Richard - who needs to do math ?!?!?

If the "small business owner [earns] $3,000 monthly", that's a $34,000 annual salary -- barely above the poverty level for the "family of four". Of course that's triple the $10,700 annual salary of the $5.15 hourly worker, and the business owner gets significant tax advantages the "workers" do not enjoy.

Perhaps if there were a Means Test, you would be OK with raising the minimum wage?

I'm not disagreeing with your premise ... but the CEO's that make a few millions can certainly spare the change. The real problem is these CEO's will send the widget making tasks overseas before they consider any kind of fair play. After all, they have to be "competative" to sate the shareholders.

I agree Mr. Rockafella. People with "small businesses" as they call them, live large off the sweat and sometimes blood of their minimum wage employees. You are exactly right with your math, and I love you for breaking it down like that.
These small business owners have lovely homes in Irving Park, Lake Jeanette, etc. Drive nice cars, have their kids enrolled in all sorts of expensive "activities", that none of the people who got them there could EVER afford to do.
Sure these "small businesses" do alot of "things" for their "communities", but it would be money better spent to divy it up among the minimum wage employees, so THEY could spend it in their communities to help OHTER small businesses.
I'm not a small business hater. I am simply stating facts. It upsets me even more to look at the NC Dept of Labor Wage & Hour report on how many "small businesses" in this state did not pay their workers. Call them and ask how many complaints they handle in a month. Substantiated or not. People must call them to make an initial complaint because of some "tiff" with the owner/boss over their wages either not being right, or not being paid at all.
I said in a previous post, it is important to get your papers (ie: finish school), its the only way out of poverty and a half way deccent chance to earn a living wage.

$10,712 a year. That's what a full time wage on minimum wage is (minus payroll tax etc). We are begrudging the people on the bottom, that haven't had a raise in 9 years a bump in salary that would mean far more to them than the small business owner that gets a tax break for the amount.

Mr. O'Neil has put together a nice little paper tiger to knock down. Without even knowing the particulars of the business environment he has already fired one of his employees. I hope I never have to work for him. I'd be worried every time the price of Grey Poupon goes up.

This small business owner will be compteting against people that have to follow the same rules that he does. Every time that this comes up we hear the same doom and gloom & every time business goes on as usual, unemployment stays the same or goes down & to quote Ronnie Reagan a rising tide lifts all boats.

Why in this country do we think that putting more money in the hands of millionaires & billionaires is good for the enonomy, but putting money in the hands of hard working poor folks is bad for it?

It is pitiful how propagandized we are.

What Marshall said.

First of all, minimum-wage laws are a violation of the right to contract. If an employer and a worker voluntarily agree that the worker will perform his services for $5.00 an hour, then that is a private contract between two parties and is no one else' business.

Secondly, Mr. O'Neal is precisely correct on a major point: minimum wage laws cause unemployment. Some jobs simply aren't worth the minimum wage. Here's the deal.

Mr. Small Business Owner has 11 employees. Suddenly he has a small increase in business. The amount of the increase is enough so that he could use an extra worker but not enough to justify paying them minimum wage. So what will he do? Will he hire another worker, pay them minimum wage, and lose money for it, or will he simply make the other 11 employees work harder? He will do the latter. This creates two problems: one, the current workers will be overworked, but more importantly, a job that could have been created will not be. Someone who is unemployed and having trouble finding a job probably would have rather accepted that job at $4.00 an hour than to be out of work altogether, making $0 an hour.

But then, as I said in reply to another letter today, jobs would be more plentiful and easier to come by without all this government regulation. What we need is a true free market. Government is the problem, not the solution.

Paul,

While you have your calculator out figure out how to support your family on $8000/yr. minus payroll taxes. I hope you never have to do that though it might be educational.

Perhaps government will get out of the way so employers can hire children to work in the factories, better to have someone in the family working than no one.

