The Fast Food Forward Movement

[Stag Country]

And yet you said "It is designed to bring people out of poverty". A concept for which your paragraph above is a good definition. You are simply using a different and completely unstated definition of poverty and acting like this constitutes a fundamental difference rather then an opinion on what the definition of "not poor" is.

Because there is no real definition of poverty, the minimum wage is designed simply to provide general, loosely defined societal benefits centred around raising the standard of living. Potentially up to and including economic self-sufficiency.

In the context of a discussion regarding minimum wage, which is exactly what my comment was in reply to, poverty refers to levels of income. It's not a subjective or speculative definition but refers to very specific income levels. That is what minimum wage is designed to combat. You can argue all day about whether you think those levels are valid, but that is immaterial to the point regarding minimum wage's purpose.

It is not designed to provide for people to the extent that they will be able to go out and support themselves in a solitary lifestyle that includes payment for all basic necessities. It is designed to keep people out of poverty. Those are not the same thing.

[Res ipsa loquitur]

Hi all. I think I will add my two cents here, even though two cents dont quite comprise the minimum wage. I have skimmed over these seven pages, not read them totally in depth, and because libertarian conservatives views arent so common on this board, I am stating what I think on this issue. I agree with thecryptile Stag Country, and Frog Eater regarding the minimum wage. If you wish to see more employment, you would want it abolished altogether. And no, minimum wage jobs like McDonalds, etc were never meant to be self suffiecient, they were meant for teens working their way through college, trade schools, etc. They really were not meant to be a sole profession, but as a stepping stone to better employment. It is not the governments fault if someones skill set is not advanvced enough to get them employment that is worth more than the minimum wage. Here is an article from Reason Magazine going over the research that shows raising minimum wage will kill low paying jobs: http://reason.com/bl...pirical-evidenc

And, there is ample research that shows over regulations do kill jobs. Here is an article from CNN that highlights a few examples: http://money.cnn.com...-license/2.html And here from The Atlantic is a survey/ study that shows businesses themselves believe too many regulations are a major impediment to their business: http://www.theatlant...sk-them/263241/ Here is how insane government regulations managed to shut down an independent bus company with a good safety record: http://reason.com/ar...ong-to-shutdown And another on minimum wage and the burdens of over regulations: http://reason.com/ar...most-vulnerable

Summation: repeal the minimum wage, and see a lot more employment. Additionally, kill regulations that are nonsense and make it hard if not impossible for people to start their own businsesses. Occupational licenses for florists? Truly? http://reason.com/bl...ucational-hours

[Shryke]

In the context of a discussion regarding minimum wage, which is exactly what my comment was in reply to, poverty refers to levels of income. It's not a subjective or speculative definition but refers to very specific income levels. That is what minimum wage is designed to combat. You can argue all day about whether you think those levels are valid, but that is immaterial to the point regarding minimum wage's purpose.

It is not designed to provide for people to the extent that they will be able to go out and support themselves in a solitary lifestyle that includes payment for all basic necessities. It is designed to keep people out of poverty. Those are not the same thing.

No, it doesn't. Every government defines an arbitrary level as the "poverty line" but that definition is, again, pretty arbitrary and means nothing. The minimum wage itself is not even attached to this definition. Hell, the poverty threshold is even pegged to inflation, further making your proposition here ludicrous.

You are simply wrong here and not forwarding a sound argument. The minimum wage is designed to improve the standard of living of the poor. It has no specific goals beyond that. It is not designed to acheive some specific living standard, no matter how many times you say it. It is not connected to any particular definition of a standard of living, as you keep claiming. Your standard of living definition here is solely your own and utterly arbitary. Neither is the minimum wage connected to a specific definition of "poverty" as you keep claiming and said definition of poverty is arbitrary and malleable anyway.

