What will the republicans do?

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Sep 12, 2008
530
135
1,593
#81
Currently 29 states have minimum wages higher than the federal minimum wage.

While I agree its past due for the feds to raise their minimum wage I think somewhere between $9 and $10 is good.

There should be some COLA involved, because while $15 per hour in Seattle, LA, NYC, etc may make sense it does not in places where it is much cheaper to live such as Stillwater and most every place else.

As a former small business owner I can tell you we would have hired less people at $15 dollars per hour.

At what price point do all the fast food chains automate everything?
 

CowboyOrangeFan

Mmmm, yeah.
A/V Subscriber
Jun 9, 2006
5,154
3,521
1,743
Florida
#82
Where in the constitution does it give the federal government the power to intervene in the labor market in this fashion? If $15 is good, isn't $20 even better? $50? If gov't can set a minimum, how about a maximum? Entertainers and athletes make more money than they need, after all. Charles Barkley said athletes pay so much money in taxes that they should get preferential treatment in life/death issues such as covid vaccines. Let's trim that back, shall we?

If you have a business where the marginal value of labor is $10/hour, what happens when a politician in Washington DC decides you need to pay $15 or more? Further, this administration is hell bent on importing and augmenting a permanent, dependent underclass coming from countries where even $5/hr would be a fantasy. These policies are at complete odds and have no rational explanation other than votes.
JHC. If you cut this in half. Then by half again. Making sure to totally wipeout the whole first paragraph and the second half of the last paragraph.Then you might have actually made a good point.
 
Jul 23, 2018
59
27
68
106
USA
#83
It’s called the interstate commerce clause.

Look into it.

And look into the Supreme Court cases before claiming it’s not interstate.
In my opinion, once the issue moves beyond protection against artificial barriers to interstate competition, especially due to substandard labor conditions, and into the realm of social engineering, the case is open to scrutiny. I would not be surprised to see states file lawsuits over a $15 minimum.
 

Midnight Toker

Territorial Marshal
May 28, 2010
9,106
1,785
1,743
#84
Where in the constitution does it give the federal government the power to intervene in the labor market in this fashion?
I think JD answered this for you, the interstate commerce clause. I suppose, if it were up to you, the congress may not have passed the fair labor standards act either.

If $15 is good, isn't $20 even better? $50? If gov't can set a minimum, how about a maximum? Entertainers and athletes make more money than they need, after all. Charles Barkley said athletes pay so much money in taxes that they should get preferential treatment in life/death issues such as covid vaccines. Let's trim that back, shall we?
I'm not sure what you mean trim that back, trim back comments like what barkley said? sure. But his opinion is just an opinion, he's not a member of congress, he cant make law. so who cares what he says? Sure, 20 is better than 15, and 50 is better than 20. I agree. Was there a point? In regard to a maximum wage, I wouldnt be opposed to it, I've read about some places have laws that wont allow a CEO to make more than X % more than the median salary in the company. Otherwise i am generally have a laissez faire attitude regarding the top amount of money an org wants to give to their employees since those employees are clearly have a living wage. you want to pay a full time janitor $300k a year, cool. as long as he makes some reasonable minimum.

If you have a business where the marginal value of labor is $10/hour, what happens when a politician in Washington DC decides you need to pay $15 or more? Further, this administration is hell bent on importing and augmenting a permanent, dependent underclass coming from countries where even $5/hr would be a fantasy. These policies are at complete odds and have no rational explanation other than votes.
To answer your question, you'd pay it. If you own a business, and you cant afford to operate with your labor earning more than the bare minimum allowed by law, perhaps you should be in a different field. I would say maybe you dont need to be in business, because if your business is depending predominantly on a bunch people who lack the skills and capabilities to earn more than the bare minimum allowed by law, you are asking for trouble. If Australia's small businesses can afford their $19/hour minimum wage, we can do better than we are now. Our min wage does not keep up with inflation, that's the very least we could do. Freaking australia reviews the minimum wage every year as policy. whether they change it or not. Our last increase was 2009. unfortunately, a 2021 $1 is worth about 80% of a 2009 $1.
 
Mar 11, 2006
3,458
2,050
1,743
#85
I think JD answered this for you, the interstate commerce clause. I suppose, if it were up to you, the congress may not have passed the fair labor standards act either.



