Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 whembly wrote:

Federal employees should enjoy the same system that everyone will be on...

I have the tiniest bit of grim satisfaction.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I noticed, makes me kinda scared TBH, Im not tech savy( My mind isnt build for stuff like that) so im wondering if i can even get a job.
Ugh, Maybe the "Those who cant, Teach" is true

Please don't insult my degree and future career. Teaching is probably one of the more difficult jobs I've come across, but that's a topic for another thread.

I want to b a teacher too, I hate that phrase too, But sometimes i just wonder if it is true.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I noticed, makes me kinda scared TBH, Im not tech savy( My mind isnt build for stuff like that) so im wondering if i can even get a job.
Ugh, Maybe the "Those who cant, Teach" is true

Please don't insult my degree and future career. Teaching is probably one of the more difficult jobs I've come across, but that's a topic for another thread.

I want to b a teacher too, I hate that phrase too, But sometimes i just wonder if it is true.

As with everything, it's true to an extent. I know some people (and have had a few teachers) that fit that phrase perfectly. I've also had some teachers that were bad at teaching as well as anything else they've attempted to do. I've also has some amazing teachers that could do things I wouldn't be able to given 10 years.

Then there are the teachers that are brilliant but have zero teaching skills. Like my chem teacher. Brilliant guy, but he couldn't give a decent lecture to save his life.

Yeah, I had a professor who was an amazing operating systems guy. I think he'd contributed several Linux patches himself. Completely brilliant.

Guy was also utterly dysfunctional. He could lecture well enough, but the moment someone asked a question or something went off the rails, like a projector not working or something, he couldn't ever get himself going again. As he only taught a single 300 and 400 level course and did grad school classes, I kind of suspect that he had to rehearse every class lecture the night before.

Reading through this thread makes me appreciate the UK a whole lot more.

The thought of health insurance and loss of the NHS would literally terrify me.

Out of curiosity. Since insurance generally has to be renewed. What happens to those on long term health problems or learning difficulties (or both like my daughter) when that renewal is up? Do the insurance companies ramp up the price of their renewal to nigh impossible levels, refuse insurance and in that case what happens then? Are their subsidies for the long term sick if insurance won't touch them and would it impact on their treatment, such as organ donation preference to insured patients etc?

I'm intrigued as health insurance and life without an NHS is pretty much an alien concept for me.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also Ian a Brit despite what my little flag says. For some reason it keeps on insisting I'm American.

Bringing this over for Zathras.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/06/13/democrat-not-fair-to-subject-congress-to-obamacare-just-like-everyone-else/

When the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) was being debated, proponents were accused of saddling Americans with inferior and expensive health care while keeping generous coverage for themselves at taxpayer expense. To rebut that allegation and build confidence in the bill, a provision was added mandating that members of Congress – and their staff members – get there coverage through the new exchange system the bill set up. Now that the time to sign up for exchange coverage is nearing, a Democratic member, Rep. John Larson (D., Conn.), is saying that “this is simply not fair” – as key staff members head for the exits to avoid Obamacare.

The irony? The man voted for it.

 djones520 wrote:
Bringing this over for Zathras.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/06/13/democrat-not-fair-to-subject-congress-to-obamacare-just-like-everyone-else/

When the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) was being debated, proponents were accused of saddling Americans with inferior and expensive health care while keeping generous coverage for themselves at taxpayer expense. To rebut that allegation and build confidence in the bill, a provision was added mandating that members of Congress – and their staff members – get there coverage through the new exchange system the bill set up. Now that the time to sign up for exchange coverage is nearing, a Democratic member, Rep. John Larson (D., Conn.), is saying that “this is simply not fair” – as key staff members head for the exits to avoid Obamacare.

The irony? The man voted for it.

I don't think words exist to express how little sympathy I have for Rep. Larson. Looks like it's good enough for the little people, but not good enough for the chattering class.

Maybe next time he'll read a Bill before he votes on it.

 Eetion wrote:
Reading through this thread makes me appreciate the UK a whole lot more.

Cheers... glad you feel that way.

The thought of health insurance and loss of the NHS would literally terrify me.

NHS ain't going no where... But, ya'll do pay for it via taxes. I'd be interested to see what's the true cost of NHS operation.

Out of curiosity. Since insurance generally has to be renewed.

Correct, most employer based plans are part of your compensation package.