[Shryke]

Hi all. I think I will add my two cents here, even though two cents dont quite comprise the minimum wage. I have skimmed over these seven pages, not read them totally in depth, and because libertarian conservatives views arent so common on this board, I am stating what I think on this issue. I agree with thecryptile Stag Country, and Frog Eater regarding the minimum wage. If you wish to see more employment, you would want it abolished altogether. And no, minimum wage jobs like McDonalds, etc were never meant to be self suffiecient, they were meant for teens working their way through college, trade schools, etc. They really were not meant to be a sole profession, but as a stepping stone to better employment. It is not the governments fault if someones skill set is not advanvced enough to get them employment that is worth more than the minimum wage. Here is an article from Reason Magazine going over the research that shows raising minimum wage will kill low paying jobs: http://reason.com/bl...pirical-evidenc

And, there is ample research that shows over regulations do kill jobs. Here is an article from CNN that highlights a few examples: http://money.cnn.com...-license/2.html And here from The Atlantic is a survey/ study that shows businesses themselves believe too many regulations are a major impediment to their business: http://www.theatlant...sk-them/263241/ Here is how insane government regulations managed to shut down an independent bus company with a good safety record: http://reason.com/ar...ong-to-shutdown And another on minimum wage and the burdens of over regulations: http://reason.com/ar...most-vulnerable

Summation: repeal the minimum wage, and see a lot more employment. Additionally, kill regulations that are nonsense and make it hard if not impossible for people to start their own businsesses. Occupational licenses for florists? Truly? http://reason.com/bl...ucational-hours

You may want to read the rest of the thread since we've already covered and refuted most of this bullshit.

I'd also suggest you stop reading Reason, but we both know that's not gonna happen so I'll just chuckle at you instead.

[emberling]

It is not the governments fault if someones skill set is not advanvced enough to get them employment that is worth more than the minimum wage.

Puzzling. So in your framework, if a problem is not the government's fault it then follows that the government should do nothing about it? That's a new one to me.

[Stag Country]

No, it doesn't. Every government defines an arbitrary level as the "poverty line" but that definition is, again, pretty arbitrary and means nothing. The minimum wage itself is not even attached to this definition. Hell, the poverty threshold is even pegged to inflation, further making your proposition here ludicrous.

No one is debating that the poverty level determinations are subjective from country to country. Thing is, we aren't talking about country to country, we are talking about the US, so why you bother making this point is beyond me. It isn't subjective that the poverty line in the United States is set on a fixed level of income determined by DHHS , if you are trying to debate that it isn't then you are flat out wrong. For a single person in 2012 it was $11,170.00.

You are simply wrong here and not forwarding a sound argument. The minimum wage is designed to improve the standard of living of the poor. It has no specific goals beyond that. It is not designed to acheive some specific living standard, no matter how many times you say it. It is not connected to any particular definition of a standard of living, as you keep claiming. Your standard of living definition here is solely your own and utterly arbitary. Neither is the minimum wage connected to a specific definition of "poverty" as you keep claiming and said definition of poverty is arbitrary and malleable anyway.

Um, what? News flash for you: Bringing people out of poverty (which is what I said it was designed to do) DOES inprove their standard of living, so explain how I'm not "forwarding a sound argument".

I quite clearly stated that it is NOT designed to provide for people to the extent that they can afford rent and/or other living expenses on a solitary basis, so why you are suggesting that I said it was designed for that is beyond me. I also haven't applied any "standard of living" definition. Quite the contrary my comment was in direct support of someone else who was disputing that very notion.

Next time try actually reading a comment you are replying to.

[Res ipsa loquitur]

Puzzling. So in your framework, if a problem is not the government's fault it then follows that the government should do nothing about it? That's a new one to me.

Why should the government "do something" and what would you have them do? A person is responsible for their own life choices. Its not the governments job to tell them what they should do with their lives. If they make poor life choices like dropping out of school, joining gangs, etc, thats their fault, not that of the government.

Having said that, I totally do support the government helping those who DO wish to attend college or trade schools...and, ample grants and scholarships, and loans exist, some provided by private agencies and some by government run programs. I think it is in societies best interest to have a well educated populace who is not dependent on government aid.

I think private agencies are the best at giving loans and grants though. I do think welfare should be tied to job training and education, if the government will give these funds, it should mandate those who get them be trained so they no longer need that government aid, and cut if off after a set time after completion of training or education. Aid without requiring learning skills is just enabling dependency. However, one can lead a horse to water, but can not make it drink. People who are determined to remain helpless victims will do so, certainly. So I guess that is.....something, after all. Is that what you meant?

[Stag Country]

Puzzling. So in your framework, if a problem is not the government's fault it then follows that the government should do nothing about it? That's a new one to me.

Why would it be the government's responsibility to provide a private citizen with a particular skill set to advance their career if they didn't take advantage of the education opportunities already provided to them at the tax payer's expense?

[DaarioKnowsBest]

How do we know exactly what the original intent was? wasn't it passed in the 40s or something

It can be difficult to establish real intent of laws passed today much less decades ago

[Shryke]

No one is debating that the poverty level determinations are subjective from country to country. Thing is, we aren't talking about country to country, we are talking about the US, so why you bother making this point is beyond me. It isn't subjective that the poverty line in the United States is set on a fixed level of income determined by DHHS , if you are trying to debate that it isn't then you are flat out wrong. For a single person in 2012 it was $11,170.00.

Which is arbitrary. You do understand what the word means, yes?

It doesn't really mean much of anything beyond a vague stab at an income level that lacks some stuff. Like, from the Census Bureau:

Although the poverty thresholds in some sense reflect families needs, they are intended for use as a statistical yardstick, not as a complete description of what people and families need to live.

The minimum wage, as a general concept and as a US law, has no real basis beyond "Poor people should make more money then they would otherwise".

Um, what? News flash for you: Bringing people out of poverty (which is what I said it was designed to do) DOES inprove their standard of living, so explain how I'm not "forwarding a sound argument".

I quite clearly stated that it is NOT designed to provide for people to the extent that they can afford rent and/or other living expenses on a solitary basis, so why you are suggesting that I said it was designed for that is beyond me. I also haven't applied any "standard of living" definition. Quite the contrary my comment was in direct support of someone else who was disputing that very notion.

Next time try actually reading a comment you are replying to.

So it's supposed to "bring them out of poverty" but not "to provide for people to the extent that they can afford rent and/or other living expenses on a solitary basis" in your mind? Despite the fact that it's designed to do neither and that both those terms are subjective and arbitrary and meaningless.

It's designed to make people better off. It's not aimed at any specific set of circumstances. Nor is there any reason it couldn't be.

You are inventing bullshit reasons for it's existence and forwarding your own random definitions to support it. Look Stag, you are spouting off bad arguments about shit you don't understand again. Back up, think about it and reassess the silly position you are forwarding here.

[lupis42]

There's a huge drop across the 80s that's never corrected. It's an overall downward trend since the early 70s.

You start from a high because there seems no ill effects and pegging the minimum wage as high as you can without fucking anything else up is pretty much the best policy to go with.

Well, the 70's in the US weren't exactly "not fucked up", but I see your point. From that perspective, I'm not actually sure how high you could go and still be confident that there wouldn't be repurcussions.

It probably comes down to what you want the minimum wage to do. I've always seen it as a policy intended to help ensure a certain baseline living standard, so I'd rather replace it (and a lot of the rest of the low end means-tested federal assistance programs) with a basic income guarantee.

[Shryke]

Why should the government "do something" and what would you have them do? A person is responsible for their own life choices. Its not the governments job to tell them what they should do with their lives. If they make poor life choices like dropping out of school, joining gangs, etc, thats their fault, not that of the government.

Having said that, I totally do support the government helping those who DO wish to attend college or trade schools...and, ample grants and scholarships, and loans exist, some provided by private agencies and some by government run programs. I think it is in societies best interest to have a well educated populace who is not dependent on government aid.

I think private agencies are the best at giving loans and grants though. I do think welfare should be tied to job training and education, if the government will give these funds, it should mandate those who get them be trained so they no longer need that government aid, and cut if off after a set time after completion of training or education. Aid without requiring learning skills is just enabling dependency. However, one can lead a horse to water, but can not make it drink. People who are determined to remain helpless victims will do so, certainly. So I guess that is.....something, after all. Is that what you meant?

Oh Fundamental Attribution Error, how I've missed ye.

Also, you seem to be missing the water you've brought yourself to. If it's in society's best interest to help people educate themselves better so they can be productive members of society, then it's in society's best interest to do the same on other fronts. Like, say, the minimum wage.

