Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    9:29 PM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: It Is Time To Raise The Minimum Wage Back to Topics
SemiSteve

Champion Author
Tampa

Posts:19,305
Points:439,285
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 14, 2013 9:55:33 AM

"The argument for an increase in the minimum wage ought not to rely on or focus on economics. The political, ethical, and social reasons for higher minimum wages make the case better, more clearly and more definitively.

Economists have accumulated a vast literature on the minimum wage. That literature is divided into two opposing schools. The first, comprised of paid spokespersons for business and their various allies in politics, media and the academy, strives to establish the following sort of argument. Raising minimum wages will reduce the number of jobs available to those earning the pre-rise minimum wage. This is because of the "law" of supply and demand which holds that demand for anything fall as its price rises. Raise the price of labor power, less will be demanded. In short, raising the minimum wage will push more workers out of jobs into unemployment. It is thus bad for just those in whose name the minimum wage is to be raised.

Such arguments provoked liberal, labor, and radical economists to seek to prove the contrary point. They questioned the theoretical assumptions about supply and dermand as it pertains to wage determination. They also offered empirical analyses to show countless cases where wages rose and no unemployment followed, etc.

Excluding unrepentant ideologues, most economists now acknowledge that the end product of the vast literature on both sides is a kind of stalemate. That is, it is not at all clear whether raising the minimum wage would help or hurt employment numbers. There is no one-to-one correlation, no clear-cut cause-and-effect relationship, between raising a wage, on the one hand, and increasing versus decreasing the number of workers employed at the raised wage, on the other.

...

Given that we don't know how raising the minimum wage will play out on employment in advance, that the employment outcome will vary from case to case, the decision about raising the minimum wage ought to be made on other, non-economic grounds (political and ethical and social) where the positive effects of doing so can be more confidently described, predicted, and/or advocated."

Richard Wolff on the minimum wage

--People are hurting. Since it is unclear whether raising the min wage helps or hurts unemployment we should do it because it will help the economy by providing more spending power for consumers. I agree almost completely with President Obama on this. Except he says make it $9 hr and I think it should be $10.
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:16,481
Points:545,005
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Aug 8, 2014 4:01:19 PM

"That is sort of true, but the potentially employable population of the United States has grown by 10 million since he took office."

Seems then that the unemployment number is still a good barometer, since it accounts for those who have left the workforce (Baby Boomers) and those now entering the workforce?

Either way, I don't think it is time to raise the minimum wage - income inequality can't be fixed through such legislation IMO. It wouldn't benefit enough of the workforce to change the median much either.

[Edited by: Weaslespit at 8/8/2014 4:03:02 PM EST]
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,305
Points:439,285
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 8, 2014 3:49:48 PM

Even though the recovery is making progress and more people are finding work the jobs are not paying as much as prior to the Great Recession.

Median income is down.

Many of the replacement jobs pay less than the ones which were lost.

Raising the minimum wage will help offset the blow to the overall economy by putting more money into circulation.
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:73,840
Points:3,037,720
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Aug 8, 2014 3:33:39 PM

Weasle: "...with that number now steadily declining again under Obama after peaking at 10%, suddenly it is not a viable metric..."
Read about the difference: Millennials' Jobs Getting Outsourced to Their Grandparents

"The Obama Administration likes to crow that all the American jobs have been recovered since he took office. That is sort of true, but the potentially employable population of the United States has grown by 10 million since he took office. That means that there are at least 6 million more Americans that want to work, but are unable to find employment."

Profile Pic
Troller_Diesel
Champion Author Denver

Posts:1,879
Points:16,725
Joined:Jun 2014
Message Posted: Aug 6, 2014 11:54:31 AM

MiddletownMarty: "The official unemployment rate counts heads, not hours. If you're working 20 hours a week but are willing to work full time, you're counted as fully employed not half-employed."

Wrong. As usual.

www dot bls dot gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:16,481
Points:545,005
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Aug 6, 2014 10:45:57 AM

"Bingo there, buddy. Statistics are numbers, just waiting to be bent and skewed and used for purposes that suit one side or another."

True - the unemployment number used by the US Government under W was touted as being excellent due to a strong economy by the Right, yet with that number now steadily declining again under Obama after peaking at 10%, suddenly it is not a viable metric and another 'actual unemployed' number is calculated...

