Republicans block minimum wage increase bill

[Guest]

In the UK at least, the minimum wage is a way of ensuring that wages are at least livable on such that the Government doesn't have to pick up the slack in supportive benefits. However this intention is not been achieved because the minimum wage has fallen below the cost of living and many companies are offering zero hours contracts or just part time. This means that a substantial number of "working" people are dependent on welfare supports to their "wages" to get by on. To me this represents a substantial failure of employers to offer a viable income to their employees and complicity by the Government in accepting that "real" living jobs are no longer the norm.

However i would say this is simply a reversion to the "good old days" before the welfare state, when most people lived on or below the poverty line and often earned to little to feed themselves or their families. It seems that the lobbyists for industry are attempting to role back the clock to those good old days.

Br Cornelius

[Socio]

What are the sources of the information provided? Was a statistical table used? This information could very well be accurate, but without providing the sources, it's impossible to know.

I don't want to derail this thread so will make it brief.

The Heritage Foundation did detail analysis in 2007 complete with charts and tables and put the cost at $22,000 per immigrant illegal and legal per year;

Detailed report: http://www.heritage....the-us-taxpayer

Quick synopsis: [media=]

[/media]

BearSterns did an independent study in 2005 putting the number of illegals in the is US at 18-20 million whom illegally occupy 12-15 million jobs;

http://www.illegalal...earns Study.pdf

So at a cost $22,000 times 20 million illegals if I did the math right is 440 billion and that is really the medium if you consider;

Ohio's numbers that admittedly did not account for all the expednitures at 879 million with the reported100,000 illegals that is about $9,000 per immigrant, times that by 22 million and that is 198 billion.

LA Counties numbers 1.6 billion spent per year on estimated 100,000 children of 60,000 undocumented parents in the county : http://www.breitbart...elfare-Benefits

160,000 illegal parents and children at 1.6 billion is 100,000 per person per year times 22 million illegal immigrants...

Washington Times 2013 reported illegal immigrants sending 120 billion abroad;

http://www.washingto...120b-back-home/

So yes easily in excess a half a trillion per year and this is without factoring in other costs I mentioned.

Edited May 6, 2014 by Socio

[Leonardo]

I don't want to derail this thread so will make it brief.

The Heritage Foundation did detail analysis in 2007 complete with charts and tables and put the cost at $22,000 per immigrant illegal and legal per year;

Detailed report: http://www.heritage....the-us-taxpayer

Quick synopsis: [media=]

[/media]

BearSterns did an independent study in 2005 putting the number of illegals in the is US at 18-20 million whom illegally occupy 12-15 million jobs;

http://www.illegalal...earns Study.pdf

So at a cost $22,000 times 20 million illegals if I did the math right is 440 billion and that is really the medium if you consider;

Ohio's numbers that admittedly did not account for all the expednitures at 879 million with the reported100,000 illegals that is about $9,000 per immigrant, times that by 22 million and that is 198 billion.

LA Counties numbers 1.6 billion spent per year on estimated 100,000 children of 60,000 undocumented parents in the county : http://www.breitbart...elfare-Benefits

160,000 illegal parents and children at 1.6 billion is 100,000 per person per year times 22 million illegal immigrants.

Washington Times 2013 reported illegal immigrants sending 120 billion abroad;

http://www.washingto...120b-back-home/

So yes easily in excess a half a trillion per year and this is without factoring in other costs I mentioned.

With all due respect to those surveys, they are misleading. The only offset against the cost of benefits and services given, is direct tax - i.e. income tax.

However, all those immigrants have to live and to do so they will spend. The money they spend (and they spend it in the US), including the indirect taxes associated with that money, should also be factored into the equation because, without those 18-20 million immigrants ("illegals"), the local, regional and national economies would not be as strong.

Edited May 6, 2014 by Leonardo

[spartan max2]

Nixon did it so there is precedent. And Nixon invaded Cambodia. We all got mad and protested. The cops kicked our asses and the National Guard shot us down like dogs

It sounds like something needs to be done to restrict the executive branch.

Presidents should not be able to make laws that fail, start wars without a vote and not enforce national laws that they do not like.

They get away with it because when they abuse power like this a certain amount of the population supports the decision so they let them get away with it.

Do you support Obama making a law that failed in the voting process to raise minimum wage? Or is it different then Cambodia because you support a minimum wage increase?

