Let's talk about the minimum wage - Page 26 - Politics and Economics

Two Plus Two Forums Other Topics Politics

Let's talk about the minimum wage

...

Page 26 of 75

First

6 16 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 36 46

Last

Page 26 of 75

First

6 16 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 36 46

Last

06-10-2012 , 03:17 AM

#626

tzwien

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 5,267

It's not something to think about. Everything you said is dishonest drivel. We've already gone over basically everything in that post multiple times about how it's dishonest or flat out untrue. Headbanging over.

06-10-2012 , 04:20 AM

#627

ILOVEPOKER929

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 30,561

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrWookie

I don't necessarily agree with this, but it's a pretty good post. Something to think about. The obvious criticism is that the standard of living under slavery is considerably worse than the standard of living demanded by the "living wage" crowd. But your phrasing is at least artful.

Well I think it's worth pointing out that there was a time in the United States where economically speaking, the standard of living of a slave was arguably better than the standard of living of the wage laborer:

Quote:

The view that wage work has substantial similarities with chattel slavery was actively put forward in the late 18th and 19th centuries by defenders of chattel slavery (most notably in the Southern states of the US), and by opponents of capitalism (who were also critics of chattel slavery).[10][26] Some defenders of slavery, mainly from the Southern slave states argued that Northern workers were "free but in name – the slaves of endless toil," and that their slaves were better off.[27] This contention has been partly corroborated by some modern studies that indicate slaves' material conditions in the 19th century were "better than what was typically available to free urban laborers at the time."[28][29] In this period, Henry David Thoreau wrote that “[i]t is hard to have a Southern overseer; it is worse to have a Northern one; but worst of all when you are the slave-driver of yourself.”[30]

Source.

Quote:

Criticisms of wage work in the literature draw several similarities with slavery:

Since the chattel slave is property, his value to an owner is in some ways higher than that of a worker who may quit, be fired or replaced. The chattel slave's owner has made a greater investment in terms of the money he paid for the slave. For this reason, in times of recession, chattel slaves could not be fired like wage laborers. A "wage slave" could also be harmed at no (or less) cost. American chattel slaves in the 19th century had improved their standard of living from the 18th century[28] and, according to historians Fogel and Engerman plantation records show that slaves worked less, were better fed and whipped only occasionally—their material conditions in the 19th century being "better than what was typically available to free urban laborers at the time".[29] This was partially due to slave psychological strategies under an economic system different from capitalist wage slavery. According to Mark Michael Smith of the Economic History Society: "although intrusive and oppressive, paternalism, the way masters employed it, and the methods slaves used to manipulate it, rendered slaveholders' attempts to institute capitalistic work regimens on their plantation ineffective and so allowed slaves to carve out a degree of autonomy."[41]

Source.

And the fact that the "'living wage' crowd" IS advocating for a better standard of living than under slavery doesn't refute my implied claim that workers are generally more exploited (economically speaking) under capitalism than under slavery. I think that's self-evidently true given the fact that capitalists don't have to pay their workers a living wage, provide free healthcare or even enough food to survive whereas slaveholders DO (out of rational self-interest) have to carry on those burdens. Although in certain places in the world like the United States, many western European countries, etc, this self-evident truth is not self-evident at all due to the fact that popular struggle has largely prevented the standard of living under capitalism from dropping to or below that of the chattel slave:

Quote:

Similarly, various strategies and struggles adopted by wage laborers contributed to the creation of labor unions and welfare institutions, etc. that helped improve standards of living since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Nevertheless, worldwide, work-related injuries and illnesses still kill at least 2.3 million workers per year[42] with "between 184 and 208 million workers suffer[ing] from work-related diseases" and about "270 million" non-lethal injuries of varying severity "caused by preventable factors at the workplace".[43]--a number that may or may not compare favorably with chattel slavery's.

Source.

