Comments:Minimum wage in United States increases to $6.55

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

  • Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
  • Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
  • You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading


$6.55 minimum wage? That's pathetic. Is this the U.S. government's way of competing with China? Pay the same wages? --Brian McNeil / talk 13:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's better than nothing. Many countries, such as Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Switzerland, Germany, Austria, Italy, and Cyprus have no minimum wage laws. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.75.93.104 (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shit in Spain you get pay every 3 weeks not 2 like in the US. --66.229.12.186 16:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note that all the countries you mention have a social security net to catch the poorly paid and ensure that they have enough money to live on, yes, even Spain - which is obliged to do so as a member of the EU. Over here in Europe we're filthy socialists who believe everyone should have enough money to live on - without working over 100 hours a week. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inflation has absolutely rocketed in the past decade. The fact that the federal minimum wage is not AT LEAST $10.00 is criminal in my mind. 71.236.31.29 03:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even the concept of "minimum wage" has lost all "real life" implications. It is just a number that politicians get to bring home to their constituancy and say "I did this!" However, it is nearly meaningless. The millions of "illegal immigrants" or "undocumented workers" or whatever people want to call them, render the concept meaningless. And those elitists in Europe who think they are being "social", really know (or ought to know) they are just creating a class of people who "game" the system and do nothing ... ever. --SVTCobra 03:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your distain for Europeans is noted. Is this a common attitude among people living in the United States? --Brian McNeil / talk 10:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You mistake my disdain for socialism. I like Europeans just fine. Most of my close family lives in Europe and two friends from Europe are visiting me right now. --SVTCobra 17:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SVTCobra is Danish, I believe. That, or Swedish. I think he'd be the last one to have "express disdain for Europeans." Mike Halterman (talk) 03:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if the europeans have created a class of people who "game" the system and do nothing ever, this should be quite evident and easily proven. please do so. - Imind (talk) 15:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of them live here. --SVTCobra 17:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

great. could you describe how they are "gaming" the system, and which ones are doing it? - Imind (talk) 20:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some IHT article. But my reason for saying what I said is largely anecdotal. --SVTCobra 11:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the page I notice that the town's residents number something around 850 people, even if they are receiving massive government support for their activities; even if they're ALL contributing nothing. There are still too few of them to worry about. While I agree that people gaming the system is something to be concerned about, that shouldn't be a reason to disenfranchise people who are poor for reasons beyond their control. This was the reason given for the lack of Government help during the Victorian era in London and it's surroundings; one of the reasons it was regarded as one of the most miserable places to live during that time even by tourists from other 19th century cities. --131.181.251.66 22:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One other thing, I doubt the "chief economist" himself has ever tried to live off minimum wage while trying to get education or a higher paying job; I suspect he wouldn't be so cavalier about Business's interests if he had. --131.181.251.66 22:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reasoning is independent of one's living conditions. Fephisto (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it seems apparent that the "reasoning" has no basis in knowledge of the conditions the decision imposes. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that what you are saying is with regards to the side that wishes to keep the minimum wage. Fephisto (talk) 02:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just repeal it already[edit]

It will either cause unemployment or inflation or more than likely both, for the reasoning to back this up, I suggest going here: http://mises.org/humanaction/chap30sec3.asp (or, better yet, reading the whole book; but that may take a while). The base argument is an ethical one in that minimum wage, as all price controls are grounded and enforced by the result of coercion.Fephisto (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps worth reading the Wikipedia entry on the people hosting this. Of course, some knowledge of social reforms, and their necessity, that have happened in the past 200 years might make you sceptical of the validity of their ideology. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brian, no, this doesn't convince me, and from my point of view it appears to be a Red Herring to the issue of the minimum wage. Is there a something about Human Action or Austrian Economics or natural rights that you would like to level directly? Fephisto (talk) 18:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Balance[edit]

It still remains staggering to me that we live in a society that recognizes a standard for poverty. The government determines what level of yearly income would qualify you for poverty staus, and then sets a minimum wage that would have peaople enetring into that catagory. I doubt that the founding father's would have accepted the fact that we could recognize "poverty" and then set a monetary amount that would have Americans agreeing to work for less. In my opinion, the timeframe that the federal government is using is to slow. Workers need to earn a "minimum wage" that places them above the poverty level now.

This being said, it is hard for companies and small businesses to afford to pay workers a drastically higher wage. Simply put, it's easier to leave the country and pay foreign workers much less. This topic is a viscious circled that is not easily broken, but none the less, it must be. The seperation of wealth in the US is a widening gap that will ultimatley lead to situations of economic depression that we are not equipped to handle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.79.245.15 (talk) 15:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from feedback form - "is min wage going up in 2010"[edit]

is min wage going up in 2010 —74.193.87.216 (talk) 05:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]