NJ referendum on raising minimum wage. Opinions?

[s_stabeler]

I don't have a problem with a man like Bill Gates who takes a company from nothing and builds it up to where it is today. I don't have a problem with a man like William Clay Ford (or his son) who lives off the wealth that someone in his family started especially since that company still shares their name (And Jr. has taken a pretty strong role in saving said company). I don't even have a problem with a person like Horace Rackham (one of the earliest investors in Ford....made a ton of money and in turn donated a ton of money) because he risked that money. Where I start to have problems is with people like Mitt Romney who buy up a company and bleed it dry and leave the juiceless pulp for someone else to clean up. I really have a problem with companies like Goldman Sachs that sell a bag of shit and call it gold. Those last two categories seem to be the types that don't realize that their success comes with the help of other people. All they really do is make more money, they don't really contribute much other good to society. And I'm not sure they make money rather than just move it around while taking a piece for themselves.

agreed- inherited wealth is not inherently bad ( albeit I personally subscribe to the view that each generation should have to work their way up through the business, rather than live off of their parents/inheritance) it is companies that come up with complicated derivatives. I mean, even the retail side of banks have an actual use ( debt is not inherently bad, after all- a mortgage is all but essential to get a property, for example) but people thta set up and sell complicated deriviatives?

[Rapscallion]

I was typing at work and not as clear as I'd like to be - I think the gist is, is the person worthy of the money they have?

I think that was what I was trying to get over. Make more sense?

Rapscallion

[HYHYBT]

Someone has a load of money? Automatic respect, and what do you do with someone you respect? Give them tokens of respect, in this case money.

The other side of that is that even if you don't have money and don't enjoy showing off, it's often necessary to make yourself appear to have it in order to get more.

(Totally off topic, but at least two someones outside are running weed eaters or similar devices. In the dark, in November, in an area that's mainly offices and parking lots.)

[Gravekeeper]

I think that was what I was trying to get over. Make more sense?

Yeah, that's around about how I feel about the topic. I find whenever you have someone who earned their fortune vs someone who inherited it or otherwise had it handed to them. The former is always far more humble and generous about it. While the latter tends to be a butthole.

When you look at some of the most generous people in the world they're pretty much all people who earned their fortunes and/or lived in poverty early in life. Like Warren Buffet, George Soros, Bill Gates and Melinda Gates, Eli Broad, etc. All people worth billions that have likewise donated billions. But all were self made and/or grew up lower/middle class.

Essentially, people who know the value of a dollar, realize they have the power to do something and recognize that nobody needs as much money as they have.

[smileyeagle1021]

Something is going to give. I mean a huge chunk of the economic gains of the last 30 years has basically gone to the top. What makes them so special? Without the people working for them, they are nothing.

While this doesn't apply to everyone at the top (maybe not even the majority), without someone like Bill Gates to develop Windows, none of the Microsoft employees would even have a job, ditto Steve Jobs, and as much as I hate to say it the Walton family. The Waltons could at any time decide, we're content with our current fortune, we don't want to earn any more, and we're closing every single Wal-Mart... it will never happen, but if it did, yes the economy would eventually stabilize with some other company filling in the void, but the damage that would be done to the workers in the interim would be devastating.
Both Karl Marx and Ayn Rand were wrong, it is neither without the workers the wealthy are nothing nor without the wealthy the workers are nothing, it's without each other, both are nothing. The wealthy who are actually producing value (even if it is just risking their fortune, which is a major value in and of itself, never underestimate the value of capital... and of course, make sure it is actually risked, that there isn't going to be more bullshit government golden parachutes) deserve to be rewarded for that value, just as employees deserve to be rewarded for what they contribute to it. But, as has been mentioned (both by myself and others), simply dictating "you shall pay more" won't solve the problem. At best it would be a band aid solution that would fall off soon enough. What is needed is reform in education to make workers more productive (and thus more valuable) as well as reducing unemployment (making available workers more scarce and thus more valuable) and wages would slowly solve themselves. It is a much more painful way to do it, but in the long run it would be a more lasting and effective way of doing it. I hate to say it, but there are some jobs that legitimately are only worth $7.25 an hour (if not less), but there are people for whom that type of job would be perfect (high school and college students working for spending money or a second income for a family that already has its basic needs paid for etc).

[Andara Bledin]

Only if you think some people are only fit for indentured servitude does your attitude make any sense.

And it's deplorable, regardless.

[Gravekeeper]

Did you seriously just use a Job Creators(tm) argument? -.-

[smileyeagle1021]

Did you seriously just use a Job Creators(tm) argument? -.-

Just because it isn't true for all, or even most, or the rich, it definitely does apply to innovators and risk takers. I have a paycheck because someone was willing to take the risk of opening a business, we have the equipment to operate that business because an innovator came up with the idea of how they could make somethint better. Of course it doesn't work without the workers and the customers also, but in the tripod that is economic activity you can't get rid of one leg justbecause other legs like it tend to break.
Also, something that bothered me earlier that I hadn't been able to put my finger on until now... people kept justifying increaes in minimum wage on the basis of how many college grads are forced to work them... which I just realized, why the hell aren't they fighting for what the real solution to that problem, which is more jobs suitable to college grads?
also, the word indentured servitude was thrown out earlier... I have to ask, if minimum wage was returned to what it is supposed to be (jobs either for those who don't strictly need the income or for whom it will be a temporary position), how exactly would that be indentured? The idea that full employment will bring about higher wages for most people isn't just theory, it has been shown to happen every time unemployment gets down to healthy levels.
all that aside, I'll admit a personal bias against minimum wage increases over the absolute bare minimum to survive... that is that I was raised to be independent and proud and I want to know my wages come from me proving my worth rather than the government forcing it. If I can't do that, then I don't deserve more than mere subsistence.