But as indicated above and pointed out in the below quote, this improvement in the standard of living of the wage laborer is not due to capitalism, but due to popular struggle AGAINST capitalism:

Quote:

"In this country, let's put aside the mass inequalities. Let's put aside the tens of millions of people who struggle from hand to mouth. Let's put aside the many who live without real economic security which might include many of us. Let's put aside the desperate ones at the very bottom. Let's even put aside the middle class people who are getting ripped off left and right with their taxes and overwork and loss of benefits and the like. Let's put aside the impoverishment of the public sector and the destruction of a livable environment. Let's accept the idea that we live in great material abundance which in fact compared to much of the world we do. Many in this country do live well.

But it wasn't capitalism that gave us this standard of living. It was the democratic struggle AGAINST capitalism. They didn't give us all these things. I mean why don't we Americans work for 15 cents an hour as they do in Haiti and Indonesia . Is it because we're just so much more self-respecting? Is that it? No, it's because the democratic class struggle has advanced to a more favorable level and that's happened only in the last few generations. In 1900 America was a third world country, half a century before the term was invented. We were a third world nation. Child labor was wide spread, poverty was wide spread, 14 hour work days, ten year olds working in factories for 14 hours, seven days a week. No social services to speak of. A few church soup kitchens and charities maybe. No social benefits. Typhoid epidemics in our major cities. Tuberculosis and other diseases of poverty. No public housing or public health programs. Very little public education. No public libraries really. Advances came not with capitalism. That condition, that's what capitalism gave us. That's what the country was, a pure free market ,unregulated, undiluted capitalism in 1900, but massive margins of profit, huge margins of profit. Massive massive massive wealth for the Melons and the Morgans and the Huntingtons and the Hartfords and the Rockefellers and the Carnegies and the Vanderbilts... more money then they knew what to do with, and you know what they wanted after they got that money? They wanted more, and they wanted more, and they would destroy whole communities to get MORE and more and more. Wealth my friends, wealth is the most damaging and the most dangerous addiction that this society faces.

It was the PEOPLE! It was the American people. It was the working people in this country, who fought and fought for the 8 hour day. Who fought for public education. Who fought for public health services. It was the people who fought for decent housing and a decent standard of living, who fought for a minimum wage. Who fought against discrimination. Name one great leader, name one great political leader. Name one great intellectual who fought and did those things. No those people, they jumped on the bandwagon after the people fought. And It was the plutocrats, it was the capitalists, it was the economic royalists who fought AGAINST every one of those things. They fought AGAINST giving you a decent wage. They're still fighting against that. They're still fighting for wage cuts. They fought AGAINST social security. They fought AGAINST occupational safety, they're still fighting against it. They fought AGAINST environmental protections, they still are fighting against it and undermining it in every way they can because they're afraid they're gonna lose out on a dollar because every dollar they gotta give to you, every dollar they gotta spend on stupid things like public safety and wages and occupational safety and consumer product safety, every dollar wasted on stupid things like that which the free market would take care of, every dollar spent on that is one less dollar for their insatiable greed. And that's it, so don't credit the capitalists for giving you whatever modicum of prosperity you have. We got it despite it. We tore it outta their teeth and outta their greedy claws. And we still gotta hold on to it and they're trying to get it back from us."

--Political scientist/historian, Michael Parenti

(Source)

So although I think it's true that the very nature of capitalism should lead to a lower standard of living for the wage laborer than the slave, as implied by Friedrich Engels words...

Quote:

The slave is sold once and for all; the proletarian must sell himself daily and hourly. The individual slave, property of one master, is assured an existence, however miserable it may be, because of the master's interest. The individual proletarian, property as it were of the entire bourgeois class which buys his labor only when someone has need of it, has no secure existence.

Source.

...Or as implied by the words of pro-slavery advocates in 19th century United States...

Quote:

Labor advocates and land reformers were not the only Americans who equated wage labor with slavery. A similar attack on the northern wage system came from southern defenders of slavery. Before the 1830s, few southerners offered a systematic defense of slavery; most considered it a necessary evil. Only the advent of abolitionism provoked them to defend slavery on moral grounds, as a "positive good," in the words of John C. Calhoun.

