for the vehicles). Just think how much cheaper the cars would have been without the doubling of wages, and you can see that Ford's employee's wage increase actually made it take longer for his employees to afford a vehicle.

Not so sound like a free-market nut, but as a small business manager, I see this work on a daily basis. You can't just raise wages and make your services cheaper at the same time without an increase in efficiency, and THAT means fewer employees or more demand.

RedStateDem

[Killarney]

53. I disagree

An increase in efficiency does not equal a layoff.

If a plant makes 200 widgets an hour and they manage to increase their efficiency to making 250 widgets per hour, that doesn't mean they will immediately layoff some workers so they can go back down to 200 widgets per hour. They will say, sweet, now we can make 250 widgets per hour with our same staff and that reduces our cost per widget. Increasing efficiency doesn't mean we should start laying off people so we can go back down to our old sucky efficiency level.

[RedStateDem]

55. You'r missing the point...

Suppose 200 widgets/hr is the current demand level. Making 250 widgets/hr does not necessarily mean you can now *sell* 250 widgets per hour. The extra widgets go into inventory, and the widget surplus drives down the market clearing prices, and you end up with a lower net profit per widget than you did before you increased efficiency. And with higher labor costs, to boot!

You can't just magically produce a demand for your product. You produce to a level to meet the demand. And increase in efficiency in your example means you've got too many people employed--not that you've got more money to pay for their wage increase.

In sum, the wage increase, if it forces an increase in efficiency, results in a surplus of labor (i.e., layoffs). Forcing the increase in productivity is then an exploitation of the worker for one, and results in joblessness as well.

RedStateDem

[WMliberal]

7. i just always resort to asking such a rethug to prove it.

Historically, when has a raise in the minimum wage EVER resulted in a nationwide round of layoffs or stemming of hiring at minimum wage jobs.
The truth is, it has NEVER led to either. Then they change the subject and call Clinton a pervert.

[Nederland]

60. Depends

...on what you mean by "nationwide round of layoffs". It is true that in the last 30 years, raises in the minimum wage are usually followed by rises in unemployment. The exceptions occurred when Bill Clinton wises raised the wage by small percentages. As other posters have noted, very large movements upwards will inevitable have a negative impact.

[NoodleBoy]

8. a good response

one of the things that many of the RW money issues depend on is a sort of "if it isn't in my hands, the money goes nowhere" belief. This kind of belief allows them to believe that money which goes to the government 'disappears,' goes straight out the window or up into someone's ass. Same goes for minimum wage.

If the minimum wage is increased, that means more people will have more money, as opposed to lowering the minimum wage, which is less money to more people and oppositely more money to fewer people. If the minimum wage is increased, the buying power of minimum wage workers increases. Their own ability, now, to buy more buoys their fellow minumum wage workers' jobs.

If someone making minimum wage can suddenly spend more on food, then the minumum wage worker at the grocery store has his wage increase paid for by them. If a minimum wage worker can now take their family on a vacation, every company they encounter which employs minimum wage workers has their wage increase paid for. The money doesn't go out the window through companies firing people, the money goes into buying more things on the level of the minimum-wage-worker, so they pay for their wage increase by having more money to spend.

[aden_nak]

11. Poor people only get money when rich people spend it. Duh. *wink*

[bossfish]

19. I'm constantly making the argument that "Supply Side"...

economics like the Bush tax cuts promote aren't really good for the economy. If money was "expensive" (high interest rates) or we have a shortage of production capacity, then it may make some sense to free up money to the investor class. I don't think that is case in the USA today.

So, the fat cats take their new money and sit on it, nothing worth investing in. Why build a new factory if you're just gonna make something no one can buy.

If the government is so bent on reducing tax revenues, you reduce taxes on the lower classes so they'll spend it.

[olddem43]

22. Right, it's actually good for the economy,

Just as when Henry Ford decided to pay his workers the then unbelievable sum of $5.00 per day. The result was that he sold a lot more cars and everyone did better. It's actually better that the poor earn more money because they spend it all instead of hoarding it.

[Kanary]

12. What's *really* happening is the stockholders

pushing for ever-larger profits.

So, the people actually *DOING* the work are paid less, and those who *AREN'T* doing the work are getting more money for doing nothing but holding on to their stocks.

Is *that* the American dream? Work hard, and slide downhill?

