Quote from: TboneAgain on July 05, 2014, 05:07:12 PM... The MW law and "public assistance" are one and the same. How can you not see this? The everyday enforcement of MW wage laws IS PUBLIC ASSISTANCE. ...

TBoneAgain, the FMW rate doe not contribute to federal revenue, does not compromise federal credit, is not a tax and certainly is not public welfare.
Your statement is a defining example of the word "hyperbolic".

Respectfully, Supposn 

Quote from: Supposn on July 06, 2014, 08:28:22 PM
TBoneAgain, we concur upon the politically determining the instances and extents of the FMW rate's adjustment insuring that rate to continue being significantly if not entirely an arbitrary rate.
To the extent that we could annually "peg" the FMW rate to the U.S. dollar's purchasing power, the rate would evolve to be less arbitrary and more logically determined each year beyond the initial rate determination date.  That's the logical justification of annually pegging the rate to the cost-price index.

Referring to:
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=1.60&year1=1968&year2=2014
You are correct; the arbitrary amount of $0.25 in 1938 = $4.22 in 2014.

Additionally he arbitrary amount of $1.60 in 1968 = $10.94 2014
and the arbitrary amount of $1.60 in 1968 = $0.65 in 1938.

What's your point? Respectfully, Supposn

"To the extent that we could annually "peg" the FMW rate to the U.S. dollar's purchasing power, the rate would evolve to be less arbitrary and more logically determined each year beyond the initial rate determination date.  That's the logical justification of annually pegging the rate to the cost-price index.

The purchasing power of an individual has no relationship to their ability to produce. One's skills and abilities should be the sole factor of how much compensation they earn. Granted, those skills have different values in different locales. However, with the freedom we have here one can move to take advantage their skills to the highest compensation levels.

Quote from: supsalemgr on July 07, 2014, 04:55:51 AM
"To the extent that we could annually "peg" the FMW rate to the U.S. dollar's purchasing power, the rate would evolve to be less arbitrary and more logically determined each year beyond the initial rate determination date.  That's the logical justification of annually pegging the rate to the cost-price index.

The purchasing power of an individual has no relationship to their ability to produce. One's skills and abilities should be the sole factor of how much compensation they earn. Granted, those skills have different values in different locales. However, with the freedom we have here one can move to take advantage their skills to the highest compensation levels.

SupSaleMgr, we agree that the purchasing power of an individual's wage rate may not be fully related to their ability to produce.  Don't we agree that to some extent employees should be rewarded if through their efforts they increase their production?

If the purchasing powers of wages are modified due to currency inflation while rates of production remain unchanged or increase, shouldn't the FMW rate be adjusted?

The U.S. dollar is the entire nation's currency and the reduction of purchasing power we're discussing is more or less occurring throughout our entire nation.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on July 07, 2014, 07:35:10 AM
SupSaleMgr, we agree that the purchasing power of an individual's wage rate may not be fully related to their ability to produce.  Don't we agree that to some extent employees should be rewarded if through their efforts they increase their production?

Agree. It is called merit increases. If an employer has a valuable employee it is up to that individual employer to pay the employee at a level that is satisfactory to the employee. No need for a outside mandate as to what any increase should be.

If the purchasing powers of wages are modified due to currency inflation while rates of production remain unchanged or increase, shouldn't the FMW rate be adjusted?

No. The marketplace should determine any changes.

The U.S. dollar is the entire nation's currency and the reduction of purchasing power we're discussing is more or less occurring throughout our entire nation.

Wage and price controls do not work. Were you engaged in the economy in the 1970's when this was last tried?

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on July 07, 2014, 07:35:10 AM
SupSaleMgr, we agree that the purchasing power of an individual's wage rate may not be fully related to their ability to produce.  Don't we agree that to some extent employees should be rewarded if through their efforts they increase their production?

If the purchasing powers of wages are modified due to currency inflation while rates of production remain unchanged or increase, shouldn't the FMW rate be adjusted?

The U.S. dollar is the entire nation's currency and the reduction of purchasing power we're discussing is more or less occurring throughout our entire nation.

Respectfully, Supposn

As usual, you completely ignored my post.
Are you afraid of the truth?

I think Supposn would rather the title be:  Efeminating the minimum wage.

Quote from: Solar on July 06, 2014, 06:38:12 AM
I never asked that, I asked why the ceiling on MW, why not raise it to $50.0, Hell, even $200.0 an hr or far more, if you think it's beneficial? ...

Solar's post #94:
As usual, you completely ignored my post.
Are you afraid of the truth?
///////////////////////////////

Solar, an effectively enforced minimum wage rate of proportionally great increase should be enacted incrementally.  Any such initialized or increased minimum wage rate should not be enacted without prior reasonable warning time.  This has always been and should continue to be our practice with regard to the federal minimum wage rate.
I'm unaware of a national minimum wage rate enacted in such a manner as being to the economic detriment of the nation or the government that enacted it.  Every increase of USA's federal minimum wage rate has been to the economic benefit of our nation.

There's logical reason for annually "pegging" the FMW rate to the variable purchasing power of the U.S. dollar.  The 1968 minimum wage of $1.60 had similar purchasing power as $10.94 in 2014 and was to our nation's benefit.