Central to the proslavery argument was an attack on capitalist labor relations. "No successful defence of slavery can be made," wrote George Fitzhugh, the leading ideologist of southern slavery, "till we succeed in refuting or invalidating the principles on which free society rests for support or defence." Like northern labor leaders, Fitzhugh argued that the wage-earners of the North were no more free than the slaves of the South: "Capital commands labor, as the master does the slave." The only difference was that southern masters took responsibility for their slaves, supporting them in sickness and old age, while northern capitalists took none for theirs: "You, with the command over labor which your capital gives you, are a slave owner--a master, without the obligations of a master. They who work for you, who create your income, are slaves, without the rights of slaves."

According to Fitzhugh, northern wage laborers, who lived in constant poverty and insecurity, were actually less free than southern slaves, who at least had masters obligated to sustain them in sickness and old age: "The free laborer must work or starve. He is more of a slave than the negro, because he works longer and harder for less allowance than the slave, and has no holiday, because the cares of life with him begin when its labors end....Capital exercises a more perfect compulsion over free laborers than human masters over slaves; for free laborers must at all times work or starve, and slaves are supported whether they work or not....Though each free laborer has no particular master, his wants and other men's capital make him a slave without a master, or with too many masters, which is as bad as none."

Echoing the arguments of northern land reformers, Fitzhugh charged that the monopoly of property in the hands of capitalists deprived northern laborers of true freedom: "What is falsely called Free Society is a very recent invention. It proposes to make the weak, ignorant, and poor, free by turning them loose in a world owned exclusively by the few." But "[t]he man without property is theoretically, and, too often, practically without a single right." Left "to inhale the close and putrid air of small rooms, damp cellars and crowded factories," he has nowhere to lay his head, "Private property has monopolized the earth, and destroyed both his liberty and equality. He has no security for his life, for he cannot live without employment and adequate wages, and none are bound to employ him." Were he a slave, he would be no less dependent, but at least he would have the assurance of food, clothing, and shelter. In a defiant challenge to abolitionists, Fitzhugh invoked, in effect, the labor movement's conception of freedom: "Set your miscalled free laborers actually free, by giving them enough property or capital to live on, and then call on us at the South to free our negroes." Until then, he insisted, northern wage laborers would be less free than southern slaves.

Other southerners defended slavery in similar terms. Senator James Henry Hammond of South Carolina disputed the claim that, except for the South, the whole world had abolished slavery. "Aye, the name, but not the thing," Hammond declared; "the man who lives by daily labor, and scarcely lives at that, and who has to put out his labor in the market, and take the best he can get for it; in short, your whole hireling class of manual laborers and 'operatives,' as you call them, are essentially slaves. The difference between us is, that our slaves are hired for life and well compensated; there is no starvation, no begging....Yours are hired by the day, not cared for, and scantily compensated," as evidenced by the beggars in the streets of northern cities.

"Democracy's Discontent: America in search of a public philosophy" by Micheal J. Sandel, pg. 175-7

...popular struggle has often been successful in preventing the standard of living from dropping under capitalism to it's "natural" level--a level that for basic reasons stated above would end up being below that of the chattel slave.

Only to the extent that popular struggle is successful in preventing the capitalist class from achieving its goal of the "Third Worldization of the entire world including Europe and North America, a New World Order in which capital rules supreme with no public sector services or labor unions to speak of; no prosperous, literate, effectively organized working class or highly educated middle class with rising expectations and a strong sense of entitlement; no public medical care, pension funds, occupational safety, or environmental and consumer protection, or any of the other insufferable things that might cut into profits and lead to a more egalitarian distribution of life chances"(Michael Parenti), will we have a standard of living that looks a lot better than the chattel slave.

In "exploitative, repressive, free market countries like Indonesia, Nigeria, and Haiti"(Parenti) and the Third World in general where "countries are so weak that they can't really solve their internal problems in the face of US power; they can't even control their own wealthy"(Chomsky)--free market paradises where those who dare to to form or join "'popular organizations'-peasant associations, cooperatives, unions, Church-based Bible study groups that evolved into self-help groups"(Chomsky), face extreme oppression from capitalist friendly dictators and death squads--conditions where the standard of living is worse than the average mid-19th century American chattel slave become apparent.

