Should Low-Wage Restaurant Workers Be Paid More?

[little2add]

 

[Socrates]

If I call my cat Fido it does not change the fact that my cat is a cat.

I am not sure how the mandate is substantively different than the tax deduction for people who have children. If I do not have children I pay a certain amount of tax. If I have children I get a deduction and the amount I have to pay in taxes is reduced. Is the government forcing me at gunpoint to have children?

It is the same thing with the mandate. If I do not buy a health care plan I pay a certain amount in taxes. If I buy a heath care plan I get a deduction and the amount I have to pay in taxes is reduced.

Whether you call it a tax or a fine or something else it is substantively the same.

So, in other words, Congress has the power to demand whatever the hell it wishes from the people regarding whatever the hell it wishes, so long as the penalty for non-compliance is monetary.

So much for the powers of the federal government being "few and defined."

 

Unless, of course, the Congressmen are voted out of office and replaced with politicians who reverse the law.

The reality is, politicians are loathe to voluntarily relinquish power.

 

OK. That's cool. I am not sure what it has to do with what I wrote though.

You're a smart enough guy.  I'll let you connect the dots.

 

Thanks. Much appreciated. It does not make any more sense to call me RINO than it does to call N.T. Write a "CINO". He is not Catholic. He is Anglican. Likewise - I am not a Republican and do not claim to be.

But if you absolutely must have an acronym to refer to me by please use the following: NARP - Not a Republican Period.

Thanks in advance.

I think I'll be straightforward and just call you a plain ol' statist.  You seem pretty happy with the bi-partisan status quo of big, centralized government.

[Winchester]

 

 

 

I think I'll be straightforward and just call you a plain ol' statist.  You seem pretty happy with the bi-partisan status quo of big, centralized government.

RDA of irony achieved.

[Peace]

So, in other words, Congress has the power to demand whatever the hell it wishes from the people regarding whatever the hell it wishes, so long as the penalty for non-compliance is monetary.

I do not recall having written that.

The reality is, politicians are loathe to voluntarily relinquish power.

Agreed.

You're a smart enough guy.  I'll let you connect the dots.

I attempted to connect the dots, and what I concluded was that your response was irrelevant to what I wrote. That will remain my conclusion unless you care to explain otherwise. If you do not care to do so that is fine, of course.

I think I'll be straightforward and just call you a plain ol' statist.  You seem pretty happy with the bi-partisan status quo of big, centralized government.

I do not recall having written anything about being pretty happy with big, centralized government.

When you call me a statist I am not sure exactly what you mean. I looked on Wikipedia and this is how it defines statism:

In political science, statism is the belief that the state should control either economic or social policy, or both, to some degree.^[1] Statism is effectively the opposite of anarchism,^[1] an individual who supports the existence of the state is a statist.

If you mean that I am a person who believes that the state should control economic or social policy to some degree, then yes, I fit that definition. Do you not believe that the state should control economic or social policy to some degree (such as banning abortion, for example)?

[CrossCuT]

 

How quickly the world would change if this was reality haha

[Peace]

How quickly the world would change if this was reality haha

Actually I think a much better solution would be to pay each Congressman several million dollars. You get what you pay for.

[Didacus]

Actually I think a much better solution would be to pay each Congressman several million dollars. You get what you pay for.

We would have basketball players. In congress - not sure if that's an improvement.  

[Peace]

We would have basketball players. In congress - not sure if that's an improvement.  

How do you get Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant to play for your team? You give them the max contract. If you want a D-League player you offer a D-League salary.

[Socrates]

It was debated at the Constitutional Convention whether congressmen would get paid at all.  Some thought that it should be an unpaid service, but it was decided that this would mean only the rich could afford to serve in Congress.

 

Actually I think a much better solution would be to pay each Congressman several million dollars. You get what you pay for.

Is it safe to assume you're joking here?

[Peace]

Is it safe to assume you're joking here?

I am 100% serious. When you go to buy a top-notch car do you visit the junkyard and pay junkyard prices? Or do you pay the price for a Porsche? Why would any talented lawyer, doctor, scientist, business person, etc. go into Congress when they could make 10 times the amount of money doing something else? The only reason why a talented person like that would sacrifice the well being of himself and his family by going into Congress is so that he can get his hands on power - and those types of power-hungry people are exactly the types of people you don't want serving in Congress. The amount of money that we would spend for the 500 or so Congressmen would be a drop in the bucket compared to the amount that is wasted by having incompetent people running our government.

I don't mean that the people CURRENTLY in Congress deserve that much money. I mean offer that type of money for future Congressmen, so that you can attract people that are talented and can do the work.

[dominicansoul]

I think there should definitely be term limits and lowered salaries not more.  Throwing more money at problems doesn't fix anything...

[Peace]

I think there should definitely be term limits and lowered salaries not more.  Throwing more money at problems doesn't fix anything...

 How do you except that to help? When you go to MacDonald's do you expect to see Filet mignon on the menu? 