Kanary

[wicket]

21. Punish labor to fatten capital

It's called punishing labor to fatten capital. Grrrrrr..... :grr::

[Kanary]

26. But, capital is already so fat they have to hire personal trainers..

:)

:hi:

Kanary

[Saltdog]

16. NO, NO, NO!!!

Don't fall for their crap!

Raising the minimum wage increases employment!

Just like virtually everything that conservatives believe, the truth is the exact opposite.

Raising the minimum wage increase disposable income among the portion of society most likely to spend 100% of any increase they receive in pay. Consumer spending is 2/3 of the economy, with more money being spent, demand for goods and services increases, causing a need for more emplyees to make products and perform services.

The most likely outcome of raising the minimum wage is actually an increase in inflation as people have increases purchasing power and the labor market become tight.

As far as the whole "employers cannot afford to pay people any more" theory: it is complete crap. There is absolutely no data to support the theory. Any busines person with practical experience knows that when demand increases to the point that current production levels are insufficient to meet demand that additional employees must be hired. The cost of incrementally raising labor rates, in terms of cost of goods sold, is tiny. Their argument is unsupported by any empirical data or common sense.

[Nikia]

18. Do you know any factory workers making minimum wage?

Are these the factories that they want guest workers to work at?
Around here, National restaurant or retail chains are the only ones paying their employees at or within a dollar of minimum wage.

[K-W]

33. Which is exactly the issue, it desperately needs to be raised.

The economy has outgrown it. Though it isnt inconsequential that the service industry is most effected by it. The service industry is the growing area of employment for the poor. Factories dont require so many workers these days, the labor intensive parts of production have moved abroad, leading to the service industry taking over more and more of the share of the economy for workers.

[PsN2Wind]

23. Yeh, I remember twenty some years ago

when congress was debating raising the minimum wage. Ray Kroc, McDonalds owner, appeared before congress arguing against it. Seems if the minimum wage was raised, he was going to have to travel town-to-town, from one restaurant to another cleaning his own grease-traps. So then he gave Steve Garvey the biggest contract, for that time, in modern baseball. Well those minimum wage workers at McD's made him a fortune. I doubt he ever made a dime off his baseball team

[manic expression]

27. saying that an increased minimum wage will

hurt the poor is a lot like saying we can achieve peace through unprovoked war. It just doesn't work that way. Also, the argument from conservatives that really gets me going is the argument that: "if we give welfare to people, then they won't work!". It makes me so angry when people neglect and hurt the least fortunate people in our country (and world) with self-serving actions.

[kimchi]

41. Hi manic expression!

Welcome to DU.

They call that "compassionate conservatism", and yes, I know it is an oxymoron.

[dsc]

28. The fallacy here is actually

that companies pay as much as the can to employees. That is just not true. Wages are set by a variety of factors including the number of people looking for work. The only way that increasing the minimum wage would cause a loss of jobs is if every minimum wage worker only was worth exactly minimum wage to the company. That seems a little hard to believe.

[leftyandproud]

30. it does hurt SMALL businesses...

When you raise the price of anything you get less of it. This is a law of economics. Raising the price of unskilled labor will make employers seek alternatives. Take your theory to its conclusion and ask what would happen if we made the minimum wage $30 an hour...

We'd have unemployment rates of 60%

gotta take ideas to their extreme sometimes to demonstrate a basic economic fact

[aden_nak]

31. I don't want extremes.

I just want a minimum wage that allows a single person to work full time and live above the poverty level.

[leftyandproud]

35. Everything in politics is a tradeoff..

when government mandates something like this, it won't "solve" the problem of poverty...There will be a tradeoff...a slightly higher percentage of the population (the VERY unskilled workers) who will have a tough time finding jobs. I think if we boosted the min wage and gave the employers a bigger tax deduction for new hiring...or reduced their share of the payroll taxes, we could do it without hurting the least skilled.

[aden_nak]

40. Agreed.

I am all in favor of making counter-adjustments to the system in order to accomidate a higher wage so long as it does not disrupt the goal of the increase, which is to keep people that are working full time above the poverty line.

[wuushew]

36. If many small businesses failed

then the surviving ones would be able to raise their prices because of the supply demand relationship.

I can't speak to the overall level of people employeed in such a industry but based on economic populism workers will always outnumber owners so the politics should be simple.