In short, popular struggle confuses the issue because people power can and has overcome money power and artificially boosted the standard of living under capitalism above its "natural state" so to speak (things like minimum wage come to mind), a state that without popular intervention would be below that of the chattel slave. This is why, "The obvious criticism" you mentioned above is not a valid critique of what I'm saying.

Last edited by ILOVEPOKER929; 06-10-2012 at 04:26 AM.

06-10-2012 , 09:09 AM

#628

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bored5000

What is even more amazing is that no one in the entire thread has advocated anything remotely close to a $100 hour minimum wage, yet it keeps being put out there as if anyone in this thread has even advocated or suggested such a thing. IMO, there is a hell of a big difference between a minimum wage that makes people "rich" and a minimum wage that allows people to actually eat.

Yes, that's true. You're missing the point of the $100 example though.

Any time you make a "it's only a couple of bucks more" argument you're implicitly making a $100/hr argument without realizing it.

06-10-2012 , 09:13 AM

#629

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

Quote:

Originally Posted by Montrealcorp

and i have a better idea, why not make all get paid 1$ an hour instead and move us to africa...
cause ure arguments arent even worth talking about...

See, this is where you run off the rails. The alternative to mandating whatever arbitrary wage is not mandating some other different alternative arbitrary wage. Nobody you're arguing with is suggesting that anyone "make" other people "get paid" a certain amount.

Quote:

think about cost of 1 litre of milk and how much it cost to buy 1 week of consumable at a grocery store, to give u hint....

the expense of the things you want to buy doesn't impact what your labor is worth to other people. what you can do for them does.

Quote:

cause seem u need i school u to show your replyed arent worth anything

100$/hour is stupid to talk about, u work 1 hour and u eat for all week,duh duh...

anyway pretty obvious those 2 last poster u just cant ever have a real discussion anyway...

06-10-2012 , 09:58 AM

#630

Montrealcorp

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 15,752

Quote:

Originally Posted by pvn

the expense of the things you want to buy doesn't impact what your labor is worth to other people. what you can do for them does.

i see, so the increase of salary are done first, than the consumables product price get increase .

funny cause in public sector, u make a social/salary contract for 4 years and when u try to negociate another contract for salary, usually they see how the economy is going.
if lot of inflation about, the salary usually go up cause.
if a recession happens u might not have even a salary increase wich happen often.
deflation well than.....

06-10-2012 , 09:59 AM

#631

Montrealcorp

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 15,752

good post i lovepoker929

06-10-2012 , 10:13 AM

#632

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

Quote:

Originally Posted by Montrealcorp

is there a point in here somewhere?

06-10-2012 , 10:30 AM

#633

Montrealcorp

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 15,752

Quote:

Originally Posted by pvn

the expense of the things you want to buy doesn't impact what your labor is worth to other people. what you can do for them does.

ure the one saying the salary u gain is only base on what it does for others arent u ?
me i say there s a lot more thing than that.
inflation is one.

so the cost of consumable those affect our salary, especially when u cant bargain your salary more than once 3-5 years.

06-10-2012 , 11:32 AM

#634

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

Quote:

Originally Posted by Montrealcorp

ure the one saying the salary u gain is only base on what it does for others arent u ?
me i say there s a lot more thing than that.
inflation is one.

But inflation would affect me as well and what I'm willing to pay for labor. It also would affect the people competing for the job.

If the guy who mows my yard decides he needs a boat should I have to pay him more so he can afford it?

06-10-2012 , 12:27 PM

#635

MrWookie

Don't Call Me Meredith

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 94,159

Quote:

Originally Posted by pvn

the expense of the things you want to buy doesn't impact what your labor is worth to other people. what you can do for them does.

...and that you're willing to do it for less than anyone else.

06-10-2012 , 01:19 PM

#636

Poker Reference

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 4,877

"Less" isn't the primary consideration. The consideration is value within the going rate for the job, within what your budget will tolerate.

For the record, I don't have a strong position on this. I do believe businesses are the bridge between public and private life, so wear both hats as far as balancing private freedom with social considerations. Still, every non-franchise owner recognizes that you get what you pay for, and offering minimum wage to, like, an accountant is just going to get you thrown in debtor's prison down the road. You aren't any more eager to find the cheapest employees than you would go to the cheapest dentist or hire the cheapest electrical contractor.

