Well sir, you are incorrect, as many of my clients are restaurants, so I get first hand from the owners. Have you seen Rosie the Robot taking your order?? Face it, for the most part, food is a service industry, and even though the base is less than MW, people who are good at their jobs do much, much better, yet the owners are being taxed out.

Well guys, keep the debate alive as I'm leaving for Daytona for that little race today, not looking forward to sitting in that line to get in.

Even some service industries have embraced technology. Although trite, drive-through eateries have all but replaced the "car hop" type pf service (although we do have a few still here in Tucson). No matter who manufactures the cars, assembly lines are automated, including painting. Yes, full-service restaurants are service industries and dependent on personal service, but differ because the wait staff is not affected by the minimum wage and their earnings are in most cases determined by the largess of the patrons. As for Rosie, ever hear of Automats? They are coming back!!

So tell me about the taxation problem. Granted, taxes do reduce the bottom line, but what is the alternative if basic service are to be provided? (difficult for the patrons to get to the restaurant without a network of passable roads, for example) Who should pay for improvements and infrastructure maintenance?

For the most part in MANUFACTURING, products would be quite a bit more expensive without the help of technology.

Investments by the rich are not a guarantee of economic growth. Most western economies (including US) are based upon consumer spending AND investments that support the infrastructure of consumer spending. The rich are not necessarily better at investing then you and me - they just have more individual leverage. There are many more consumers than rich investors. If you provide incentive (MW, tax breaks, training) to lower income consumers, the impact on the economy is more direct and wide-spread simply because there are more lower income consumers than rich investors and because they HAVE to spend their income(s) whereas rich investors do not.

This doesn't take into account the "wisdom" of the investor. Not all rich investors make wise, broadly beneficial investments. If you concentrate the investment decisions into fewer (richer) investors you are sabotaging the capitalist market with fewer decisionmakers and therefore increasing the chance and impact of bad investment decisions.

One rich investor dropping 10-20 million into a start up company has much less of an effect on economic growth than 10-20 million lower income investors dropping $200 each into the economy across a wide spectrum on products and services. The more people involved in a capitalist market the better the market performs - that's why I favor MW hikes. It brings more money and people into the market. Definitely not because of some crazy socialist economic theory.

Getting rich is not magic. All you need is a vision, of almost anything, a whole bunch of elbow grease and sticktootiveness and you will end up rich. Your better off choosing established methods of a vision than something completely wacky, like real estate, engineering, ceo, your own business (something that sells easily) or whatever. You might even make a buck or two selling Porsche parts on line, but you got to stick to it.

Also rich is relative. Am I rich just because I have a couple of million bucks or am I rich because I have a couple Billion bucks?

My personal definition of rich is to have enough money to live any life style I choose, buy anything, anywhere, anytime, to do anything I want, up to and including buying the Porsche company, just because I wanted to. And all of that buying will never affect my yachts, homes or lifestyle.

Rich means being able to enter F1 without *****ing about how much money it costs.

A liberal defines rich as anyone that makes money. Why else would they tax the unemployment pay, or the pay of most waiters and other low wage people?

I don't know how many times I have to explain it to you.

If a bartender is making $3.80 an hour + tips, he is paying taxes (or least least should be) on the $3.80 an hour + tips, a good bartender makes much more than MW (I know that I did when I tended bar).

The owner is being taxed not for the $3.80 he is paying, but $7.25, it is called double taxing, and it isn't right.

So do you get it yet, bartender paying tax on what he earns, owner again paying the tax the bartender paid. Add in the property taxes, the sin tax on liquor, all the other taxes that go with owning a business and you will get the idea that the government doesn't want you to succeed.

Why are adults on minimum wage?
According to the article below. "Kelly isn't sure how she ended up in her situation."
You don't suppose it has anything to do with the fact that she is the unmarried mother of 6 children from three different fathers, has multiple dogs that she feeds with her family's govt provided food, pays child support, quit her better paying job, and spent her rent money on gifts.

"It's a vicious cycle I can't seem to get out of. One thing after another keeps me held back," Kelly said.

article

LOL, that article is hilarious.

As you said, she has 6 children by 4 different men, has to pay child support for two of them because she illegally took them out of the state and lost custody, etc, etc, etc.

And the whole article is a sob story about how bad her life is and how the minimum wage hike would help...but not enough.

I know what is keeping you held back, sweetie. It is your inability to comprehend two simple words, birth and control. Wait, strike that. I think she understands the birth part pretty well....it's the control part that is foreign to her.

Its people like her that need a good kick in the ass. She should have all her children removed from her and be sterilized OR she should admit responsibility and take care of her children. I would be willing to bet she would choose to ditch the kids and go on welfare.