Wait...so now employers WOULD want to pay more for people, if they're not required to. You guys have to make up your minds.

I was simply giving examples. There are many utilizations of people with lower wages that don't include customer service. (although your assumptions are depending that these people have families and aren't just high school kids looking for a job)

Just one of the reasons I'm not a libertarian.

I'm saying that because you can at least survive on minimum wage, employees can focus their attention on the task at hand. If you have no hope of survival, that's where your mind is going to wander to.

We brought up families/adults because high school students aren't the only ones looking for/working in minimum wage positions.

Why would walmart care if they piss off customers if they know people will still shop there for the low prices. Not like they can shop anywhere else on their wages?

Our point is that your examples aren't making sense to us. Why would an employer hire more people rather than simply cut costs across the board? Why would that racist employer actually hire a black person when there are plenty of white people unemployed in this economy? Why do you assume that employers would NOT exploit and abuse workers when that is why the minimum wage was created in the first place? Or is it acceptable for workers to be exploited?

That money thats not in the poor person's wallet. For them to use. It's robbery.

Remove as much of it as possible, perhaps?

Why do you think that is...in an America full of more regulation, more welfare, more entitlements than ever before?

Any ideas? Christ. The government is the problem, not the solution.

This is exactly why I abhor everything with your philosophy.

Who are you to say how one may spend their time? If a person chooses to work for 3 dollars, allow them to. Who are you to prohibit them?

This is on par with GLBT/minority rights. I see no difference between the two. Basic human rights.

Hire more people? Cut costs across the board? I'm not sure exactly in what context/reference you're speaking of.

Because a black person would work for less due to being traditionally disadvantaged, thus giving them a cost advantage.

Impossible to exploit workers unless they consent to being exploited.

If they consent to being exploited, who are you to say they can't?

No.

Yes.

And I say that with some statistical background of the general education level, unemployment levels, etc.

Why do you think recent Hispanic immigrants are hired onto construction firms to a greater degree than other ethnicities? Cost advantage. They don't need high education levels nor even a grasp of the English language and work cheaper than their counterparts.

Wow. I find that so incredibly ignorant. Go 'choose' to work for that wage - $120 a week and tell me how you're going to pay rent or buy food or raise a kid.

If those are the only jobs being offered, or the only jobs for which you are qualified, it is not a real choice, is it? Workers are people. Businesses had their chance at not having a minimum wage and fucked it up. People weren't working in sweatshops because they chose that over other labor, they did it because it was choosing that or dying. And sent their children to work in mills because it was that or dying. And when the child lost a hand to unsafe machinery there were no more choices. The employer hired a new one. When the woman spoke up and asked for breaks, better wages, or ventilation she was fired (and sometimes worse) and the employer hired a new one. People sent their children off in orphan trains or abandoned them in orphanages because it was that or death. People weren't making living wages back in the glory days of pre-minimum wage awesomeness.

It's been done. Employers have already proven that they can and will treat people as garbage, so now they might as well at least pay them a reasonable wage for it.

Abuse and exploitation are not 'choice' they're abuse and exploitation, period.

So you're saying that it's ok to pay black people less money because they're used to it?

Seriously?

And you don't think the fact that construction companies pay cash under the table to illegal immigrants without having to pay payroll taxes is part of the freaking problem?

I want to smoke whatever it is you're on because seriously it must be good shit.

If the employer is really racist, why would he tarnish his "pure" business by hiring a "colored" man?

And if black man knows that the employer is an "out" racist, why would he still pursue said job?

You're still looking at things in a vacuum.

This is the only thing that wasn't irrelevant.

They are choices. You enter into a working relationship with a job orr you don't. What happens at that job is your choice to either put up with or not put up with.

In the 1920's, the gap between the rich and poor was quite low. (lower than the USSR post-revolution..actually) It's a wonder what an economic mess the statists have created to push that gap.

At what point did I say anything like that?

That certainly happens. But many construction companies pay legal immigrants as well. Due to their cost advantage, which even recent immigrants have over the African-American populace. To be honest, I like illegal immigrants working here because they're circumventing this ridiculous minimum wage law for both their and their employers benefit. Win-Win.

How is a business pure?

To gain employment, I imagine.

And things were awesome in the 20s for everyone. You're right.

I give up. The idea that one can only choose to be exploited when there are power dynamics and one's livelihood involved, when there is not an alternative out there... it ridiculous. Starvation is the other option, so that's obviously equally viable.

Really it's just shy of "she stayed in the relationship so she deserved it/wanted it/let it happen/it's her fault."

Fuck that.

You're waaaay too smart for that. I know you know what I meant.

Even at my lowest point (professionally), answering to someone like that would not have been in the cards. I am pretty sure the same can be said for those who have less opportunities than I do.

Awesome for everyone that wasn't oppressed by the federal or state government, yep. (also, I'm not really sure what you're getting at...do you prefer the gap between the rich and the poor today)
Assuming there is not an alternative out there...which is a poor assumption. Only in monopsonistic competition is there not an alternative...which is quite rare.

Yeah, but it doesn't make alot of sense.

I may have given this example before... but here's a little of what I'm talking of. I think everyone is aware of the Aryan Brotherhood prison gang. Bad dudes. Serious guys. Usually decked out in swastikas, four leaf clovers and SS tattoos. They're a business of sorts. An illegal one, but a business all about race...about keeping things "pure" if you will.

Anyways, they were profiling them on Gangland. I suppose the question was asked "Why do you pair with the Mexican Mafia for selling drugs...when they're Mexican?" (along those lines) And this man who is in the Aryan Brotherhood says something like "Yes, we fight for our white brothers...but the only real color we see is green." That's why I posted that song lyric about "to the fucking rich man all poor people look the same".

You are assuming that you know that he is racist...which is probably not too well known these days anyways. But that's your perogative.