SMH
Profile Pic
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,630
Points:44,620
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Aug 6, 2014 10:28:19 AM

In my household alone (not including my wife and I) we have 4 workers with 3 or 4 jobs each.

There are many others skewing the numbers as well. Working 2, 3 or 4 jobs is common these days due to short shifts and short hours.

One of the many reasons many are struggling is that many job openings are filled by workers that already have 1, 2 or more jobs, not unemployed and severely under-employed job seekers.

<<"How are persons with multiple jobs counted in the CES survey?

Establishments report the number of persons on payroll during the pay period that includes the 12th of the month. A person working multiple jobs at different establishments is counted once at each establishment. A person working different jobs at the same business establishment is counted once.">>

Profile Pic
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,630
Points:44,620
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Aug 6, 2014 9:40:53 AM

The following are the BLS classifications of part-time workers and data for June 2014.

PERSONS AT WORK PART TIME All industries June 2014

Part time for economic reasons (3) - 7,805

Slack work or business conditions - 4,598

Could only find part-time work- 2,793

Part time for noneconomic reasons(4) - 18,825

Footnotes:

(3) Refers to those who worked 1 to 34 hours during the reference week for an economic reason such as slack work or unfavorable business conditions, inability to find full-time work, or seasonal declines in demand.

(4) Refers to persons who usually work part time for noneconomic reasons such as childcare problems, family or personal obligations, school or training, retirement or Social Security limits on earnings, and other reasons. This excludes persons who usually work full time but worked only 1 to 34 hours during the reference week for reasons such as vacations, holidays, illness, and bad weather.

[Edited by: MarkJames at 8/6/2014 9:42:40 AM EST]
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:73,840
Points:3,037,720
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Aug 6, 2014 9:35:03 AM

MM: "The official unemployment rate counts heads, not hours. If you're working 20 hours a week but are willing to work full time, you're counted as fully employed not half-employed."

Bingo there, buddy. Statistics are numbers, just waiting to be bent and skewed and used for purposes that suit one side or another.

I have two jobs, a 40-hour job and a 20-hour job. So I appear to be "two people" in the national statistics, but I am only one person. So if a bunch of people hold two, or more, jobs, it "appears" that the nation has 138 million people employed. The number of people actually employed will be less than that, by several million.
Does that make the number of unemployed people higher?
Answer: only if you count them.



[Edited by: I75at7AM at 8/6/2014 9:36:00 AM EST]
Profile Pic
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,630
Points:44,620
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Aug 6, 2014 9:23:12 AM

To paint an accurate picture you'd need to track several different levels of both voluntary and involuntary part-time workers.

Many self-described involuntary part-time workers are also voluntary part-time workers capable of, but unwilling to work many jobs, locations, hours, days, shifts.
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:21,920
Points:322,465
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Aug 6, 2014 9:10:24 AM

The official unemployment rate counts heads, not hours. If you're working 20 hours a week but are willing to work full time, you're counted as fully employed not half-employed.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,305
Points:439,285
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 6, 2014 8:52:19 AM

I wonder how the federal unemployment statistics treat part time work now that it is so prevalent. Do they simply keep no statistics at all since these are not considered fully employed workers?
Profile Pic
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,630
Points:44,620
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Aug 6, 2014 7:54:00 AM

Employment has actually increased as low skilled wages have increased.

While average starting wages have increased, many businesses shed many full-time workers, yet hired many more part-time, short-shift workers working very low weekly hours as well as more floaters.

On paper it looks good, although it's not good financially for the short shift short hour workers that need 2, 3 or more of these jobs to survive, nor for the taxpayers and others supporting many of them.

The last jobs report looked good on paper as well - adding 282,000 jobs.

The market shed 523,000 full-time jobs while part-time jobs soared to around 800,000.
Profile Pic
Troller_Diesel
Champion Author Denver

Posts:1,879
Points:16,725
Joined:Jun 2014
Message Posted: Aug 5, 2014 8:35:48 PM

SemiSteve: "Minimum wage has been raised in several cities. Where are the reports of mass layoffs? Or was that another conservative myth?"

Straw man. Nobody said it would cause "mass layoffs."