You've literally supported emberling's point here. It's not the government's fault, but they should do something about it anyway because it's in society's best interest.

Why would it be the government's responsibility to provide a private citizen with a particular skill set to advance their career if they didn't take advantage of the education opportunities already provided to them at the tax payer's expense?

Because it's in everyone's interest to help people get better, more productive jobs if they can.

[Shryke]

Well, the 70's in the US weren't exactly "not fucked up", but I see your point. From that perspective, I'm not actually sure how high you could go and still be confident that there wouldn't be repurcussions.

It probably comes down to what you want the minimum wage to do. I've always seen it as a policy intended to help ensure a certain baseline living standard, so I'd rather replace it (and a lot of the rest of the low end means-tested federal assistance programs) with a basic income guarantee.

I'm with you there.

[Opisthokont]

I'm with you there.

Is there any country or state where a livable basic income has actually been implemented? I can't see how it would ever work in the long term, but maybe people in general are more ambitious than me. If I was guaranteed enough money for rent, food and other necessities, I wouldn't lift a finger to do anything that I didn't think was actually enjoyable or meaningful, and the vast majority of paid work I have done in my life have been neither.

[Shryke]

Is there any country or state where a livable basic income has actually been implemented? I can't see how it would ever work in the long term, but maybe people in general are more ambitious than me. If I was guaranteed enough money for rent, food and other necessities, I wouldn't lift a finger to do anything that I didn't think was actually enjoyable or meaningful, and the vast majority of paid work I have done in my life have been neither.

There's various implementations of it all over the world, to various degrees. Some rather extreme versions have been tested out in several places on a smaller scale too. (Mincome was a test done in Canada back in the 70s for instance. It resulted in some people working less, but much of it was moms spending more time with their kids and people doing more education) Hell, defacto versions of it are tested out in the US with things like federal disability benefits or just on the elderly with shit like SS.

I mean, we generally already know how people react when given a basic income and it's things like "I can't afford everything I want, so I'm gonna need to make more money" alot of the time.

It does have benefits like avoiding issues with businesses that can't survive with too high a minimum wage (like MC's restaurant example). You can almost think of it like a minimum wage that more progressively distributes the costs of payroll across the economy. (although that's not completely correct since other factors come into play)

[Res ipsa loquitur]

Oh Fundamental Attribution Error, how I've missed ye.

Also, you seem to be missing the water you've brought yourself to. If it's in society's best interest to help people educate themselves better so they can be productive members of society, then it's in society's best interest to do the same on other fronts. Like, say, the minimum wage.

You've literally supported emberling's point here. It's not the government's fault, but they should do something about it anyway because it's in society's best interest.

Because it's in everyone's interest to help people get better, more productive jobs if they can.

No, just because its in societies best interest to do one thing, it does not follow that its in societies best interests to do ALL things. It has been said that governments who enact laws "for your own good" are among the most oppressive. Its good for society to have healthy individuals, yet no one (except some liberals) would want government mandating that people eat their veggies, eat less salt and exersize.

It is not the governments fault that people make poor life choices, but if they wish govt aid, govt has every right to demand that those who recieve such aid get appropriate job training. And just because it helps societys function better when iyts members are educated does not mean it has to DO something about it. As I said, private agencies can manage grants, loans and scholarships....federal and state government need not get involved. Emberling seems to want government mandated to "help" people. I do not share that view. I think it is in societies best interest to aid those who wish higher education or trade school, but aside from welfare mandating job training, I do not think it should be forced, or a part of government at all.

It is not in societies best interest to raise minimum wage, for all the many reasons I have shown. It kills the low income jobs you wish to improve. I understand you think it does not....but the studies are clear that it does. Ignoring science as the answer it brings is disliked does not change what that science shows. If you wish to help, eliminate job killing regulations and the unfair burdens of many occupational lisencing that exist. If you wish to help people, then you shopuld oppose the Obama administrations stance against for profit colleges, as they cost less than traditional education and are geared more for those who can not do well in traditional universities.

[emberling]

Emberling seems to want government mandated to "help" people. I do not share that view.