Let's say we pass a law that says a Congressman shall be limited to 1 term at a salary of $20,000 per year. What type of quality do you expect to be able to attract with that? No successful or talented person is going to interrupt his or her career for something like that. You are only going to attract people who are incompetent or who have nothing better to do, or people who are power hungry.

[Socrates]

I am 100% serious. When you go to buy a top-notch car do you visit the junkyard and pay junkyard prices? Or do you pay the price for a Porsche? Why would any talented lawyer, doctor, scientist, business person, etc. go into Congress when they could make 10 times the amount of money doing something else? The only reason why a talented person like that would sacrifice the well being of himself and his family by going into Congress is so that he can get his hands on power - and those types of power-hungry people are exactly the types of people you don't want serving in Congress. The amount of money that we would spend for the 500 or so Congressmen would be a drop in the bucket compared to the amount that is wasted by having incompetent people running our government.

I don't mean that the people CURRENTLY in Congress deserve that much money. I mean offer that type of money for future Congressmen, so that you can attract people that are talented and can do the work.

Really?

Do you honestly think that offering exorbitant salaries for congressmen will give us candidates who are more honest, more devoted to serving the people they represent and to their country and its ideals, or more loyal to upholding the Constitution?

And it may sound hokey and corny, but these are things that  money can't buy.  Nor can they be measured in a man by the amount of his salary or financial net worth.

What are most needed in Congress are not scientific brainiacs, master business wheeler-dealers, NBA stars, or other high-paying talent, but men of virtue and honesty, with respect and loyalty to the people they are elected to represent, their country and its best ideals.  Those aren't qualities measured in dollars.

And I don't see how raising the wages of congressmen will make congressional candidates one iota less power-hungry.  It's not like lust for power and desire for money are mutually exclusive.  If anything, you'd merely add more greed into the mix.  It certainly wouldn't make serving in Congress any less attractive to the ambitious and power-hungry.  (If anything, you might merely attract more power-hungry persons with higher salaries.)

Rather than spending yet more tax-payer dollars on Congressional salaries, a better idea would be term limits on congressmen and senators.  A major problem is careerism in Congress - where serving in Congress is seen as a personally beneficial lifetime career path, and staying in power at any costs becomes the most important objective.  Making serving in Congress more lucrative would do absolutely nothing towards fixing that problem.

[dominicansoul]

You are only going to attract people who are incompetent or who have nothing better to do, or people who are power hungry.

you just described the entire Democrat Party right there...and they are a bunch of millionaires... lol

[Peace]

Really?

Do you honestly think that offering exorbitant salaries for congressmen will give us candidates who are more honest, more devoted to serving the people they represent and to their country and its ideals, or more loyal to upholding the Constitution?

And it may sound hokey and corny, but these are things that  money can't buy.  Nor can they be measured in a man by the amount of his salary or financial net worth.

What are most needed in Congress are not scientific brainiacs, master business wheeler-dealers, NBA stars, or other high-paying talent, but men of virtue and honesty, with respect and loyalty to the people they are elected to represent, their country and its best ideals.  Those aren't qualities measured in dollars.

And I don't see how raising the wages of congressmen will make congressional candidates one iota less power-hungry.  It's not like lust for power and desire for money are mutually exclusive.  If anything, you'd merely add more greed into the mix.  It certainly wouldn't make serving in Congress any less attractive to the ambitious and power-hungry.  (If anything, you might merely attract more power-hungry persons with higher salaries.)

Rather than spending yet more tax-payer dollars on Congressional salaries, a better idea would be term limits on congressmen and senators.  A major problem is careerism in Congress - where serving in Congress is seen as a personally beneficial lifetime career path, and staying in power at any costs becomes the most important objective.  Making serving in Congress more lucrative would do absolutely nothing towards fixing that problem.

Yes. It does sound hokey and corny. All other things held constant, a politician who is paid well for his work is less likely to take a bribe than a politician who is not paid well for his work.

And yes you do want smart, talented people in government. It does not matter how virtuous of a heart a man has if he is stupid and makes stupid decisions that ultimately hurt you.

By increasing salaries you do not necessarily get rid of power hungry people - but you open the pool up to talented people who are not power hungry, who otherwise would choose not to participate because of the financial sacrifice that they would have to make.

It comes down to you get what you pay for. If you have a business and you are offering the minimum wage, do you expect the best candidates to work at your company, or your competitor who offers a higher wage? It is basic common sense.

[little2add]

Yes. It does sound hokey and corny. All other things held constant, a politician who is paid well for his work is less likely to take a bribe than a politician who is not paid well for his work.

And yes you do want smart, talented people in government. It does not matter how virtuous of a heart a man has if he is stupid and makes stupid decisions that ultimately hurt you.

By increasing salaries you do not necessarily get rid of power hungry people - but you open the pool up to talented people who are not power hungry, who otherwise would choose not to participate because of the financial sacrifice that they would have to make.

It comes down to you get what you pay for. If you have a business and you are offering the minimum wage, do you expect the best candidates to work at your company, or your competitor who offers a higher wage? It is basic common sense.

It's common cents, basicly

Edited October 4, 2015 by little2add

[Socrates]

Yes. It does sound hokey and corny. All other things held constant, a politician who is paid well for his work is less likely to take a bribe than a politician who is not paid well for his work.