Besides, you ignore any evidence that doesn't fit your worldview anyway...

Study: 38 Percent Of Employers Will Lay Off Workers If Minimum Wage Is Hiked

Washington dot cbslocal dot com/2014/03/19/study-38-percent-of-employers-will-lay-off-workers-if-minimum-wage-is-hiked/

Profile Pic
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,630
Points:44,620
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Aug 5, 2014 9:13:09 AM

Higher wage mandates and higher voluntary starting wages have made many unemployed, under-employed, or unemployable.

The jobs still exist, however many are filled by higher performing workers facing much tougher pre-employment and post-employment standards.

As I've mentioned repeatedly and linked in the articles below, more and more employers are making more and more workers part-time, short-shift and on-call to offset costs of higher wage mandates, higher voluntary wages, rules, regulations, inflation etc.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,305
Points:439,285
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 5, 2014 8:45:00 AM

Minimum wage has been raised in several cities. Where are the reports of mass layoffs? Or was that another conservative myth?
Profile Pic
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,630
Points:44,620
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Aug 5, 2014 7:36:16 AM

<<After all, welfare is based on family size and min wage is not.>>

.

Unlike working welfare is much more secure for many low skilled workers with guarantees of steady year-round long term benefits.

Security is why many have transitioned to welfare, disability and/or off-the-boks jobs.

.

Many welfare benefits are also based on the region as well as family size - daycare subsidies and housing subsidies for example.

For example, one of my relatives is paid $5.75 per hour per child by DSS for providing daycare.

In a neighboring county they'd be paid an equivalent of about $1.50 per hour.

The same applies to housing subsidies and emergency assistance.

DSS just paid one of my tenants back and current rents - $2,400 for 3 months.

In another county another tenant with lower income and the same number of dependents only received 2 months of back rent totaling $1,500. They won't pay the current rent until the tenant is facing eviction again.

[Edited by: MarkJames at 8/5/2014 7:37:13 AM EST]
Profile Pic
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,630
Points:44,620
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Aug 5, 2014 7:11:24 AM

Some articles that discuss what I'm talking about.

Why Being a Part-Time Worker Is Miserable

.

More people need second jobs, fewer can find them

.

Part-Time Workers Deserve the Shift, Not the Shaft
Profile Pic
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,630
Points:44,620
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Aug 5, 2014 7:03:52 AM

<<I don't think so. Our local grocery store is running help wanted ads on the overhead, our local convenience store has a help wanted sign on the door, and employers are begging for help. In an economy with 6.2% unemployment.>>

Local grocery stores and convenience stores are always hiring and many post help wanted signs year-round due to high turnover.

Turnover is high due to the things I've mentioned - short shifts, short hours, erratic hours, crappy hours, sending workers home early (or with 0 hours), short notice scheduling, on call status etc.

Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,770
Points:4,585,280
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Aug 4, 2014 3:45:21 PM

SemiSteve, "It makes sense that welfare pays more than min wage.

After all, welfare is based on family size and min wage is not. The message is clear to the lazy poor: Have more kids. The taxpayers will pay for them."

Increasing the minimum wage won't help fix that problem.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,305
Points:439,285
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 4, 2014 1:56:49 PM

It makes sense that welfare pays more than min wage.

After all, welfare is based on family size and min wage is not. The message is clear to the lazy poor: Have more kids. The taxpayers will pay for them.
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:73,840
Points:3,037,720
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Aug 4, 2014 1:39:30 PM

Well, buzz if that's what the minimum wage laws intended to do, then those laws have failed miserably. Based on what MarkJames has posted, companies paying $10 an hour still treat their employees like crap, good will and morals don't exist at those places.
Profile Pic
BuzzLOL
Champion Author Toledo

Posts:4,995
Points:57,605
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Aug 4, 2014 1:28:14 PM

.
< "You can't legislate good will and morals - nor is a company required to pay more simply for the betterment of society." >

. Well, actually, that's exactly what the minimum wage does...
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:73,840
Points:3,037,720
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Aug 4, 2014 1:18:52 PM

Buzz, I got the figure from the Simply Money Guys on 55KRC. The National Average Wage Index website (haphazardly supplied by TD) has the 2012 amount at $44,312.67
If you assume 40 hours per week (2080 per year) that figures out to $21.30/hr. So my figure (simply money guys') was close.