[mongo]

61. Here we see the purpose of most gov't regulation

"If many small businesses failed then the surviving ones would be able to raise their prices because of the supply demand relationship."

So, the small business goes under and the need is then served by the larger corporation. That's just what we need in this country - BIGGER CORPORATIONS AND LESS COMPETITION.

Raising the min wage will hurt small business - most of which is struggling to survive as it is.

FYI - I have ONE employee who makes serveral $/hr more than min wage.

[K-W]

38. Economics isnt quite that simple.

When you the raise the price of anything you dont always get less of it, that is not a law of economics, that is an oversimplification of economics.

Scenario: The Minimum wage is increased substantially, but not unreasonably. Most businesses still need the same labor, and can afford to extra pay which is negligable in the overall picture. Some very small or shacky businesses have problems getting help. This also fuels the black market in under the table jobs too. But as long as the economic stimulus created by the change will overwhelm these negatives. You will give people opportunities to become more active in the economy.

Economics isnt a pure science. Its still mostly a philosophy. But there are rational arguments for how you can create jobs through increases in the minimum wage that are just as plausible as the arguments that it would destroy jobs.

[leftyandproud]

42. say you own a small ice cream parlor..

ten employees..mostly teens...if government mandates a hike from $5.15 to $7.50, this would certainly hurt business..

think about it..
$2.50/hr increase...X 40 hours a week = $100 per week per employee
$5200 a year per employee..
= $52,000 a year.

I know a few people who run small local shops and they would not be able to take such a huge hit...unless you reduce their tax rate to 0%, which nobody on the left will agree to.

[K-W]

45. but then,

The working class neihborhood the shop is in has alot more spending money because people have a more livable wage. Moms can give thier kids money to go get Ice Cream.

Now, as I said it is certainly possible that a portion of businesses, mostly small, will have problems hiring or fail. The argument is that the overall benefit to the economy of raising the minimum wage will more than make up for that job loss.


Edit: and on further reading I didnt even take into account increased productivity, which may even be a better argument for the economic boost outweighing the cost. It will be rough for small businesses, there is no doubt about it, but they will always be the most sensitive to any economic change. We cant refuse to make economic changes because of this.

[The Flaming Red Head]

46. Teens have babies to support

everybody deserves a living wage.

[wuushew]

47. What do you propose?

A negative income tax, similar to what Nixon proposed?

The burden would not be directly on small businesses but rather from more progressive sources higher up on the personal and corporate income ladder.

[Warren DeMontague]

57. just hire one teen--

one who does a lot of crank.

[hughee99]

59. That's not even the only issue...

a minimum wage employee makes 5.15, based on your example. Someone who has been working the same job for more time might be making 6 or 7 dollars. When the minimum wage job goes from 5.15 to 7.50, does the $6-7 worker then also get a raise only to 7.50? If so, then an experienced worker (who in theory would be better at their job, and possibly have more responsiblity) would now be making the same as someone who only started yesterday. They'd appreciate the increase but still be a little upset. Many union wages are also based on the minimum wage, so a union worker making $20 an hour would make $22.35, so the overall effect would be on not only minimum wage workers, but also on industries where no one is paid minimum wage.

[Nadienne]

62. In my opinion, wages ought to be

related to living expenses.

If the gov't wants to raise minimum wage, maybe it's because living expenses have been steadily on the rise... meaning a small-time ice cream parlor that pays its workers no more than minimum wage is either exploiting the workers, or selling really cheap ice cream.

[sandnsea]

64. You're forgetting purchasing power

First, they'd never raise the minimum wage that drastically to begin with. Second, alot of small businesses are already paying over $7.00 an hour, even ice cream shops. Third, the owners aren't setting the price based on employee wages, they're setting the price based on what the market will bear. They're selling ice cream at a price that I think is ludicrous already anyway. The specialty shops charge $3.00 or more for an ice cream cone in my little town. The only person who would be hurt by an increase in minimum wage is the shop owner, he'd have to give some of his profits to his employees.

I know them. They cry about the economy while they're driving around in brand new vehicles. So they have to get a new vehicle every 5 years, like everybody else. Bohoo. Oh, and minimum wage is $7.00 an hour in my state and nobody has gone out of business because of it.

