Raise the minimum wage.

Here is the last Pro post (minus a few of her quotes of me) with my points in bold.I don't quite understand what you're trying to say here? I don't think it quite turned out as coherent as was intended. From what I understood (and forgive me if my interpretation is wrong), you are putting way too much of an emphasis on the power and motivation of the farmer. The fact of the matter is the farmer probably won't feel a raise is necessary enough to demand for one, and even if he did, there are tens of thousands of farmers in America--too many to assimilate and motivate into one huge wage strike. If a farmer really needed money that desperately, he could get an agricultural subsidy.What I was trying to say there is this: 1. You said even if the farmer with McDonald's as their only customer raised prices, other prices elsewhere wouldn't rise.2. I assumed you meant this was because only the McDonalds farmer raised their prices.3. But my point was that other farmers (ones that supply to grocery stores), in fear of McDonald's turning to them because their prices are lower and then ordering millions of dollars of beef from them, they will raise their prices."Also, Pro has not responded to my point that the $1.5 million surplus wont help."It was a $1.5 BILLION surplus, but I didn't respond because it didn't make much sense. What do you think that money goes to if not towards enriching the franchises? I am sorry for the confusion. To answer your question many of it goes to their ad campaigns. But the question you're is the wrong question. The source I gave clearly stated, and I quote: "McDonald's does not provide financing or assistance" to the franchises. So the question is not: "Where does it go if not to the franchises?", but "Why does it not go to the franchises?" And to answer that: I don't know. But they don't. So the $1,500,000,000 still won't help the franchises pay for the wage raise at all."This is a good point, but it is a harsh generalization. It is rather pessimistic and requires the assumption that all corporations are greedy and power-hungry, plowing through everyone in their path without a care in the world."Corporations are inherently greedy and power-hungry, seeing as they have no choice but to be. Their ultimate goal is to receive a profit and they will do this however possible; that's just the essence of capitalism.That, and I am saying this not in a demeaning way, but in a more sorrowful way, must be a very depressing way to view life. I can point to many stories of corporations who are not greedy. For example, the entire show Undercover Boss. The CEOs of large companies go undercover and find people inside their company who need help and they help them! They are not always looking only for a profit. As I said, that assumption is irrational and unfounded. And that since that assumption is not true, it is very possible McDonald's is not power-hungry and greedy. And the essence of capitalism is that people can work and make money for themselves and the give that money freely to anyone they choose, not to get rich by being greedy and power-hungry."Yes, but still, if those people were calculated in, it would still not come even near as close to the number you originally gave. That should prove that minimum wage does not significantly affect poverty, so this point by Pro is irrelevant."Do you know what a private sector job is? Private sector jobs make up around 80% of all jobs (1), so if you factor in those people it would give quite a change, actually.Private sector jobs may take up 80% of jobs, but definitely not anywhere near that percentage of the poor. Many people in the private sector are not poor at all. Your original point was that raising the minimum wage would help poverty but you have failed to show how the minimum wage affects the statistics of poverty you gave. Many poor people are unemployed. And raising the minimum wage won't help the unemployed. Since they are not employed they won't get a raise. In fact, it would make it harder for the unemployed to find jobs because it would cost the employer more money so they'll think twice before hiring them. Therefore raising the minimum wage won't help many poor. Simple deductive reasoning."OK, sure Center for Economic and Policy Research sounds like an official or at least professional organization, but it's not. While run out of D.C. it's a non-profit left-leaning...group. Since the left wants increased minimum wage it would make since they would report things that would favor it."I'm not sure what your point was in this. Is it suddenly not okay for those who want an increased minimum wage to research facts to support it?My point is this. They obviously want a raise in minimum wage raise, so it's conceivable that they would report on facts that favor it whether accurate or not. They could very easily neglect to incorporate info that would hurt their cause. (I've noticed many of these confusions are because of things I couldn't include due to the character limit of the last post :P)."As stated earlier: if the minimum wage increases, so does every other hourly wage. The proof to back it up is simple economics."If you think "simple economics" is going to back up that assertion, I would love to hear that theory.I told it. If the $7/hr people started making $10/hr, the $10/hr people would rightfully demand a raise as well (since they are doing more work that the minimum wagers for the same wage) to about $13/hr, then the $13/hr people will rightfully demand a raise and so on up the ladder. Sometimes they don't even need to ask for a raise. Many companies have pay scales linked to the minimum wage. Meaning by their rules if the minimum wage goes up, everyone is shifted up. My friend works at one. So yes it is simple economics."So to assert that we need a $14/hr increase in the minimum wage, is saying that every single one of these 75 million people deserve a $14/hr raise."I never said we should have a $22 minimum wage. What gave you that impression?I'll quote you:"2) The minimum wage is supposed to be much higher than it is now.If the minimum wage had tracked U.S. productivity gains since 1968, it would be $21.72 an hour (4). This differs greatly with our current $7.25 federal minimum wage. By not raising the minimum wage, it is swindling workers and laborers of the monetary compensation they deserve for their efforts." (emphasis added)So yes, you didn't say we should have a $22 minimum wage, but $21.72 (which isn't that much of a difference)."But, as stated above, minimum wage does not have much of an influence in this wealth 'inequality'."I don't follow? I'm pretty sure having a low-paying job or being unemployed are what cause poverty and subsequently wealth inequality. The minimum wage being so low has a profound impact on the inequality of the distribution of wealth.The wealth inequality that you point out can also be called poverty. And I have proved above, much of the poor are poor due to things other than the minimum wage. "Not all minimum wage jobs are 8 hours work days."Maybe not all minimum wage jobs, but 90% of workers say they work 40 hours a week or more (2). That's an eight hour work day.Yes but this original point was about women and minimum wage jobs. The majority of these worker were probably male because, as you said women make up 47% of the workfrose so obversely men make up 53%. So this stat it not relevant in this case.What?First of all, the Articles of Confederation were never meant to be a permanent solution (3). It was proposed and supported by most of the delegates, including Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, to be a brief government for the American colonies after having declared independence from the British Empire. Its purpose was to unify the states, stabilize the country, and provide a small central government to sort of organize affairs. The problem with it wasn't whatever you described, it was the fact that Congress had no power, no ability to tax, trade, or regulate anything.First of all I think you are misreading the article. The Continental Congress was meant to be temporary. I quote: "Some Continental Congress delegates had also informally discussed plans for a more permanent union than the Continental Congress, whose status was temporary. Benjamin Franklin had drawn up a plan for 'Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.'" (emphasis added). If the words "of... Perpetual Union" in the name aren't enough to prove that it was not meant to be temporary, I don't know what will. The Oxford English dictionary defines perpetual as "Never ending of changing" (1). If it were meant to me temporary why would they call it "Articles of... Perpetual Union"?The text of the Articles can be found at http://www.let.rug.nl...... if you want to read them for yourself.As for the Thanksgiving thing, pretty sure that was established in the 1860s by Abraham Lincoln. And funny how the government started giving out money around the time slavery ended.Second, yes it is only called Thanksgiving retrospectively. Thanksgiving was made an official hoidlay in the way it is in the 1840's, but it all goes back to that one day. What did you think the people in the mid-1800s were celebrating? They were celebrating the first Thanksgiving, which happened because of a system that is dying today. A system where people helped themselves instead of asking for the government's money. A system where people's primary source of income was money they earned, not money the government gave or mandated that they receive.(1) http://bit.ly...