If factories could dump chemicals where ever they wanted that would probably save a few more jobs etcetera etcetera etcetera.

Marshall,

If someone is having a hard time feeding his family, that doesn't give the government any right to start violating people's rights (ie regulating business, stealing from others, etc). Like I've been saying, government regulation is the problem. There would be far less poverty in a truly free market. The few unfortunate folks who would need a helping hand would get it, because people are generous and charitable. All the people who want socialistic programs like "free" healthcare and minimum-wage laws would do so much more good for the poor if they would actually go out and help the poor instead of spending so much time trying to implement all of these government programs.

If a parent allows his or her child to work in a factory, that's their prerogative. What's wrong with a child doing work anyway? Throughout the entire history of mankind children worked. If a child's employer becomes overbearing and tries to make them work too long or too hard, then the parent is perfectly free to find other employment for them.

If factories dump chemicals into a river, then that's a violation of people's rights and should be charged as such.

Paul,

Stop reading Ayn Rand. It is seriously not even close to reality.

And, as far as those 'socialistic' programs- remember that the majority wanted those programs. So grouse and fuss, but you are not and probably will never be in the majority.

"There would be far less poverty in a truly free market. The few unfortunate folks who would need a helping hand would get it, because people are generous and charitable."

Paul,

You seem to be implying that it is the government that is impeding good hearted people from helping the less fortunate. If good hearted people aren't picking up the slack now I don't see cutting how cutting government programs will encourage to do more.

I hope that we don't return to those barberic times of the early 20th century that you seem to hold as an ideal where property rights trumped human rights where millions had awful lives so a very few could live in luxury.

Jim,

If the majority wanted to eliminate blacks from the country, is that what should happen? If the majority of the people in your neighborhood voted to take your home away from you and build a disco there, is that what should happen? If the majority of people think you should be forced to go to a church of a certain demonination, is that what should happen?

Marshall,

People do pick up the slack now, in spite of the fact that the government steals 50% of their wealth already, largely in the name of "helping the poor." Are you telling me that nobody gives money to charity? That nobody volunteers with programs like Habitat for Humanity?
Again I say the government is the problem because they make helping the poor so damn expensive. By the time the money budgeted for "helping the poor" has gone through all of the bureaucratic red tape, there's not very much left.
On the other hand, if those who wish to help the poor had merely written a check which would go through perhaps one distribution center (Habitat for Humanity, for example) which employs volunteer workers, then pretty much 100% of donations would directly benefit the poor.

So yes, people would be willing to do more if not for wasteful government programs, because then they know that the money they spend would actually help the poor directly and immediately rather than disappearing in the inefficiency of bureaucracy.

But really, that's not even the point. The point is that it's wrong to steal other people's money and give it to someone else, no matter what the reason may be.

As for the human rights you mention, I don't know what you're talking about. All rights are property rights. You have a right to healthcare...as long as you pay for it. You have a right to eat...as long as you pay for the food. You have a right to live in a house or an apartment...as long as you pay for it. You do not have a right to steal from others to provide yourself with those things.

The people in the early 20th century should have helped themselves, but they didn't. The people always have the power. They should have demanded more money. What is the mill owner to do if all of the workers refuse to work until their wages are raised? Unions are good and powerful as long as the government stays out of them.

Paul,

Of course I'm not saying that nobody gives to charity. I am saying that they are not giving in amounts that would come close to supporting the poor even if it were 100% efficient.

Pure capitalism leads to a concentration of wealth where an overwhelming percentage of resouces are held by relatively few people. Earlier in our history we decided that this was a bad idea. We broke up the trusts & instituted progressive taxes set up inheritance taxes etc. & our society is better off for it. It made our society more of a metitocracy & allowed some class mobility. Concentration of power is always a bad idea & having the government as a counterbalance to a handful of wealthy families saved our society in the early 20th century.