I'm not sure what you mean trim that back, trim back comments like what barkley said? sure. But his opinion is just an opinion, he's not a member of congress, he cant make law. so who cares what he says? Sure, 20 is better than 15, and 50 is better than 20. I agree. Was there a point? In regard to a maximum wage, I wouldnt be opposed to it, I've read about some places have laws that wont allow a CEO to make more than X % more than the median salary in the company. Otherwise i am generally have a laissez faire attitude regarding the top amount of money an org wants to give to their employees since those employees are clearly have a living wage. you want to pay a full time janitor $300k a year, cool. as long as he makes some reasonable minimum.



To answer your question, you'd pay it. If you own a business, and you cant afford to operate with your labor earning more than the bare minimum allowed by law, perhaps you should be in a different field. I would say maybe you dont need to be in business, because if your business is depending predominantly on a bunch people who lack the skills and capabilities to earn more than the bare minimum allowed by law, you are asking for trouble. If Australia's small businesses can afford their $19/hour minimum wage, we can do better than we are now. Our min wage does not keep up with inflation, that's the very least we could do. Freaking australia reviews the minimum wage every year as policy. whether they change it or not. Our last increase was 2009. unfortunately, a 2021 $1 is worth about 80% of a 2009 $1.
Do you have any concern about employment by doubling the National minimum wage? I think it is a very safe assumption that there will be job loss... just a debate of how much more unemployment. With COVID still impacting employment and economy, I just don’t see how doubling the minimum is a good move.

Certainly you can applaud Australia if you are a fan of high minimum wage, but their 2019 poverty levels (people living below poverty line) were more than 20% higher than US (US Census 2019 estimates and Sydney Morning Herald 2/21/20). Are there multiple reasons for this other than minimum wage, absolutely, but that has to be concerning.
 
Jul 23, 2018
59
27
68
106
USA
#86
I think JD answered this for you, the interstate commerce clause. I suppose, if it were up to you, the congress may not have passed the fair labor standards act either.



I'm not sure what you mean trim that back, trim back comments like what barkley said? sure. But his opinion is just an opinion, he's not a member of congress, he cant make law. so who cares what he says? Sure, 20 is better than 15, and 50 is better than 20. I agree. Was there a point? In regard to a maximum wage, I wouldnt be opposed to it, I've read about some places have laws that wont allow a CEO to make more than X % more than the median salary in the company. Otherwise i am generally have a laissez faire attitude regarding the top amount of money an org wants to give to their employees since those employees are clearly have a living wage. you want to pay a full time janitor $300k a year, cool. as long as he makes some reasonable minimum.



To answer your question, you'd pay it. If you own a business, and you cant afford to operate with your labor earning more than the bare minimum allowed by law, perhaps you should be in a different field. I would say maybe you dont need to be in business, because if your business is depending predominantly on a bunch people who lack the skills and capabilities to earn more than the bare minimum allowed by law, you are asking for trouble. If Australia's small businesses can afford their $19/hour minimum wage, we can do better than we are now. Our min wage does not keep up with inflation, that's the very least we could do. Freaking australia reviews the minimum wage every year as policy. whether they change it or not. Our last increase was 2009. unfortunately, a 2021 $1 is worth about 80% of a 2009 $1.
I applaud your honesty, but your reply does not reflect free market capitalism. I mentioned $20, $50 and Barkley, because once you've accepted centralized economic planning, it's only a matter of who is sitting behind the controls and their views of who should be paying or earning what. While Obama was in office talking down to Wall Street: "Now, what we’re doing, I want to be clear, we’re not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that's fairly earned. I mean, I do think at a certain point you've made enough money." He then proceeded to cash in on the presidency turning a net worth of $1.3M to $70M+ doing nothing but speeches, netflixing and book writing. Of course, that pales in comparison to what the Clinton Foundation raked in selling access.

Freedom, free markets, a constitutionally-limited government, transparency and accountability are principles that will provide the greatest number of people a better life and the greatest opportunity to succeed. What we're about to see is a government run by elitists who think most Americans are incapable of tying their own shoes. The DC Dems are here to take the hurt out of your stupid. Unfortunately, we're nearing the metaphorical event horizon, and we won't recover from the insanity.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,141
20,383
1,743
#87
In my opinion, once the issue moves beyond protection against artificial barriers to interstate competition, especially due to substandard labor conditions, and into the realm of social engineering, the case is open to scrutiny. I would not be surprised to see states file lawsuits over a $15 minimum.
That’s your expert legal opinion is it? :blink:

Good luck with that.

Your legal opinion is demonstrably incorrect. Even a cursory review of Supreme Court decisions reveals that Congress’s interstate commerce authority is in no way limited to “protection against artificial barriers to interstate competition, especially due to substandard labor conditions”.

