I know this is old news but I just found this article on the Capitalism Magazine website. It’s about the minimum wage issue and how the Speaker of the House was a hypocrite on her standing. I guess there is a US Territory that was left off the bill.
“American Samoa would have been the only U.S. territory not subject to the federal minimum wage.” - CM
The article points out that there are two US companies that have packing plants there and that they would suffer if the wages were increased. But here is the kicker: the two companies mentioned are from California where Speaker Pelosi has ties.
“It’s not unreasonable to guess that Speaker Pelosi’s position has to do with the interests of her well-heeled constituents.” - CM
It’s just funny how these people can say they’re for the common good of the people and then you find out they are really for the “good” of themselves. I wouldn’t have a problem with it if they were up front about it. I just don’t like, or trust, people that are two faced.
The last few lines of the article say it all, so make sure you go read it. Lastly, I do not support the minimum wage; I feel that it demoralizes the hard working people that earn what they make. Why should some new unskilled worker get paid the same as someone that is skilled? Also, an employer will only pay you as much as you are worth to them, no more and no less. So it is not fair for the government to set a worker’s worth; not all workers produce equally. Some produce more and are worth more, whereas some produce less and are worth less. The government needs to stay out of business.
Wow, you have no idea what you are talking about. In the last 20 years the GDP of this country has increased dramatically. The wage for executives has gone up an average of 200%, while the wage for labor has gone up about 15%. At the same time inflation has gone up, leaving the “increase” in labor pay almost non existent. If the government does not step in to increase minimum wages, no one will. Moreover, business will have to respond to this increase in minimum wages by increasing the wages they give to skilled workers proportionality. So what if there is some evidence (what you present is less than credible) for the congresswoman appealing to her constituents, this is how politics works, what are you 12?
Whaaat? Pelosi being hypocritical? Never!
Ummm… check your facts. American Samoa WAS included in the final version of the bill.
What do you think is going to happen to our island once the minimum wage almost triples? Do you really think our current tuna canning industries can handle this? Hopefully our island can find another industry to support our population.
I for one am just a little irked that American Samoa didn’t get a chance to voice it’s opinion. It’s one of the many unfortunate reprocussions from not having a voting Representative or Senator.
P.S. In regards to immigration, was reading this article:
Apart from abortion, no subject produces so much disingenuousness as America’s immigration policy, both legal and illegal. For nearly 50 years, Americans have been intentionally lied to about our immigration laws.
In 1965, Teddy Kennedy overhauled immigration law with the specific purpose of effecting a dramatic change in the nation’s demographics. Bobby Kennedy had civil rights, so Teddy needed something big: He would preside over a civil rights bill for the entire Third World! My word, but that man could drink in those days.
With his 1965 immigration act, Kennedy embarked on entirely transforming American culture for no good reason. (You know how people always say the same arguments against illegal immigrants today were once made about the Irish to show how silly those arguments are? If only the U.S. Senate had had an “Irish Need Not Apply” sign!)
Until that point, immigration law basically took a laissez-faire approach, with country quotas attempting to replicate the traditional immigration patterns. Most immigrants to America had historically come from Great Britain, Germany and Scandinavian countries. Consequently, immigration quotas roughly reflected that balance, with smaller numbers of immigrants admitted from other countries.
But in an angry, long-awaited payback to WASPs, Kennedy decided he was going to radically transform the racial composition of the country. Instead of taking 15 immigrants from England and three from China, America would henceforth take three from England and 15 from China. Payback’s a bitch, Daughters of the American Revolution!
[taken from http://www.anncoulter.com
Inflation goes up when the government makes money out the thin air.
As for “So what if there is some evidence (what you present is less than credible) for the congresswoman appealing to her constituents, this is how politics works, what are you 12?” That should NOT be how politics work! And I would never vote for a politician that acts that way. They are voted in to office to represent us, NOT themselves.
Also you say that someone needs to step up! Well why couldn’t the people themselves step up? Why do people need to run to government every time something doesn’t agree with them? Take some responsibility and ask for a raise or find a better job.
