Comments about ‘Letter: Raising minimum wage’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, April 1 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Salt Lake City, UT

Sven and 2 Bits:
You have confirmed my supposition that conservatives don't want any kind of minimum wage set by government mandate, so there is no point in discussing how much or little it should be. You want to return to the "good old days" of the Great Depression and the robber baron era, before minimum wage and other worker protection laws were enacted. Back then employers unilaterally decided, without government interference, how much skill and value workers brought to the job, and paid them accordingly. The oversupply of workers, even highly skilled workers, gave employers the ability to pay what were literally "starvation" wages. What a utopia it must have been for conservatives such as yourself.

Murray, UT

Oh Kyle,

You have inflamed the liberals by making too much sense.

They forget that when you redistribute the water in a container, you don't get more water, or better quality water. What you get is waves, sloshing water, and liberals know very well that sloshing water is better.

Deep Space 9, Ut

To "Curmudgeon" I hate to break it to you, but the minimum wage laws were enacted as a form of racism. Yes, minimum wage was implemented as a racist policy. In New York in the 1930's, the construction companies were bringing in non-union blacks onto their construction sites. The blacks would work for less money than their white counterparts. So, to stop this practice they implemented a minimum wage.

The amazing thing is that before minimum wage laws were passed poverty rates were about the same as they are today. So again, what good are minimum wage laws besides holding people down?

What highly skilled field is there that has an oversupply of workers? Since only 1.1% of workers are paid minimum wage, why isn't that number larger, there is nothing preventing employers from paying all of their employees minimum wage.

Should we adopt the liberal Utopia where it doesn't matter how much you work or how valuable your skills are or the value you bring to a job, everybody gets the same? Does that sound like a better system?

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

I'm all for doing away with ALL wages, period.

Nobody works for money,
but all for the betterment of humanity.

FROM each according to his ability,
TO each according to his need.

Having ALL things in common,
And having NO poor amongst us.

call it
United Order,
Law of Conscetration,

I don't really care what it's called,
it's the end result I'm only interested in.

Deep Space 9, Ut

To "LDS Liberal" you should care what it is called.

Only under the Law of Consecration (United Order) will you be able to obtain that goal peacefully. When this has been tried, the worst that happened was that people began to starve. Plus, this is a voluntary system that you can enter into with your community, or not. You have the choice here. You will also maintain ownership of your property.

Under Socialism, Communism, Marxism, and other collectivist philosophies you subjugate yourself to a dictator who will end up killing a lot of people because of rebellion or because the excess population had to be reduced. This is a system of force, where your rights and needs are determined by the state. You will also give up all claim to personal property.

The results are quite different. Under the Law of Consecration all people prosper. Under Socialism, Communism, and other similar collectivist ideals all end up poor and struggle.

Murray, UT

LDS Liberal,

And let me guess, you know this omniscient 'guy' in Farmington UT who you think should be in charge of managing all the goods (i.e. wealth). We aren't stupid enough to put you in charge of everyone's everything.

Sorry to break this to you, but we have seen in history that corruption and wealth inequality in communism and socialism are worse than in capitalism.

I don't see any connection between minimum wage and the creation and promotion of a Jewish nation. Your use of the word Zionism makes no sense.

The other 2 you mention only work if an Omniscient God is at the head, and if every person in the group is all in, and doesn't ever fall to resentment, a natural human emotion. So far no group has had everyone be that good.

Zionism (which is not an economic or political system) is the only one of those that has been successful, and you liberals decry their success.

Stalwart Sentinel
San Jose, CA

Mike Richards - It seems you unintentionally proved my point. While I don't see your analysis as accurate, you do realize that when you list basic necessities such as food/shelter that cannot be met by working class American incomes you are undermining your own position, right?

I also believe you should be more cautious when determining hard working people to be "unskilled, unprepared." In the Bay Area, we generally try to value everyone and work to create a society that reflects that. Indeed, the "unskilled, unprepared" guy flipping your burger is one "ah ha" moment away from the next billion dollar company and our region of the country has the infrastructure in place to realize that. What's more, we actually create wealth rather than exploit Mother Earth like conservative demigod oil companies.