And yes you do want smart, talented people in government. It does not matter how virtuous of a heart a man has if he is stupid and makes stupid decisions that ultimately hurt you.

By increasing salaries you do not necessarily get rid of power hungry people - but you open the pool up to talented people who are not power hungry, who otherwise would choose not to participate because of the financial sacrifice that they would have to make.

It comes down to you get what you pay for. If you have a business and you are offering the minimum wage, do you expect the best candidates to work at your company, or your competitor who offers a higher wage? It is basic common sense.

And the idea that spending millions more on congressional salaries will do anything to fix any of the problems with Congress is downright nonsensical.

First of all, the biggest problem with Congress and its members isn't simple incompetence or lack of "talent"; it's corruption, crookedness, and the thirst for power, or desire to hold on to power at all costs.  Unfortunately a lot of congressmen and other politicians, are all too skilled in their crooked ways; it's how they hang onto power.  And crookedness and love of power aren't problems that go away or lessen when people have big salaries.

 

Secondly, skill or talent in various high-paying fields does not necessarily translate into superior legislative wisdom.  In many areas, it's totally irrelevant.  And while some highly financially successful businessmen or lawyers are good men who would make good legislators, others are crooked, and would simply be crooked politicians.  Making lots of money in itself does not mean you would be a good legislator, or act in the best interest of the country and the people.  It appears you have a crassly materialistic concept of overall human worth.

Besides, running a campaign is expensive, so it's usually not the poor who are running for Congress, or at least not who can win.

And, if you really do measure a person's potential as a good legislator by his earnings (which I definitely do not), why would a multi-billionaire CEO give up his position for a paltry few million a year?

Frankly, if someone's primary motive to run for Congress or other high office is to make good money for oneself, he should be another area of work.  The same if he is unwilling to temporarily give up massive earnings to serve.

 

But, using your own logic, why would any intelligent or talented person ever choose to give up a shot at a lucrative career to take a vow of poverty as a priest or religious?  Would that only attract losers with no where else to go, or else those hungry for power over their congregations?  Should the Church start paying priests and religious multi-million dollar salaries?

[Socrates]

you just described the entire Democrat Party right there...and they are a bunch of millionaires... lol

The Clintons are worth an estimated $55 million.  Obviously they are much, much more qualified to govern than those lowly low-wage plebes.  Too many darned uppity po' folks in government is the problem . . . 

 

(But, of course, The Donald trumps all.)

Edited October 5, 2015 by Socrates

[Didacus]

Minmum wage is increasing in Ontario - but still not enough for even a single person to support themselves.  

Then the survival of small busines come to light. It is a fine balance. 

Prices of goods and services will increase - but if the workers benefit I am all for it.

[Peace]

First of all, the biggest problem with Congress and its members isn't simple incompetence or lack of "talent"; it's corruption, crookedness, and the thirst for power, or desire to hold on to power at all costs.  Unfortunately a lot of congressmen and other politicians, are all too skilled in their crooked ways; it's how they hang onto power.  And crookedness and love of power aren't problems that go away or lessen when people have big salaries.

If you hold crookedness constant it is better to have a person who is more talented than a person who is less talented.

Secondly, skill or talent in various high-paying fields does not necessarily translate into superior legislative wisdom.  In many areas, it's totally irrelevant.  And while some highly financially successful businessmen or lawyers are good men who would make good legislators, others are crooked, and would simply be crooked politicians.  Making lots of money in itself does not mean you would be a good legislator, or act in the best interest of the country and the people.

I did not state that making lots of money is a guarantee that someone will be a good legislator. Offering a higher salary is a way to attract more talented people - regardless of the profession. It is basic common sense. All things else being held constant (such as crookedness, "having a good heart" or a "desire to serve the people") - you will attract better people for a job if you pay $100 than if you pay $10. It is basic economics.

It appears you have a crassly materialistic concept of overall human worth.

I suggest that you check your vision.

And, if you really do measure a person's potential as a good legislator by his earnings (which I definitely do not), why would a multi-billionaire CEO give up his position for a paltry few million a year?

He would be more likely to do so for $1M a year than he would for $170K a year.

Frankly, if someone's primary motive to run for Congress or other high office is to make good money for oneself, he should be another area of work.  The same if he is unwilling to temporarily give up massive earnings to serve.

If someone takes a salary cut by quitting his job as a lawyer, doctor, successful business person, etc. then obviously the person's primary motive in running for Congress is not to make good money. You increase the salary in order to reduce the financial disincentive that such a person faces.

But, using your own logic, why would any intelligent or talented person ever choose to give up a shot at a lucrative career to take a vow of poverty as a priest or religious?  Would that only attract losers with no where else to go, or else those hungry for power over their congregations?  Should the Church start paying priests and religious multi-million dollar salaries?

No. It would not only attract losers. But to the extent that you can compensate a priest financially it further enables someone that is considering becoming a priest to be able to do it.

http://ncronline.org/news/faith-parish/student-loan-debt-may-prevent-many-us-catholics-entering-religious-orders