As a rule:
- Non-revenue-generating employees are paid less than productive employees.
- That both might have comparable life expenses doesn't change what they're giving in exchange for pay.
- You get what you pay for.
- Business owners don't make **** loads of money. (from $30-40K up to $100K if they've been around some years)
- The less you pay in wages, the nearer you need to locate yourself to transit hubs, which are way more expensive than locations further afield. Edit, which is another value calculation. I was thinking about moving this summer, and could have saved 30% on my rent as long as I could live without HVAC and most of my electrical requirements, then hire new labour who can drive.

Last edited by Poker Reference; 06-10-2012 at 01:37 PM.

06-10-2012 , 01:58 PM

#637

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrWookie

...and that you're willing to do it for less than anyone else.

No, that impacts what price you might end up agreeing upon. slightly different

06-10-2012 , 05:33 PM

#638

bernie

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 18,884

Quote:

Originally Posted by pvn

Actually you're taking the concept and putting it in a vacuum without realizing it, or you're just being intellectually dishonest since there is a gray area.

History (and current labor issues in other countries) shows how disastrous taking away wage laws is to workers. The BS being thrown into this thread is 'that would never happen again' w/o looking at other labor forces being exploited to the hilt by companies that used to employ more americans. This is beside the point of the people in this thread that don't understand how coercion is a factor in wage negotiations(another intellectual dishonest argument).

b

06-10-2012 , 05:41 PM

#639

bernie

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 18,884

Quote:

Originally Posted by tzwien

Of course you could try to do it convincingly. You know, like showing where a labor market(post-industrial) with no wage laws was good for society in general and the workers had decent living/working conditions.

b

06-10-2012 , 05:56 PM

#640

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

Quote:

Originally Posted by bernie

The reason workers in the US are less exploited is that they have skills and information, not because there is a minimum wage law.

06-10-2012 , 06:08 PM

#641

bernie

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 18,884

Quote:

Originally Posted by pvn

The reason workers in the US are less exploited is that they have skills and informationyes, info about what happens when you cut labor/wage laws, not because there is a minimum wage law.

Because they were even less exploited prior to wage/labor laws?

Many aren't being as exploited because they're on the unemployment line. I know some on here act as if $2 an hour is better than nothing, disregarding what life is like in the US living on $4k a year.

b

06-10-2012 , 06:12 PM

#642

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

I'm pretty sure living on $4k/year is better than living on $0k/year

06-10-2012 , 06:53 PM

#643

bernie

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 18,884

Quote:

Originally Posted by pvn

I'm pretty sure living on $4k/year is better than living on $0k/year

$300 a month? How far is that really going(obviously geographically dependent, even so, $300 a month is abysmal)?

Pretty sure the living conditions are about the same, just as the chances of moving up, socioeconomically, are about the same(but damn, if they just worked a bit harder). I'm pretty sure the difference in quality of life is pretty small, if at all significant.

There are 'freegans' who can live close to $0/year. Life of luxury...

b

06-10-2012 , 07:05 PM

#644

Henry17

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 27,710

The problem with your reasoning is that you incorrectly assume that without legislation $2/hr jobs would exist in the States -- they wouldn't.

06-10-2012 , 07:17 PM

#645

bernie

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 18,884

Quote:

Originally Posted by Henry17

The problem with your reasoning is that you incorrectly assume that without legislation $2/hr jobs would exist in the States -- they wouldn't.

Really? W/o wage/labor laws $2 hr jobs wouldn't exist? I guess if one ignores the reasons we implemented labor laws along with looking at other countries w/o labor laws, one could say that.

b

06-10-2012 , 07:21 PM

#646

Henry17

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 27,710

Quote:

Originally Posted by bernie

Really? W/o wage/labor laws $2 hr jobs wouldn't exist? I guess if one ignores the reasons we implemented labor laws along with looking at other countries w/o labor laws, one could say that.

b

Can you list a country where people make the equivalent of #2/hr once you factor the relative cost of living?

