minimum wage should exist

I said the minimum wage should be a reasonable amount a single person can live off. I don't see how you would imply I think they get more if they have kids or spouses etc. I don't think they should get more for that stuff, but I never said I do: the statement was clear minus the syntax. The basis would be a wage based on a poor state's standard. Something a poor state could deal with. It wouldn't be enough for say NY City, but that's life. If NY had a higher wage without their consent, it would be a burden on them when companies go to the cheaper states for some things. I acknowledge your standards, and wish you would stay. But with that said, my spelling has been reasonable enough. I will put forth a reasonable effort, but will not go overboard for mere internet debates. This is my thread, and if you want this debate to continue, deal with it. as for "have their bits together" statement. You bring up valid points for people with disabilities and some who speak forign langauge. These are actually exceptions to the general rule though, and we can't make broad based policy based on the exceptions. We make exceptions for the exceptions. (For the foreign speakers specifically, they should be able to speak the langauge and if they can't, then they don't have their bits together) It's funny you're trying to use the disadvantaged of the exceptions to cause disadvantage to the majority. As for my 3.50 statement, it's a fact the minimum wage was that much then, and that people were paid that much. There may be mitigating factors that I'm not aware of, but that's your duty to bring to the debate. My guess is that the mitigating factors were not substantial enough anyway. You said that just because MDonalds pays that much doesn't mean every entry level job does. This is true... and as I said in my intro, if they are paying more than the minimum wage does not matter. If they're paying minimum, then it matters because it's being used. If the wages were 350 then and 550 later, that proves that the wages would be lower if the employer would allow it. Really, the simply fact the wage is being used is proof the employer would pay probably less, because it wouldn't just be a coincident. I do not contend your small business arguments. If paying the minimum wage isn't worth it for them to run a business andor is prohibitive, then they shouldn't be in business. We have the minimum wages now, and our country is not run amok with problems, just people who can't start a business as soon as they'd like. That in itself isn't sufficient to overlook the fact that people should be paid a livable wage as described in my first post. The indians and God arguments are pretty crucuial, the philoshopical underpinning. Basically, I believe everyone should have an equal opportunity to get God's resources. We prevent that with our property laws. It's for the civil order, which is good and so the laws should exist. But, we must acknowlege that when someone has a million acres and someone else has a square foot, the person with a squre foot has an inherent right to a minimum. The indians example is just an example. People don't realize the tragedy of the indians completely. We run them off their land and tell them they can't roam free anymore. That is not natural, but man made. They have priority, and should be able to roam free but can't. We did give them land, I know. The point is just to be illustritive, not saying indians deserve more or anything. We don't work in terms of natural resources for practical purposes; but we could and don't so are denying others' their trumping right, and are denying at any rate an analogous minimum. I acknowledge your spelling standards, however, wish you would stay. With that said, though, I feel my spelling has been reasonable. I will continue putting forth a reasonable effort but will not go overboard with an something as fleeting as an internet debate. This is my thread, and if you wish this debate to continue, deal with it.