"Welfare pays more than a minimum-wage job in 35 states, creating little incentive for Americans to take entry-level work and likely increasing their long-term dependency on government help, according to a new study by the libertarian think tank Cato Institute."

So what is the answer? Cut welfare benefits so that working is more attractive, or coerce businesses into paying more per hour through legislation raising the minimum wage? Or....make it more difficult to qualify for welfare by strictly enforcing eligibility rules and work requirements.......

Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:16,481
Points:545,005
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Aug 4, 2014 1:18:33 PM

Raising the minimum wage will not have the desired effect, IMO. Corporations are capitalistic by nature and in the game to make money - if overhead costs go up, something else has to go down to compensate to ensure profitability - and it won't be executive compensation.

You can't legislate good will and morals - nor is a company required to pay more simply for the betterment of society.
Profile Pic
Troller_Diesel
Champion Author Denver

Posts:1,879
Points:16,725
Joined:Jun 2014
Message Posted: Aug 4, 2014 11:55:42 AM

mudtoe: "But they won't because they don't have to. The supply of unskilled workers in the country, and more and more in the world, far outpaces the demand."

I don't think so. Our local grocery store is running help wanted ads on the overhead, our local convenience store has a help wanted sign on the door, and employers are begging for help. In an economy with 6.2% unemployment.

This is the reality of the New Obama Economics. Sit on your rear end at home and collect more money from the gubbament than you could working for minimum wage.

"Study: Welfare pays more than minimum wage in most states

Welfare pays more than a minimum-wage job in 35 states, creating little incentive for Americans to take entry-level work and likely increasing their long-term dependency on government help, according to a new study by the libertarian think tank Cato Institute."

www dot foxnews dot com/politics/2013/08/21/study-in-most-states-welfare-pays-more-than-minimum-wage-job/
Profile Pic
Troller_Diesel
Champion Author Denver

Posts:1,879
Points:16,725
Joined:Jun 2014
Message Posted: Aug 4, 2014 11:51:09 AM

Mark James: "Locally there are tons of jobs @ $10 plus per hour, however these are crappy jobs due to short shits (0 to 3 hours),..."

BEST. TYPO. EVER!

Profile Pic
Troller_Diesel
Champion Author Denver

Posts:1,879
Points:16,725
Joined:Jun 2014
Message Posted: Aug 4, 2014 11:49:25 AM

The National Average Wage is computed based on yearly income, not hourly, and is available from Social Security Index, here:

www dot ssa dot gov/oact/cola/AWI.html

It doesn't really make much sense to debate something that is so easily available to simply reference...

Profile Pic
BuzzLOL
Champion Author Toledo

Posts:4,995
Points:57,605
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Aug 4, 2014 11:27:26 AM

.
< "Average wage in the USA is about $24 per hour. Fact." >

. Don't know if that is a fact, but average wage is NOT MEDIAN WAGE... that is a fact... if you know enough math to know the difference...

. If Bill Gates walks into a room of 50 people, the average net worth in that room is over $1 BILLION per person...


[Edited by: BuzzLOL at 8/4/2014 11:28:58 AM EST]
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,305
Points:439,285
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 4, 2014 11:25:54 AM

" And I don't mean to the sidewalk out front to carry signs moaning for a union and a 'living wage' ..... "

Why not?

This is a basic American right.
Profile Pic
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,630
Points:44,620
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Aug 4, 2014 8:59:10 AM

Locally there are tons of jobs @ $10 plus per hour, however these are crappy jobs due to short shits (0 to 3 hours), short work weeks (less than 20 hours)and erratic hours (0 one week and 16 hours another).

Many of these crappy jobs are also temporary, or seasonal, plus workers are frequently suspended, demoted or terminated for relatively minor performance issues making these jobs even crappier...

Yesterday's crappy job is often today's highly sought after job, especially if it offers regular hours, at least 20 hours per week, plus steady year round long term employment.

Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:73,840
Points:3,037,720
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Aug 4, 2014 8:45:24 AM

>>50% of workers are under $10/hour... <<

Speaking of total BS, there you have it, folks.

