This is why we need a minimum wage hike


The Argument for Obama’s $10.10 Minimum Wage Hike, Explained in Dialogue Form:

Worker: “Hi, I’d like to work for you.”

Employer: “Sorry, the government says we have to pay everyone at least 10.10 an hour. We don’t have any money in our budget to hire more workers at that rate.”

Worker: “Well, I still need a job. I’ll gladly work for 6 dollars an hour. Deal?”

Government: “Hold on! You can’t do that. You’re not allowed to sell your services for less than 10.10 an hour!”

Worker: “But… I’d rather make under 10.10 than be unemployed. Why can’t I enter into a private employment contract with this establishment if we both feel that the arrangement benefits us? We are both consenting parties, aren’t we?”

Government: “Because that isn’t fair.”

Employer: “Excuse me, but I’d like to have a say in this conversa-”

Government: “Enough out of you, business owner! This is between me and the worker.”

Employer: “Actually, I really think you have nothing to do with-”

Government: “FAIRNESS! We are decreeing a minimum amount that all people must be paid, regardless of the financial realities of an individual business, and regardless of the actual measurable worth a particular worker represents. If a worker wants to work for less rather than not work at all, we won’t allow it. We are doing this because of fairness and freedom. WHAT DON’T YOU PEOPLE UNDERSTAND ABOUT THIS?”

Worker: “Well, if I can’t work than I guess I’ll have to start selling my stuff. Anybody want to buy my TV for 100 dollars?”

Buyer: “Awesome! I’ll take it!”

Government: “WAIT! You aren’t selling that thing for less than 200 dollars. This is for your sake. You deserve 200 dollars for that TV.”

Worker: “But nobody will buy it for that much and I really don’t think it’s worth 200 dollars…”

Government: “Look, just take some of this welfare until a high paying job falls out of the sky and lands on you like an Asteroid of Fairness from the Kumbaya Galaxy.”

Taxpayers: “Hang on, we can’t afford to finance any more entitlements! We’re barely making ends meet as it is!”

Government: “Well, you’ll have to get a second job to compensate for the financial burden of a trillion dollar Nanny State.”

Taxpayers: “Fine. Hi, employer, I’d like to work for you.”

Employer: “Sorry, can’t afford to hire more workers at 10.10 an hour.”

Taxpayers: “Alright, this is a supplemental income anyway. I’ll work for less. How ’bout 7 dollars an hour? Deal?”

Government: “WAIT.”

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

799 Responses to This is why we need a minimum wage hike

  1. Pingback: MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE Review 2014

  2. Pingback: IMAO » Blog Archive » Link of the Day: Minimum Wage – The Dialogue

  3. bryan says:

    U teapublicans r the nasty sort of arm chair economists america doesn’t need. Did u know austrailia’s economy never got hit by the recession’and is doing ducking great and their min wage is 16.37 AuD. Don’t be stupid or denigrate those who can’t afford arm chairs. The more thou know 🙂

    • oddrobb says:

      So Australia’s unemployment rate for workers age 15 to 19 is16.5% and you say they are doing great? 63% of all jobs lost in Australia were from young and low-skill workers. But that’s what you useful idiots call a “success” because outcomes don’t matter — only statism.

    • Econ 101 says:

      Your comment should not be based on one line from a government website. Employers are not required to pay minimum wage to everyone under age 21. It is a graduated system. Also there is increasing inflation in Australia (surprise surprise) and now the wages of miners are experiencing upward pressure (some are receiving upwards of $200,000 per year). Economics viewed from a logical standpoint would show that if you change one aspect of the economy all others will compensate. So the proverbial lowly fry cook at minimum wage will still only receive the same percentage of other people’ s before the increase in the minimum. It’s only logical!!!