06-10-2012 , 09:33 PM

#647

Montrealcorp

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 15,752

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum...r_consequences

"Statutory minimum wages were also proposed as a way to control the proliferation of sweat shops in manufacturing industries. The sweat shops employed large numbers of women and young workers, paying them what were considered to be substandard wages. The sweatshop owners were thought to have unfair bargaining power over their workers, and a minimum wage was proposed as a means to make them pay "fairly". "

"Direct empirical studies indicate that anti-poverty effects in the U.S. would be quite modest, even if there were no unemployment effects. Very few low-wage workers come from families in poverty. Those primarily affected by minimum wage laws are teenagers and low-skilled adult females who work part time"

"In 2006, the International Labour Organization (ILO)[6] argued that the minimum wage could not be directly linked to unemployment in countries that have suffered job losses. In April 2010, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)[47] released a report arguing that countries could alleviate teen unemployment by “lowering the cost of employing low-skilled youth” through a sub-minimum training wage. A study of U.S. states showed that businesses' annual and average payrolls grow faster and employment grew at a faster rate in states with a minimum wage.[48] The study showed a correlation, but did not claim to prove causation."

"Although strongly opposed by both the business community and the Conservative Party when introduced in 1999, the minimum wage introduced in the UK is no longer controversial and the Conservatives reversed their opposition in 2000.[49] A review of its effects found no discernible impact on employment levels.[50] However, prices in the minimum wage sector were found to have risen significantly faster than prices in non-minimum wage sectors, most notably in the four years following the implementation of the minimum wage.[51]"

"Since the introduction of a national minimum wage in the UK in 1999, its effects on employment were subject to extensive research and observation by the Low Pay Commission. The Low Pay Commission found that, rather than make employees redundant, employers have reduced their rate of hiring, reduced staff hours, increased prices, and have found ways to cause current workers to be more productive (especially service companies).[52] Neither trade unions nor employer organizations contest the minimum wage, although the latter had especially done so heavily until 1999"

i find think link pretty helpfull with some of the quote i put here.
Plus if britain conservative can do it, US conservatism can too

!

main point is if MW cost job, its teenage and part time job being concerned and the effect is minimum and can be even almost non existant, tho the benefit are obvious on hugely larger scale

ps:
- "According to a 1978 article in the American Economic Review, 90 percent of the economists surveyed agreed that the minimum wage increases unemployment among low-skilled workers."

- "Until the 1990s, economists generally agreed that raising the minimum wage reduced employment"

- "A 2000 survey by Dan Fuller and Doris Geide-Stevenson reports that of a sample of 308 American Economic Association economists, 45.6% fully agreed with the statement, "a minimum wage increases unemployment among young and unskilled workers...that the reduction on consensus on this question is "likely" due to the Card and Krueger research and subsequente debate."

- " In 2007, Klein and Dompe conducted a non-anonymous survey of supporters of the minimum wage who had signed the "Raise the Minimum Wage" statement published by the Economic Policy Institute.They found that a majority signed on the grounds that it transferred income from employers to workers, or equalized bargaining power between them in the labor market. In addition, a majority considered disemployment to be a moderate potential drawback to the increase they supported"

it seem to me the trend is pretty clear in favor of MW

06-10-2012 , 09:35 PM

#648

TomCollins

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 43,064

Quote:

Originally Posted by Henry17

Can you list a country where people make the equivalent of #2/hr once you factor the relative cost of living?

Probably a neighborhood paperboy type job might make $2/hour.

06-10-2012 , 09:40 PM

#649

seattlelou

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 31,584

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomCollins

Probably a neighborhood paperboy type job might make $2/hour.

Does anyone still have a paperboy?

06-10-2012 , 09:52 PM

#650

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

Cliffs: we've got a ton of unemployed people now that won't take $10/hr jobs because they're used to making $25, but if we got rid of the minimum wage they'd suddenly be tripping over themselves to take $2/hr jobs.

Page 26 of 75

First

6 16 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 36 46

Last

...

Page 26 of 75

First

6 16 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 36 46

Last