What happens to those on long term health problems or learning difficulties (or both like my daughter) when that renewal is up?

Nothing... your rates are generally what tier you'd want (Bronze, Silver and Gold) and the differences between those threes are generally co-pays rates.

Do the insurance companies ramp up the price of their renewal to nigh impossible levels, refuse insurance and in that case what happens then?

Pre-Obamacare. It's possible that insurance can drop you if you were discovered to have expensive "Pre-existing" conditions. Generally, these are coditions whereby you'd qualify for state/federal insurance (medicare/medicaid). It's just that private insurance are generally better than the state/federal ran plans.

Another way (pre-Obamacare), the insurance would have a "lifetime benefit amount"... which is generally rare to reach that figure. You'd have to have multiple heart surgery or be a transplant receipiant to reach that figure. Even then, it's rare you'd reach that because your condition would likely qualify you for state/federal insurance.

Both of those are now illegal due to Obamacare laws (these are the good things in that act). It does drive up overall costs, but most folks aren't complaining about that.

Are their subsidies for the long term sick if insurance won't touch them and would it impact on their treatment, such as organ donation preference to insured patients etc?

Yup... Medicare/Medicaid covers those folks.

I'm intrigued as health insurance and life without an NHS is pretty much an alien concept for me.

It's not the wild west that many non-American mistake it for... there are MANY government assitance programs to help those in need.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also Ian a Brit despite what my little flag says. For some reason it keeps on insisting I'm American.

Maybe Dakka is trying to tell you something.

Better yet, just ask the Brits who immigrated here like MGS and DreadClaw.

Just realize, healthcare here is different. Not necessarily bad or worst.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:
Bringing this over for Zathras.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/06/13/democrat-not-fair-to-subject-congress-to-obamacare-just-like-everyone-else/

When the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) was being debated, proponents were accused of saddling Americans with inferior and expensive health care while keeping generous coverage for themselves at taxpayer expense. To rebut that allegation and build confidence in the bill, a provision was added mandating that members of Congress – and their staff members – get there coverage through the new exchange system the bill set up. Now that the time to sign up for exchange coverage is nearing, a Democratic member, Rep. John Larson (D., Conn.), is saying that “this is simply not fair” – as key staff members head for the exits to avoid Obamacare.

The irony? The man voted for it.

The irony there is delicious. This act is "exhibit A" of why "Large Comprehensive" laws is a bad idea. Just pass each things on it's own merits (ie, prevent insurance from dropping pre-existing condition folks, abolish the lifetime limits, etc...).

Ah yes, while we get half %$#@ measures, our friends and allies the world over have single payer health care which while it means taxes are used to cover you and your neighbors etc, it
A) Frees up small and large companies from having to spend more than their tax dollars.
B) makes sure that no one worries whether or not they have somewhere to go for health issues\
C) Ensures that ER's are not used in place of doctor visits by the poor, in which case the hospitals pass the costs to the Insurance companies who in turn, pass it onto their premium payers in higher premium hikes to cover the costs of taking care of the poor, so those crying about "Socialism" here are in fact being secretly "socialized" by your insurance company anyway, at least with single payer coverage it will be honest and out in the open. That and as was in a Frontline episode on medicine, if you want more or better coverage, the private medical insurance companies will be there as long as you pay for it above what basic coverage will do for you.

SO...when Obamacare goes full bore......the US crashes?

 Jihadin wrote:
SO...when Obamacare goes full bore......the US crashes?

Nah... it'll get repealed... or vastly neuter'ed.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

I don't think words exist to express how little sympathy I have for Rep. Larson. Looks like it's good enough for the little people, but not good enough for the chattering class.

Maybe next time he'll read a Bill before he votes on it.

You do realize that due to how wordy bills are, how big some of them get, and how many of them get pushed in front of representatives at a time, almost none of the representatives read any of them (Except the one paragraph they are asked to vote on) just to shuffle it through, right?

It's a system of (Hyperbolically speaking)

Rep asking another rep/ person they trust who read parts of it: "What does this bill do?"

That person: "Free ice cream for all people in congress."

Rep: "Sweet, signed!"

*Rep signs bill that increases tax on dairy products*

And remember, no one even knew what Obamacare did, even after voting for it.