Redshirt - Your seminary teacher is shaking his/her head in disappointment right now. The word "poor" from D&C 56:17 has footnotes and the word essentially refers to the idle. The working class are, by definition, not an idle lot.

But please, tell us more about how self-made industry titans like Warren Buffett admire socialism, I love a good fairytale.

USS Enterprise, UT

To "Stalwart Sentinel" what scriptures are you using. The footnotes make no such reference. It has some scriptures listed in the footnotes, but they all refer to helping the poor. It also includes a Topical Guide reference, which again refers to needy.

What version of the Doctrine and Covenants are you using? The LDS version does not have the footnote you refer to.

As for Buffett, look at who supports what he says. Socialists. If he wasn't a socialist or believed in socialism, why would the socialists support him on so many fronts? Just look at the man's statements on taxation, and you see that he supports socialism, except for himself.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah


You keep changing your point.

At 8:38, you wrote about a "multiplier effect" that is caused when the minimum wage is increased. That is not true. When the minimum wage is increased, prices increase. There is no "extra" money floating around the community.

At 10:33, you inferred that minimum wage workers in Silicon Valley made "products cheaper". They did not. Minimum wage workers did not develop those products nor do they manufacture those products.

At 4:14, you told us that minimum wage workers cannot afford the basic necessities of life. Minimum wage is not supposed to be a "living wage". It is an entry level wage. It is a "starting" wage that allows untrained, unskilled, unprepared workers to enter the workforce so that they can receive on the job training. AFTER they are trained, either by completing a degree or receiving higher education either on the job or at a "trade school", they can command a higher wage.

Minimum wage workers cannot expect to buy a home in Silicon Valley. They cannot expect to drive an expensive car. They have not yet prepared themselves for "success".

Salt Lake City, UT

It is you who must have an incomplete copy of the D&C, or you are just ignoring what is plainly there. In D&C 56:17, footnote "a" to the phrase "poor men," it lists several references, including two that specifically mention and condemn idleness, not poverty: D&C 42:42 and D&C 68:30-32. Thus "poor men" in your favorite scripture (D&C 56:17) is linked with idleness, as Sentinel correctly noted. But you don't need to even look at the footnotes, as verse 17 specifically condemns those "who will not labor with your own hands!" That's not the working poor, that's the idle. And the "idle" could include the idle rich, "whose hearts are not broken, whose spirits are not contrite, and whose bellies are not satisfied, and whose hands are not stayed from laying hold upon other men's goods, whose eyes are full of greediness." That's a pretty good description of a lot of rich people. In which case the adjective "poor" could mean someone to be pitied, as in "you poor soul," not someone in physical poverty

Phoenix, AZ

"Yes, but where will capital create those jobs? Our experience of the last 30 years suggests those jobs are likely to be created in Mexico, China, Southeast Asia or India."

If jobs are created in Mexico, China, Southeast Asia, and India it's because that's where competitive labor is found.

"Look, capital and labor have fundamentally different interests. Capital wants to pay labor as little as possible."

Nay. Capital's (businesses) interest is to maximize profits for the owners/stockholders. Capital's interest is not to be dictated to by labor.

"Of course in grinding labor down capital threatens the whole system because profits are mostly made from the exploitation of labor."

If the 'system' is threatened, it's because labor is driving jobs overseas. Today, we live in the global market. This means that labor has to compete with the rest of the world for jobs.

Salt Lake City, UT

"Businesses exist to make money ... for themselves and their companies. To say otherwise is naïve."

And employer and stockholder Greed is an epidemic in this country. To say otherwise is to be in Denial.

It is the doctrine of Korihor, in full bloom:

"...but every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was NO CRIME [no moral crime].

And this:

"And there shall also be many which shall say: ... TAKE THE ADVANTAGE of one because of his words [e.g., because in his utter despair, he agrees to cheapskate wages], dig a pit for thy neighbor [i.e., pay him peanuts, and then rationalize, "Well it's not like anyone is FORCING him to work for me]; there is no harm in this..."

We increase the capacity of the private sector by increasing Americans' ability to purchase. Then everyone wins. No use denying it: In-N-Out Burger proves that it IS possible to pay one's employees better while STILL keeping retail prices low AND by not cutting corners.

Salt Lake City, UT

@Mike Richards

"Costs go up when wages go up. The consumer pays. Always."

A lie. In-N-Out Burger's business model of higher wages, lower retail prices, and no compromising the quality of product, SINGLEHANDEDLY refutes that propaganda.

@2 bits

"These jobs were not intended to be careers for parents. They are short term, entry level jobs, for young people..."


Another of the standard RATIONALIZATIONS for taking advantage of one's fellow man and oppressing him in his wages.

@Christopher B

"If someone is worth more than they are making then another company will be more than happy to pay them more."

So if you're certain that "another company" will, then why wasn't the first company "happy to pay them more?"

Because what you are saying is not true, that's why. It is only one more example of the elaborate sophistry developed by greedy businessmen to rationlize oppressing the hireling in his wages.

"If someone can't find a job for more than they are currently making - its because they aren't worth it.

A lie.

No wonder Jesus spoke of Camels, and of Eyes of Needles.

USS Enterprise, UT

To "Curmudgeon" again you are wrong. SS said "D&C 56:17 has footnotes and the word essentially refers to the idle". That is not true. I looked up each of the footnotes, and it does not say connect poor to idle workers. In the scriptures you reference, it does not say connect poor people to idle workers.

Either way, you only confirm my point. That is that greed is not limited by wealth. There are poor that are greedy, lazy people that are greedy, and people that are both poor and lazy that are greedy. No matter how you look at it, the Lord has little tolerance with those that want others to support them.

Provo, UT

Warren Buffett is a socialist! Haha, good one! I love it.

San Jose, CA

RedShirt - You're mistaken. You appear to have viewed the footnote for "poor" in verse 18. Please check the verse you actually cited: 17.

Re: Buffett - Again, you're mistaken. His public statements on taxation directly targeted the rich (ie himself) - please see the Buffett Rule. And no, 30% taxation is not socialism, it's America pre-Reaganomics.


My point remains the same: increase the minimum wage. I'm simply making an attempt to address all your random questions.

We've already established that as the minimum wage increased in the Bay Area, prices for goods actually dropped. Please stop perpetrating lies.

The multiplier effect is not debatable, I'm sorry. If you and I both have a dollar but you stow yours away in your mattress whereas I spend mine at a local store, which uses it to buy product, and it is then used to purchase more inventory, my dollar is creating more commerce than yours.

My 10:33 post made no such direct or indirect inference. It merely reiterated the points you unintentionally admitted.

Actually, minimum wage was designed specifically as a living wage - See the FLSA of 1938 and pay particular mind to Section 202(a).

USS Enterprise, UT

To "StalwartSentinel" whatever you want to believe, that is up to you.

The point that I made, and that you cannot refute is the simple fact that greed knows no economic bounds. Poor people can be just as greedy as rich people. It doesn't matter how you define poor, greedy poor people that demand to be supported by those who work is against God's desires.

Yes, look at the Buffett rule, tax those who produce more. According to the Socialist Brotherhood web site, that is precisely what they want. So are you saying that you agree that Buffett wants to be part of the socialist ruling class that has all of the privelages?

Provo, UT

So let me get this right. Buffett wants to be taxed more. Therefore he is a member of an elite class that wants more for himself??? I don't know how you could possibly twist logic any more than that.

Salt Lake City, UT

"According to the CBO, raising the minimum wage will result in a loss of 500,000 jobs"

Yeah, except they did NOT say this. You shouldn't just make stuff up.

Salt Lake City, UT

"Minimum wage workers did not create the products of Silicon Valley. They don't make the products."

Well, you are right there, Richards, minimum wage workers don't make the products. People making far, far less then minimum wage make the products. People basically making not much more then slave wages, in shops with hardly any protections for the workers make the products. But you are right, the people that make these products do not have minimum wage protections.

"You also have the poor that keep voting for politicians because they are promised more free stuff."

Now that's funny. You act like conservative politicians don't promise free stuff. I remember Romney saying how he would not cut entitlements, and that he would INCREASE defense spending, AND cut taxes. Talk about promising free stuff. You get a massive military, but you don't have to pay the taxes for it. Oh yeah, and if you own a business, just look at the free stuff you are going to get. Get rid of your regulations, pollute away, as long as it saves you money. We will get rid of those pesky labor regulations also.

Too funny.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments