Raise The Minuimum Wage So People Can Eat!

And by the way,have you read 'The Jungle'by Upton Sinclair or read up on Henry Ford's hiring of cons to beat the hell out of anybody who mentioned unions?Ect,Ect.It's always been the same--the quest for $ by the monied by ANY means necessary and the struggle by the working class to get fair wages and not get beaten,ruined or killed.They're just more slick nowadays--just move yourself over seas and take advantage of those who will be meted justice thru a gun barrel if they get out of line.Economics--pppfffttt.

 

Start-not star.

 

Not even close to as effective.

A corporation allows thousands of people to pool their wealth. At the same time, should the company go bankrupt, they aren't responsible for debts (ie: they are only liable for the money they invested). Hence, there is a real safety net and it encourages people to invest much more money.

Wars actually bankrupts a country. Look at Britain, Germany, Japan, any of the WW2 heavies (that were actually in the war for the whole of it). Look at the beginnings of the World Bank.

 

Damn what a long & fast moving thread. I've been busy with post-election clean-up and have some catching up to do.

First... As to:

and

I posted a couple charts that showed these numbers and how they had decreased from 2004 to 2005. And although "Only 2.5% of hourly-paid workers" are working for minimum wage, I don't know where "they are mostly students" comes from, perhaps their ages. I'm not saying they're not students, I'm just saying I don't know where the "mostly students" comes from. Some are probably students, some school drop-outs & some finished with school (graduated).
But that misses the real point. 2.5% is the number making $5.15, that number does not include those making $5.16 or $5.50, or $6.00, or $6.50, or $7.24 per hour. All of those workers would be affected.

As I posted earlier, from: http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/i...wage_minwagefaq

"An estimated 14.9 million workers (11% of the workforce) would benefit from an increase in the federal minimum wage to $7.25 by 2008. Of these workers, 6.6 million would be directly affected and 8.3 million would indirectly receive raises due to the spillover effect of a minimum wage increase. Of the total affected workers, 80% are adults and 59% are women. Over half (54%) work full time and another third (30%) work between 20 and 34 hours per week. More than one-quarter (26%) of the workers who would benefit from an increase to $7.25 are parents of children under age 18, including 1,395,000 single parents. "

Other estimates have the number affected as high as 16.1 million

As to:

Anyone who blames poverty on multinational corporations and/or globalization is mistaken. Poverty has been around since before there were multiple nations, much less multinationals. Sure, they've done some harm, but they've helped in some other places. Globalization, in the form of internet marketing, has in fact done a lot of good. One of the organizations I'm involved with http://www.justcoffee.org by going global via the web have done themselves a lot of good.
But this too misses the point. Multinational corporations & globalization are a fact of life, they're here to stay. Figuring out how to help those living in poverty with, without, or in spite of the multinationals etc., is what's needed.

As to:

AND

Poverty, especially chronic, multi-generational poverty, causes very much the same effect as the mental illness condition Depression. The voter apathy of those in poverty is partly from this depression-like condition.

Saying "powerful monied interests don't want the average man to vote" isn't quite the same as blaming them for the "voter apathy". But the duopoly of the Democrats & Republicans have in their own best interest, have promoted cynicism, which has led to another source of de facto voter apathy.

Another technique used is wedge issues, for instance, racism. Using race to keep economically similar people separate has also been used very successfully by the duopoly of power.

However, once again, the big point has been missed. Whom would they vote FOR.? If a political party were to start promising help for those in poverty & then follow through (i.e. do what they promise) ... voter apathy would have a chance to turn into voter turn-out. Those of us who are independent but work in selected campaigns & for or against ballot issues are driven crazy by this - which came first, voters or someone to vote for - paradox. Somewhat like the - which came first, the chicken or the egg question.

In addition, keep in mind; no matter how much the minimum wage goes up, there'll still be poverty. Another discussion that needs to take place is what are we doing about it. One person, each person may not be able to make a difference, but we can each try. Now that the election season is (finally) wrapped up, here's one of my main projects:

http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=202898

I also work on helping supply food to shelters for the homeless, for abused women (and men) & their children. Sorry, but you see, I'm one of those 1960s hippie activists who hasn't slowed down (even though last month, after almost a week in the VA hospital, the doctors told me to). One of my mantras, part of my credo, is that hippies have helped, have done a lot of good and most importantly - The world still needs hippies.

I will now get off my soapbox.

Peace,
poor_old_dad

 

The discussion began with the raising of the MW-I started the theread to not just focus on those making the least amount of money but what is really fair to workers in general-It used to be common place for a worker to start at the bottom then work their way up -This included insurance and retirement packages-This would also include profit sharing and other perks-These have dwindled now and the cause is more then greed on the part of the employer-It is also the high cost of medical treatment insurance-But the worker has alot less now then in years past-I used to make 10 hr. in the 70s as a fork lift driver-that was union and it was a fair wage-the company litlle by little started lowering the wage scale-The union did nothing and still got their dues every month-The company was in bed with the union and the workers took it in the shorts-nice!-That was Teamsters-great group of real honest guys! hahahahahaha-

 

Who owns the oil? Iran, Russia, Nigeria, Saudia Arabia, Venezuela... they control production, not Exxon.

 

the oil industry is a prime example of a market with low competition. I will also say our oil is cheaper because of taxes than any other nation i can think of, and the us still pays roughly 27-30% tax on gasoline. A lot like the way out govt runs, if it was a business, it would go bankrupt.

On the economic side of the situation, there are few if any interuptions to a free market economy that has all good effects. It sounds nice to say hey lets raise the min. wage 2$, but the reality is it will have extreme adverse effects on other areas, the main ones being jobs and prices.

Here is a question . Lets say we raise the min. wage 20%, would you rather take 20% less jobs to pay the ones who keep their jobs or have the 20% more jobs but they earn less? Would you support paying 20% more for your good to support this? The reality is the money will be made up somehow by the business who is paying the wages.

 

History hasn't proven your bad senario to be true. I find it amazing that the same old unsupported reasons for not instituting a minimum wage increase are brought up as gospel. It just hasn't proven to be true. It's easy to preach that gospel when your in the top strata of society. And as far as the price of consumer goods as long as there are places like Walmart most of the population will never experience any real increases in price, because they will just continue to fill their inventories with sweatshop merchandise. Most of them buy their groceries through discounters already. They eat the stuff you high and might won't buy because it's near or past it's expiration date.

 

You are so niave when it comes to understanding the pricing of petroleum. You don't think the large multinational companies have any control over price? Guess again.

 

Only those with money left over at the end of the month after paying for necessities have the funds to invest in anything. And you have a really hard time doing that when you have to fund your own retirement, pay for your own health insurance and get back and forth to work everyday on what the businesses today feel is a fair wage.

Want more investment. Try running an honest company that manufactures a valuable product here, and respects their employees. Perhaps your employees might even want to invest. But they've been burned by so many corporate bankruptcies that left them high and dry in the recent past, that I sincerely hope they think twice before putting their trust in something like that.

 

As a manufacturing company gets bigger, efficiency improves. To achieve maximum efficiency (and thus competitiveness), many products require markets of upwards of 100 million people.

How exactly is a mom and pop business (ie: one that doesn't combine resources from many, many people [ie: a corporation] expected to do that)?. There is one other option - crown corporations. And we've all seen how efficient those wind up being in manufacturing (ie: not very).

Not only that, but most people's pensions are invested, at least in Canada. Ontario teachers exert a high amount of influence on business and the government because of the investment made in their pensions.

Do you not own any mutual funds? Have money in a credit union? Etc, etc.

 

Not any more I lost my job through closure and had to liquidate what little savings and benefits I had to survive while I found two non benefit jobs to make up the difference.

And, I don't think my story is that rare out in the real world. We were promised lower ultility rates when we voted for deregulation in California and we found out how well we fared with that fiasco.

Corporations don't want any oversight, they want to run wild, and their past performances have shown that they can't be trusted. Only the rich get richer.

 

Who is the major consumer in this global world. The US, not China, not Mexico or other low labor cost nations. Jobs have been outsourced so that goods can be manufactured overseas then reimported. Why the huge deficit with China if they are consuming our goods. Please explain. Most exports are simply parts that are combined into a viable product elsewhere and then sold to US consumers. If you make a great product I will buy it. But I will not buy Stanley tools or Levis anymore. Stay honest and I'll stay loyal to your product. I don't need cheap snake oil.

 

You completely ignored the point of that post - how is a mom and pop business going to compete on an economy of that scale?

 

well show me where human interference into a free market has done anything but bad.

while your add it, add some fact to your rebuttle.

 

The same countries we are at war with control the production of oil. Drill a certian amount to raise the demand.

 

if your 56 how long did you work there?
did you save?

that is a shame that you lost your job. I now understand your bitter views.

While having to spend money to do it, a corporation does not run as wild as a govt. Take the guns, provide social services, then you have total power. tisk tisk.

 

Any time a regulation is imposed that adds monetary costs to problems not measured in terms money.

ie: pollution regulations, safety regulations, quality control, etc.

Or, any time a government returns a monopoly, cartel/oligopoly back to a perfect market.

 

in a thread of artifical market control, your post is in the wrong place.

i also agree with it to an extent.

 

HA HA HA - never shoulda broken them unions up HAHAHAHA HA HA
Ahh the good old days when you could freely form associations to bargain for better wages and to freely withdraw your labour en masse if necessary as a bargaining tool
ahh the bosses are pouring it out of every orrifice above their workers !
Never mind - history will give us another chance as long as you take it and
dont drown first
Keep swimming fellow swimmers - altogether now !
look out for them sharks !