 Slarg232 wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

I don't think words exist to express how little sympathy I have for Rep. Larson. Looks like it's good enough for the little people, but not good enough for the chattering class.

Maybe next time he'll read a Bill before he votes on it.

You do realize that due to how wordy bills are, how big some of them get, and how many of them get pushed in front of representatives at a time, almost none of the representatives read any of them (Except the one paragraph they are asked to vote on) just to shuffle it through, right?

It's a system of (Hyperbolically speaking)

Rep asking another rep/ person they trust who read parts of it: "What does this bill do?"

That person: "Free ice cream for all people in congress."

Rep: "Sweet, signed!"

*Rep signs bill that increases tax on dairy products*

And remember, no one even knew what Obamacare did, even after voting for it.

Then those representative should be thrown out of office.

IT'S. THEIR. JOB. TO. READ. THE. fething. BILL.

The ACA Bill is a stain on their record. The D's got spanked in 2010... I'm curious how it's going to go for them in 2014.

whembly wrote:The ACA Bill is a stain on their record. The D's got spanked in 2010... I'm curious how it's going to go for them in 2014.

About the same.

 Slarg232 wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

I don't think words exist to express how little sympathy I have for Rep. Larson. Looks like it's good enough for the little people, but not good enough for the chattering class.

Maybe next time he'll read a Bill before he votes on it.

You do realize that due to how wordy bills are, how big some of them get, and how many of them get pushed in front of representatives at a time, almost none of the representatives read any of them (Except the one paragraph they are asked to vote on) just to shuffle it through, right?

It's a system of (Hyperbolically speaking)

Rep asking another rep/ person they trust who read parts of it: "What does this bill do?"

That person: "Free ice cream for all people in congress."

Rep: "Sweet, signed!"

*Rep signs bill that increases tax on dairy products*

And remember, no one even knew what Obamacare did, even after voting for it.

Wait....what?

seem to remember a recent discussion on the gun laws here that the law was rejected because of the small print that many people disagreed with or rejected element of it.

So the gun legislation is given a fine tooth comb but major health care reforms aren't?

I would hope that kind of negligence isn't commonplace in government.

The D's do love a good spanking.

 azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:The ACA Bill is a stain on their record. The D's got spanked in 2010... I'm curious how it's going to go for them in 2014.

About the same.

I'm not so sure... if that's the case, then the (R)s would overtake the Senate. *shrugs* I wouldn't bet on it. I can see it happen on '16 though once most of ACA is implemented.

 whembly wrote:

 Slarg232 wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

I don't think words exist to express how little sympathy I have for Rep. Larson. Looks like it's good enough for the little people, but not good enough for the chattering class.

Maybe next time he'll read a Bill before he votes on it.

You do realize that due to how wordy bills are, how big some of them get, and how many of them get pushed in front of representatives at a time, almost none of the representatives read any of them (Except the one paragraph they are asked to vote on) just to shuffle it through, right?

It's a system of (Hyperbolically speaking)

Rep asking another rep/ person they trust who read parts of it: "What does this bill do?"

That person: "Free ice cream for all people in congress."

Rep: "Sweet, signed!"

*Rep signs bill that increases tax on dairy products*

And remember, no one even knew what Obamacare did, even after voting for it.

Then those representative should be thrown out of office.

IT'S. THEIR. JOB. TO. READ. THE. fething. BILL.

The ACA Bill is a stain on their record. The D's got spanked in 2010... I'm curious how it's going to go for them in 2014.

Agreed, but to change this, you would have to change how politicians see things; if they can slip one sentence in that says something beneficial for them, they will. That's why most bills are way longer than five pages; Make something one page, everyone can read it. Make something fifty pages, and no one "has the time" to read the entire thing, so you might be able to sneak a paragraph or two in that changes the nature of the bill entirely, to be "noticed" long after the bill is signed. It's not the person proposing the bill's fault they didn't read the fine print, anyway.

Now imagine having the 300-odd congressmen, the Senate, the state governors, the state "congresses" (I really don't know what they are actually called), and the president's cabinet sending you bills, along with your constituents sending letters and e-mails about their concerns over certain bills/laws, and you can quickly imagine the reading material piling up. It's too much for any one person to read and keep up with on a timely schedule.

 Ahtman wrote:
The D's do love a good spanking.

Who doesn't?

