Thursday, September 30, 2010
Multi-millionaire Republican Senate candidate wants to "review" minimum wage
From The Huffinton Post today: Linda McMahon: 'We Ought To Review' The Minimum Wage
Linda McMahon, the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Connecticut, suggested Thursday that the U.S. ought to take a second look at the federal minimum wage.
"The minimum wage now in our country, I think we've set that, so there are a lot of people have benefited from it in our country, but I think we ought to review how much it ought to be, and whether or not we ought to have increases in the minimum wage," McMahon said at a press conference.
After the event, "McMahon admitted she didn't know what the current minimum wage is or if any of her employees at World Wrestling Entertainment are paid it," CTNewsJunkie.com reported. McMahon was CEO of the WWE before launching her Senate campaign. What chutzpah.
$46 million per year Republican Senate candidate a) wants to "review" the minimum wage, b) didn't even know if any of her employees were on minimum wage and c) didn't know what current minimum wage is. Could this very rich and very selfish woman be any more out of touch? And folks, she did say it in public. She said it in public at her own press conference. This one could make me very angry. News flash, Ms. McMahon: The minimum wage right now, as of 2009, is $7.25 per hour. YOU try living on it.
Link to original post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/30/linda-mcmahon-we-ought-to_n_745639.html?view=print
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
What happens when you raise the minimum wage above what an entry-level employee can produce profitably?
$7.25 per hour is not a livable wage in 2010 in the US, period.
Tell me you're not suggesting that it is or that it's anywhere close--remotely close--to being overpaid.
You really were born to a great deal of money, weren't you? If not, you certainly sound as though you were.
God, I hope you're not middle-class and bought off on all that Ronald Reagan Conservatism crap, years ago. That would be really sad. And I'm not mocking you, let me be clear.
mr
You didn't answer the question, again.
You can't ignore economics in the real world. If someone is incapable of doing $7.25 worth of work per hour, (not even accounting for FICA, and all the other additional costs) why would an employer keep paying them?
What if minimum wage was raised to $15 par hour? Would McDonalds continue to hire just as many people, and keep prices the same?
You seem to believe that business profits are infinite, and wages could be increased just by decreasing profit margins a bit.
I answered the question and I'm certainly not "ignoring economics in the real world".
$7.25 per hour is IN NO WAY even close to raising the minimum wage "above what an entry-level employee can produce profitably". Not even remotely close.
When and if there comes a day in America when the minimum wage from the government does come even remotely close to being above what an entry-level employee can produce, THEN let's discuss that. Or even just before it. But right now, people are being used by corporations to make big money for the big guys--mostly all guys, too--at the top while making and keeping life desperate to the point of poor, literally, for the "entry-level" people.
You assume a lot, repeatedly. It happens here time and again.
Let me be clear: I absolutely do not "believe that business profits are infinite" but I absolutely do believe that "wages could be increased just by decreasing profit margins a bit."
It's call decency. It's called sanity. It's called fairness. It's called equitability.
It's not called free-market, unregulated Capitalism.
mr
mr
Post a Comment