Income Inequality?

[Paprika]

Well first, raising the minimum wage only adds to inflation. If the butcher, baker, candle stick maker have to pay their workers more the majority of that will be passed on to me the customer there by deceasing my buying power and hurting my ability to provide for my family.

Then minimum wage should be decreased, so buying power will increase for everyone!

[Psychic Missile]

A better idea is letting the free market dictate pay.

Maybe. As long as we have a minimum wage, we should tie it to inflation.

That's for the prospective employee to decide - nobody forces them to work there.

What does this have to do with what I said?

[Sparko]

I find your reaction childish. If you take issue with what I said, I ask that you explain why.

others already have.

[Sparko]

Then minimum wage should be decreased, so buying power will increase for everyone!

You are not too far off. I think not having a minimum wage would be a good thing. Then the market will drive the minimum wage. Right now, employers can use the MW as an excuse to only pay a min amount to their workers. If there wasn't a min wage, then they would have to do more competition among themselves to get the best workers and pay them more. So the better the worker, the better the pay.

[Cow Poke]

Maybe. As long as we have a minimum wage, we should tie it to inflation.

Why?

What does this have to do with what I said?

Because you are, apparently, incapable of understanding the fact that a business, particularly a small business built and owned by a PERSON, is "IN BUSINESS" to make money. NOT to guarantee a house, a car, a cell phone, etc. to other people.

In the PROCESS of running the business, they may need additional help -- called "labor". If they can find somebody who will do the job for $5.00 an hour, why should they pay MORE than that?

Who are YOU to tell a small business -- or ANY business -- what they should pay?

[Sparko]

Why?



Because you are, apparently, incapable of understanding the fact that a business, particularly a small business built and owned by a PERSON, is "IN BUSINESS" to make money. NOT to guarantee a house, a car, a cell phone, etc. to other people.

In the PROCESS of running the business, they may need additional help -- called "labor". If they can find somebody who will do the job for $5.00 an hour, why should they pay MORE than that?

Who are YOU to tell a small business -- or ANY business -- what they should pay?

say what???? You mean businesses don't exist just to provide a living to liberals? They actually want to make a (excuse my french) profit???

[Psychic Missile]

Why?

Because the price of goods raises without giving people the minimum spending power to afford those goods. It is a situation that is disadvantageous to the lower class and advantageous to the upper class.

Because you are, apparently, incapable of understanding the fact that a business, particularly a small business built and owned by a PERSON, is "IN BUSINESS" to make money. NOT to guarantee a house, a car, a cell phone, etc. to other people.

In the PROCESS of running the business, they may need additional help -- called "labor". If they can find somebody who will do the job for $5.00 an hour, why should they pay MORE than that?

Who are YOU to tell a small business -- or ANY business -- what they should pay?

How is the business finding someone who is willing to work for that amount of money?

[Cow Poke]

Because the price of goods raises without giving people the minimum spending power to afford those goods. It is a situation that is disadvantageous to the lower class and advantageous to the upper class.

So you are clearly a redistributionalist, yes?

How is the business finding someone who is willing to work for that amount of money?

That's just IT!!!!! If they can't, then they have to go up a quarter... or a half dollar.... if they want "labor", they'll have to pay whatever it takes to get somebody acceptable for what they want them to do!

[Sparko]

Because the price of goods raises without giving people the minimum spending power to afford those goods. It is a situation that is disadvantageous to the lower class and advantageous to the upper class.

and if people can't afford to buy the goods, then they will have to lower the price somehow or stop producing them.

How is the business finding someone who is willing to work for that amount of money?

If they can't find someone to work for that amount, then they have to pay MORE. That is what the free market is.

[Psychic Missile]

So you are clearly a redistributionalist, yes?

I guess so.

That's just IT!!!!! If they can't, then they have to go up a quarter... or a half dollar.... if they want "labor", they'll have to pay whatever it takes to get somebody acceptable for what they want them to do!

Okay. I just don't want anyone to get taken advantage of. We can scratch the idea off of my list if you want.

[Psychic Missile]

and if people can't afford to buy the goods, then they will have to lower the price somehow or stop producing them.

The problem is that there is an area in which goods can be priced that is technically affordable but brings living expenses up to an unreasonable degree.

If they can't find someone to work for that amount, then they have to pay MORE. That is what the free market is.

I'd ask you to see my response to Cow Poke in reply #25, as he made basically the same comment.

[seer]

Then minimum wage should be decreased, so buying power will increase for everyone!

Better yet, get the government out of the business of dictating what private business has to pay employes.

[Cow Poke]

I guess so.

So, what gives you the right, for example, to take a dollar from me and give it to Sparko?

Okay. I just don't want anyone to get taken advantage of. We can scratch the idea off of my list if you want.

Ummmm.... "taken advantage of".... let's look at that....

Homer is willing to work for $6.00 an hour. Nobody else wants to do that, but Homer has very low expenses, lives with his mom, and just needs pocket change. So Bob hires Homer for $6.00 an hour.

PM comes along and forces Bob to pay $7.00 an hour.

Mary had decided she is willing to work for $7.00 an hour, but not $6.00 an hour, so she tells Bob she'll do a better job than Homer for $7.00 an hour -- besides, she has her GED!!!!!

Bob hires Mary, and fires Homer.

Why do you hate Homer so much? Why "take advantage" of him in this manner?

[Psychic Missile]

So, what gives you the right, for example, to take a dollar from me and give it to Sparko?

Could you restate your question in more detail? I don't understand the context of what you are trying to ask me.

Ummmm.... "taken advantage of".... let's look at that....

Homer is willing to work for $6.00 an hour. Nobody else wants to do that, but Homer has very low expenses, lives with his mom, and just needs pocket change. So Bob hires Homer for $6.00 an hour.

PM comes along and forces Bob to pay $7.00 an hour.

Mary had decided she is willing to work for $7.00 an hour, but not $6.00 an hour, so she tells Bob she'll do a better job than Homer for $7.00 an hour -- besides, she has her GED!!!!!

Bob hires Mary, and fires Homer.

Why do you hate Homer so much? Why "take advantage" of him in this manner?

In a system without minimum wage, wouldn't the opposite happen, and Mary be the one taken advantage of?

[Cow Poke]

Could you restate your question in more detail? I don't understand the context of what you are trying to ask me.

You admitted to being a redistributionalist. That's somebody who takes money from one person and gives it to somebody else. Who gives you that authority?

In a system without minimum wage, wouldn't the opposite happen, and Mary be the one taken advantage of?

Why? Do we owe Mary a job more than we owe Homer a job? Who are you to decide which one of them gets to work?