 Eetion wrote:

 Slarg232 wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

I don't think words exist to express how little sympathy I have for Rep. Larson. Looks like it's good enough for the little people, but not good enough for the chattering class.

Maybe next time he'll read a Bill before he votes on it.

You do realize that due to how wordy bills are, how big some of them get, and how many of them get pushed in front of representatives at a time, almost none of the representatives read any of them (Except the one paragraph they are asked to vote on) just to shuffle it through, right?

It's a system of (Hyperbolically speaking)

Rep asking another rep/ person they trust who read parts of it: "What does this bill do?"

That person: "Free ice cream for all people in congress."

Rep: "Sweet, signed!"

*Rep signs bill that increases tax on dairy products*

And remember, no one even knew what Obamacare did, even after voting for it.

Wait....what?

seem to remember a recent discussion on the gun laws here that the law was rejected because of the small print that many people disagreed with or rejected element of it.

So the gun legislation is given a fine tooth comb but major health care reforms aren't?

I would hope that kind of negligence isn't commonplace in government.

Sometimes you get caught, sometimes you don't.

Sometimes you have a mole/spy/whatever in the other guys corner reading bills for him and telling him to vote in your favor.

 Slarg232 wrote:

Agreed, but to change this, you would have to change how politicians see things; if they can slip one sentence in that says something beneficial for them, they will. That's why most bills are way longer than five pages; Make something one page, everyone can read it. Make something fifty pages, and no one "has the time" to read the entire thing, so you might be able to sneak a paragraph or two in that changes the nature of the bill entirely, to be "noticed" long after the bill is signed. It's not the person proposing the bill's fault they didn't read the fine print, anyway.

Now imagine having the 300-odd congressmen, the Senate, the state governors, the state "congresses" (I really don't know what they are actually called), and the president's cabinet sending you bills, along with your constituents sending letters and e-mails about their concerns over certain bills/laws, and you can quickly imagine the reading material piling up. It's too much for any one person to read and keep up with on a timely schedule.

Being too busy or that Bill's text is too much is no excuse for NOT reading said bill prior to voting.

I have no sympathy in this regard... they have to job to do... do it well.

I liked what Barbara Bellar had to say about it:


http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=vdnY8r7_fLw&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DvdnY8r7_fLw

whembly wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:The ACA Bill is a stain on their record. The D's got spanked in 2010... I'm curious how it's going to go for them in 2014.

About the same.

I'm not so sure... if that's the case, then the (R)s would overtake the Senate. *shrugs* I wouldn't bet on it. I can see it happen on '16 though once most of ACA is implemented.

I think you're kidding yourself. Once the full ACA is implemented, the GOP has no chance of taking it away, and anyone who tries will get voted out of office. That's one of the reasons the GOP has tried to avoid implementing it at all costs: once someone has health care, god help you if you're the politician that tries to strip them of it.

 azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:The ACA Bill is a stain on their record. The D's got spanked in 2010... I'm curious how it's going to go for them in 2014.

About the same.

I'm not so sure... if that's the case, then the (R)s would overtake the Senate. *shrugs* I wouldn't bet on it. I can see it happen on '16 though once most of ACA is implemented.

I think you're kidding yourself. Once the full ACA is implemented, the GOP has no chance of taking it away, and anyone who tries will get voted out of office. That's one of the reasons the GOP has tried to avoid implementing it at all costs: once someone has health care, god help you if you're the politician that tries to strip them of it.

If it's implemented and still a gak sandwich... It'll get modified/repealed. Bank it brah!

 djones520 wrote:
Raising the minimum wage doesn't do anyone any good. All of a sudden your taking more money from the people providing the jobs. When their margin gets smaller, they have to pass it on, especially if their margin is already small.

You can't just wave a wand and make more money appear for businesses to give to people.

Minimum wage doesn't work that way. Economics doesn't work that way.

I mean, for starters, the idea that business will 'pass on' the minimum wage cost in full is just gobbledigook. Businesses will charge what that can charge, that is not only how it is, it is how it supposed to be. What limits how much they can charge is the reality that they exist in a competitive market - people will move to other products if the company charges too much. None of that changes when there's an increase in minimum wage. Instead you'll see some portion of the cost get passed on in higher prices, and much of the increased cost just get absorbed in to the company through lower profits.