You asked what was the mill owner to do if all of the workers refused to work. Early in the century they waited for them to starve to death, murdered the ringleaders & brought in immigrants who were even more desperate than the workers. Now they just move off shore (with a healthy tax writeoff to boot).

Though our society seems headed in your direction, I hope your dog eat dog world never truly comes to pass. You may find you're not as big of a dog as you think.

From the beginning of time people have displayed the inability to discipline themselves with regard to their fellow human beings without some kind of law, regulation or commandment. That is why Paul's dog eat dog theory doesn't work. Only the most ferocious, strongest, amoral, self-serving, evil dogs would survive; dogs that have no conscious, no empathy and no regard for human life. (And no, Paul, I'm not talking about you as I suspect you would be there with the rest of us trampled on, thrown to the wolves folks.)

"The love of money is the root of all evil". This was true, is true and will always be true. It causes the rich and powerful to seek more riches and power, often on the backs of the poor and downtroddened. Without laws as guidelines, our nation would be a shambles (more so thatn it is).

Until humans subscribe to the notion we are all on this journey thru life, equipped with the same color of blood, there will always be the haves and the have nots (with the haves not truly caring too much about the have nots). Governmental intervention sometimes is a necessary evil.

Lilly, When are we going to start working on your campaign for governor and Mr. P's for president?

I hope you all know I meant conscience in the above post. Every time I don't preview, I screw up something.

Yvonne, I'm ready when you two are.
I want "truth" for my personal assistant after I'm in office. Who do you want? LOL! ;)

Marshall and Yvonne,

I confess to not being 100% sure whether this is accurate, but I suspect also that those huge monopolies of the late 19th century got to where they were by using force, fraud, and threats, all of which I agree should be illegal. When I talk about free markets, I do not mean that people's rights shouldn't be protected.

By force, fraud, and threats, I mean misrepresentation of products and contracts, using intimidation to put your competition out of business, etc. Those things are violations of others' rights and should be punished as such.

On the other hand, for the government to step in and tell an employer that he may not allow one of his workers to work more than 40 hours a week for the same pay is a violation of the employer's and the worker's right to contract.

I think if we simply protect what are truly people's rights and let the free market run its course, then we will never again see what we saw in the late 19th century but will instead see unprecedented prosperity.

"If the majority wanted to eliminate blacks from the country, is that what should happen?" .... hmmm isn't that kinda what DID happen until a thoughtful government stepped in, around 1860 or so? (substitute "enslave" for "eliminate")

"By the time the money budgeted has gone through all of the bureaucratic red tape, there's not very much left." ... then bitch about efficiency, not intent.

"The point is that it's wrong to steal other people's money and give it to someone else, no matter what the reason may be." I know many corporations that qualify for this .... (I hate big companies as you hate all government)

"The people in the early 20th century should have helped themselves, but they didn't. The people always have the power. They should have demanded more ..." PAUL - you might want to read up on the Coal Strike that happened at the turn of the century.

"I confess to not being 100% sure whether this is accurate, but I suspect also that those huge monopolies of the late 19th century got to where they were by using force, fraud, and threats .. " Ya know Paul, I really like your passion and enthusiasm - but sometimes I wonder about your sense of history. Please don't take that as a deep insult, I do mean it positively - Perhaps a good start would be reading the History of Standard Oil, even the Cliff Note version.

Paul,

Where does this right to contract between employee & employer come from & what is it based on? If it is law then the government has the right to set minimum wage standards & overtime compensation. Perhaps you consider it some kind of an innate right?

I think your world of unfettered free markets is a much darker place than you think. When people called the industrial oligarchs of the 19th & early 20th century "robber barons" they didn't mean it as a compliment. These folks amassed power in mostly legal ways based on a much purer form of capitalism than we practice today.

Balance of power between the components of our economy has been the key to our growth as an industrial power. If we allow power to concentrate in the maner that you seem to describe then I fear for our society. We will look more like modern day Russia than the capitalist paradise that you envision.