Plan B Forum

Sure, hes just mad that they're not still illegal so you could pay them below minimum and then have them deported if they complained ;>

GOP rep.: Keep minimum wage low ‘for minorities’ who aren’t worth more than $7 an hour

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/gop- ... 7-an-hour/

California Republican Rep. Tom McClintock said on Thursday that the minimum wage should not be raised because low pay was necessary for minorities and other unskilled workers who were not worth more than $7 an hour.

During an appearance on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal, host Greta Brawner asked McClintock if he could get behind a presidential candidate like Mitt Romney, who is one of an increasing number of Republicans saying that the minimum wage should be at least $10.10 an hour. ... "

yrs,
rubato

Nothing you quoted was what he said. That's the interviewers/reporters interpretation.

What he actually said:

But McClintock argued that raising the minimum wage would “rip the first rung in the ladder of opportunity for teenagers, for minorities, for people who are trying to get into the job market for their first job.”

The California Republican explained that the minimum wage was not supposed to be a living wage that could support families.

“It’s not supposed to support a family. The minimum wage is that first job when you have no skills, no experience, no working history. That’s how you get into the job market, that’s how you develop that experience, develop that work record, get your first raise, then your next raise, then your promotion.”

McClintock continued: “If your labor is an unskilled person just entering the workforce is worth say $7 an hour at a job and the minimum wage is $10, you have just been made permanently unemployable. That first rung of the economic ladder has been ripped out and you can’t get on it. That is a tragedy.”

Nothing you quoted was what he said.

Of course - a bald-face lying post about a Republican followed by the facts which are almost as dumb as the lie.

Someone tell the man - if the MINIMUM wage is $10/hour, then no one's labour is worth only $7... duh! It is a simple case of the lowest value labour being priced higher than it used to be.

Is there any employer out there with a Mickey D job who says "Now who can I hire who's actually worth $10/hour? No, son - not you, no. You're only worth $7 so bugger off."


"Beatings will continue until you are worth more"

MajGenl.Meade wrote:Someone tell the man - if the MINIMUM wage is $10/hour, then no one's labour is worth only $7... duh! It is a simple case of the lowest value labour being priced higher than it used to be.

Is there any employer out there with a Mickey D job who says "Now who can I hire who's actually worth $10/hour? No, son - not you, no. You're only worth $7 so bugger off."

Oh Meade, there you go using logic again. You're just a hopeless optimist, aren't you.

"Now who can I hire who's actually worth $10/hour? No, son - not you, no. You're only worth $7 so bugger off."

I would bet some of the applicants to McD are worth much less than $7 and hour and in fact do not get hired.

I'm shocked!

Our resident scientist proved that you can make this up by making this up and saying you can't.

(and there's no way anyone could describe what he did any clearer than I just did)

somehow I seriously doubt that the hiring manager forms a wage profile for each candidate that comes in; when I hired people the only thing I was concerned about is how good of a job would they do

Sue U wrote:Oh Meade, there you go using logic again. You're just a hopeless optimist, aren't you.

That's a first for me*! Thanks. I'm more the kind who is sure that if the glass holds 50% of its capacity, some optimistic bastard will drink it all before I can get to it.


* er... not the use of logic... I don't mean that...

I say raise the minimum wage, (perhaps in a compromise package that also approves the Keystone Pipeline) and tie it to the inflation rate...

That way we can take this demagogic class warfare arrow out of the Democrats quiver once and for all...

Not that they don't have plenty of other demagogic class warfare arrows in their quiver; they have pretty much an endless supply...but at least they won't have this one any more. The damage this will do to the economy is fairly small.

My attitude about this is very similar to my attitude about immigration reform. On that, both Houses should take up the bill the Senate passed in the last session , pass it, and get this behind us. It's not worth the damage caused by continually getting beat up over it.

Sue U wrote:

MajGenl.Meade wrote:Someone tell the man - if the MINIMUM wage is $10/hour, then no one's labour is worth only $7... duh! It is a simple case of the lowest value labour being priced higher than it used to be.

Is there any employer out there with a Mickey D job who says "Now who can I hire who's actually worth $10/hour? No, son - not you, no. You're only worth $7 so bugger off."

Oh Meade, there you go using logic again. You're just a hopeless optimist, aren't you.

Logical perhaps, but Eyeore cannot be optimistic. It's constitutionally impossible.

oldr_n_wsr wrote:

"Now who can I hire who's actually worth $10/hour? No, son - not you, no. You're only worth $7 so bugger off."

