Minimum Wage increase passes the House

After the first page, I didn't feel like reading any more of this thread, but felt outraged enough to post a comment in a place that I rarely frequent because of its lack of interest to me (ie, not enough LSU sports, but over-played politics...)

But, from a college student who relies on minimum wage jobs, I can say that it's a double-edged sword. I was born and raised in Morgan City and finding a job while in high school is a privelage offered to only the well-known names in town. I wasn't so fortunate, and I had to literally beg my ass off to simply work at burger king making $5.15 an hour. The irony is that in EVERY job that I've ever worked, I've busted my ass AT LEAST 75% more than the next guy. At an early age I was taught the value of a dollar and the value of hard work. Thus, while everyone was taking 15 minute breaks every ten minutes in every job I've ever worked, I was busting my ass not only doing my work, but their work as well--without taking breaks. I would honestly say that hard-working students DESERVE this raise (plus more,) but the flipside is that high school drop-outs will be making the same amount of money as the people who actually deserve it.

Regardless, I don't think that the raise is too excessive mainly because of inflation. Most people against this raise are too far removed to actually remember when they had to work minimum wage jobs. It sucks. I could go and work offshore and make 15 bucks an hour, but why? I'm going to college to get away from that kind of lifestyle.

I moved from Morgan City to the Houma-Thibodaux area not only because of the fact that it is closer to Nicholls State, but the economic development in the area is 600% better than in Morgan City. I worked a job at one of Morgan City's most "honorable" restaurants--the Petroleum Club--and after a year and a half of busting my ass, I still made $5.15 an hour. Screw that! I'm sorry, but if I can move to Houma and make $6.00 an hour pretty much by simply wiping my ass, why not do it? I'm not afraid of busting my ass for a respectable wage, but employers are reluctant to give out raises because labor is cheap. In ever job I've ever worked in I ended up doing the work of 3-4 guys while everyone else slacked off. The most I ever made in those situations was $5.75 an hour. Any idiot can see how I was saving companies money. Why pay three guys $5.15 when you can pay one guy $5.75? I guess that I might be the ONE exception, but I doubt it. Go ahead and raise minimum wage! I sure as hell could use it.

I don't mind doing the work, but a respectable wage is all that I ask for. If your company hires a bunch of slackers, then it is their own fault! Fire those kids, I'll do their work, but 7.00 bucks would be nice.

 

interesting. who paid for these programs?

 

how could my grandparents afford to pay for these things during the depression?

if you mean the government went into debt and my grandparents repayed that debt, who did the government borrow from?

if you mean my grandparents were rich during the depression and were taxed to pay for these programs, then why is it do you think my grandparents were not buying any goods or services with their money and needed to have it taken by force to employ poor poeple? why was the economy so stagnant?

 

that wasnt the question. the question was why was the economy so stagnant that the government had to jumpstart it by taxing and spending. what caused the stagnation? how do we know that the depression didnt end because of the war and other factors, in spite of, not because of, the new deal big government.

i dont understand how tax and spend helps. i honestly do not know, but my guess is the new deal made the depression worse.

(plus my forefathers have elite anglo saxon dna, here since before the american revolution, not mudblood polish immigrant dna)

 

Do you want me to explain why a free market economy would correct itself? The Great Depression was a recession made into a depression due to flawed governmental policies. Had it been just an economic problem, it would have fixed itself. That is why I said that these are the areas the government should have focused on. You say the New Deal was very effective from stopping people from starving, yet they were destroying crops & paying farmers not to produce food when they could have been purchasing this food instead. Had our government realized sooner that scraping the budget & increasing government spending would have taken us out of the depression, things would've been much better (yet you favor a balanced budget...).

 

It works both ways. The new deal created a couple programs I brought up that were vital to a working economy & have helped our economy stay away from serious recessions for a long time now. But at the same time, the new deal put a serious drag on the economy and stopped it from self-correcting.

Government spending is a vital part of the government & an increase in it helps the economy a lot. However, taxes are harmful to a growing economy so it's doubtful "tax & spend" helps a whole lot.

 

that was a rhetorical statement for red (when i said i dont understand how tax and spend helps. i know it doesnt) . i was hoping red would explain how tax and spend can rescue an economy from depression. when i said i do not know, that was referring to the idea that the new deal made the depression worse. i should have broken a paragraph there.

i think that is highly unlikely.

that staement is as vague as it has to be to avoid being obviously wrong.