Which means a minimum wage means the employee gets an extra dollar, and consumers as a whole pay some portion, let's say 50c, while employers pay another 50c. When the minimum wage is as woefully low as it is in the US, this is a good thing.

And lastly, the business isn't 'providing the job'. There is nothing magical about a business. It exists because there is a demand for a product. If it did not exist, another business would move in to supply that demand.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:
I'll get on board with this when you can explain to me why a burger flipper at Burger King is entitled to a "reasonable" life.

Because he's a human being and we, as a society, have decided we aren't complete donkey-caves.

Well, most of us have, anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Except raising the minimum wage doesn't do that.

It increases costs for employers, including many wages that are not minimum wage but have automatic increases if the minimum is raised. These costs are then passed on to the customers, who are the same people that just had their wages raised, so in reality it changes the numbers and nothing else. The standard of living is not increased.

Your theory only works if everyone in society is on minimum wage, and the only cost to production is wages. As that isn't true, your theory is junk.

Here's how it actually works;

You have some portion of the population on minimum wage, let's say 5%. You increase the minimum wage by some amount, let's say 12.5%, from $8 to $9. And let's say 60% of the cost of production is in wages. And for simplicity's sake we'll assume the whole of the cost increase is passed on to consumers.

This means that minimum wage increase will lead to an increase in the price of goods by 0.375% (12.5% * 60% * 5%).

For the 5% of people who are on the minimum wage, they have a pay increase of 12.5%, which is slightly offset by a rise in costs of 0.375%, for an overall increase in living standards of 12.08%.

For the 95% earning over the minimum wage, they see a rise in the cost of goods of 3.75%.


Overall, it's a zero sum game, but given how much more of a difference money makes when you have very little compared to when you have a lot, the end result is a pretty clear gain.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Plus many skilled Union Jobs would be more expensive... as much of their hourly rates are contractually tied to what the state's minimum wage.

So, raising the minimum wage isn't the simple answer.

No. Raising the minimum wage is both the easiest and best answer to one specific problem in the US - the issue of the working poor.

It doesn't answer anything to do with Obamacare (I don't really know why it was raised at all to be honest).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
And what makes you valuable enough to keep around as a burger flipper? There are plenty of others that will work your job for the same pay. An unskilled teenager can do it and we've got those coming out of our ears.

Flipping burgers is not a job that is worth full benefits. Hard work or not, its unskilled labor that doesn't have a supply shortage.

'Worth full benefits' of course meaning 'entitled to health care insurance that will cover their costs when they get sick'.

All of which, ultimately, boils down to your opinion on whether or not an individual is worthy is just a load of irrelevant bs. There needs to be a system in which that person's healthcare is paid, because if that person gets sick society won't and in fact can't deny treatment. If the company doesn't pay, then that person likely gets medicaid. Which means you're paying anyway, just through higher taxes rather than through a more expensive hamburger. And if they slip through the cracks of medicaid and aren't covered, well then they default on their hospital bill, and you end up paying anyway when the hospital recoups those costs through higher bills on everyone else.

I mean, this is where the I got mine you can go and get fethed Mr Minimum wage worker theory isn't just odious in terms of its morals, its also just fething stupid. The poor have medical costs, just like everyone else. And because you're moral enough not to deny coverage, they still get treated. Inventing whackjob rationals for why their healthcare shouldn't cost money doesn't make their healthcare cost society any less.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:
What he said, it's the supply vs demand argument. There is no shortage of supply of unskilled labor, so it's going to be worth less.

Quite frankly, I scoff at the idea that unskilled laborer should be paid on an equivalent scale of what I make.

And I scoff at the nonsense idea that's slipped in to the kind of populist economics that sites like Dakka like to indulge in that what you earn is what you're 'worth'? Just, fething hell, it doesn't work that way. It was never meant to.

The market is a great system because it's efficient, and effective at assigning resources according to the overall needs of society. But the idea that what you're paid is what your're worth is just so fething stupid. I mean, go and look and see what a nurse gets paid. Then compare their pay to what some fuckhead running a herbal medicine store clears in a year.

The market is a great system, but it is a rough and ready system, and a long way from perfect. The idea that it perfectly defines what a person's labour is worth is utter, utter junk.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
While insurance is pretty fethed up right now, do you really think the government will change anything if they were in charge?

The government has to think about money too. If they're in charge of insurance they may also deny coverage based on prior history. Or even worse, simply string you along in waiting lines hoping you die before its your turn.

It just changes who's the face at the top.

Living in a country with government provided health insurance with an optional private system, all I can do is tell you your description above is so far from reality that it beggars belief.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
SO...when Obamacare goes full bore......the US crashes?

If we believe people who keep making those claims. But believing them would mean believing a group of people's who's record basically consists of playing chicken little everytime a piece of major reform is put in place... and given the US isn't a Mad Max wasteland, I'm inclined to believe those people are basically a collection of liars and lunatics that no-one should listen to at all.

I mean, did anyone other than me get a fit of giggles when Liz Cheney's quoted Reagan's famous warning about Medicare?

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. The only way they can inherit the freedom we have known is if we fight for it, protect it, defend it and then hand it to them with the well-taught lessons of how they in their lifetime must do the same. And if you and I don’t do this, then you and I may well spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it once was like in America when men were free."

That was from 1961 and he was talking about Medicare. That was installed, and then proceded to help provide necessary medical care to people without ever turning the US in to a socialist dystopia.

And here's Time magazine talking about the imminent demise of Medicaid in 1969;

"In theory, the four-year-old Medicaid program gives states what amounts to a blank check from the U.S. Treasury. In practice, the program—designed to finance medical care for the needy—has proved to be a tremendous drain on state treasuries as well. Even though federal handouts cover at least 50% of the costs, several leading Medicaid states —including New York, California and Michigan—have been forced to slash aid to their “medically indigent” because the runaway rise in hospital, drug and doctors’ bills threatened to engulf their budgets in red ink. Now Medicaid’s first state dropout has taken place."


And now there's Obamacare, and we're assured that this time the sky really is falling.

What is lost in these sort of discussions is that we are talking about human beings. Being human, they deserve a liveable wage.

Not to mention, raising the minimum wage is good for the economy. People with lower income spend a lot more of their money on stuff, which leads to more money for more people that spend it on stuff...It all feeds itself and improves the economy.

This is not true with the people with the higher incomes. They tend to save their money and not spend it. This hurts the economy as the money doesn't circulate and then stagnates.

All the people saying that minimum wages jobs aren't doing work worth increasing it, then you also need to look at the worth of the people at the top. No way is the CEO of the company doing more than 25 times the worth of work as the burger-flipper, and should be compensated appropriately (this includes benefits, stock options, bonuses, etc).

 skyth wrote:
What is lost in these sort of discussions is that we are talking about human beings. Being human, they deserve a liveable wage.

Not to mention, raising the minimum wage is good for the economy. People with lower income spend a lot more of their money on stuff, which leads to more money for more people that spend it on stuff...It all feeds itself and improves the economy.

This is not true with the people with the higher incomes. They tend to save their money and not spend it. This hurts the economy as the money doesn't circulate and then stagnates.

All the people saying that minimum wages jobs aren't doing work worth increasing it, then you also need to look at the worth of the people at the top. No way is the CEO of the company doing more than 25 times the worth of work as the burger-flipper, and should be compensated appropriately (this includes benefits, stock options, bonuses, etc).

But raising minimum wage only helps if the cost of good stays the same, if those costs go up in relation to minimum wage (or minimum wage rises to meet those costs) then we're not really getting anywhere are we?

 skyth wrote:
What is lost in these sort of discussions is that we are talking about human beings. Being human, they deserve a liveable wage.

No no one deserves anything, except to get out of my way.

Not to mention, raising the minimum wage is good for the economy.

No actually.

People with lower income spend a lot more of their money on stuff, which leads to more money for more people that spend it on stuff...It all feeds itself and improves the economy.

Your graps of economics is staggering.

This is not true with the people with the higher incomes. They tend to save their money and not spend it. This hurts the economy as the money doesn't circulate and then stagnates.

Saving bad. Spending good. I bet you voted for Obama didn't you, or can you vote yet?

All the people saying that minimum wages jobs aren't doing work worth increasing it, then you also need to look at the worth of the people at the top.

Don't worry they'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.

No way is the CEO of the company doing more than 25 times the worth of work as the burger-flipper, and should be compensated appropriately (this includes benefits, stock options, bonuses, etc).

25? This isn't Japan. Think 800x.

The minimum wage is not actually very good, guys. From one liberal to another, please stop talking about it like it's super positive.