[Gravekeeper]

Just because it isn't true for all, or even most, or the rich, it definitely does apply to innovators and risk takers.

Two more right wing buzz words. They're called investors and manufacturers. ;p

Seeing as they now earn 95% of all US income. While conversely, anyone making less than 114k a year has seen no income growth since Clinton for fark sakes. They're not exactly risk takers unless you work for a small business. In which case that's not who we're talking about anyhow.

Also, something that bothered me earlier that I hadn't been able to put my finger on until now... people kept justifying increaes in minimum wage on the basis of how many college grads are forced to work them... which I just realized, why the hell aren't they fighting for what the real solution to that problem, which is more jobs suitable to college grads?

A) That was a very small part of the discussion.

B) Why the hell aren't YOU fighting for better wages seeing as raising minimum wage to the level of 1958 threatens your ability to feel special about yourself.

also, the word indentured servitude was thrown out earlier... I have to ask, if minimum wage was returned to what it is supposed to be (jobs either for those who don't strictly need the income or for whom it will be a temporary position), how exactly would that be indentured?

Again, that is NOT what minimum wage is suppose to be or why it was created. Minimum wage was created to STOP the "indentured servitude" of jobs such as sweatshops. Modern minimum wage is suppose to be a livable wage. Not pizza money for teenagers as you oddly insist.

all that aside, I'll admit a personal bias against minimum wage increases over the absolute bare minimum to survive... that is that I was raised to be independent and proud and I want to know my wages come from me proving my worth rather than the government forcing it. If I can't do that, then I don't deserve more than mere subsistence.

What the fuck are you even talking about? Aside from the deplorable "Fuck ya'll. I got mine" there. Minimum wage is not about making you feel special about yourself. Its about allowing people to realistically live above poverty. When minimum wage is low, its the government that pays for it as a result by making up the shortfall through social programs.

Right now, your taxes are paying for that wage gap instead of the companies employing the workers in question. That's okay with you? Also, in this delusional free market utopia of yours, if wages were not regulated you would be paid shit and all. Your wage would not magically be protected once the minimum was removed. It would be a race to the bottom. Your wage is above minimum wage because minimum wage is the comparison being used for your wage. Oh, and to hell with your "pulling up by my bootstraps" crap.

Are there any more Fox News talking points you'd like to get off your chest?

[Andara Bledin]

all that aside, I'll admit a personal bias against minimum wage increases over the absolute bare minimum to survive... that is that I was raised to be independent and proud and I want to know my wages come from me proving my worth rather than the government forcing it.

So you want other people to suffer for the sake of your pride?

In what world is that reasonable?

[kamn]

which I just realized, why the hell aren't they fighting for what the real solution to that problem, which is more jobs suitable to college grads?

If you mean the college grads that are still studying, because those colleges attendees have a somewhat hectic schedule and aren't available all the time. It would be preferable for most businesses to have an unemployed person who is always available and pay them the same wage. It is a net gain for the risk takers. The unemployed also aren't as hopeful as college attendees seem to be, so it tends to be easier to push them around.
If you mean jobs for people that finished college, there are jobs out there, and there aren't enough of them. So they are forced to take the bare minimum.

I have to ask, if minimum wage was returned to what it is supposed to be (jobs either for those who don't strictly need the income or for whom it will be a temporary position), how exactly would that be indentured?

I must be missing some history. When was minimum wage supposed to be the minimum one can earn on the side? The minimum that can be earned by/for those that don't really need the money? Not being sarcastic, I truly do wish to know when this was the case. Beacuse logically, I can think minimum wage being pushed (particularly by unions) so that a job being done can sustain the person doing the job, not forcing them to work themselves to death.

The idea that full employment will bring about higher wages for most people isn't just theory, it has been shown to happen every time unemployment gets down to healthy levels.

And your point with this is...? That raising the minimum wage is somehow going to make employers less likely to give full employment to people? Why and how? Minimum wage is tied to hourly wage as much as to weekly/monthly wage and/or part time/full employment.

And if memory serves (pardon, I just got up), it has been shown in this thread, that full employment goes UP when minimum wage increases. Which is the cause and which is the effect?

[smileyeagle1021]

I have to ask in all earnestness what part of the word minimum is so hard for people to understand? I'll agree that the current minimum wage is not realistic, but it was never meant to provide a good life, just enough to live (hence the word minimum)... it was never intended for people to make a career out of it. It was meant as a safety net, a guarantee that if you work you will make at least enough to survive, much like unemployment insurance and social security.
And for the record, I don't watch Fox news... my shift to fiscal conservatism has had much more to do with living in an area where the liberal fiscal policies failed us utterly... despite the stimulus we still have high unemployment, despite all of the federal government's meddling we have high unemployment, despite all of the administration's promises of a better tomorrow, we still have high unemployment. Almost all improvements we've had have come from individuals who have gotten tired of waiting for a governmental solutions and have pulled themselves up and have been kind enough to pull others up with them. In Nevada, there are only three professions that have seen even a modest impact from the stimulus, road workers (which in fairness, with all the miles of interstate in Nevada, they were never really at risk, the stimulus just made good PR to lump it in as that rather than necessary maintenance), drone manufactures (yes, that is exactly what we want to be known for), and solar panel installers (solar panels which were made in China, yup that helped American workers a lot).
So I'll say it again, minimum wage increases may be needed to bring it in line with truly being minimum, but the problem isn't forcing a "livable" wage (what qualifies as livable is up to debate, I've heard people who swear that having a smart phone is an essential rather than just a phone, cell phone or landline) but getting all the people currently on unemployment to be working.

[Duelist925]

I have to ask in all earnestness what part of the word minimum is so hard for people to understand? I'll agree that the current minimum wage is not realistic, but it was never meant to provide a good life, just enough to live (hence the word minimum)... it was never intended for people to make a career out of it. It was meant as a safety net, a guarantee that if you work you will make at least enough to survive, much like unemployment insurance and social security.

It was meant to be the wage by which someone could take care of themselves and a family. The absolute MINIMUM possible for that. It was supposed to be a LIVABLE wage.

And your own point is invalid--Minimum wage right now ISN"T enough to survive on. It's barely enough for housing, for fucks sake, let alone food, utilities, or ANYTHING resembling relaxation.

And don't you dare give me some crap about people not deserving relaxation. Everyone deserves to unwind.

[smileyeagle1021]

I feel as if there must be a filter blocking out some of what I type... have I not said multiple times now that the minimum wage probably is not realistic and probably does need to be adjusted?
As far as everyone deserving to unwind... where exactly has that been established? The Bible does say that men should observe a Sabbath, but it does not specify that it should be anything more than a break from labor, not that it must be something that you spend money on (in fact I think the Bible may explicitly forbid it). The Constitution guarantees the right to pursue happiness, but it does not specify what that happiness is or that it must be something that costs money. Reading a library book is free, having conversations with friends is free, enjoying a walk in the park is free, quite a few things are free. Raise the minimum wage to the minimum to pay for food, rent, utilities, healthcare, and transportation, and if people want more than that, they can put in the effort needed to rise above minimum wage, be it through education, training, or any other legal/ethical means that they choose.

[crashhelmet]

I feel as if there must be a filter blocking out some of what I type... have I not said multiple times now that the minimum wage probably is not realistic and probably does need to be adjusted?
As far as everyone deserving to unwind... where exactly has that been established? The Bible does say that men should observe a Sabbath, but it does not specify that it should be anything more than a break from labor, not that it must be something that you spend money on (in fact I think the Bible may explicitly forbid it). The Constitution guarantees the right to pursue happiness, but it does not specify what that happiness is or that it must be something that costs money. Reading a library book is free, having conversations with friends is free, enjoying a walk in the park is free, quite a few things are free. Raise the minimum wage to the minimum to pay for food, rent, utilities, healthcare, and transportation, and if people want more than that, they can put in the effort needed to rise above minimum wage, be it through education, training, or any other legal/ethical means that they choose.

You're contradicting yourself. You say explain what minimum wage is and why it needs to be increased, but the increase it needs to meet your very definition offends you because it's what you make with your "speshul" college education.

People still stress the need for a college education, but degrees aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

I double majored in college (Music Education & Psychology) and have spent the last 17 years and 10 months in a completely different career than what my degrees are for (Information Technology). I made the change because I couldn't afford to live on my teaching salary in the SF Bay Area. Teachers here in Vegas make less, naturally, and I still can't afford to live on their salary. If I was married or had a second income, I could. But that's no different from someone making the current minimum wage. They need a second income to survive.

When I worked for UPS, busting my ass to keep their package delivery operations up and running, I got paid $13.35 an hour (I started at $11.10). Their delivery drivers were making $25 an hour PLUS 44 cents a mile (They're using company vehicles. There shouldn't be any pay for mileage). The new contract they just signed in August pays them $32.25 an hour with gradual increases up to $36.05 an hour by 2018. I don't know what the current mileage pay is.

Here in Vegas:
Union Electricians make $40.76, 1st year Apprentices start at $18.34 with percentage based increases every year until they finish their 5 year program.
Union Ironworkers make $40.82, Apprentices start at $24.52. Once again, with percentage based increases until they complete their 4 year program.
Union Carpenters make $34.60 ( I don't know what apprentices start at)

Not a single one of these jobs requires a college degree. All you need is a GED or a DD-214

People who made no effort to better their lives or gave a shit about education are making more than double what college educated people do.

So I'm sorry if your choice of college degrees and career aren't paying what you'd hoped for. I know how you feel.