      • Bryan says:

        That’s BS. 100%. If that’s true why were CE0’s making less money compared to the average worker in the 70’s. That was when factory workers made $30/hr pushing buttons and America was strong and happy. That should mean the CEO’s should have been making relative more, not less money, as they did. Or you ppl love to forget about Costco, where people make living wages; yet have the same qualifications as burger boys. Real ppl should be making about a bajillionjillion/year if they live in a Costco community by your kinda of math. I’m gonna move next to a Walmart, and COUNT the Benjamins!!!! I think it’s called trickle down your leg economics. Only logical??? How about wealth disparity in Scandinavia, you know, where everyone has free everything from the gov’t. Yet year after year rate the latter day commie Vikings score highest on national happiness surveys in the world, and bankers get jailed when they rob trillions “legally” from virtually every person in the nation. Yes wealth disparity is much less in Scandanavia than here in America, and they don’t even have UV radiation to boost their dopamine or vitamin D. Why don’t you continue have “logical” conversations with the kind of ppl that barely passed 6th grade, believe the devil put dinosaurs in the ground, and have never ever left their county. Well except for that one time; you know when they went to Niagara Falls, for a night of classy gambling and wax museums on their honeymoon. Please don’t pee on other ppls feet and tell them it’s raining.

    • Javin says:

      Are you like… Serious right now? Australia’s on the verge of an economic collapse as we speak… But because their GOVERNMENT says everything’s hunky dory, you just go right along with it? Australia’s economy is currently collapsing as a DIRECT RESULT of their inflation rate… And do you know what the primary driving factor for that inflation rate is? Minimum wage hikes.

      God YOU’RE the nasty sort of “arm chair economist” this country doesn’t need.

  4. says:

    without all that education you sure get to the common sense side of things. keep it up I love it!

  5. Pingback: This is Why We Need a Minimum Wage Hike

  6. Pingback: Lightning Round – 22/01/14 | Free Northerner

  7. Robert says:

    God damn, you are one of the most ignorant pieces of shit on the internet… just damn

  8. Lol, doesn’t really work like this. Here, let me revise this.

    Worker: Hi, I’d really like a job.
    Company: We’re offering $7 an hour, because that’s the minimum wage. Take it or leave it.
    Worker: But even if I work full time on $7 an hour, I won’t be able to make ends meet. My rent alone would be 120% of my income, and I live with 5 roommates in a $3,000 1 bedroom (the cheapest apartment I could find). Plus, I would have to sign up for food stamps and Medicaid even though I’m working full time.
    Taxpayer: Yeah, that doesn’t sound very fair to me!
    Company: We could pay $10 an hour, but we’re not going to because we don’t have to. Hell, we’re only paying $7 an hour because the government forces us to. If it were up to us, we’d be paying you $4 an hour. We could nominally raise our prices to subsidize a higher wage on which you could live, or alternatively we could decrease our CEO’s compensation from $50 million to $45 million, but we don’t have to, so we won’t. Take it or leave it. You want the job or not?
    Worker: Sigh. I guess. Let me go put in my application for food stamps, Medicaid, public housing, and other government benefits because even with a full time job I can’t make ends meet.
    Worker 2: Yeah, I think I’m just going to rob people instead.

    • “We could nominally raise our prices to subsidize a higher wage on which you could live”

      Yes, you read it folks, that’s someone suggesting making shit more expensive to help folks who, er, struggle to pay for things.

    • DerekB says:

      This is why we observe electrical engineers and doctors making $7.00 an hour, instead of $4.00, no doubt……..

    • So Funny says:

      If a $3000 1-bedroom is the cheapest you can find, you’re either making things up or you’re not looking very hard.

    • Hunter Hall says:

      1) Only in NYC other major cities, will you find a $3,000 one bedroom. In my city of 500,000 people, there are $400-$600 one bedrooms on every major street. I’m sure even in those large cities, there is reasonably priced housing, otherwise this issue would’ve been exacerbated a long time ago.