Again, puzzling. All I said was that it's not government's fault (therefore government shouldn't try to fix it) is an extremely strange thing to say. Every different political persuasion has different views on what government's role is, and I have no interest in arguing which of these is right or wrong. But I've never heard of a political persuasion that uses did government cause this problem? as a major criterion for whether it is within government's mandate to fix the problem. Governments did not invent murder, or theft, or sociopathy.

[Res ipsa loquitur]

Again, puzzling. All I said was that it's not government's fault (therefore government shouldn't try to fix it) is an extremely strange thing to say. Every different political persuasion has different views on what government's role is, and I have no interest in arguing which of these is right or wrong. But I've never heard of a political persuasion that uses did government cause this problem? as a major criterion for whether it is within government's mandate to fix the problem. Governments did not invent murder, or theft, or sociopathy.

Ah...but government is essentially a social contract between itself and those it governs; in the USA the social contract endorses liberty and freedoms. However, murder and theft have unwilling victims, so it is the province of government to make laws that state murder and theft are illegal. Sociopathy? None of the governments business, UNLESS that individual sociopath is a threat to himself and or others.

People who choose to forego education and its enormous benefits have only themselves to blame. Government need not DO something about it...it can decide to, for those who do wish self betterment, but its not an obligation of government to demand that individuals reach their full potential as it is an obligation of government to restrict individuals from harming others against their will and wish.

[ThinkerX]

People who choose to forego education and its enormous benefits have only themselves to blame. Government need not DO something about it...it can decide to, for those who do wish self betterment, but its not an obligation of government to demand that individuals reach their full potential as it is an obligation of government to restrict individuals from harming others against their will and wish.

Hardly. Grow up poor, wrong part of town, you end up in a substandard public school. Bust your butt, you MIGHT be able to jump up a caste or two, but its far from a sure thing even if you do everything right. (witness the vast number of people with college degrees these days working minimum wage or part time, with zero real prospects).

The trend these days is towards a vast increase of mimimum wage jobs, or higher paying part time jobs; neither offering mush in the way of improvement.

THIS IS NOT JUST A TEENAGER THING ANYMORE. When you claim it is, you are either being deliberately ignorant or flat out lying.

Average age of the minimum wage worker is 32.

What we are looking at is the formation of a society where the majority of the populace is either impoverished, or a notch or two above that level. A nation where fewer than one worker in five will be able to buy a house or a new car. A nation where at least 3 out of 5 people count $2000 a month take home pay as d*mn good money. We are not there yet, not quite...but its not far off either.

[Stag Country]

Which is arbitrary. You do understand what the word means, yes?

It doesn't really mean much of anything beyond a vague stab at an income level that lacks some stuff. Like, from the Census Bureau:

The minimum wage, as a general concept and as a US law, has no real basis beyond "Poor people should make more money then they would otherwise".

So it's supposed to "bring them out of poverty" but not "to provide for people to the extent that they can afford rent and/or other living expenses on a solitary basis" in your mind? Despite the fact that it's designed to do neither and that both those terms are subjective and arbitrary and meaningless.

It's designed to make people better off. It's not aimed at any specific set of circumstances. Nor is there any reason it couldn't be.

You are inventing bullshit reasons for it's existence and forwarding your own random definitions to support it. Look Stag, you are spouting off bad arguments about shit you don't understand again. Back up, think about it and reassess the silly position you are forwarding here.

This empty ass rhetoric from you is getting more than a little tiring. First it's a line of shit from you about how regulation doesn't stifle small business and now it's some pie in the sky notion that the poverty line is "arbitrary" (hint: it's not arbitrary it's based on food costs). Followed up by your standard creed "I know everything and the other guys doesn't know what he is talking about". You argue just for the sake of arguing, and don't even presume to advance a position.

There isn't a person with even an ounce of sense in this country, except for maybe a few deluded ultra liberals, that believe the minimum wage is intended to provide for people so they can live on their own and support all of their living expenses, yet you've got people here advocating that very notion by calling for massive increases with seemingly no regard whatsoever for effect that would play on employment or the CPI. It's maddeningly stupid.