I would bet some of the applicants to McD are worth much less than $7 and hour and in fact do not get hired.

I dunno oldr, starting wage at McDonald's here is $10/hr., yet they still can't seem to get my simple Big Mac & fries order correct.

I don't begrudge a higher minimum wage at all - it's a more expensive world. When I consider folks making that wage right now, I'm just dumbfounded - it's barely more than I was making 30 years ago in my first job in high school. That's crazy!

yet they still can't seem to get my simple Big Mac & fries order correct.

You make my point. Paying $10 or more an hour is not going to "up the class" of people applying for the job. You are going to mostly get those that are incapable of doing anything else, or the people just starting out. If they can't get it right at $10, do you pay them more in the hope they will get it right?

During the Occupy Wall street, or during one of the debates about the minimum wage a year or so ago how this one lady was working at McD's for a bunch of years (7 years comes to mind) and how she was still making just above minimum wage. Well jeez, her problem is her own. There are ways to move up in the local McD's and she is still asking "you want fries with that". Or maybe she hasn't even gotten to the front line and still just flips burgers. Come on now. Someone said to me way back when; "If all you every do is your job, then that's all you will ever do".

So then oldr, if paying $10/hour is not going to "up the class" of people applying for the job, I take it you also disagree with McLintock when he

argued that raising the minimum wage would “rip the first rung in the ladder of opportunity for teenagers, for minorities, for people who are trying to get into the job market for their first job.”

This proves you and I are a lot smarter than he is.

Don't go all gushy - I think a rock might qualify for that encomium too

I agree with him in that many of these jobs do get filled by those just starting out. I worked in fast food when I was 19yo. It was not meant to be my "career" although I was promoted twice and could have become a manager if I wanted the job. Pay raises came with each promotion.

I agree with him in that many of these jobs do get filled by those just starting out

Well, I'm glad we've got both of you to tell us that... I wouldn't have guessed that in a million years!

Right back at ya

One of the most persuasive arguments I've seen for raising the minimum wage was actually first posted here by rube...

At $7.00 an hour the government is subsidizing labor costs for businesses in a variety of ways; food stamps, EIC, healthcare, WIC, etc...

Since government is subsidizing labor costs, then it certainly has a right to set a wage level that will reduce those subsides.

What is usually missing from the minimum wage debate is the actual purpose of the minimum wage. Originally, it was implemented in the U.S. as part of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Too many employers took advantage of the Depression to pay pittances for full days of work, among other excessive employment tactics. As a result, Congress enacted the minimum wage of 25 cent per hour as the "fair" minimum amount that anyone should be paid for labor. Anything less was considered usurious and exploitive by an employer. Here is an inflation adjusted look at the history of the minimum wage:



Over the years, this original purpose has been lost or muffled as the reasons for the minimum wage morph into "living wage", fighting poverty, etc. However, it has been shown to be ineffective in fighting poverty, and it is a political and an economic non-starter to chase after the illusory living wage (especially when there are much better models, such as the earned income tax credit, for providing family income support).

Similarly, the rationale that the minimum wage subsidizes employers because their workers still qualify for welfare benefits is equally misguided. A job is worth what it is worth, and many jobs do not provide sufficient income to cover the cost of living -- this is why there are programs to deal with this situation. As pointed out in the below article, many of those programs need to be better designed to not penalize work as the marginal tax rate for many low-end workers makes working not worth the effort as their benefits drop too quickly as they earn wages.

There is a recognition by everyone that setting the rate too high will cause economic problems. However, as the wage has historically been set to prevent exploitation (i.e., to prevent a de facto serfdom at low-wage businesses), it applies to only about 2% of workers, most of whom are part-time and younger than age 24. As a result, it has a minimal impact on the economy as a whole, though it certainly impacts certain unskilled people and low-margin/low-cost businesses. If the wage is set above that minimal level, look only to the Samoa example (in the below article) to see the damaging impact it can have on wide swaths of the population.

http://www.heritage.org/research/testim ... he-economy

The minimum wage becomes a political football when it remains frozen for several years and loses purchasing power, and then there has to be a substantial increase to catch up. Look at that graph - the minimum wage has only rarely varied by more than a dollar from its historical constant dollar average. Tieing minimum wage increases to inflation would avoid those troughs and peaks. and would also depoliticize it.

95% of advocates for a higher minimum wage would be satisfied with that. Of course, 95% of those who rail against minimum wage increases would never go for it, so it would never pass.