      2) At $7/hr, 40 hours a week, you will make roughly $1213.33/mo. In a one bedroom with 5 roommates, at $3000/mo split equally, your rent should be $600. Now, if you’re being forced to pay $1456/mo (120% of your income), you need new friends.

      3) if companies could get away with paying employees $4/hr, yes they might try, but morale would be shit. In a capitalist economy, some smart company would raise their wages to attract the best and brightest employees. This would force others to do the same, and you have a domino effect of higher wages. That’s called a free market economy.

      4) The concern for this hike is not on the Walmarts and McDonalds of the world. They can afford it. The concern is for the small businesses (businesses with less than 50 employees) who already have paper-thin margins. So when their labor increases 44%, the must increase their prices as well. This is called inflation, and this takes place across the board. Rent, goods, services, FOOD, everything goes up proportionally. So while your income increase, so do your expenses. It’s the laws of economics. So while you think you are getting ahead with a 44% increase in income, you’re in fact in the same position that you were in before, just with larger dollar amounts.

      5) Because I have to…. Show me the CEO of a small business (defined by the government as a company with less than 50 employees) where the CEO is making $50million a year and I’ll show you a fraud business.

      6) Again, because I have to… Whatever happened to pride? Whatever happened to dignity? Whatever happened to being all you can be, chasing the American dream? Nobody wants to be an astronaut anymore. People are okay with settling for low wage jobs, when there are an abundance of opportunities to better yourself and your situation. The liberal left maintains their political position by keeping the under-privileged, government-dependents in their povertous situations. They say they are helping, but when you look at FACTS and NUMBERS, government dependency and forcing small businesses into a corner does not help the economy. You kill jobs, you kill confidence, you kill the American dream.

      Wake up, America. Time to learn math again.

    • Dave the Knave says:

      What a fool you are. Keep drinking that kool-aid.

    • Payton says:

      Or worker can look for another job? Workers aren’t stupid. Neither are Employers. A business needs workers. If the employer wants workers, they try and pay their workers what they can. Employers don’t just get money on trees. They need workers. They either pay the workers what they can, or the workers quit. It’s like the free market. Sellers can try to “rob” the buyers into buying their product, OR the buyer can be smart and look for another similar product for a smaller price. OR the seller can be smart and sell for a reasonable price.

      • Payton says:

        To add: minimum wage reduces the chances of finding a job. The free market is therefore flawed because of interference from government.

    • Let the market place set the wage. That is how it works for high skilled jobs. You progressive liberals simply want the government to take care of you. They haven’t and they won’t. Get educated and look for higher skilled jobs. If you are a family of 5 with children under the age of 10, then it is your fault you are a failure…not mine. Stop being a victim and drag yourself out of the mud and create instead of taking. One more thing. Stop being a progressive liberal democrat who blames everything on people who actually make a living. 7 our of 10 millionaire plus people in the country are democrats. Democrats are the true “fat cats”.

  9. Hannah says:

    Minimum wage needs to be equal to the MINIMUM amount of money an American needs to live in a year…as inflation rises, so must minimum wage, or else you have many more people relying on government aid because they cannot make a living, which results in higher taxes. So…either the businesses pay or the people do. Take your pick

    • CJ Nissen says:

      You’re talking teenagers and part time workers. Why should my consumer dollars be forced to pay some part-time kid a living wage?

      • Rachel says:

        Because a lot of “part-time kids” are working to put themselves through college. So, not only are they paying for room and board, but tuition, too. They deserve to be paid as much as anyone else.

        • AmandaM says:

          Also, in today’s economy, where so many people have ben laid off, these “part-time” and “kids” jobs are increasingly becoming the jobs people rely on to support their families.

        • If one does not qualify for a higher paying position, then they don’t deserve the higher pay. That is how economics works. Anyone who thinks that all pay should be equal is a Communist.

    • That is the exact socialist criteria for economics. It does not work.