While a politician will always appeal to his (her) constituents [and I don't mean that as 'They will always like her'], I think its true that politics are simply that way. Trouble is, politicians who seem perfect in their home states are destroyed morally (not always) when they get to Washington. I don’t think its necessarily moral or right but I think it takes a certain kind of courage to stand up for what’s right (and, more importantly, for the ideals promised during campaigning). Notice how Robert Byrd has turned WV into a virtual Byrdland tribute to his own career in politics (everyone loves a Klansman!).
As for minimum wage increases, who the **** still makes minimum wage anyway? Aren’t the MW-earners abysmally low in number? If the cost of living rose significantly, then naturally the employer would have to raise his wages or suffer at the hands of his employees. The only thing the minimum wage does is raise the bar for the unsightly masses; those that aren’t really worth the $7.25 an hour get paid that much anyway.
And further, what does that say about the earner? That they can only earn the bare minimum from their employer, so basically they’re a loser in a dead-end job. I always thought trade/commerce/employment was about conquering, not settling for $7.25. There’s a McDonald’s commercial running right now about a lady who started as a fry cook, became a manager, then a regional manager, and now runs something like the entire Eastern seaboard of McDonald’s. THAT’s what mankind is meant to be and that’s what work is meant to be; of course not everyone is going to be able to reach dizzying heights of success, but nobody said you wouldn’t be the one to do it.
Long story short: Interfering with private businesses, in any way, shape or form (including those stupid discrimination laws) is collectivist and morally repulsive.
And it only took me to my third comment to be on topic. Kinda.
Andrew,
Yes, you are now on topic again! I think your frist comment was on topic too.
In reply to ‘A Smart Person’ and his/her claim that labor has only increased by 15%: so?
A minimum wage means that workers who are unskilled or inexperienced cannot get jobs (and thus gain skill or experience) if it doesn’t make sense economically to hire them. For example, there are fewer jobs available to Mexican immigrants who do not speak English than if they could work for less while they gained experience and learned the language. Once a worker has a job, they can begin to gain skills and experience (or linguistic abilities or whatever) and make more money and advance. Once they advance to a more complex job, they are no longer being counted as labor and their job no longer contributes to the total income made by labor-type jobs.
Secondly, with increased industrialization, there are fewer and fewer jobs that are counted as labor-type jobs. Shy of government intervention, this does not necessarily imply increased unemployment (if it did, it would be much more difficult to raise the standard of living in per capita terms). These few jobs are considered labor-type jobs because they are menial and generally easy to perform. This means that the cost of someone performing them is always bounded economically in two ways: 1) an employer will generally hire someone to do something only if machines cost at least as much to do a comparable job; and 2) anyone can perform labor-type jobs, which means that if there are fewer labor-type positions than human beings, the laws of supply and demand will drive the prices below any job requiring more skill.
The increase in industrialization has actually provided jobs for more and more of the unskilled workers, specifically the least skilled. The factories and inventions of the world have created an environment where an unskilled worker who could not invent the automobile engine or interior air conditioning or wireless radio broadcasts can enjoy all these and more performing labor as simply as pushing a button or examining a machined part for defects. While most people are far more skilled than to be able to perform only this type of job, those who are not can take satisfaction in providing for themselves instead of being a helpless dependent.
Most everything I’ve said has been said better by George Reisman in his book, Capitalism. Check it out here: http://capitalism.net/Capitalism/CAPITALISM_Internet.pdf
Thanks for the great comment AdamP, I hope to see you around here more offen! I am going to check out that book as soon as I find some time. THANKS!!!!!!
“…a laissez-faire approach, with country quotas attempting to replicate the traditional immigration patterns.”
Coulter is conveniently re-defining “laissez-faire” for her purposes. There is nothing :laissez-faire” with saying that future proportions will be in the same ratio as past proportions. That’s just the opposite of laissez-faire: it’s government regulation of the economy.
I agree I an not a fan of Coulter. Government regulation always makes more problems this it fixes.