Average wage in the USA is about $24 per hour. Fact.

It's a dirty little secret that if you stay at a job you will get raises over time, even if they are just cost of living increases. If an employer does not offer raises (for employees who have good performance) the employees should get the heck out of there. And I don't mean to the sidewalk out front to carry signs moaning for a union and a 'living wage' .....
Profile Pic
BuzzLOL
Champion Author Toledo

Posts:4,995
Points:57,605
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Aug 4, 2014 8:11:08 AM

.
< I75: "my repeated point is that very few people actually work for minimum wage, and of those who do most are not the major breadwinner for a family. Those few who are working for minimum wage while trying to support a family have done poorly planning their lives. Does the entire nation need to be held hostage to their shortsightedness? If you think I am "blaming the victim" (a favorite Liberal buzzphrase) I am blaming people for their own circumstance, but I don't consider them to be "victims" of anyone else but themselves." >

. Total BS... it has always been a dirty little secret that there were never enough good jobs ($15/hour & up) for everyone to have one... now they're aren't even enough crappy jobs (under $10) for everyone to have one... 50% of workers are under $10/hour... sure, not all of them are at exactly minimum wage, but go a few cents above minimum wage and there are a lot of them...

______________________________________________________________________

+++++++++++++++++++ RELIGION ERADICATION SPECIALIST ++++++++++++++++++
.
Profile Pic
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,630
Points:44,620
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Aug 4, 2014 7:26:32 AM

The typical company hierarchy, with sociopath types on top ensures that many workers will never be paid, or treated fairly.Company Hierarchy
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,305
Points:439,285
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 2, 2014 7:07:15 PM

While it has been demonstrated many times that it's possible to be ruthless and run a business it is also possible to be kind, considerate and caring and run a business.

Some rare employers treat their workers well; and they are gems. Think of what MarkJames did for one of his workers. He is not alone in this. Many have shown it is possible to treat people well and still do a good business.

I have seen both types. The difference is like night and day.
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:73,840
Points:3,037,720
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Aug 2, 2014 8:17:29 AM

As mudtoe points out, the supply of low-skilled workers will keep their wages down. Consider MarkJames' descriptions of the underground economy. Illegal aliens who come here are unlikely to get legitimate employment, so they will work underground. Do you think the people who "employ" people off the books pay minimum wage? Benefits? Unemployment insurance? Workers' Comp? Profit sharing or 401k?

B, my repeated point is that very few people actually work for minimum wage, and of those who do most are not the major breadwinner for a family. Those few who are working for minimum wage while trying to support a family have done poorly planning their lives. Does the entire nation need to be held hostage to their shortsightedness? If you think I am "blaming the victim" (a favorite Liberal buzzphrase) I am blaming people for their own circumstance, but I don't consider them to be "victims" of anyone else but themselves.

[Edited by: I75at7AM at 8/2/2014 8:17:46 AM EST]
Profile Pic
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,630
Points:44,620
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Aug 2, 2014 7:33:50 AM

Many businesses, especially big businesses don't treat or pay their workers well since they don't care about them, nor the areas where they do business or the country.

There's a major disconnect in big business since owners, investors and upper management never see, or don't get to know workers.

If a worker dropped dead, they'd just call another to take their place .

Business and management in general tend to attract a lot of sociopath types as well, hence why few of my friends are business owners, or managers.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,832
Points:1,875,640
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Aug 1, 2014 6:13:57 PM

SS: "Big corporations could easily absorb the cost of raising the minimum wage by taking it out of the executives paychecks and perks, dividends, company build-up of cash they are simply holding and stock buy-backs, etc."


But they won't because they don't have to. The supply of unskilled workers in the country, and more and more in the world, far outpaces the demand. In fact, the supply of unskilled workers in this country increases with each illegal alien that Obama invites in by defying immigration laws. And like anything that is in drastic oversupply, the price drops, and their ain't nothing you can do to repeal the law of supply and demand.


mudtoe

[Edited by: mudtoe at 8/1/2014 6:15:23 PM EST]
Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:22,835
Points:889,975
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Aug 1, 2014 5:43:57 PM

I75, "You hear calls for it, demonstrations for it, plaintive pleas to establish a "living wage" for people who are really just starting out in life and probably not "living" independently yet."

