The Republican-controlled Senate refused Wednesday to raise the minimum wage

[Chiefs Minor Satellite]

If we raise the minimum wage are we only increasing the prevailing wage of the illegal immigrants?

Sounds very democratic to me.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Republican-controlled Senate refused Wednesday to raise the minimum wage, rejecting an election-year proposal from Democrats for the first increase in nearly a decade.


The vote was 52-46, eight short of the 60 needed.


"I don't think the Republicans get it," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy,
D-Massachusetts, who backed a proposal for a three-step increase in the current wage floor to $7.25 an hour. The federal minimum wage has been fixed at $5.15 an hour since 1997.


Republican critics said the minimum wage was a job killer, not the boon to low-wage workers portrayed by Democrats.


"This is a classic debate between two different philosophies. One
philosophy believes in the marketplace, competition and entrepreneurship, and the second is a philosophy that says government knows best," said Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Georgia. He said France and Germany have high minimum wages but also high unemployment.


But Kennedy and other advocates of an increase said minimum wage workers have been without a raise since 1997.


Underscoring the political context of the debate, he said if Democrats win the Senate this November, a minimum wage increase will be one of the first pieces of legislation to be considered.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by FringeNC

That's not right.

http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm

Thank you. It doesn't seem to clarify if it doesn't apply to certain businesses though...or I didn't see it.

[penchief]

Originally Posted by FringeNC

Everyone who has ever had a class in economics knows that a minumim wage reduces employment. That argument aside, even if you don't care about the reduction in employment, why would the minimum wage be at the federal level than the state level? First off, wages very across the country. Secondly, it may be popular in some states -- if they want to enact such idiocy, let them. Why try impose to it on everyone? If Massachusetts, Rhode Island, or NY wants a $50 min wage, let them try it...

Maybe we can reduce illegal immigration if we just convince Mexico to institute a high min. wage, right? That's the only reason they're not rich, right? They lack progressive legislation.

Yes, there are poor people. I just don't see who liberals have anything to add to the debate about it, though. People are poor because for behavioral reasons. The key to reducing poverty is changing the behavior of the underclass. And I'm not saying they are necessarily morally culpable for their behavior; that doesn't matter one way or another. Somehow changing the attitude among the black youth that doing well is school doesn't make you a sell-out "Uncle Tom" and crap like that is the key. The black ghetto culture is one of the major problems, as well as terrible inner-city schools (despite massive funding, they still are a joke).

I'm just so sick of liberals trying to claim the moral high ground with policies such as the min wage which make the poor worse off. If you care about the poor, how about look at the "root causes"?

While self-determination is definitely a huge factor in someone achieving his or her personal goals, external factors cannot be completely ignored. If that were the case there would be no dictatorships or countries with great disparities between rich and poor. To suggest that everyone deserves the conditions that they've been subjected to is somewhat shortsighted, IMO.

Artificial barriers can be mandated by governments or by ruling classes. Our own history is a testament to that idea. According to some, slaves deserved to be slaves, African-Americans deserved to be second class citizens, women deserved not to have the vote, and small children deserved 15-hour days in sweat shops for pennies.

To suggest that behavior is the sole reason that some people live in poverty is just plain wrong, IMO. What is capable of happening anywhere else in this world is easily possible here. Human nature is human nature irregardless of borders.

[FringeNC]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Thank you. It doesn't seem to clarify if it doesn't apply to certain businesses though...or I didn't see it.

All businesses are effectlively interstate...

[Bootlegged]

Originally Posted by penchief

While self-determination is definitely a huge factor in someone achieving his or her personal goals, external factors cannot be completely ignored. If that were the case there would be no dictatorships or countries with great disparities between rich and poor. To suggest that everyone deserves the conditions that they've been subjected to is somewhat shortsighted, IMO.

Artificial barriers can be mandated by governments or by ruling classes. Our own history is a testament to that idea. According to some, slaves deserved to be slaves, African-Americans deserved to be second class citizens, women deserved not to have the vote, and small children deserved 15-hour days in sweat shops for pennies.

To suggest that behavior is the sole reason that some people live in poverty is just plain wrong, IMO. What is capable of happening anywhere else in this world is easily possible here. Human nature is human nature irregardless of borders.

Murtha would fix it.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by penchief

small children deserved 15-hour days in sweat shops for pennies.

This is where I take partial issue with the progressives of the earlier industrial revolution.

Where were those children before working in those shops?
They were begging out in the streets.
If you were young back then which would have looked like a better option?

Now I am not at all advocating for a return to child labor, but when we went from an agrarian society to a mass production society, you have to look at the relative improvement of even the worse case scenarios. Children always worked helping their families on their farms even before then. Was one reason for the summer school break.

In addition to the fact that more people could afford things that only the weathy could afford such as a change of clothes and soap to bathe more often because of mass production. Oh! But the Industrial Revolution is given a thoroughly bad rap by today's progressives as if it was the progressives alone that did anything to improve our conditions.

I was interested in hearing some specifics about what worker rights Bush has taken away...and what exactly is a worker's "rights?" Are these protected in the US Constitution?

[penchief]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

This is where I take partial issue with the progressives of the earlier industrial revolution.

Where were those children before working in those shops?
They were begging out in the streets.
If you were young back then which would have looked like a better option?

Now I am not at all advocating for a return to child labor, but when we went from an agrarian society to a mass production society, you have to look at the relative improvement of even the worse case scenarios. Children always worked helping their families on their farms even before then. Was one reason for the summer school break.

In addition to the fact that more people could afford things that only the weathy could afford such as a change of clothes and soap to bathe more often because of mass production. Oh! But the Industrial Revolution is given a thoroughly bad rap by today's progressives as if it was the progressives alone that did anything to improve our conditions.

I was interested in hearing some specifics about what worker rights Bush has taken away...and what exactly is a worker's "rights?" Are these protected in the US Constitution?

When I say, "rights" I use the term broadly. I think worker safety should trump profit. The recent rash of mining disasters exemplifies the underming and non-enforcement of those protections under the current political climate. Workers should have a reasonable expectation not to die unnecessarily.

Although the 40-hour work week is not a right it was borne from unfair practices. This administration endorsed rolling back overtime for "white collar Wall Street" types but the reality is that my 62 year-old mother who earns $8.15 per hour at Rite Aid lost her overtime.

This administration stood back and allowed corporations to reneg on their guaranteed pension plans. Even though they later said they didn't like it they acknowledged it with a wink and a nod.

Their efforts to drive down wages and bankrupt the national treasure only continue to compound the situation.

Even quality of life issues such as health care and environmental protections are directley related to the work environment. A factory that provides income for a community can often be a double-edged sword when they spew toxins into the very same communities they profess to serve.

We should always be shooting for progress. There is no reason to turn the clock back on worker conditions and benefits. A healthy robust community where opportunity and financial security are the end result of a job only contributes to the fiber of the community and the country. When everyone has a stake in the outcome there is a sense of interdependency and loyalty that transcends politics and profit. That sense of community and country is what made this nation great, IMO.

[listopencil]

This looked a good thread to bump now that MO has upped Minimum Wage.

[listopencil]

Hey, look. I bumped a thread.

[bevischief]

Who still gets paid the minimum wage any more?