You asked....because you didn’t know.

I answered....now you do.

You’re welcome.
 
Last edited:

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
30,590
32,123
1,743
oklahoma city
#88
Certainly you can applaud Australia if you are a fan of high minimum wage, but their 2019 poverty levels (people living below poverty line) were more than 20% higher than US (US Census 2019 estimates and Sydney Morning Herald 2/21/20). Are there multiple reasons for this other than minimum wage, absolutely, but that has to be concerning.
Australia does not have an official poverty line. The article you cited used "50% of the median disposable income" which in 2017 (the year of their data) was $457 per week or $23764AUD a year. Meanwhile, our government sets an "official" poverty level of $12760. BTW, if we used the "50% method" our poverty line would be $26600. I'm guessing that difference in definition more than makes up for your concerning 20%.
 
Mar 11, 2006
3,458
2,050
1,743
#91
Australia does not have an official poverty line. The article you cited used "50% of the median disposable income" which in 2017 (the year of their data) was $457 per week or $23764AUD a year. Meanwhile, our government sets an "official" poverty level of $12760. BTW, if we used the "50% method" our poverty line would be $26600. I'm guessing that difference in definition more than makes up for your concerning 20%.
Okay, let’s use median income.
So Australia’s 50% of median income is $26,600 (your number). For United States that year is $30,875. My assumption would be those amounts are in their home currency which would even widen the difference considerably.
But assuming currencies are equal ....the difference is 16% lower in media income (again, not including currency diff).

But back to poverty, the article itself says that Australia’s poverty is “worse than in most other wealthy countries” and specifically cites Germany. And Germany and US defined poverty rates are very similar.
 
Last edited:

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
30,590
32,123
1,743
oklahoma city
#92
Okay, let’s use median income.
So Australia’s 50% of median income is $26,600 (your number). For United States that year is $30,875. My assumption would be those amounts are in their home currency which would even widen the difference considerably.

But assuming currencies are equal ....the difference is 16% lower in media income (again, not including currency diff).

BTW, the article itself says that Australia’s poverty is “worse than in most other wealthy countries” and specifically cites Germany. And Germany and US defined poverty rates are almost identical.
You are now making two extra assumptions to try to cover instead of admitting you didn't realize it is different poverty measures. Are you this arrogant on all subjects? I mean, I know what I know about. And I know what I don't. I'm not going to tell you that you are wrong about some detail of the cable industry.

Their "poverty line" is nearly double our poverty line. Home currency is irrelevant as you buy things in your home currency. While I was in Aus, the exchange rate varied between $1.10 and $0.71 and it made virtually no difference except when traveling overseas. Poor people aren't doing that. And, while their median income is lower, you compared a percentage below the poverty line. Make the poverty lines the same and their percentage will blow ours away.

And, you do not understand Australian media. I don't have whatever article "compares to Germany" (add even more confounding) but having lived much of my adult life there I'm sure whoever said that is with some group that is advocating for more government funds for poverty. But, compared to the US, it simply isn't accurate. When I would be interviewed for the paper I would talk about the dire needs of the health service. That's how it works.

Australia isn't called the lucky country for anything. Sure, there is poverty, particularly amongst Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders. But, you aren't going to find tent cities like all over America. And, massage the numbers to try to cover your mistake all you want, I know it simply isn't true as I have lived it.
 
Jul 23, 2018
59
27
68
106
USA
#93
That’s your expert legal opinion is it? :blink:

Good luck with that.

Your legal opinion is demonstrably incorrect. Even a cursory review of Supreme Court decisions reveals that Congress’s interstate commerce authority is in no way limited to “protection against artificial barriers to interstate competition, especially due to substandard labor conditions”.

You asked....because you didn’t know.

I answered....now you do.

You’re welcome.
just don't send a bill.
 
Mar 11, 2006
3,458
2,050
1,743
#94
You are now making two extra assumptions to try to cover instead of admitting you didn't realize it is different poverty measures. Are you this arrogant on all subjects? I mean, I know what I know about. And I know what I don't. I'm not going to tell you that you are wrong about some detail of the cable industry.

Their "poverty line" is nearly double our poverty line. Home currency is irrelevant as you buy things in your home currency. While I was in Aus, the exchange rate varied between $1.10 and $0.71 and it made virtually no difference except when traveling overseas. Poor people aren't doing that. And, while their median income is lower, you compared a percentage below the poverty line. Make the poverty lines the same and their percentage will blow ours away.