I gave you a link in the other topic similar to this that those you so often refer to is only about 21% of the ones living on minimum wage. Give that argument up.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,305
Points:439,285
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 1, 2014 5:10:31 PM

Big corporations could easily absorb the cost of raising the minimum wage by taking it out of the executives paychecks and perks, dividends, company build-up of cash they are simply holding and stock buy-backs, etc.

Any of them which are poised to replace workers with automation would soon do so anyway, just as big corporations offshored jobs just as soon as they could, not hesitating to lay off thousands of workers and devastate entire city economies.

This feigned concern for workers is about as sincere as the big bad wolf proclaiming he is granny to little red riding hood.

The big bad corporations are now saying that keeping the minimum wage low is so it is 'all the better to keep you employed' to the little red riding workers.

But we know how the story ends.

The big bad corporations have different ideas for the little red riding workers.
Profile Pic
Troller_Diesel
Champion Author Denver

Posts:1,879
Points:16,725
Joined:Jun 2014
Message Posted: Aug 1, 2014 1:47:55 PM

SemiSteve: "And what a laugh that was. Half of the budget was covered by working another job!"

A laugh? Really?

8 years ago I was laid off from a good job with great benefits as a management person in a Fortune 100 company.

To keep my family in our home, and keep my children fed, I worked TWO, that's TWO full time jobs. One I worked 12 hour days, T-W-T and every other Friday, and then I spent S-S-M working the other job 10 hours a day, although I only made 40 hours ever other week, when I could work the Friday that I had off at the other job.

I'm glad you got a laugh over that. Working 70 to 80 hours PER week is no picnic, son. But I did it. My wife is disabled and I have two small children at work. And I paid my own damn bills. Without government handouts, or even unemployment.

And fools want to steal the money I'm trying to earn to keep the wolf from MY door to give it to other fools that are to damn lazy to get an education, find a job, or even work for a living.

In other words, or Ayn Rand's words: Looters stealing from producers and giving it to moochers. The motto of the Democrat Party.

Just hilarious, right, SemiSteve? Are you *ROTFL* about it?

Or are you just deliriously happy that someone who had accomplished a limited amount of success was "brought" down to "everyone else's" level?

After all, while constantly whining about "trickle down economics" the liberal solution is "trickle up poverty..."

Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:73,840
Points:3,037,720
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Aug 1, 2014 1:03:23 PM

Raise the minimum wage? You hear calls for it, demonstrations for it, plaintive pleas to establish a "living wage" for people who are really just starting out in life and probably not "living" independently yet. You hear that a steep rise in the minimum wage will cost the economy 500,000 jobs immediately and maybe many more than that. We hear that such a minimum wage increase will be inflationary, with retail and fast-food and restaurant prices going up first as it is their labor that will need to be paid more.

Read about Automation: the Joker in the Deck.
the writer points out how more automation will supplant minimum wage jobs. He also points out that the current leftist administration wants to both increase the minimum wage while also granting amnesty to six million (actually about 30 million) people. Both of these happenings would force employers to reduce labor costs by automating. Jobs in automated workplaces are higher skilled and higher paying, which is good for the economy in general but bad for the people who have had their low-skilled jobs eliminated.
Why does this administration pursue such contradictory policies? Because of a severe lack of private sector experience among the prez and his appointees.

Even "shovel-ready" jobs fixing infrastructure are likely to be highly-skilled construction jobs involving heavy equipment and specialized skills.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,305
Points:439,285
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jun 23, 2014 2:55:09 PM

nstr: "Should someone with more financial needs due to family size or other circumstances be considered when determining how much to pay them "to get by"?"

--No. I disagree with that. All workers doing the same job should get the same pay. It just needs to be something they can live on.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,305
Points:439,285
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jun 4, 2014 6:49:17 PM

" Mc Doanald's Corporation has no say as to how much the franchise restaurant owner pays it's employees."

But they still felt compelled to create a sample budget for living on McDonald's wages. And what a laugh that was. Half of the budget was covered by working another job!