[aden_nak]

39. I just got mail from Jorge!

He didn't like this thread very much, and he told me about it. Funny thing is, though, he got my email address from my personal site, which clearly displays the disclaimer listed below. So I thought I would share his wit and wisdom with all of you. He provided no coutnerpoints or other facts to support him. Hell, he didn't even explain his theories. Incidentally, I corrected both of the spelling errors he pointed out to me, and thank him kindly for the help.

------------------------------

"Jorge Torres" <[e-mail]>

Dude, I just read your minimum wage tripe on DU. From your writing style and thought synthesis I'm guessing you're about twelve years old, right? What a load of crap; pure socialist thinking. Thank god the adults are in charge and not mindless fools like you.

BTW, you are my new poster child for dumb, illiterate liberals. Your incoherent rant is full of misspellings and made up words. GYST?!?!?!? And CORPORATE is spelled CORPORATE, you communist asshole!

And you people want to be in charge!!!!! Jeez!

C-Ya DUmmy

------------------------------

My disclaimer:

Emailing me implies that I have complete ownership of the entire contents of your mail, including any attachments or embedded files. You understand that I may post your email address publicly, and you agree to grant me the unfettered right to distribute and reply to that address. You also agree to accept whatever messages I choose to send, regardless of their content, meanings or impliations. Email addresses will be used for purposes of personal ridicule and satirical disassembly and will never contain destructive files or be sold for marketting purposes.

[apnu]

50. wh00t!

That should be hate mail bag worthy!

All hail Jorge and his searing logic! Jorge is a dummy!

(on edit: spelling error that I missed -- take that Jorge!)

[aden_nak]

68. Yeah, it really should be hate mailbag worthy. I need to start my own.

Also, it is worth noting that wanting minimum wage to be above the poverty line is socialist and/or communist thinking. Apparently, real capitalists believe that hard work should be rewarded with poverty and desolation.

[Voltaire]

48. Plain and simple, Unregulated Capitalism FUCKING SUCKS

All this Market = God bullshit makes me want to puke.

[K-W]

49. Capitalism is an artificial system.

We cannot have a system that we refuse to control. The right argues we should let the system rule us.

[West Coast Democrat]

51. I've heard righties claim it would only cause inflation to raise it....

but that's a ridiculous argument coming from them, since everything they enact to supposedly fix the economy just ends up causing a lot of inflation.

[wuushew]

52. Since the government prints the money

it ultimately controls the amount of inflation. We tolerate inflation as a side effect of positive economic growth. Some things like energy prices cannot be controlled but in the end that just means future transportation and food costs will be higher as a relative percentage of a family's budget.

[K-W]

54. That isnt entirely true.

The ammount of currency is one control on inflation, but not the sole factor. If the currency is being devalued in the market, it doesnt matter how much is printed.

[Warren DeMontague]

56. So, Conversely...

If you just lowered that pesky-ass minimum wage down to, say, one cent a decade, business would create meeeeelions and meeeeeelions of new jobs, and the poor would get rich!... Woohooo!

What a crock. My opinion? If you can't afford to pay someone a living wage, you shouldn't be hiring people. Period. End of story. Health insurance, too, although as a supporter of SPHC I believe that should be taken out of the hands of employers and insurance companies entirely.

...And I'm the guy who got flamed the other day for my "reactionary libertarianism".

[Deja Q]

65. Quite. There is no such thing as corporate responsibility either:

Hmmm. I see lots of corporations moving jobs overseas. Nor do I see CEOs and upper management taking responsible pay cuts when their products or services don't sell as well. Democrats may be hurting the poor by trying to give them a living wage, but republicans do nothing more than to help the rich by screwing the poor.

And when CEOs get fired out of their stupidity, they get $26 million severance packages. I did some quick math. $26 mil can support a person from womb to the tomb and allow them some luxuries, assuming the person lives about 500 years long. ($52000/yr).

[aden_nak]

71. Well of course there isn't.

That's kind of the reason I put it in all caps every time I used the phrase. But if the right wing wants to spew that mantra out at the general public over and over, I figure we might as well get some bonus miles off of it. In truth it wouldn't be about corporate responsibility at all, but rather about budgetary necessity.

[Hoping4Change]

67. Attention DUers go see "THE CORPORATION"

http://www.thecorporation.com/


NOT ONLY FUNNY AND INFORMATIVE BUT ALSO A FILM WITH A REAL INSPIRATIONAL ENDING.:bounce: