Should minimum wage be raised to 9.00 dollars an hour?

by Drue-AFCL Posted 2013/02/13 12:39:22

Related Topics: Wage, Minimum Wage, Dollar

Read More

398 votes
Read all 721 opinions
Lightning Report View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	Yes	225 votes	57%
	No	145 votes	36%
	Undecided	28 votes	7%

+22

Add a comment above

Chris - The Rowdy One! #187 2013/02/13 15:52:03

No

+11
$9 per hour? That is chump change.....let's make it $100 per hour!

Wait, let's not stop there......how about $200 per hour? Who cares if a loaf of bread will cost $80? At least we will rest our collective heads on our pillows at night knowing that our Democrat politicians are looking out for us little guys!
>> See Replies

More polls by Drue-AFCL

JET 2013/03/03 13:21:01

Yes

+1
Why not make it $30.00 per hour, then it won't have to be raised for a number of years (Insert Sarcasam). Minimum wage was never intended to be a living wage, it is a starter job and nothing more. Anyone who attempts to support a family on minimum wage has done an extremely poor job of managing their life. It is one thing to ask for assistance during a rough patch of life, it is yet another thing all together to be completely dependent on the tax payers to pay your sorry way through life. This happens without conscience because the money that supports this group does not belong to Washington, so they really don't care how much they spend as long as it buys votes and keeps them in their job.

reply
John Galt jr or Ron/jon 2013/02/19 04:22:49

Yes

+2

reply
Captame... to John Ga... 2013/02/19 10:26:58

+2
That's terrible! We need to abolish all minimum wage laws immediately! Stop this absurd limitation and intrusion on the employee/employer relationship. Down with government meddling and up with freedom!

reply
sbtbill to Captame... 2013/02/20 04:57:00

Freedom requires money. Up with the minimum wage and socialism!

reply
Captame... to sbtbill 2013/02/20 09:24:31

There is no relationship between freedom and money. The poorest have no concerns, and may be considered the most free among us! Thanks for you honesty, the minimum wage is definitely as socialistic policy! As a TPer, I prefer personal responsibility to government security! That's what makes us different, and this blog site so lively! Keep on bloggin' and God Bless us all!

reply
Sidonia to Captame... 2013/02/26 05:21:30

If it were not for minimum wage laws do you HONESTLY believe companies would pay people what they were worth? NO, & you are only fooling yourself if you think otherwise. Most corporations are only about the bottom line and taking care of the Wealthy owners and stalk holders...

reply
Captame... to Sidonia 2013/02/26 16:40:02

Yes, I "HONESTLY believe companies would pay people what they were worth." If not, they would eventually move to a company that will! You are right, "most corporations are only about the bottom line," and will pay what they have to to get people to make that happen! Isn't that why they invest and buy stock! What do you think companies are in business for, if not for profit, "and taking care of the Wealthy owners and stock holders?"

reply
CoinOperatedJoy 2013/02/18 20:47:22

Yes

+1
Yes and it's about damn time. The cost of living has gone up, but the minimum wage hasn't? Uh? This is why so many people living in/just above the poverty line.

reply
holly go lightly 2013/02/17 14:23:23

No

+1
Why not $50.00 ?

reply
Arizona1950 2013/02/17 05:39:03

No

+2
Not unless you want more businesses closing, no growth potential, and hiring freezes.

reply
☆stillthe12c☆ 2013/02/17 03:14:31

Undecided

+1
I am not sure at this time. Hard telling what its effect would be at this time.

reply
Tom Trojan 2013/02/17 00:53:42

No

+4
It was never meant to be a wage that you live on...... Obama used a couple with two kids as his reason for the raise....... why are two people on minimum wage having kids???

OK, lets just raise the minimum to $50 per hour..... see how many low skilled workers get laid off and how much prices rise to cover the cost........

Could liberals please take a course in economics that was not taught by a Marxist????

reply
thefatguy 2013/02/15 23:33:48

No

+2

reply
skowcog to thefatguy 2013/02/20 01:33:00

+2
Hey thanks that was informative in a very entertaining way.

reply
thefatguy to skowcog 2013/02/20 03:11:35

+1
If you liked that one, try this one too.

reply
PrettieReptar 2013/02/15 06:01:52

No

+5
Imo, the government has no business regulating wages--it should be something done between employee and employer.

reply
MadamJenny 2013/02/15 05:41:49

No

+5
Reduce taxes! Raising the minimum wage will only increase all the prices at the grocery store and every other store. Once all the prices go up everyone will be back to the same boat they were in financially before the raise. The minimum wage has been raised on average once during every Presidential term. Poverty has been going up, apparently the raise was not enough. Reduce taxes on people so they can spend or save that money themselves. Reduce taxes on companies and require they reduce their prices to match or at least a close match to the reduction.

reply
Silvershadows 2013/02/15 02:33:32

No

+4
Government should not dictate what an employer pays his employees. An entry level job should pay less----it's an entry level/learning position. As one learns or becomes more qualified they'll receive raises (why, an employer can't afford to lose them). And, government dictating what a private corporation pays its employees hasn't worked and won't. Government doesn't have to make a profit or be accountable-----a business does. Our country wasn't founded on/or became successful with big government. Now, we're in debt up to our eyes (no one hardly mentions the unfunded retirement benefits.) When everything implodes------and it will------the correction will take a generation or two and be costly and painful. Life is not easy. If you want to be successful, learn, create, work and don't expect government to 'steal' money from those who are successful and give a little bit to you. Taking the government dole your entire life, you'll always be one step from destitute. Only the government will be 'rich'. Look at Cuba, China, Russia, etc., the 'leaders' have everything they want and now-----so do ours. LBJ's GREAT SOCIETY was going to correct people being 'poor', now look at us-----the poor are still poor and the country in serious debt.

reply
Jim 2013/02/15 01:50:33 (edited)

No

+4
As much as I empathize with the plight of our underemployed labor force, we have an even bigger problem with undercapitalized small business. Small Businesses can barely support themselves. They cannot hire a lot of people or weather economic storms. What we need is to repatriate all the value-adding work that's been offshored over the past 30 years. We also have a badly corrupted money system but, that's for another argument.

Before you can raise the minimum wage, you must FIRST restore the kind of jobs that can support a higher minimum wage. NO! HIGH TECH will NOT save us! High tech's very nature is to self-destruct by accelerating obsolescence. High tech knocks out every rung of the ladder as it advances. HIGH TECH DESTROYS JOBS. Period! High Tech can NEVER be a mass employer like heavy industry, non-corporate agriculture, and manufacturing. Only factories and mills can employ the greatest cross section of the labor force. Government's proper role is to compel equitable distribution of the immense wealth created. Otherwise, you have the Corporate Promised Land of China and sweatshops in other countries.

The burden MUST fall squarely upon the Federal Government to restore a labor intensive economy with New Deal protections. A full-set industrial economy that is able to ...

As much as I empathize with the plight of our underemployed labor force, we have an even bigger problem with undercapitalized small business. Small Businesses can barely support themselves. They cannot hire a lot of people or weather economic storms. What we need is to repatriate all the value-adding work that's been offshored over the past 30 years. We also have a badly corrupted money system but, that's for another argument.

Before you can raise the minimum wage, you must FIRST restore the kind of jobs that can support a higher minimum wage. NO! HIGH TECH will NOT save us! High tech's very nature is to self-destruct by accelerating obsolescence. High tech knocks out every rung of the ladder as it advances. HIGH TECH DESTROYS JOBS. Period! High Tech can NEVER be a mass employer like heavy industry, non-corporate agriculture, and manufacturing. Only factories and mills can employ the greatest cross section of the labor force. Government's proper role is to compel equitable distribution of the immense wealth created. Otherwise, you have the Corporate Promised Land of China and sweatshops in other countries.