Edited May 6, 2014 by spartan max2

[Gunn]

Republicans won't be able to stop this. Obama already said he would do it by executive order if necessary

He's just talking political smack in order to look good in front of his supporters and the Republicans act like they're gonna keep blocking it just to look good in front of their supporters. It's all a political act, man. Both sides will eventually make some sort of deal and raise the minimum wage before Obama is out of office.

Look at this federal minimum wage history chart from the U.S. Department of Labor:

http://www.dol.gov/w...nwage/chart.htm

Don't be fooled by all this political drama, it's halfass real. They all do this crap just to get their supporters riled up about it. It's been going on since the days of FDR.

[Einsteinium]

Japan is already replacing unskilled jobs with robots. If we increase the minimum wage too much, mark my words, we will see more and more robots replacing those minimum wage jobs here in the US. Robots can work 24/7, with only the cost of electricity and maintenance to keep them going, no complaints, no sick days, no health insurance, no workers comp or overtime pay.

Eventually, more and more robots will replace more and more workers. What will happen then? Our economy will have to shift in some fundamental way eventually in order for it to work with the technology that is on the horizon.

[Gromdor]

We are already doing that regardless of minimum wage. The problem is none of the extra-profitability due to automation gets passed to the workers. I really do forsee a "Wally" type world in the future. The question is how do we get money to the people to become the floating chair-bound consumers that do nothing in the future so that they can spend it?

[Einsteinium]

We are already doing that regardless of minimum wage. The problem is none of the extra-profitability due to automation gets passed to the workers. I really do forsee a "Wally" type world in the future. The question is how do we get money to the people to become the floating chair-bound consumers that do nothing in the future so that they can spend it?

Yes we are already doing that, but a higher minimum wage would speed up the adoption of it.

[Socio]

With all due respect to those surveys, they are misleading. The only offset against the cost of benefits and services given, is direct tax - i.e. income tax.

However, all those immigrants have to live and to do so they will spend. The money they spend (and they spend it in the US), including the indirect taxes associated with that money, should also be factored into the equation because, without those 18-20 million immigrants ("illegals"), the local, regional and national economies would not be as strong.

They are sending 120 billion dollars are their very low even under the table wages abroad, I would say their spending would be very little, likely the bare essentials which are mostly nontaxable food, water, rent etc...items thus generate very little indirect tax revenue, certainly pennies compared to what they take out of the system.

[Einsteinium]

They are sending 120 billion dollars are their very low even under the table wages abroad, I would say their spending would be very little, likely the bare essentials which are mostly nontaxable food, water, rent etc...items thus generate very little indirect tax revenue, certainly pennies compared to what they take out of the system.

The idea that illegal immigrants are a drag on the US economy is a myth.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Myths_and_facts_about_immigration_to_the_United_States

[RavenHawk]

Japan is already replacing unskilled jobs with robots. If we increase the minimum wage too much, mark my words, we will see more and more robots replacing those minimum wage jobs here in the US. Robots can work 24/7, with only the cost of electricity and maintenance to keep them going, no complaints, no sick days, no health insurance, no workers comp or overtime pay.

Which is great, however, minimum wage jobs are also the primary source for entry level jobs where new MOW learns work ethics. Without unskilled labor, how are needed skills to advance going to be developed without real world experience? Ultimately, more automation may hurt a business’ bottom line in the long run. Only time will tell.

Eventually, more and more robots will replace more and more workers. What will happen then? Our economy will have to shift in some fundamental way eventually in order for it to work with the technology that is on the horizon.

One possibility would be to have students after graduation enlist in the military and serve a two year tour. In that time, they do more than just march and fight. They can get into college prep courses or vo-tech. Maybe have some combination of the Roman military (building roads), the British military (exploration and sciences), or maybe even StarFleet. Incoming MOW cut their teeth in service to the nation and then can move on to the private sector that needs highly skilled and experienced workers. It would be the ultimate of the Military-Industrial Complex.

[spacecowboy342]

It sounds like something needs to be done to restrict the executive branch.

Presidents should not be able to make laws that fail, start wars without a vote and not enforce national laws that they do not like.

They get away with it because when they abuse power like this a certain amount of the population supports the decision so they let them get away with it.

Do you support Obama making a law that failed in the voting process to raise minimum wage? Or is it different then Cambodia because you support a minimum wage increase?

I would greatly prefer this be handled by the legislative branch and I am no supporter of the "imperial presidency" but something must be done about the obstructionism of the right. From the moment Obama was elected the right dug in their heels and refused to participate in governing this country. They set records for filibusters and fewest bills enacted. If the legislature refuses to provide any relief for suffering citizens what choice does the president have but to act?

[Yamato]

I would greatly prefer this be handled by the legislative branch and I am no supporter of the "imperial presidency" but something must be done about the obstructionism of the right. From the moment Obama was elected the right dug in their heels and refused to participate in governing this country. They set records for filibusters and fewest bills enacted. If the legislature refuses to provide any relief for suffering citizens what choice does the president have but to act?

If the democrats get their $10/hr, unemployment is going up. Why don't we care about that suffering? Why does the President have to cause that suffering to alleviate other suffering? And since employment rates are Washington DC's job now too according to both liberals and conservatives, then they'll have to bandaid over that again too. Which will be another opportunity for democrats to condemn the evil republicans I'm sure.

What if the value of an employee isn't worth $10 an hour? That person gets priced out of the market. Why people get hired in the first place is because they offer greater value to their employer than the employer would have without them. What do you say to a kid who becomes unemployable? Comes from nothing, trying to work his way through college, but "Sorry kid, your loss is someone else's gain."

[Leonardo]

They are sending 120 billion dollars are their very low even under the table wages abroad, I would say their spending would be very little, likely the bare essentials which are mostly nontaxable food, water, rent etc...items thus generate very little indirect tax revenue, certainly pennies compared to what they take out of the system.

Yes, that 120 billion (not the half-a-trillion) might be reasonable as a figure for how much the illegal workers in the US take directly from the local, regional and national economies - but how much do they contribute in an indirect sense?

Them simply being here provides jobs for people whose services those illegals use, for the products those illegals consume - and allows some people (i.e. seasonal crop farmers) to keep producing goods at a certain rate, keeping prices down. It is not just the direct costs and contributions that should be factored into the equation, but also the indirect costs and/or contributions. None of the surveys in the links posted by you took those indirect factors into account.

Edited May 7, 2014 by Leonardo

[Guest]

The aspect of illegal immigration which I disagree with is its effect on depressing wages for lower class work, and this is why generally the conservative right is broadly in favour of immigration in general and turn a blind eye to the illegals issue despite their rhetoric.

Br Cornelius

[Frank Merton]

What I get from some of the above posts is that if Obama is doing something you like then Congress is being obstructionist, but if you don't like it it is an unconstitutional abuse of power.

Checks and balances is the key in propaganda for the US Constitution, but obviously it has its drawbacks.

[spacecowboy342]

If the democrats get their $10/hr, unemployment is going up. Why don't we care about that suffering? Why does the President have to cause that suffering to alleviate other suffering? And since employment rates are Washington DC's job now too according to both liberals and conservatives, then they'll have to bandaid over that again too. Which will be another opportunity for democrats to condemn the evil republicans I'm sure.

What if the value of an employee isn't worth $10 an hour? That person gets priced out of the market. Why people get hired in the first place is because they offer greater value to their employer than the employer would have without them. What do you say to a kid who becomes unemployable? Comes from nothing, trying to work his way through college, but "Sorry kid, your loss is someone else's gain."

If the democrats get their $10/hr, unemployment is going up. Why don't we care about that suffering? Why does the President have to cause that suffering to alleviate other suffering? And since employment rates are Washington DC's job now too according to both liberals and conservatives, then they'll have to bandaid over that again too. Which will be another opportunity for democrats to condemn the evil republicans I'm sure.

What if the value of an employee isn't worth $10 an hour? That person gets priced out of the market. Why people get hired in the first place is because they offer greater value to their employer than the employer would have without them. What do you say to a kid who becomes unemployable? Comes from nothing, trying to work his way through college, but "Sorry kid, your loss is someone else's gain."

If the democrats get their $10/hr, unemployment is going up. Why don't we care about that suffering? Why does the President have to cause that suffering to alleviate other suffering? And since employment rates are Washington DC's job now too according to both liberals and conservatives, then they'll have to bandaid over that again too. Which will be another opportunity for democrats to condemn the evil republicans I'm sure.

What if the value of an employee isn't worth $10 an hour? That person gets priced out of the market. Why people get hired in the first place is because they offer greater value to their employer than the employer would have without them. What do you say to a kid who becomes unemployable? Comes from nothing, trying to work his way through college, but "Sorry kid, your loss is someone else's gain."

