2007-01-04 00:55:46 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Not at all. Since there has been an explosion of minimum wage jobs -- as more substantial wage jobs were outsourced -- it makes the need for high minimum wage more urgent than ever. People who work 40-60 hours a week need to be able to feed, clothe and shelter a family.
2007-01-04 00:58:22 · answer #1 · answered by £º$∑® 2 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Why stop at $7.25?? Why not raise it to $10? It would be much easier to calculate your pay each week !! The concept our system is based upon dictates that the amount of pay earned for doing whatever a particular job, is calculated by the amount of skill/talent/training the job requires & what the going rate is in a given geographic area based upon availability of labor & their willingness to do the job in question. Explained more simply, if you don't feel it's worth it to do a job for the pay being offered.....don't take the job!! Why not have the government stipulate how much things should cost? Maybe they would reduce the ridiculous tuition charged by most of the colleges & universities in this country (which have increased dramatically for no apparent reason the last few years), & folks wouldn't have to work so much to afford school. Then they could decide how much the maximum pay should be for each job, & people would no longer spend years training to be doctors, scientists, etc, because it wouldn't be worth the time & effort. That system has been tried it's called communism, or socialsim depending on exactly how the government interferes... Our capitalist system WORKS.....& it works great. If I don't want to do a job for the pay offered I find a different job. If a hamburger costs too much at a certain restaurant, I'll eat somewhere else!!! It's not really an issue of Democrats or Republicans (by the way I am a lifelong Dem!) Our system operates best with the least interference. That is why it;s called the Free Market. I'm happy you are earning more though.....cuz now you'll be paying more taxes as well, & maybe mine will stop going up so fast!! ( Yeah right!)
2016-05-23 02:20:51 · answer #2 · answered by Penelope 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No for two reasons:
1) Alot of uneducated people think that minimum wage is a good thing, and so voting against it makes you look like you are against the poor. Besides, minimum wage will have little impact. The wage levels of the companies will stay the same. They will pay workers more but hire fewer workers.
2) It will likely be attached to a bill for social security reform or for extending tax cuts, so he will have to negotiate with Dems so that he can push through some of the legislation that he wants.
2007-01-04 01:03:05 · answer #3 · answered by Time to Shrug, Atlas 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Anybody that has ever been in the work force knows that a hike in minimum wage will only cost jobs at the minimum wage level. Bush won't veto it because he knows it affects very few people.
2007-01-04 01:06:38 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes, but I doubt he will. Too many Americans don't understand economics, and have fallen for the liberal socialist propaganda about "living wages". The vast majority of minimum wage earners are living in households that would be considered middle-class. They are mostly teens and second-wage family members. Raise the MW and you will decrease the opportunities for kids to find first jobs and families to find supplemental incomes. Which I suppose will accomplish the democrat/liberal agenda of making people just a little more dependent on government programs and villianizing small businesses as uncaring and greedy.
2007-01-04 01:21:46 · answer #5 · answered by boonietech 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes. Minimum wage laws put more control into the government and less into the businesses. If we didn't have minimum wage at all, businesses would be free to pay their employees the going wage.
And no, this wouldn't mean that employees would get away with paying their employees nothing. There will always be competition among businesses which will cause the wages to stay where they need to be without a law for it.
2007-01-04 01:07:38 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
He SHOULD but he won't. He's a politician and the main thing politicians are about is self-promotion. He's leaving office in 2 years and that will be part of his 'legacy'.
Even if he did veto, there are plenty of vote-buyers in Congress to override it.
2007-01-04 01:12:31 · answer #7 · answered by mikey 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes it would be good for the GOP base. He is losing some of the Religious Right so needs to keep the conservatives happy and hold thier vote for the GOP.
2007-01-04 02:01:10 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes he should. There are many reasons the minimum wage must remain lower. If they raise it, it shouldn't be more than 50 cents. The $2.00 hike they are talking is going to cause more negative effects than positive.
Businesses are going to be forced to cut back on staff or raise prices on the consumer. So, if most businesses decide to lay people off to offset labor costs, then instead of helping the work-force...the minimum wage increase will cut jobs to many people that are already making little to begin with.
As a consumer, I certainly don't want to pay more for things like vegetables, milk, and other such products because farms are forced to jack their prices (and they will jack prices opposed to cut labor).
2007-01-04 00:59:48 · answer #9 · answered by tjjone 5 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Nope, that would hurt his party in the upcoming presidential elections. Republicans need all the help that they can get at this point.
it's not likley that he will veto. You cant take that to the bank!
2007-01-04 00:58:49 · answer #10 · answered by Moondog55 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