The burden MUST fall squarely upon the Federal Government to restore a labor intensive economy with New Deal protections. A full-set industrial economy that is able to supply domestic demand, especially in durable goods. And tariffs designed to protect the workers, not the banksters. Without the workers, you don't have consumers.

It is time to redefine the purpose of a Corporation. For too long, Corporations have enjoyed rights that should never have been granted i.e. personhood. Corporations are required to make gains for their shareholders, even when those gains result in great harm to its patron nation. That paradigm has to change. Corporations must be stripped of personhood and be compelled to make the Public Good as their primary goal. The Public Good being the equitable distribution of wealth to the laborers and dividends to private shareholders for the purpose of savings and retirement. The CEO and management ONLY get their bonuses when those goals are met.

When the labor force is taking home decent paychecks, then small businesses that cater to them will get more sales and contracts. Which means that they will be able to support a higher minimum wage. First things first, folks.

Until Globalization, Reaganomics, and Finance Capitalism are declared crimes equal to the Holocaust, the wealth concentration into unaccountable hands will continue. The scarcity of capital will eventually make the current miserly minimum wage unfeasible.
(more)

reply
BlackSouth 2013/02/14 23:03:02

Yes

+1
Proverbs 22:16
He who oppresses the poor to make more for himself or who gives to the rich, will only come to poverty.

reply
Captame... to BlackSouth 2013/02/14 23:36:35

+1
Thanks, Obama better listen up! Good thing he doesn't follow scripture too closely!

reply
BlackSouth to Captame... 2013/02/15 00:35:52

+1
I meant that pointing the finger at capitalism. Twist it however you want it though.

reply
Captame... to BlackSouth 2013/02/15 02:25:56

+5
Capitalists societies are the most benevolent and scripturally pure! Remember it is Socialism that must remove God, and become the "savior' of the people!

reply
Kaye to Captame... 2013/02/15 02:36:32

+2
Amen!

reply
BlackSouth to Captame... 2013/02/16 18:15:14 (edited)

benevolent with each other and no one no one is scriptural pure. Even Jesus said so.Mark 10:18 "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone." I think he even included himself and I am sure that he is more righteous than all to be able to take everyone ones sin upon himself. I think you should go back and read your Bible. If Capitalist are "scripturally" pure (scripturally is not even a word by the way) Why don't they release those that are in debt to them after 7 years as in the Bible? or in fact give up their wealth to follow Jesus? or give to those who ask? or walk be willing to walk two miles with someone who ask to be accompanied 1 (some poor down and out person.) Please just answer one of those questions. If you don't answer the second one don't feel bad. The guy in the Bible just turned and walked away without saying anything to Jesus after he told him what he could do.

reply
Captame... to BlackSouth 2013/02/18 09:20:43

+2
America is not a Theocracy, we have laws that protect us from such absurd fiscal policies (releasing debt after 7 yrs)! Jesus was describing interpersonal conduct, he was apolitical (remember?)! Jesus advocated "personally giving" to the poor, not making others "give"! The parable of the rich man dealt with the love of money, as many current Democrats are currently demonstrating, the "what's Obama gonna give me" reason for voting, don't you think?

reply
BlackSouth to Captame... 2013/02/19 19:01:00 (edited)

No I don't think that. I am a firm believer of separation of Church and state, but I see that you are the type of person that would like to have it both ways. On the one hand you probably yell and scream "This country was founded on GOD and that heathen Muslim Obama is ruining it by taking God out of it." on the other hand You yourself just said "America is not a theocracy." Obama won because Americans voted him in. Also every President is voted in by people with the "What will this President do for me" mentality or what other reason would you vote for a president? Certainly not skin color right?

reply
Captame... to BlackSouth 2013/02/19 20:36:06

+2
I want this country to succeed and prosper. When it does, we all do! I vote for the person that will make it so, not the one who promises to give me something! The (God fearing) founding fathers warned against a democracy, where voters could vote for their own personal interest instead of the good of the nation. Don't you care about America, or (to quote a former president) only what "this country can do for you?"

BTW, stop trying to put words in my mouth, I resent BO because of what he's doing to this country, not because he's Muslim (or whatever you think he is). Also, "heathen Muslim" is an oximoron, you're either "heathen" or "Muslim", they are mutually exclusive terms! Please learn a little English before ascribing such stupidity to someone!

reply
BlackSouth to Captame... 2013/02/20 16:56:01

First of All I served my country proudly. I was and still am willing to shed my blood for it. Secondly I never said that you said that "BO" was a heathen, Muslim. I was generalizing how those who didn't vote for him disrespects the office that he hold. (That goes for "BO" that you yourself use.) I didn't like President Bush but never have I referred to him other than President Bush. If not a democracy then what? What kind of system should America have? Definitely not the Monarchy that many say that President Obama is creating. Every man for himself with total liberty and no federal government. That sound a little like Anarchy to me.

reply
Captame... to BlackSouth 2013/02/20 20:11:39

I am for a Republic, as the founding fathers established. We must have some government, just make sure it is limited. This link is a little long, but describes my position on our government:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?...
GWB expanded governmental power, but BHO is getting carried away with grabbing government power, don't you think?

reply
BlackSouth to Captame... 2013/02/21 11:42:57 (edited)

If what you say is true why don't you watch more of Fox Business News instead of Fox News.history actually shows that the U.S. economy, stock prices and corporate profits have generated stronger growth under Democratic administrations than Republican ones.

Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/in...
http://www.foxbusiness.com/in...

reply
Captame... to BlackSouth 2013/02/21 14:59:12

Thanks for the link (you know they are the same, don't you?). Interesting and informative, but remember it's the House that really has the financial purse strings! BC had Newt G, whereas RR had Tip O. Big difference!

Also, the article was written last Sept, before last quarter's 0% growth in GDP and slight increase in unemployment. BO has been worse for the economy than GWB! I can't believe I said that! And I thought GWB was bad! Wow, how could that be?

reply
BlackSouth to Captame... 2013/02/22 01:22:36 (edited)

but it was still higher than the month before. gotta Love that Fox business news. because BO is cleaning up the mess that Bush made right before he left.

reply
Captame... to BlackSouth 2013/02/22 02:09:26

GWB has been out of office 4 years, this is BHO's economic mess! Face it, BHO is either over his head, or deliberately sabotaging the economy! What do you think?

reply
BlackSouth to Captame... 2013/02/22 02:17:20 (edited)

So what you're saying is that Bush left office in the black and left America with a prospering economy and no wars and the 10 trillion dollar deficit and two wars with open tabs and had been going on for 8 years were created on day one when Obama took office? I know many would like to forget about Bush (even the ones who voted for him.) but it's just not that easy.

reply
Captame... to BlackSouth 2013/02/22 02:20:49

Whatever GWB did, if BHO can't get it rectified in 3 years, he's a failure. This economy should be roaring back, but BHO is still holding it down! The government is too big and needs to be cut down to size!

reply
BlackSouth to Captame... 2013/02/22 02:36:09

How can you rectify something in 3 years that it took eight to mess up?

reply
Captame... to BlackSouth 2013/02/22 02:43:34

The 1st 6 years of GWB's economy was strong, it was only the last 2 years (after the Dems took the House in 2006) that the economy went south! Face, GWB was not good for the economy, but BHO is terrible! Keep watchin'!

reply
BlackSouth to Captame... 2013/02/22 04:28:24

He had a good start with what the previous president left him.
and if that is true what you say why is it that we always fair better when Democrats are in control?

reply
Captame... to BlackSouth 2013/02/22 10:45:14

Clinton, like IKE, JFK, and Reagan, was an economic policy conservative and consequently the economy prospered. This country became a world power because it did not allow the rich and powerful to control the market by using free market capitalism to control greed, and market decisions. When the system gets out off balance, the market system has its own ways of moderating itself. No group can control a free market, supply and demand determines all market decisions.

reply