And, you do not understand Australian media. I don't have whatever article "compares to Germany" (add even more confounding) but having lived much of my adult life there I'm sure whoever said that is with some group that is advocating for more government funds for poverty. But, compared to the US, it simply isn't accurate. When I would be interviewed for the paper I would talk about the dire needs of the health service. That's how it works.

Australia isn't called the lucky country for anything. Sure, there is poverty, particularly amongst Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders. But, you aren't going to find tent cities like all over America. And, massage the numbers to try to cover your mistake all you want, I know it simply isn't true as I have lived it.
Certainly not an expert on Australia - never claimed to be. I am certain you know more about Australia than me, but I would hope you would agree that living in Australia does not make someone an expert on their poverty either --- as your last sentence in your second paragraph does not appear to be supported in facts.

That said, this was in reply to arguing to move our national minimum wage to $15/hr because Australia did it. Although comparisons are nice and convenient, using one variable does not tell a very vivid story.

BTW, the 2/21/20 article in the Sydney paper was quoting a report titled "Poverty in Australia 2020" by the Australian Council of Social Services and University of New South Wales. The exact quote from that report is "The poverty rate in Australia is worse than in most other wealthy countries. It is worse than in New Zealand, Germany and Ireland, according to the latest figures from the OECD".
 
Last edited:

oks10

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 9, 2007
9,099
6,267
1,743
Piedmont, OK
#95
Certainly not an expert on Australia - never claimed to be. I would hope you would admit that living in Australia does not make you an expert on their poverty either --- as your last sentence in your second paragraph does not appear to be supported in facts.

That said, this was in reply to arguing to move our national minimum wage to $15/hr because Australia did it. Although comparisons are nice and convenient, using one variable does not tell a very vivid story.

BTW, the 2/21/20 article in the Sydney paper was quoting a report titled "Poverty in Australia 2020" by the Australian Council of Social Services and University of New South Wales. The exact quote from that report is "The poverty rate in Australia is worse than in most other wealthy countries. It is worse than in New Zealand, Germany and Ireland, according to the latest figures from the OECD".
Per the OECD, our rate is 17.8% compared to AUS 12.4% using the same poverty line method. 50% of median household disposable income. (Germany at 10.4%)
https://data.oecd.org/inequality/poverty-rate.htm
1611155601825.png
 
Mar 11, 2006
3,458
2,050
1,743
#96
Last edited:

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
24,414
10,179
1,743
Earth
#98
Several small business owners I know say they would have to let a few people go if they increased the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour across the board...especially with Covid closings already...what happens when they all automate and get rid of as many paid workers as they can? I guess UBI then enables them to continue to not to work? When does the cycle of government dependence stop? Does it?...and...IF it ever does...how do we keep private market cost in check while at the same time increasing lifestyle and meeting needs?

I'm both making a statement on personal responsibility being key to ending poverty AND asking a question for those of you who seem to think Government programs are the answer for a question that has persisted since Adam.
 
Jul 5, 2020
582
86
28
57
Broken Arrow
#99
Several small business owners I know say they would have to let a few people go if they increased the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour across the board...especially with Covid closings already...what happens when they all automate and get rid of as many paid workers as they can? I guess UBI then enables them to continue to not to work? When does the cycle of government dependence stop? Does it?...and...IF it ever does...how do we keep private market cost in check while at the same time increasing lifestyle and meeting needs?

I'm both making a statement on personal responsibility being key to ending poverty AND asking a question for those of you who seem to think Government programs are the answer for a question that has persisted since Adam.
Four that I know of.
 

cowboyinexile

Have some class
A/V Subscriber
Jun 29, 2004
17,858
10,611
1,743
40
Fairmont, MN
Several small business owners I know say they would have to let a few people go if they increased the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour across the board...especially with Covid closings already...what happens when they all automate and get rid of as many paid workers as they can? I guess UBI then enables them to continue to not to work? When does the cycle of government dependence stop? Does it?...and...IF it ever does...how do we keep private market cost in check while at the same time increasing lifestyle and meeting needs?

I'm both making a statement on personal responsibility being key to ending poverty AND asking a question for those of you who seem to think Government programs are the answer for a question that has persisted since Adam.
If automation makes sense, they are going to do it regardless of what the minimum wage is.

Wal Mart has self checkout and maybe fast food places have self order screens for takeout. They did that long before people were talking about a minimum wage bump.