  10. Don't Assume says:

    So minimum wage is the only driver of inflation when it comes to the cost of goods? No cost-of-living comparison is valid here? Someone who works full-time or more than full-time shouldn’t be able to afford the basic necessities like rent/mortgage, food, transportation, education, daycare for their children (so that they can work in the first place), etc? This conversation is far too simplistic and places all the inefficiencies of the so-called free-market on the backs of the poorest and then says they deserve to be poor, rather than taking a balanced view of economics and all the forces at play that impact cost-of-living indexes. It would be easy to blame the poor for being poor if we were are all born into equal circumstances, but we’re not. Children don’t choose their circumstances but unfortunately they are the ones who pay for the decisions of adults, whether it is their parents decisions or those who slash social security programs that might insulate them somewhat from their parents bad choices (if that’s the case). Very sad to read some of these comments, especially coming from a crowd that I assume is largely Christian.

    • What I am hearing is that the majority of those who rely on low-skilled positions for money are incapable of making more money; therefore, they deserve just as much as one who works extremely hard for their wealth, be it $50,000 per year or $100,000 per year. I will help anyone who needs the help. I will not give assistance to lazy people who believe they deserve what other hard working people receive.

  11. In another generation, arguments like this one will be mute. Most people don’t realize how close we are to living in a society in which most low wage jobs will be taken over by robots. Google already has a driverless car that works and is safer than a human driven car. How long before the trucking industry, FEDEX, UPS and other delivery services catch on to this? The Teamsters union will all but disappear when this happens. So truck driving (one of the few low skilled jobs that still pays a decent wage) will soon be automated. But just because your not a trucker doesn’t mean your job is safe. Fast food workers want a higher wage too, in fact they want to unionize and get 15 dollars an hour. The debate about 15 per hour fast food workers is centering on if consumers would be willing to pay higher prices for fast food. But the real story is that there are already several companies working on a hamburger cooking and making robot. So think about all the low wage / low skill jobs out there. They are low wage, precisely because they involve little skill. If, in an attempt to make low skilled jobs pay better, the government increases the minimum wage, it gives that much more incentive for companies to invent systems (robots) that will do those jobs just as well or better for less money. It also gives incentives to companies to invest in automation rather than human workers. Its just makes sense economically. Given a choice between paying 10-15 dollars and hour, workmans comp insurance, unemployment insurance, medical insurance, and additional money in order to stay complient with OSHA and other government requirements and just buying a robot. More and more companies will choose the robot.

    • It looks like Socialism is here to stay. Eventually, we will end up just like all the other Socialist countries in the world. Everyone will be paid the same; therefore, making everyone poor. That is how communism works.

  12. darius says:

    Worker: “Hi, I’d like to work for you.”
    Employer: “Sorry, the government says we have to pay everyone at least 10.10 an hour. We don’t have any money in our budget to hire more workers at that rate.”
    Worker: “Really? What are your profits? According to yesterdays newspaper they were…”
    Employer: “Thats none of your damn business”

    Of course Wal*mart would just love to hire more workers, there is nothing more they would like, to serve the community and save humanity, provide for those who want to serve and bring about a greater good to the world, however that evil government is just taxing them to much (to pay for things we all need, like 2 wars) and now well dagnappit they want to have them pay 3 dollars more a hour. Whats next, offering health insurance to employees? Go check what Wal*marts quarterly profits are, surely they just cant afford to hire more workers and better the community; oh sorry, thats class warfare. When a worker fact checks a companies profits to follow up on them saying they would love to hire but simply cant due to budget thats class warfare, but when a employer stiffs a worker for profit thats called freedom, just like drug testing welfare recipients is good policy yet drug testing corporate CEOs who get a bailout is class warfare.

    Sometimes I really wonder about these so called Christians and which side they are on, and if they ever even read the bible. I am not anti-rich, I am anti-excessive greed and anti-poor who refuse to work. I am pro working poor as well pro business who invests in America and the community. How such self proclaimed Christ-like people can tell people working a 40 hour work week and need to choose between food and heat to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain is beyond belief. No wonder Dave Ramsey’s only response to it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God is “stop biblically nitpicking”. He’s right; the same way people biblically nitpick to guns, homosexuality, and just about any issue to fit their own theories.

    • Hank Flanders says:

      If that’s Dave Ramsey’s argument, then he need a better one. It’s true that the rich man and eye of the needle scripture is yet another grossly misunderstood scripture. Rich men were considered blessed by God, as evidenced by their outer riches. That’s why the question was posed, “Who then could be saved?” (because if rich men who were by all appearances blessed by God couldn’t, then who could?. All you have to do is look to the next verse for your answer. Rich people need God just as much anyone, but it doesn’t mean they’re damned because of their riches. It just means they’re not automatically saved because of them.

      • Rachel says:

        Also when you look at the historical context of that verse, the “eye of the needle” was actually the name for the door to a city wall. What did camels need to do in order to get through that door? Get on their knees.

  13. Pingback: This is why we need a minimum wage hike - Rick Green

  14. says:

    Why is this so hard? Here’s a crazy idea: raise minimum wage AND lower taxes for everyone across the board (yes, even the one percent). This way even small business owners can actually afford to pay their employees a higher minimum wage. Plus, more people with more disposable income means more people buying more goods and services, which means demand increases, which means production increases, which means prices either go down or at least stay about where they are, which means more people can afford more stuff, which also means more people working, which also means more people actually paying back in taxes, which means fewer people needing government safety nets, which means the government can actually take in more revenue AND decrease spending at the same time. Think about it, trickle up or trickle down by themselves will never fix the economy, so why not both? Right, because people tend to think with their politics first. There couldn’t possibly be ANY validity to what the other party says. This is exactly what both Democrats and Rebuplicans have convinced you of. It’s all one way or the other, not a reasonable, balanced approach. This is why everyone should be an independent. OUTLAW POLITICAL PARTIES! They only serve themselves, anyway. You really think Democrats care about the poor? You really think Republicans care about the wealthy? No, they only care about what keeps them in power. Prove me wrong. People should vote for PEOPLE, not parties.

  15. Pingback: Re: This is why we need a minimum wage hike | Dear Matt Walsh

  16. Black Knight says:

    Much of the time it’s more like:

    Worker: Can I work for you for $10?
    Employer: No way, you’ll get $4
    Worker: Why? Hiring me allows you to increase production and improve your bottom line by as much as $40. Surely it isn’t too much to ask for that I get at least $10 of that?
    Employer: Irrelevant. We’re paying you $4 because that’s what we can get away with paying you, meaning even more profit for us. Now, do you take the job or would you rather sell ass?

    “Why can’t I enter into a private employment contract with this establishment if we both feel that the arrangement benefits us? We are both consenting parties, aren’t we?”

    The whole “consenting parties” argument breaks down when there is a large disparity of bargaining power between the worker and the employer, which there usually is when the worker is poor to begin with. In such a case, “consent” is only given due to lack of an option.

    The microeconomical argument for minimum wage is that almost all employers doing any economic activity worth doing could afford to pay that much anyway, and that removing it would just give employers even more of an opportunity to exploit the disparity in bargaining power, for a small paltry total increase in employment (which might not even happen, due to the well-known difference in marginal propensity to consume between poor and rich).

  17. Eryk says:

    You lost me at, “I’ll gladly work for 6 dollars an hour.”

    Gladly? Really?

  18. LS says:

    Those who argue for a minimum wage use the possibility of big business abuse to dismiss the negative small business impact. Plus, why am I required to provide a living wage? Why should I not be required to provide a fair wage? Those things are not equal and even if they were, equal is not normally fair. We dont have an income inequality problem in America; we have a motivation inequality problem.

  19. bigmac says:

    AlL you obama ass holes have us in DEEP crap now

Comments are closed.