If they wanted to be realistic they should have included govt assistance freebies. After all, this an indirect form of major subsidy from the taxpayers to a big greedy corporation.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,770
Points:4,585,280
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jun 4, 2014 6:06:06 PM

SemiSteve, "These corporations are making tons of money. They don't need a handout to support their workers paid for by the rest of us taxpayers. They should be paying their workers enough to get by without the help of taxpayers."

And how would that be determined? Individual circumstances are very different. Should someone with more financial needs due to family size or other circumstances be considered when determining how much to pay them "to get by"?

Oh, and bringing up Mc Donald's is a straw man, Most Mc Donald's restaurants are franchises, the workers are paid from the owner's share of profits and not the corporation's share. Mc Doanald's Corporation has no say as to how much the franchise restaurant owner pays it's employees.

[Edited by: nstrdnvstr at 6/4/2014 6:08:53 PM EST]
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,770
Points:4,585,280
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jun 4, 2014 6:01:58 PM

SemiSteve, "Also, this will drastically reduce consumer demand since few will have much discretionary spending ability. This will cause less job openings. And the negative feedback loop engine has been started. Once begun it is impossible to stop it. The result would be another great depression."

Is that what happened with all of our other recessions?
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,770
Points:4,585,280
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jun 4, 2014 6:01:01 PM

SemiSteve, "So when the economy goes sour wages would fall. That's understandable; but consider what happens when the numbers get really skewed. Wages could fall below what it takes for the workers to make ends meet. Job-sekers would still be taking those jobs but personal debt would rise because they would be paying out more than they take in. Eventually they will go bankrupt."

The OTHER solution, which you conveniently ignore, is to cut spending so you do not go bankrupt.

Pretty simple, huh?
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,305
Points:439,285
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jun 4, 2014 5:59:04 PM

"I was always under the impression that your salary is based on your value to the company"

The problem with that idea is when the economy goes sour there will be a negative feedback loop.

What this means is the effects of supply/demand on job openings vs job-seekers as the number of job-seekers rises and he number of good job openings diminishes the wages will fall.

So when the economy goes sour wages would fall. That's understandable; but consider what happens when the numbers get really skewed. Wages could fall below what it takes for the workers to make ends meet. Job-sekers would still be taking those jobs but personal debt would rise because they would be paying out more than they take in. Eventually they will go bankrupt.

Also, this will drastically reduce consumer demand since few will have much discretionary spending ability. This will cause less job openings. And the negative feedback loop engine has been started. Once begun it is impossible to stop it. The result would be another great depression.

That is why there has to be a minimum wage to prevent wild runaway economic swings such as this.

And the minimum wage has to be more than what an individual would get in govt assistance. Otherwise too many will give up working and be transformed from tax payers to government debt liabilities. Too much of this and the nation is toast.

So we must have a minimum wage and it must be high enough to make working worth while.
Profile Pic
BuzzLOL
Champion Author Toledo

Posts:4,995
Points:57,605
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Apr 11, 2014 1:42:32 PM

. LOL! SemiSteve, your plan below sounds just like the same one Pastor David Koresh of Waco Religious Mass Murder fame used... except he put all the wives into his own bedroom... which pissed the husbands off...
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,305
Points:439,285
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Apr 10, 2014 11:23:35 AM

teacher_tim: "Simple solution. Don't start a family that you can't afford. ... It doesn't take a genius to figure out how NOT to have kids, with or without sex.

When the government starts withholding funds for baby mommas, the attitude will change. "

--I agree. I say cut off most of the dole and replace it with the tough-love system of 3 hots and a cot with no privacy. Put all the men in barrack room, the women in another, and the kids in a third. Make the baby-makers serve as day-care workers and the rest do maintenance and other chores. Anybody who makes trouble gets sent to a place of stricter rules and less freedom. That should take care of the problem nicely. Finance it all with the money saved from not doling out millions of checks.

[Edited by: SemiSteve at 4/10/2014 11:32:33 AM EST]
Profile Pic
BuzzLOL
Champion Author Toledo

Posts:4,995
Points:57,605
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Apr 9, 2014 12:18:39 PM

. "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt(Koch bros.)… a few other Texas oil millionaires (Bush's), and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

-–President Dwight D. Eisenhower(R), in a 1954 letter to his brother Edgar

. Remember when the GOP was so different than today...?
Post a reply Back to Topics