If the democrats get their $10/hr, unemployment is going up. Why don't we care about that suffering? Why does the President have to cause that suffering to alleviate other suffering? And since employment rates are Washington DC's job now too according to both liberals and conservatives, then they'll have to bandaid over that again too. Which will be another opportunity for democrats to condemn the evil republicans I'm sure.

What if the value of an employee isn't worth $10 an hour? That person gets priced out of the market. Why people get hired in the first place is because they offer greater value to their employer than the employer would have without them. What do you say to a kid who becomes unemployable? Comes from nothing, trying to work his way through college, but "Sorry kid, your loss is someone else's gain."

If the democrats get their $10/hr, unemployment is going up. Why don't we care about that suffering? Why does the President have to cause that suffering to alleviate other suffering? And since employment rates are Washington DC's job now too according to both liberals and conservatives, then they'll have to bandaid over that again too. Which will be another opportunity for democrats to condemn the evil republicans I'm sure.

What if the value of an employee isn't worth $10 an hour? That person gets priced out of the market. Why people get hired in the first place is because they offer greater value to their employer than the employer would have without them. What do you say to a kid who becomes unemployable? Comes from nothing, trying to work his way through college, but "Sorry kid, your loss is someone else's gain."

I don't believe raising the minimum will increase unemployment. These people aren't kids on their first jobs but people trying to support families. Getting more money to these people will stimulate the economy as they spend it instead of putting it away to accrue interest. For too long all policies have been to benefit the investor class. The working class needs MONEY

[spacecowboy342]

What I get from some of the above posts is that if Obama is doing something you like then Congress is being obstructionist, but if you don't like it it is an unconstitutional abuse of power.

Checks and balances is the key in propaganda for the US Constitution, but obviously it has its drawbacks.

Every action Obama has taken has been called an abuse of power and every time he has failed to act it has been called weakness by the right. This is due to the propaganda spewed by Fox News which is a full time attack add masquerading as news. Rupert Murdoch is the number one enemy of American ideals

[Leonardo]

What I get from some of the above posts is that if Obama is doing something you like then Congress is being obstructionist, but if you don't like it it is an unconstitutional abuse of power.

Checks and balances is the key in propaganda for the US Constitution, but obviously it has its drawbacks.

The beauty of the US-style system of lawmaking is that it generally prevents frivolous or unnecessary law being passed simply on a whim. The drawback of such a system is that it sometimes prevents necessary law being passed simply on a whim.

However, due to the nature of 2-party politicking, the drawback has become more prominent than the benefit.

[Einsteinium]

I don't believe raising the minimum will increase unemployment. These people aren't kids on their first jobs but people trying to support families. Getting more money to these people will stimulate the economy as they spend it instead of putting it away to accrue interest. For too long all policies have been to benefit the investor class. The working class needs MONEY

You are absolutely right. Raising the minimum wage will cause a small temporary increase in unemployment, but that will soon be offset by the increase in spending that will again push employment up because people will suddenly have more spending money. If raising the minimum wage increased unemployment, then we should have about a 30% unemployment rate in this country if you consider how much the minimum wage has increased relative to the 1960's until now. That obviously is not the case. The fact is that the REAL minimum wage taking into account inflation has DECREASED relative to the 1960's, so by the far rights logic, that should mean that we should have so many jobs available now that unemployment would not be an issue. Obviously that is not the case.

The real issue in my opinion is the fact that jobs can be outsourced to countries that can pay pennies on the dollar for unskilled labor. They should not call it 'raising the minimum wage', it should be called 'adjusting the minimum wage for keep pace with inflation and rising cost of living". That is what it really amounts to.

[spartan max2]

I would greatly prefer this be handled by the legislative branch and I am no supporter of the "imperial presidency" but something must be done about the obstructionism of the right. From the moment Obama was elected the right dug in their heels and refused to participate in governing this country. They set records for filibusters and fewest bills enacted. If the legislature refuses to provide any relief for suffering citizens what choice does the president have but to act?

So because you agree with it.... Next time a president uses an executive order to pass something that got voted down and is something you disagree with you cant complain then. Because other people agree with it. And I guess if people have views you do not agree with then they are obstructionist...

When the Democrats shoot down every bill the Republicans propose it is not obstruction? alright.

In 2008 democrats had a majority In both houses and the president.

Under Obama a giant "stimulus" was passed and ACA and a surge of troops into Afghanistan before we finally "pulled out" . Those two things is what lead the republicans to take the house.

We dont want anymore of Obamas "help". What you call "obstruction" is the Republicans not voting for things they do not agree with, that is the reason they got elected.

Edited May 7, 2014 by spartan max2

[Leonardo]

... it should be called 'adjusting the minimum wage for keep pace with inflation and rising cost of living". That is what it really amounts to.

Which is what several US states already do. They call it COLA - Cost Of Living Adjustment.

Edited May 7, 2014 by Leonardo

[Einsteinium]

So because you agree with it.... Next time a president uses an executive order to pass something that got voted down and is something you disagree with you cant complain then. Because other people agree with it. And I guess if people have views you do not agree with then they are obstructionist...

When the Democrats shoot down every bill the Republicans propose it is not obstruction? alright.

In 2008 democrats had a majority In both houses and the president.

Under Obama a giant "stimulus" was passed and ACA and a surge of troops into Afghanistan before we finally "pulled out" . Those two things is what lead the republicans to take the house.

We dont want anymore of Obamas "help". What you call "obstruction" is the Republicans not voting for things they do not agree with, that is the reason they got elected.

The current republicans in congress are the most obstructionist in modern American history. Not only do they vote 'no' on bills they do not agree with, which is how the system is supposed to work, but they blatantly refuse to vote at all, or even to bring bills to the floor to have a vote cast. They have absolutely abused the filibuster, they have passed fewer bills than any congress ever has going back to at least 1947.

Not only that, but they point blank stated that, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

That's right, not boosting the economy, not creating jobs, their sole focus is to destroy everything Obama is trying to do, even if it destroys the economy and hurts millions of Americans in the process, so long as they can somehow blame it on Obama, they are okay with it.

Major problems with the republican party, that they even call themselves 'conservatives' makes my blood boil. They are neo-con puppets who exist to serve their corporate sponsors under the guise of serving the American people. The real tragedy is that the democrats are not much different. The two party system has become a farce, and if you buy into the right vs. left rhetoric then you simply fail to understand the real underlying problems.

[Socio]

Major problems with the republican party, that they even call themselves 'conservatives' makes my blood boil. They are neo-con puppets who exist to serve their corporate sponsors under the guise of serving the American people. The real tragedy is that the democrats are not much different. The two party system has become a farce, and if you buy into the right vs. left rhetoric then you simply fail to understand the real underlying problems.

Both sides are identical in that aspect, bought and paid for by lobbyists, hell they even help write many of the laws, budget plans, etc... for both congress and the POTUS, Obamacare is a prime example of that.

Obama said he was going to run the lobbyists out of Washington, there are undoubtedly more there now than when he was elected.

The federal government has really become a form of corporate oligarchy but instead of Dem vs Rep is more like groups of corporate entities fighting over control of the Country one side, the Left side wants it via the control of the people, i.e socialism, the other side, the Right wants it via monetary control.

The only way to combat it is term limits for congress and those lobbyists ran the hell out of Washington!

Edited May 7, 2014 by Socio

[spacecowboy342]

So because you agree with it.... Next time a president uses an executive order to pass something that got voted down and is something you disagree with you cant complain then. Because other people agree with it. And I guess if people have views you do not agree with then they are obstructionist...

When the Democrats shoot down every bill the Republicans propose it is not obstruction? alright.

In 2008 democrats had a majority In both houses and the president.

Under Obama a giant "stimulus" was passed and ACA and a surge of troops into Afghanistan before we finally "pulled out" . Those two things is what lead the republicans to take the house.

We dont want anymore of Obamas "help". What you call "obstruction" is the Republicans not voting for things they do not agree with, that is the reason they got elected.

It's a different situation when one party controls both houses of congress and the presidency. This is a clear mandate to carry out your policies and the minority party can follow along or get out of the way. When congress is divided it is a different situation and this is where bi-partisanship and compromise is necessary. Obstructionism is filibustering every single judicial nominee. This is unprecedented in American history. How many times did the house republicans try to repeal ACA knowing full well they were just wasting the tax payers time as they didn't have the votes in the senate nor could they have overridden a veto even if they could have gotten it through the senate. This is obstructionism. This is unprecedented. This is close to treason.