Obama's proposal to gradually increase the FMW rate from $7.25/Hr. to $1.10/Hr. and after the initial increases, continue annually pegging the rate to the changing purchasing power of the U.S. dollar is logical and politically reasonable.
Why would you want to further upset the Tea Party by initializing gradual increases to be
(200 – 7.25) = $192.75 rather than to ($10.10 – 7.25) = $2.85 ?
I thought I previously made this logically clear.  I didn't respond to your $50 or $200 dollar proposal due to my assuming your proposal was meant to be facetious.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on July 07, 2014, 11:43:51 AM
Solar's post #94:
As usual, you completely ignored my post.
Are you afraid of the truth?
///////////////////////////////

Solar, an effectively enforced minimum wage rate of proportionally great increase should be enacted incrementally.  Any such initialized or increased minimum wage rate should not be enacted without prior reasonable warning time.  This has always been and should continue to be our practice with regard to the federal minimum wage rate.
I'm unaware of a national minimum wage rate enacted in such a manner as being to the economic detriment of the nation or the government that enacted it.  Every increase of USA's federal minimum wage rate has been to the economic benefit of our nation.

There's logical reason for annually "pegging" the FMW rate to the variable purchasing power of the U.S. dollar.  The 1968 minimum wage of $1.60 had similar purchasing power as $10.94 in 2014 and was to our nation's benefit.

Obama's proposal to gradually increase the FMW rate from $7.25/Hr. to $1.10/Hr. and after the initial increases, continue annually pegging the rate to the changing purchasing power of the U.S. dollar is logical and politically reasonable.
Why would you want to further upset the Tea Party by initializing gradual increases to be
(200 – 7.25) = $192.75 rather than to ($10.10 – 7.25) = $2.85 ?
I thought I previously made this logically clear.  I didn't respond to your $50 or $200 dollar proposal due to my assuming your proposal was meant to be facetious.

Respectfully, Supposn

If it's good for the economy, then why raise it?

Quote from: Supposn on July 06, 2014, 08:53:24 PM
TBoneAgain, the FMW rate doe not contribute to federal revenue, does not compromise federal credit, is not a tax and certainly is not public welfare.
Your statement is a defining example of the word "hyperbolic".

That's me -- a real 'over the top' kinda guy.

The federal minimum wage is the wealth of private citizens and corporations redistributed in an arbitrary manner by order of the government at the point of a gun. I consider that public assistance.

Quote from: TboneAgain on July 07, 2014, 11:57:31 AM
That's me -- a real 'over the top' kinda guy.

The federal minimum wage is the wealth of private citizens and corporations redistributed in an arbitrary manner by order of the government at the point of a gun. I consider that public assistance.

He doesn't comprehend his circle of idiocy.

Quote from: Supposn on July 07, 2014, 11:43:51 AM
Solar's post #94:
As usual, you completely ignored my post.
Are you afraid of the truth?
///////////////////////////////

Solar, an effectively enforced minimum wage rate of proportionally great increase should be enacted incrementally.  Any such initialized or increased minimum wage rate should not be enacted without prior reasonable warning time.  This has always been and should continue to be our practice with regard to the federal minimum wage rate.
I'm unaware of a national minimum wage rate enacted in such a manner as being to the economic detriment of the nation or the government that enacted it.  Every increase of USA's federal minimum wage rate has been to the economic benefit of our nation.

There's logical reason for annually "pegging" the FMW rate to the variable purchasing power of the U.S. dollar.  The 1968 minimum wage of $1.60 had similar purchasing power as $10.94 in 2014 and was to our nation's benefit.

Obama's proposal to gradually increase the FMW rate from $7.25/Hr. to $1.10/Hr. and after the initial increases, continue annually pegging the rate to the changing purchasing power of the U.S. dollar is logical and politically reasonable.
Why would you want to further upset the Tea Party by initializing gradual increases to be
(200 – 7.25) = $192.75 rather than to ($10.10 – 7.25) = $2.85 ?
I thought I previously made this logically clear.  I didn't respond to your $50 or $200 dollar proposal due to my assuming your proposal was meant to be facetious.

Respectfully, Supposn

What part of a 3, 5, 7 year business plan did you not get?
That's how business works, it's a tried and true proven method that one develop such a plan, and govt interference is a literal slap in the face.

You also failed to respond to the crux of my point, being that small business owners are the most affected by an MW increase, in that they simply can't afford the increased costs, in turn, harming the very people you claim to be helping, because they are the very first to be laid off.
Not to mention the fact it stalls the economy in several ways, from hiring freezes, to price increases across the board.

Now address that point directly, in a manner most people speak in casual conversation.
You have a nasty way of bastardizing the English language, let alone Grammar.

Quote from: taxed on July 07, 2014, 11:48:05 AM
If it's good for the economy, then why raise it?

Taxed, because the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar is a variable.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: taxed on July 07, 2014, 12:18:28 PM
He doesn't comprehend his circle of idiocy.

He should move to Seattle, where apparently they do.

Quote from: Supposn on July 07, 2014, 02:50:36 PM
Taxed, because the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar is a variable.

Respectfully, Supposn

Does that idiocy work on other forums?  What you said made no sense and has no meaning whatsoever.  Why do you not understand labor's place in the cost of a product?  Please explain why you don't understand this, or your gone.  I've been wayyyyyyyy too lenient with you.

Quote from: TboneAgain on July 07, 2014, 02:57:32 PM
He should move to Seattle, where apparently they do.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/24/news/economy/seattle-marxist-minimum-wage/

QuoteNow, fresh off Seattle's historic passage of a $15 minimum wage, the self-described Marxist is ready to make it a national fight.